Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!husc6!panda!genrad!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!ucat!pesnta!amd!intelca!qantel!hplabs!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!sdcsvax!ucbvax!brahms!gsmith
From: gsmith@brahms.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Dwyer's Response to Templeton on Objectivism (part 4 of 9)
Message-ID: <15888@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Thu, 2-Oct-86 04:18:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.15888
Posted: Thu Oct  2 04:18:21 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 09:28:32 EDT
References: <152@vixie.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: gsmith@brahms.UUCP (Gene Ward Smith)
Distribution: world
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 35

In article <152@vixie.UUCP> dwyer@vixie.UUCP (Bill Dwyer) writes:

>           A Response to Brad Templeton's Criticisms of Objectivism

>"PROBLEM 4:  Is the law of identity being proved meaningless?"

>In order for faster than light communication to be possible, it must be con-
>sistent with the law of causality.  Whether it is possible or not is, of
>course, a scientific question.  And no valid scientific inferences are possible
>that repudiate the law of universal causation -- a principle on which all
>scientific induction depends.

   What in the name of Ayn Rand is "the universal law of causality"? Would
you care to define what it is, and show why it is *presupposed* by induction?

>Furthermore, to say that physics is the study of reality (as such) is just to
>say that it is the study of the nature of reality.  But as Templeton observes,
>it is metaphysics (not physics) that studies the nature of reality.  In fact,
>without a proper metaphysics (without a correct understanding of the law of
>identity and its corollary, the law of causality), the conclusions of physics
>are themselves unreliable.  It is metaphysics that is required for a proper in-
>terpretation of the evidence provided by the science of physics, not the other
>way around.

    Both metaphysics and physics are attempts to understand reality. Without
wishing to assert physics is in some unique way the science of reality, I
would like to claim that anyone who today wishes to do serious metaphysics
ought to understand some physics, notably relativity and quantum mechanics.
I am aware that some philosophers get upset by this prescription, but they
are fooling themselves. I see you are now claiming that the "law of causality"
follows from the "law of identity", and that physics depends on both. Care
to explain your meaning?

ucbvax!brahms!gsmith    Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
ucbvax!weyl!gsmith                  Institute of Pi Research