Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

To use Red: do you know of responces to Backmann on B theory

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • To use Red: do you know of responces to Backmann on B theory

    Hi Red (or anyone else!)

    over at A. Pruss' blog you linked at paper by backmann that powers theory of causation was incompatible with eternalism.do you know of any responces to it? It shook me!

  • #2
    Originally posted by Aristotle's jedi View Post
    Hi Red (or anyone else!)

    over at A. Pruss' blog you linked at paper by backmann that powers theory of causation was incompatible with eternalism.do you know of any responces to it? It shook me!
    Are you talking about this paper?
    Well I don't know know of a response right now, but its quite recently published paper so I guess one can wait. What I can think is that our view of metaphysics of causation can guide our view of time.


    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Calhoun View Post

      Are you talking about this paper?
      Well I don't know know of a response right now, but its quite recently published paper so I guess one can wait. What I can think is that our view of metaphysics of causation can guide our view of time.

      That's the one!

      Yeah I could see it's quite recent. I would love if the two could work it would be economic for my views..Koons had given me some thoughts but I'm itching to see someone respond thoroughly.

      anyway if you do see a responce post the link here pal?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Aristotle's jedi View Post

        That's the one!

        Yeah I could see it's quite recent. I would love if the two could work it would be economic for my views..Koons had given me some thoughts but I'm itching to see someone respond thoroughly.

        anyway if you do see a responce post the link here pal?
        Sure...I would. You can try checking google scholar citations every now and then. That is how I browse these.

        Comment


        • #5
          And well I personally find the arguments regarding these theories of causation and time somewhat compelling but I don't think this only tells us the cost of Powers theories of causation, Eternalism or B-theory of time also turn out to be costly if we find that the accounts of causation which is plausible is incompatible with it.

          Comment


          • #6
            What exactly is Pruss´ view in that matter? Isn´t he an eternalist and proponent of the Powers theory?

            Comment


            • #7
              I looked him up, Pruss suspects, particularly because of energy conservation, that both metaphysics, Humean and Aristotelian on their own, are insufficient

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Aristotle's jedi View Post

                That's the one!

                Yeah I could see it's quite recent. I would love if the two could work it would be economic for my views..Koons had given me some thoughts but I'm itching to see someone respond thoroughly.

                anyway if you do see a responce post the link here pal?
                Also, could you refer to Koons´ comments, please? Looking at his site, I don´t quite know which of his papers covers the topic.

                I´m also now on the second reading of Backmann´s paper. Not that I´m an expert on this topic or too knowledgable on the Aristotelian position on the specific issue, but I suspect some ways to attack his premises. PM if you want to go over it.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Kwlsk View Post

                  Also, could you refer to Koons´ comments, please? Looking at his site, I don´t quite know which of his papers covers the topic.
                  Yes, I would be interested in them too.

                  I´m also now on the second reading of Backmann´s paper. Not that I´m an expert on this topic or too knowledgable on the Aristotelian position on the specific issue, but I suspect some ways to attack his premises. PM if you want to go over it.
                  Maybe you should share your thoughts here. They would be interesting.



                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Calhoun View Post

                    Yes, I would be interested in them too.



                    Maybe you should share your thoughts here. They would be interesting.


                    Okay I will. I will give some notes where I suspect lines of arguing against it as soon as I´m done. Note again, this comes from someone who isn´t an expert in the field and my main interest is in defending Aristotle´s proof against possible objections.
                    Also, although this is certainly a well argued for paper, I can´t imagine that the objections presented have never been brought up before, so it would be interesting to hear from people familiar with the work of Mumford, Cartwright and to some extent Bird.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Kwlsk View Post

                      Okay I will. I will give some notes where I suspect lines of arguing against it as soon as I´m done. Note again, this comes from someone who isn´t an expert in the field and my main interest is in defending Aristotle´s proof against possible objections.
                      No problem. Probably no one here is an expert on these topics certainly I am not.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        And another paper I linked on Dr. Pruss's post, the one by Jacob Archambault is also important as it explains the problem from the modal point of view.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Okay got something from Koons here:

                          The argument does not depend on assuming that all powers and dispositions are intrinsic, but it does depend on assuming that some are (namely, the powers and dispositions definitive of the Grim Placer scenario). On a Neo-Humean account of causal powers (as advocated by David Lewis and Theodore Sider – Lewis 1986 and Sider 2000), any power or disposition of anything depends on the pattern of events involving similar things across the history of the world. If this neo-Humean account is right, then the Patchwork Principles do not apply to scenarios specified in terms of causal powers or dispositions. However, the very fact that neo-Humeanism entails the extrinsicality of powers and dispositions provides compelling grounds for rejecting it. The neo-Humean account gets the order of explanation between powers and their manifestations wrong, making the possession of powers dependent on the pattern of manifestations. Any modification of the neo-Humean account that avoids this consequence would be compatible with the intrinsicality of the relevant powers and dispositions, and the applicability of Patchwork to the Grim Reaper scenarios.

                          http://www.robkoons.net/media/3d2114...beffaf2815.pdf

                          From Koons paper on the Grim Reaper and The Kalam Argument. Well this certainly comes to a great price. I suppose that you could get powers extrinsically if you want to limit that acoount to energy, though that is already highly problematic, but if you want to talk about dispositions, it looks to me like this forces the neo-Humean into a platonic realism about dispositions. I don´t see how this is compatible with Backmanns presupposed physicalism. A way out, like linking dispositions to the material as exhaustive, endangers the proponent to loose the metaphysical aspects of the position and be entirely dependend on epistemology.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Sorry guys I didn't know others were as interested in this as I am!

                            so I emailed Koons for his responce.

                            I said this;

                            "
                            I was reading a paper by Backmann and he basically questions whether powers are compatible with any theory of time, but made the argument that it was clearly incompatible with eternalism. Essentially he argues that the Aristotelian position is essentially holistic and powers cant be reduced down in its analysis to events. Or to quote from him;

                            "In static eternalism, it is not possible to give a non-reductive account of how one token could bring another one to exist presently. Every account of dynamism in eternalism, if dynamism is supposed to bring facts into the present, would have to be reductive in the sense that whatever is being made present would have to be reduced to some notion of dependence and of being located at earlier and later times, which are not ontologically privileged. Activity would be ultimately reduced to a sequence of events."

                            And Koons replied;

                            "I don’t find Backmann-like objections to be persuasive. Why couldn’t the B Theorist admit real, ontological relations of dependence between different events? I don’t see why they would have to reject Aristotle’s analysis of time in terms of change (in Physics 3). Why must an Aristotelian cash out this dependence in terms of ‘existing presently’, instead of ‘existing actually’?"

                            I then asked;

                            "When you say "Why couldn’t the B Theorist admit real, ontological relations of dependence between different events?"

                            Wouldn't this be to accept event causation over substance causation?"

                            which he responded with;

                            "Not necessarily. One can accept causation as a relation between events while rejecting a Human account of that. To say that a substance is a cause is really a way of specifying the cause-event: it is the substance’s having a particular active power, and being in the presence of an appropriate patient, that is the cause. I don’t see why a B Theorist couldn’t rely on an Aristotelian conception of active/passive powers,"

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Aristotle's jedi

                              I think the issue here is how or in terms of what Powers or DIspositions are analysed AND how Modality and relevant notion of dependence are analysed. Backmann's point seems to be that there is a conflict on some existing accounts of such terms.Maybe there is an analysis available which reconciles these differences. But I haven't seen an exact account.

                              Kwlsk


                              I don't understand the point. Are you arguing that neo-humean account of causation is problematic? I think I agree but how does this reconcile the other account with B-theory?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X