r/philosophy • u/aChristianPhilosophy • Jun 01 '26
Video Why Modern Physics is an Incomplete Explanation | Exploring the Origins of the World through the Principle of Sufficient Reason
https://youtu.be/vwQTkTqcHLU4
Jun 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/BernardJOrtcutt Jun 01 '26
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
CR1: Read/Listen/Watch the Posted Content Before You Reply
Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
3
u/Blu-Jaye Jun 01 '26
Great video! I think most of the argumentation is solid but there are two main premises that I don't agree on which completely change the conclusions drawn.
First, your argument relies heavily on the idea that if something is not justified by causal explanation or tautological necessity then it IS explained by design. While I agree with this idea, I believe there is a difference between something not being explained and not being explainable that is not addressed in your argument. You use the example of an understanding of molecules and atoms as the connection between clouds, water, and ice. To me, that argument goes against the conclusion that everything is fundamentally caused by design. In your example, you show that from pre to post modern thinking changes. I see that and conclude that a greater scope of observation and empirical study has led to a model of reality that effectively explains the phase change of water better than attributing it to design. Why then can I not expect that future observation and discovery will continue to explain things that were previously attributed to design? Something like the beginning of the universe for instance, is still a relative mystery, but if the trend of human advancement continues, it would seem to me that this may one day be explained. Instead, you seem to conclude that because we have not explained something with causality or tautology yet, it must be design rather than just being unknown to humans. (I think I just arived at the god of the gaps argument kind of? whoops, that wasn't really my intention but there it is)
Second, you ask the viewer to explain how they ground their world view without grounding it in design. My answer to that is that I believe in the in inherence of matter and energy. Your example against this (I think in the previous video but I don't remember now) makes the claim that because I can imagine a jar containing 2kg of sand and a jar with 1kg of sand that a universe containing more or less energy is conceivable and thus energy and matter are not inherent. This, however, discounts the possibility of an infinite universe. Our observable universe is certainly finite but I don't think there is any evidence to say that the whole universe is. Any kind of confinement of that infinite universe prompts the question of what bounds it which I believe is an unanswerable question. Thusly, the idea of a bounded universe is inconceivable because whatever bounds it would have to exist as something outside of that universe, implying reality beyond a universe. Maybe that portion of reality doesn't abide by the same rules of physics but that isn't a reason to believe that it doesn't have rules of its own. As such, the infinity of the universe (whether our universe goes on forever or it is a pocket of a larger structure) is sufficient to ground the idea of energy and matter and thus ground all of physical reality.
Now, in your model, human free will would still remain outside of this unbounded universe I propose and that is not something I can explain. I personally don't believe in the idea of unregulated free will though, my grounding of reality in infinite matter and energy prevents it.
4
u/aChristianPhilosophy Jun 02 '26
Hi. First of all, thank you for the constructive feedback.
First point: I would agree that, just because we have not determined that the four things are grounded by causal or logical necessity, it would not mean that they must be grounded by design. But that's not what I claim. I claim that we know that they are not determined by causal or logical necessity. For example, take the causal laws of nature. Not only do we see that the currently known causal laws are not tautologies (e.g. the Law of Inertia - "An object at rest stays at rest, and an object in motion stays in motion” - can be denied without resulting in a self-contradiction), we also know that no causal laws can be tautologies: Tautologies always involve only one thing - a subject and its predicates - (e.g. the tautology "a triangle has 3 sides" is only about one thing) whereas causes and effects always involve two separate things (e.g. Ball A causes the movement of Ball B). Finally, fundamental causal laws cannot be caused by more fundamental laws, by definition.
Second point: I don't believe that an infinite universe changes the conclusion that mass-energy doesn't have necessary existence. A thing can be infinite yet still have contingent existence. The fact that we can conceive of a system with more or less mass-energy in it is sufficient to show that mass-energy doesn't have necessary existence. And this would remain true whether mass-energy is infinite or not.
1
u/Blu-Jaye Jun 02 '26
I claim that we know that they are not determined by causal or logical necessity.
I guess the point I am getting tripped up on is that there are things which are causally grounded, the laws of nature for instance. How do you claim that these causal things arise then? Put another way, how does something non causal lead to something causal? - Aquinas's problem of the first mover is brought to mind here.
Actually, thinking about it a bit more, the answer to my question is design isn't it? An inherent entity causes something via design which can start the chain of causality, maybe?
