A first cause is logically necessary
In thinking on causality, I have concluded that the nature of existence necessitates a "first cause". The definition and justification of this conclusion are written below. This may be a little abstract for some at first, so please ask questions if certain portions need some clarity. I welcome all criticism!
1. Either all things have a prior cause for their existence, or there is at least one first cause of existence from which a chain of events follows.
2. We can represent with the following labels.
Y: represents an existence that may or may not have prior causality.
X: represents an existent prior causality to Y.
Z: Represent an existence caused by Y.
Alpha: A Y existence that is identified as having no prior causality.
3. This leads us to 3 plausibilities.
a. There is always a X for every Y. (infinite prior causality).
b. The X/Y causal chain eventually wraps back to Y/X (infinitely looped causality)
c. There comes a time within a causal chain when there is only Y, and nothing prior to Y. This Y is Alpha. (first cause)
4. Alpha logic: An alpha cannot have any prior reasoning that explains why it came into existence. An Alpha's reason for its existence can never be defined by the Z's that follow it. If an Alpha exists, its own justification for existence, is itself. We could say, "The reversal of Z's causality logically lead up to this Alpha," But we cannot say "Z is the cause of why Alpha could, or could not exist." Plainly put, the rules concluded within a universe of causality cannot explain why an Alpha exists.
5. Infinitely prior, and infinitely looped causality, all have one final question of causality that needs answering. "Why would it be that there exists an infinite prior or infinitely looped causality in existence? These two terms will be combined into one, "Infinite causality.
6. If there exists an X which caused any infinite causality exists, then its not truly infinite causality, as it is something outside of the infinite causality chain. That X then becomes another Y with the same 3 plausibilities of prior causality. Therefore, the existence of a prior causality is actually an Alpha, or first cause.
7. Because there are no other plausibilties to how causality functions, the only only conclusion is that a causal chain will always lead to an Alpha, or first cause.
After much discussion, I am confident this holds. Here is a follow up if you want to discuss what this claim means. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12847/if-a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary-what-does-that-entail-for-the-universes-origins/p1
1. Either all things have a prior cause for their existence, or there is at least one first cause of existence from which a chain of events follows.
2. We can represent with the following labels.
Y: represents an existence that may or may not have prior causality.
X: represents an existent prior causality to Y.
Z: Represent an existence caused by Y.
Alpha: A Y existence that is identified as having no prior causality.
3. This leads us to 3 plausibilities.
a. There is always a X for every Y. (infinite prior causality).
b. The X/Y causal chain eventually wraps back to Y/X (infinitely looped causality)
c. There comes a time within a causal chain when there is only Y, and nothing prior to Y. This Y is Alpha. (first cause)
4. Alpha logic: An alpha cannot have any prior reasoning that explains why it came into existence. An Alpha's reason for its existence can never be defined by the Z's that follow it. If an Alpha exists, its own justification for existence, is itself. We could say, "The reversal of Z's causality logically lead up to this Alpha," But we cannot say "Z is the cause of why Alpha could, or could not exist." Plainly put, the rules concluded within a universe of causality cannot explain why an Alpha exists.
5. Infinitely prior, and infinitely looped causality, all have one final question of causality that needs answering. "Why would it be that there exists an infinite prior or infinitely looped causality in existence? These two terms will be combined into one, "Infinite causality.
6. If there exists an X which caused any infinite causality exists, then its not truly infinite causality, as it is something outside of the infinite causality chain. That X then becomes another Y with the same 3 plausibilities of prior causality. Therefore, the existence of a prior causality is actually an Alpha, or first cause.
7. Because there are no other plausibilties to how causality functions, the only only conclusion is that a causal chain will always lead to an Alpha, or first cause.
After much discussion, I am confident this holds. Here is a follow up if you want to discuss what this claim means. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12847/if-a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary-what-does-that-entail-for-the-universes-origins/p1
Comments (1284)
Not being a philosopher what I am getting here includes the following:
A causal chain is either finite or infinite.
If it is finite it has a first cause.
If it is infinite its first cause is being an element of the set of all things that exist.
