Necessity and Contingency: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Necessity and Contingency » Necessity and Contingency

Necessity and Contingency
An attempt at a freedom-maximizing metaphysics

Necessity and Contingency

Zefram Cochran
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 08, 2005
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 37

Posted 07/11/05 - 08:12 AM: Subject: Necessity and Contingency	#1
As a Popper fan, I am currently entertaining the notion that the only discussion worth having is a critical one, so I am submitting the following ideas for your scrutiny. The following is a metaphysical breakdown whose intended purpose to help us live lucidly in the same manner that we sometimes dream lucidly. We live in a world and this world can arbitrarily be divided into "features", features of the (this, our) world (universe). The pain in my leg is a feature of the world (ontologically subjective) Alpha Centauri is a feature of the world (ontologically objective) Electro-magnetic radiation is a feature of the world (type-feature) One particular ray of light is a feature of the world (token-feature) etc First of all, I am proposing another distinction between features that I am borrowing for economics: Fixed features and Variable features. Variable features: Any feature of the world that can, in principle, be altered through the execution of one or some causal prossesses. If there is an apple on my desk, then the location of that object is a variable feature of the world because there are plenty of causal prossesses at my disposal through which I can change this feature of the world. I can initiate the complicated neuro-causal process which facilitates the moving of my muscles so that I may pick up the apple and place it on the floor. The orbit of the Moon is a variable feature of the world in that, even though we do not posses the technology to do it, in principle, a set of causal processes do "exist" through which it can be changed. Fixed features: These are features of the world which cannot be changed through the execution of ANY causal processes. According to modern science, there is no causal process or set of causal processes by which light can be accelerated or decelerated, therefore the speed of light is a fixed feature of the world. The inverse square law of gravity seems to be another such feature, etc. In conjunction with the Fixed/Variable distinction, I want to propose a necessary/arbitrary distinction, but before I do, are there any objections to what I have written so far?

muxol
yuletide

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 07, 2003
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1861

Posted 07/12/05 - 07:26 PM:	#2
According to modern science, there is no causal process or set of causal processes by which light can be accelerated or decelerated That's wrong.

Zefram Cochran
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 08, 2005
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 37

Posted 07/13/05 - 05:31 AM:	#3
Why be so smug? Why not explain your criticism? What does modern science have to say about causal processes that alter the speed of light?

Socrastein
Looking to understand

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Location: A desolate sea of bollocks
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 2181

Posted 07/13/05 - 03:17 PM:	#4
I believe that C is only constant in a vacuum, and if you take it out of a vacuum, and put electromagnetic radiation through glass or water or the atmosphere, you change the speed of it. I may be wrong however, I think I'll go look that up real quick and then get back to you (Yeah, I probably should do that before I post, but I've already written this much...) Just checked, Wikipedia and then a couple other articles I found on google all mention C being lower if the light is travelling through a medium. Edited by Socrastein on 07/13/05 - 03:21 PM
"The time has come for people of reason to say enough is enough. Religious faith discourages independent thought, it's devisive, and it's dangerous." -Richard Dawkins

Zefram Cochran
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 08, 2005
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 37

Posted 07/14/05 - 12:09 PM:	#5
Socrastein, you are totally right. My point in my original post, not that anyone gives a $#!t anymore (and rightfully not), was that some features of our world are Fixed in that there are no causal processes by which we can effect change on them. But this is NOT an epistemic issue. We may never be able to determine which features are Fixed and which are Variable, but that doesn't matter!! It doesn't change the fact that some features are Fixed and others are Variable. I have a term for Variable Features when they are mistaken by humans for Fixed Features, just like how I mistook C for a Fixed Feature. I won't elaborate on it, though, cuz there is no point now.

muxol
yuletide

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 07, 2003
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1861

Posted 07/14/05 - 07:43 PM:	#6
Zefram Cochran wrote: Socrastein, you are totally right. My point in my original post, not that anyone gives a $#!t anymore (and rightfully not), was that some features of our world are Fixed in that there are no causal processes by which we can effect change on them. But this is NOT an epistemic issue. We may never be able to determine which features are Fixed and which are Variable, but that doesn't matter!! It doesn't change the fact that some features are Fixed and others are Variable. I have a term for Variable Features when they are mistaken by humans for Fixed Features, just like how I mistook C for a Fixed Feature. I won't elaborate on it, though, cuz there is no point now. I'm not smug. You're wrong. That was a joke. Now you must explain what you mean by 'change'? For any example you give of something that is presumably fixed, we can show that it can be changed by the relational properties it has.

Zefram Cochran
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 08, 2005
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 37

Posted 07/14/05 - 10:45 PM:	#7
Fair enough. I submit the inverse-square-ness of gravity and the three-dimensionality of space sans-time. Also, the exclusively-attractive and never-repulsive force of gravity (me likey gravity). I've been waiting for a while for someone to call me on the vagueness of the word "change". I will work on a strict definition.

Socrastein
Looking to understand

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Location: A desolate sea of bollocks
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 2181

Posted 07/16/05 - 09:30 PM:	#8
Also, the exclusively-attractive and never-repulsive force of gravity (me likey gravity). Hey you cheater, that one is true by definition
"The time has come for people of reason to say enough is enough. Religious faith discourages independent thought, it's devisive, and it's dangerous." -Richard Dawkins

select
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 22, 2003
Location: Arizona, United States
Total Topics: 89
Total Posts: 1183

Posted 07/16/05 - 09:38 PM:	#9
muxol wrote: That's wrong. I think he means how the course of light bends around an object with enough mass. But yeah, it would have been nice for him to explain himself somewhat.
"To create man was a fine and original idea; but to add sheep was a tautology." Mark Twain

muxol
yuletide

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 07, 2003
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1861

Posted 07/17/05 - 04:39 PM:	#10
Zefram Cochran wrote: Fair enough. I submit the inverse-square-ness of gravity and the three-dimensionality of space sans-time. Also, the exclusively-attractive and never-repulsive force of gravity (me likey gravity). I've been waiting for a while for someone to call me on the vagueness of the word "change". I will work on a strict definition. What are those things? You make it sound as if gravity is something real out there, pulling things together. And if there were no mass in the universe, it would still be trying to pull things in. Gravity is just a relational property between objects with mass--it is a defined property. Are we including properties into the mix? Then I agree that there are properties that do not change, but I don't think that was what the initial question asked.

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.