A great deal has been pointed out with regard to the uniqueness of the first law
and the second law and their profundity. But, I think not enough has been made on
the point
2 that the two laws in their application to reversible-like processes/systems,
unlike their application to heat transfer problems, are unique among the laws of
physics in that they are used not as governing laws but as laws in conjunction with
operational principles. It is necessary in providing mechanism for reversible-like
processes/systems.
10.5 Determination and Causal Closure
In his book, The Nature of Thermodynamics, [8] Bridgman was embarrassed by the
anthropomorphic or economic nature of thermodynamics. But, he should not be.
As I identified the cornerstone of the mechanical theory of heat to be universal
interconvertibility, here I identify the cornerstone of naturalistic observational
sciences to be the notion that laws govern every natural process, i.e., the idea of
causal closure.
Every process in nature obeys the laws of nature. This is the idea of physical
necessity in philosophy. But, what does necessity mean? Skeptics, most famously
David Hume, challenged the idea of causal necessity. Hume correctly argued that
man should not project the efficacy in conducting human affairs to the natural
events of physical objects—bestowing them efficacy, i.e., causal necessity. This is
why we say that there is only efficient causation in the event of July leading to
August, but not July efficaciously causes August (see [10]). However, Hume did not
deny the existence of efficacious causation in human; of which he wrote, “we have a
clear idea;” he did not write that it was something “with which we are utterly
unacquainted.” Precisely because man erroneously misappropriated a quality (that
was clearly understood for man and exercised by man) to material objects, man was
led astray to a “false philosophy” [9]. He did not deny the idea of power or
efficacious causation in man; he was warning the consequence of misappropriating
such power to matter, turning physical necessity (that objects are subject to) into
causal necessity (anthropomorphic power, which objects do not possess).
What was the takeaway from Hume’s analysis? This is an example of one
chooses to see what one wants to see. The clearly stated case by Hume has almost
universally been misunderstood to be him denying the existence of efficacious
causation that there is only efficient causation. A rebuttal of this interpretation of the
Humean doctrine of causality has been made [10].
This mistake with regard to the nature of causality is associated with the prevailing doctrine of materialistic naturalism that only matter exists and that, if matter
is deprive of any power or causal efficacy man too is deprived of causal efficacy:
Scientific successes made it possible in avoiding anthropomorphic ways of thinking
in explaining natural phenomena. That was exactly what Hume was saying that man
2
As discussed in Sect. 8.3, Poincare and Lotka have made a similar point in their writing.
288
10 A Theory of Heat as a Prelude …
and the second law and their profundity. But, I think not enough has been made on
the point
2 that the two laws in their application to reversible-like processes/systems,
unlike their application to heat transfer problems, are unique among the laws of
physics in that they are used not as governing laws but as laws in conjunction with
operational principles. It is necessary in providing mechanism for reversible-like
processes/systems.
10.5 Determination and Causal Closure
In his book, The Nature of Thermodynamics, [8] Bridgman was embarrassed by the
anthropomorphic or economic nature of thermodynamics. But, he should not be.
As I identified the cornerstone of the mechanical theory of heat to be universal
interconvertibility, here I identify the cornerstone of naturalistic observational
sciences to be the notion that laws govern every natural process, i.e., the idea of
causal closure.
Every process in nature obeys the laws of nature. This is the idea of physical
necessity in philosophy. But, what does necessity mean? Skeptics, most famously
David Hume, challenged the idea of causal necessity. Hume correctly argued that
man should not project the efficacy in conducting human affairs to the natural
events of physical objects—bestowing them efficacy, i.e., causal necessity. This is
why we say that there is only efficient causation in the event of July leading to
August, but not July efficaciously causes August (see [10]). However, Hume did not
deny the existence of efficacious causation in human; of which he wrote, “we have a
clear idea;” he did not write that it was something “with which we are utterly
unacquainted.” Precisely because man erroneously misappropriated a quality (that
was clearly understood for man and exercised by man) to material objects, man was
led astray to a “false philosophy” [9]. He did not deny the idea of power or
efficacious causation in man; he was warning the consequence of misappropriating
such power to matter, turning physical necessity (that objects are subject to) into
causal necessity (anthropomorphic power, which objects do not possess).
What was the takeaway from Hume’s analysis? This is an example of one
chooses to see what one wants to see. The clearly stated case by Hume has almost
universally been misunderstood to be him denying the existence of efficacious
causation that there is only efficient causation. A rebuttal of this interpretation of the
Humean doctrine of causality has been made [10].
This mistake with regard to the nature of causality is associated with the prevailing doctrine of materialistic naturalism that only matter exists and that, if matter
is deprive of any power or causal efficacy man too is deprived of causal efficacy:
Scientific successes made it possible in avoiding anthropomorphic ways of thinking
in explaining natural phenomena. That was exactly what Hume was saying that man
2
As discussed in Sect. 8.3, Poincare and Lotka have made a similar point in their writing.
288
10 A Theory of Heat as a Prelude …