Key Moments
Can Laws Exist Without Instances? | Michael Tooley
Closer To TruthWant to know something specific about what's covered?
We've already dissected every moment. Ask and we will deliver (with timestamps).
Key Moments
Laws of nature might exist even if nothing instantiates them, which challenges how we understand causation and the fundamental nature of reality.
Key Insights
Laws of nature could be relations between universals, where the instantiation of one property necessitates the instantiation of another, offering an alternative to constant conjunctions.
A principle states that the probability of an effect is a function of the probability of its cause, but this needs modification to account for probabilistic laws of nature.
While fundamental physics is often considered temporally symmetric, some laws, like the Liénard-Wiechert equations and certain aspects of Maxwell's equations, are temporally asymmetric, which is crucial for grounding causation.
Skepticism about causation can be countered by identifying temporally asymmetric laws of physics; without such asymmetry, causation would be implausible.
The 'earlier than' relation may not be fundamental but can be analyzed through causation, aligning with a growing block view of time where new events come into existence via causation.
Arguments suggest that governing laws of nature could exist without any instances, supported by counterfactual scenarios involving color experiences and brain structures.
Laws as relations between universals versus constant conjunctions
The traditional view of laws of nature often describes them as grand constant conjunctions – events of a similar sort happening repeatedly. Michael Tooley, however, proposes a non-reductionist approach where laws are fundamentally relations between universals. This means two properties can be related in such a way that if one property is instantiated, the other must also be. For instance, if something has property F, and there's a law relating F to G, then G must also be instantiated. This contrasts with the constant conjunction model, which faces challenges with confirmation and the improbability of perfect, infinite conjunctions in the actual world. Tooley's relational view aims to circumvent the problem of skepticism about laws by grounding them in fundamental connections between properties rather than mere observed regularities.
Adapting causation to probabilistic laws
Tooley acknowledges the importance of considering probabilistic laws of nature, an aspect he initially did not fully address in his work. He introduces a core principle stating that the probability of an effect is a function of the probability of its cause. However, this principle requires modification when probabilistic laws are involved. The updated principle suggests that the a priori probability of an effect is a function of the combination of the a priori probability of the cause and a number representing the relevant probability within the law of nature. This adjustment allows for a more nuanced understanding of causal relationships when they are not absolute but probabilistic, similar to how quantum mechanics deals with probabilities.
The role of temporal asymmetry in physics and causation
A significant challenge to theories of causation arises from the perceived temporal symmetry in fundamental physics – the idea that physical laws can operate in either direction of time. Historically, figures like Jack Smart argued for this symmetry. However, Tooley points to research and physicists like Jeff L. who highlight temporally asymmetric laws, such as the Liénard-Wiechert potentials and certain interpretations of Maxwell's equations. While Maxwell's equations are often thought to relate simultaneous states, they can be manipulated to show temporal asymmetry. Textbooks sometimes resolve this by making an arbitrary choice to favor one direction. Tooley argues that the existence of even one class of temporally asymmetric laws is crucial. If all laws were temporally symmetric, it would be highly implausible to maintain a basic relation of causation. Therefore, finding these asymmetric laws provides a grounding against total skepticism about causation, even if other laws are symmetric.
Causation as a foundation for the temporal relation
Tooley's view on causation extends to his understanding of time. He rejects the idea that basic tense properties (past, present, future) are fundamental. Instead, he favors a causal analysis of the 'earlier than' relation, aligning with thinkers like David Lewis. Tooley argues that we are not directly aware of the 'earlier than' relation because it involves things at different times. He supports this with a thought experiment involving a 'naughty demon' who can manipulate brain states and bodily movements, suggesting that one could have the subjective experience of causing an action without it being true. Therefore, for an event to be past, it must be causally prior to present events, and futurity is simply being later than present events. This leads him to favor a growing block view of time, where the world 'gets bigger' as new events come into existence through causation, and the passage of time is this very process of new events coming into being.
Governing laws that may never be instantiated
A central argument defended by Tooley is that governing laws of nature can exist even if they are never instantiated by any events. This is a key point of departure from reductionist views where laws are tied to observed regularities. Tooley presents two main arguments for this possibility. The first involves a counterfactual scenario: imagine a sentient being, Sunny, about to experience purple for the first time, but an asteroid destroys all life before Sunny rounds the corner. The counterfactual claim that 'if the asteroid hadn't struck, Sunny would have experienced purple' seems plausible. This plausibility, Tooley argues, depends on the existence of a law connecting the physical conditions to the experience of purple, even though this specific event never occurred. The second argument relates to the physical basis of color experiences in the brain, suggesting that slight variations in brain structure could connect to different color qualia, implying laws that would hold for hypothetical brain structures.
Implications for reductionist versus non-reductionist views of laws
The distinction between reductionist and non-reductionist approaches to causation has direct implications for understanding governing laws. For a reductionist, laws are contingent upon the actual series of events that occur. If a particular series of events didn't happen, then the laws associated with it wouldn't exist. In contrast, on a non-reductionist, governing law approach, laws are not dependent on the existence of specific events. Tooley's arguments suggest that there can be laws of nature—relations between universals—that are never instantiated. This contrasts sharply with reductionist views that might equate laws with observed, satisfied regularities, highlighting a fundamental metaphysical difference in how laws are conceived.
Mentioned in This Episode
●Software & Apps
●Books
●People Referenced
Common Questions
The governing law view posits that laws of nature are relations between universals, rather than just constant conjunctions of events. This approach aims to explain why certain properties being instantiated leads to others also being instantiated.
Topics
Mentioned in this video
The speaker and author, defending a nonreductionist approach to causation and discussing metaphysics of governing laws.
Co-author of the view that properties can stand in a relation leading to instantiation, and also held the view that causation is a basic relation.
Philosopher mentioned in the context of favoring a causal analysis of the earlier-than relation.
More from Closer To Truth
View all 32 summaries
24 minConsciousness, God, and Causation | Michael Tooley
21 minWhy Abrahamic Faith Is About Justice, Not Escape | James TaboR
23 minThe Eternal Now in Advaita Vedanta | Michael James
37 minHow Personal Identity Persists Through Time | Arnold Zuboff
Ask anything from this episode.
Save it, chat with it, and connect it to Claude or ChatGPT. Get cited answers from the actual content — and build your own knowledge base of every podcast and video you care about.
Get Started Free