The subtleties seem more word banters than substance. But, I'm out of my pay grade here.
I say there can be no prior cause, and thus no prior reason. But reason is sometimes used as a term of explanation. Depending on a person's use of reason, they can state there is a reason, and that reason is "There is no prior cause". As I mentioned earlier, I don't think its the word "cause" that's giving people trouble, its the word "reason". Ironically it turns out "reason" is not a very reasonable word to use because it has multiple meanings. :)
Quoting Philosophim
You're saying inception equals a supernatural deity?
Quoting Philosophim
You're saying inception can incept a hydrogen atom not limited by its parts and the rules of itself?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Your saying inception can incept a first cause that possesses a boundary of selfhood beyond which there is no otherness? Moreover, you're saying the boundary of selfhood is simultaneously not a boundary since there is no otherness?
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
With the above two quotes you're saying each family of causation runs parallel with all other families of causation? Moreover, you're saying there's no general causation that applies to all causal sequences?
Quoting Philosophim
You're saying pre-existing causal chains suggesting general causality predating a new first cause have no pertinence to a new first cause? Moreover, you're saying each new first cause requires a new study of causation starting from scratch?
You're saying a first cause can enter into causality in spite of it having no cause?
You're saying that first cause, having no cause, took possession of its form by means of a non-existent cause?
Quoting Philosophim
You're saying a new causeless existence, post-dating prior existences with causes, nonetheless has no interaction with general causation? Moreover, you're saying each new causeless existence initiates a new family of causation unlike any pre-existing causation?
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
You're saying the number line has an end?
Quoting Philosophim
You're saying being able to intersect doesn't imply merging causal chains share a common first cause?
Quoting Philosophim
You're saying first causation is a phenomenon that transpires with time interval equal to zero?
Quoting Philosophim
You're saying first causation is free to violate the conservation laws?
You're saying first causation is axiomatic and thus beyond the domains of science, logic and reason?
No, I'm saying there's no prior cause for a first cause to exist, so there cannot be any prior limitations as to what a first cause had to be. No prior cause means no restraints as to what could have been.
Quoting ucarr
No, because then its not a hydrogen atom anymore. A hydrogen atom has a clear definition and limitation of what it can be.
Quoting ucarr
By 'otherness' if you mean 'prior causes', then yes to your first question. I don't think that quite fits in for the second. If a hydrogen atom incepts as a first cause, its still a hydrogen atom because that's what it is. If a helium atom incepts as a first cause, its still a helium atom because that's what it is. If a first cause incepts as what appears to be a helium atom, but then turns into a hydrogen atom by the rules of its existence, that's not a helium atom but something else.
Quoting ucarr
No, I'm saying the origin of two causal chains cannot cause the origin of each causal chain, as each origin is a first cause. It doesn't mean that a first cause hydrogen atom cannot later bump into a first cause helium atom. Everything past that point would intertwine their causality chains going forward at that point. But this influence is only after the inception of each, and neither can incept the other. If one did, the inceptor of the other would be the first cause of the other. (I am not saying this is what actually happens, all of this is to give a simple example to the abstract)
Quoting ucarr
Let pretend we are working backwards up the causal chain for this hydrogen and helium atom. We see the bumped into each other. "So what caused the hydrogen atom to bump into the helium atom" leads off in one way to ultimately arrive at the hydrogen atom's inception. "So what caused the helium atom to bump into the hydrogen atom" leads off in another way to ultimately arrive at the helium atom's inception.
Quoting ucarr
I'm noting that a first cause cannot have a prior cause for its existence. Meaning if a first cause incepts when there is other existence, that other existence is not the cause of its inception. Of course, claiming "This X" is a first cause that incepted among other existence is going to be difficult to prove. And it must be proven, not merely believed or asserted.
Quoting ucarr
Yes. In fact, if it exists longer than the smallest unit of time, then the second unit of time is caused by rules and forces from the first unit of time. The first unit of time is of course the first cause, and has no prior cause for its existence.
Quoting ucarr
It did not exist by any prior cause. It has no intention or possession, as that would be prior to its inception. It simply is, no prior cause.
