Heidegger famously posed this question, giving it redoubled force as a first question on critical analysis of worldviews:
To philosophize is to ask “Why are there essents rather than nothing?” Really to ask this question signifies: a daring attempt to fathom this unfathomable question by disclosing what it summons us to ask, to push our questioning to the very end. Where such an attempt occurs there is philosophy. [ M. Heidegger, An Introduction to Metaphysics, Yale University Press, New Haven and London (1959), pp. 7-8.]
Let’s explore, first pausing to see Prof Dawkins (dean of the notoriously unphilosophical new atheists) making needlessly heavy weather of the matter:
Clearly, the pivot of the matter is — again — logic of being: No-thing is non-being, which contrasts with being and as non-being can have no causal powers, were there ever utter no-thing [i.e., no reality whatsoever] such would forever obtain. Therefore if a world is, SOMETHING has always existed. And yes, eternity knocks at our doorstep, welcome or not.
However, logic of being is one of the many gaps in our dumbed down education systems and is not exactly a popular talking heads topic. So, let us again summarise for those needing (or needing to at last heed) a 101 in a nutshell:
So, the debate on origins of the world and of ourselves in it must be shaped by this prior question.
Where, we need a world root — and yes, this OP is about world roots: why is there at least one actual world, instead of utter non-being? — causally adequate to account for a fine tuned cosmos with information rich C-chemistry aqueous medium cell based life. Further, one with many complex body plans, and with freely rational [not merely computational] morally governed creatures in it — us.
Where, obviously, a claimed beginningless causal-temporal succession of finite duration prior stages [“years” for convenience] has to account for — not, beg the question of — traversal of an implicitly transfinite span in finite steps; a supertask. For, at any finitely remote past stage k on such a claim, k-1, k-2 . . . were already traversed, i.e. once one is claimed to have already reached k from the beginningless prior set of stages, one is implying that the traverse has already happened. But how? And no, a Russell-like declaration that one sees no problem or a similar [equivalent?] declaration of alleged inexplicable brute fact are nowhere near good enough. Those simply beg the question of implicit prior transfinite traverse.
Where, no, if something is said to be the case, we have an epistemic right to ask why and how so. A mechanical and/pr stochastic explanatory candidate is one thing (here, facing the issue of heat death as concentrations of energy dissipate). A Fluctuation of the quantum foam view:
. . . faces the question, why is this not a Boltzmann brain world (a much more probable though vastly improbable fluctuation), and fails to account for the parent sub-universe, given the transfinite traverse challenge.
In passing, I note that the volitional action of a capable, choosing agent is a responsible explanation. One, we are quite familiar with from day to day.
So, again: why is there something, rather than nothing? END
“Why is there something, instead of nothing?” (–> being Logic & First Principles, 24)
F/N: As an in-the-wild, again:
Let’s ponder what is going on here.
Later, DV.
KF
F/N: A moment. SEP weighs in on nothingness:
The issue is pivotal, and in it lurks at least the weak form PSR: if something is or may be or is not or is impossible of being, we have an epistemic right to ask, why?
So, yes, logic of being lurks.
Again, later.
KF
And yes, this is what we have come to!
The reason you can’t “prove” God is that if you don’t believe, then by definition all proof is nonsense. It seems odd that people who consider themselves so logical can’t realize that.
SAZ, you have a point. If we accept a claim, A, why? B. So why B? C, then D . . . so, we face the Agrippa trilemma. Infinite regress is impossible, and a circle from X to Y and back to X is little better. So, we are forced to accept finitely remote points F, which are things we accept but cannot prove. That’s why I call F a faith point. For example that came up a few days back, the triple first principles of reason — identity, excluded middle, non-contradiction — are like that. Any attempt to prove them automatically uses them. Proofs start after that. What we do is we can compare the difficulties across faith points F1, F2 . . . Fn, across factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power. That avoids worldview level question begging. And BTW, it exposes the claimed atheism default as seriously question-begging. KF
F/N: Let’s focus, from Parsons:
He is a highly educated person, so why is he appealing to brute inexplicable fact like this to sustain his obvious naturalism? That’s a first clue that his system has broken down irretrievably.
Next, notice a chain of argument in the OP:
It seems to me, my highlight answers KP’s shrug and dismissal — and throws light on linked remarks in SEP by bringing out why such can be powerful and helpful.
The logic of being and non-being implies an eternal root to reality. If a world is, a causally adequate world-root always was. That’s a big answer as the best explanation for something to always have been is that it is a necessary being, independent of external on/off enabling causal factors.
