What Is The Difference Between A Natural Law Being Contingent
There is a debate among philosophers about whether laws of nature are contingent or metaphysically necessary. Some argue that they are more like the laws of logic while others see them as similar to laws of nature. The theory that laws of nature are contingent is known as the "Humean answer" and the opposing view is that they are metaphysically necessary. It is believed that if there are two theories, one must be correct. Many standard theories take laws of nature to be either metaphysically necessary or contingent. However, it is a common belief that natural laws and principles are necessarily true. Additionally, contingent existence means that a thing is dependent on something else. Laws of Nature are different from both scientific laws and natural laws in legal or ethical theories.
The difference lies in the nature of these laws and their dependence. When something is contingent, it means that it is dependent on something else for its existence or occurrence. In the context of natural laws, this would imply that the laws of nature are dependent on some other factors or conditions for their existence.
On the other hand, when something is metaphysically necessary, it means that it exists or occurs by the necessity of its own nature. In the case of natural laws, this would imply that the laws of nature exist by the necessity of their own nature and are not dependent on any other factors for their existence.
This debate is at the heart of philosophical discussions about the nature of natural laws and their place in the metaphysical order.
Sources
Related Questions
Work fast from anywhere
Stay up to date and move work forward with BrutusAI on macOS/iOS/web & android. Download the app today.