Question about principal of sufficient reason vs this other take...?

Question

There's also this idea that not only must there be sufficient cause for an event to take place or reality to exhibit itself in a certain manner, but the idea that the reason why an event did not happen was there had to be something which made it's happening impossible. ALso, this is for all unimagined events (basically, looking at all infinite possible events that did NOT happen, they didn't happen because something made their occurance impossible.)

1. What's the distinction between these two theories? (Why do we need one or other, is the second more or less specific than first, how are they related, etc....?)

2. WHat does the second one really mean cause that's a little harder to understand...?

3. Thanks.

Answer 1

Your wording suggests to me that I came in during the middle of an ongoing discussion.  Was that in a prior question, a class, a mental examintion of the subject?

This sounds like you are comparing two separate theorists, so there would be more factors involved.

Where you say all unimagined events - it appears you are looking at infinite universe theory (that whatever can happen, has happened, in a parallel universe).

um.  Maybe coffee before tackling this...

Okay.  Assume multiple universes and quantum theory.  

Did every possible event happen? (presumably, yes, somewhere, or perhaps no, if no one imagined/paid attention to it/caused it via  observation)

Then:  attention not only affects reality, it causes it.  Reality cannot happen with the intent to observe.  Therefore, observation, the self-observating ego (ability to see oneself as separate, acted upon, acting upon) and consciousness-raising are the tools of creating reality.

Eureka!  I am King of the world!

Ah, no, but on the level of quanta and sharing.....

Ah, I feel much better now.

The pirincipal of sufficient reason, huh?  

I believe I have sufficient reason for coffee....

Answer 2

Quantum mechanics indicates that, on the smallest of scales, some events do not have any causes. Some have suggested that we simply don't know what the causes are, that there are "hidden variables," but Bell's theorem proved that there are no hidden variables.

Answer 3

1) The reason we need both is because they are two sides of the same coin. Nothing is ever 100% certain and for that we need to know what the true odds of anything happening

2) The second one means that anything that didn't happen didn't happen because nothing is ever 100% certain.

3) Your welcome

Answer 4

reality is a function of consciousness.

Answer 5

Yes, an event must have a cause

But a non-event has no cause.

If I want to fly, but gravity holds me down, the event of flight did not happen, but my desire to fly (also an event) did happen via the cause: my desire.

Also, keep in mind that reality is uncaused (meaning it always exists), meaning it does not have to have a cause for or against it.