The Principle Of Sufficient Reason

Devans99

I’d like to discuss the PSR, its weaknesses, a revised version and the support from modern science for a revised version of the PSR.

Principle Of Sufficient Reason

This ancient, simple, powerful argument was first named and clearly enunciated by Leibniz:

’Nothing takes place without a sufficient reason’ - Leibniz, The Principles of Nature and Grace, Based on Reason

’No fact can hold or be real, and no proposition can be true, unless there is a sufficient reason why it is so and not otherwise.’ - Leibniz, Monadology

The most succinct expression is: everything must have a reason.

Leibniz’s Cosmological Argument from the PSR

Leibniz believed that explaining contingents truth with other contingent truths leads to an infinite regress of explanations. Therefore there has to be a necessary truth, God, at the base of the regress to make everything else real:

’Suppose the book of the elements of geometry to have been eternal, one copy having been written down from an earlier one. It is evident that even though a reason can be given for the present book out, we should never come to a full reason. What is true of the books is also true of the states of the world. If you suppose the world eternal, you will suppose nothing but a succession of states and will not find in any of them a sufficient reason.’ - Leibniz, Theodicy

’Now this sufficient reason for the existence of the universe cannot be found in the series of contingent things....Although the present motion...arises from preceding motion, and that in turn from motion which preceded it, we do not get further however far we may go, for the same question always remains. The sufficient reason, therefore, which needs not further reason, must be outside of this series of contingent things and is found in a substance which...is a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself; otherwise we should not yet have a sufficient reason with which to stop. This final reason for things is called God’ - Leibniz, The Principles of Nature and Grace, Based on Reason

Of course the objection raised most frequently to the PSR (and its use in cosmological arguments) is that if everything has a reason, what is the reason for God? Leibniz says only contingent things need a reason, God is necessary, so he does not need a reason. This is somewhat lame - saying something is necessary does not in itself explain why it is necessary. It is a necessary fact that square circles do not exist and the reason is that they are a contradiction - that is an explanation for a necessary fact and in general, necessary facts need explanations - a complete cosmological argument should explain everything, including God.

Revised PSR

- Everything in time has a reason
- Nothing can be the reason of itself

Time is the reason for causality - effects follow causes - and the revised PSR reflects this truth. This formulation negates the most obvious objection to Leibniz’s PSR - now we can have existing outside of time/causality a truly uncaused being that is the ultimate cause of everything. Being outside of time, the being is never created and has nothing logically/temporally prior to it - it just ‘IS’.

The Start of Time

Of course the revised PSR requires a start of time. This I have already justified:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6218/the-universe-cannot-have-existed-forever/p1
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5832/argument-from-equilibrium/p1
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1

Support For the Revised PSR From Science

Causality forms a huge pyramid in time - at the tip of the pyramid is the Big Bang and at the base of the pyramid are present events. Of course it only works if there is an uncaused cause - a brute fact - to start the whole thing off - and uncaused things can only exist outside of time.

This view is very much supported by the 2nd law of thermodynamics - entropy increases with time as cause and effects multiply. A cause causing one or more effects is the normal state of affairs, multiple causes leading to one effect is a freak occurrence, thus causality always leads to a pyramid shape, a view which is very much supported by the Big Bang cosmology:

Even if time preexisted the Big Bang, a pre-Big Bang pyramid of causality would still exist - leading to the same conclusion - a timeless, causally efficacious agent as the cause of everything (be it Eternal Inflation or whatever alternative pre-Big Bang cosmology).

Terrapin Station

And if we don't buy the PSR at all--original, revised, etc.?

Devans99

↪Terrapin Station

Obviously people have different opinions (see for example the discussion on causeless effects going on).

What are your objections to the (revised) PSR?

Terrapin Station

What are your objections to the (revised) PSR? — Devans99

The PSR in general, including the revised one, just seems completely arbitrary to me. I don't see how we could possibly rule out "spontaneous events" in principle.

Devans99

↪Terrapin Station

Spontaneous events that do not produce energy/matter cannot be the cause of the energy/matter in the universe so I will ignore those.

There is the conservation of energy as an argument against energy/matter producing spontaneous events. Also, if spontaneous appearance of energy/matter occurs naturally and time is infinite, then infinite energy/matter would result. So that has not happened, so one of the following being true:

1) Time is not infinite. The start of time needs a cause.
Or
2) Energy/matter came about unnaturally. Unnatural things must have a cause.

