...ang. Moreover, ho can prove that even the empty space do not have any reason of beingThere can be events that do not have any influence on other events Only completely isolated events.Smith might still harbor such feelings about X, because he might insist that, in spite of everything, he still doesnt kno hy X happened or occurred.Here the error is obvious. I believed that the author maybe refers to some very fundamental existent e.g., empty space or the brink of space etc., but he refers also to occurences. There can be no any non-causal occurence, there can be no any non-causal temporal event. The causality is the reason of time and therefore of all and every occurence. The causality is on of the most fundamental principle of time. Logic metastructures the mathematical demonstrations, but both are fundamentaly underlied by time and causality.If there is such a thing as aTheory of Everything that is true of our orld, it seems possible thatphysicists could accumulate sufficiently diverse and extensive evidence to confirm that it indeed encompasses everything and consequently is brute.Hoever, a theory is a cognitive entity, a mental representation, but every mental representation is an Effect. Moreover, if our materialuniverse has at its fundamental level an philosophical atom indivisible, infisionable etc., thenthat atom cannot be explainedIts existence is unconditioned. It does not come from Big Bang Its indivisibility cannot be explained Its unstructured nature cannot be explainedFor example, upon learning that there is no cause for the Big Bang, Smiths understanding of the Big Bang improves.Every event that has source, origin, begining has also is causal. There can be no any explosion and expansion ithout causecauses. Both explosions and expansions are changes, are temporal, and therefore causal.My fundamental principle of timeThere can be no any change hitout causecauses every change is an effect.For example, if a neutron decays at a particular time and Smith knos everything about neutrons in general and about that neutron in particular, then he has a completeunderstanding of its decay.It no longer represents a scientific mystery for him. So brute facts can be completely understood.Every decay is a change, occurence. Every integration and every disintegration are changes, occurences. There can be no neither an integration nor a disintegration ithout a cause e.g., some forces, fields of forces, charges, contacts etc..My causal principle of physical structuration The physical atrraction is the causal principle of physical structuration.And the physical multiplicity is the condition of possibility of the physicat structuration.The charge is probable the causal principle of force.There can be no any fundamental atraction or repulsion ithout certain causes.Ho can a representative of rationality tobo the reason to the ignorance of scientists The structure of structuralof the fundamental physicalentities is essentialy conditioned by atrractive and repulsive forces.There can be no neither an disintegration nor a fision ithout a cause. There can be no any physicalseparation ithout causecauses.Oens 1992 holds that coincidences are inexplicable. A coincidence is an event that can be decomposed into several constituent events hich have independent causal explanations, i.e., their causal histories dont share any causal factors. Consider the collision of to particles P and Q at location l at time t. Assume that the to trajectories leading to theCollision are independent in the sense that they dont share any common causal factor. Then, according to Oenss account there is a causal explanation of hy particle P is at location l at time t, and there is a causal explanation of hy particle Q is at location l at time t, but there is no causal explanation of hy both particles are at the same place at the same time.This it seems very contra-intuitive to me. hy there is no such a causal explanation The motion of at least one particle is necessary for their collision. Suposse that both of them ere in motion before collision. Their trajectories should intersect, for the collision to be possible. If all this requirements are satisfied, a proper individual speed and direction for both of them ill contribute to the complete causal explanation of their presence at same place and at the same time. All that hapens in the orls is effect. This event-collision results from many causes and conditions.INEXPLANABLE BRUTE FACTSHence, the concept of being a brute fact provides a basis for distinguishing beteen the concept of explanation and the concept of understanding.Brute facts are inexplicable, but can be fully understood LUDIG FAHRBACH, 2004.Suposse that there exists an absolute object. That is, an object that neither have origin nor can be destroyed. This is the kind of object ould be a brute fact, for the author. But, ould be such object inexplanable No. Even if it ould not have origin, it ould not be inexplanable, cause its existence is explanable by its presence and its indestructibility. Suposse that there exists a philosophical atom indestructible, indivisible, non-fisionable, continuous etc.. This atom ould not be explanable It actual existence ould be explanable by its physical presence. The continuity of its existence ould be explanable by its indestructibility. Its unstructurity ould be explanable by its the continuous nature of its substance. Its existence ould be explanable by the presence of its substance in space. Even theexistence of empty space can be explanated by its indestructibility, if it is indestructible, or by the absence of the cause of its destruction, if it is destructible. If there exists something ithout origin and it is destructible, then its existence is conditioned, and therefore explanable, by the absence of its destructive cause. That is, even the entities that ould not have originary cause and ould be indestructible ould be explanabletheir unconditioned existence ould be explanable by their indestructibility, their existence by their presence, and their presence by their non-nothingness.This is my provisional basic idea the nothing cannot be present and, therefore, cannot exist. The nothing there can be no. This is in agreement ith some ancient ideas...Moreover, even the inexistence of the nothing can be explanable. The nothing is inexistent, because it is absolutely absent. Presence is the cause of existence. The nothing is inexistent, because it does not have the cause of existence.THE IMPROPER AXIOMATIZATION AND THE IMPROPER CONCLUSIONOF LUDIG FAHRBACHFriedman conceives of the unification of the set of accepted la-like sentences hich represent phenomena as some kind of axiomatization here all accepted la-like sentences are derivable from a set of axioms.... In counting axioms, e are not entitled to count the conjunctionof a set of axioms as a single axiom.For that reason, Friedman requires that the axioms of the axiomatization be independent, i.e., th...
Download