Contingency Arguments and the PSR |
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 жов 2024
- Why does anything exist? I'm joined by @Elephant Philosophy to discuss this question and more. Buckle up for some delicious philosophy.
Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): / majestyofreason
If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): www.paypal.com...
Elephant Philosophy's channel: / channel
Some of my videos on PSR, Contingency arguments, etc:
(1) Leibnizian Cosmological Argument: • The Leibnizian Cosmolo...
(2) Contingency Arguments: • Cosmological Arguments...
Some of EP's videos on PSR, Contingency arguments, etc.:
(1) Gale-Pruss Contingency Argument: • Video
(2) A Simple Intro to Contingency Arguments: • Video
(3) An in-depth analysis of contingency arguments: • Video
Links
My book: www.amazon.com...
My website: majestyofreaso...
Josh Schmid, your Friendly Neighborhood Philosopher.
I know that quote from an UA-camr.
I've been waiting for this. Not even the elephants I saw on my game drive today can compare
Beastly content as always JS
I must say that quote is just sublime.
Yes a new video. I love ep
Great video
I love this channel
On the parts to whole sometimes being truth preserving. How do we know that. I get from part to bigger parts. Like bricks to a wall made of bricks. But the real whole we don't know that much about.
Not really sure I even have this objection but it seems interesting.
Loved it
What has happened to EP's channel? It seems to have disappeared!!
Hey where's Elephant? his channel is gone.
The parts to whole objection recognizes the possibility that the whole has the same property as the part, but points out that it doesn't necessitate or even increase the odds of that relationship. If I pull infinite blue marbles from a bag, of course the bag could be blue, but there is no reason whatsoever to think that it is or is even likely to be. It shouldn't be waved aside so lazily.
Can you invite EP for a discussion on Kalam and moral arguments
Considering his age joe easily might be a genius
I was so surprised when he said he was 20. I thought I was so cool knowing about modality in metaphysics at 22 and then he comes along, is published in major peer reviewed journals, writes books, gets attention from the likes of Feser. Kinda puts things in perspective lol
@@michaelx5070 yeah, same lol
@EP, you should make an elephant your default silhouette 👤 , that’d be awesome
Interesting discussion. I think you guys greatly underestimate the argument from limits/arbitrary limits.
I agree
what happened to elephant philosophy?
Goedels incompleteness theorems show that all mathematical systems depend on axioms which are not in the system. Now Cantor's mathematical systems of sets of infinities is also subject. Our mathematical systems are applied to create proportional distributions contingent upon the four fundamental forces having the proportional relationship that they do have to create the Planck scale (a scale is proportional equilibrium). The Planck ERA at initial expansion of the causal chain of physical modalities, i.e. the big bang, is the brick wall to supposing other universes, or universities could be possible for if the forces had different values they wouldn't be what they in fact are. Therefore it's literally NONSENSE for sensical Planck units would be different. This is why Cantor considered his set theory given by special revelation, because it's not intuitive, nor actually measurable, but it is workable. This points back to Goedels incompleteness theorems, depending on an axiom outside the system, but the axiom is unknown from within the system, this unknown we call God, for direct knowledge of God depends entirely on special revelation. Our ONLY necessary solution is the resurrection because to achieve His own resurrection Jesus had to control the Planck scale entirely from the Planck ERA.
That's not what Godel's incompleteness theorems state. It's not about the axioms (which are in the system, just unprovable), it's about a statement within a system that cannot be proven to be true or false (thus the system is "incomplete"). It also states that you would need an external system (say B) to prove the consistency of the system (A). But the rules will apply to system B as well, so it would have some set of axioms that are unprovable, and have a statement which is unprovable within the system. This goes on to infinity. So, if you want to say God is this external system, using Godel's incompleteness theorems, then you're admitting that god is 1) incomplete, and 2) relies on some external system (infinite regress).
You might want to actually learn about the things you talk about before spewing nonsense.
@@dr.shousa This guy just posts really bizarre/incoherent stuff on a lot of videos
This discussion seems more like trying to reach a predetermined conclusion than following logic.
Where can we find EP? His channel is missing
Did EP leave UA-cam?
He emailed me the other day; from what I can gather, he needs a break from the chaos of social media etc. He hasn’t updated me (yet) about the status of his channel going forward, though. It could potentially be a temporary deactivation; but we shall see as time progresses! I believe he probably over-worked himself making three videos a week and wants to take his hiatus/break seriously 🙂
@@MajestyofReason I hope he comes back. One of my long-term goals is to be able to one day understand his videos lol. Thx for the update.