Quoting ucarr
No, I'm saying a point in the causal chain is always reached when there is no prior cause for a set of existence.
Quoting ucarr
Correct.
Quoting ucarr
Its more accurate to say the limit to zero.
Quoting ucarr
Conservation laws are what we observe within what is existent now. There is nothing to prevent something from forming that by its own nature, would also dissolve into nothingness a few seconds from its inception. So if a first cause incepts like matter and energy as we know it, it would of course obey the laws of conservation. But if it incepted itself as something we are unfamiliar with, it of course does not need to follow the laws of conservation.
Quoting ucarr
I'm saying its axiomatic, but not beyond the domains of science, logic, and reason. Predicting when a first cause would appear or be is of course beyond us. But we can think about the consequences of a first cause and see if we can come to some reasonable conclusions. Further, if we were to trace a causal chain all the way up to a first cause, we might be able to prove that it is indeed, a first cause. It would be extremely difficult of course.
Fantastic questions ucarr, please drill in where needed.
A cause, by definition, has an effect on something. The thing which it has an effect on must preexist the cause. In other words, "cause" implies "change", and "change" implies something which changes.
Quoting Ludwig V
I don't think this is quite right. Energy is the capacity to do work. Something active has the capacity to do work, and this energy is kinetic energy. Something inactive, but in a condition to become active has potential energy. So for example, the energy within a fuel source is inactive, therefore potential energy, requiring ignition to become active and become kinetic energy. Each is the potential to do work, in slightly different forms.
Quoting Philosophim
I've seen you put up some examples of a possible first cause, (like a photon suddenly coming into existence from nothing), but none of your examples make any sense to me. A photon is a quantum of electromagnetic energy, it comes from an electron, it doesn't just come into existence from nothing.
Quoting Philosophim
I've told you why it is illogical to say that there is nothing prior to the first cause, it's restated at the very beginning of this post, in my reply to ucarr. Please read it. All you do is make illogical assertions and say that anything other than your illogical assertion is "stupid".
Quoting Philosophim
Reasserting the same invalid conclusion gets you nowhere. That there is no prior cause does not imply that there is no prior reason, because reason is the broader term. Do you not understand this? All causes are reasons, but not all reasons are causes.
Quoting Philosophim
And, as I've explained repeatedly, that there is not a cause prior to the first cause does not mean that there is nothing prior to the first cause. This is another instance of invalid reasoning.
Quoting Philosophim
A photon appearing uncaused makes no sense. Photons are known to have a source. This is how the history of the universe is understood through analysis of cosmic background radiation. If photons could appear from nothing, then the universe could not be understood in this way.
Quoting Philosophim
Invalid conclusion repeated again.
Quoting Philosophim
"Random" explains nothing.
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
You say, Establishment happens by first cause of the starting point of creation. You say, Inception of creation proceeds without limitation. How does what you say differ from what is said by the rabbi, the priest or the minister?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
Given the part of your quote underlined above, why cannot a first cause incept a hydrogen atom not limited by its parts and the rules of itself?
Why is your 02) quote not a contradiction of your 01) quote immediately above?
Quoting Philosophim
Do you agree that if a hydrogen atom has its own unique definition, then all that is not defined as a hydrogen atom is other?
Do you agree that if a hydrogen atom as first cause is utterly alone, and yet nonetheless can cause things not a hydrogen atom to exist, as its definition of first cause requires, then its ability to cause subsequent inception of all things without limitation is indistinguishable from the creative power of a supernatural deity?
04) Do you agree that if first cause of a hydrogen atom can only cause subsequent hydrogen atoms, then there is no general first cause of all things, only an infinity of first causes of every individual thing?
Quoting Philosophim
Do you agree that your above quote examples you saying first causes are parallel, meaning they don't interact? I repeat this question because the first time I asked you denied their parallelism.
Why do you not agree that positing an infinity of individual causes of an infinity of individual things is a trivial and circular statement about the universe as it's generally known by the public (everything is everything)?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Why do you not think the underlined portion of your above quote implies something that simply is is eternal and thus has no inception? I ask this with the understanding inception implies establishment which, in turn, implies a process which is a cause.
