4 ms·

Random stuff happening for no reason with no pattern or constraint runs afloul of the principle of sufficient reason. The PSR is a basic assumption of intelligi

Random stuff happening for no reason with no pattern or constraint runs afloul of the principle of sufficient reason. The PSR is a basic assumption of intelligibility. Events happening with no cause can't be made sense of. Everything that happens is brute in the worst way possible. By the standards of reason, it is maximally unintelligible. We must rationally give higher credence to any other explanation, i.e. an order and law-based universe. One might say the universe has no obligation to be intelligible to us, and perhaps that true. But we have an obligation to intelligible beliefs. In being able to ask the question of why the world is law-based, we're rationally constrained in the answer we can accept. You can see it as an application of the anthropic principle, but I think it's more basic than that. If there is sense to be made of anything (in a logical sense that is prior to the universe), then the universe must also make sense.

esahione 3y ago
There's no causation line from abstractions such as mathematics to material effects. The fact material conditions follow abstract conditions is a very particular problem and different from the one you aim to solve with your reply.
- hackinthebochs 3y ago
  There is no causal line, but there is a sort of influence, we can call it constraint propagation. The constraints of logical consistency and the rules that follow (e.g. mathematics) constrain the natural world. Logic determines what is possible, the universe is what is actual. The possible is a superset of the actual. Constraints on the possible are constraints on the actual.
  - esahione 3y ago
    Again, there's no apparent connection between logic and mathematical truths and the universe. Moreover, logic and mathematical truths are causally inert: they cannot be a cause to a physical effect. Yet it appears like all physical effects are following such laws and rules. I.e, there appears to be something that breathes fire into our equations.
    - hackinthebochs 3y ago
      Well this will depend on how you conceive of logical and mathematical facts. If you think of them as abstract "objects", you end up with the problem of how abstract objects can influence the world. But if you conceive of logical and mathematical facts as descriptions of states of possible formal systems, i.e. systems that do not contain a contradiction, then there is no problem. The actual world is simply a subset of the possible world; truths derived from investigating what is possible necessarily and obviously apply to the actual as a subset of the possible.
      - esahione 3y ago
        Ok but isn't a formal system also an abstract logical structure? Why are atoms actually following truths from logical systems? The problem remains. Wigner clearly delineates the problem on his famous paper about the applicability of mathematics. It's still a topic in philosophy to this day. I'm sure you appreciate that if it was a simple solution it wouldn't be a big deal.
        hackinthebochs 3y ago
        Yes, a formal system is a logical structure. The set of all formal systems defines all possible logical structures, i.e. all consistent rule-based systems. So the question of why do atoms follow a logical structure is simply the question of whether it is possible for atoms to not follow a rule-based system. The answer is embedded in the question: atoms are constrained structures, thus to have atoms is to have a rule-based system. More broadly, we can't conceive of a universe not governed by rules on some scale so all our credence should rationally lie with the necessity of a rule-based universe. >It's still a topic in philosophy to this day. I'm sure you appreciate that if it was a simple solution it wouldn't be a big deal. The more philosophy I read, the less I appreciate this. It's clear to me that philosophy as an institution is perniciously dominated by the fashion of the day which undermines the idea of philosophical consensus (or lack thereof) as oriented towards truth.
        esahione 3y ago

esahione 3y ago

There's no causation line from abstractions such as mathematics to material effects. The fact material conditions follow abstract conditions is a very particular problem and different from the one you aim to solve with your reply.

hackinthebochs 3y ago
There is no causal line, but there is a sort of influence, we can call it constraint propagation. The constraints of logical consistency and the rules that follow (e.g. mathematics) constrain the natural world. Logic determines what is possible, the universe is what is actual. The possible is a superset of the actual. Constraints on the possible are constraints on the actual.
- esahione 3y ago
  Again, there's no apparent connection between logic and mathematical truths and the universe. Moreover, logic and mathematical truths are causally inert: they cannot be a cause to a physical effect. Yet it appears like all physical effects are following such laws and rules. I.e, there appears to be something that breathes fire into our equations.
  - hackinthebochs 3y ago
    Well this will depend on how you conceive of logical and mathematical facts. If you think of them as abstract "objects", you end up with the problem of how abstract objects can influence the world. But if you conceive of logical and mathematical facts as descriptions of states of possible formal systems, i.e. systems that do not contain a contradiction, then there is no problem. The actual world is simply a subset of the possible world; truths derived from investigating what is possible necessarily and obviously apply to the actual as a subset of the possible.
    - esahione 3y ago
      Ok but isn't a formal system also an abstract logical structure? Why are atoms actually following truths from logical systems? The problem remains. Wigner clearly delineates the problem on his famous paper about the applicability of mathematics. It's still a topic in philosophy to this day. I'm sure you appreciate that if it was a simple solution it wouldn't be a big deal.
      - hackinthebochs 3y ago
        Yes, a formal system is a logical structure. The set of all formal systems defines all possible logical structures, i.e. all consistent rule-based systems. So the question of why do atoms follow a logical structure is simply the question of whether it is possible for atoms to not follow a rule-based system. The answer is embedded in the question: atoms are constrained structures, thus to have atoms is to have a rule-based system. More broadly, we can't conceive of a universe not governed by rules on some scale so all our credence should rationally lie with the necessity of a rule-based universe. >It's still a topic in philosophy to this day. I'm sure you appreciate that if it was a simple solution it wouldn't be a big deal. The more philosophy I read, the less I appreciate this. It's clear to me that philosophy as an institution is perniciously dominated by the fashion of the day which undermines the idea of philosophical consensus (or lack thereof) as oriented towards truth.
        esahione 3y ago