@@MajestyofReason but why would he remove his channel
🐘
🐘
Do you know where EP is
for the love of Cthulhu, man your head is already big enough, don't get too close to the cam lol .
anyways, good talk. :D
One question : Necessary beings do not have to necessarily entail a contingent being ( rendering it necessary ) if and only if that necessary being has a will that renders a certain world of its/his will and choosing "an actual reality" / "a world" OUT OF infinite worlds (or ways of creation) that could have been chosen , and this in itself the definition of "CONTINGENT" : something that could have been any other way / or could have been nothing at all.
I do not see how the modal collapse is a problem with a choice-maker/ free necessary being that makes contingent beings contingent ! Can anybody enlighten me cuz I seriously don't see a problem ?
Edit : I read (the fruitful death of modal collapse argument), and saw that non-classical theism is exactly what I hold, and therefore can win over the modal collapse by not adhering to (acts of god) being numerically identical to God.
I saw no fruits in the "fruitful" death with regards to non-classical theism case (due to the fact that different reasons differentially explain the choices of God's acts in the different worlds). So, modal collapse arguments totally COLLAPSED with no fruit whatsoever.
Of course the Brute Fact of a necessary being's existence is the bullet that anyone must bite one way or another, whatever their views might be.
Is the decision necessary or contingent?
@@goldenalt3166 contingent. Hence, the word "decision" as it implies choice and will.
@@AShaif contingent on what?
@@goldenalt3166 contingent on the necessary being's will.
@@AShaif And is that random?
hey, what do you think about last video on kalam from rationality rules?
I saw it; I think it was a good video and a nice, popular introduction to the Unsatisfiable Pair Diagnosis. I don't agree with everything in it, but it was overall of good quality
@@MajestyofReason I guess BC he added you in it xD, did he ask?
@@greyback4718 hehe yes he did ask :)
@@MajestyofReason that's nice, he is a cool guy
@@greyback4718 It doesn't seem to me though that he is a cool guy. His videos suggest theists are stupid.
Hi, just wondering, what's your education background.
Hes a sophomore at Purdue university i believe. Maybe a junior. He is in philosophy. That is his major.
@@dogsdomain8458 Don't forget biology ;)
What happened to EP? His channel doesn't exist anymore?
See my AMA vid❤️
@@MajestyofReason what happen to him ?
Are you an undercover Christian? Spider man
First...?
Joe i hope u get new glasses!! Cheers
hahahaha
@@MajestyofReason kindly do a podcast with cosmicskeptic also
On your last point of trinity being non-fundamental and you finding a lot problems with that, i think that's why a necessary being should be only one. Religions, such as Islam, have better standing on this than Christianity.
Things don't pop into being because the laws of physics are such that it is absurdly improbable, albeit it is not impossible! So yes, metaphysical chaos is possible if low probability statistical states occur. Yes, this doesn't account for where physical laws emerge. But things popping in and out of existence shouldn't be referenced in these arguments because that isn't an issue.
I discuss this response in my Leibnizian Cosmological Arguments video--I think you'll find my responses interesting :)
@@MajestyofReason "Yes, this doesn't account for where physical laws emerge."
Abelian sandpiles, anyone?
@@dr.shousa fair point, but it isn't very clear how cellular automata can be necessary substrates of reality. There are other alternatives.
@@MajestyofReason thanks, I'll watch that now!
@@HappyDancerInPink Sure, but it's a plausible hypothesis; physical laws being asymptotic behavior of fundamental randomness.
I hope you'll be addressing how contrastive explanations and the difference principle have been omitted from the PSR post Leibniz and all the weaknesses it now has, just so theists can special plead about agency.
No lol
@@omaribnalahmed5967 That's too bad. :(
@@logos8312 Theists don’t special plead about agency
@@webslinger527 yes they do. All contingent facts have an explanation. No contingent fact explains itself. Except agency, it's contingent yet self explanatory. Convenient.
@@logos8312 no they don’t and yes sentient facts can explain themselves if you had someone explain them, Theists don’t plead for people they’re just trying to explain in a different way
On top of what Logos said, I hope you address the fact that the PSR (a la Pruss) is too strong and unnecessary for science.
It's too strong in scope and too weak because it throws out all contrastive explanations (without which we have no reason to use controls in a scientific experiment for example). So it's in this bizarre state of being simultaneously too strong and too weak haha.
@@logos8312 No, Logos, it's in a quantum state.
@@dr.shousa do you have a study for that?
@@logos8312 Yeah, it's in Jaynes. Have you read it?
@@dr.shousa no, I've never seen words before.