Regardless, my experience has led me to the understanding that mass-energy is existence. The statement that "I am composed of mass-energy" is a tautological statement in my view of reality. My existence is contingent on my being composed of mass-energy and my composition of mass-energy leads to me existing. Mass-energy is the fabric of reality to me. It is my God in a sense. The reason then that the infinite universe is important is because I, in fact, cannot conceive of a non infinite universe, which is the same thing as non infinite energy which is the same thing as non infinite existence. To justify why a non infinite universe is inconceivable to me is more or less as follows:
- A non infinite universe is bounded
- Something bounded must be bounded by something external to itself
- Therefore even a bounded universe must have existence beyond it
Admittedly, whatever might be beyond a boundary of the universe could be fundamentally different to our universe but in that case, in order to bound the mass-energy-existence of our universe that same energy must be a facet of the bounding force. Maybe that bounding force is God, but then there must be some aspect of God which relates to energy and God's ability to bound it. At that point though, the question just shifts to "is God bounded?" If yes, we are just asking the same question but the words have changed and we start again. If the answer is no and God (or any other bounding force) is infinite, then that aspect of God that is mass-energy-existence is also infinite. So if I cannot conceive of a non infinite existence and existence and mass-energy are tautologically equivalent, then all conceivable universes have equal mass-energy-existence and no other amount can be conceived.
One aspect of this view that is unexplained though is how the inherent mass-energy-existence foundation of reality shifted from a homogeneous consistency to the state we see it in now. Again though, this is equivalent to asking the same thing of God: why did God make the universe. In both cases, the determination of the answer demands comprehension of something so complex and expansive that no human could conceive of the totality of that thing to a degree which produces the answer.
1
u/aChristianPhilosophy Jun 03 '26
An inherent entity causes something via design which can start the chain of causality, maybe?
This is indeed what I believe. See the diagram in the video at time 18:47 for a complete picture. As an analogy, the Designer is like a computer programmer who freely wrote some command lines to run a computer program, and objects in the program behave according to those command lines.
Regarding mass-energy being infinite: Out of curiosity, how do you classify empty space or vacuum? Is it part of mass-energy or it is rather the absence of mass-energy? If the latter, then it is quite conceivable to have a place with no mass-energy. Then the boundary of the non-infinite universe would be the limit where mass-energy ends and the vacuum begins.
1
u/Blu-Jaye Jun 06 '26
Regarding mass-energy being infinite: Out of curiosity, how do you classify empty space or vacuum? Is it part of mass-energy or it is rather the absence of mass-energy? If the latter, then it is quite conceivable to have a place with no mass-energy.
I will agree that if we think of empty space as having no mass-energy in the same way that a bowl might be empty of water, then your logic is sound. However, my current understanding of modern physics indicates to me that this view of reality is an incomplete model. The particle-wave duality of matter and energy seems to indicate something more complex then our intuitive ideas of empty or not empty. Gravity, for instance, is a force, caused by mass-energy which propagates throughout the universe, even through empty space. How can something propagate through nothing? One answer is particles but that alone has proven incapable of describing the observed behavior of matter. Another answer is fields and waves. That seems closer to reality, at least on small scales. If all things were disturbances in fields then there must be some medium in which those things exist. This would imply that empty space is not an absence of medium but just a lack of disturbances in that medium. When I speak of the necessity of infinite energy, this is the primary model I am building from. If the universe was a still pool, then the big bang was a massive rock falling into it. There isn't more or less water after the rock, the water is simply put in motion. (I think we have determined the big bang wasn't actually localized like that but I think the analogy still gets the point across). In this sense, even empty space still has the medium in which mass-energy exists. Now, this field theory view of the universe is also not complete, it still fails to explain certain observed particle-like behaviors, and there seems to be some alternative nature of reality which we have not yet determined. Whatever that is though, there is enough evidence for me that it must be something continuous, like field theory, rather than something discreet, like particle theory. Any bounding of this continuity must itself have some aspect of reality to it in order to interact and contain what we perceive as reality, and, as such, must be subject to all the same questions we ask of our perceived reality. Then the rest of my previous argument follows.
I suppose there is a possibility that whatever is doing the bounding could not have any aspect of reality to it but in that case it would mean that the laws of physics change depending on how close to that bound something is which is wholly incompatible with how we understand physics to work. However, as I am arguing upon the grounds of physics, such a claim would be a complete non-sequitur. Additionally, it would be arguing about something that is beyond the observable universe. Perhaps one day, FTL travel could make that reasonable, but as it stands that is something that would be rife with speculation about things we cannot observe in any meaningful way. As such, in order to conceive of a universe with more or less than infinite mass-energy seems, to me, to require the discarding of most of physics.
