Logic, Metaphysics, Natural Theology, Philosophy, Philosophy of Science

Addendum: Being, Cosmology, and the Principle of Simplicity

by Dave Seng

Nothing comes from nothing. – Lucretius

[Note: I will follow up on my post regarding the problem of the one and the many soon. Before I do that, however, I wanted to develop this excursus regarding the question of cosmology and the principle of simplicity a little more.]

One of the greatest questions of Being (all of reality) is how it all started. What philosophers call Being, however, does not strictly mean physical nature as it can include abstract ideas such as mental concepts, consciousness, aesthetic theories, human rights, mathematical axioms and formulas, emotions and intuition, moral goods and the like. Being includes both concrete physical objects and immaterial entities. Nonetheless, the question about the cause of existence is central to the study of Being. Martin Heidegger believed that the question, “why is there anything rather than nothing?” is the most important and foundational question of all philosophical inquiry. Another way of looking at this question is what is known as cosmology. Cosmology is the investigation of theories regarding the explanation, nature, origin, and development of the universe. Many philosophers and cosmologists are interested in “first cause” types of theories or arguments. This line of thought explores whether or not there is an ultimate cause of all events and existence, which logically does not itself have a cause.

Philosophers, such as Aristotle and Aquinas, believed that the basic elements of the universe—time and motion—were eternal. They did believe in a “first cause,” but their first cause was the greatest in a hierarchy of causes and realms of being. Plato was one of the first philosophers to articulate the idea that the universe must have a temporal starting point.

In light of our expanding cosmos and what scientists tell us about cosmic background radiation, it would seem that Plato is closer to the truth. Most cosmologists and physicists today believe that the universe had some kind of beginning. One widely acknowledged possibility of the origin of the universe is the “Big Bang” theory. This theory is a cosmological model which states the present hypothesized expanding universe has resulted from an explosion of concentrated matter (the point of singularity) fifteen or twenty billion years ago. All space, time, and matter are a result of that initial detonation.

Of course, the Big Bang hypothesis raises some questions. In a common sense and scientific understanding of reality, which assumes cause and effect relationships, what caused the Big Bang? What caused the cause of the Big Bang? What caused the highly concentrated matter to exist in the first place? Why did it suddenly defy the laws of inertia? These are some big questions given the principle of causality—the basic belief that every physical thing or event that comes into being is caused by virtue of something outside itself. In other words, the principle of causality is the idea that every contingent thing (things which are dependent for their existence on something else) comes into being by something external to it.

Philosophers and cosmologists have addressed these questions in two basic ways. On one hand, some have explored the possibility of an infinite regression, the idea that what caused the cause of the Big Bang produces a series of causes that recede into infinity. Others, however, have investigated the evidence which suggests a significant possibility that the universe has a real actual first cause and definitive starting point in space and time. Logically, the answer must be one or the other—either an infinite series of events or an actual first cause.

Philosophers are still debating this ancient question and have come up with some very complex reasoning about whether an infinite series is possible or not. At this point in the conversation, however, I think it is worthwhile to apply the law of noncontradiction and the principle of simplicity to these questions. The law of noncontradiction states that nothing can both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. Applied to the Big Bang model, which claims that a single compressed piece of matter and energy spontaneously created the universe from nothing violates the law of noncontradiction. The universe, in the point of singularity, would have had to exist prior to the detonation. It would have to exist and not exist at the same time and in the same respect which is impossible. It can not be and not be at the same time. Furthermore, nothing is not an entity. In philosophical terms nothing has no existence or being whatsoever—it does not exist, it is not a thing, it has no ontological properties, it has no potential. One can not even think of nothing because to think of it is to think of something. Because nothing is “not a thing” it has no causal powers. “Nothing,” as Martin Luther once quipped, “is not a little something.” To exist or “to be” means to stand out of nothing. Self-creation of contingent things is impossible which is why we don’t see it in our everyday experience. As many philosophers throughout history have stated, “nothing comes from nothing.”

