Is everything necessary? | Dr. Josh Rasmussen & Dr. Amy Karofsky

I’m joined by Josh Rasmussen and Amy Karofsky to explore whether there’s any contingency in reality. It’s a MUST watch. (Or maybe not?)

OUTLINE

0:00 Intro & Outline
2:16 Defining terms
4:31 What’s at stake?
9:57 Motivating necessitarianism
39:10 Motivating contingentarianism
1:03:37 Truth & A gadfly among gadflies!
1:11:52 Conclusion

RESOURCES

THE USUAL...

[erik]

Some other things that stood out about this video:

I think this is my favorite discussion that you've had in a while. But the bar is extremely high, because I love all of the content put out on this channel. Firstly, we all love Josh. His demeanor and way of approaching complicated issues is legendarily synergetic. From his kindness, to his clarity, to his charitability, and his humble curiosity, and so forth. In the realm of disagreement, he is possibly *the* icon of helpful discussion, rightly so. The perfect person to address a controversy, like the well articulated suggestion that a major branch of philosophy has become an antiquated and possibly misleading echo chamber.

Secondly, I love everything about Amy's side of the conversation, from her intuitions, to her willingness to go against the flow, and her over all theory on the subject at hand. It's nostalgically reminded me that at a young age, I shared all of the views that she's come to flesh out. But my views definitely were swayed by mainstream literature about modality, contingency, and so on. I used to believe, both in my theistic years and otherwise, that what is, in some meaningful way, determines all of what else could not be. But the crowds of smart people around me seemed to take it for granted that this wasn't the case and somehow along the way I stopped really questioning it.

This kind of discussion has made me weary of so easily giving up on things that seem clear to me, just because a lot of smart people form cultures and languages that largely overlook it's possibility. I love the way she talks about throwing away the ladder that other people are using, and looking at things freshly within the realm of your own linguistic preferences about the subject.

So yeah, this is excellent content being created by an excellent set of personalities.

[jmike]

Man how cool is it joe that the modal collapse results in you as a necessary crucial role in necessarily discussing necessitatianism. The initial state chose you.

[aaronchipp-miller]

Incredible display of philosophical dialog. Breath of fresh air amidst debate culture here on YouTube.

[erik]

"If there was reason for it's existence, then it would be." was a wonderful quote from Dr. Karofsky.

One thing that came to my imagination in this discussion was the idea of there being a seed that requires sunlight that's planted in the soil and locked into a place that sunlight can't penetrate. In some way, I think it can be easily reasoned by most people that this seed wouldn't grow. Like a human without air or moisture, it would fail to realize development.

I don't think we would reasonably argue that this seed, that necessisarily and by it's physical constitution needs sun light, could have grown. In that sense, I feel like I can see Amy's understanding of how this talk of the possibility of flower power comes down to an epistemological deficit and not a metaphysical truth. It seems like what a seed is can't produce alternative outcomes in it's own timeline, even if we can imagine a seed that needs sunlight growing in a place where sunlight can't reach it. It seems like if we're imagining that it could have possibly grown in such a place, then we're imagining that senario because of our misunderstanding of it's nature - and the nature of it's circumstances. Sunlight in this sense would just be an analogy of it's molecular, or even atomic make-up, and how this seed can have reasons to be, or have reasons to not be.

A more simple metaphor would be a stone rolling down the hill. If we imagine that it could roll up the hill in the same exact environment that it could roll down the hill, then we're likely misunderstanding something about the nature of mass, gravity, or something equally relevant.

[sneakysnake]

My favorite part about Josh Rasmussen’s appearance in any dialogue is when he picks up some random and strange looking object and comments about how if it were bigger then it could be conscious/ a mind

[RealAtheology]

Really appreciate you bringing in top-tier philosophers of religion like Dr. Rasmussen to engage with other non-philosophers of religion. My hope is such conversations can raise the profile and discourse of PhilRel more generally.

[AlexSocarras]

41:30 "Metaphysical necessity ends up being equivalent to logical necessity"

A lot of people are saying this, folks!

[dubbelkastrull]

36:14 De La Roca

47:50 bookmark

41:24 Strong necessitarianism = Logical necessitarianism

[jjjccc]

Josh when he makes reference to a thought experiments is really talking about the Products of imagination. It is an interesting question whether What can be imagined is contingent or necessary. The concepts of necessity and contingency are created in the imagination and then try to be mapped onto the external empirical world. That attempted mapping is also in question.

[kimyunmi]

I am just starting to watch the video for around 10 minutes..but i predict at the end of the videos..the host will thank the 2 guests for their participation in the discussion..before ending the video. Both guests will then smile politely. I just close my eyes and imagine what will necessarily should happen. And most of the time they indeed do in fact happen...i am utilizing PSR...karofsky doesnt even need it..please next invite stephen maitzen and michael della rocca.

[TheJudgee]

This would make a GREAT book, like Rasmussen's dialogue with Leon: Is G-d the Best Explanation of Things?

[JohnVandivier]

The subtle and exceptional humor at intro. “I’m a philosopher, and who am I? I’m still working on that.” 💀

[annestephens]

"Contingency's liable to feel undecidable, mayhap necessarily so..." 🎶🎶

Hmmm... my own grounds may be insufficiently caffeinated, but this was a marvelous debate. Thank you!

[graysonmcdowell]

OMG I was just thinking about this. And two of my fav guests to discuss it too! It’s a great day for the internet.

[blamtasticful]

It has been awhile since i have seen her work but I remember enjoying it. I do wonder in the context of this conversation though if there is a bit of an issue as necessity being what is and necessity as not being able to be otherwise. It seems that wanting to conceptually frame necessity as what is is meaningfully different than a conceptualization of necessity as being unable to be otherwise. All of this to say that it doesn’t seem that MERELY appealing to what is is sufficient to counter arguments for why things could be otherwise.

[audreyandremington]

josh literally has the chad meme jawline bruh

[blamtasticful]

I am actually really impressed that Josh is trying explain seemings. I really think more people should atrempt to do this.

[jamescantrell]

I get the sense from this discussion that if contingency exists then it must exist following strong emergence.

[thoughtful]

At 59:00 - I'm not sure what role Josh's "pure reason" plays in reality itself. I understand that maps for action follow from core principles and always include an unknown element, but surely the green ball in space is green because of its chemical structure, the nature of the stars and their distance, and the nature of the eye perceiving it as well as its owner's health and the atmosphere between the viewer, the ball, and the source of light. Therefore necessitarianism is accurate whether Josh likes to assign different values to different component contributors to that reality or not.

[PhilHalper]

Johs object look like a Calabi-Yau manifolds although its probably a coral or an artistic version of a coral. Great discussion as always.