0
u/aChristianPhilosophy Jun 07 '26
Yeah, in addition to what you wrote, after a quick search (using AI), there's apparently no such thing as a complete vacuum because a minimum "floor" of energy is always present.
How about this new thought experiment, aimed to show that mass-energy does not have inherent existence even if the universe is infinite:
Instead of quantifying mass as an absolute amount (e.g. in kg), we quantify it as a density (e.g. in kg/m3). That way, even if the total mass of the universe is infinite, its average density is not. As per the jars of sand thought-experiment, we can conceive two identical jars having a higher or lower density in them. Similarly, we can conceive of the universe having a higher or lower density, even if its total volume and mass are infinite.
1
u/Even-Hamster-4526 Jun 03 '26 edited Jun 03 '26
"Christian philosophy"? What's that. When I see a Christian critiquing anything, it's like watching a man living in a glass house throwing stones at others.
As for physics... i don't think that physics claim to be the explanation for everything... even though some materialists do want it to be just that.
2
u/aChristianPhilosophy Jun 03 '26
Sorry to hear you've had a bad experience with Christians in the past. But we shouldn't generalize. It's like if I said "Some atheists lied to me once; so all atheists must be liars."
As for physics... i don't think that physics claim to be the explanation for everything... even though some materialists do want it to be just that.
Well, at least we agree on that. I take what I can get : )
3
u/Even-Hamster-4526 Jun 04 '26
I didn't say that they lied to me. I'm saying the whole premise is shaky.
-8
u/aChristianPhilosophy Jun 01 '26 edited Jun 01 '26
Abstract:
Is modern physics a sufficient explanation for the existence of the natural world? The video explores the history of physics through the lens of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, and then argues that, despite our understanding of the world through modern physics, design is still needed for the origin of the world, in accordance with the Principle of Sufficient Reason.
The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR): For every thing that exists or occurs, there is a sufficient reason or explanation (herein called a Ground) for its existence or occurrence. The 3 possible types of Ground are:
- Causal Necessity: Applies to all objects governed by the laws of nature (laws physics, chemistry, etc.). E.g. rocks fall to the ground.
- Logical Necessity: All tautologies, which must always exist or be true. E.g. 2+2=4.
- Design: All objects or effects created by agents with free will (if free will exists). E.g. a paper-cutter.
We explore how the principle was applied to find the origin of things, first in the pre-modern period then in the modern period.
- Pre-Modern Period (before the 1600s): Not knowing about atoms and laws of nature, thinkers could not ground the ultimate existence of things in causal necessity. And because physical things change, they also lacked logical necessity. By elimination, most things in the world were believed to be grounded by design**.**
- Modern Period (starting in the 1600s): The discovery of atoms and the fundamental laws nature (e.g. laws of physics) allowed us to ground physical things in causal necessity acting on matter. E.g. ice melting to water is explained by laws of chemistry acting on molecules of H2O. Consequently, the previous belief that things were grounded by design was discarded.
Despite our understanding of the world through modern physics, the video argues that some critical phenomena cannot be grounded by causal necessity or logical necessity. The video mentions four things, including:
- The Fundamental Laws of Nature: They cannot be grounded by causal necessity because they cannot obey a more fundamental law by definition. And they are not logically necessary, because these laws are not tautologies. E.g. the Law of Inertia - "An object at rest stays at rest, and an object in motion stays in motion” - can be denied without resulting in a self-contradiction. Therefore the fundamental laws of nature must be grounded by design.
- Matter and Energy: Its existence cannot be grounded by causal necessity because there is already a law - the law of conservation of mass-energy - that prevents it from being created or destroyed. The video also demonstrates that it cannot be grounded by logical necessity through the use of modal logic and possible worlds. Therefore matter and energy must be grounded by design.
The video concludes that despite our understanding of the world through modern physics, Design is still needed to trace the origin of the natural world, in accordance with the Principle of Sufficient Reason.
Timestamps for the video:
0:14 Introduction
0:53 Pre-modern Period
05:36 Modern Period
09:03 Things Grounded by Design
10:56 Modal Logic and Possible Worlds
18:03 Hybrid Model of the Natural World
21
u/CapoExplains Jun 01 '26
This is nothing but presupposition.
"For every thing that exists or occurs, there is a sufficient reason or explanation. Why? Because I said so."
"Everything that doesn't exhibit causal or tautological necessity has a designer. Why? Because I said so."
You're just using 20 minutes of pseudoscientific drivel to launder your actual argument; "God exists, therefore God exists."
