TOF : Mind -- No Mind paradox

[Gnomon]

I linked that wiki article only to clarify my "cosmological holism" by suggestion; I'm not committed to the more speculative or platonic aspects mentioned in the article. I appreciate you reading to better see that I'm a much more non-reductive whatever than reductive. I remain, however, anti-idealist in my ontology (sorry, but "Enformationism" has always been way too extravagant – non-parsimonious – for me). — 180 Proof

Unfortunately for you, Enformationism is fundamentally & literally Idealistic, and both Physical & Metaphysical. But, it's based on the cutting-edge science of Information. Most people think they are up-to-date on Information Theory, when all they know about it is that it has something to do with computers. In fact, it has something to do with everything. And that's not just the opinion of extravagant & untethered New Agers. The fundamental role of Information was first glimpsed in early Quantum experiments, when extraction of information from a particle in superposition triggered the collapse of the suspended animation, turning virtual Ideality into actual Reality. From there, the many functions of Information have been gradually pieced into a cohesive concept. But it won't become mainstream science until the old guard of committed reductive materialists and "anti-idealists" die off.

There are a few hard-nosed and credentialed scientists & mathematicians & philosophers that are working to establish Information as an orthodox theory for future scientific applications. Information and the Nature of Reality, is the product of serious scientific investigation. Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your attitude toward Religion, they also apply their understanding of multitasking Information to metaphysical & religious questions that have puzzled philosophers & theologians for centuries. But then, so did Einstein (see below).

The 2019 book by James Glattfelder (see below) -- trained in physics, but worked as a quant in international finance -- pulls all the various threads together into a proposed new paradigm, based on the ubiquity of Information : "Over 300 years ago, the human mind discovered the machine code of reality : mathematics. ... Science appears to have hit a dead end when confronted with the nature of reality and consciousness. In this fascinating and accessible volume, James Glattfelder explores a radical paradigm shift uncovering the ontology of reality".

These pioneers of a new paradigm are no more far-out & extravagant than the Cosmological Holism you seem to favor. The anti-reductive notion of Holism was adopted early by "non-parsimonious" New Agers, but has gradually seeped into mainstream science. Of course, a reasonable degree of skepticism should be applied to any strange new ideas. But, philosophers are well-advised to carry the sword of an open mind behind the shield of skepticism.

How is information related to energy in physics? :
Energy is the relationship between information regimes.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... in-physics

Information -- Consciousness -- Reality : How a new understanding of the universe can help answer age-old questions of existence. ___James Glattfelder
https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/23108

Information and the Nature of Reality : From Physics to Metaphysics :
https://philpapers.org/rec/DAVIAT-5

“The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description.” ― Albert Einstein

[Gnomon]

My understanding of 'information' is completely physical, and not "ideal" (or platonic) in any significant sense. — 180 Proof

Yes. That seems to be the key difference in our views. But the notion that "Information is physical" would have been ridiculed in the centuries before Claude Shannon, in his search for efficient transmission of knowledge, divested Information of meaning. The original referent of the term was to non-physical Ideas in the mind. But Shannon wanted empty containers that could carry a wide variety of ideas & knowledge, without having any inherent meaning in themselves. So, following Turing, he boiled the real world down to its simplest elements : all or nothing, (1) or (0) -- ideal abstractions that have no instances in reality . Based on that ideal binary categorization, he turned Turing's imaginary "universal computer" into a physical reality.

Turing's computer only existed as an idea before that. And later, the Church-Turing-Deutsch principle showed that " a universal computing device can simulate every physical process". From that insight, some information theorists, including Tegmark, concluded that the physical universe itself is actually a mathematical simulation. Hence, material reality is ultimately made of mathematical (meta-physical) Information, instead of tiny atoms of physical stuff. Hence, most physicists today have given-up the ancient notion of a physical atomic foundation to the world, and now imagine that matter itself is an emergent quality of invisible information "Fields" : consisting of Potential (unactualized) Energy and Virtual (ideal) Particles.

So, if you'll pardon my presumption, your notion that Reality is "completely physical" -- i.e. "nothing but" physical stuff -- is out of date. Instead of exclusive & reductive, Black & White ; Either/Or, (1) or (0) categories, my own holistic worldview is what I call "BothAnd". It accepts the real physical world as it appears to our physical senses, but it also acknowledges the underlying Ideality of invisible & intangible stuff -- including the abstract concepts that populate the human mind. Therefore, rather than excluding our own Consciousness from our worldview, the BothAnd principle includes Physical & Meta-physical, Real & Ideal, Matter & Mind.