Tracing backwards starting at the cause identified in the above two possibilities, the pyramid of causality leads to (ultimately) the existence of an uncaused causally efficacious agent (IE beyond time).

I'd acknowledge that these are not conclusive arguments but they do add to the weight of evidence from arguments like fine tuning, the impossibility (IMO) of the infinite, equilibrium...

Terrapin Station

There is the conservation of energy as an argument against energy/matter producing spontaneous events. — Devans99

The conservation of energy has the same problem as SPR--it's rather arbitrary, and there's really no good reason to believe it as a principle. It's fine as an assumption in that it makes many things in the sciences easier, but it really shouldn't be taken as anything more than that. There's no way to establish it as a principle that must be the case. That's true for all physical principles, all physical "laws."

Also, if spontaneous appearance of energy/matter occurs naturally and time is infinite, then infinite energy/matter would result. — Devans99

Again, the idea of that is completely arbitrary. There could be one spontaneous event. One time.

Or two. And that's it. Or three or whatever. There could be any arbitrary finite number of them, whether time is infinite or not.

Devans99

The conservation of energy has the same problem as SPR--it's rather arbitrary, and there's really no good reason to believe it as a principle. — Terrapin Station

I think it is a better axiom that creation ex nihilo - more experimental support, but I acknowledge they are both axioms.

Again, the idea of that is completely arbitrary. There could be one spontaneous event. One time. — Terrapin Station

I'd appeal to the maths of infinity:

- A natural event has >0% probability of occurring naturally. Assuming these events produce matter then given infinite time, there would be >0% * ∞ = ∞ matter (IE infinite density) in the universe (I believe the universe is spatially finite - a separate argument).

- A non-natural has a 0% probability of occurring naturally. Non-natural events need causes (else they would be natural events - see above). And from that I'd trace back to a first cause as per the classic argument.

Terrapin Station

↪Devans99

It doesn't matter if it's "natural" or not. It's possible for something to happen just once, or just twice, or whatever arbitrary, finite number we pick and then not happen again.

Mathematical conventions don't imply anything about ontology, by the way.

Devans99

↪Terrapin Station

But the maths of infinity says that everything that can happen, will happen, an infinite number of times.

You seem to be arguing for an infinite past with a singular, naturally occurring something from nothing event? Natural events as far as we know, always come in pluralities - they are not singletons like the BB.

T Clark

everything must have a reason. — Devans99

I don't think this is true. Actually, I don't think anything has a reason. All the things we know are just descriptions of how things behave, which can then be generalized to understand how typical types of things usually or often behave.

I am ambivalent about whether or not all things or some things have causes. I want to say "no," but then I think of simple situations like pushing on an object and seeing it start to move. On the other side, there are lots of situations where very minor differences in initial conditions result in vastly different outcomes.

Terrapin Station

But the maths of infinity says that everything that can happen, will happen, an infinite number of times. — Devans99

lol--mathematics can't tell us anything like that. The whole idea of that is absurd. Mathematics is a language based on how we think about relations.

Devans99

I don't think this is true. Actually, I don't think anything has a reason. All the things we know are just descriptions of how things behave, which can then be generalized to understand how typical types of things usually or often behave.

I am ambivalent about whether or not all things or some things have causes. I want to say "no," but then I think of simple situations like pushing on an object and seeing it start to move. On the other side, there are lots of situations where very minor differences in initial conditions result in vastly different outcomes. — T Clark

Can we not treat 'reason' and 'cause' as synonyms when it comes to cosmological arguments?

To have no cause is to have nothing logically/temporally preceding which seems only possible if the thing being considered is outside of time... which I admit is a challenging concept... but I cannot see how anything could exist without a minimum of one 'brute fact' and it seems they have to be timeless.

Not quite sure what you mean about initial conditions?

Devans99

lol--mathematics can't tell us anything like that. The whole idea of that is absurd. Mathematics is a language based on how we think about relations. — Terrapin Station

I think you are laughing at actual infinity then. I agree: it is a laughable concept. As an atheist you should not have a problem with this - Cantor only included in maths because he thought God was infinite (and was talking to him).

