Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    The laws of nature are those generalisations in the colle... — Carmelics
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The laws of nature are those generalisations in the collection of truths that best satisfy the three measures of strength, simplicity, and fit.

    CausationModality & Possibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Collections of truths can be ranked by three measures: strength, simplicity, and fit.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A collection of truths has better fit if it entails that what actually happens had a higher chance of happening at earlier times.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The best systematic account of truths is the one that optimises across all three measures.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The criteria of strength, simplicity, and fit are language-relative, varying with how predicates like 'grue' are defined (Goodman's problem).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If simplicity is not objective but framework-dependent, the 'best system' lacks a determinate winner across all conceptual schemes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Laws of nature must be objective features of reality, not artifacts of which linguistic framework we happen to prefer.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Necessitarian accounts (Armstrong, Dretske, Tooley) hold that laws involve genuine nomic necessity between universals, not mere regularities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A Humean best-system law that is accidentally true cannot distinguish between genuine laws and cosmic coincidences sharing the same axiomatic role.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The best-system account therefore fails to capture the modal force that grounds counterfactual support, which is a defining feature of lawhood.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Modality & PossibilityCausation

    Connections

    1 topic

    Truth & Knowledge3 linked

    Related

    A Humean best-system law that is accidentally true cannot distinguish between ge...A collection of truths has better fit if it entails that what actually happens h...Collections of truths can be ranked by three measures: strength, simplicity, and...If simplicity is not objective but framework-dependent, the 'best system' lacks ...
    +5 moreShow less
    Laws of nature must be objective features of reality, not artifacts of which lin...Necessitarian accounts (Armstrong, Dretske, Tooley) hold that laws involve genui...The best systematic account of truths is the one that optimises across all three...The best-system account therefore fails to capture the modal force that grounds ...The criteria of strength, simplicity, and fit are language-relative, varying wit...

    Similar

    The laws of nature and the principles of logic are irreducible to the ...82%Natural laws determine what kinds or natures exist82%If the laws of nature are metaphysically necessary, all nomic conseque...81%All natural phenomena may be explained by the laws of nature applying ...79%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: david-lewis
    View source passageHide passage
    Instead of ranking collections of truths by two measures, strength and simplicity, we will rank them by three, strength, simplicity and fit. A collection of truths that entails that what does happen has (at earlier times) a higher chance of happening has better fit than a collection that entails that what happens had a lower chance of happening. The laws are those generalisations in the collection of truths that do the best by these three measures of strength, simplicity and fit. The collection
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit