1

The god of the gaps is used to fill the last gap in front of a fundamental explanation of the physical world.

Fundamental physical constants, like the masses of the elementary particle families (or their coupling strengths to the Higgs field) and the coupling constants of the fundamental interactions, cannot be explained by the standard model. String theory states that coupling constants and masses are randomly distributed over a huge landscape of possible solutions to the overarching theory.

There are different theories to explain the physical constants. This renders a god of the gaps, who sets the constants in order to make life possible, superfluous.

How are the theories themselves explained? If there is no gap left, it seems that there is logically nothing else to conclude that God created the universe, even when it's eternal.

J D
  • 19,541
  • 3
  • 18
  • 83
Pathfinder
  • 1
  • 8
  • Add several tags. – J D Feb 11 '22 at 20:17
  • Even theory of everything, if we ever get one, string theory or another, will have laws stating that things are thus and so. One can always say that it is God who made them thus and so, and made them be. There will also be initial conditions, apart from the laws, that one can assign to God too. Then there is consciousness that many say physics does not explain, and is not meant to explain. And there is morality that physics does not even seek to explain. Don't worry, there will always be gaps for those who are looking for them. – Conifold Feb 11 '22 at 20:21
  • @J.D. Ah yes! Great. Thank you very much! – Pathfinder Feb 11 '22 at 20:22
  • @Conifold I'm referring to the physical gap. I don't think God has put initial conditions (how could he if it's eternal?) or morality inside their universe. But he **did** put consciousness inside matter. – Pathfinder Feb 11 '22 at 20:26
  • @Conifold "One can always say that it is God who made them thus and so, and made them be." If there is a deeper explanation we can't say that. Only when we hit true rock bottom this can be done. – Pathfinder Feb 11 '22 at 20:30
  • 1
    Sure we can. Are you familiar with [Agrippa's trilemma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma)? There is always a deeperer explanation after a deeper explanation because explanations always must take something for granted. Or there'd be nothing to explain *with*. And that will always be a (perceived) gap. – Conifold Feb 11 '22 at 21:04
  • @Conifold Some explanations don't need a deeper explanation because there **is** nothing deeper to explain. "That's it..." so to speak. How do we know that's it? We just know. The theory doesn't pull itself into existence, but reality always has been like the theory says. Only on fundamental level, of course. The higher level realities can be infinite, different for every big bang, and enormously complex and irreducible. One explanation is needed still. Where it all came from. – Pathfinder Feb 11 '22 at 21:13
  • 1
    Your question is essentially same as a recent [post](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/89334/an-argument-against-brute-physical-facts) about the existence of unexplainable brute physical facts vs (weak) PSR insisting further explanation leading up to the (weak) necessary metaphysical concept of God... – Double Knot Feb 11 '22 at 21:31
  • @DoubleKnot "insisting further explanation leading up to the (weak) necessary metaphysical concept of God..." with one difference. I don't ask about the concept but the real existence of gods. – Pathfinder Feb 11 '22 at 21:42
  • Strictly speaking from logical inference or metaphysical speculation one can only lead to (conceptual) propositions as [truth bearers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-bearer), of course it also indirectly implies the real entities as their [truth makers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthmaker_theory) in most cases, anyway hope that post helps... – Double Knot Feb 11 '22 at 21:50
  • @DoubleKnot If the brute facts (Oppy) don't need no further explanation there is only a strong explanation by reference to God. Who else could have brought it into existence. It's the **only** logical conclusion. – Pathfinder Feb 11 '22 at 22:08
  • 1
    There's a common subtle issue here for your conclusion which is also mentioned in my linked post somewhere since your conclusion is implicitly based on the premise of PSR or its weak version, but the stake of debate here is just PSR vs not-PSR (accept brute facts without any further explanation as you always hear people say "it is what it is..."), so you may [beg the question](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question). Of course there's nothing illogical if you just favor/argue for the positions similar to those of PSR or Pruss's WPSR, WWPSR... – Double Knot Feb 11 '22 at 22:25
  • @DoubleKnot There comes a point where contingent facts become brute. No further explanation is needed because reality just can't be further reduced. I would call them beautiful facts. Not brute facts. Sometimes, in an epiphany, the universe can show itself to you. :) – Pathfinder Feb 11 '22 at 23:00
  • I still prefer Anscome's term, since for others likely view them as bad facts/original sins which cause all later sufferings and evils... – Double Knot Feb 11 '22 at 23:05
  • @DoubleKnot I don't follow you here. Facts about the physical fundamentals of the cosmos are original sins? What do you mean? We should be glad with them, as they offer means for life to evolve. – Pathfinder Feb 11 '22 at 23:22
  • 1
    As you seem committed to relationism which claims existence is always relative to something else, so if all original brute facts are beautiful/good, then per relationsim there must simultaneously be bad/ugly facts in order to make sense of the beautiful facts. Thus the nature of brute facts on a whole if any at all must be naught of either good or bad under relationalism... – Double Knot Feb 11 '22 at 23:51
  • @DoubleKnot I consider contingent facts as beautiful too. But not fundamental. Although, some contingent facts can be bad... – Pathfinder Feb 12 '22 at 00:38
  • @DoubleKnot "so if all original brute facts are beautiful/good, then per relationsim there must simultaneously be bad/ugly facts in order to make sense of the beautiful facts." Can you give an example? – Pathfinder Feb 12 '22 at 00:55
  • Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/134057/discussion-between-double-knot-and-felicia). – Double Knot Feb 12 '22 at 01:05

0 Answers0