Byblos wrote:For an educator who claims to value honesty, you sure don't practice what you preach, do? I asked you to cite your source where Leibniz said everything is necessary and you deliberately sidestepped it. Some might think you are being obtuse but I believe it is a classic case of willful ignorance, for the alternative is to admit the obvious. And the obvious is you would rather undermine the very principle science relies upon the most, the PSR, just so you can sidestep the logical conclusion of a self-explanatory necessity.trulyenlightened wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgu0M6YYp2s , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsaVRqZ4MKc , http://seeminglyimpossiblequestions.blo ... cient.htmlByblos wrote:First of all, your quoting is atrocious. I had to (painfully) read your entire post just so to decipher what is attributed to you and what is attributed to others.
In any case, I will only comment on the below, since it seems to me to be a reply to my post (and not to anything Philip said).
You are simply and factually wrong. PSR, just like the other principles I listed, i.e. the law of non-contradiction and the principle of causality, are assumed by science, otherwise science cannot function. Science is done on the basis that there is a reason for things to behave the way they do, otherwise there would be no reason (pun intended) to do science. Contingency facts are real principles. It represents the idea that an effect may be contingent on the cause, or versa.trulyenlightened wrote:Let's me address your PSR comment first. PSR is a philosophical principle, NOT a scientific principle. It cannot be violated from a scientific perspective.
The version of the PSR you describe above is not the same one I use and understandably so. Your version includes abstract ideas (such as contingent facts) as existing independently in some platonic realm, in which case your formulation of the PSR would fit. But in scholastic natural theology a platonic realm is not only meaningless, it cannot possibly exist for, according to the PSR alone, it would have no explanation.trulyenlightened wrote:PSR is based on 2 basic ideas. One is internal or self-contained(a triangle is a triangle because it is by definition), and Mathematical facts and principles. The second is external, which include objects and events that must have a reason for their existence. PSR depends on
1.There is an explanation why every fact is so, and not otherwise.
2.Therefore, there are no facts that are so and can be otherwise
3.But if there are contingent facts, then there ARE facts that are so and can be otherwise
4.Therefore(from premises #2 and #3), it follows that there are no contingent facts, there are only necessary facts
Not only does PSR prove an extreme form of determinism(necessitarianism), but the standard notion of contingency is refuted on the basis of PSR. The notion that things can be otherwise then what they are is absurd.
I would love to see you site the source from which you plucked that out where Leibniz says we must regard things as necessary and not contingent.trulyenlightened wrote:Even Leibniz and Spinoza recognized this absurdity. Both now conclude that, "it is the nature of reason to regard things as necessary, and not contingent".
No "bluff" or "blunder", just simply following wherever logic and reason lead. And who denied the existence of quantum fields? And you keep mentioning what science will do, as if anyone is denying that. I talk of the ultimate answer to ultimate reality and you talk about CERN .trulyenlightened wrote:Maybe you can explain WHY you state, "the utter incoherence and self-defeating nature of such an argument", or, was this more "bluff and blunder". Until there are further discoveries at CERN and LHC, we can't be certain of the origin of all the different quantum fields. But there is no question of their existence. And, "I don't know" or "that's the way it is", is infinitely better than, "God did it".
The ultimate answer to ultimate reality is either an incoherent, inexplicable brute fact (violation of the PSR) or a coherent, self-explanatory necessity.
Now you can move on.trulyenlightened wrote:Let's move on.
These are just a few sites you might expand your understanding of this principle. I especially liked the last site. There is a difference between a necessary truth/fact and a contingent truth/fact. A necessary truth/fact is a truth statement whose negation must imply a contradiction in reality. Such that its negation would be impossible. So, if "One plus one equals two", is a necessary truth claim, then the statement "One plus one does not equal two" would imply a contradiction. Given the meanings of "one" and "two", we can immediately see that the addition of two "ones"(units) will always yield "two". But the statement "One plus one does not equal two", contradicts this. It is incomprehensible that one plus one should ever add up to anything other than two. So "One plus one equals two", is commonly held to be a necessary truth, since its negation is impossible.
