-3

Suggested to clarify: Do the major scientific, mathematical/analytic theories describing causal theories/"a causal nexus", physical theories, and some monist doctrines necessarily imply or depend on the LNC and LEM? Then, if there is some sense in which these mathematical descriptions necessitate the two, is this seen as naturalizing analysis?

Original: Does any monist causal nexus imply or is isomorphic to both LNC and LEM? Is the addition of physicalism required, as in if not any causal nexus, then does a physical one imply them or is isomorphic to them? And if not just any physical, then specifically atomic or Newtonian? Are these nexuses seen as ways to “naturalize” logical laws?

7
  • I find the question incoherent. Please either clarify or delete. Commented Feb 26, 2022 at 21:46
  • @DavidGudeman Okay sorry. Does this help? Do the major scientific, mathematical/analytic theories describing causal theories/"a causal nexus", physical theories, and some monist doctrines necessarily imply or depend on the LNC and LEM? Then, if there is some sense in which these mathematical descriptions necessitate the two, is this seen as naturalizing analysis?
    – J Kusin
    Commented Feb 27, 2022 at 13:53
  • 1
    What do you mean by a "causal nexus". Although I know what LNC and LEM are, a lot of people won't. It's not clear what you mean by a monist doctrine; do you mean a doctrine of monads or an ontology that includes only a single kind of substance, or something else? What does it mean to "naturalize analysis"? Why are you drawing a connection from (presumably) ontology to the LNC and LEM? What isomorphism do you have in mind? Presumably you have read something recently that uses this terminology and you think it is common and well-understood, but it is not. Commented Feb 27, 2022 at 21:27
  • 1
    Of course your "causal nexus" imply logical axioms such as LNC and LEM especially the former which is much more stable than any other metaphysical or empirical laws such that it was classified as truth of essence by Leibniz while empirical laws such as physics was classified as truth of existence. But OTOH, these logical truths don't imply causal theories/nexus since the latter is only contingent... Commented Feb 28, 2022 at 5:36
  • @DavidGudeman I meant monist as only a single kind of substance existing. And I’m drawing a connection from ontology to analysis because I want to understand how and which analytic truths pertain to the world outside analysis. I think I listened to Roy Monk say Russell was a staunch platonist about analysis early on, and I want that a more naturalized take on analysis. Like how algebra “came from” geometry which came from the physical world.
    – J Kusin
    Commented Feb 28, 2022 at 15:40

1 Answer 1

0

I really don't understand what you are asking here, you appear to be using language in some hermetic way.

Cause and effect implies that we are speaking of time and time involves the future. Aristotle is famous for pointing out that certain propositions about the future appear to disallow the use of LEM.

Certain physicists/logicians/philosophers have also argued that this is one reason for the strangeness of QM and argued that this entails the use of either paraconsistent or intuitionistic mathematics.

1
  • I’m not sure what a causal nexus translated into a block universe or Humean notion of causality would be called. Let’s say when why I said “causal” I meant something inclusive to these above two as well. So not causal as implying time, but “connected” sequentially or something.
    – J Kusin
    Commented Feb 26, 2022 at 18:30

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .