tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619743764213415433.post8305461629469932347..comments2023-11-03T07:07:55.456-05:00Comments on CoPhilosophy: Chapter Five Summary of Stephen Mumford's MetaphysicsPhilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02115141650963300011noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619743764213415433.post-8555833458189116542017-02-06T13:01:31.176-06:002017-02-06T13:01:31.176-06:00"There is no (currently) known cause for the ..."There is no (currently) known cause for the change in which our universe was created." - But, we're getting closer and closer - to within less than a billion light years, anyway - to a glimpse at the earliest state of things post-Big Bang. Presumably we'll learn more about possible primordial causes of the expanding universe. It may be, however, that our conception of "cause" just isn't large or supple enough to express the seemingly inexpressible paradox at the heart of the very concept of "creation ex nihilo"... seems like we may be coming up against hard conceptual limits here. The philosopher, though, usually says we should push hard at hard limits to see if there's any give either in them or us.<br /><br />Hume's "cement" turned out not to be so hard, but rather kind of squishy, and led him down a skeptical rabbit hole. You're right, his own premises don't allow precisely determinable causation but they still cry out for a practical response to the "patchwork of unconnected events" that feels much too patchy. My preference is for Wm James's radically empirical response, which finds the world of our experience to be shot through with continuity (including that between light switches and light/darkness) and not so much disconnected patchiness.<br /><br />"I hope to dive a bit deeper into a few of these areas for future research." - Great, go for it! I look forward to your next dispatches...Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02115141650963300011noreply@blogger.com