Might there be a theory that leaves nothing unexplained?
It is sometimes claimed that God, or the Universe, make themselves exist. But this cannot be true, since these entities cannot do anything unless they exist. God is sui generis (unique).
You can't make yourself exist, for this is to take part in an action, and to carry out this action
it necessitate that you exist.
So the argument holds if you do not exist how then can you create? Yet some people even claim
that there may be only one coherent cosmic possibility. Thus Einstein suggested that, if God
created our world, he might have had no choice about which world to create. If such a view were true, everything might be explained. Reality might be the way it is because there was no conceivable alternative.
Consider next a quite different view. According to Plato, Plotinus and others, the Universe
exists because its existence is good. Even if we are confident that we should reject this view, it is worth asking whether it makes sense. If it does, that may suggest other possibilities.
This Axiarchic View can take a theistic form. It can claim that God exists because his existence is good, and that the rest of the Universe exists because God caused it to exist. But in that explanation God, qua Creator, is redundant. If God can exist because his existence is good, so can the
whole Universe. This may be why some theists reject the Axiarchic View, and insist that God’s existence is a brute fact, this accords with the view that we have a vengeful God, with no
explanation.
An appeal to God cannot explain why the Universe exists, since God would himself be part of
the Universe, or one of the things that exist. Some theists argue that, since nothing can exist
without a cause, God, who is the First Cause, must exist. As Schopenhauer objected, this
argument’s premise is not like some cabdriver whom theists are free to dismiss once they have reached their destination.
If, as it seems, there is much pointless suffering, our world cannot be part of the best
possible Universe
Thus, on the All Worlds Hypothesis, every possible kind of world, reality is maximal, or as full as it could be.
Our world, theists claim, can be explained in the first of these ways. If reality were as good as it
could be, it would indeed make sense to claim that this was partly God’s work. But, since God’s
own existence could not be God’s work, there could be no intentional explanation of why
the whole of reality was as good as it could be. So we could reasonably conclude that this way’s being the best explained directly why reality was this way.
If nothing had ever existed, there could not have been some agent, or process of selection,
who or which made this possibility obtain
Consider next the All Worlds Hypothesis, which may obtain. If reality is as full as it could be,
is that a coincidence? Does it merely happen to be true that, of all the cosmic possibilities, the
one that obtains is at this extreme? As before, that is conceivable, but this coincidence would be
too great to be credible. We can reasonably assume that, if this possibility obtains, that is because it is maximal, or at this extreme. On this Maximalist View, it is a fundamental truth that being possible, and part of the fullest way that reality could be, is sufficient for being actual.
That is the highest law governing reality. As before, if such a law governed reality, we could still ask why it did
As these remarks suggest, there is no clear boundary here between philosophy and science.
If there is such a highest law governing reality, this law is of the same kind as those that
physicists are trying to discover. When we appeal to natural laws to explain some features of
reality, such as the relations between light, gravity, space and time, we are not giving causal explanations, since we are not claiming that one part of reality caused another part to be some
way. What such laws explain, or partly explain, are the deeper facts about reality that causal explanations take for granted
It is sometimes claimed that God, or the Universe, make themselves exist. But this cannot be true, since these entities cannot do anything unless they exist. God is sui generis (unique).
You can't make yourself exist, for this is to take part in an action, and to carry out this action
it necessitate that you exist.
So the argument holds if you do not exist how then can you create? Yet some people even claim
that there may be only one coherent cosmic possibility. Thus Einstein suggested that, if God
created our world, he might have had no choice about which world to create. If such a view were true, everything might be explained. Reality might be the way it is because there was no conceivable alternative.
Consider next a quite different view. According to Plato, Plotinus and others, the Universe
exists because its existence is good. Even if we are confident that we should reject this view, it is worth asking whether it makes sense. If it does, that may suggest other possibilities.
This Axiarchic View can take a theistic form. It can claim that God exists because his existence is good, and that the rest of the Universe exists because God caused it to exist. But in that explanation God, qua Creator, is redundant. If God can exist because his existence is good, so can the
whole Universe. This may be why some theists reject the Axiarchic View, and insist that God’s existence is a brute fact, this accords with the view that we have a vengeful God, with no
explanation.
An appeal to God cannot explain why the Universe exists, since God would himself be part of
the Universe, or one of the things that exist. Some theists argue that, since nothing can exist
without a cause, God, who is the First Cause, must exist. As Schopenhauer objected, this
argument’s premise is not like some cabdriver whom theists are free to dismiss once they have reached their destination.
If, as it seems, there is much pointless suffering, our world cannot be part of the best
possible Universe
Thus, on the All Worlds Hypothesis, every possible kind of world, reality is maximal, or as full as it could be.
Our world, theists claim, can be explained in the first of these ways. If reality were as good as it
could be, it would indeed make sense to claim that this was partly God’s work. But, since God’s
own existence could not be God’s work, there could be no intentional explanation of why
the whole of reality was as good as it could be. So we could reasonably conclude that this way’s being the best explained directly why reality was this way.
If nothing had ever existed, there could not have been some agent, or process of selection,
who or which made this possibility obtain
Consider next the All Worlds Hypothesis, which may obtain. If reality is as full as it could be,
is that a coincidence? Does it merely happen to be true that, of all the cosmic possibilities, the
one that obtains is at this extreme? As before, that is conceivable, but this coincidence would be
too great to be credible. We can reasonably assume that, if this possibility obtains, that is because it is maximal, or at this extreme. On this Maximalist View, it is a fundamental truth that being possible, and part of the fullest way that reality could be, is sufficient for being actual.
That is the highest law governing reality. As before, if such a law governed reality, we could still ask why it did
As these remarks suggest, there is no clear boundary here between philosophy and science.
If there is such a highest law governing reality, this law is of the same kind as those that
physicists are trying to discover. When we appeal to natural laws to explain some features of
reality, such as the relations between light, gravity, space and time, we are not giving causal explanations, since we are not claiming that one part of reality caused another part to be some
way. What such laws explain, or partly explain, are the deeper facts about reality that causal explanations take for granted
No comments:
Post a Comment