Abstract : thought-of apart from concrete realities

Quantum Field Theory (QFT) is the mathematical and conceptual framework for contemporary elementary particle physics

Information is Physical :
"Even if we encode data as bits, the content, representation, and ontology of information appear separate. How then, can information be physical? . . . what link establishes the relationship between the ethereal nature of information and its physicality?"
James Glattfelder, Information-- Consciousness-- Reality

Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Information :
* Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
* For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. So, it becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
* When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

[Gnomon]

Cite any post anywhere on this forum where I have claimed or implied that "reality is nothing but physical stuff". Your "presumption" is a strawman, G — 180 Proof

I was responding to this quote :
My understanding of 'information' is completely physical, and not "ideal" (or platonic) in any significant sense. — 180 Proof
If "information" is "completely physical" what else is there? By eliminating all options that seems to imply "nothing but". So, I merely turned the quote around to say "reality is nothing but". Was that "presumptuous"? Based on my exploration of the role of Information in the world, I have concluded that Reality is both Physical (matter stuff) and Metaphysical (mind stuff). Anyway, you can correct my presumption by denying that reality is "nothing but" physical.

I apologize, if I misinterpreted your statement. I'm really trying to communicate with you, because you seem to be on the verge of understanding the ubiquity of Information. And communication is transmission of information. So, it will help if we understand what Information actually is. Just for the record, my notion of Ideal Information doesn't come from the Bible, or from New Age tracts, or from Plato. It comes primarily from well-known scientists, especially those on the cutting-edge of Quantum Theory

I'm currently reading the book by James Glattfelder, Information-Consciousness-Reality. In the chapter entitled, Information is Physical, he quotes several of those famous scientists. First, he reminds us that, before Shannon, information was considered to be non-physical, or meta-physical, as I call it. "What link establishes the relationship between the ethereal nature of information and it's physicality?" Then, he quotes physicist Rolf Landauer : "Information is not a disembodied abstract entity; it is always tied to a physical representation". But the same could be said of Energy : no-one has ever seen or touched pure Energy, because our senses are only tuned to experience its material forms. But energy is ethereal in its ability to transform from massless light-waves into the Mass (a property known only by reason, not sensation) that we associate with Matter.

In the next section, It From Bit, he quotes physicist John Archibald Wheeler : "The bit is a fundamental particle of a different sort : not just tiny but abstract -- a binary digit . . . it is insubstantial . . . more fundamental than matter itself." He's not contradicting Landauer, just focusing on a different aspect of Information, which is both abstract and concrete. He goes-on to say : "Information gives rise to every it -- every particle, every field of force, even the spacetime continuum itself". That covers just about everything in the physical world ; hence Information is ubiquitous -- it's both abstract Energy and concrete Matter. Then, he concludes : "All things physical are information-theoretic in origin, and this is a participatory universe." That last assertion was quickly adopted by metaphysical-oriented New Agers.

Wheeler doesn't use the term "Ideal" or "Platonic", but that's what he means, when he says : "The notion that the world exists 'out there' independent of the mind is a view which is abandoned." Other physicists have gone even further in expanding on the role of "ethereal" information in the real world. Seth Lloyd says that : "Once you adopt the notion that [concrete] reality and [abstract] information are the same, all quantum paradoxes and puzzles . . . disappear." [my brackets]. The he makes the bold assertion : "the entire universe is computing reality". From that concept I conclude that Evolution is essentially a computer program, which must have a Programmer to establish the rules and the teleology of the computing process.


Ethereal : heavenly or celestial

Abstract : detached from physical, or concrete, reality

Ideal : existing only in the imagination

Seth Lloyd : "everything in the universe is made of bits. Not chunks of stuff, but chunks of information."
Note -- both Wheeler and Lloyd make a clear distinction between physical Stuff and metaphysical Information. So, their worldview is not "completely physical", but both Real and Ideal.

[Gnomon]

Right there I refer to My Understanding and do not make an ontological claim or commit to physical monism. No ontological "eliminating" on my part. "What else is there?" Whatever else there might be is irrelevant when discussing science or nature. — 180 Proof

Yes, but this is not a science or nature forum. Our interests here include what is known via the scientific method, but are not limited to the physical world. In fact, after post-Enlightenment Science came to dominate the exploration of the world, as known by the physical senses, Philosophy was left holding-the-bag of extra-sensory Metaphysics. By "extra-sensory", I don't mean magical powers, but merely the aspects of the world that are known via Reason instead of Sensation. By "Metaphysics" I'm referring to what Kant called "Noumenal" Ideality, as opposed to "Phenomenal" Reality. And shape-shifting Information seems to be the bridge between Noumenal and Phenomenal.

