You have to choose; And let's not laugh at the limitations of logic...

A. E. Richards. Foundations of Literary Criticism, ch. 25

If the truth is behind nature, any object and any event can in principle be explained without going beyond the limits of the system. I say "in principle" because no one demands that naturalists explain everything at once. Of course, much will be explained when science allows. However, we have the right to expect that someday everything will be explained. If it is impossible to explain at least something in this way, natural faith is over. If, in the course of reasoning, we have to admit that at least something, at least to some extent, exists on its own, requires independence, and does not only express the properties of a system, we will betray the belief of nature, for by it we mean the doctrine that there is only one system in the world, where everything is interconnected. If it were, every event would be conditioned by it—say, you couldn't help but read this book now, and on the contrary, you read it only because the whole system in such and such a place, at such and such a time, inevitably led to it.

One blow has already been dealt to the strict nature of nature. Previously, scientists believed that the smallest particles of matter move according to strict laws, that is, that the motion of each particle is associated with the entire system of nature. It seems that some people now believe, if I understand them correctly, that this is not so. A unit of matter (it is inconvenient to call it a particle) moves as it pleases, that is, by itself. It is impossible to calculate its path, just as it is impossible to calculate which side the coin will fall, and patterns arise only with the appearance of large numbers. If this theory is correct, we have found something outside of nature, and our conviction that the system of nature is complete and closed must be shaken. This means that the extra-natural exists, although it is too unusual to consider it supernatural, after all, it is, as it were, below nature. But all the belief that nature has no doors, and there is nowhere for them to open, should disappear. Outside of nature, there is the "subnatural," and it is from there that all events and bodies are nourished. If there is a hatch down, there can be an attic window, and events can be fueled from above.

I have spoken of this doctrine for the sake of order and clarity. I don't believe in him myself. For those who, like me, have received a philosophical rather than a science education, it is almost impossible to believe that this is what physicists mean. It seems to me that they want to say something else: the motion of a particle cannot be calculated by us, and from our point of view it is lawless for us. If they want to say that it is lawless in itself, an outsider will involuntarily think about whether this will not be refuted by new scientific achievements tomorrow. Science is good because it develops. So I will gladly move on to another topic.

Everything that we know we deduce from sensations. I do not mean to imply that we, as children, regard our senses as reliable evidence, and that we judge space, matter, and other people only on the basis of them. What I meant is that if we are old enough to understand the question and doubt the existence of something (say, the Great Armada or the solar system), we will reason on the basis of feelings. It would look something like this: "I perceive colors, sounds, volumes, pain, or pleasure that I can only not fully predict or control. The more I perceive them, the more orderly their behavior appears. Therefore, there is something outside of me and it is ordered." Within this very general statement, the particular ones will also fit. For example, we believe in evolution because we see or read about fossils. We believe in the existence of our own brains because we (or others) have seen brains in the heads of creatures like us when we anatomize.

Thus, the ability to know something depends on whether the reasoning is valid. If the certainty expressed by the words "therefore" or "and therefore" or "hereby" really reflects something objective, then everything is fine. But if it exists only in our minds—if it merely shows us how we please think—we cannot know anything. And if human reasoning has no value, no science can be trusted.

It follows that a teaching that explains everything in the world, but does not give grounds to believe in our thinking, explains nothing. After all, it itself, in essence, is worked out by thought, and if a thought is worth nothing, then it is not worth either. It would prove that there is no proof, and that is ridiculous.

Strict materialism refutes itself for the reason that Professor Haldane said long ago: "If my thought processes are entirely determined by the behavior of the atoms of my own brain, I have no reason to trust my opinions. and thus there is no reason to believe that the brain consists of atoms" (Possible Worlds, p.

Even if natural confidence is not altogether materialistic, it seems to me that it encounters this difficulty, though not so obviously. It discredits the process of thinking, or at least reduces confidence in it to such a low level that we can no longer support the teaching itself.

To prove this better, let's analyze two meanings of the words "because". We say: "Grandpa is sick because he ate too much yesterday." We say, "Grandpa must be sick because he hasn't left his room yet" (and we know that when he's healthy, he gets up early). In the first case, "because" reports cause and effect: he got sick because of food. In the second, it denotes a relation, which is called reason and conclusion. My grandfather did not go out, but this is not the cause of his illness, but the reason that we considered him sick. Here are two more phrases: "He cried because he was offended" and "He was offended, probably, because he cried." The second type of "because" (in the form of "because") we know well from mathematics:

"A = C, since, as we have proved, they are both equal to B."