On Hume and order in nature

[jthegreat]

Just a quick post related to my discussion with NotReady about Hume and order in nature. Hume argued that there is no way to deductively prove that nature is ordered, and therefore must be presupposed.

After a lot of that, I think he's right that it can't be proved deductively, but I also think it doesn't matter because it doesn't have to be. Order in the universe is axiomatic. The fact that "things" exist and interact at all shows that the universe is ordered, at least on a macroscopic scale. Life, for example, just wouldn't be possible in true chaos.

This isn't to say that the universe is necessarily eternally ordered, but for right now, the fact that it's ordered is axiomatic.

[bearly]

here i go, upsetting the feel-good posters but: could you enlarge on "order in the universe is axiomatic"? also, in light of the various disruptions (from the human perspective) such as tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes, where do you draw the line on "a macroscopic scale"? i smell a slippery-slide on this one....................b

[jthegreat]

I mean "order" as in, "abides by physical laws/rules". Chaos theory and true "chaos" are different ideas.

[ QUOTE ]
Just a quick post related to my discussion with NotReady about Hume and order in nature. Hume argued that there is no way to deductively prove that nature is ordered, and therefore must be presupposed.

After a lot of that, I think he's right that it can't be proved deductively, but I also think it doesn't matter because it doesn't have to be. Order in the universe is axiomatic. The fact that "things" exist and interact at all shows that the universe is ordered, at least on a macroscopic scale. Life, for example, just wouldn't be possible in true chaos.

This isn't to say that the universe is necessarily eternally ordered, but for right now, the fact that it's ordered is axiomatic.

[/ QUOTE ]

While Hume did note that you cannot show that nature is uniform via a deductive argument, that much is already granted. Hume's main point was that we cannot show that nature is uniform by induction, because every inductive argument must presuppose the uniformity of nature.

I don't get the rest of what you say. I'm not sure what you mean by "order in the universe is axiomatic," unless you just mean something like we can observe that nature is uniform and therefore can accept it as a given. But that's just Hume's point--we cannot just accept it as a given, because there is no rational ground for showing that nature is uniform--either across time or across space (e.g., we cannot show rationally that the same laws of nature that we take to govern natural phenomena will hold tomorrow, or that they hold in some distant region of the universe as yet unseen).

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't get the rest of what you say. I'm not sure what you mean by "order in the universe is axiomatic," unless you just mean something like we can observe that nature is uniform and therefore can accept it as a given.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I mean is the fact that we exist alone is enough to show that the uniform is indeed ordered. Even if the laws change through space "somehow", there is at least order where we are. Life would not be possible without chaos. And as I said, this doesn't address the future, only the present. Life itself is proof enough that the universe is ordered. It wouldn't be possible in chaos. Axiomatic = self-evident. It's self-evident.

[bearly]

hi, so you mean 'axiomatic' in the informal sense of 'generally agreed upon principles", ? you don't mean it in the modern sense of deductions from an axiomatic system of logic? also called a mathematical logic. as to the chaos business, i think you dropped the ball on that one. you didn't mention "chaos theory" in you op, so why bring it up now---except to draw the line between macroscopic order and disorder? hence, the occcaision for the slippery-slide..........b

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't get the rest of what you say. I'm not sure what you mean by "order in the universe is axiomatic," unless you just mean something like we can observe that nature is uniform and therefore can accept it as a given.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I mean is the fact that we exist alone is enough to show that the uniform is indeed ordered. Even if the laws change through space "somehow", there is at least order where we are. Life would not be possible without chaos. And as I said, this doesn't address the future, only the present. Life itself is proof enough that the universe is ordered. It wouldn't be possible in chaos. Axiomatic = self-evident. It's self-evident.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure you understand Hume's point. Hume is talking about what he calls "unobserved matters of fact"--which in the case of induction have to do with things in the future or things unobserved (like in some far away part of the universe). Observing that nature is uniform 'right now' in our corner of the universe is beside the point, because Hume is not talking about what we have already observed or seen to have happen. He is talking about the future, or about what we cannot or at least have not observed, so the observation that nature is uniform in our location at the moment is beside the point.

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure you understand Hume's point. Hume is talking about what he calls "unobserved matters of fact"--which in the case of induction have to do with things in the future or things unobserved (like in some far away part of the universe). Observing that nature is uniform 'right now' in our corner of the universe is beside the point, because Hume is not talking about what we have already observed or seen to have happen. He is talking about the future, or about what we cannot or at least have not observed, so the observation that nature is uniform in our location at the moment is beside the point.


[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, thanks for the explanation. My understanding was limited to what I had discussed with NotReady, which apparently wasn't the whole of Hume's argument. NotReady was attempting to make the case that science is "faith"-based since it relies on an unprovable assumption that nature is orderly. My point here was to state that I think order in nature is true in an axiomatic sense.

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
hi, so you mean 'axiomatic' in the informal sense of 'generally agreed upon principles", ? you don't mean it in the modern sense of deductions from an axiomatic system of logic?

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant "axiomatic" as in "self-evidently true". Sorry for any confusion on that point.

[ QUOTE ]
as to the chaos business, i think you dropped the ball on that one. you didn't mention "chaos theory" in you op, so why bring it up now---except to draw the line between macroscopic order and disorder?

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought you were bringing up seemingly chaotic events (hurricanes, tornadoes, etc...) as evidence of disorder. By macroscopic scale, I mean that every time I drop my pencil, it falls until it lands on something. I'm not talking about a quantum-scale event.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure you understand Hume's point. Hume is talking about what he calls "unobserved matters of fact"--which in the case of induction have to do with things in the future or things unobserved (like in some far away part of the universe). Observing that nature is uniform 'right now' in our corner of the universe is beside the point, because Hume is not talking about what we have already observed or seen to have happen. He is talking about the future, or about what we cannot or at least have not observed, so the observation that nature is uniform in our location at the moment is beside the point.


[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, thanks for the explanation. My understanding was limited to what I had discussed with NotReady, which apparently wasn't the whole of Hume's argument. NotReady was attempting to make the case that science is "faith"-based since it relies on an unprovable assumption that nature is orderly. My point here was to state that I think order in nature is true in an axiomatic sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, but remember science is in the business of predictions, and predictions are necessarily about the future or unobserved matters of fact. That is why Hume's skepticism about induction has occupied philosophers of science ever since.