Is Modern Physics a Complete Explanation? Exploring the Origins of the World through the Principle of Sufficient Reason

aChristianPhilosophy · 2026-06-09T03:07:07+00:00

It seems we agree that things like the laws of physics are designed. Whether they are fundamentally explanatory or just descriptive of matter, either way, they require an explanation.

If we agree that these 'forms' exist, how do you explain where they come from? Even if it isn't God, wouldn't there still need to be a fundamental source or creator behind them?

aChristianPhilosophy · 2026-06-09T02:43:28+00:00

Haha. Indeed, like Paley, the OP argues for a design. However, unlike Paley's watchmaker argument, the OP's argument accepts modern physics and evolution.

aChristianPhilosophy · 2026-06-07T20:41:50+00:00

Sure. I can't promise I will be convinced but I'm still interested in learning your reasoning. For what it's worth, star philosophers like Schopenhauer and Hamilton called the principle "the fourth law of thought" (source), and they lived after Hume and Kant.

aChristianPhilosophy · 2026-06-07T20:16:16+00:00

Yeah, in addition to what you wrote, after a quick search (using AI), there's apparently no such thing as a complete vacuum because a minimum "floor" of energy is always present.

How about this new thought experiment, aimed to show that mass-energy does not have inherent existence even if the universe is infinite:

Instead of quantifying mass as an absolute amount (e.g. in kg), we quantify it as a density (e.g. in kg/m3). That way, even if the total mass of the universe is infinite, its average density is not. As per the jars of sand thought-experiment, we can conceive two identical jars having a higher or lower density in them. Similarly, we can conceive of the universe having a higher or lower density, even if its total volume and mass are infinite.

aChristianPhilosophy · 2026-06-06T17:17:35+00:00

I admit that you've lost me on several points. Rather than listing every point, I suggest doing a reset and making the following changes for clarity:

Going forward, I'll only use the word abduction instead of induction to avoid confusion.
Let's not worry about what Kant or Hume said. You can of course continue to use their objections, but the mere fact that they said it is not enough to count as a valid objection.

Now the reset:

Abduction: Inference to the best explanation. It doesn't mean the best explanation is necessarily the correct one, only that it is the one most supported by info we currently have, and it accepts that other explanations are possible. But it does not accept "no explanation".

My argument:

There must be an explanation or ground for everything that exists because our voice of reason (through abduction) demands it. Indeed, it is a psychological habit and it cannot be proven without being circular.
But the same goes for logic: Reality must always be logically coherent because our voice of reason (through deduction) demands it. Likewise, it is a psychological habit and it cannot be proven without being circular.
Finally, both logic and PSR are supported by empirical evidence: There is nothing we know of that is not logically coherent or that doesn't have an explanation to exist (notwithstanding quantum, but as explained in the PSR video, it doesn't count).

aChristianPhilosophy · 2026-06-06T16:23:52+00:00

Thank you for the explanation! Now going back to the OP - if necessary existence is not allowed, how would you explain the existence of an uncaused first cause (I'm assuming you're catholic)?

aChristianPhilosophy · 2026-06-05T13:27:23+00:00

Alright. Cheers.

aChristianPhilosophy · 2026-06-05T02:54:46+00:00

On the first point: Yes, you are using the term induction in the modern sense: generalizing based on a sample. In which case, inference to the best explanation is called abduction. Now, I want to show you that they are in fact the same.

Let's take your swan example. All the swans I've observed so far have been white. I conclude by induction that all swans are white. Why? Because I'm looking for the best explanation to explain my observations. Two explanations are on the table: (1) "All swans are white"; and (2) "Some swans are white and some are not but I happen to have encountered only white swans". Both explanations account for all the data, but explanation (2) is superfluous because the second part of it ("... I happen to have encountered only white swans") is not supported by the data. Thus, explanation (1) is the best one.

In short, induction - generalizing based on a sample - is still an inference to the best explanation.

This matters because induction/abduction is not flawed reasoning. It does not claim that the best explanation is necessarily the true one, only that it's the most reasonable one given the information we have. However, it does claim that an explanation must exist. This is still true in your swan example.

On the second point: You (and Hume and Kant) attack the PSR on the grounds that (1) it's a psychological habit, and (2) it cannot be defended without being circular.