A contingent truth/fact is a truth statement whose negation does not imply a contradiction in reality. That is, its negation could also have been the case. So, if "John married Jessica last Sunday" is a contingent truth, then the statement "John did not marry Jessica last Sunday", could also be true without implying a contradiction in reality. Since John could have chosen not to marry Jessica, or to have married her on a different day, the truth is truly contingent and not a necessary truth. But PSR states that, "there are no facts that are so, and can be otherwise". But contingent facts CAN be otherwise, therefore a clear contradiction. It is objectivism that restricts the idea of contingent facts to those facts that result from human choices, and human actions. These are facts one can legitimately say could have been otherwise. The alteration of any facts outside of those that result from human choices(the metaphysically given) would result in a contradiction somewhere in reality. Even if it is not apparent to one’s imagination. Therefore contingent truths/facts are not necessary facts, therefore is off the table.
I don't believe there exists an ultimate answer, or an ultimate question. This concept alone is a violation of PSR.I believe that there are many questions, but only ONE reality. In spite of your equivocation fallacy, Cern and LHC have nothing to do with an Ultimate question and answer. Maybe you should add to your list, ultimate morality, ultimate cynicism, ultimate truths, ultimate sin, ultimate excuse, ultimate altruism, and ultimate virtue and righteousness. Don
And for the last time, you have no clue what you're talking about. Your attempt at rephrasing the PSR to include the BCCF (big conjunction of contingent facts) and how that proves determinism, fails miserably for you do not understand (actually, you deliberately choose to ignore) the fact that on classical metaphysics, what is in need of an explanation are concrete things, not propositions or abstract things. For propositions, like abstract ideas, do not stand in need of an explanation once the concrete things they represent are explained. Once a triangle is explained, there is no need to explain triangularity. Once the color red is explained, there is no need to explain redness. And for the last time, propositions and abstract objects are not concrete, existing in some platonic realm, itself in need of an explanation. They are ideas in the mind.
So try again "professor". Or you can simply move on.
You seem more interested in the arguing, than in the argument. Spinosa stated."Nothing in the Universe is contingent... It is of the nature of reason to regard things as necessary, not contingent". Leibniz stated, "If you take 'contingent...' as that which happens in such a way that no reason of any kind can be given why it should have happened, thus rather than otherwise.. then I think that such contingency is confused". What do these statements mean regarding "contingent facts" and "necessary facts? Does it sound like either supports the idea of contingent facts? Where did I sidestep this fact? I have demonstrated a clear contradiction in the premise structure, and cited quotes from both scholars. I don't know what else I can do. If you simply want to dismiss and deny the facts, then that is something I have come to expect. Although Leibniz did not say the exact words(you are technically correct), his meaning is quite clear.
"For an educator who claims to value honesty, you sure don't practice what you preach, do"? "Some might think you are being obtuse but I believe it is a classic case of willful ignorance, for the alternative is to admit the obvious". "you have no clue what you're talking about". Must you always start your post with insults or ad hom attacks? Usually when one starts with insults, they usually have nothing more to say. Please stick to the premise constructs as listed in PSR. Compare and contrast "contingent facts" as it relates to PSR. I'm not interested in your silly distraction(determinism, BCCF, classical metaphysics, and examples of necessary facts). Although I could have given a better example of a contingent fact, it is still a valid example. No matter how much you try to downplay it, using your self-serving creative logic.
Spare me your silly posturing long enough to stay on topic, and back up your assertions. If I don't know what I'm talking about, teach me. Give me examples, or point out why my understanding is completely wrong? Stop telling me what I think, why I think, and how I think. The first web site demonstrates the problem with "contingent facts" quite clearly. How many more web sites would be enough? 10, 20,100? You may be an expert in the fields of philosophy, but you certainly haven't demonstrated it. Don