People take this idea for granted, but when two types of metal tend towards being attracted to one another, or a knife tends towards cutting, We have constructed descriptions for phisical laws that explain these regularities, but they merely restate them, they don't actually explain. >oh yeah 2 things of metal will tend towards each other because uhhh that's just what the laws mechanistically entail coupled with the properties of the metalThis is just restating the question as an answer. What is grounding this? When these factors come together, they are directed towards the pieces of metal touching. It is part of the final cause that is it is part of the final cause that the pieces of metal attract to one another in certain circumstances. They point towards attraction. Causal regularity itself REQUIRES explenation, it's completely circular to point to mechanistic laws themselves, since the mechanistic laws are just descriptions of that regularity. 1/2
>>16808879Since it seems that in the universe there are final causes that cannot be explained by any other metric that I know of (since stating phisical laws over and over again is just an endless loop where we get no closer to the answer), what keeps these final causes in check? It would be logically possible that at some point, letting go of a glass might make it drop and smash, but at another point in time, it would fly up and explode. Obviously this doesn't happen, and obviously we can point to mechanistic description of this in terms of laws but then the regularity of those laws stand in need of explaining. In order for these tendencies in nature, these final causes, to be grounded and consistent, a force or entity in which all of these exist in its abstract form must be present and acting, since in order for one thing to be hierarchically caused by something else, the properties of the second agent must necessarly, at least virtually, exist up the chain. When you build a sand castle, the abstract concept of a sand castle must first form in your head before it is manifest. A similar thing bust be happening in the case of these final causes. The thing which contains all of the final causes explains the inconsistencies of our model. What qualities would something have in order to contain all the final causes in such a way as to ground causal regularity?
>>16808879>>16808882>a knife tends towards cuttingThis is why you should study actual physics and not retarded philosophy.
>>16808884First of all, it literally does, I don't understand your objection.Second of all, studying phisics is exactly what this thread is about. The 2/3 posts in this thread are about trying to make sense of phisics, more specifically, making snese of the seemingly incomplete model that is tought in elementary schools.
>>16808887>it literally doesNo, it does not. Stop embarrassing yourself and learn to spell "physics".
>>16808891I'm an ESL, I could probably phrase things in ways that are a little more aesthetically pleasing, but I chose to be as precise as possible instead. If that bothers you, serious discussions aren't for you.Maybe you just don't understand what "tends to" means in this context.
>>16808896There's nothing to discuss here. You just need to educate yourself.
>>16808904That is what this thread is for.And yet, you are so uneducated that you cannot comprehend the concept of a cause.