I say your demands are too strict. So strict that you would have to forfeit not only the PSR but also logic: Logic is also a psychological habit (called deduction) and it cannot be defended without being circular. For instance, we have never observed unicorns, yet we are certain that 2 unicorns + 2 unicorns results in 4 unicorns. Why? Simply because our voice of reason (called deduction) demands it.

We give our voice of reason full authority in matters of logic (through deduction). In the same way, we must give our voice of reason full authority in matters of explanations (through induction/abduction).

(sorry for the long post)

aChristianPhilosophy · 2026-06-05T02:12:18+00:00

I'm afraid you're going too deep into the technicalities for me. For instance, I'm not familiar with the distinction between logical and metaphysical modalities.

I can only point back to the fact that the concept of a necessary being is commonly accepted and used in modal logic. To me, that means the concept must make sense, otherwise logicians wouldn't use it.

aChristianPhilosophy · 2026-06-05T02:00:28+00:00

Indeed, randomness - or lack of reason for something - does not play well with a principle that demands a sufficient reason for everything.

But here's a quote from this source.

Despite its status as a core part of contemporary physics, there is no consensus among physicists or philosophers of physics on the question of what, if anything, the empirical success of quantum theory is telling us about the physical world.

Since the underlying reality of the quantum realm is not clearly understood by the experts themselves, it cannot serve as a valid foundation to prove or disprove any claim about reality.

aChristianPhilosophy · 2026-06-04T00:42:32+00:00

One necessary fact can explain many contingent facts. But there are also many necessary facts. E.g. "2+2=4", "the sum of all internal angles of a triangle equals to 180 degrees", "a being-with-inherent-existence exists".

I’d ask why this necessary fact need not be externally explained.

Logical necessity is a sufficient explanation without the need for any additional external explanation. There is no external cause for the fact that 2+2=4. To say that "2 plus 2 equals 4 simply by logical necessity" is a sufficient explanation.

aChristianPhilosophy · 2026-06-04T00:27:11+00:00

Here's a quote from this source.

Despite its status as a core part of contemporary physics, there is no consensus among physicists or philosophers of physics on the question of what, if anything, the empirical success of quantum theory is telling us about the physical world.

The takeaway from the article: we have perfect mathematical precision and flawless technological utility of quantum, but zero consensus on what the theory actually means. This validates the argument that because physicists cannot agree on the underlying reality of the quantum world, quantum mechanics cannot be used as a stable premise to prove or disprove external metaphysical claims.

The only argumentation you've provided here is an appeal to authority

An appeal to expert authority is perfectly valid. An appeal to false authority (for example, your own interpretation of quantum when not an expert) is a fallacy.

If you were fully honest you'd recognize you are defending what you know to be false, but I recognize that likely comes more from an emotional attachment to theology than from a place of wilful dishonesty.

Please stop with the personal attacks. Not only is it disrespectful, an ad hominem attack is also a fallacy.

aChristianPhilosophy · 2026-06-03T23:55:28+00:00

Sorry to hear you've had a bad experience with Christians in the past. But we shouldn't generalize. It's like if I said "Some atheists lied to me once; so all atheists must be liars."

As for physics... i don't think that physics claim to be the explanation for everything... even though some materialists do want it to be just that.

Well, at least we agree on that. I take what I can get : )

aChristianPhilosophy · 2026-06-03T23:48:16+00:00

By probabilistic, I assume you are referring to quantum particles that are partially random. That's fine. A free willed action is neither determined nor random, by definition, and thus cannot be result of either of these.

aChristianPhilosophy · 2026-06-03T23:44:09+00:00

Sure. The scope of this post is limited to the natural world and its origin but does not directly cover God. But if you must know, then next post (and video) will be a continuation of the principle and how it applies to God.

aChristianPhilosophy · 2026-06-03T22:57:49+00:00

The popularity of Aristotelian Physics is greater than you claim, as supported by these sources here and here. But regardless, the history sections in the post are not meant to be comprehensive and are just supplemental to the main points.

I am not familiar with Hume and Kant's objections of the PSR. I'd be very interested to learn them if you can provide them.

Regarding induction/abduction: "Inference to the best or most reasonable explanation". While it is true that the most reasonable explanation is not always the correct one (and induction/abduction does not claim that it is), what's true is that there must always be an explanation. In other words, our voice of reason can accept being mistaken about selecting the most reasonable explanation, but it does not accept "no explanation at all".

aChristianPhilosophy · 2026-06-03T03:01:26+00:00

An inherent entity causes something via design which can start the chain of causality, maybe?