Given the force of the principle of causality and the law of noncontradiction, we have a very good reason to apply the principle of simplicity with regard to the origin of the universe. The principle of simplicity states that one explanation ought to be preferred over another by virtue of its employment of fewer and/or simpler ideas. Many philosophers accept the notion that the simplest explanation that makes sense out of most of the facts is the best. It would seem, then, that since a self-created universe is impossible (employing the law of noncontradiction), the simpler theory, and one to be preferred, is one of an actual temporal First Cause. God must exist as the ultimate cause of the contingent, physical universe. Any attempt to show the possibility or impossibility of an infinite series of causes neglects the law of noncontradiction, leaves unanswered the questions of how the series started due to the fact that all events have antecedent causes (do the laws of inertia apply to an infinite series?), and how the condensed matter and energy came into existence in the first place, which is the entire question at hand.

The idea that the cosmic evidence points to a divine creator is certainly not new. It is, however, important and significant. It is the logical implication of the principle of causality, the law of noncontradiction, and the principle of simplicity. Taken together, we find that a First Cause makes the most sense out of the given data and unifies our experience of reality both simply and profoundly.

Metaphysics, Philosophy, Philosophy of Science

The Nature of Reality and The One and The Many, Part One

by Dave Seng

“The most practical and important thing about a man, is still his view of the universe.” – G. K. Chesterton

It is important to think about our most basic ideas, conceptions, and assumptions. After all, our foundational principles and ideas shape and inform what we think and how we act towards many other things in life. It is even more important to think about the first things of all reality. How we decide these questions will determine how and what we think about other things. For example, someone thinks that all reality is really mass and energy in motion, then it will be easy to understand where they fall on moral issues regarding the beginning and ending of life. On the other hand, if one believes in a supernatural or incorporeal reality then we know what he or she thinks in a variety of other things. Our most commonplace expressions of political policy, ethical decisions, and our understanding of the natural world such as change, cause, mass and energy, reflect assumptions about our basic ideas of the universe and our place in it. As G. K. Chesterton explained, “The most practical and important thing about a man, is still his view of the universe. We think that for a landlady considering a lodger, it is important to know his income, but still more important to know his philosophy. We think that for a general about to fight an enemy, it is important to know the enemy’s numbers, but still more important to know the enemy’s philosophy. We think the question is not whether the theory of the cosmos affects matters, but whether in the long run, anything else affects them.”1 Everyone, whether we realize it or not holds basic ideas—a philosophy—regarding humankind’s curiosity about itself and the universe of which he or she is a part. I’m convinced that the most important questions in life are metaphysical in nature. All the important questions we can explore are, in the final analysis, a result of what we think about the nature of reality.

This is just as true today as it was for a collection of philosophers who lived in the ancient world known as the pre-Socratics. I will explain who the pre-Socratics were and what they believed in an upcoming post. For now, it is enough to know that the pre-Socratics were the world’s first metaphysicians and in one way or another shaped the field of philosophy ever since. This post will focus on their influence and seek to explain why their primary question—the problem of the one and the many—is a significant difficulty for us today. I will post an essay or two to explain how different pre-Socratic philosophers answered the question. Then, we will discover how nearly every philosopher from Plato, Aristotle, Lucretius, Augustine through Aquinas, Kant and Hegel and even postmodern and critical theorists today still struggle with the question of the one and the many and its relevance for us in our current intellectual and cultural climate. First, however, let’s examine the classical problem of the one and the many and why it is still important.

What is this problem of the one and the many? Philosopher Ed Miller articulates the problem this way: The problem of the one and the many is “the problem of identifying the ultimate reality (the One) that underlies all things (the Many) and of explaining the relation between them or how the Many derives from the One”.2 It is a problem because logically the many can not be one (or it would not be many) and the one can not be many (or it would not be one). According to the law of noncontradiction, the one cannot be many at the same time and in the relationship.

The pre-Socratic philosophers were perplexed by the question of reality. They were puzzled by the nature of existence and what it means to exist in a world of change, contingency, and finitude. Yet somehow something holds this world together in unity. How do all things relate to one reality? Not everything is pure chaos. Finite things have unity or oneness. At the same time, all of reality (Being) seems to be coherent, ordered, and rationally discernible. Could it be there is an underlying reality that is revealed in the many things around us? If so, how is this underlying reality related to or connected to the individual things we encounter every day?

