Replying to the New Kalam with Joe Schmid, the Sci Phi Show

We've debunked the old Kalam argument presented by William Lane Craig in other videos, see here:
But there is now a "new" Kalam based on Benardete paradoxes such as the Grim Reaper which are meant to establish something called causal finitism. What are these paradoxes ? and how can a critic of the Kalam respond?Well our very own Alex Malpass has teamed up with Joe Schmid of the Majesty of Reason and published a paper in one of the worlds leading philosophy journals Mind.
You can find that here
We talk about this paper and related issue and see why how to reply to this new Kalam.
A timeline is here:
00:00 introduction
2:40 Grim Reaper paradox
7:43 The Kalam argument
9:25 Causal Finitism
12:40 The UPD
23:05 The Problem with causal finitism
37:20 Physics
44:30 Mysterious Force
57:33 The Patchwork Principle

Joe's papers on this topic:
“Branching Actualism and Cosmological Arguments”, Philosophical Studies (2023, with Alex Malpass). Here we use branching actualism to criticize the use of patchwork principles in support of the Grim Reaper Kalam.
“Benardete paradoxes, patchwork principles, and the infinite past”, Synthese (2024). Here I develop another problem for the use of patchwork principles in support of the Grim Reaper Kalam.
“The End is Near: Grim Reapers and Endless Futures”, Mind (Forthcoming). Here I criticize the Grim Reaper Kalam by developing a symmetrical Kalam-style parody argument, based on a future-oriented Benardete paradox, for the impossibility of an endless future.

“Grim Reaper Paradoxes and Patchwork Principles: Severing the Case for Finitism”, Journal of Philosophy (Forthcoming, with Troy Dana). Here we develop two problems for the Grim Reaper Kalam. One is a companions in guilt argument based on a new finite Benardete-like paradox. Another relates to a mistaken assumption about the intrinsicality of the Reapers’ realized powers/dispositions.

“Benardete Paradoxes, Causal Finitism, and the Unsatisfiable Pair Diagnosis”, Mind (Forthcoming, with Alex Malpass). Here we argue that the unsatisfiable pair diagnosis is the best solution to Benardete paradoxes, and in particular that it is much better than causal finitism. We also raise yet another challenge to the use of patchwork principles on behalf of the Grim Reaper Kalam.

[matsciguy-lh]

Well done again, Phil. These are excellent streams, thank you.

[decare]

Disclaimer: This is just my semi-related rambling...
For the spatially arranged reapers, imagine the walls already being there. Asking which wall prevents you from going forward is essentially asking which point you traverse first when entering an open interval. The answer being "none of them, there isn't a first one" just means that our intuition that there must be a first one is wrong. "If you're entering an open interval, there has to be a point you're entering first" is the implicit assumption, but the math shows that that isn't true. In the same way, you're blocked from moving forward, but not by any single first reaper, that's just how infinity is: weird. But the apparent contradiction is not an actual one, you just need to accept that your intuition doesn't and can't apply to things dealing with infinity.

[ellyam]

These philosophy heavy conversations give me life. Also I appreciate that this episode has a perfect balance of facial hair vs none

[Phillv]

This was a very helpful and enjoyable discussion.
It's given me lots to think about.

[Purkinje]

I wish I could think half as quickly as Joe can talk. Great episode, looking forward to more!

[monolithiccelestial]

Infinty scares people because we are finite. In reality, there is no problem with infinity. There is only a problem if infinity is supposedly a feature of some sort of being/entity.

[Lojak-exe]

JOE, PHIL, DAN, AND ALEX!! BEST SHOW, SUPER EPIC! NEW EPISODE GONNA EXPLODE SO EPIC CANNOT WAIT TO WATCH! SUPER EPIC, THIS IS GONNA BE EPIC!

[andystewart]

Another great episode!! Happy to see Joe on here!

