Laws of Nature: The Best System Analysis

Рет қаралды 5,689

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 47

@KaneB 6 ай бұрын

Laws of nature: kzbin.info/www/bejne/p2XKm5yMdrZmqJI kzbin.info/www/bejne/g2aZi5yva9Vqa8k The Humean mosaic: kzbin.info/www/bejne/p2TLnoOdgdhmo6c

@NicholasWilliams-uk9xu 6 ай бұрын

It is, till it isn't. Nice try tho sport!

@rebeccar25 6 ай бұрын

The best channel analysis of the best system analysis.

@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 6 ай бұрын

If you read Armstrong’s ‘What is a law of nature?’, make sure you finish the book. I only read the first half, with powerful criticisms of different concepts of laws. I did not get a satisfying replacement model. He broke me down and did not build me back up. It’s a great book!

@IntegralDeLinha 6 ай бұрын

Excellent video and insights about simplicity and strength. Thank you!

@InventiveHarvest 6 ай бұрын

"Most discipline is hidden discipline, designed not to liberate but to limit. Do not ask Why? Be cautious with How? Why? leads inexorably to paradox. How? traps you in a universe of cause and effect. Both deny the infinite." - Frank Herbert, Dune I completely accept this paradox. The laws of nature are both of regularities and neccesetarian. Circling between these concepts for given phenomena will create a positive feedback loop and lead towards ever increasing knowledge. Take the example of all electrons being negatively charged. While this is mostly just a definition ( if we saw a negatively charged particle, we would call it an electron ), we can look to reasons why electrons are negatively charged. The reason behind the charge would both be a law of nature, and the local phenomena that causes electrons to be negatively charged. When Richard Fineman was asked by an interviewer how magnets work, he replied that magnets attract each other. When the interviewer reacted with "yeah but" Richard explained that there were reasons why magnets attract each other and reasons for those reasons. The further go down into reasons for reasons, the more physics training you will need.

@gmw3083 6 ай бұрын

God and the devil are in the details..

@InventiveHarvest 6 ай бұрын

@@gmw3083 vague

@gmw3083 6 ай бұрын

@@InventiveHarvest Oh well

@drdca8263 6 ай бұрын

Muons aren’t called electrons though

@gmw3083 6 ай бұрын

@@drdca8263 Ahah, you caught one of them lil devils

@Bruh-sp2bj 6 ай бұрын

Hey, this was the subject of my paper where I focused on the Dretskey-Tooley-Armstrong interpretation of the laws of nature, very nostalgic.

@sseisner447 6 ай бұрын

I think you will be known for your work one day!

@dummyaccount.k 6 ай бұрын

I came from the toki pona discord, straight to this. My head spun.

@jan-Sanso 6 ай бұрын

I'm fascinated by how these two things might be related

@TheYahmez 6 ай бұрын

@@jan-Sanso I (warmly) propose 'Autism'- leading to 'Linguistics' as a close second order correlate.

@jan-Sanso 6 ай бұрын

@@TheYahmez Real! I have to assume autism is disproportionate in both places :p

@James-ll3jb 6 ай бұрын

Most appreciated overview

@HerrEinzige 6 ай бұрын

Like and comment for the Gigachad energy of 17:15 "Others would edit this out, but I don't need to"

@CliffSedge-nu5fv 6 ай бұрын

Is "gigachad energy" another way of saying "simple honesty"?

@BumbleTheBard 6 ай бұрын

Presumably, best systems also addresses the traditional problem of justifying inductive reasoning. The results of inductive reasoning are justified if they are the best ones we can come up with in accordance with the criteria of strength, simplicity, predictive and explanatory power, etc. There is no point asking for more justification than this. Maybe this could even address the problem of justifying deduction, which you covered in a previous video. Our deductive laws and principles are the best ones we have been able to come up with in our ongoing efforts to build a system that accounts for our experience of the universe.

@jolssoni2499 6 ай бұрын

Induction can be justified indirectly a priori. One can show with computer simulations that induction is the best overall prediction strategy, so if anything works (i.e. radical skepticism is false) then induction works.

@hearts-on-sleeves 6 ай бұрын

Thanks for the video! love the content as always. Would it be fair to say that a necessitarian trying to understand the world would be prioritise describing/discovering the laws of nature, and consider matters of fact as clues to achieve this, whereas a regularitist would prioritise discovering/describing matters of fact, and consider describing the laws of nature as just a way to condense such information to something useful? In short, would it be fair to say a regularitist believes that laws of nature are pragmatic, whereas a necessitarian believes that laws of nature is fact/truth?

@dummyaccount.k 6 ай бұрын

This is like that greek mesotes teaching that the good thing always lies betwixt two bad ones and here the two things are simplicity and explanatory strength .

@italogiardina8183 6 ай бұрын

Self-reflection is inherently limited by our individual perspective. We're all finite beings, so our understanding of the world, especially in relation to an ideal society, is subjective at best. Any timeline we impose on social progress is arbitrary and ultimately irrelevant to our lived experience.

@lolroflmaoization 6 ай бұрын

there are a lot more stronger objections to this view of laws of nature that have not been discussed here, objections to Humeanism in general from the broadly non Humean camp rather than attacking the BSA specifically.

@KaneB 6 ай бұрын

Yes. I discuss those objections in the previous videos.

@lowelovibes8035 6 ай бұрын

tripiest videos ever

@Wabbelpaddel 6 ай бұрын

Why are the natural laws invariant, i.e. why do they tend to stay the way they are? Why can the laws be reapplied to their results? Why doesn't causality suddenly stop?