Where, it is effectively undeniable that a weak-form investigatory principle of sufficient reason is relevant:
Couple that right of investigation to the logic of being and we have a solid tool with good teeth on it!
That’s before we turn to another feature of KP’s remarks:
Notice, that KP never denies that there is an eternal world-root, but proposes a candidate then tries to dismiss the metaphysical questions? That’s a second clue that we are seeing more of a clever argument than a truly sound one. Where, we already saw that posing utter no-thing as an alternative rapidly delivers some powerful and perhaps uncomfortable results.
Next, the suggestion of a quasi-infinite causal-temporal succession driven cosmos runs into serious difficulties, as I also pointed out in the OP:
KP glides over that huge cluster of problems as though it were not there. That’s a third clue, and leads to the verdict: indoctrination, not genuine education. That’s also why comparative difficulties is so important as a general method.
We also have another consideration: we have to account for responsible, rational, morally governed freedom. That’s why, earlier, I commented to EG in another thread:
The rebalancing of the issues opens up a very different discussion than KP envisioned, and shows why these issues are pivotal.
KF
Author and philosopher Jim Holt has written a book, “Why Does the World Exist? “, which I have just begun to read. He starts with this very question, why is there something rather than nothing, and he spends a chapter defining nothing and nothingness, with some humour. He then explores the subject by interviewing others with various views, in later chapters, which I have not yet read. He also has a TED talk on the subject, which is very similar to his introductory chapter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORUUqJd81M His talk is not very convincing or satisfying, but gives a decent introduction to the topic. He comes across as a self-satisfied, atheist name dropper, but it is still worth a listen if this subject interests you.
On the subject of an eternal universe, the major argument against it in my book is that, if the universe has existed forever, then it has taken an infinite amount of time to get to “now”, and no one really knows what that even means. How can an infinite time have already passed? Another argument is that, if this universe (with largely known physics) has existed forever, then wouldn’t it have run down into heat death an infinitely long time ago? Clearly it isn’t now in heat death, so it could not have always existed.
Attempts to get around that involve imagined concepts like eternal inflation or some sort of multiverse generator, with entirely different physics that doesn’t die down over time; i.e. the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not seem to apply in these imaginary constructs. Fred Hoyle had the most clever approach in his steady state universe, with hydrogen atoms popping into existence as space expands indefinitely. No heat death appears, and the universe looks the same all the time. Of course this would violate other laws of physics and it does not fit the data that points to a beginning.
F, Holt misses the point in all the name-dropping, and his portrayal of Leibniz and Christians simply fails. God + 0 –> World simply identifies that God is sole reality root, there is no primordial proto-cosmos that a demiurge incompetently tries to shape in imitation of the forms, for one example. Why does God exist simply points to the now familiar logic of being empty hole in our knowledge base. Ironically, it is precisely the focal question that allows us to see that we do need a NB world root, which leads us to see signs of the eternal power of God. That the world contains responsible, rational (not merely computational), free, morally governed creatures then points to the need to bridge is and ought in that world-root, pointing to key divine essential characteristics. Of course, most theists today have not pondered or been seriously taught on such matters of philosophical or even systematic theology. And yes, this is a gap I see in Grudem (though I like his work.) His dismissiveness of ontological reasoning without serious consideration on logic of being [particularly, modes of being] and where it points, is typical. His attempt to picture God as wondering where he came from is typical of the problem. And that’s just four minutes in. A mess, but not unexpected, today — I guess, lacking in the relevant base of philosophy of religion . . . sense: metaphysical study of the idea of God, best quick search def’n here. I can understand Feser’s complaint about wading in out of depth. Sad. KF
The reason there is something rather than nothing is because there is only one possible state of nothingness, whereas there are infinitely many possible states of something. So the odds of nothingness are one divided by infinity = zero.
MW, an interesting twist on dominant cluster of microstates in stat mech. Considered as having a probability distribution including utter non-being in reality, it makes for an interesting side-light. However, I suggest, we have an inside view: a world is, and per the properties of non-being — more exactly, the ABSENCE of such — were there ever utter no-thing, such would necessarily forever obtain. Yes, there would be no reality whatsoever, thus no actual world of any description. But that is just a framing on logic, leading to the modus tollens implication that as a world actually is, utter non-being has never been so. That is, something always has been, pointing to a necessary being root of reality. And yes, such a line of thought is passing strange in a philosophically impoverished age. KF
Fasteddious @ 8,
I have finished Holt’s book. For someone who claims to have a degree in philosophy, he makes an incredible number of mistakes in his logic. Of course he rules out theism almost out-of-hand, but his alternatives are riddled with bad logic, unjustified assumptions, non-sequiturs, equivocation and more.
