Leibniz

[Anonymous No.16009902]

Is this true?

[Anonymous No.16009924]

No and there are over 9000 threads about the incompleteness theorem and determinism versus free will. Why are you so lazily copy/pasting philosophical claims out of context on a science board without contributing any argument of your own? I quess we'll never know because we can ask why ad infinitum.

[Anonymous No.16009931]

>>16009902
Schopenhauer summarized it like this in his doctoral thesis on the PSR:
>Nothing is without a reason for its being
So yes, it may be Leibniz's most valuable philosophical contribution.

[Anonymous No.16009933]

Define sufficient explaination

[Anonymous No.16009937]

>>16009924
?

[Anonymous No.16009955]

>>16009937
>Low IQ arguing against strawmen to bump a thread.
You can't even formulate a thought without appealing to a sensory experience.

[Anonymous No.16009957]

What is the reason why the principle of sufficient reason is true?

[Anonymous No.16009964]

>>16009957
this principle underlies the search for explanations for physical phenomena and the assumption that the universe operates according to discoverable laws. Without it, our confidence in scientific predictions and explanations could be weakened, as it would allow for the possibility of events occurring without cause.

[Anonymous No.16009970]

>>16009902
Yes. It is analogous to causality, where every event in the chain requires another event before. Even succinctly false observations fall under PSR. There is some framework, perspective, assumption, etc as to why it was thought so.
Consider global warming or any other zealot dogma, at your prerogative, as an example.

[Anonymous No.16009979]

>>16009964
>Without it, our confidence in scientific predictions and explanations could be weakened
No. Science already takes existence for granted. The validity and reliability of predictions don't depend on a concept of causality. Tomorrow the sun will probably come up again for many reasons but ultimately for no reason / cause that we can verify with observation. It just does.

[Anonymous No.16009985]

>>16009964
But that's a teleological reason, not a causal reason.

[Anonymous No.16009998]

>>16009979
If there is no presumed sufficient cause then predictions are pointless.

[Anonymous No.16010008]

>>16009998
All we need is the belief in repetition.

[Anonymous No.16010013]

>>16009902
No, Leibniz like most "logicians" at the time were Christwashed

[Anonymous No.16010030]

>>16009985
True. PSR more follows empirically from the empirical observation that events in the universe follow patterns and laws, suggesting causality.

>>16010008
When scientists observe a consistent correlation and seek to understand it, they are operating under the assumption that there is a sufficient reason—whether causal or not—for that correlation.

[Anonymous No.16010042]

>>16010013
How is this dependent on Christianity?

[Anonymous No.16010059]

>>16010042
It's to fortify christian thought
In fact I'll prove it wrong right now
why implies the existence of a thing
So why does something exist opposed to not exist and vice versa?
Now we can ask the question: why why? Or rather what is the reason for reason?
Why/reason is presupposed ergo it does exist, exist? because it must by necessity of the hypothesis. This is not a reason
The reason for reason is reason is a circular nonsense.
Therefore if something exists it is by reason which it does exist, however it was unreasoned existence which necessities reason to exist for the hypothesis.
Only a Christian would need this kind of argument to be true to bolster their ideations of intelligent design and the will of a God.

[Anonymous No.16010086]

>>16010059
PSR leading to a potentially infinite sequence of causes doesn’t make it untrue. If infinite regress seems implausible to you then that just means you’re a theist without knowing it.

[Anonymous No.16010122]

>>16010086
Not infinite, circular and contradictory

[Anonymous No.16010156]

>>16010122
If one asks for a reason for everything, including the PSR itself, it leads to an infinite regress where the PSR would be its own reason, which is indeed circular. But I roponents of the PSR argue that it is a foundational philosophical axiom that doesn’t require further justification beyond its own stipulation. You’ll notice that Leibniz does not attach a proof.

[Anonymous No.16010184]

>>16010059
Fucking hilarious watching the atheist demonstrate midwittery and lack of imagination while formulating strawman against a dead man from hundreds of years ago.
There is a story about soiboys studying zebras. And the tagged zebras were getting killed out of the pack because the lions could coordinate their hunting by the tag being there. But there was no study and it never happened. Just a completely made up story that is passed around. Just like the 'scientific' folklore of zebra strips blending in with grass.
An explanation does not necessarily imply the existence of the thing. You can point at a chair, call it a chair, even sit in it, the condensate of experience manifesting the shape of a chair, but there is no chair. Literal brainwashing is the only reason you call it such. Is that a chair you are sitting in right now? If you weren't there, would that chair exist?
There are a number of questions which can be posed, some without answers. At the edge, where there are solutions, there are refutations.
Proposing that reason necessitates reason is amateur deduction. There are many sorts of reasoning and many kinds even in just the reasoning of man. Ratiocination is the primordial sort. Bigger masses, bigger animals subjugating inferiors. Things falling in apparent harmony.
Common forms resonating at common frequency from common causes.
In man, for each reasoning there is a language in which tokens are passed and parsed. In music, in combat, in debate, in love, in a mongolian basket weaving forum. The language is proof of the reason. And the reason of the reason? Why the reasoners, of course. And why the reasoners? Probably the same reason as the damn chair.

[Anonymous No.16011420]

>>16009902
Bump

[Barkon No.16011457]

>>16011420
Barkun Bootel.

MNWPV

[Anonymous No.16012857]

>>16011420
One last shot

[Anonymous No.16013739]

>>16009985
There isn't a casual reason. Reason can not prove or ground itself. The principle of sufficent reason, like the universe itself, is grounded on an act of will, a decision. Take the volunteerism pill.

[Anonymous No.16013755]

>>16009902
Define sufficient

[Anonymous No.16013794]

>>16009902
Only if it can sufficiently answer the reason or cause the principle of sufficient reason must exist.

[Anonymous No.16013818]

>>16010059
>circular nonsense.
Circular reasoning is the most satisfying possible kind as the only other possible ones are assertive which just declare themselves to be true and regressive that have no real end cause and must be evaluated infinitely.

[Anonymous No.16013831]

>>16010156
>it leads to an infinite regress where the PSR would be its own reason,
No, if there is an infinite regress, no final reason will ever be found because PSR would be attributed to an infinite chain of interconnected causes rather than some final absolute cause.

[Anonymous No.16014034]

>>16009924
>muh imcompleetness theerum
>muh duhtermanism and-d-d imduhturminism
>evraywone else is a lazy coopy pasting but not meee
the lack of self awareness is palpable

[Anonymous No.16014043]

>>16014034
So unlike me you are aware that you make a retarded reply without any intelligent contribution?

[Anonymous No.16014473]

>>16009957
The PSR doesn't have to be some super rigorous proof, it's just that as a feasible rule of thumb we expect things to have reasons for their existence, and so if something exists for literally no reason—not no apparent reason, not maybe some reason but it's undiscoverable, but literally metaphysically NO reason—it feels like that would be quite surprising. In any case the PSR doesn't even say everything must has a reason for its existence, because necessarily existing things such as abstract objects are beyond space and time, and exist eternally. There is also a distinction between a strong PSR (everything must have an explanation for it) and a weak PSR (everything potentially has an explanation for it). You could rule out the strong one but certainly not the weak one.

[Anonymous No.16014486]

>>16009902
I think you are looking for > /his/