More Thoughts on Contingency

[Dimmesdale]

This video is mistaken in its claim that an explanation cannot be explained by a recourse to an infinite series of other explanations.

The analogy it uses, that of a chandelier suspended in "infinite space" (a logical impossibility - any given space must in some sense be circumscribed, otherwise it would be non-traversable and hence distance would cease to have any meaning) depends entirely upon the category of space, or extension. This need not be the case in terms of pure logic, where purely formal causation acts.

The example I can give is Pi. Pi, being the ratio of circumference to diameter in a circle, is an infinite irrational number. Without it, a perfect circle could not exist, and so, therefore, we would also be unable to recognize a circle as circle, or as in any sense approximating a circle. Each digit in Pi's expressiveness indicates the intrinsic essence of a circle's own nature, without which, the circle would not be a circle.

You could say then that a circle's ultimate reality is caused, by an infinite series of explanations in the form of Pi's geometric DNA. And I would say the human mind, however dimly, apprehends this infinity within itself.