Sufficient reason and reason enough
Gustavo E. Romero
TL;DR
This paper analyzes the Principle of Sufficient Reason, arguing it is a useful guiding hypothesis rather than a necessary truth, and discusses its role in scientific investigation and understanding of nature.
Contribution
It offers a philosophical analysis of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, emphasizing its status as a justified hypothesis rather than an absolute truth.
Findings
The Principle of Sufficient Reason is not a necessary truth.
It functions as a guiding hypothesis in scientific inquiry.
Its justification is based on empirical success in uncovering natural mechanisms.
Abstract
I offer an analysis of the Principle of Sufficient Reason and its relevancy for the scientific endeavour. I submit that the world is not, and cannot be, rational - only some brained beings are. The Principle of Sufficient Reason is not a necessary truth nor a physical law. It is just a guiding metanomological hypothesis justified a posteriori by its success in helping us to unveil the mechanisms that operate in Nature.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsPhilosophy and History of Science · Philosophy and Theoretical Science · Quantum Mechanics and Applications