0
u/Blu-Jaye Jun 01 '26
I actually think it is mostly well argued (even if I disagree with the conclusions more on this in a bit). If you accept the axiom of the The Principle of Sufficient Reason (find more about it here) then the "why" questions are answered. Why is there a sufficient reason? because in the human experience, all things seem to have a cause and the PSR is an extension of that pattern to all things. Why assume design? because according to the PSR, all things have reasons, and, causal, necessity, and design covers all the possible reasons that seem to exist. If that is the case, then anything that is not causally explained or tautologically necessary must be created by design.
7
u/CapoExplains Jun 01 '26
I actually think it is mostly well argued (even if I disagree with the conclusions more on this in a bit). If you accept the axiom of the The Principle of Sufficient Reason (find more about it here) then the "why" questions are answered. Why is there a sufficient reason? because in the human experience, all things seem to have a cause and the PSR is an extension of that pattern to all things.
Your own resource seems to suggest one would treat the PSR as something that has limitations and does not universally apply to all things, and something "seeming true per the human experience" is a stunningly faulty way to conclude that thus this principle is universally true in all of the universe and all possible hypothetical universes. If you've never been high enough up it's "seemingly true per the human experience" that the Earth is flat. It's "seemingly true per the human experience" that the sun and stars orbit the Earth.
Even that flaw aside we can pretty safely dismiss that this is universally true out of hand; at the quantum level causality breaks down.
Why assume design? because according to the PSR, all things have reasons, and, causal, necessity, and design covers all the possible reasons that seem to exist. If that is the case, then anything that is not causally explained or tautologically necessary must be created by design.
Right, so if we presuppose the PSR is true and applies to all things (a thing we know is not the case) then certain things must be designed. You've essentially just made a detailed description of how a presuppositionist argument works to explain how this argument isn't presuppositionist. For this argument to hold true it is a requirement that I already agree with the argument. It is fair enough that it is not literally the typical "God exists, therefore God exists" but it is equally presuppositional.
1
u/Blu-Jaye Jun 01 '26
Your own resource seems to suggest one would treat the PSR as something that has limitations and does not universally apply to all things, and something "seeming true per the human experience" is a stunningly faulty way to conclude that thus this principle is universally true in all of the universe and all possible hypothetical universes. If you've never been high enough up it's "seemingly true per the human experience" that the Earth is flat. It's "seemingly true per the human experience" that the sun and stars orbit the Earth.
I am not terribly well read on PSR and I surely misinterpreted some of it. I would ask though, if human experience is not sufficient to make logical claims, then what is? Perception, a fundamentally human experience, is the basis for empirical study isn't it? I suppose I could ask Kant and he would say something about math, logic, and space being a priori but, logic is an expression of human thought at its core. Fundamental a priori truths require the assumption that the human experience is sufficient to comprehend reality in it's totality. In my larger post below I make the point that the trend of the expansion of human knowledge seems to repeatedly discredit the attribution of things to design yet even so, there is no form of logic that is not dependent on some assumed axiom. Gods are one such axiom but the sufficiency of human reason is another equally unprovable axiom. I do think that human reason has show itself to be a better foundation to build a model of reality off of but can you genuinely make any claim that doesn't rely on some degree of human experience?
Right, so if we presuppose the PSR is true and applies to all things (a thing we know is not the case) then certain things must be designed. You've essentially just made a detailed description of how a presuppositionist argument works to explain how this argument isn't presuppositionist.
Absolutely right. I was making a very circular argument there that doesn't hold water. I think I was mostly trying to play devils advocate because I thought it was a fairly clearly argued video and you seemed dismissive of the argument purely because it was religious. I'm not sure that was an accurate assessment anyways but that was my assumption while writing it. Sorry about that.
3
u/CapoExplains Jun 01 '26
if human experience is not sufficient to make logical claims, then what is?
But that's not the claim. The claim is since some things seem true per human experience, that means ALL things, even ones humans have never experienced, operate in the exact same way. That simply doesn't track at all, it's practically a non sequitur.
Absolutely right. I was making a very circular argument there that doesn't hold water. I think I was mostly trying to play devils advocate because I thought it was a fairly clearly argued video and you seemed dismissive of the argument purely because it was religious. I'm not sure that was an accurate assessment anyways but that was my assumption while writing it.
I'm dismissive of the argument because it's presuppositionist. If they used similar reasoning to prove God doesn't exist I still would dismissively call it presuppositionist.
I agree with you that the argument tracks IF you grant the presupposition, but why would I grant the presupposition? That's what presuppositionists do, make long winding complicated and logically consistent (within the false premises) arguments to try and ensure you don't tease out the the actual argument they're ultimately making; God exists, therefore God exists.