Unfortunately, some people assume that Metaphysics is merely the study of supernatural spooky stuff, like ESP, reincarnation, and communing with the dead. But, it also includes the natural spooky stuff, like action-at-a-distance and quantum leaps. So, I believe that asking "what else is there" is relevant to the purpose of The Philosophy Forum. Ironically, some posters on this forum seem to have Physics Envy, and reject anything that smacks of Meta-Physics. Of course, when delving into the immaterial aspects of Reality, a healthy dose of skepticism is necessary to avoid confusing normal Mental topics with paranormal Spiritual belief systems. Which is why I try to ground my Meta-Physical notions with empirical Physical knowledge, where possible.


Both physics and metaphysics are concerned with describing our reality. One could say that both attempt to give an account of what the world is like, but physics is concerned with what it is like according to our experience of reality, whereas metaphysics is concerned with what it is “really” like.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-diffe ... etaphysics
Note -- "What it's really like" is what Plato called the "Ideal" Realm, known only via Reason.

The phenomenal world is the world we are aware of; this is the world we construct out of the sensations that are present to our consciousness. The noumenal world consists of things we seem compelled to believe in, but which we can never know (because we lack sense-evidence of it).
http://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/303/kant120.htm

Physics Envy :
The term argues that writing and working practices in these disciplines have overused, confusing jargon and complicated mathematics to seem more 'rigorous' and like mathematics-based subjects like physics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_envy

The Case Against Reality : How Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes
"Do we see the world as it truly is? In The Case Against Reality, pioneering cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman says no? we see what we need in order to survive. Our visual perceptions are not a window onto reality, Hoffman shows us, but instead are interfaces constructed by natural selection."
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... ty/479559/

[Gnomon]

Again, what you "acknowledge" is mistaken, a strawman of your own presumption. I've not "recanted or revised" anything, merely corrected you. — 180 Proof

So you still believe that "information is completely physical"? If so, what kind of material is it made of? And what does Consciousness consist of : atoms? If you answer that Information is made of Energy, I might agree with you. Except that "Information" is a broader, more inclusive concept than just Energy. Energy is physical in the sense that it has a causal effect on matter. But Energy is not made of concrete atoms; it's made of abstract potential for change. It's a human-attributed property of natural matter. And, Information is physical in the same sense -- it is the power to enform (to give form to the formless, meaning to the meaningless). My "strawman" consists of information in your posts, as interpreted in terms of my own information-theoretic worldview. I'm just trying to show you that you are hung-up on an outdated interpretation of "metaphysics", and "idealism".

Both Energy and Information are abstract concepts about the physical world. And abstractions are made of Information, not matter. As physicist Seth Lloyd put it : "Everything in the universe is made of bits. Not chunks of stuff, but chunks of information" --- Qualia not Quanta ; Metaphysics not Physics. So, the distinction I'm trying to make here is between physical stuff (tangible & visible) and meta-physical Information (intangible & invisible). That will make sense to you, as soon as you grasp the fact that Metaphysics is not about Magic, but Mind. And the human Mind abstracts ideas from objects & actions, them constructs its abstracted worldview to represent its belief of what's really out there. That's why Carlo Rovelli entitled his book : Reality Is Not What It Seems. To our common sense, reality appears to be "completely physical", but science & philosophy are supposed to be un-common sense, and to see beyond superficial appearances (phenomena).

I'm close to the end of the book, Consciousness-Information-Reality. And the author says, under the heading of An Information Ontology, that "the intangible notion of Information is undeniably a physical manifestation". So, in that sense your notion that "information is physical" is correct, but incomplete. It's much more than that. The C-I-R book is not about the classical view of reality, or even the quantum nature of reality. Instead, it proposes "a radically new ontology of reality". And that cutting-edge paradigm is what I'm trying to introduce you to. No Magic involved, just Metaphysics.

