isn't that a wee bit unparsimonious, extravagant, composition fallacy'ish? — jorndoe
Haphazard application of the principle, delineation required:
There can be no (other) reason for existence, since then such a reason would then not exist (by definition).
orWhy anything at all?
Why this-or-that and not something else?
well, you maintained sufficient reason, so that did away with a t=0.
But then simpler, though, when adding an extra cause (of causation)...?
Seems more like an article of faith than otherwise called for, causes and effects already being accounted for, cf composition fallacy.
For that matter, it might be "simpler" to delineate or do away with sufficient reason (search for cases with no sufficient reason or no applicability).
Haphazard application of the principle, delineation required:
There can be no (other) reason for existence, since then such a reason would then not exist (by definition).
Anyway, causes and effects are typically taken to be events, so applying sufficient reason, in this case, seems more like responding to different inquiries, say,
Why anything at all?
or
Why this-or-that and not something else? — jorndoe
not jettison, just delineate.
(E.g. there can't be anything (else) that's the reason for everything.)
I'd say causality is an event-relation, a cause and its effect are related. — jorndoe
Facts are relations (distances).What are your reasons for thinking that causality relates events rather than, for instance, facts? — jkg20
What are your reasons for thinking that causality relates events rather than [...] — jkg20
a property of matter-energy — TheMadFool
directly contradicts the principle of sufficient reason — TheMadFool
All or nothing...? :brow: (n)
Delineate means finding pre-conditions, exceptions, something like that.
What are your reasons for thinking that causality relates events rather than [...]
— jkg20
The point was that I found
a property of matter-energy
— TheMadFool
a bit odd.
directly contradicts the principle of sufficient reason
— TheMadFool
There you go. (y)
Better ensure we don't apply the principle to everything/existence first, or we follow the haphazard structure of "everything and then some". (n)
Then there are those considerations of quantum mechanics. — jorndoe
by "everything" I meant the lot, existence, it all, the complement-free, hence mentioning the composition fallacy, giving "everything and then some".
But yes, right, sufficient reason is a fine metaphysical thesis, it's just misapplication that's not.
Where do these fit in?
• the Casimir effect, virtual particle pairs, quantum fluctuations, radioactive decay, spacetime foam/turbulence, the "pressure" of vacuum energy, Fomin's quantum cosmogenesis (successors), Krauss' relativistic quantum fields, ..., the zero energy universe, the "edge-free" universe
• why anything at all?
• why this-or-that and not something else?
(As a side-topic here, Leibniz wanted to posit something necessary, going by what we now call modal logic, but I think anything necessary in general falls back on what all possible worlds have in common, i.e. more or less just self-consistency.) — jorndoe
(As a side-topic here, Leibniz wanted to posit something necessary, going by what we now call modal logic, but I think anything necessary in general falls back on what all possible worlds have in common, i.e. more or less just self-consistency.) — jorndoe
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.