Causal finitism is NOT the best solution to infinity paradoxes

How should we solve paradoxes of infinity like the Grim Reaper Paradox? One candidate solution is causal finitism. In this video, Alex Malpass and I argue that there’s a better solution: the unsatisfiable pair diagnosis (UPD).

OUTLINE

0:00 Intro
1:45 Summary of the paper
3:08 Grim Reaper paradox
8:07 The Kalam
9:52 Causal finitism
12:55 The UPD
23:16 Problems with causal finitist solution
44:30 Mysterious force objection
56:47 Patchwork objection
1:13:20 Finite Benardete-like paradoxes
1:15:35 Final notes

LINKS

(4) Here are four other papers of mine mentioned in the video:

THE USUAL...

[Sveccha]

Ugh this is so much fun, thanks to all! Your uploads get me more hype than anything else

[bruhfella]

19:39 best philosophical analogy I’ve ever heard. It makes everything clear.

[dan.timonea]

How did you manage to be so well read and written at such a young age? I'm 22, super interested in philosophy, but I feel like I have not made much progress despite my efforts.

[irina]

Hey Joe! Loved your channel and your videos. Found out about you from Alex O’Connor.

Do you ever plan to do a video about natural law(Thomas Aquinas) and its problems? Would love to see it ☺️

[davidoppong]

Hello Alex

I have long been interested in logic, as well as the philosophy and history of logic, so I was delighted to come across your book *The History of Philosophical and Formal Logic: From Aristotle to Tarski*, edited by Alex Malpass and Marianna Antonutti Marfori.

While reading, I encountered something that I found deeply confusing, and after spending hours reflecting on it and consulting other sources, I am still unable to reconcile my understanding with what is stated in the book.

The statement in question appears on page 35: "When two propositions cannot both be true and cannot both be false, Aristotle calls them contraries."

Based on my understanding of Aristotle’s logic, contraries cannot both be true, but they can both be false. Should this perhaps be the intended meaning? If so, there may be an error in the text. If not, I would greatly appreciate any clarification or correction of my understanding.

Since the book is an anthology, I attempted to find the proper author of this particular chapter, but I was unsuccessful in that endeavor. As a result, I thought it best to contact you directly.

I would be grateful for any feedback or clarification you can provide, and I appreciate your time in considering this matter.

Thank you in advance.

Sincerely,
David

[theautodidacticlayman]

This is beautiful because I always saw the Kalam and its defenses as a neat novelty, since I don’t see any issues with infinitism… But I am curious to see the response that would arise if Bertuzzi gathered Craig, Koons, and Rasmussen or Kenny Pearce.

[coreygossman]

Joe, if the UPD posits that the combination of 2 or more logical principles which form the contradiction is invalid, that would mean that the metaphysician who is grappling with infinite causal chains must discard either the infinite past or the element of causation in order to create a coherent metaphysic.

I think you are mistaken in seeing the UPD as a "solution" to the Bernadete paradox that competes with something like causal finitism. Rather, the UPD is a tool which reduces the potential solutions by identifying contradictory suppositions. Causal finitism, temporal finitism, and spatial finitism are all solutions that satisfy the UPD, though it is equally satisfying to the UPD to say that there are infinite ordered sets, just that they are not contingent, though they may appear so.

The UPD actually bolsters logical finitism by enumerating the potential solutions.

I would also say that the "profligate" nature of a stance is not really an argument against a stance. This argument against spatial finitism by way of profligacy is akin to arguing against the proposition that there are no unmarried bachelors because one hasnt taken a complete census of all bachelors to see if they indeed are unmarried.

[andresjimenez]

And a Second Question Joe.

Recently I have been interested in the philosophy of science and religion. I have noticed many times that from some theistic positions biological evolution is questioned saying that it is "just a theory" almost equating it to an opinion or at the same level as a religious belief.

I certainly understand that a philosopher (whether theist or not) can argue that the natural sciences have an epistemology and ontology that is not questioned by scientists.

I also understand that scientists do not focus so much on questioning the ontology and epistemology of their disciplines because in that case they would be doing philosophy but not science. However, I also understand that the above does not invalidate the knowledge that has been obtained about reality from the natural sciences.

What I would really like to understand is how the natural sciences conclude that "evolution" and "natural selection" "exist" and that this theory/fact is not simply an opinion that is formulated ad hoc to replace God (as some theists would say ).

I also know that in principle a theist can believe in God or hold the proposition "God exists" without denying that evolution "exists" or that it is a "fact" (but that is not what interests me at the moment).


Could you please recommend bibliography?

[andresjimenez]

Hi Joe .Would you be so kind as to explain to us how theistic philosophers (Like Enric F. Gel ) support the idea that if theism is true, there must be such a thing as "divine judgment"?

What do you understand by “divine judgment” and what scenarios could be expected if that proposition were true?

Even if theism were true, would the concepts of "condemnation" and "salvation" also be true? Do they make any sense?

Why should a god judge not only the actions but also the beliefs of finite and limited creatures?

Finally, regarding discussions about the fundamental nature of reality: Is Believing different from Knowing?

Can you believe that a proposition is true and know that it is true?

If our prejudices and experiences influence our beliefs and apparent certainties (or de facto certainties) which then influence our actions, is "divine judgment" fair?

Could you please recommend bibliography?

[seanclements]

Alex's "in the pub" explanation was so clear

[PlaylistWatching]

1:14:42 What a fantastic counterexample! Next time you gotta lead with this!

...

And now I know with certainty that light bulbs can't exist.

[joshuapena]

Joe, do you think the UPD could also resolve the grandfather paradox, allowing for backwards time travel with constraints?

[silverharloe]

Generally when you've explained the Grim Reaper Paradox in the past, I've often thought:
"I know philosophy majors don't have to take calculus, but they have at least *heard* of it, right?!"
But from this video, I think I finally understand why calculus doesn't actually negate the paradox.

[HeavenlyPhilosophy]

When do you think you will be done publishing things on causal finitism? I would like to make a response eventually, but I would want to wait until everything is finished before I actually respond.

[Remiel_Plainview]

Hey Joe, I was watching your conversation with Alex on ontological argument and you said that you don't think that something can explain itself on why it exists. Does that mean if there is a necessary entity, its existence is a brute fact?

[theintelligentmilkjug]

How is the UPD any different than the law of non-contradiction?

[muhammedshanushan]

Suppose there is eternal being paving tile on the infinite floor from eternity, He chooses the colour based on previous tile
He chose white for the last tile bcz previous tile is white, he choose white for previous bcz it’s previous tile is white so on ad infinitum

Now we have contrastive explanations why each tile is white, since every tile being white entails the floor being white, we have explanation why floor is white
The explanation of why floor is white has to external to it (else circular), but the colour of each tile is dependent upon colour of other tiles which is part of the floor, so we don’t have an (external) explanation why floor is white

[caveman-cptq]

Please look into the problem of personal identity and open individualism and make a video about it

[StephenPaulKing]

Doesn't the evidence of the violation of Bell's theorem blow up the Patchwork Principle? All events and "things" in a universe have entanglements between them that are not attenuated by only distance and time, therefore arguments for mutual isolation are muted.

[JonBiel-wfgi]

About the last bit ("The UDP can be applied more generally in other domains"), I vaguely worry it could lead to some skeptical conclusions. Don't we infer a lot of substantive stuff from logical contradictions ? Maybe there's some parody argument to be made ("no you can't infer that the speed of light is finite ! only that this two propositions are incompatible").