IS THERE ANYTHING IN YOUR WORLDVIEW THAT IS ABSOLUTE AND NON-DEPENDENT?
Prerequisite: Necessity Vs Truth
This question regarding "absolute" and "non-dependent" depends on the inquisitors meaning of these words. If they are equivalent to necessary/always the case and uncaused, then we can submit A=A as meeting these conditions.
To analyze this, first we need to ask, "What is the cause of A=A?". Causation requires a condition that has been caused (the effect). When we evaluate the first horn of the dichotomy in question, "It is the case that A=A has a cause", we find an incoherency. Causation is a temporal notion (referring to time), and to apply causation is to reference a condition before the effect (the effect being A=A). This "condition before the effect" (the cause) could not be A=A, because that is the effect we are evaluating. Therefore, the condition must not include A=A, and therefore be the contrary, A does not equal A, which is a contradiction and incoherent. Consequently, the acausal condition of A=A is necessary, for we have a coherent condition ("It is not the case that A=A has a cause") with an incoherent contrary ("It is the case that A=A has a cause").
It can be demonstrated that it is the case that A=A, by the incoherence of the contrary. It can also be demonstrated that it is the case that A=A is uncaused. As these are the case by necessity, and if they are equivalent in definition to the question at hand, then there is something in my worldview that is "absolute" and "non-dependent".
August 2019
This question regarding "absolute" and "non-dependent" depends on the inquisitors meaning of these words. If they are equivalent to necessary/always the case and uncaused, then we can submit A=A as meeting these conditions.
To analyze this, first we need to ask, "What is the cause of A=A?". Causation requires a condition that has been caused (the effect). When we evaluate the first horn of the dichotomy in question, "It is the case that A=A has a cause", we find an incoherency. Causation is a temporal notion (referring to time), and to apply causation is to reference a condition before the effect (the effect being A=A). This "condition before the effect" (the cause) could not be A=A, because that is the effect we are evaluating. Therefore, the condition must not include A=A, and therefore be the contrary, A does not equal A, which is a contradiction and incoherent. Consequently, the acausal condition of A=A is necessary, for we have a coherent condition ("It is not the case that A=A has a cause") with an incoherent contrary ("It is the case that A=A has a cause").
It can be demonstrated that it is the case that A=A, by the incoherence of the contrary. It can also be demonstrated that it is the case that A=A is uncaused. As these are the case by necessity, and if they are equivalent in definition to the question at hand, then there is something in my worldview that is "absolute" and "non-dependent".
August 2019
Comments
Post a Comment