I’ve posted the arguments many times in many threads. No takers so far. Perhaps you have a response.
Oh, that’s easy - it was critiqued thoroughly in another thread.
The label of things as “necessary” and “contingent” is purely arbitrary. Some philosophers argue that only the beginning of the universe was necessary and everything else was contingent. Some argue additional things as necessary. There’s no hard and fast rule.
In short - we don’t know what’s necessary and what’s not.
We can run trials and repeat experiments and hopefully they’ll come out the same, but experimental conditions are impossible to replicate with perfect exactness. The air temperature might be different. There might be on additional crystal of salt you’re adding than before. The earth might be in a slightly different position. There are a near-infinite number of things.
Another issue is that the universe appears to be at least somewhat deterministic - ergo
everything that happens may be necessary. As such, you’ve no discernible ability to split the hair into identifiable, discreet “necessary” and “contingent” components.
In toto, the lance that forever wounds PSR is that we know we don’t know everything. So relying on it exclusively is akin to knowingly trying to build a house of cards out of an incomplete deck.
The beginning might have been a god. Or it might have been an infinite regress (like god). Or it might have been another guy named Zuul in another previous universe that created this one as a school assignment where he and his classmates all created universes for Mrs. Kerbaple in their science class and our entire universe has spent 13 billion earth-years in their land-fill after it was graded.
Point is, we don’t know. Thus the PSR hits a wall in it’s ability to be definitive.
…
What we do know is that there are rocks that contain skeletons. These skeletons appear in certain rocks and do not appear in others. For example, the most recent stegosaur specimen is more than twice as old as the oldest tyrannosaur specimen. Ergo, we can conclude that based on current evidence, tyrannosaurs lived closer to our time than to the time of the stegosaurs. If true, they never saw each other.
And for people - well - we just can’t find any specimens older than 200k years. Geologically, we’re so new that we still have the cellophane on us, so to speak.
The above are based on observations. Measurements.
Yours are based on mere philosophical speculations. Your ideas only persist because, like Bigfoot and the Tooth-fairy, they can’t be falsified.
Simply being unfalsifiable is not a convincing argument. Again, the Chupacabra is also unfalsifiable. You believe in that, too?
Well let’s just say that it is far from being a useful tool to study to study any physical process, anywhere.