What is Energy made of? :
Energy is not made of anything, energy is a term used to describe a trait of matter and non-matter fields. When matter has velocity, for example, it is said to have kinetic energy. There are also various forms of potential energy.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... gy-made-of

Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" . Aristotle's two volumes covered Physics (the concrete stuff of the world) and Meta-physics (abstract ideas about the world).
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

[Gnomon]

For instance, when you say "X is metaphysical", this amounts to saying X is imaginary to my ears. As I've pointed out, for me, 'metaphysical' pertains to a speculative way of looking at – re/presenting – the physical (vide Spinoza) and N O T an ontological fiat of 'things-in-themselves' (vide Kant). — 180 Proof

Metaphysics is "imaginary". That's the whole point. The term pertains to subjective Ideality, which is the worldview that exists in your imagination. Unfortunately, medieval theologians interpreted Aristotle's discussion of the human perspective on Nature in terms of religious Spirituality. That's how the subject matter of Aristotle's second volume became associated with Catholic doctrine. And that made the term anathema (accursed) to post-Enlightenment scientists. So, if you will pardon another "strawman", you seem to retain that prejudice against the realm of (metaphysical) ideas, preferring the safer realm of actual (physical) things. But remember that theoretical physicists, such as Einstein, routinely rely on "a speculative way of looking at things". Yet, it's primarily experimental researchers (chemists, biologists, atom smashers), who following Bacon's method, close their eyes to metaphysical subjectivity, while pretending to be completely physically objective.

However, that classical scientific attitude (Objectivism, Materialism) was undermined by the advent of Quantum Theory. In which reality was discovered to be subjective & "imaginary" to some degree. And which opened the door to a variety of Transcendent theories of reality*1. But that development was foreseen by Kant in his Transcendental Idealism. He wrote his Critique of Pure Reason in response to Hume's radical skepticism toward Berkeley's Idealism. "A more disturbing consequence of Hume's critical analysis was its apparent undermining of empirical science itself, for the latter's logical foundation [induction] was now recognized as unjustifiable". [Tarnas, quoted in I-C-R] Other philosophers also anticipated the subjectivity of reality that became most apparent in the Quantum realm. "Secondary qualities such as color exist only in our minds, and therefore cannot be said to be independently existing real qualities of physical objects". [Locke, quoted in I-C-R] But hard-nosed empiricists rejected that philosophical view of quantum reality with "shut-up and calculate". In other words, shut your mind to transcendental imagination, and focus on manipulating pragmatic numbers.

Ironically, Mathematics -- the language of physics -- is itself "nothing but" Metaphysics. And professional mathematicians (such as Glattfelder) seem to be more open to metaphysical (and transcendental) interpretations of their calculations. As astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson said, "the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas". Yet, as seekers for truth, not fantasy, we need to be skeptical of the more radical (imaginary) flights of fancy. To avoid imaginary Metaphysics though, you would need to have no intuitive ideas of your own, and to rely on the objective communal view of fellow scientists. PS__ I look forward to seeing the stuffing knocked-out of my strawman, by your denial of its implications.


*1 Transcendent Theories : (non-empirical)
Inflation ; String ; Multiverse ; Many Worlds ; Holographic ; Simulation

Mathematics is Metaphysics :
On the one hand, philosophy of mathematics is concerned with problems that are closely related to central problems of metaphysics and epistemology. . . . mathematics appears to study abstract entities.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/phil ... thematics/

Metaphysics As Mathematics :
While metaphysics as science is a dead-end for me, metaphysics as mathematics is ripe for very interesting insights. Instead of asking directly about “our” reality, we should be asking about hypothetical realities.
https://sciencehouse.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/2308/

Is math a metaphysics? :
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plat ... thematics/

Kant -- Transcendental Aesthetic :
"From this investigation, it will be found that there are two pure forms of sensuous intuition, as principles of knowledge a priori, namely space space and time . . . . Space is nothing else than the form of all phenomena of the external sense . . . . Time is nothing else than the form of the internal sense . . . these, as phenomena, cannot exist in themselves, but only in us."

[Gnomon]

My recent thoughts on "thoughts": — 180 Proof

Your reductive attitude toward "thoughts" seems to be similar to that of B.F. Skinner's "radical behaviorism", back in the stone-age of psychology. It was a valid scientific approach to the human mind. But it ignored equally valid psychological & philosophical questions, such as "what are thoughts?" and "what is music?" That's why Behaviorism is "no longer a dominating research program". It failed to consider the subjective & holistic aspects of the mind that are most important to ordinary humans. What are your "thoughts" on that topic?

PS__is "reductive attitude" another strawman? It's not a personal attack, but a condensed mirror of your argument against studying non-physical features of the world, such as Mind as contrasted with Brain. I was surprised to hear that exclusive notion coming from you, because I had previously gotten the impression that you were more philosophically-inclined (broad-minded instead of narrowly-focused) than that.