Three-Buddy Problem

Yes, everything in TIME needs a cause, and you may argue that therefore the universe had a creator. But that's assuming that the universe ITSELF is bound of the laws of time.

So here's the conundrum: Is time within the universe, or is the universe within time?

If time is just within the universe, then the universe itself isn't bound by the laws of time. Think of it like a fish tank: ''being full of water'' is one of its properties, but the tank is not inside an environment that's full of water.

Likewise, the universe does not need to be in time even though everything inside is in time. As such, the universe can be perfectly described as uncaused and self-sustaining.

I agree with the premises of your revised PSR, yet I don't come to the conclusion that there is a God.

Devans99

↪Three-Buddy Problem

I think the terminology can get confusing.

One way to avoid the confusion is to talk about:

- Spacetime. The thing that came about because of the Big Bang
- Universe. The entirety of everything, including spacetime

So this view leads to time being within the universe. As you say, with this model, uncaused 'brute facts' are possible as long as they are without spacetime.

Three-Buddy Problem

↪Devans99

Thanks for clearing things up. I'll replace time with spacetime.

Yes, if spacetime is within the universe instead of something that encompasses the universe, then ''let there be the universe'' is one of these ''brute facts''.

Three-Buddy Problem

↪Devans99

How do you know that God exists and that Cantor talked to him?

Devans99

↪Three-Buddy Problem

I can't prove that God exists, but I think he does and thats what I'm arguing for. But I have never talked with God! (as far as I'm aware).

Cantor on the other hand thought he was talking to God. From Wikipedia:

'Cantor's theory of transfinite numbers was originally regarded as so counter-intuitive – even shocking – that it encountered resistance from mathematical contemporaries such as Leopold Kronecker and Henri Poincaré and later from Hermann Weyl and L. E. J. Brouwer, while Ludwig Wittgenstein raised philosophical objections. Cantor, a devout Lutheran, believed the theory had been communicated to him by God.'

Terrapin Station

I think you are laughing at actual infinity then. — Devans99

Just the idea that mathematics determines anything about ontology.

Three-Buddy Problem

↪Devans99

OK, fair enough--but just wonderin' though, on what basis do you argue for the existence of God using PSR?

As we've established, if spacetime is within the universe, then the universe is self-sustaining which excludes the necessity of a creator. So I assume that you believe that the universe is within spacetime instead--do you?

Devans99

↪Three-Buddy Problem

I think spacetime looks a lot like a creation and the fine tuning argument appears to back this up.

So it appears there must be an initial reason (because of PSR) for spacetime and that reason must be self-driven / causally efficacious - to return to the prime mover - something has to move of its own accord.

So there is maybe something like causality in the wider universe but not tied to spacetime - something from outside spacetime caused spacetime.

T Clark

Can we not treat 'reason' and 'cause' as synonyms when it comes to cosmological arguments? — Devans99

I'm not sure. I'll have to think about whether or not I think they're the same thing.... Earlier, you discussed the conservation laws as preventing getting something out of nothing. That strikes me as a reason, not a cause. Still, cause and reason are clearly mixed up together somehow. Maybe it doesn't matter, since I've called the existence of both into question.

To have no cause is to have nothing logically/temporally preceding which seems only possible if the thing being considered is outside of time... which I admit is a challenging concept... but I cannot see how anything could exist without a minimum of one 'brute fact' and it seems they have to be timeless. — Devans99

I'm not sure what you mean. The universe is full of "brute facts." It sure seems like things should have causes. It's kind of a common sense kind of thing. But, then again, much of the last 100 years of science has been about finding out how common sense doesn't work.

Devans99

I'm not sure. I'll have to think about whether or not I think they're the same thing.... Earlier, you discussed the conservation laws as preventing getting something out of nothing. That strikes me as a reason, not a cause. Still, cause and reason are clearly mixed up together somehow. Maybe it doesn't matter, since I've called the existence of both into question. — T Clark

I see the physical laws of the universe (conservation of energy etc...) as being distinct from the causes/reasons for things in the universe.

At a macro level, it seems to me that every event has a cause and the creation of the universe is a macro level event. The PSR argument is all about what happens at macro level.

