46 upvotes, 3 direct replies (showing 3)
This feels much too loose to be convincing. In particular, the idea that just by using reason at all (e.g. to critique the PSR) you accept the PSR. That needs a lot more unpacking, I don't see how that follows. Using a tool where it is applicable doesn't mean the tool is universally applicable.
Commonplace assumption in daily life that events have explanations doesn't imply a belief that *every* event has a cause, and even if it did imply that belief, it doesn't make the belief true. This is the same sort of generalization error as above.
Careful work has been done to establish limits on the possibility of "hidden variables" in quantum mechanics. Hidden variables would have measurable consequences which we can see don't occur in experiments. It seems that the universe is filled with brute facts (at least up close).
It's an interesting idea to think about a universe with only necessary facts and their inevitable consequences. Would that imply determinism?
Comment by Groundbreaking_Cod97 at 04/02/2025 at 01:17 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I do find the universe is filled with brute facts and also some more mysterious things and I find PSR pretty convincing in relation to how humans think, desire, and act. It sort of mimics the transcendentals of historical philosophy that have been pretty much all but lost in their traditional understanding at this point.
Computer logic is a good tool for understanding a set, but it’s the part that is confusing reality and our natural operation towards it, which is much more broad and complex than our intellect can close in on, which IMO validates the open ended-ness of PSR and term logic which is our natural logic which is another thing that has been all but lost in this time and place.
Comment by alternativea1ccount at 02/02/2025 at 14:55 UTC*
0 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Careful work has been done to establish limits on the possibility of "hidden variables" in quantum mechanics. Hidden variables would have measurable consequences which we can see don't occur in experiments. It seems that the universe is filled with brute facts (at least up close).
I'm not an expert on quantum theory but I'm assuming you're referencing Bell's inequalities? I'm not sure how that truly undermines the principle of sufficient reason, all it may rule out is locality, there could still be non-local hidden variables. But even if we rule out hidden variables all together then all this does is undermine a deterministic explanation, not a probabilistic one. So if you take PSR as an assumption then there's really no problem here.
Comment by contractualist at 01/02/2025 at 23:03 UTC*
-9 upvotes, 2 direct replies
Thanks for the clear review. Let me know if this addresses your point. The PSR says that all contingent facts demand reason for their existence. If we are to accept or not accept the PSR (a contingent fact), we would have to use reason to make that decision. But by accepting reason as a determinate of whether or not to accept the PSR, we already accept the PSR. We require sufficient reasons to determine whether we need sufficient reasons! Therefore the PSR is axiomatic.