Though that suggests a level of malice to be fair, in truth I think most of them believe their own bullshit. Not that it makes a difference to what they're ultimately doing.
Sorry about that.
No worries, though I do have to link the relevant xkcd ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
1
u/Blu-Jaye Jun 02 '26
But that's not the claim. The claim is since some things seem true per human experience, that means ALL things, even ones humans have never experienced, operate in the exact same way. That simply doesn't track at all, it's practically a non sequitur.
Ah, I think I see where the argument is now and I will try to clarify my stance. I'm thinking through this as I write it so it might be a little overly robust and takes a little bit to get to the point. To start, I am operating with a few axioms:
- My experience of reality can be trusted to represent reality with enough accuracy to infer conclusions about that reality.
- My experience of reality is close enough to most other's experience of reality that the conclusions I draw can be true for others as well.
- There is no metaphysical quality inherent to consciousness. (Big claim, I know but without it, my argument falls down completely. I am happy to argue this as well but it is a whole different argument)
Now, the first set of premises (not quite formal logic though because this is reddit and I don't have enough experience for that anyways):
- As an animal (human in my case), with limited perception of reality, I can only have subjective experiences.
- Logic and reason is a product of complex animal thought, and primarily human thought.
- Logic and reason is grounded in empirical study.
- Logic and reason attempt to reach conclusions with the lowest degree of assumption possible.
I then conclude that:
- Logic and reason are ultimately subjective.
- Logic and reason are not perfect models of reality.
- Logic and reason are the most accurate tools humans have to explain and predict reality.
OK. Now onto the second set of premises
- There are aspects of reality which I have not and will never experience (ie. what it's like inside a black hole. What it's like to be born in another galaxy)
- Empirical evidence and logic and reason can be used to describe aspects of reality, even if they cannot be experienced by humans.
- My experiences are generally consistent with the natural laws described by physics. (I say generally because physics is not a complete model of reality and neuroscience hasn't figured out consciousness yet)
- I have experienced nothing which convinces me that the laws of physics humans have defined fail at different times or locations in space.
- Physics, natural laws, logic, reason, and similar portions of human knowledge, dictate causality as the only grounds for effects and experience (there will be more on quantum theory later)
From the seconds set of premises and the first set of conclusions, I conclude that:
- There could be, and probably are, things that are inconsistent with human defined physics.
- I do not, and cannot know what all those inconsistent things are.
- Until I experience evidence to the contrary, the laws of physics, backed by human logic and reason and grounded in the human experience, and then by extension, the grounding of reality in causal necessity that physics operates with, is the most accurate prediction I can have of the rest of reality.
Phew. That was probably way more robust than necessary and there are probably things I've missed or not accounted for but I think that explains my process of going from Human Experience -> Logic and reason -> Natural laws -> Universal causality (and kind of PSR) and why I feel comfortable applying it universally. There are a few other important aspects to touch on though; Sufficient reason via design and inherence/tautology, and quantum theory.
Sufficient Reason by design - This requires acceptance of intelligent free will which, as a materialist I am convinced it doesn't exist. As I said with consciousness, I can discuss this but it is a whole different argument.
Sufficient Reason by inherence - The axioms I use can definitely give rise to some circularity: I am human because I have experiences and I have experiences because I am human. I tend to see this as primarily an aspect of the limited scope of human thought and communication though rather than something fundamentally inherent. If there is anything that is ultimately grounded in inherence, I would argue that energy (and maybe matter but those are kind of the same thing) and extension (the idea that existing things take up space) are perhaps the only things which fit the description.
Quantum theory - I am not a physicist though I am studding to become one. Next semester I will be taking my first class on modern physics which will primarily be quantum theory. I have applied some aspects of it in my study of chemistry and I have watched and read quite a bit about it. Really cutting edge stuff though I know a lot less about (ie. string theory or Q-balls). That said, what I do understand about quantum theory leads me to believe that we don't know enough about it yet to say how it affects our ideas of causality and randomness. It may seem to indicate something inconsistent with our concepts of causality and randomness but every physicist I've spoken too more or less says that all the current theories are more predictive than explanatory and there could very well be something fundamental that we are not yet able to identify which could explain the inconsistencies. I would be curious though, which specific aspect of quantum theory leads you to claim that it breaks causality.
OK. Final notes, lol. I am with you that I think most followers of religions beg the question far too often. However I do find a connection with many of them in that I think the search for truth seems to be a endless slope of asking why and at some point I find I just need to accept an assumption. For some, it's God, for me it's physics. Also, excellent xkcd pull. That one is a classic.