At least it was good critical thinking practice…
MikeW @ 11,
Does your argument assume that each possible alternative has equal probability? On what basis can we assign probabilities to the alternatives?
EDTA, the Boltzmann approach did use the equiprobable limit (which is based on indifference), but the Gibbsian accommodates varying probabilities of microstates, also bleeding over into information metrics, – H = SUM on i of pi log pi, i being the ith possible state, i.e. we see a weighted sum process. However, the logic of there being a world, tied to the want of causal power of non-being means that we are definitively not in a world that started with utter non-being. Such an initial circumstance (language is being stretched here) would be unable to cause any world to emerge. Therefore, we freely conclude: as a world is, it necessarily had an adequate causal root, which had to always have been. Which, is a powerful result indeed, from asking just one key question: why is there something (at least one actual world), instead of [utter] no-thing? KF
PS: On his TED talk, I am not surprised to hear your reaction. There is an obvious gap in our concept base regarding logic of being and it is leading into many needless errors of thought.
F/N: Another in-the-wild case, here from SEP on God and other [candidate] necessary beings:
Check . . . mate?
No.
Again, we see a failure to recognise the ontological circumstances of God as root of reality. If God is not, no world whatsoever, no reality, is. Providing, only, that root of reality is God. And if there were no reality, utterly no-thing then of course no numbers etc. If not God, then not four, indeed and obviously, under such circumstances, if not four then not God, but the way this comes to be must be traced. On tracing, through the posed question, we see that why is there something rather than nothing is again pivotal.
We are implicitly bringing in the background knowledge that a world is, and — absent pondering the question in the OP — it warps our understanding. In this case it seems there was a failure to understand that the reality or unreality of God is tantamount to the existing or non existing of reality, as God is the root. (Of course, if you feel there is another serious candidate world root, put it up and justify it per comparative difficulties _____ Where, too, as God is a serious candidate necessary being, his existence is either impossible [as a square circle is impossible] or else he is actual.)
Fourness, of course is embedded in distinct identity of a possible world and so that a world is necessarily implicates four-ness. Let’s trace briefly: for a distinct possible world W to be distinct from near neighbour W’ it has to have some distinct attribute A, so we can see W as structured: W = {A|~A}. The ~A is actually in principle infinite as will be shortly shown as it includes the vast span of numbers. In this structure, the dichotomy is empty, manifesting nullity, A and ~A are simple and complex unities, the two together manifesting duality. So we have 0, 1, 2 already and per the von Neumann succession, N, as a number implicates the onward chain of its successors without limit:
{} –> 0
{0} –> 1
{0,1} –> 2
{0,1,2} –> 3
. . .
{0,1,2 . . . } –> w omega
thence we define Z per additive inverses, then Q as rationals and R as taking in w-length convergent chains in power series [decimal numbers are compressed power series] leading to the irrationals that fill out the continuum. Beyond we similarly define C, hyperreals and surreals.
Any possible world, including actual ones, necessarily, structurally implicates numbers. However, that pivots on at least one world being, thence, reality.
Also, that a world is, implies and necessitates that something, the world root always was. the issue is of just what nature, as has been spoken to above. God is the best candidate.
KF
BB, strawman target. No-one above has claimed the singularity as an absolute beginning. What is pointed out is that a claimed beginningless transfinite past runs into heat death thermodynamic challenges through the very meaning of heat; which directly leads to dissipation of energy concentrations. Next, that such a transfinite past claim implicitly seeks to span the transfinite in finite stage steps, a supertask. Third, I can add that there is actually no empirical support for an imagined, speculative past beyond the singularity; all such exercises are philosophical and as such every significant world view option has a legitimate right to sit to the table also. In this light, we are well warranted to point to a finite temporal-causal past and to note that the cosmological evidence we have does point to a very finite limit. Beyond, speculative multiverses should by rights overwhelmingly be Boltzmann brain type delusions or simulations etc. KF
KF
Ahh. The KF response to anything he can’t defend. Your entire argument is that you can’t get something from nothing. Hence, God. But that assumes that there has ever been nothingness. If nothingness has never existed, your argument falls flat. But, more perversely, you argue that God must fill this void. How is God exempt from never existing? Because it fits your narrative?
I don’t mean to be critical, but if I was writing an OP about the need for a necessary being (AKA God) I wouldn’t lead with a video debate between Dawkins and a jailed pedophile Cardinal.