The fundamental issue is, coming from the fact of existence (Being), what do all things have in common? It seemed to the pre-Socratics that behind the vast multiplicity of things that make up the universe, there is some principle of unity, the very insight that is embodied in our word universe, which means “combined into one”.3

This quest to find unity out of diversity demonstrates the human impulse to seek an explanation for things. Generally speaking, the best explanation is the one that is simple, unified, and rationally coherent—what philosophers call the principle of simplicity. This principle states that one explanation is preferred over another by virtue of its employment of fewer and/or simpler factors. In philosophy, science, and everyday life, we tend to accept the simplest explanation that makes the most reasonable sense out of the given facts. We take unity as a principle of explanation because it unites, integrates, and encompasses that which is known. We do not like needlessly complex answers to questions. Complex answers certainly can be found for complex questions but the principle of simplicity explains why a single simpler answer that incorporates and makes sense out of a diversity of facts is often preferred. As we shall see in upcoming posts, the pre-Socratics may seem to be naive and unscientific, but their quest for an account for the unity from the many and what it means to provide an explanation for something is not at all unreasonable or irrelevant. 

The question of the one and the many shapes how we think about a variety of things. It is not an abstract problem strictly for the amusement of philosophers. In history of Western thought, the basic themes of being and becoming, the intelligible (mental and conscious) and sensible, the definite and infinite, same and other, particular and universal, and existence and nothingness all relate to the question of what reality is and how the many diverse things that exist relate to it. These themes point to the relationship everything takes part in and the underlying reality that makes things one, in other words, the unity of Being. The question of the one and the many may take on different names but in various ways, the inquiry is the same.

We can see how the issue works out today. Physicists have been concerned with the divisibility or indivisibility of matter and the strange behavior of sub-atomic particles for a long time. Why is it that physics is fairly regular and ordered at the macro level but not at the quantum level? Nevertheless, something unites the two. This is what John Boslough was getting at when he wrote, “Only by reconciling the two seemingly irreconcilable areas of physics can theorists hope to find a unified field theory that will explain the workings of the entire universe”. In some ways, the question of the one and many has become more relevant today than it was for the pre-Socratics. The quest, however, to find an underlying reality which unites everything else remains. How is it that time keeps moving forward when sensible particular things stop? What keeps time continuous? Time seems to be divisible yet there is an underlying unity to it. This is a question of the one and the many. In the realm of politics, one might ask, does the individual exist for the benefit of the state or the state for the individual? If so, in what way? How should the state be united for the common life of the many? What unites a community into a state? During the founding of America, the Federalists solved this problem with the slogan, e pluribus unum, “from the many, one”. But what happens when unity breaks down? These are important existential questions that will affect everyone at one time or another.

In the following posts, I hope to explore the ramifications of important metaphysical questions that center around the problem of the one and the many. We’ll discover how physics is applied metaphysics, social science is applied metaphysics and why Kant was right when he argued for a metaphysical foundation for ethical decisions.

We will continue to explore the question of the one and the many. For now, I hope that we can see that we all have been influenced and impacted by this most practical and metaphysical question of reality.

[Note, some of my readers have indicated that my posts are conceptually difficult for them. I apologize. I have tried to write at the beginning and intermediate levels but I know I often fail. In light of this, I have created a philosophical glossary to help out. In the meantime, I will still try to explain things more carefully because philosophy is important for all human flourishing.]

1G. K. Chesterton, Heretics (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1905) P. 15.

2Ed Miller, Questions that Matter, 4th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, 1996) P. 59.

3Daniel Sullivan, An Introduction to Philosophy: Perennial Principles of the Classical Realist Tradition, (Tan Books, 2009), P. 12.

