Hume wrote in his "AN ABSTRACT OF A BOOK lately Published; entituled, A TREATISE OF Human Nature, &c.":>Were a man, such as Adam, created in the full vigour of understanding, without experience, he would never be able to infer motion in the second ball from the motion and impulse of the first.>There is no demonstration, therefore, for any conjunction of cause and effect. And this is a principle, which is generally allowed by philosophers.>He must have seen, in several instances, that when the one ball struck upon the other, the second always acquired motion. If he had seen a sufficient number of instances of this kind, whenever he saw the one ball moving towards the other, he would always conclude without hesitation, that the second would acquire motion.>It follows, then, that all reasonings concerning cause and effect, are founded on experience, and that all reasonings from experience are founded on the supposition, that the course of nature will continue uniformly the same.https://davidhume.org/texts/a/Hume was not errant.We never observe a necessary connection between cause and effect. Modern theorists of causality has argued that a causal relation is characterized by some conservation laws, e.g. impulse. I.e., a is the cause of b if and only if b needs to happen in order to conserve the energy of a.Yet, we conclud this energy etc. from our observations.What do you think?Previous version:>>>/lit/24749318
>>18025373>Modern theorists of causality has argued that a causal relation is characterized by some conservation laws, e.g. impulse. I.e., a is the cause of b if and only if b needs to happen in order to conserve the energy of a.Sounds pretty inadequate for describing causal relations in history or really anything but physics. >Yet, we conclud this energy etc. from our observations.That doesn't seem like a problem per se.
>>18026610>That doesn't seem like a problem per se.It is a problem.We established a principle of induction or causation since our past experiences. Why do we know that we what happend in the past will be similiar to whatever happend in the future?Because, in the past, the then-future was smiliar to the then-past.With this, we conclude the principle by use of it.Doesn't work out.
>>18027225it's an exploit of excessive singularity in english and language in general. There's no language or 'we' without multiple people, yet the problem is supposedly that no other people exist for comparison. Logic relies on individuals because of our shitty language.
>>18025373hmm, looks like that /lit/ thread died because OP had no input and doesn't care. You wouldn't do that to us, right buddy?
>>18027242What???>>18027246>hmm, looks like that /lit/ thread died because OP had no input and doesn't care.Maybe the other Hume-thread with more than 50 replies killed it? Just an idea.>You wouldn't do that to us, right buddy?I need input from you.
>>18027322>What>I need input from youPhilosophers love to describe the existence of other people as unknowable, using words that are inherently continuous with those people. Most causality is neither experience nor intuition, it's mostly told to you by someone else. The flaw is in the vehicle of communication: If nature is not 'the same' (expectations are proven wrong) multiple checks confirm the original assessment was a flawed human construct. Nor is there ever an attempt to eliminate basic human flaws, which would restrict language. One person using induction couldn't hope to learn anything, but people raised feral don't understand philosophy anyway. You can't get anywhere arguing humanity doesn't exist, in English.
our inability to create a container for truth doesn't disprove induction or causality as one of the basic things observed repeatedly
>>18027363causality is just a force of habit in your head that formed from repeated experience
>>18027413true but I have many heads