BB,
your attempted dismissive response is utterly unimpressive, especially as it seems you wish to double down on a falsehood about un-answered arguments when you full well know you have had answers, and that for cause I have no wish to see another discussion dragged down into the sewer. In the case above, you brought up an irrelevance as though it were in the thread above, which I pointed out. I then highlighted the anticipation of same in the OP, which reflects why a transfinite physical past cannot credibly be traversed in finite successive steps. Heat death is already decisive: energy concentrations will all decay in finite time, being driven by the inherent stochastic behaviour of micro-particle motions. The logical, structural problem is further decisive: the descent to now requires spanning a transfinite (implicit or explicit makes no difference) in finite steps. And, attempts to suggest that at any given finite remove k in the past it was already spanned beg the question. That such is now being resorted to, speaks volumes.
As for oh you pivot on you cannot get something from nothing, you neatly glide over the WHY of the matter in silence, erecting yet another strawman suggestion that the point made is an arbitrary suggestion. Again, no-thing is non-being, properly. Such can have no causal powers, and therefore, were there ever utter nothing, we would have non-reality and no means to progress beyond that. There thus could never be a world. Such, pivots on the logic that absent relevant capability, no result.
If you deny this, kindly provide empirical warrant and/or compelling logic that utter non-being can credibly or has actually caused anything ______, much less the emergence of at least one world _______ .
Mr Dawkins and those he refers to are substituting a suggested something (effectively, a fluctuating quantum foam) and erroneously calling it nothing. A basic error. Then, their candidate turns out to not be credible.
By the logic involved (which you cannot overthrow though you obviously wish to dismiss), that a world now is entails that something with adequate, relevant causal capability always was; pointing to independent, non-contingent, necessary being. There are various suggested candidates for such a NB root of reality, including as I briefly noted on. The further factor of an order of beings that are responsible, rational (not merely computational) and morally governed forces us to just one serious candidate.
It is noteworthy that while you are dismissive and have tried various attempts to undermine the undeniable fact of our being under moral government (which includes, self-referentially, rationality) you have failed to put forth and justify on comparative difficulties another serious candidate. I leave the matter for the moment on the note that to be persuasive, your arguments are forced to rely on our acknowledgement and adherence to the duties that morally govern rationality. That self-referential incoherence itself speaks decisively.
KF
PS: I have not been aware of your claim, but whether or not it is so, it is irrelevant to the manifest something from nothing problem manifested by Mr Dawkins. That is what is material. Also, kindly note the actual lead, Heidegger’s actual remarks that put the question on the agenda.
FYI-FTR: The answer given to attempts to undermine moral government (and to those that — even worse — suggest that Christians must become/are vigilantes), here: https://uncommondescent.com/atheism/fyi-ftr-the-answer-given-to-attempts-to-undermine-moral-government-and-to-those-that-even-worse-suggest-that-christians-must-become-are-vigilantes/
I’ve long wondered why perfectly competent scientists insisted on an eternal universe in the face of the physics of heat death, science that a fourth-grader or younger can grasp. In light of KF’s cogent and highly interesting analysis, if I understand it correctly, it must be because the only other possible candidate to answer “why is there something?” was God.
Thank Nothingness for the multiverse! “Whew, that was a close one.”
Typical cowardly response. Don’t look at Dawkins making a complete fool of himself. Look at the other guy- for what, though? According to Brian what the Cardinal did was OK- part of nature. So Brian is also a hypocrite.
JS01,
Strictly, the consequences of utter non-being “only” point to a necessary being world root. A quasi-physical system runs into heat death and the problem of traversal of the infinite in finite stage steps. Finitely remote world root.
Factor in, fine tuning fitted to C-chem aqueous medium life and including rational, morally governed creatures, and we see a serious job opening. Indeed, let me clip Herrick’s opening salvos in his reply to Parsons:
Notice, the pattern?
KF
ET, I don’t know if the inescapability of moral government of our intellectual faculties is getting through, but it should. KF
F/N: One of the jobs for this thread is to make a record that answers to key issues. Accordingly, it is relevant to further use Herrick’s response to Parsons (at least infidels dot org has hosted a response); here, on the idea that a temporal causal succession without a beginning needs no further explanation.
Of course, we have already pointed out the heat death and traversal of the transfinite in finite stage steps problems. However, more is needed:
This rests on Hume’s classic argument, but there are subtle, telling gaps. PH therefore responds:
He then turns to the issue of a chain of temporally-causally connected contingent beings:
So, indeed, there is a “something more” gap here.
