2 upvotes, 2 direct replies (showing 2)
Summary: The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR), which posits that all contingent facts must have sufficient reasons for their existence, is self-evident and fundamental to our understanding of reality (whether or not we admit we accept it). Those who reject the PSR could only do so by accepting the PSR, as any reason-based argument against it would implicitly rely on the need for sufficient reasons. The PSR serves as a basic assumption in science's search for fundamental explanations, and unexplained events should be attributed to the incompleteness of our model, rather than the incompleteness of reality. The text also addresses criticisms of the PSR, particularly concerning quantum indeterminacy, its necessitarian implications, and its demand for infinite causes. The author is happy to answer any questions.
Comment by Oink_Bang at 01/02/2025 at 22:41 UTC
11 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Those who reject the PSR could only do so by accepting the PSR, as any reason-based argument against it would implicitly rely on the need for sufficient reasons.
Why can't I simply reject it without giving a reason based argument, or any argument at all?
If I do decide to offer an argument against it - say because an interlocutor wants convincing - doesn't this merely show that I recognize the possibility of reasons, not their necessity? If reasons exist for this one truth it does not follow that reasons exist for other truths - not unless we can be sure there is nothing at all special about our chosen case, and it seems clear that this condition is not met here.
Comment by 8m3gm60 at 02/02/2025 at 05:05 UTC
3 upvotes, 1 direct replies
The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR), which posits that all **contingent** facts must have sufficient reasons for their existence
As opposed to what other kinds of facts?