e., events that don't cause other events).
What scientist pretended that The Big Bang have had no cause? There can be no any occurence without cause. Without causality there can be no time and therefore Big Bang. Moreover, who can prove that even the empty space do not have any reason of being?
There 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 doesn't know why 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 a
Theory of Everything that is true of our world, it seems possible that
physicists could accumulate sufficiently diverse and extensive evidence to confirm that it indeed encompasses everything and consequently is brute.
However, a theory is a cognitive entity, a mental representation, but every mental representation is an Effect. Moreover, if our material
universe has at its fundamental level an philosophical atom (indivisible, infisionable etc.), then
that atom cannot be explained?
Its existence is unconditioned. It does not come from Big Bang? Its indivisibility cannot be explained? Its unstructured nature cannot be explained?
For example, upon learning that there is no cause for the Big Bang, Smith's 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 without cause/causes. Both explosions and expansions are changes, are temporal, and therefore causal.
My fundamental principle of time:
"There can be no any change whitout cause/causes; every change is an effect."
For example, if a neutron decays at a particular time and Smith knows everything about neutrons in general and about that neutron in particular, then he has a complete
understanding 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It no longer represents a scientific mystery for him.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 without 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 without certain causes.
How can a representative of rationality to
bow the reason to the ignorance of scientists? The structure of structural
of the fundamental physical
entities is essentialy conditioned by atrractive and repulsive forces.
There can be no neither an disintegration nor a fision without a cause. There can be no any physical
separation without cause/causes.
Owens (1992) holds that coincidences are inexplicable. A coincidence is an event that can be decomposed into several constituent events which have independent causal explanations, i.e., their causal histories don't share any causal factors. Consider the collision of two particles P and Q at location l at time t. Assume that the two trajectories leading to the
Collision are independent in the sense that they don't share any common causal factor. Then, according to Owens's account there is a causal explanation of why particle P is at location l at time t, and there is a causal explanation of why particle Q is at location l at time t, but there is no causal explanation of why both particles are at the same place at the same time.
This it seems very contra-intuitive to me. Why there is no such a causal explanation? The motion of at least one particle is necessary for their collision. Suposse that both of them were 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 will contribute to the complete causal explanation of their presence at same place and at the same time. All that hapens in the worls is effect. This event-collision results from many causes and conditions.
INEXPLANABLE BRUTE FACTS?
Hence, the concept of being a brute fact provides a basis for distinguishing between the concept of explanation and the concept of understanding.
Brute facts are inexplicable, but can be fully understood (LUDWIG 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 would be a brute fact, for the author. But, would be such object inexplanable? No. Even if it would not have origin, it would 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 would not be explanable? It actual existence would be explanable by its physical presence. The continuity of its existence would be explanable by its indestructibility. Its unstructurity would be explanable by its the continuous nature of its substance. Its existence would be explanable by the presence of its substance in space. Even the
existence 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 without 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 would not have originary cause and would be indestructible would be explanable:their unconditioned existence would 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 with 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 CONCLUSION
OF LUDWIG FAHRBACH?
Friedman conceives of the unification of the set of accepted law-like sentences (which represent phenomena) as some kind of axiomatization where all accepted law-like sentences are derivable from a set of axioms.
In counting axioms, we are not entitled to count the conjunction
of a set of axioms as a single axiom.
For that reason, Friedman requires that the axioms of the axiomatization be "independent", i.e., they should not be equivalent to conjunctions of law-like sentences.
The author wants to defend Friedman from a criticism, but both of them make some errors.
