AboutJ.M.J. West Expertise I am versed in formal logic and the predicate calculus; Modern Philosophy, Anglo-American Philosophy, Contemporary Philosophy, And Christian/Catholic Philosophy. I can answer questions on - but not limited to - The Pre-Socratics, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, The Stoics, the Early Church Era, St. Justin Martyr, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Ockham, Moore, Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Kant, Nietzsche, Russell, G. E. Moore, Quine, Rorty, Plantinga, etc.
I also have experience with Philosophy of Religion, Epistemology and other areas.
Experience I have a BA in Philosophy and History, and am continuing my education in both areas while discerning grad school.
Education/Credentials Bachelors Degrees in Philosophy and History, (political science emphasis)
Awards and Honors Cum laude, 1st Annual Harold Parker Award for Excellence in History, Benedictine College.
Question Hello. I would like to ask you some questions about a hypothetical scenario. Let's
say I am the only sentient being to ever exist in the universe. Let's say I flip a coin a
million times once in my life time and the outcome is always heads. Would you say
that this situation implies that getting heads a million times is a natural law, or is
this still a game of chance? Why? How does one prove a phenomena is by natural law
or by chance? Why? Thank you.
Answer Joe,
Thanks for the questions.
If you're the only sentient being to ever exist, I'd have to ask where you came from and how you knew you were the only one...but that aside on to the actual question...
You wrote, "Let's say I flip a coin a million times once in my life time and the outcome is always heads. Would you say that this situation implies that getting heads a million times is a natural law, or is
this still a game of chance? Why? How does one prove a phenomena is by natural law or by chance? Why? Thank you."
If the outcome has always been heads in the past, at what point are you justified in calling it an axiomatic fact, a priori, that the coin always will land heads up? Never. Induction, the move from many specific instances to a general maxim, is never fully justified.
That said, one could speculate certain "laws" as to why this is, and continue to test and revise them, always being open to the possibility of a tails. This is what science does, normatively. It posits a theory based upon prior results, then seeks to continually refine the theory to as close to an axiomatic, necessary, such an a priori truth as it can get.
Only if tails is a logical impossibility (i.e. coming up tails does not even make sense, like a round square) could you have an axiomatic, a priori truth on your hand about the necessity of heads.