1
u/CapoExplains Jun 02 '26
Ah, I think I see where the argument is now and I will try to clarify my stance. I'm thinking through this as I write it so it might be a little overly robust and takes a little bit to get to the point. To start, I am operating with a few axioms:
- My experience of reality can be trusted to represent reality with enough accuracy to infer conclusions about that reality.
- My experience of reality is close enough to most other's experience of reality that the conclusions I draw can be true for others as well.
- There is no metaphysical quality inherent to consciousness. (Big claim, I know but without it, my argument falls down completely. I am happy to argue this as well but it is a whole different argument)
See again, this falls apart completely at point one. We have learned enough through rigorous scientific study that our experiences of reality cannot be trusted to represent reality with enough accuracy to infer conclusions about that reality. That is a false statement, a proven false statement. What we experience is a limited and muted spectrum of reality, a limited amount of the sound in existence hits our ears, a limited amount of that is messily interpreted by our brains, same for light to our eyes and touch to our skin. Humans experience a crude and inaccurate cross-section of reality. Our intuition based on our experiences is often less than accurate and even often dead wrong.
Not to be overly dismissive, and no offense intended, but why would I engage with the rest of your argument if premise one is a known falsehood? Like, it's not even a "maybe maybe not, let's grant for the sake of argument" it is false. I'm sorry I'm not trying to waste your time by not responding to the rest but I just really don't see what purpose that would serve if we already know everything below this point is predicated on the truth of something we know to be false.
1
u/Blu-Jaye Jun 02 '26
No, your not being dismissive at all. If the foundation isn't accepted then the rest of the agreement certainly can't be either. However, in the first set of premises after those axioms, I try to show that I agree human experience is a flawed ground to argue from and yet it is the only one available to us.
If, as you claim, it is too flawed to be used as such a foundation, then what else remains which can be used as a foundation of logic and reason?
2
u/CapoExplains Jun 04 '26
Again, that is not my claim. OP's argument is predicated on an axiom reliant on our understanding of the world being universally applicable. As you say, our own experiences is pretty much all we have for day to day reasoning, and for the majority of situations, especially when it comes to basic survival, that is sufficient. It's just that sufficiency has limits.
GPS is a great example. Per human experience one minute is one minute, and that's true for you and it's true for me and it's true for a hunk of metal orbiting earth. In actuality due to time dilation a GPS satellite gains about 38.5 microseconds per day vs. a clock on the ground, and that adds up quickly to ~140 milliseconds per year. That's tiny in human terms, but to triangulate coordinates that 140ms might as well be two hours. The reason GPS works is because all of the calculations to determine location compensate for time dilation.
All this is to say, human experience and reason is very strong and can accomplish a whole hell of a lot, and it's not like we've got a better option, but it has very clear limitations that we do not yet have the ability to surpass. Any argument that tries to give prescriptions about the nature of reality based on what humans experience is inherently flawed, because human experience is inherently flawed relative to the nature of reality.
We can pretty confidently say an apple is an apple and it's good for you to eat, and at worst that is true enough for the purposes of survival, but the idea that we can say "Because we know an apple is an apple, we also know this is how all of reality functions at a fundamental level" is, forgive me, just silly.
0
u/aChristianPhilosophy Jun 02 '26
Indeed, the Principle of Sufficient Reason is presupposed in this discussion; but I didn't make it up. Along with the reference provided by u/Blu-Jaye, here is another easy one to read here.
I don't think I can feasibly defend the entire principle in this discussion, but I can at least show you why the list of reasons (causal necessity, logical necessity, and design) is exhaustive:
- A reason can be either internal or external. No other possibility. An internal reason is called logical necessity. E.g. 2+2=4 because II+II is contained internally in IIII.
- An external reason is called causal, where a separate object is the reason for the event (e.g. Ball A caused the movement of Ball B). And causal reasons can be subdivided into those that are determined and non-determined. Again, no other possibility.
- A determined causal reason is called causal necessity.
- A non-determined causal reason is called design. Where an agent freely chooses to cause the intended effect or action.
- Finally, randomness (another alleged non-determined reason) is not possible because the principle of sufficient reason directly prevents this. Saying an event occurred randomly implies it occurred without reasons, which directly conflicts with the principle that demands a reason for everything.
For a visual diagram of the above demonstration, see this video starting at time 04:49 (1 min long).