In effect, the quasi-physical, beyond the bang quantum foam sub-verse has been put on the table as effectively an implicit necessary being of eternal character adequate to account for our world. And such has been heavily promoted.
But, it is inherently inadequate given heat death and temporal-causal succession of finite stages relative to a transfinite span. We are not dealing with abstracta like numbers, we have to account for energy concentration-driven temporal causal succession where the very same dynamic points to heat death in finite time, absent an actually infinite energy concentration that cannot be exhausted.
Which last, sounds just a tad suspicious: an infinite root-source of energy and power that sustains reality. And, presumably, drives the creation of worlds within that wider reality.
Let’s quote a certain book that those who propose such don’t like to hear from:
As in, methinks the old divines [= theologians and writers] would have just cause to point to a suspicious parallel.
KF
PS: Don’t overlook the dog that will not bark. Notice, not one has been able to challenge the point that no-thing, properly is non-being. Further, while someone dismissively sneered at ” you cannot get something from nothing,” therre was silence when it was pointed out that that is not an arbitrary assumption but a conclusion. Nothing is non-being, and non-being has no causal powers [there is nothing there to cause anything to be or to happen!]. Were there ever utter non-being, i.e. no reality, such would forever obtain. So, as a world manifestly is, something always was, the world root reality. Which is patently an independent being, i.e. a necessary being. Which is distinct from the particular independent being we have in hand is God. God, here, is a candidate. Mix in a fine tuned world and responsible, rational, free, morally governed creatures and you need a NB that is inherently good, utterly wise and capable of being the creative source of a cosmos.
“Why is there something rather than nothing?”
That’s the dumbest question humans have asked.
It presupposes that “nothing” is the default state, and that “something” requires explanation.
“Nothing” is actually the harder state to achieve. If you don’t believe me, go ahead and try to achieve it.
Pater Kimbridge:
It presupposes there are those two states and “something” does require an explanation. Everything that exists requires an explanation.
THAT is just plain dumb. You cannot achieve nothingness in a universe of “something”.
But I digress- evolutionism, ie the claim that life’s diversity owes its existence to blind and mindless processes, has achieved nothing. 😛
PK,
actually, the point is that given a going concern world with rational, responsible, morally governed creatures in it, there is a very plausible assumption, the weak form PSR:
That’s one jaw of our pincers.
The second, being the logic of being that fits well with it (cf. OP).
We can then get a solid grip on things.
Here, the subject of inquiry is one that Heidegger saw as big and insightful — and note this is the title and lead of the OP:
Whose report do you think we should believe, yours or one of the greats, Heidegger?
On exploring, first we see that nothing is no-thing, non-being. Were there ever utter nothing, we would have no reality whatsoever, so we can now contemplate an alternative to what we experience. That is already a very powerful result of pure reflection on being.
But then also we see, non-being can have no causal capabilities.
So, if there were ever utter non-being, such would always be the case. That is, that a world is, implies that something has always been there, which we can term a root of reality.
Another very powerful result.
Further to this, that root taken as a whole is credibly an independent or necessary being. NB’s, being present as part of the framework for any possible or actual world, and being independent of external enabling causal factors, A simple case is the number 2.
Another very powerful result, we see that there is a root for any possible or actual world with causal capacity to account for it.
Going on, our world has in it morally governed, rational (not merely computational) creatures, us. That further constrains the root of reality. We are credibly requiring an inherently good and utterly wise NB as root of reality, to account for moral government as that is where the IS-OUGHT gap can be bridged (hence, BTW, the sort of resistance above). Such starts with government of our rationality through duties to truth, right reason, prudence, justice etc. Indeed, these govern our exchanges in this thread.
So, another powerful result, one that shifts the balance decisively against those who would suggest that moral government is delusional, and/or that it does not trace to a being that fills the required bill.
Not bad for a stupid or dumb question.
KF
PS: Another aspect of NB’s is that they are mirror images of things impossible of being (IoB). Something is IoB when it cannot be, on pain of contradiction, here, core characteristics are implicated such as we find for a supposed square circle. NB’s, i/l/o circumstances are such that they must be, on pain of contradiction. It is at least worth the while to ponder that, absent a world-root NB –RNB, no world, i.e. utter non-being (UNB), no reality. The manifest presence of reality involving thinking, rational creatures then shows a global contradiction on suggested absence: a world, but UNB –> UNB . . . So, necessarily, a world is entails RNB: W –> RNB. That is, on the existence of thinking reality (undeniable: if deny, WHO is denying), N: W –> RNB and ~ UNB. The inescapable moral government of thinking reality then leads to the RNB being adequate to sustain such government. Since at least 360 BC in Plato’s The Laws Bk X, it has been known that evolutionary materialism is incapable of grounding such. A serious challenge to the institutionally dominant de facto anti-church of our time.