I'm not sure what you mean. The universe is full of "brute facts." It sure seems like things should have causes. It's kind of a common sense kind of thing. But, then again, much of the last 100 years of science has been about finding out how common sense doesn't work. — T Clark

I believe that everything in spacetime at a micro level can trace its cause back to the Big Bang (coincidental with the start of time) - matter was either created during the BB or entered time during the BB. With the second view, you could, as you say, say the universe is full of 'brute facts' in that matter can trace its origin back to a timeless past. But I don't think raw matter qualifies as causally efficacious macro brute facts - the BB/start of time requires something more than dumb matter to cause it (so does the fine tuning of the universe).

It's maybe easier to express things in terms of the analogy of the prime mover argument: one of the brute facts has to be able to cause macro events - has to be able to move of its own accord. Eternal, timeless, movement leads to an infinite regress which is impossible - something has to start moving for there to be movement at all - leading to some sort of self-driven agent.

T Clark

I believe that everything in spacetime at a micro level can trace its cause back to the Big Bang — Devans99

I don't really think I know what this means, but I have a feeling that I disagree with it. You say "can trace it's cause back" what do you mean exactly? Sure, if the big bang hadn't happened, the television here in my living room never would have come into existence. Is that all causation means - If Event B will not happen unless Event A happens first, then A causes B. No, I don't think that's right.

Devans99

↪T Clark

What I mean is that everything in time seems to need a temporal start. Could a matter particle exist in time if it never started existing? I think not (this is discussed on another thread https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6218/the-universe-cannot-have-existed-forever/p1). That leads me to think that the universe (at a micro level) must have started existing at the BB / start of time.

So I'm trying to split macro level causation (this thread) and argue about that with the PSR, from micro level causation (other thread).

T Clark

What I mean is that everything in time seems to need a temporal start. Could a matter particle exist in time if it never started existing? — Devans99

I didn't get involved in that previous thread. I started paying attention when it was already far along and I didn't think I could catch up. I did look through it a bit.

And, I guess, no. I don't necessarily see why everything that exists has to start sometime. Everything could always have just been here. When I think about it, that seems like the most plausible idea. Not that I have any specific evidence for it. It just kind of feels right.

DingoJones

↪T Clark

Thing is, we do not really know. We hardly know much at all about how such things might work and its certainly could be discovered one way or another. The universe doesnt care about our models for how it works.
The fact that we do not know doesnt mean people can just make something up in place of that knowledge. (Not that you did that).

Devans99

And, I guess, no. I don't necessarily see why everything that exists has to start sometime. Everything could always have just been here. — T Clark

The OP on the other thread specifically addresses why things cannot have existed 'forever' in time. That leads to a model where something(s) have permanent existence outside of time.

In terms of the PSR and macro causality, I believe that causality always forms a pyramid shape in time, which is suggestive of a start of time. Also, as Leibniz, Aquinas and others have said, infinite regresses are impossible - they must terminate in something concrete, permanent and uncaused - in my view that is only possible if the terminator to the regress is outside of time.

TheMadFool

Leibniz says only contingent things need a reason, God is necessary, so he does not need a reason. This is somewhat lame - saying something is necessary does not in itself explain why it is necessary. — Devans99

I wonder what Leibniz meant.

I read the wikipedia article on the PSR and Leibniz claims that necessary truths are those whose denial leads to a contradiction.

1. PSR is true
2. No contingent reason is sufficient
Therefore
3. There is a necessary reason = God

If you reject 3 then there is a contradiction viz. the PSR is false and true because any contingent reason would be sufficient. That's how far I got. Any comments?

Devans99

If you reject 3 then there is a contradiction viz. the PSR is false and true because any contingent reason would be sufficient. That's how far I got. Any comments? — TheMadFool

There are different formulations of the PSR, for example:

1. 'Everything must have a reason'
2. 'Everything contingent must have a reason'
3. 'Everything in time has a reason'

With [1], there appears to be a contradiction because what is the reason for God?

With [2] I think it matches your reasoning above - God is exempt from the PSR because he is a necessary being.

With [3], God becomes a timeless being - he just 'IS' without any need for a reason (there is and can be nothing logically or temporally prior to a timeless God). I personally prefer [3] as it is seems more explanatory than the other two.

Pattern-chaser

now we can have existing outside of time/causality a truly uncaused being that is the ultimate cause of everything. — Devans99

Isn't this the core of your topic, another attempt to prove the existence of God? :chin:

The Principle Of Sufficient Reason

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions