(April 21, 2016 at 1:35 am)Ignorant Wrote:(April 20, 2016 at 5:08 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: Maybe they're (we're) all in it together. Mutual contingency.
In a certain sense, we are certainly all in it together, mutually dependent on each other. However, in a different, more precise and formal sense, it does not seem to me that mutual contingency is actually possible. Consider and example:
Helium exists on the condition that two protons exist bound together. Mutual contingency would mean: Two protons bound together exist on the condition that helium exists. <= Doesn't this one seem logically backwards/circular?
But we aren't really comparing two 'things' here. One statement is the defining condition for Helium .. something about the world. The other is the statement anything meeting the condition is called Helium .. something as much about how language is assigned as about the world.
Mutual contingency should involve two or more aspects of the world. For example the presence of atoms with two or more protons requires an earlier existence getting cooked in a very large but less stable star. But also the presence of atoms with two or more protons requires that the underlying material be structured in such a way as to allow atoms with more than one proton to form. Admittedly this sure looks like a one way contingency doesn't it? Earlier larger stars -> heavier atoms, describes which gives rise to which. So maybe mutual contingency needs to be re-examined. Can't let lumpers always win out over the splitters.