F/N: Let’s continue looking at PH’s response to KP:
PH counters, first:
PH continues (well worth reading) but I find a short, more direct response is also interesting.
I would suggest, that the “given background knowledge” approach loads in a lot, likely in part taken as brute givens or facts that one needs not inquire into. To which, the natural question is, why such a strange circumstance?
Especially, as it seems to short-circuit the RIGHT of inquiry, the weak-form, investigatory PSR. That, frankly suggests an attempt to lock in a currently dominant worldview, evolutionary materialistic scientism. Furthermore, it is enough motivation to ask why not a conceivable and seemingly significant or at least potentially intellectually fruitful alternative. Particularly, given that the logic of being is already on the table with the possible worlds semantics.
So, the very fact that we have dared to ask and investigate, yielding powerfully suggestive results speaks for itself.
In that light, I ask in reply, why, then NOT ask, why is there something, rather than utter non-being?
Is not potentially fruitful inquiry its own justification?
KF
F/N: Why has there been such a sharply dismissive reaction to the Heidegger question: why is there something, instead of nothing? I am particularly stirred by this, as we just saw how using the utterly uncontroversial principle of a right to investigate why and the logic of being framework yields some fairly interesting results.
I suspect, frankly, that that is the problem. The results do not sit easily with evolutionary materialistic scientism, and those conditioned by that frame of thought may well perceive this as not well aligned with what — with strong “guild” support — they perceive as confidently known reality. So, it is puzzling or even frustrating.
Perhaps, then, such should re-consider: could there be some fatal cracks in the evolutionary materialism framework, to begin with? Such as, self-falsifying self-referential incoherence as summarised by say Haldane?
Next, the weak form, investigatory PSR is undeniably valid: when we meet some entity or hear of something like a unicorn that is not but seems possible or a square circle as an example of what cannot be, we can simply take boldness in hand and ask, why. To help with this why, we can consider sufficiently complete descriptions of possible or even actual states of affairs and the concept that candidate entities C may be in one or more or may never be in any such possible world W. Also, that some C’s may be in some but not all W’s or that some may be in all. Compare OP tabulation, we have possible vs impossible beings and contingent vs necessary beings. Of course, we may not figure out a given case, but that is different from trying.
Others suggest brute givens or facts: inexplicables that just are so or are not and oppose that to stronger forms of a PSR that declare that any C that exists has a sufficient reason to exist. From my view, the weaker form sets up that if something is possible of being there is already a basic reason: its core characteristics are compossible and consistent with the plausible feasibility of a world W containing C, e.g. per genetic engineering within 100 years we should see unicorns. For sure, there is a potential market. Likewise, we see on distinct identity of a world, it must have a structure that warrants the panoply of numbers etc. Numbers are necessary, world framework beings — which is a clue to the astonishing power of Mathematics. (And yes, that is actually a start-point and anchor for my thinking, following Wigner’s astonishment.)
So, it seems we have a cracked foundation for the institutionally preferred naturalistic approach, even before we look at alternatives. Likewise, the two jaws of the pincer look good and seem to work.
So, shouldn’t we be at least willing to consider the sort of answer they seem to have grabbed a hold of?
Where, no, this is no “god of the ever shrinking gaps” argument.
KF
PS: PH continues his response to KP, taking up the PSR and Mackie’s argument:
But is that the end of the story?
One obvious point is that world-models are not unique and are not simply a linear regress. The principle of comparative difficulties across alternative worldviews then allows us to avoid imposition of a dominant view on excuse of inevitability of brute givens. That’s probably part of why you are uncomfortable already.
PH responds, raising an extension of the self-evident truth principle, the self-explanatory explainer:
Of course, this is in part pointing to a necessary being world-root. Such an entity fits into a plausibly exhaustive framework, as a necessary being that is part of the framework for a world to exist, as an answer to adequate cause of a world with contingent entities, and as something which must be on pain of existential incoherence.
That then leads to the question of a candidate, given that some contingent creatures in the world are rational (not merely computational) and are morally governed.
We are back at the power of the issue on the table, why something rather than utter non-being.
So, unsurprisingly, PH continues:
Food for thought.
Notice, especially, how logic of being issues naturally emerge as pivotal.
Hence, why it is ever more curious why this focus — ontology — is so unfamiliar to us.
