the law of sufficient reason

[mandangalo18]

I do not understand this First Principle of Logic. Science presupposes logic, no? Quantum physics violates this fundamental law. Quantum physics has also made astonishingly accurate predictions, which I feel justifies the violation. Real world applications demonstrate a posteriori that you don't need that law. How does science reconcile this violation of fundamental logic?

Also, Bertrand Russell made a good point about sufficient reason. (not quoting here - just what I remember) We know about causality from particular things in the universe that we observe. Since this is an observation of particulars, it is a fallacy to say that causality is universal. You can't make a universal conclusion based on particular premises. That is illicit process if I remember the fallacies correctly. There is no reason to believe that the universe MUST have a cause.

Please discuss

 

[lightbulbsun88]

I do not understand this First Principle of Logic. Science presupposes logic, no? Quantum physics violates this fundamental law. Quantum physics has also made astonishingly accurate predictions, which I feel justifies the violation. Real world applications demonstrate a posteriori that you don't need that law. How does science reconcile this violation of fundamental logic?

Wouldn't the establishment of quantum physics itself follow this law of sufficient reason, and not violate it?

Also, Bertrand Russell made a good point about sufficient reason. (not quoting here - just what I remember) We know about causality from particular things in the universe that we observe. Since this is an observation of particulars, it is a fallacy to say that causality is universal. You can't make a universal conclusion based on particular premises. That is illicit process if I remember the fallacies correctly. There is no reason to believe that the universe MUST have a cause.

Please discuss

It's inductive reasoning to start from particulars and work towards the general. I don't really see much of a fallacy. :|

 

[mandangalo18]

I'm not sure what you mean by the establishment of quantum physics, since quantum physics has been doing it's thing since long before we could study it.

Thanks for pointing out the inductive reasoning thing, I started looking into it and it looks like some philosophers criticize it's validity, including Hume( and apparently Bertrand Russell too). I don't know enough to tackle that stuff yet.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I do not understand this First Principle of Logic. Science presupposes logic, no? Quantum physics violates this fundamental law. Quantum physics has also made astonishingly accurate predictions, which I feel justifies the violation. Real world applications demonstrate a posteriori that you don't need that law. How does science reconcile this violation of fundamental logic?

There's no problem with logic here. Logic is always based on the reliability of initial assumptions. Quantum physics only shows that in certain esoteric situations, the initials assumptions we normally make are inadequate to the task. That does not mean that those assumptions are useless: we can live by those assumptions, and unless you are a physicist those assumptions will never fail you. To call this a "violation" seems to be false from my perspective.

Also, Bertrand Russell made a good point about sufficient reason. (not quoting here - just what I remember) We know about causality from particular things in the universe that we observe. Since this is an observation of particulars, it is a fallacy to say that causality is universal. You can't make a universal conclusion based on particular premises. That is illicit process if I remember the fallacies correctly. There is no reason to believe that the universe MUST have a cause.

I'm not sure what your point is with this. Everything we experience has a cause. It is useful to assume causality in most situations. There is little that forces us to make any claim of "ultimate" causality, if that is what you are getting at.

 

[mandangalo18]

That makes sense, ty. Would it be more accurate to say that that certain First Principle does not apply at the quantum level?


the other part was me struggling to understand Russell's evisceration of a version of the first cause argument. He crucifys F.C. Coppleston for assuming the universe must have a cause. Russell talks about knowing about causality from our observation of particulars, so we can't assume universal causality. That ties in with the Law of Sufficient Reason, I think.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

That makes sense, ty. Would it be more accurate to say that that certain First Principle does not apply at the quantum level?

It is probably most accurate to say that quantum physics operates by rules that we do not fully understand, but those rules nevertheless appear to be consistent. There's nothing illogical or inconsistent about quantum physics, in that the results can be replicated.

the other part was me struggling to understand Russell's evisceration of a version of the first cause argument. He crucifys F.C. Coppleston for assuming the universe must have a cause. Russell talks about knowing about causality from our observation of particulars, so we can't assume universal causality. That ties in with the Law of Sufficient Reason, I think.

The point, as I see it, is that all "first cause" arguments as a proof of "God" are garbage. Either everything has a cause, which leads to infinite regress; or some things don't have a cause, and that means that the universe doesn't need a "God" to have created it. There is no instance in which "God is an uncaused First Cause" is a logically satisfying answer.

 

[EveningPhilosopher]

There is no instance in which "God is an uncaused First Cause" is a logically satisfying answer.

I agree of course, but I would like to point out that it is so according to our modern understanding of logic.

In medieval times, it was 'common sense' that the Sun moved around the Earth, and "God is the unmoved mover" was a perfectly logical answer.

Also, your definition of universals will affect your concept of logic. This is not just some medieval dispute among scholastic theologians, as some modern mathematicians and logician are realists in the scholastic sense (see the wiki article for more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_universals).

An idea has a history, and so has logic.