What are your objections to the (revised) PSR? — Devans99
There is the conservation of energy as an argument against energy/matter producing spontaneous events. — Devans99
Also, if spontaneous appearance of energy/matter occurs naturally and time is infinite, then infinite energy/matter would result. — Devans99
The conservation of energy has the same problem as SPR--it's rather arbitrary, and there's really no good reason to believe it as a principle. — Terrapin Station
Again, the idea of that is completely arbitrary. There could be one spontaneous event. One time. — Terrapin Station
everything must have a reason. — Devans99
But the maths of infinity says that everything that can happen, will happen, an infinite number of times. — Devans99
I don't think this is true. Actually, I don't think anything has a reason. All the things we know are just descriptions of how things behave, which can then be generalized to understand how typical types of things usually or often behave.
I am ambivalent about whether or not all things or some things have causes. I want to say "no," but then I think of simple situations like pushing on an object and seeing it start to move. On the other side, there are lots of situations where very minor differences in initial conditions result in vastly different outcomes. — T Clark
lol--mathematics can't tell us anything like that. The whole idea of that is absurd. Mathematics is a language based on how we think about relations. — Terrapin Station
I think you are laughing at actual infinity then. — Devans99
Can we not treat 'reason' and 'cause' as synonyms when it comes to cosmological arguments? — Devans99
To have no cause is to have nothing logically/temporally preceding which seems only possible if the thing being considered is outside of time... which I admit is a challenging concept... but I cannot see how anything could exist without a minimum of one 'brute fact' and it seems they have to be timeless. — Devans99
I'm not sure. I'll have to think about whether or not I think they're the same thing.... Earlier, you discussed the conservation laws as preventing getting something out of nothing. That strikes me as a reason, not a cause. Still, cause and reason are clearly mixed up together somehow. Maybe it doesn't matter, since I've called the existence of both into question. — T Clark
I'm not sure what you mean. The universe is full of "brute facts." It sure seems like things should have causes. It's kind of a common sense kind of thing. But, then again, much of the last 100 years of science has been about finding out how common sense doesn't work. — T Clark
I believe that everything in spacetime at a micro level can trace its cause back to the Big Bang — Devans99
What I mean is that everything in time seems to need a temporal start. Could a matter particle exist in time if it never started existing? — Devans99
And, I guess, no. I don't necessarily see why everything that exists has to start sometime. Everything could always have just been here. — T Clark
Leibniz says only contingent things need a reason, God is necessary, so he does not need a reason. This is somewhat lame - saying something is necessary does not in itself explain why it is necessary. — Devans99
If you reject 3 then there is a contradiction viz. the PSR is false and true because any contingent reason would be sufficient. That's how far I got. Any comments? — TheMadFool
now we can have existing outside of time/causality a truly uncaused being that is the ultimate cause of everything. — Devans99
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.