The Principle of Sufficient Reason

Clearly the like button exists so that it can be clicked, and the comment section exists so we can remind others to click said like button by leaving a comment.

there is a sufficient reason why I liked this video even before watching it (I know it's gonna be high quality)

Thank you, Dr. B I liked the Moorean shift argument against the PSR.

I think Christipher Tomaszewski gives a beautiful and simple solution to the necessitarianism problem: there is no big conjunctive contingent fact, and he gives a perfectly robust mathematical explanation for his position.

Yoo Kane B, this is gonna be great

The way I see it. In a plain of healthy green grass, a Brown crunchy discolored patch must have a reason, a deviation from the base parameter will always have an accompanying reason. But I don’t think that same expectation is rational to present towards the base conditions. They are the frame of reference itself. An unconditional state does not demand an explanation.

Was planning to read Schopenhauer’s four fold root for the principle of sufficient reason and I see this video pop up ha good timing

"For anything to happen or exist, the conditions must be ripe for the thing to happen or exist" is the way I've typically formulated it. This way it more clearly relates to potential or capacitance

Is there a reason for the principle of sufficient reason? 🤔

S5 suggests a contradiction because if it is possible that something has no reason, this possiibility would necessarily exist across all possible worlds; perhaps PSR is limited to accomodate modal implications.

Very interesting video. Regarding the experiment with the split brains I agree with Parfit. If you see the experiment backwards, so that both of A and B lend an half of their brain to a new body without any brain you would of course create a new person. A and B can't be the same at the beginning in the sense that no consciousness can be found at the same time in two or more places. Consciousness is not personal identity, it is a point of view, and it is absurd imagining to share one consciousness in two people at the same time. Their brains must be different merely because they occupy different positions therefore neural firings can't be the same neither can their experience. I hope I've been clear, English is not my first language and it's not easy to discuss these topics

Thank you!

If you are a hard determinist, then necessitarianism seems fine. There are no other possibilities under hard determinism, and so all truths would be necesarry.

Thank you

Sometimes Hawking Radiation spits a saxophone out of a black hole.

If gödel demonstrated that even in math, propositions can be true while unprovable...wouldn't that mean there is a very real possibility that any theory within any field of science can, when it reaches a state of sufficient complexity, run into the same kind of problems? So maybe we theoretically could know the reason for basically anything, but not consistently for anything at the same time?

23:30 would "R is neither necessary nor contingent" be a possible response here for exactly the same reason that the barber both must and must not shave himself? I guess the answer is, "no, that's not really a comparable scenario, because the barber paradox describes a situation where both horns lead to logical paradoxes, but R explaining C or not merely leads to unappealing consequences," except that I think that the "R is contingent" horn did, in fact, lead to a logical paradox (which might seem to count as a proof-by-contradiction that R must be necessary, even if that is unappealing).

Kane, have you read David Bloor? The "plane crash" example reminds me of his "train derailment" analogy for scientific progress. If the train either derails or it doesn't, which of the two options cries out for explanation? Do we consider a successful run of the train to be the "default", and if it derails, then we search for the culprit? Or do we say that machines are expected to crash and burn by default, and it's the success of the train that requires an explanation for why it worked so well? And in a similar way, should we assume that the human mind just "has the power" to figure out the truth, and a mistaken scientific theory cries out for an explanation (like a cognitive bias, or faulty measurement tool, etc.)? Or do we assume that anything the mind concocts is by default mistaken, and it's the successful theories that must be explained by some "special trick" the scientists used?

I've never once found a reason that any given cloud has the particular shape that it has. ☁️ In any case, thank you for this video. I found this very informative because I had been wondering what exactly PSR meant to philosophers these days. And very insightful critiques.

Can I make this move against what Moore intended to? ;)