And yes, all of this seems to be truly fundamental for comparative difficulties and so is well worth thinking about on record here at UD.
PPS: Notice, how PH then goes to necessary vs contingent entities, here, propositions describing states of affairs:
We are already seeing the concept of possible worlds, with necessary and contingent vs impossible states of affairs. So, no, it’s not just KF’s idiosyncratic musings standing on a soapbox in some corner at Hyde Park, this is a longstanding and powerful issue. Indeed, we may recall, it has been entrenched in the apparatus of modal logic.
PPPS: Let’s take another bite, the issue of contingent being, as PH continues. Yes, we need to hammer home:
Equally then, we may fruitfully contemplate a candidate entity C that is not dependent on antecedent on/off enabling factors: if possible, such a C would always be present in any possible world. That is, it is naturally understood — explained — as part of what makes worlds feasible. It is part of the world framework.
That’s what a necessary being is.
And in that context, we may contemplate such a candidate R that has in it adequate causal capacity to be the source of any actualised world. We may even consider such a candidate world root as able to contemplate all possible worlds and to give effect to such as it chooses. We see here a maximally knowing and capable candidate being.
Where, as it is obviously possible to have rational, morally governed creatures in some possible worlds, we may contemplate R as having also capacity to ground morality, requiring inherent goodness and utter wisdom.
Yes, we are finding the outlines of a very familiar candidate necessary world root being emerge from the morning mists.
F/N: Likely, some would pose, what causes such a world-root entity? Such, however reflects unfamiliarity with distinct modes of being and non being.
Cause and/or absence of such is indeed relevant to the case of a contingent being such as a fire. But that does not exhaust all ways of being, e.g. we have seen how two-ness and the panoply of numbers are inherent to any distinct possible world. That is, we start from a going concern world and recognise that various distinct possible states of affairs might or do obtain, and from this see that the mere possibility of a distinct state implies the presence of numbers in such a world. Thus numbers are necessarily present in any actualised world.
A big result, including that numbers neither began nor can they cease, they are framework to there being a world. Such are necessary not contingent beings. Their explanation is that they are inherent to the framework of any possible world. Where — as the OP points out (and the discussion above) — utter non-being has no causal powers so were there ever utter nothing, that would forever obtain. As a world is, something necessarily always was. The issue is which candidate, not whether such is so. And, such a root of reality, as independent, is a necessary being. It cannot not-be, here on pain of, there would be no world, when manifestly there is.
Where, too, unfamiliarity does not imply lack of explanation. Our education has robbed us of familiarity with logic of being and the necessity of say numbers, but that can be remedied. The sense of strangeness will then evaporate. Providing, one trusts the power of logic — not a given in today’s world, sadly.
But actualisation of a world itself calls for an independent root of being with adequate capability, i.e. we see here another type of necessary being that is indeed framework to any world but also has ability to be the root and source from which any actual worlds spring. Including our own. (Recall, NB’s are automatically present in ANY possible or actual world by virtue of being aspects of its framework. As that includes numbers, we are talking of infinitely many such entities, indeed uncountably infinitely many as we may see from number theory.)
So, again, the issue is not what causes such a NB, but which candidate is successful. Where, for that, the further undeniable facts of our rationality (beyond mere computation) and our moral government — starting with duties to truth, right reason, prudence, sound conscience, justice etc — are part of what is to be explained. Where, BTW, attempts to deny such duties are self-undermining as all arguments implicitly appeal to such duties.
Post Hume, as long since seen, such a bridging of IS and OUGHT (another big issue that many evolutionary materialism advocates, tellingly, find irritating) can only be done at world-root, thus must be an integral aspect of the nature of the reality-source. The prime reality, then, is inherently good and utterly wise as part of necessity of being. Which begins to take a familiar shape.
So, we can come to see that what causes such prime reality is a mis-directed question. Indeed, prime reality ultimately causes whatever has been caused to exist as a world. Starting from a going concern world as rational, morally governed, inquiring creatures, we find that we need such a prime reality. So, it should not be a surprise that that has been discussed immemorial.
KF
F/N: In answering Richard Carrier, Paul Herrick actually put a modal, cosmological, inference to prime reality as best explanation argument on the table. Note, first, contrasted clips:
https://infidels.org/library/modern/paul_herrick/contra.html
No necessary being can explain existence; contingency is not an illusion, an appearance which can be dissipated; it is absolute; and consequently perfectly gratuitous. Everything is gratuitous, that park, this town, and myself. When you realize that, it turns your stomach over and everything starts floating about.