@MrAdamo 6 ай бұрын

Why don’t things that don’t, do? Why do things that do, don’t?

@M0ONCommander 6 ай бұрын

@@MrAdamo 🤯

@fastemil123 6 ай бұрын

Causality is a product of the human mind, it cannot be experienced directly. I'd argue it's a Kantian feature of the mind such as time and space, intuitions which are the frameworks through which we perceive. When drop a ball a hundred times we can observe regular features of it's pattern such as it's acceleration, it's trajectory, etc. These appear to be constant, so we can come up with a hypothesis of there being a regularity to nature. Perhaps something akin to Uniformitarianism. However there scientist who practise uniformitarianism as an axiomatic methodilocal assumption rather than assuming the universe itself works like that metaphysical assumption. There are discussions such as "Time-variation of fundamental constants" which engage this precisely however I'd say that even if this wildy interesting theoretical physics and cosmological inquiry this is also a misunderstanding of science. For you see, science strives to update itself when presented with new evidence or a better explanatory method. If the "laws of the universe" behave differently or we have better ways to understand and represent them. Then we will update it accordingly, however in the same manner than Newtonian physics work very well on a certain scale, I'd argue that our current science even if there was an incoming paradigm shift functions pragmatically well enough under our current conditions of inquiry in a similar manner. Hope this answers or elucidates some of your inquiry. Here's Hume's understanding of this problem: Hume's Skepticism about Causality Hume challenges the traditional notion of causality, which suggests that one event causes another if the first event necessarily results in the second. According to Hume, our understanding of causality does not stem from an intrinsic connection observed between distinct events, but rather from our mental habit of associating events together after repeatedly observing their conjunction. The Billiard Ball Example Hume illustrates his point using the example of one billiard ball striking another. When we see one billiard ball move towards another and upon contact, the second ball moves, we are inclined to believe that the first ball's impact causes the second ball's movement. Hume argues that from merely observing these events, we see only the sequence - the first ball moving towards the second, the contact, and then the second ball moving. Impressions and Ideas Hume suggests that our ideas of causality are not derived from some logical or observed necessity in the events themselves. Instead, they arise from our own internal impressions - the feelings of expectation that the same result will follow when similar conditions are met, based on past experiences. We don't see causality; we infer it based on the habitual connections our minds form after repeatedly witnessing similar sequences of events. Hume's Conclusion Hume concludes that our belief in causality is a result of custom or habit, not logical deduction or empirical evidence that confirms a necessary connection between events. We expect the future to resemble the past because our experiences have trained us to expect these patterns, not because we have any rational grounds for believing in an inherent causality between events. Hume's skepticism about causality and his reliance on habit and custom to explain our beliefs about the causal connections between events have had a profound impact on both philosophy and the development of modern science, challenging assumptions about scientific laws and the nature of evidence and reasoning.

@hiker-uy1bi 6 ай бұрын

why cant laws of nature both be necessary and depict regularities

@moussaadem7933 6 ай бұрын

Choosing one makes the other redundant

@hiker-uy1bi 6 ай бұрын

@@moussaadem7933 he describes them as a binary choice.

@hearts-on-sleeves 6 ай бұрын

I’d say necessity implies correspondence, but not vice versa. Hence the disagreement is meaningful. If something isn’t necessarily true, it can be contradicted by some exception, and hence probably wont describe the world regularly unless it just so happens that that exception hasn’t manifested itself yet. Yet, it could be the case that that exception just hasn’t manifested itself. A regularity theorist would consider it unsound to try to apply a law of nature outside of the context it was learned, no matter the number of contexts it has worked itself in. In contrast, with sufficient evidence (contexts), the necessitarian would presume the law of nature to still hold in a totally alien context.

@hiker-uy1bi 6 ай бұрын

@@hearts-on-sleeves necessity also seems to be a metaphysical claim of sorts. With observed regularity just being a feature of the necessity

@drdca8263 6 ай бұрын

Being tracked by a starving beast looking for its daily feast A predator on the verge of death Getting close to its last breath RULES OF NATURE (sorry)

@newtonfinn164 6 ай бұрын

Some 95 percent of the universe is dark, meaning currently beyond our ability to observe, much less understand. Hume didn't know this, and thus can perhaps be excused, unlike us, for making absurd blanket statements about what can or cannot happen in a still vastly mysterious universe.

@Giantcrabz 6 ай бұрын

I don't hear any compelling counterarguments to the best system idea. We can detect galaxies 13 billion ly away, splice genes, build maglev trains, and all sorts of other amazing things while analytic philosophy is still stuck on stuff that matters to nobody outside uber specialized academic circles, like treatises on mereology citing dudes from 13th century monasteries or whatever. It all just seems like endless navel gazing without an ethical or at least practical end in mind.

@KaneB 6 ай бұрын

Yes, that's what this channel is about. I don't care at all about achieving any ethical or practical end. I like thinking about philosophical questions for their own sake and I don't feel any need to give a pragmatic justification of this activity.

@jan-Sanso 6 ай бұрын

Why should those ends be prioritized? Can't knowledge or beauty be pursued for its own sake? Who cares what group it matters to or how small they are? I mean honestly how much does astronomy really affect the average person's life? It's mostly relevant to a group of specialized academics. Yet you praise their fruits. Their ethically and practically useless fruits. Because our problem is an aesthetic difference. That's fine, we have different tastes, but just because the impractical ideas you care about are come up with in a lab, that doesn't make them better or more valuable than the ones from a 13th century monastery.