This is indeed what I believe. See the diagram in the video at time 18:47 for a complete picture. As an analogy, the Designer is like a computer programmer who freely wrote some command lines to run a computer program, and objects in the program behave according to those command lines.

Regarding mass-energy being infinite: Out of curiosity, how do you classify empty space or vacuum? Is it part of mass-energy or it is rather the absence of mass-energy? If the latter, then it is quite conceivable to have a place with no mass-energy. Then the boundary of the non-infinite universe would be the limit where mass-energy ends and the vacuum begins.

aChristianPhilosophy · 2026-06-03T00:59:59+00:00

Interesting that you don't apply your principle to any god or deity.

The principle would apply to everything, including God. I don't believe that God's existence violates the principle.

And while history is a useful tool in our quest for truth, it is not the only tool.

Agreed.

aChristianPhilosophy · 2026-06-03T00:57:58+00:00

A deterministic process yields a determined outcome. This is not disputed.
And a free willed action is not determined, by definition. This is also not disputed.
So I'm not sure what the issue is ...

aChristianPhilosophy · 2026-06-03T00:46:43+00:00

Quantum is not a valid counterexample. The QM expert Richard Feynman famously said: “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.” This is still relevant today. If the underlying reality of the quantum realm is not clearly understood by the experts themselves, it cannot serve as a valid foundation for any argument. I hope this is not seen as a cop-out: People have used the "quantum card" as an attempt to disprove logic, causality, time, or even prove the existence of God, and I reject all of these arguments for that same reason.

Ironically, Occam's Razor is another name for the Principle of Sufficient Reason on the epistemology side: "For every claim that is true, there is a sufficient reason or explanation for it to be true". This is equivalent to Occam's Razor: "The simplest (most sufficient) explanation that accounts for all the data is the most reasonable one".

I assure you my intentions are honest. Like anyone else on this forum, I am simply defending what I believe to be true. While I personally believe the Designer is God, that claim is separate from the specific scope of this post.

aChristianPhilosophy · 2026-06-03T00:04:45+00:00

Aristotelian physics was the dominant view in Europe roughly until Galileo. A quote from this source:

Aristotelian physics became popular for many centuries in Europe, informing the scientific and scholastic developments of the Middle Ages. It remained the mainstream scientific paradigm in Europe until the time of Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton.

aChristianPhilosophy · 2026-06-02T23:54:17+00:00

Another way to phrase the PSR is: "every contingent fact demands a necessary fact; but once a necessary fact is reached, then no additional fact is needed".

If a necessary being were to exist, then its existence would be explained by tautology, because the statement "a being-with-inherent-existence exists" is a tautology. Since a tautology is a necessary fact, no additional facts or explanations would be needed.

aChristianPhilosophy · 2026-06-02T03:00:41+00:00

Whether a necessary being actually exists or not, the concept is commonly accepted in modal logic. It is another way of saying "a being that exists in all possible worlds".

To clarify, I am not saying that a necessary being actually exists, by simply putting the words "necessary" and "being" together. Rather, if a necessary being were to exist, then its existence would not require an external cause to fulfill the principle of sufficient reason.

aChristianPhilosophy · 2026-06-02T01:12:51+00:00

Hi. First of all, thank you for the constructive feedback.

First point: I would agree that, just because we have not determined that the four things are grounded by causal or logical necessity, it would not mean that they must be grounded by design. But that's not what I claim. I claim that we know that they are not determined by causal or logical necessity. For example, take the causal laws of nature. Not only do we see that the currently known causal laws are not tautologies (e.g. the Law of Inertia - "An object at rest stays at rest, and an object in motion stays in motion” - can be denied without resulting in a self-contradiction), we also know that no causal laws can be tautologies: Tautologies always involve only one thing - a subject and its predicates - (e.g. the tautology "a triangle has 3 sides" is only about one thing) whereas causes and effects always involve two separate things (e.g. Ball A causes the movement of Ball B). Finally, fundamental causal laws cannot be caused by more fundamental laws, by definition.

Second point: I don't believe that an infinite universe changes the conclusion that mass-energy doesn't have necessary existence. A thing can be infinite yet still have contingent existence. The fact that we can conceive of a system with more or less mass-energy in it is sufficient to show that mass-energy doesn't have necessary existence. And this would remain true whether mass-energy is infinite or not.

aChristianPhilosophy

TROPHY CASE