Are infinite explanations self-explanatory?

Erkenntnis:1-20 (forthcoming)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Consider an infinite series whose items are each explained by their immediate successor. Does such an infinite explanation explain the whole series or does it leave something to be explained? Hume arguably claimed that it does fully explain the whole series. Leibniz, however, designed a very telling objection against this claim, an objection involving an infinite series of book copies. In this paper, I argue that the Humean claim can, in certain cases, be saved from the Leibnizian “infinite book copies” objection, and that this provides an interesting way to defuse some cosmological arguments for the existence of God and to give a non-theistic but complete explanation of the Universe. In the course of my argumentation, I also show that circular explanations can be “self-explanatory” as well: explaining two items by each other can explain the couple of items tout court.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
Archival date: 2021-05-31
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
520 ( #12,170 of 64,114 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
502 ( #638 of 64,114 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.