Causally inert objects are useless
  • Wheatley
    2.3k
    Philosophers talk about abstract objects as, timeless, space-less, immaterial, and causally inert. Suppose such things were possible, what use is there in postulating such objects? I mean if something is truly causally inert it cannot have any effect on the daily lives of anyone. A world with these objects and a world without them would make no observable/measurable difference. Both worlds would be indistinguishable. Some philosophers say some mathematical objects are indispensable to scientists and mathematicians--they cant be. For something to be indispensable there has to be a difference in the lives of those effected, and no such causally-inert object can have causal powers to help the scientist or mathematician. Indispensability is intrinsically linked to causality. Thus causally inert objects are not indispensable, and therefore useless.
    Wheatley Options
  • Andrew4Handel
    2.5k
    I think they must be causally efficacious to the mind.

    But maybe these philosophers only have a model of physical causality in an old fashioned sense?

    I think thoughts or perceptions do not immediately entail action like physical interactions seem to but I think they can motivate action.

    For example if I perceive a hill I can decide whether or not to climb it. Or if I have a theory in my head I can keep it there indefinitely whilst deciding whether to act on it or not. Such as my partner looks angry shall I go over and try and comfort him.
    Andrew4Handel Options
  • macrosoft
    674
    For something to be indispensable there has to be a difference in the lives of those effected, and no such causally-inert object can have causal powers to help the scientist or mathematician. Indispensability is intrinsically linked to causality. Thus causally inert objects are not indispensable, and therefore useless. — Purple Pond

    I roughly agree with your attitude. Lots of philosophical debates seem cosmetic to me. 'I like to call what is usually called X a nice new name Y.' Or 'let's rename X, guys.' In other words, there's lots of discussion about some ideal object language, and yet we need the metalanguage we all share to discuss and institute this object language to begin with --suggesting that the metalanguage (ordinary, shared language) was good enough in the first place. (To be fair, the metalanguage is extended in best case scenarios.)
    macrosoft Options
  • Relativist
    2.1k
    ↪Purple Pond
    "causally inert objects are not indispensable, and therefore useless."

    It helps to consider what abstract objects refer to: they refer to properties of (causally efficacious) things that actually do exist. We develop a broader understanding of the world by thinking abstractly about the properties apart from the objects that have them. "-1 charge" is a property of electrons, "+1 charge" is a property of protons. Electrons and protons attract because they have these respective properties: there is a relation between any pair of objects that have these respective properties.
    Relativist Options
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment