Kant versus Hume on the Necessary Connection

[Philosophy Now]

Stuart Greenstreet finds that free will and determinism really do go together.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/49/Kant_versus_Hume_on_the_Necessary_Connection

[A_Seagull]

Yet we cannot doubt that every event has a cause. Without a causal connection – Hume's ‘cement of the universe’ – there would be no empirical world of ordinary experience or scientific study.

Certainly 'we' can doubt that. All that can be known is that some events appear to have causes. The extrapolation to 'every event' is unjustified.

Scientific 'laws' constitute a description of how physical bodies behave. Physical bodies do not have to obey 'laws'

[-1-]

Yet we cannot doubt that every event has a cause. Without a causal connection – Hume's ‘cement of the universe’ – there would be no empirical world of ordinary experience or scientific study.

Certainly 'we' can doubt that. All that can be known is that some events appear to have causes. The extrapolation to 'every event' is unjustified.

Scientific 'laws' constitute a description of how physical bodies behave. Physical bodies do not have to obey 'laws'

How would you answer the question, then, Seagull, to the situation, where "An event has occurred. It was not caused. What made it happen, if it was not caused to happen?"

[TimeSeeker]

Yet we cannot doubt that every event has a cause. Without a causal connection – Hume's ‘cement of the universe’ – there would be no empirical world of ordinary experience or scientific study.

Certainly 'we' can doubt that. All that can be known is that some events appear to have causes. The extrapolation to 'every event' is unjustified.

Scientific 'laws' constitute a description of how physical bodies behave. Physical bodies do not have to obey 'laws'

How would you answer the question, then, Seagull, to the situation, where "An event has occurred. It was not caused. What made it happen, if it was not caused to happen?"

Do we have to answer the question?
What if we can’t answer the question?

Not knowing what caused gravity never stopped Newton or Einstein from making predictions about gravitational phenomena.

[A_Seagull]

Yet we cannot doubt that every event has a cause. Without a causal connection – Hume's ‘cement of the universe’ – there would be no empirical world of ordinary experience or scientific study.

Certainly 'we' can doubt that. All that can be known is that some events appear to have causes. The extrapolation to 'every event' is unjustified.

Scientific 'laws' constitute a description of how physical bodies behave. Physical bodies do not have to obey 'laws'

How would you answer the question, then, Seagull, to the situation, where "An event has occurred. It was not caused. What made it happen, if it was not caused to happen?"

As someone once said .. The universe is stranger than we can imagine.

While the question is certainly interesting it would seem that there is insufficient data at this time to give a meaningful answer.

Also the question makes the implicit assumption that time is linear and has always existed. This may not be the case. Perhaps there are two or more dimensions of time. Perhaps time came into existence somehow.

Perhaps randomness is an inherent property of he universe.

[TimeSeeker]

Perhaps randomness is an inherent property of he universe.

If it were - we have absolutely no way to tell. Phenomenologically randomness (entropy) manifests in exactly the same way as uncertainty/ignorance!

And so we are forever stuck wondering if we are trying to solve an epistemic or an ontological problem.

[-1-]

Certainly 'we' can doubt that. All that can be known is that some events appear to have causes. The extrapolation to 'every event' is unjustified.

Scientific 'laws' constitute a description of how physical bodies behave. Physical bodies do not have to obey 'laws'

How would you answer the question, then, Seagull, to the situation, where "An event has occurred. It was not caused. What made it happen, if it was not caused to happen?"

As someone once said .. The universe is stranger than we can imagine.

While the question is certainly interesting it would seem that there is insufficient data at this time to give a meaningful answer.

Also the question makes the implicit assumption that time is linear and has always existed. This may not be the case. Perhaps there are two or more dimensions of time. Perhaps time came into existence somehow.

Perhaps randomness is an inherent property of he universe.

Thank you.

There is certainly the Heidelberg or Heisenberg uncertainty principle, but then again, there are certain certainties in random events too as observed.

To say the least, it is conceivable to have events occur randomly. However, randomness is a human principle; much like probability, it is not known, but knowable. Whether ultimately random events can occur, is a question to be decided still. I almost said "to be decided by the philosophers", but obviously they can't, at least not conclusively.

[A_Seagull]

Perhaps randomness is an inherent property of he universe.

If it were - we have absolutely no way to tell. Phenomenologically randomness (entropy) manifests in exactly the same way as uncertainty/ignorance!

Yes, good point. Randomness is indistinguishable from ignorance.

Better to consider it to be ignorance, that way we keep searching.

[TimeSeeker]

Perhaps randomness is an inherent property of he universe.

If it were - we have absolutely no way to tell. Phenomenologically randomness (entropy) manifests in exactly the same way as uncertainty/ignorance!

Yes, good point. Randomness is indistinguishable from ignorance.

Better to consider it to be ignorance, that way we keep searching.

Pretty much!

It is why the scientific epistemology is all about prediction e.g uncertainty reduction.

It is an objective standard for knowledge.