{"id":12817,"date":"2009-02-12T18:32:35","date_gmt":"2009-02-12T18:32:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2009\/02\/12\/could-the-natural-world-have-been-otherwise\/"},"modified":"2009-02-12T18:32:35","modified_gmt":"2009-02-12T18:32:35","slug":"could-the-natural-world-have-been-otherwise","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2009\/02\/12\/could-the-natural-world-have-been-otherwise\/","title":{"rendered":"Necessity and Contingency Within the Sphere Not Affected by Human Volition"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/p>\n

Harry Binswanger asks<\/a>: ". . . within the sphere not affected by human volition (the "metaphysically given") what are the grounds for asserting a difference between necessity and contingency? Aren't all the events that proceed in accordance with physical law in the same boat?"<\/p>\n

This is large topic with several aspects.  This post concentrates just one of them.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

Let us use 'nature' to refer to what Binswanger calls "the metaphysically given." To make the question difficult for me, I will assume that nothing in nature occurs that is not caused to occur, and that all causes determine<\/em> their effects.  This means that, given the cause, the effect must<\/em> follow.  We can express this by saying that causes necessitate<\/em> their effects.  For example, a lightning bolt strikes a tree and it bursts into flame.  That is  an instance of causation. The salient cause is the lightning strike, which, together with other causal factors such as the presence of oxygen in the vicinity of the strike, etc., necessitates the tree's bursting into flame.  Call this latter event 'E.'  Call the salient cause 'C.'  <\/p>\n

I have just stated that E had to occur given<\/em> the antecedent causal conditions and the laws of nature.  The occurrence of E is thus conditionally<\/em> necessary: it is necessary on condition that<\/em> certain antecedent and circumambient conditions are met and that the laws of nature are what they are.  But that is not to say, nor does it follow, that the occurrence of E is unconditionally<\/em> necessary.   Clearly, E would not have occurred had the salient cause C not have occurred, or if the other causal conditions had not been satisfied, or if the laws of nature had been different, or if the natural world did not exist.<\/p>\n

It is obvious that the existence of causal processes in nature presupposes that nature exists. So let's consider whether there is any sense in which the existence of nature is contingent.  If there is a sense in which the existence of nature is contingent, then this will apply also to the events and processes in nature, despite their being causally<\/em> necessitated.<\/p>\n

I grant that nature exists and exists independently of us.  But this does not settle the question whether nature  exists necessarily or contingently.  It would be a mistake to think that nature exists independently of us only if it exists necessarily.  If nature is contingent, then its nonexistence is possible.  But nature's possible nonexistence does not exclude its actual existence, and its actual existence is all that is needed for its independence of us.<\/p>\n

Now it is clear that the existence of nature is not logically<\/em> necessary.  For nature's nonexistence is logically<\/em> possible.   By definition, a state of affairs S is logically possible iff S's obtaining involves no logical contradiction. So we ask:  Does the nonexistence of nature involve a logical contradiction?  To answer this question we consider the proposition Nature does not exist.<\/em>  Is this a logical contradiction?  No it is not.  It is no more a logical contradiction than Nature exists<\/em> is a logical truth.  If it were a logical truth, then it would have to be true in virtue of its logical form, which is not the case.<\/p>\n

Therefore, both Nature exists<\/em> and Nature does not exist<\/em> are logically contingent propositions.  The first is true and the second false.  But both are logically contingent.  Since the existence of nature is logically contingent, the existence of the things in it are logically contingent.  This includes the lightning bolt, the tree, the event of the lightning bolt's striking the tree, the event of the tree's bursting into flame, and all the rest.<\/p>\n

Binswanger above asked for "grounds for asserting a difference between necessity and contingency" in nature, "the sphere not affected by human volition."  I have just given one ground, namely, that the events in nature, though causally<\/em> necessary given prior causes, other conditions, and the laws of nature, are logically<\/em> contingent.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/strong> <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Harry Binswanger asks: ". . . within the sphere not affected by human volition (the "metaphysically given") what are the grounds for asserting a difference between necessity and contingency? Aren't all the events that proceed in accordance with physical law in the same boat?" This is large topic with several aspects.  This post concentrates just one … Continue reading “Necessity and Contingency Within the Sphere Not Affected by Human Volition”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[235,175],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12817","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-modal-matters","category-rand-ayn"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12817","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12817"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12817\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12817"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12817"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12817"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}