... information that mediates the subsumption andconnection beteenthe universality and explanandum.That is, HHexplanation is also subsumptory.But the subsumption of many individual cases under a universality either causal or non-causal is unificatory, clasificatory...That the construction of a theory as a response to a hy-question is less explanatory, it seems to me too artificial, less important, less true, too sofisticated.e have both general explanationsand particular and individual explanations.Deduction implies subsumption.The intermediar information mediates a subsumption. Subsumption is unificatory.But, the universality, at least hen the explanandum is about a natural fact,should be causaly reconstructed, I consider.HH...explanation thus involves acquiring ne beliefs...Consider the folloing caseUniversalityThe erosion of telomere ends causes replicative senescence Tarazona et al. 2002.Explanandum an individual cell undergoes replicative senescence.No, hat so ne discoveries implies this explanation The trivial fact that the individual cell has losed its telomere ends......Explanation is an inference from a background theory...There are cases in hich the event that e ant to explain represent a verycomplex effect of many both unidirectional and bidirectionalcausal chains e.g., human aging. In gerontology there are hundreds of causal scientific theories hich explain conjunctively aging, not a single background theory, though all events can be explanated regresively until to the most fundamental theory of the universe.Local ConclusionBeteen the representationsthat explain and the representation of the natural fact hich e ant to explain should be a logical relation e.g., derivation or deduction.BUT, THE REPRESENTATIONSTHAT EXPLAIN SHOULDREPRESENT ALSO THE CAUSECAUSESAND THE EXPLANANDUM SHOULD REPRESENT AN EFFECT.In the previous exemple, the universality represents a causal relation, the auxiliary information representsthe cause, and the explanandum represents the effect.The relation beteen the succession of representation that compose the explanatory process is logical, but the relation beteen the natural facts that are representated is causal.The logical relation is not necesarily causal If A and B are conceptsand A-B, then this thus not mean that A causes B, but B is contained in A or is equiintensional or equiextensional ith A, syncronously. But a representation of a logical relation is an effect of a cause.hen the domain of explanation is mathematics, the principles ill be mathemathical. But, mathematics it seems to me that is no so ...explanatory science. But at the meta level the structure of mathematical explanation ill be logical. For instance, somebody can ask hy mn2m22mnn2.Universality1 x y xy2xyxy.Universality2 x yxyxyxxyyxy.Universality3 x y xxyxxxy. x y yxyyxyy.From U1, U2, U3 results that xy2xxxyyxyyU4 x y xyyx.From U1, U2, U3, and U4 results that, xy2xx2xyyy.U5 x y xxx2, yyy2.From U1, U2, U3, U4, and U5 results that, x y xy2x22xyy2.Auxiliary informationxm and yn.Explanandummn2m22mnn2.Hoever, many, if not most time, time in mathematics e should find some results, not to find ansers to hy questions. The metastructure of the mathematical explanation is logical, hereas the cognitive infrastructure of representations that compose the explanation is mathematical.Subsumation, unification, derivation, universality still remain. Hoever, every mathematical representation of the previous humanexplanation is also an effect. Every neural representation is an EFFECT.A NEURAL REPRESENTATION CAN BE FALSE BUT NOT IREAL, UNCAUSAL.LAEVERY POSSIBLE EXPLANATION SHOULD BE BOTH CAUSAL AND LOGIC.MULTIPLE REALISABILITY IS UNDER CAUSALITY.MIND IS UNDER CAUSALITYITHOUT CAUSALITY, THERE CAN BE NO LOGIC.LOGIC IS AN EFFECT.CAUSALITY IS NOT AN EFFECT OF LOGIC.LOGIC IMPLIES CAUSALITY.THE FORMS OF CONCEPTS, PROPOSITIONS, AND THE LANGUAGE ITSELF ARE EFFECTS...THOUGH THAT THE RELATIONS BETEEN FORMS IS NO CAUSAL, THEY ALL ARE EFFECTS...ReferenceErik eber and Maarten Van Dyck1999, EXPLANATION AS UNIFICATION, SYNTHESE.A LITTLE PROGRESS IN TRUTH1.Every time is successional.2.Every succession is temporal.3.Not every succession is in itself causal.4.Not every time is in itself causal.5.Every process is temporal.6.Not every process is causal. from 5 and 4.For instance, suposse that e have three independent but equitemporalcausal chains or linesA causes B causes CA causes B causes CAcauses Bcauses Ct1 t2 t3No, the succesion A, B, C is temporal, as every succession, but is not causal, cause neither A causes B nor B causes C.Similarily, the conscious flux is succesional and thereby temporal, but not necessarily causal.For instance, at t1 e can see a red light and at t2 e can see a blue light, because a difference in the stimuli ith hich interacted our visual systems at the to different time points.This is the truth, though that some philosopherse.g., Loyd it seems that consider that every conscious point in the conscious flux is determinated by the previous one...Hoever, hat I said yesterday remains valide at the global level.Every point in the conscious flux is effect, but its cause is not necessarily a point the conscious flux.At the global level of the universe, in the limits in hich it changes, time is causal. Everey change is effect. Every change implies a causal succesion. Some processes can be causal... CJ8BCab !01DEXaa MNsta45imn12maamn78aHIiaaiKLabxYZS...
Download