Can the principle of Sufficient Reason be violated?

Question

Can the principle that states that every effect must have a cause be violated, i.e. can we think of a situation in which an effect has no cause, i.e. there is no explanation (do not say LIFE). The PSR is also said as " everything has a reason" or "nothing is without a reason."

Answer 1

No, it cannot be violated. It's like gravity.

Everything happens for a reason, and for every reason there is a cause.

Answer 2

There have been plenty of cases throughout history where observable effects have been attributed to causes, which later have turned out to be better explained by other causes. Pre-Copernican astronomers, for example, believed that the sun moved around the earth, and they were able to predict, quite accurately, when various celestial bodies would appear in the sky. The notion of cause and effect in general would appear to be a property of the order making capacity of the human mind.
As we appear to have infinite explanations for effects, then perhaps, for us as a species the principal of Sufficient Reason can't be violated; we are compelled to explain our experiences in terms of cause and effect. But to assert that beyond a shadow of a doubt, that any single explanation is somehow a reflection of the "true" state of the universe not only begs the question that there is a "true" state that we can recognize, but also flys in the face of our experience of our scientific theories having greater predictive validity as time moves on.

Answer 3

Conceptually it makes no sense that an effect has no cause. We may not know, or ever know what caused a preceivable effect, say as if it may lie in a universe we are not able to percieve, but still, there has to be a cause, as odd and incomprehensible as it may be. "Join the dots and you'll eventually get to the source or see the whole picture..."

Now, don't taste this answer as having some sort of religious flavour; this is not my intention. On the contrary, I beleive it is trully a waste of time worrying about who or what is behind the "1st cause" or "mover of movers". I understand philosophy does and to some extent science dwell into this area, but it is approached in a different manner than theology/religion (please somebody explain to me the reasoning behind theology, it sounds like an oxymoron to me)

Answer 4

Well, if you believe in big bang theory, then you need to at least sweep the initial cause under the rug. Hawking's Brief History... has an excellent treatment of this. I suppose I can agree that nothing is without a reason. If there were a reason for nothing, then I suppose we would then see nothing, which we don't.

Answer 5

If there is an effect that we do not know the cause of, and if we have no way of measuring or even intelligently hypothosizing the cause, then for all intensive purposes, it would be an effect without a cause (to us at least).

While one could assume that there was an unknown cause, no one could ever prove or disprove this.

Answer 6

TICKS & CHIGGERS......there is no reason for either. They indiscrminatley host on either healthy or sick birds & mammals. Once they vacate their host they do not provide an exclusive benefit to anything else. In fact they may further infect the host with disease or infection. Saying that they serve as food for birds an such is not a justifiable reason. If there were no TICKS or CHIGGERS, the bird population would not be affected by their absence. Is this what you mean?

Answer 7

Of course yes - there has to be enough reason to violate the principle

Answer 8

I'm not sure I understand the question, but I'll answer what I think you mean.

Human beings can make choices that are against everything they've learned, and everything that has ever happen.

Answer 9

There are random acts of crime and random acts of kindness all the time. Maybe I don't understand you question. There seems to be a lot of violence in this world that has no reason behind it.

Answer 10

Does the existence of the universe count?