Necessary Truths Exist

[Rational AKD]

I lied. Let me weigh in with a question: isn't this basically another form of the infinite regression "paradox"? Why couldn't there be an infinite number of levels of truths, with no end? Isn't rejecting the possibility of infinity begging the question already? It sounds like a logical equivalent of "The universe can't be infinite, and can't have created itself, so it must depend on God, who is self-dependent, for its existence." (no, I'm not accusing you of a secretly theistic argument, I'm just pointing out what seems to me like a similar logical pattern)

sorry I didn't see your post here. I covered reasons why P2 is true in objection 1. basically an infinite regress doesn't explain the truth, it passes on credit. if you have a "this happens then" relationship of an infinite chain of events, then there's less of a problem because they explain what not why. if you have a "this is _____ because" relationship of an infinite chain, it really doesn't explain why until it reaches a truth that takes credit rather than passing it and that would be a necessary truth. I compared an infinite chain of contingent truths to a finite circle of truths, because though each proposition within the circle has an explanation why it is true the circle itself doesn't. likewise an infinite circle can't explain itself unless it is necessarily true which still proves the conclusion.

Frankly this just sounds like circular reasoning, just claiming that something is true because it is true.

not quite, though I can see how you can arrive at that conclusion. a necessary truth is a truth that is true no matter what. it is impossible to be false. by that it could be viewed as a self proclaiming proposition to be true, but this is only because of what it can't be by its definition. necessary is a type of possible which is contrary to contingent. impossible is also contrary to possible. a necessary truth can't be contingent or impossible (a truth can't even be impossible).

---

This is essentially what I like to call a theistic abuse of philosophy, because in the philosophical world this has essentially been thoroughly handled. For example, the philosopher Quentin Meillassoux (who rejects the PSR) points out that the assumption that what prevents, say, things from popping into existence or events without causes has a reason, specifically the PSR. This makes it predicated on a circular argument wherein the PSR is presumed to be true in order to support the PSR as true.

this is false. you don't need the PSR to come to a reasonable conclusion about consequences concerning the assumption "the PSR is false." rejection of the PSR only means that an explanation doesn't need a sufficient reason to be, not that sufficient reason can't explain things (or it would be self refuting). and the sufficient reason that can be used against it is the possibility of things popping into existence, and the fact that it can't be said to be improbable without begging the question that is (IE it is improbable because it is).

And if you reject the PSR, WHY couldn't the world look as it does?

because there's not a single thing in this world that has been shown impossible to explain with sufficient reason. if the PSR were false, we would expect to see things that can't be explained with sufficient reason. something is always caused by something, never nothing.

Further, your quote of Pruss gives me a "So what?" reaction. It doesn't imply or support the PSR as true. o.o

it gives it evidence that it is true. the fact that there is nothing that pops into existence without cause or explanation is evidence that it simply doesn't happen. it may not be proof, but evidence still establishes a more reasonable position.

Hume's critique of the PSR comes from pointing out the separability of the ideas of cause and effect to demonstrate there is no necessary conceptual relation between the two, since conceiving of one without the other implies no contradiction.

just to point out a separate point here, this only points out the possibility to conceptually exist, which only needs to be coherent. for example, I can conceive a rock on its own without the need for anything. it exists as a conception because it is logically coherent. but when I add something that is not necessary to it, such as physical existence, it now is in a state that is possible to be in and possible to not be in. this is the problem, the contradiction is not in the concept itself, but in the concept existing for no reason; in other words it exists because of nothing.

Hume isn't saying (as you earlier asserted) that "an object exists because of nothing", rather it's a denial of the ontological trurh of the PSR. In other words, the actual rendering would be more along the lines of "there is not necessarily a necessary reason why an object exists".

denial of this ontological truth inevitably leads to that conclusion. if something is without explanation, and this something exists; then it logically and inescapably follows that that something exists because of nothing. if you deny the PSR in one case for something's existence, then you inevitably arrive at the conclusion it exists because of nothing. and no, taking a weak position of "it's only possible for something to exist for no reason" doesn't save you. even saying one thing exists for no reason is saying that thing exists because of nothing which is logically absurd.

My phone wouldn't load the entire post and I have classes to go to (it's morning over here), so I'll have to respond to the rest slightly indirectly (I'll say what I'm responding to in each case), because in the next bit you make a rather simplistic error about the nature of truth and realoty. Namely, you presume to have direct accesd to reality itself, rather than your perceptions (which is the actual truth of the matter), but I'll have to get to that this evening.

since you haven't formally addressed the rest of my post, i'll wait until you do rather than taking on these vague summarized objections. can't wait.

Welcome back, Rational AKD.

Has anyone brought up virtual particles? They're rather devastating to the proposition that something can't come from nothing. They're particularly hard on the notion that 'everything that begins to exist must have a cause', because they're the only things we can experimentally verify beginning to exist, and they're causeless.

virtual particles don't come from nothing. they come from fluctuating energy within a vacuum. any honest quantum physicist would admit that the particles aren't coming from nothing, but rather what we thought was nothing (a vacuum) is not really nothing.