Quoting Philosophim
How do science, logic and reason examine what simply exists without the possibility of explanation?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Do you think rain pre-exists a saturated cloud that starts releasing droplets of water?
Then why not ask me to give a better example? You've been accusing me of being dishonest and besmirching my character instead of asking. It wasn't meant to be a literal example, it was meant to give you a visual of something not being there, then there. The big bang is another typical example. Does that work better?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
And I've asked you to give a concrete example. I've even noted that I believe you aren't doing it because you know if you do, your point will collapse. That's a challenge anyone who believed in their point would rise to.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Ok, and a first cause is that which is not caused by something else. This does not show that what I stated is wrong. Cause 'implies' change? What does that mean? The definition of cause has been clearly noted, you've recognized it, and this doesn't address the point at all. Also, no example despite my request.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I've already gone over reason and prior reason. I was the one to say these words first to Ludwig, " All causes are reasons, but not all reasons are causes." So are the words I used to validate my points now invalid?
So I think we're done. I hope our next conversation doesn't have as much animosity from you next time. Especially after we started off so nicely when I said it was good to see you. Remember that? Lets end this on a high note.
Because the rabbi, priest, or minister claims to have knowledge of what the first cause is. I do not. My definition would put the rabbi, priest, or minister on the spot to prove that a God was the first cause because it is entirely unnecessary, and only one possibility out of an infinite plausible alternatives.
Quoting ucarr
Because I am going by definitions that we ascribe to things. This is a larger conversation about when we should say, "That's a sheep" vs "That's different enough from a sheep that we call it a goat." Assuming that our definitions accurately describe what a hydrogen atom is, my point is that such an existence wouldn't be a hydrogen atom as we define it today. Whatever it is could exist, and to an untrained eye it might look like a hydrogen atom, but it cannot have the same exact composition as a hydrogen atom, or it would not have the special qualities you note.
Quoting ucarr
To clarify perhaps another part you may be implying, once something exists it enters into causality. So when a hydrogen atom exists, that is what it is. Anything that does not exist as a hydrogen atom, is not a hydrogen atom. Once the existence is in reality, its rules are set.
Quoting ucarr
Lets not use atom, lets use "object" so we avoid the previous confusion. No. For one, a deity is usually ascribed as having consciousness and intent. An object does not. Second, if an object can incept other things, it must do so within the limitation of what it is. Perhaps what it is does allow anything to come forth, but it would all come forth caused by the first cause and thus follow rules. Anything could be a first cause, but when it exists, it is limited by what it is.
Quoting ucarr
Sorry Ucarr, I did not understand the question. I'm not sure what statements I've made that you're referencing here.
Quoting ucarr
It does not need to be eternal. A first cause has the potential of happening five seconds from now. A first cause could have happened 10 seconds ago. What formed may very well be completely unstable and exist for a nano-second. Or five seconds. Or 500 years. Or eternal.
I'm just using inception as another term for "started to exist". A first cause does not need a prior process to be, it simply begins to exist.
Quoting ucarr
I think this question is too broad and you'll need to focus on something specific. What are you referencing in particular that you believe is outside of explanation?
Again, very pointed questions Ucarr. Keep going until you are satisified.
The hypothetical Big Bang was an energetic outburst, but from what or where? And the projected Heat Death is the end of that cosmic energetic cycle. In a philosophical sense, the First Cause of the "Bang" was Aristotelian Potential which actualized into the Causal forces of Nature. But, like a run-down cell phone battery, the original potential fades back into the chaos of entropy, which no longer has the "ability" to cause Change. But the Potential for future energy remains in the chemistry of the battery, which only needs re-formatting to again produce useful Energy.
However, if the conservation law is correct, the cosmic battery should be rechargeable. A recent discovery of physics is that active Energy is merely one Form of Causal Power. It can also transform into Mass/Matter, and into the Entropy of Information*1, as processed by Minds & Computers. All physical batteries have limited discharging cycles, before they need to go back to the manufacturer to be recycled by the original Battery-maker. Plato envisioned that creation event as disorganized Chaos constructed into orderly Cosmos as-if by a metaphorical artisan*2. But, the a priori First Cause of the demiurge and creation event was left as a mystery.
