And the sufficient reason for the "PSR" is ...?

The PSR has enjoyed the favor of philosophers, logicians, and scientists. It's considered rationally legit. Not woo woo, not nonsense. — Agent Smith

Absurdism has also enjoyed the favour of philosophers. Perhaps less though.

And the sufficient reason for the "PSR" is ...? — 180 Proof

Axiomatic?

Axiomatic? — emancipate

The question remains, just one step back: what "sufficient reason" makes this "axiom" indispensable (i.e. necessary), or preferable to any other "axiom"?

The only reason for any axiom is its usefulness, what it enables one to do/construct. It's pretty evident how useful PSR is.

And the sufficient reason for the "PSR" is ...? — 180 Proof

As emancipate pointed out, one possibility is the PSR's axiomatic.

However, I suspect there are empirical grounds for the PSR: at a minimum, 99% of things we observe have a reason which is another way of saying they're not random, but deterministic.

That said, some physical phenomena are recognized to be totally random e.g. radioactive decay.

I propose two kinds of PSR, explicated below in the context of a bout of Delhi belly and a fire at the office. You stayed home because you had diarrhea; that very day there was a fire at your office, all your colleagues perished. You survived.

1. PSR₁: There's a reason for everything. The fire was caused by a short circuit. All your office staff died because of smoke inhalation or 3^rd degree burns.

2. PSR₂: There's a reason for everything. God wanted you to live, he wants you to do something specific with your life. You're part of the Divine plan. That's why you fell ill that fateful day, preventing you from going to office and saving your life in the process.

PSR₂ includes PSR₁ but has an added feature viz. a being (God/guardian angel) who intervenes in your life (providence).

This difference (a supernatural agency) distinguishes the two identical statements PSR₁ and PSR₂.

Absurdism has also enjoyed the favour of philosophers. Perhaps less though. — emancipate

I somehow feel you can't compare absurdism to the PSR unless...you wish to bring up the meaning of life which has supernatural written all over it.

the meaning of life — Agent Smith

Or in a conversation about the nature of reality.

can't compare absurdism to the PSR — Agent Smith

Opposites of the same coin.

:up:

can't compare absurdism to the PSR
— Agent Smith

Opposites of the same coin. — emancipate

How much of meaning do we depend on the divine for? Atheists seem as happy as theists if not more. Where is that void in the hearts of unbelievers that can only be filled by, some say, a role in the Divine Plan?

As emancipate pointed out, one possibility is the PSR's axiomatic. — Agent Smith

:point:

Atheists seem as happy as theists if not more — Agent Smith

Citation needed

Well, this is hard to explain. I'll give it my best shot.

Suppose there are things that happen for no rhyme or reason.

How would we know?

We'll have use the method of elimination which is, to be very brief, listing some candidate reasons for something (x), and then demonstrating that no item on such a list is a reason for x.

As you can see, we always have to assume the PSR.

Citation needed — emancipate

You got me! Just a hunch. Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris seem happy and late Christopher Hitchens seemed most pleased with how he rocked the Papal boat.

In the face of evidence to the contrary, we don't have to "assume the PSR". Consider e.g. acausal / random vacuum fluctuations (or radioactive decay) which are fundamental to the "structure" of physical reality.

I’m leery of any leap from quantum to the macro world of humans.

Agent Smith’s PSR1 can be treated as an axiom, but PSR2 cannot - in the case of PSR2, God is the axiom (or “God meddles”) and PSR2 is a theorem.

The traditional PSR is PSR1 - insisting that things have “meaning” (i.e., are the result of agency) is a human peccadillo.

Radioactive decay is quite macro.

In the face of evidence to the contrary, we don't have to "assume the PSR". Consider e.g. acausal / random vacuum fluctuations (or radioactive decay) which are fundamental to the "structure" of physical reality. — 180 Proof

I wasn't clear enough then. Let's say we're going to assess whether a certain phenomenon (p) has a reason or not.

I first think of a list of possible reasons, ones that seem most likely. Say they are a, b, and c.

Next, I evaluate a. Is it the reason for p? No!

Now I check b. Is it a reason for p? No!

Last but not the least, I look at c. Is it the reason for p? No!

Conclusion: Phenomenon p has no reason.

As your keen powers of observation will have informed you, I had to assume the PSR for me to demonstrate that phenomenon p occurs for no apparent reason.