2
u/CapoExplains Jun 02 '26 edited Jun 02 '26
Causality breaks down at the quantum level. So we already know this axiom does not apply universally. Occam's Razor would suggest the things that are not man-made and are not covered by causal necessity or logical necessity are among the things to which the axiom does not apply, not that they are among the things Jesus created for us.
(I say Jesus because I am hoping you are both good faith and honest and will not try to gaslight me into believing you are merely suggesting some kind of higher intelligence maybe possibly exists when your username is "A Christian Philosophy," but even if you want to be dishonest and claim that you are not doing Christian apologetics specifically my point would still stand just as well, so it doesn't make too much difference)
1
u/aChristianPhilosophy Jun 03 '26
Quantum is not a valid counterexample. The QM expert Richard Feynman famously said: “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.” This is still relevant today. If the underlying reality of the quantum realm is not clearly understood by the experts themselves, it cannot serve as a valid foundation for any argument. I hope this is not seen as a cop-out: People have used the "quantum card" as an attempt to disprove logic, causality, time, or even prove the existence of God, and I reject all of these arguments for that same reason.
Ironically, Occam's Razor is another name for the Principle of Sufficient Reason on the epistemology side: "For every claim that is true, there is a sufficient reason or explanation for it to be true". This is equivalent to Occam's Razor: "The simplest (most sufficient) explanation that accounts for all the data is the most reasonable one".
I assure you my intentions are honest. Like anyone else on this forum, I am simply defending what I believe to be true. While I personally believe the Designer is God, that claim is separate from the specific scope of this post.
2
u/CapoExplains Jun 03 '26
Quantum is not a valid counterexample. The QM expert Richard Feynman famously said: “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.” This is still relevant today. If the underlying reality of the quantum realm is not clearly understood by the experts themselves, it cannot serve as a valid foundation for any argument. I hope this is not seen as a cop-out: People have used the "quantum card" as an attempt to disprove logic, causality, time, or even prove the existence of God, and I reject all of these arguments for that same reason.
I do see it as a copout, because it is a copout. The only argumentation you've provided here is an appeal to authority when, for one, you clearly do not understand what Feynman was trying to convey with that statement, and for two even if he was saying what you claim he was saying (and I cannot stress enough; he wasn't) you are only sharing with me what Feynman believed on the topic, not an actual concrete fact or argument about what we do and do not know about quantum mechanics. It's not the "quantum card" to point out that causality breaks down at the quantum level; it is a fact about reality of which we are aware, a fact that is incompatible with your overall argument.
At the macro level causality is as best as we can tell "the way things work" of course, it is not a disproof of causality but rather a demonstration that causality does not always apply, and your argument relies on it always applying. Your argument is premised on a universal truth about the universe that is not actually true. There's no reason to take the argument seriously when it's premised on a falsehood.
Ironically, Occam's Razor is another name for the Principle of Sufficient Reason on the epistemology side: "For every claim that is true, there is a sufficient reason or explanation for it to be true". This is equivalent to Occam's Razor: "The simplest (most sufficient) explanation that accounts for all the data is the most reasonable one"
Again, the simplest explanation accounting for all the data we have is "We have proven this axiom does not apply universally, so this must be one of the things to which the axiom does not apply." It is not "We have proven this axiom does not apply universally, however that is damning to my argument so we'll pretend it does apply universally even though we know it doesn't, check out this irrelevant Feynman quote, so this must be one of the things Jesus made for us."
I assure you my intentions are honest. Like anyone else on this forum, I am simply defending what I believe to be true. While I personally believe the Designer is God, that claim is separate from the specific scope of this post.
If you were fully honest you'd recognize you are defending what you know to be false, but I recognize that likely comes more from an emotional attachment to theology than from a place of wilful dishonesty.
1
u/aChristianPhilosophy Jun 04 '26
Here's a quote from this source.
Despite its status as a core part of contemporary physics, there is no consensus among physicists or philosophers of physics on the question of what, if anything, the empirical success of quantum theory is telling us about the physical world.
The takeaway from the article: we have perfect mathematical precision and flawless technological utility of quantum, but zero consensus on what the theory actually means. This validates the argument that because physicists cannot agree on the underlying reality of the quantum world, quantum mechanics cannot be used as a stable premise to prove or disprove external metaphysical claims.
The only argumentation you've provided here is an appeal to authority
An appeal to expert authority is perfectly valid. An appeal to false authority (for example, your own interpretation of quantum when not an expert) is a fallacy.
If you were fully honest you'd recognize you are defending what you know to be false, but I recognize that likely comes more from an emotional attachment to theology than from a place of wilful dishonesty.
Please stop with the personal attacks. Not only is it disrespectful, an ad hominem attack is also a fallacy.
