We examine two competing solutions to Benardete paradoxes: causal finitism, according to which nothing can have infinitely many causes, and the unsatisfiable pair diagnosis (UPD), according to which such paradoxes are logically impossible and no metaphysical thesis need be adopted to avoid them. We argue that the UPD enjoys notable theoretical advantages over causal finitism. Causal finitists, however, have levelled two main objections to the UPD. First, they urge that the UPD requires positing a ‘mysterious force’ that prevents paradoxes from arising. Since such a force is implausible, the UPD is in trouble. Second, they employ recombination or patchwork principles to argue that paradoxical situations would be possible if causal finitism were false. Since such situations are not possible, causal finitism is true, and so a substantive metaphysical thesis is needed to avoid the paradoxes. We argue that the UPD proponent can successfully respond to these objections.

中文翻译：

---

贝纳德特悖论、因果有限论和不满足对诊断


我们研究了 Benardete 悖论的两个相互竞争的解决方案：因果有限论，根据该论，没有任何东西可以有无限多的原因，以及不满足的对诊断 （UPD），根据该悖论，这些悖论在逻辑上是不可能的，不需要采用形而上学的论点来避免它们。我们认为，UPD 比因果有限论具有显着的理论优势。然而，因果有限论者对 UPD 提出了两个主要反对意见。首先，他们敦促 UPD 需要建立一种“神秘的力量”来防止悖论的出现。由于这样的力量是不可信的，UPD 就有麻烦了。其次，他们采用重组或拼凑原则来论证，如果因果有限论是错误的，那么悖论情况是可能的。既然这种情况是不可能的，那么因果有限论就是正确的，因此需要一个实质性的形而上学论点来避免这些悖论。我们认为 UPD 的支持者可以成功地回应这些反对意见。