Behaviorism :
Why has the influence of behaviorism declined? The deepest and most complex reason for behaviorism’s decline in influence is its commitment to the thesis that behavior can be explained without reference to non-behavioral and inner mental (cognitive, representational, or interpretative) activity.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/behaviorism/

[Gnomon]

Well, okay, so when you say "information is physical and metaphysical" you are, in effect, saying that information can be scientifically treated like e.g. temperature without bothering with phenomenological "warmth", that is, as I've said, in a way that is completely physical. — 180 Proof

No, that's a "strawman", as you like to say. When I describe Information as both physical and metaphysical, I mean exactly that. In its physical forms, Information is the same matter & energy that physicists, chemists, and biologists have been studying for years. Yet, in its metaphysical forms, Information is the ideas & feelings that psychologists and philosophers are still struggling with today. Moreover, understanding the distinction between them is what Chalmers famously called "the hard problem'. Studying matter & energy is "easy" because they are accessible to our physical senses. But Information is only known via the sixth sense of Reason, which "sees" the invisible relationships between both material objects (geometry) and between mental concepts (ratios, meanings).

Christof Koch is probably the most prominent Neuroscientist today. Years ago, with his mentor Francis Crick, he proposed that Consciousness would soon be explained by examining its physical Neural Correlates : like a black body radiating physical phenomenal measurable heat. But they eventually found that Consciousness is more like the metaphysical noumenal feeling of "warmth". So, Koch today, has rejected the materialist approach, and he wrote a book on The Feeling of Life Itself. He even subscribes to a modern scientific version of the ancient notion of Panpsychism. My own worldview is similar to that, but it's not a Dualism, because I think Information is both Material and Mental, both Physical and Metaphysical. So, I wrote a thesis, explaining how I came to that conclusion. Everything I say on this forum comes from that Monistic worldview.

PS__In the immortal words of Cool Hand Luke, "What we have here . . . is a failure to communicate." Talk to the Strawman.

Consciousness: Confessions of a Romantic Reductionist :
What links conscious experience of pain, joy, color, and smell to bioelectrical activity in the brain? How can anything physical give rise to nonphysical, subjective, conscious states?
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08BT4BWVB/re ... TF8&btkr=1

Panpsychism: The Trippy Theory :
Though it sounds like something that sprang fully formed from the psychedelic culture, panpsychism has been around for a very long time. Philosophers and mathematicians Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead, physicists Arthur Eddington, Ernst Schrödinger, and Max Planck, and psychologist William James are just a few thinkers who supported some form of panpsychism. The idea lost traction in the late 20th century, but recently, philosophers and scientists such as David Chalmers, Bernardo Kastrup, Christof Koch, and Philip Goff have revived the idea, making strong claims for some form of panpsychism.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/p ... cycles-are

http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

[Gnomon]

The latter has no bearing on the science, however, just as "warmth" has no bearing on explaining temperature. — 180 Proof

I suppose that's why some people find Science to be "cold" : it doesn't understand the significance of metaphysical "warmth", as opposed to physical Heat. But this thread is only indirectly about Science anyway ; it's about the philosophical conjecture of a Mind behind Evolution. So, we've gotten way off track. But (strawman warning) I suppose you agree with Daniel Dennett that there is no such thing as Consciousness or Mind -- just neurons creating illusions.

PS__Hmmmm. What is the physical substance of illusions ; ectoplasm?

[Gnomon]

I hazard to interpret Dennett meaning that "consciousness or mind" is not a thing but a process. For me, minding is to brain as breathing is to lungs. — 180 Proof

That's exactly my understanding of Consciousness, as the Metaphysical Function of the physical Brain. Minding is what the Brain does. But the "atoms" of Mind are "bits" of Information. A "process" is not a physical "thing" but an inductive inference from observation of Change. For example, a stationary billiard ball begins to move when struck by the cue ball. But we don't actually see any transfer of momentum, we infer it. And the human ability-to-infer-the-unseen (e.g. invisible forces) is (strawman alert) what you call "woo".

PS__Materialist scientists infer (imagine) that the Strong & Weak Forces are "carried" by invisible particles of some magical stuff they like to call "Energy" -- which is not quantitative matter, but qualitative "ability to cause change". If that ain't Woo, what is? As usual with woo-stuff, we observe the Effects, but not the Cause, which must be imagined.

PPS__Enformation is Causation

Causation :
Hume shows that experience does not tell us much. Of two events, A and B, we say that A causes B when the two always occur together, that is, are constantly conjoined. Whenever we find A, we also find B, and we have a certainty that this conjunction will continue to happen. Once we realize that “A must bring about B” is tantamount merely to “Due to their constant conjunction, we are psychologically certain that B will follow A”, then we are left with a very weak notion of necessity. This tenuous grasp on causal efficacy helps give rise to the Problem of Induction–that we are not reasonably justified in making any inductive inference about the world.
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-cau/