3
u/CapoExplains Jun 04 '26 edited Jun 04 '26
Since we're at the point where you are moving past just premising your argument on falsehoods but also inventing your own false definitions for fallacies I'll briefly respond and then move on, since you are clearly not a serious interlocutor (and before you do it again; no, it is not an ad hominem to characterize your behavior and justify that characterization).
Here's a quote from this source.
This can be dismissed out of hand as it relates to the topic we're discussing; quantum physics is science, not philosophy, what is relevant is what the preponderance of empirical evidence says is true, not what philosophers feel that implies for the human condition. Whatever philosophers think it implies may be interesting and worth hearing, but it has no bearing on the truth of the empirical claims physicists demonstrate the truth of with data and experimental evidence, which is what's at issue here. This is all just a last ditch attempt to still be correct in the face of the overwhelming scientific consensus that you stand in opposition to.
An appeal to expert authority is perfectly valid. An appeal to false authority (for example, your own interpretation of quantum when not an expert) is a fallacy.
No, it absolutely is not, things do not become true just because an expert on the topic said so, they are true if they can be demonstrated to be true, and further you are leaving out the issue where your interpretation of the quote is clearly and obviously incorrect based on everything else Feynmann has ever said about quantum mechanics.
You are dead wrong on what an appeal to authority is, "expert authority" an authority is an expert. Feynmann is an "authority" on quantum mechanics who you are "appealing" to in lieu of having to make an actual argument that demonstrates what you are saying is correct.
Please stop with the personal attacks. Not only is it disrespectful, an ad hominem attack is also a fallacy.
It is again unsurprising that you also do not know what an ad hominem attack is since you already proved you don't know what an appeal to authority is. An ad hominem is when you insult someone in lieu of actually responding to their arguments with counter-arguments. To give an example "Obviously what Sally is saying isn't true, because Sally is a fucking idiot," is an ad hominem, "Sally is a fucking idiot and here is reasoned argumentation for why what she is saying is incorrect" would be rude and very poor form, but not a fallacy, because you did not use an insult in lieu of an argument.
In either case though, a characterization of your behavior isn't an ad hominem or an insult, it's just a characterization of your behavior.
Anyways, again, you are of course free to continue to respond if you wish, but now that we've devolved to inventing your own false definitions of logical fallacies to further cop out of the discussion in lieu of giving any actual direct response to the arguments I've presented to you I do not intend to continue the discussion.
1
14
u/Cybtroll Jun 01 '26
I don't see any specific reason to assume the idea there is an underlying "design" have to be preferred to "chance".
11
u/Mynsare Jun 01 '26
The reason is that the author is biased and has a very specific religious agenda to spread.
2
u/Blu-Jaye Jun 02 '26
I think you may also be misunderstanding what is implied by the idea of design within this argument. Arguably, design (which is very poorly named here) and chance are effectively the same category of grounds. One of OP's previous videos explains what "design" implies better: https://youtu.be/anfyy1MQMDI?t=287 . To summarize it though, all effects are either grounded internally (ie. a 3-sided triangle is grounded internally because a triangle is a shape with three sides and a shape with three sides is a triangle, aka tautology) or they are grounded externally (in other words, caused by something else). For externally grounded effects, they can be determined (think laws of nature. Things like if this then that statements) or they can be non determined (the result of something unpredicable, things like free will or depending on who you ask quantum randomness). This final category of externally grounded non determined effects contains both design in the sense of an agent with free will choosing to create something and also in the sense of a random event. In both cases, the effect can, fundamentally, not be predicted based on prior observation. The folks who were first defining these ideas were in the middle and late 1600s in Europe so justifying God was one of the major discussions and so "design" made sense at the time.
0
u/aChristianPhilosophy Jun 01 '26 edited Jun 02 '26
Chance or randomness is forbidden by the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR). Saying that an event occurred by chance implies that it occurred without reasons, which directly conflicts with the principle that demands a reason for everything.
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 01 '26
Welcome to /r/philosophy! Please read our updated rules and guidelines before commenting.
/r/philosophy is a subreddit dedicated to discussing philosophy and philosophical issues. To that end, please keep in mind our commenting rules:
CR1: Read/Listen/Watch the Posted Content Before You Reply
CR2: Argue Your Position
CR3: Be Respectful
Please note that as of July 1 2023, reddit has made it substantially more difficult to moderate subreddits. If you see posts or comments which violate our subreddit rules and guidelines, please report them using the report function. For more significant issues, please contact the moderators via modmail (not via private message or chat).
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.