A Church-Fitch proof for the universality of causation

نویسنده

  • Christopher Gregory Weaver
چکیده

In an attempt to improve upon Alexander Pruss’s work (2006, pp. 240-248), I (Weaver, 2012) have argued that if all purely contingent events could be caused and something like a Lewisian analysis of causation is true (per Lewis, 2004), then all purely contingent events have causes. I dubbed the derivation of the universality of causation the “Lewisian argument”. The Lewisian argument assumed not a few controversial metaphysical theses, particularly essentialism, an incommunicable-property view of essences (per Plantinga 2003), and the idea that counterfactual dependence is necessary for causation. There are, of course, substantial objections to such theses. While I think a fight against objections to the Lewisian argument can be won, I develop, in what follows, a much more intuitive argument for the universality of causation which takes as its inspiration a result from Frederic Fitch’s work (1963) (with credit to who we now know was Alonzo Church (2009)) that if all truths are such that they are knowable, then (counter-intuitively) all truths are known. The resulting Church-Fitch proof for the universality of causation is preferable to the Lewisian argument since it rests upon far weaker formal and metaphysical assumptions than those of the

برای دانلود رایگان متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

منابع مشابه

Thinking as Evidence for the Probability of the Existence of a God: An Argument from Unnaturalness for Necessity

The objective of this article is to show that it is justified to assert that the existence of God is plausible, considering the fact that thinking itself is an immediate outcome (effect) of a thinker (cause). This idea may seem evident, but it is in fact challenged by certain claims of cognitive philosophers who aver that our knowledge of necessity and causation is, i...

متن کامل

The Church-Fitch knowability paradox in the light of structural proof theory

Anti-realist epistemic conceptions of truth imply what is called the knowability principle: All truths are possibly known. The principle can be formalized in a bimodal propositional logic, with an alethic modality ♦ and an epistemic modality K, by the axiom scheme A ⊃ ♦KA (KP). The use of classical logic and minimal assumptions about the two modalities lead to the paradoxical conclusion that al...

متن کامل

Sundholm’s Paradox of Knowability: A Novel Paradox?

In this paper I take a closer look at a recently published paradox by Göran Sundholm involving the notion of knowability. I point out that this paradox is not a novel, genuine paradox, but rather an important variant of the Knower Paradox. I briefly discuss further variations of the Knower Paradox, and in a final section I try to show that it is not unproblematic to assume that knowability is f...

متن کامل

Edgington on Possible Knowledge of Unknown Truth

The paper is a response to Dorothy Edgington’s article ‘Possible knowledge of unknown truth’ (Synthese, 2010), where she defends her diagnosis of the Church-Fitch refutation of the principle that all truths are knowable and analogous refutations of analogous principles, in response to my earlier criticisms of her diagnosis. Using counterfactual conditionals, she reformulates the knowability pri...

متن کامل

Actions That Make Us Know

The knowability paradox is usually formulated as a problem about the static propositions which express the knowledge that we can achieve in principle. In this paper, I propose to put these issues in a more ’dynamic’ light, by shifting the emphasis to the epistemic actions that produce knowledge, or sometimes even ignorance. The very notion of ’knowability’ seems mainly an existentially quantifi...

متن کامل

ذخیره در منابع من


  با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید

عنوان ژورنال:
  • Synthese

دوره 190  شماره 

صفحات  -

تاریخ انتشار 2013