— John-Paul Sartre, Nausea (1938), p. 188
That there is a contingent being actually existing has to be discovered by experience, and the proposition that there is a contingent being is certainly not an analytic proposition, though once you know, I should maintain, that there is a contingent being, it follows of necessity that there is a necessary being.
— Father Joseph Copleston, debate with Bertrand Russell, BBC Radio (1948)
Of course, we are back at necessity vs contingency of being. An easy way to see this is to start with necessary truths, truths such as 2 + 3 = 5 that must obtain in any possible world. Where, the simplest, most powerful, best warranted understanding of truth is that it is the accurate description of reality. That is, per Aristotle in Metaphysics 1011b, truth says of what is that it is; and of what is not that it is not. The is-ness implies being, whether concrete or tangible or abstract. And yes, I am openly accepting numbers as real albeit abstract entities that are embedded in worlds or contemplated by rational minds. Computational substrates simply manipulate the former, they are by no means actually freely rational.
With that under our belt, let’s see PH’s skeletal argument:
He goes on to discuss the grounding principle:
Cutting to the chase scene, contingent chains must rest on necessity if they are to be satisfactory. As we saw above, that obtains even for a presumed transfinite chain. And, transfinite succession of stages is itself dubious.
So, we are looking at the credible necessity of a causally adequate world root.
KF
PS: Objections, later.
F/N: Let’s see:
This is problematic on several levels, but immediately shows that Carrier realises the need for a necessary being world root. PH comments:
Of course, the sub-verse with fluctuations is a way to try to get around a beginning, and to allow for contingency in this particular sub-cosmos. Empirical warrant, nil. Likewise, heat death and transfinite traverse. The Boltzmann brain as far more likely fluctuation, and more. Yes, too, there is a contrived air about such speculations.
PH reports another, from a reviewer:
But of course, a person is inherently volitional and we get high contingency through choice, not chance. (Indeed, look more closely at the fluctuation model and you will see an appeal to sheer chance.)
In short, it is dubious to deny contingency or seek to undermine it.
PH responds:
In short, love is creative and giving, thus a loving being will freely create. That such a being could act otherwise does not turn the action into a brute given.
A key point.
KF
F/N: Let us continue our “in-the-wild” exploration, here a Robert Adler BBC article (as representing what we might find in high-prestige media):
This is of course an expanded form of Dr Dawkins’ assertions in the OP above, where he made such heavy weather over the difference between something and a genuine no-thing. Thus, it falls victim to precisely the same inadvertent bait-switch fallacy that we already saw. In effect, it proposes a quasi-physical, speculative sub-universe that provides a space-time, energy-rich context for inflationary bubbles to form and toss up sub-cosmi such as ours, allegedly. With, of course, the sub-verse lurking as the implicitly claimed, brute fact necessary being world-root. Never mind, heat death, traversal of the transfinite past in finite stage steps, the overwhelmingly more likely event of a deluded Boltzmann brain or even a comm coll term assignment to run a world simulation (and play at being god) etc as issues. And of course, don’t ponder the significance of fine tuning of our cosmos fitting it for C-chem aqueous medium life or how we get beyond dynamic-stochastic computation on substrates to genuine rational freedom and moral government of our intellectual life through inescapable duties to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbourliness, to justice, etc.
In short,in this “tell it to grandma” form, we are right back at the challenge: which candidate to be the necessary being world-root is the best explanation. Philosophy done while wearing a lab coat is still philosophy, and a relativity- and quantum- influenced space-time domain prone to instabilities and formation of inflation-prone bubbles — despite erroneous, misleading labels — is not a genuine no-thing.
So, absent an infinite reservoir of energy, absent a credible means to traverse a transfinite causally successive past in finite-duration stages (“years” for convenience), absent a good explanation for a fine-tuned world at so deeply isolated an operating point as the observed cosmos is, and absent a good explanation for mind under moral government, we should not be overly disturbed by such philosophising while wearing a lab coat and filling chalkboards with quantum and relativity calculations.
An Arxiv pre-print by Sean Caroll provides another, similar perspective, as at June 18, 2018:
This has the merit that it is more balanced and informed, recognising that no-thing should mean precisely that. Further on, he brings up:
He then goes on, to his own key unsupported claim:
In short, oops, he begs the question. This happens by jumping between analysis of a cosmos of some form as a going concern and the root reality causally adequate to ground a world.
So, clearly, the question on the table from the OP on is vital.
And we have seen where it leads, on very plausible tools of thought.
Heidegger is right on the pivotal nature of this question.
KF