Natural Theology, Philosophy of Science, Resources, Uncategorized

Resource: Reasons to Believe

by Dave Seng

If you are interested in the intersection of the Christian faith and the facts of science, you might find this resource helpful. I’ve found this site helpful as I have investigated various interpretations of cosmology and issues surrounding the origins and development of the universe and its being and becoming as an orderly system. Christians fall in many different schools regarding the origin of the universe such as the literal 24-hour position, the so-called “Old Earth” school, and what is known as the “Framework Hypothesis”. There are other positions but those three are the most significant. Reasons to Believe belongs to the Old Earth tradition of creation and believes that an old earth interpretation of the Biblical data makes the most sense out of reality as we know it.

It is possible to be a solid Christian and belong to any one of these groups (24 hour, Old Earth, Framework). The reason is, for those of us who belong to a Reformation tradition (such as Anglican, Lutheran, or Reformed), the matter is not a confessional issue. Neither is it mentioned in any of the ecumenical creeds. Christians have the freedom to apply the ministerial use of reason in their investigation of the critical issues central to the creation of the cosmos and Biblical revelation.

I personally don’t agree if everything that Reasons to Believe promotes but we never should accept everything anyone puts forward uncritically. We should always think rationally and carefully about the things we are learning and discovering. That said, if you are curious about the Old Earth interpretive scheme or just want to learn more about the origins of the universe, I think you’ll find Reasons to Believe a helpful point of departure. I think it would be of particular interest to those interested in natural theology.

Reasons to Believe

Logic, Metaphysics, Philosophy

Logic: The Art of Reason

by Dave Seng

Socrates famously said that the unexamined life is not worth living. It could equally be said that the unexamined idea is not worth having. How can one know, however, whether or not an idea is worth having or if one should accept it as true? Logic is the tool philosophers (and everyone, really) use to discern good ideas from bad ones and true statements from false ones.

It is often said that logic is the primary tool of the philosopher. But why has it been given such a status? Why has logic been called the “key” to philosophizing? In our last post, we discovered that one way philosophy is different from other fields is its development and utilization of logic, or more simply, the art of correct reasoning. This essay will not go into all the ways reasoning can go wrong, such as formal and informal fallacies. I’ll post some good texts that will help one out with those below. Instead, we will examine why one might want to reason correctly to begin with.

Philosophy sets itself apart from other fields because it starts with the basic assumptions of correct reasoning. Everyone uses these basic laws of thought without even realizing it or having special training in philosophy. There are three basic laws of correct reasoning and self-evident features of all reality. They are:

1. The Law of Noncontradiction: Nothing can both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect.

2. The Law of Excluded Middle: Something either is or is not.

3. The Law of Identity: Something is what it is.

It is important to realize that these laws are absolutely necessary for any coherent thought or communication of any kind. Without these laws, communication would collapse into incoherence and chaos. Furthermore, notice that these laws have both metaphysical and epistemological ramifications. They are metaphysical in nature because they indicate what can or can not be. They lay out the basic foundation (what Aristotle calls “first-principles”) or starting points for understanding anything that is. As for epistemology (how we know what we know), these laws show us what can or can not be true. A statement can not be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect. A cat is what it is (the Law of Identity). When reasoning correctly, it is always important to keep in mind that truth is what corresponds to reality. It is impossible to reject one of these laws and write a coherent sentence. Note that the qualifying phrase for the Law of Noncontradiction, “at the same time and in the same respect” is significant. A chair could be red or yellow at different times but it can not both be and not be (anything) at the same time and in the same respect—it can not be four-legged and not four-legged at the same time.

It is important to realize that these laws demand no other foundation or principles in order to be true because they are the first and most basic laws of reason. No further proof is needed for their acceptance. Not everything needs to be proved to be true. Aristotle called these the “first principles” of all reality and logic. In fact, it was the Law of Noncontradiction that Aristotle was speaking of when he said that it was the mark of an uneducated person not to realize that some things cannot be proved, otherwise nothing could be proved. According to Aristotle,

“Some, indeed, demand to have the law proved, but this is because they lack education; for it shows lack of education not to know of what we should require proof, and of what we should not. For it is quite impossible that everything should have a proof; the process would go on to infinity, so that there would be no proof” (Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1006a).

