It's interesting that Hume shows there is no logical proofs for causation, but isn't it pretty logical to accept causation purely because it is the theory which best explains and predicts? Moreover, even Hume's argument about causation hardly impacts Leibniz's argument that everything which exists, has an explanation.
>isn't it pretty logical to accept causation purely because it is the theory which best explains and predicts?
That is exactly what he says you idiot. Read Hume before talking about him.
you distinguish between formal and natural languages. formal languages are just a superior level of abstraction of the abstractions [=the words] of the natural languages.
you have dozens of and dozens of formal lang. and the particular goals of the people formalizing languages is really the formalization of ''reasonings'' which means the inferences [=going from one sentence to another one].
you have plenty of method of reasonings.
the most famous is the deductive reasoning. the deduction has been formalized by various people, each people formalizing what they think is ''deduction'''.
so you have dozens of deductive formalized languages.
and so far nobody on earth knows what causation is, what necessity is, what sufficiency/contingency is, outside of the notion of the various formalized logical deductions.
the question that the logicians fail to see is not ''what is causation'' but ''why do you talk about causation ? why do you get up in the morning , invent the word ''causation'', take it so seriously, having faith so much in it that you try day after day to know what it is and miserably fails to have result of some fantasy formalizations ?
No dude its that we arrive at causality though sensation alone and the process of pure reason never enters the conversation. Here's a probably poor example: fire is hot. You touch fire and learn fire is hot and hot is bad. Now say there's a pan on the stove and without ever having touched it you figure out "it was on top of fire, fire hot, hot is bad". You may think you "reasoned" it out but you would never have arrived to that conclusion if you hadn't previously experienced fire and hot.
I'm not sure what your point is. Causality is a theory used to explain natural phenomena. No, it's not independent of empiricism, but it is far from being based on nothing but sentiment.
this is right. it is choice to tack the word ''causation'' onto to events.
physicist do not know what causation is. physicist talks about causality = causation in time. causality is saying ''the cause precedes in time the effect'', whereas causation is ''the cause causes the effect''.
to bad that physicist have no idea what time is and even causation.
why their sterility ?
because physicists have no idea about what they are doing, since the moderns who said ''hey I no longer need God as an hypothesis, math explains the world ebin :DDDD''
so physicists take the causation to be the logical entailment of ''well formed formulas'' because they do not know better.it means that causation is ''the various rules of inferences'' in whatever deductive logic the physicists works.
physicists fail to see this situation, because they do not learn math. mathematicians fail to see this situation because they do not learn logics. logicians doe not care about ''connecting back their formalizations onto the world''...
philosophers of science say, like Quine, that ''okay guys, logic is rubbish, totally manufactured by us, but we have no idea on how to spend our day [nor on how to justify our demand of a salary... thanks to the moderns who managed to get paid by the people to spout models after models, speculations after speculations] so we might has well take logic seriously and say that logic describes the world. and for Quine, it is the classical logic which is the best logic to talk about ''truth'' [classical logic is the typical formalization of what a few people think how truth behaves]
then what ? all of this started because a few people got in the morning on wanted ''to know''. they have faith in gaining knowledge ''in doing things in the world'' : if I do that, these things happen and it matters so much that it is worthy of being called ''knowledge''. then you have the dozens of formalizations of their perspective on how the world behaves.
what these people fail to grasp is that knowledge is not gotten from exiting things in the world, form doing things, but in doing the exact opposite: knowledge is gained in ''doing nothing''. existing things leads to sterility because any choice of calling its output a'' result'' depends on space and time. physicists know this limitation of induction, and the first thing that they say is that ''any physical equation must be, in casual language, ''independent of time and space''''.
of course, this situation reveals the total lack of reflection of the physics to escape space and time. he admits thus that he cannot think without space and time. and since he despises his sterility, he claims ''it is necessary to think in terms of space and time, even if I have no idea what time and space are!! if you refuse what I say, you are doing things wrong !''.
this excitation ''to gain knowledge'' is the best illustrated by the [linear] perturbation of the mathematical entity called the ''action'' by the physicists. if you have an action and perturbs it, you gain the ''laws of motions'' of your system.
this s what the physicists believe, since he is a good rationalist: they take the induction seriously, which leads to abstractions and then their task is to order those abstractions, in terms of utility [=to describe things, they say].
now, how to gain knowledge ? by contemplation like good empiricists, instead of manipulation like good rationalist.
we gain knowledge as soon as we leave induction, which means as soon as we leave any rationalism , which means as soon as we remain empiricist [not a polluted version of empiricism like rationalists have been doing for centuries, if not more]
so we accept that there is no reason to excite things in order to gain knowledge. we are far more interested in the question ''why do bother going into the world and do I seek knowledge ?'', rather than ''what happens if I excite things and I pray very hard for me being able to repeat the experiment ?''
what happens when I do not move, when there is nothing to do , when boredom happens ??
first we try to do not move, but we notice that we fail. we dwell in the fantasies of our mind, we move physically, as if we despise being still. this hate of being still is interesting. why do we hate being still, to the point of doing the opposite most of the day, aka exciting things all day long and when facing the sterility of excitations, we try to justify our behavior thanks to the manufacture of a faith in it so that ''we gain knowledge when things are excited, ''
we try to keep our consciousness [not mind!] as still as possible : we no longer dwell in the speculations of our mind, we try to be still towards our 5 other senses.
well first we stop moving. we stop moving physically: we sit and do not move, we lay down and do not move, we stand-up and do not move.
our body does not move.
when our body no longer moves, the sens of touch disappears, just like when we ''smell nothing'' when there is a neutral odor, just like when ''we hear nothing'' when there is less noise than regularly. our body disappears.
then we notice that the breath keeps moving. but at least the movement repeats itself: the breath moves in cycles.
the small cycles in which we can decompose the breath is in-breath, out-breath.
how can we be still towards the breath, since the breath moves in cycles?
well, to be still towards an do bject which moves, we must move with the object. we will thus be still with respect to this object, no matter what movement of this object.
to be still towards the breath means that
-when we breath out, we know that we breath out WHEN we breath out [not an instant before, not an instant after]
-when we breath in, we know that we breath in WHEN we breath in [not an instant before, not an instant after]
[there can be other things moving in cycle, typically the heart beat, but it is faint and far to speedy for most people to know when heart beats happen. the breath is what is in the foreground, therefore, the breath is what matters]
there it is: we are still towards the breath, we are still towards the other senses which disappears, since THINGS DISAPPEARS WHEN WE DO NOTHING.
once your sense disappear , we are conscious of ''our consciousness''. and things happen. the method is then to get rid of as many displeasure as possible. this is what the buddhists do in their meditation. the point is that there is no longer a distinction between epistemology, ontology, ethics and happiness.
why this method leads to result worthy of being called ''knowledge'' ? because the results
-transform us ''forever'' [you cannot go back to a previous state, the good news is that these states make us happier than before]
the results escapes the problem of induction because of the lack of reversibility of the states they lead us to.