[gabrielteo]

I like using the rebuff: If we suppose there is an angel that starts counting for as long as God exists (1, 2, 3...), because there are no actual infinities, at some point God must stop existing.

[MattJDoherty]

Really enjoying these streams!

Unless I'm completely misunderstanding the nature of these paradoxes, it seems to me they are just a roundabout way of asking for the first or second element of a set which has no beginning.

1.) A reaper only swings its scythe if and only if no previous reaper swings its scythe

In the finite case isn't there only two possible answers regardless of how many reapers there are?
The first reaper may or may not swing their scythe (not entirely sure how to define if 1. is met for the first reaper). If the first doesn't the second definitely does because no previous one swung it's scythe. That's the case no matter how many reapers there are as the condition is always met by #2 if one swings it's over, if one doesn't then two does. So the problem is basically

I can set up a situation where the first or second element of a set does x

I can't do this for a beginingless set as this doesn't have a first or second element

Therefore beginningless sets can't exist

Would the proponents of this style of argument find a situation in which the first reaper kills Fred as equally convincing? Perhaps something like

2.) A reaper only swings its scythe if and only if there is no previous reaper

Which would be something like this

I can set up a situation in which the first reaper kills Fred.

I can't do this for a beginingless set as this doesn't have a first reaper

Therefore beginningless sets can't exist


I know that as written the arguments aren't valid but I think they contain the gist of my understanding of how these are working. It's seems obvious to me that these sort of things can't be set up in the infinite case.

Though as I said I may be missing something obvious here as it is 1am 😅

[Alexander_Kale]

The grim reaper thing sounds like a reverse "the tortoise and the hare", a 2500 year old fable...

Presumably it has a similar flaw as that fable.

[joshuabrecka]

Not Joe pronouncing the 'x' in Humean necessary connexions lol. Great discussion of a great paper.

[TheForceApplied]

Basic TLDW: I don’t need to prove that (P) is true or false, or prove (not P) is true or false, I just need to show that (P & not P) is an internal logical contradiction and then we can dismiss the proposition out of hand.

[oliviamaynard]

This channel seems fun. All these paradoxes just always struck me as dumb? Of course it isn't impossible to cross the street and I totally crossed an infinity of points in space to do it and that's ok.

[krzyszwojciech]

I hope I didn't get it wrong - does this paper claim that certain brand of finitism is more costly _only if_ one has been convinced of finitism through the Grim Reaper Paradox (or a wider class of such paradoxes)?

[J]

Excellent discussion, thanks.
I'm having quite a hard time accepting that any reaper though - let alone the supposed first - can successfully kill Fred, when swinging a scythe takes quite a long time:-)

[MrGustavier]

Guys ! I've read somewhere that Yablo's paradox is the infinite version of the liar paradox. So the grim reaper paradox is just some version of a self referential problem.
Is that correct ??

[johnwick]

I was thinking about taking the grim reaper paradox and applying it to future.

Let's say there is a god at 11 30, another at 11 45, another at 11 45 + 7.5 mins etc.

All the gods will either kill you if you are alive or resurrect you if you are dead.

At 11 am you are alive. So at 12 01 will you be dead or alive?

[forall]

Given the Patchwork principle, we could say ;

* If it is possible that Joe sits on a chair and is comfortable, and also, Alex sits on a chair and comfortable,

* we could have a possible world where Joe sits on a chair which is positioned on top of Alex, who's also sitting on a chair, and both are comfortable .

It seems to me that given the Patchwork principle, this would be absurd because, Alex could not be said to be SITTING and COMFORTABLE, while haven Joe sit on a Chair that is positioned on top of him.

[Mentat]

I'm probably just missing something obvious, but could someone tell me what the "pair" of claims is, in the specific case of Kalam-style arguments? I understand the UPD says we can't accept both conjuncts, but I'm not sure what the conjuncts are in this case. "Infinite past causes" seems to be one of them, but what's the other one?