I just worry about pop physics interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. The ideas are abstract, and not too many of us can speak of them with authority. I know I can't, so I avoid them as much as possible. If we are not physicists, we need to be careful.

Take radioactive decay as an example. Yes, on the quantum scale the decay of an individual particle is random, but on the macro scale the phenomenon is represented by half-life which is not random. Does the decay of one particle affect change on the macro scale? Do you realize how vanishingly small that is? Sure, vacuum fluctuations may be fundamental to the structure of reality, but only in aggregate. One randomly falling snowflake doesn't stop traffic, but enough of them create a blizzard. So does randomness on the quantum scale negate the PSR?

Everything we now use as second nature was once "woo-woo" or unrealistic fantasy, often bordering if not exceeding the threshold of mental illness.

It more or less order: running water, seafaring, ocean exploration, flashlights, flight, text messaging, etc..

Yet pessimists have yet to be breeded out. Goes back to entertainment. Curious, huh?

So does randomness on the quantum scale negate the PSR? — Real Gone Cat

Yes. The scope of the "PSR" claim is absolute, and given that most of nature – its fundamental structure (99.9 ...%) – is vacuum, that fact persuades me that the "PSR" is not absolute after all but just an anthropic heuristic (,i.e. useful working assumption). As Hume points out: "causal relations" (i.e. sufficient reasons) are only inferred "habits of association" (inductions) and not observed.

Anyway, I agree that QM should be avoided whenever possible but it's the most conspicuous, unimpeachable, evidence contrary to the "PSR" of which I'm aware. (Btw, I should have referred to radiation (emission) instead of "radioactive decay" (which is chaotic/stochastic, not random) or maybe just static (noise) as a macro example of randomness).

Expressed differently,

There are no accidents. — Agent Smith

Wrong. The PSR states there is a reason for everything. But what if that reason is an accident?

Wrong. The PSR states there is a reason for everything. But what if that reason is an accident? — Philosophim

An accident is meant here as a random event.

an anthropic heuristic (,i.e. useful working assumption) — 180 Proof

:up:

An accident is meant here as a random event. — Agent Smith

I understand that. Isn't a random event a reason for why something happened?

I understand that. Isn't a random event a reason for why something happened? — Philosophim

Not if

There are no accidents. — Master Oogway

Not if

There are no accidents.
— Master Oogway — Agent Smith

And if an accident is the reason something happened? :smile:

And now we've come full circle. Why? Why Not? Because. Because why? Why not?

My point is a sufficient reason does not mean it has to indicate something prior. If for example, you found something in the chain of causality that had no prior causality, it would not eliminate the fact that it still exists. If you could find no prior reason for its existence, then logically, it must exist by the evidence that it does. How does it exist? As a self-explained entity. This is reasonably concluded if there is no prior causality, thus a sufficient reason for its existence. In other words, "It just happened" can be a sufficient reason for something's existence.

now we've come full circle. — Philosophim

Not we, you have come full circle.

The PSR has enjoyed the favor of philosophers, logicians, and scientists. It's considered rationally legit. Not woo woo, not nonsense.

Discuss... — Agent Smith

I can only make sense of it as a description of our nature, how we do science/philosophy. We look for reasons (exploitable relationships between entities). Curious George. The assumption that a reason for an event can be found is at least implicit in our looking for patterns in which to include it.

persuades me that the "PSR" is not absolute after all but just an anthropic heuristic (,i.e. useful working assumption). — 180 Proof

:up:

I can only make sense of it as a description of our nature, how we do science/philosophy. We look for reasons (exploitable relationships between entities). Curious George. The assumption that a reason for an event can be found is at least implicit in our looking for patterns in which to include it — jas0n

In other words, justifying the PSR is beside the point.

In other words, justifying the PSR is beside the point. — Agent Smith

I think it was the The Celestine Prophecy or some similar book that denied (meaningless) coincidences, as if a Creator stuffed the maximum amount of a relationship between all the spacetime pieces of his creation. 'It's all signal. Noise is just an illusion caused by ignorance.' I can sort of see the allure. But these days I'm just so used to living in the casino. The idea of a fair coin. Brutal contingency, heads or tails for no reason, yet equally likely one or the other. Whether actual coins can live up to this idea is a separate issue. So the OP is like a mirror image of 'does God flip coins?'