Timeline for Constant conjunction of events and probability
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 8:34 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Jan 4, 2019 at 17:13 | comment | added | Frank Hubeny | @user27343 The big bang suggests there may be a beginning to this uniformity which would undermine the uniformity. The only thing that quantum mechanics would potentially undermine is the causal determinism that Hume also supports. I think he would be called a compatibilist with regards to free will. We can still make predictions as you mention. I may ask a question of my own about Hume's determinism. He doesn't want to accept the uniformity principle, but seems justified in accepting causal determinism. But that's for later. | |
| Jan 4, 2019 at 6:43 | comment | added | user27343 | I looked up the uniformity principle and think I understand it now. Induction relies on the uniformity principle being true, and the uniformity principle relies on induction to be sound (circular argument). However, what do you mean about the uniformity principle and the big bang? As far as quantum mechanics, my understanding is that although uncertainty is inherent in nature, we can still predict the location of an electron from "statistical laws based on probability." Don't those laws still rely on induction? Doesn't all of science rely on induction? | |
| Jan 4, 2019 at 4:43 | comment | added | Frank Hubeny | @user27343 I think Hume is claiming he needs to derive the uniformity principle from either relations of ideas (necessity) or matters of fact (probability), but he can't and so he claims it comes from causal determinism through custom. I don't think he is right here. The uniformity principle is questionable given the big bang and so is causal determinism given quantum physics, but his criticism of causal inference seems correct coming from Aristotle's distinction of knowledge and belief. | |
| Jan 3, 2019 at 21:42 | comment | added | user27343 | Thank you for this thorough response. The first answer disagrees with yours, but I believe this is correct. I'm a little confused on the uniformity principle. If nature is uniform – and the course of nature won't change – does that mean the past is identical to the future? But then it says that "establishing the uniformity principle" is what prevents necessary truths and probability from providing a justification for causality. I thought it would be the opposite. In other words, supposing nature is uniform is necessary to establish causaliity. | |
| Jan 3, 2019 at 21:27 | vote | accept | user27343 | ||
| Jan 3, 2019 at 11:05 | history | edited | Frank Hubeny | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
correct quote
|
| Jan 3, 2019 at 10:57 | history | answered | Frank Hubeny | CC BY-SA 4.0 |