These three laws are simply “anchors” or foundational “first principles” for all human communication and reasoning. Without them, we would simply fall into intellectual confusion and disarray. It really should not worry anyone that these principles are not provable. The principles and axioms of geometry are not demonstrable but it would be impossible to write a geometric proof without them. In the final analysis, all our basic rules of thought and logic have a metaphysical cast to them.

There are two aspects to correct reasoning. Existence (Being) itself is the touchstone for human thought and experience. We learn crucial things about the world through our senses. After all, our senses allow us to experience external reality. Through the repeated data our senses provide to the mind, we learn the essential character of things. Take, for example, the conductivity of gold. By empirical observation, we find that gold is an excellent metal for conducting electricity. We can correctly conclude that one of the essential properties (what Aristotle would call potencies) of gold is to be an electrical conductor. The process of exploring reality and drawing conclusions from sense experience is called induction. Induction is reasoning which attempts to reach a conclusion concerning all the members of a class after inspection of only some of them. If we notice that all the crows we have come across are black, it is valid to conclude that the next one we see will be black. If we plant an acorn, and nothing prohibits it from growing, it is reasonable to think an oak tree will grow. Induction is an empirical process. Induction, however, does not mean we can know and understand things with absolute certainty. It is simply a process that allows for predicting things to a very high degree of probability and provides the basis for the common sense understanding that barring impurities, gold will conduct electricity and if properly cared for, an oak tree will grow from an acorn.

Induction helps us to know the essence of things and speaks to the fact that we do not have to examine every single member of a class in order to come to a valid conclusion. We know that when we discover something it has an essential nature. We do not have to examine every single human to find out that humans are mortal. Similarly, we understand that humans have rational cognitive abilities, an essential feature of being human, but it is not necessary to interview every human in order to discover this feature of humanity. This process is called abstraction. Through empirical observation, humans discover features and properties of the particular class of the thing being examined and detect the essential nature of that thing. The essence of a thing is simply that which makes something the kind of thing it is. In the case of humans, we learn that mortality and rationality (among others) are essential universal features of what it means to be human.

Induction is a fascinating two-way street. In order to test our inductions, we have to refer back to empirical facts and observation. This reverse engineering process where we return from the level of abstraction and universal essence to the level of the senses is an impart part of induction. This is because being and essence are always combined.

The second way we know things is called deduction. This form of reasoning is also based on the three laws of thought discussed above. Deductive reasoning is based on the self-evident principles of all reality (Being) such as the Law of Noncontradiction. Deduction can start from more complex judgments whose truth has been proved and moves to develop further conclusions from these previously known truths or, at other times, simply resolves complex judgments into more basic principles. With this form of thinking, the conclusion of an argument follows by logical necessity from the premises. In other words, when it comes to deductive reasoning, if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true also. With deductive reasoning, we start with a universal principle (true for everyone everywhere) and reach a particular conclusion (what is true for a particular thing or individual). The famous example is:

All humans are mortal (universal proposition)

Socrates is a human

Therefore, Socrates is mortal (particular proposition, conclusion)

This kind of deductive reasoning is also called syllogistic reasoning meaning to consider certain propositions together. The conclusion of the deductive argument must follow by necessity due to the logical entailment or implication of the propositions.

The art of reasoning is really about the human desire and ability to discover truth. Logic is simply the laws of thought which help us to learn whether or not we have correctly formulated inductions or if we have moved from one syllogistic set of propositions to another accurately. It is, of course, possible to reason from the wrong starting point or be mistaken about the truth of our basic premises. Formal logic is concerned with right reasoning but not always with the truthfulness of our reasoning. It is more important to discover how our reasoning corresponds to reality and is, therefore, true.

Further reading:

John Burbidge. Within Reason: A Guide to Non-Deductive Reasoning. Kenmore, N.Y.: Broadview press, 1990.

Irving M. Copi. Introduction to Logic. Fourteenth ed. Routledge, 2010.

Patrick Hurley. A Concise Introduction to Logic. Twelfth ed. Cengage Learning, 2014