Without more information about the precursor or pre-conditions of the Big Bang (our modern demiurge) we can only say that the philosophical principle of Potential for Actual causation necessarily pre-existed the realization of all natural forces. Perhaps that Platonic Form was something like a programmer encoding Information into Energy & Matter??? :smile:
*1. Is information a form of energy? :
Information is not itself energy. But you can trade entropy of information for entropy of state, which let's you turn "waste" energy, such as ambient heat, into useful energy. That's basically what Maxwell's Demon does.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/information-is-a-form-of-energy.461784/
*2. Plato's Universe :
The universe, or Cosmos, is a living being endowed with a soul (30C f.). The Cosmos was fashioned from a pre-existing chaos by a Divine Craftsman, the Demiurge, using the Forms as models for sensible objects (29D f.). Plato does not say what, if anything produced the Demiurge or the chaos.
https://physics.bgsu.edu/p433/Spacetime4.html
BATTERY ORGANIZED INTO OPPOSITE POLES WITH POTENTIAL BETWEEN
Quoting ucarr
Why do you say above statement is not knowledge of the identity of the first cause? I ask this question because you identify first cause as what acts without limitation in causing the inception of creation.
How is claiming first cause is what acts without limitation in causing the inception of creation different from claiming God is what acts without limitation in causing the inception of creation?
Quoting Philosophim
If first cause proceeds without limitation, why do you imply that first cause, acting to cause hydrogen atom, must follow limits that humans use to make sense of the world? If first cause proceeds without limitation, then why cannot it incept a hydrogen atom that is not a hydrogen atom? You imply that first cause must act logically. Why do you not think that's a limitation upon the actions of first cause? Why do you not think implying first cause must act rationally is not a case of you projecting your logical thinking onto first cause?
Quoting Philosophim
Why do you think first cause, acting without limitations, must conform to humanoid logical thinking in causing a hydrogen atom to enter causality delineated as a stable and specific entity?
Quoting Philosophim
Why do you not think the above quote is a contradiction of earlier saying:
Quoting Philosophim
Even if you're not talking about cosmic first cause and instead are talking about one of the subsequent first causes, why must cosmic cause acting without limitation incept a subsequent causality that resembles human logical thinking. Being without limitation, it might do so, so why do you say it must do so?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
The following is my paraphrase of something you said earlier: A cause that's the first of all first causes doesn't prohibit subsequent non-cosmic first causes for other things.
If this is so, then our universe can be filled with a vast number of non-cosmic first causes. This is similar to saying, "there's a reason for everything that happens." This is a trivial truth agreed upon by the multitudes. "Everything is everything (for a reason)." Below is another one of your statements about the universe being stocked with myriad first causes.
Quoting Philosophim
Why do you not think a universe filled with first causes is a conception of the universe that explodes the following conservation law: matter_mass_energy are neither created nor destroyed. If non-cosmic first causes can pop material objects into the universe from nothing, then the total volume of the mass_matter_energy of the universe is constantly fluctuating instead of remaining constant through conservation. If you say incept of every new first cause disappears an earlier, established first cause, the problem is solved. However, this is very close to merely repeating the conservation laws for matter_mass_energy.
Quoting Philosophim
Does this hold true for the cosmic first cause, with cosmic first cause = the first of the first causes?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
I'm referencing axioms.
Quoting Philosophim
Some characterize axioms as self-evident truths. This characterization is a preface to saying the assumption upon which we're building our working premise lies beyond the reach of experimentation, observation, collection of data, compiling of data statistics, analysis of data and building logical arguments supported by data. In short, it's saying our science follows from the axiom, but cannot penetrate into it.
No, the big bang does not work better. Something not being there, then there, is not the problem, because the thing could move there. What is the problem is absolutely nothing, then something.
Quoting Philosophim
It was a logical argument I provided. Concrete examples are unnecessary, either you can show me the weakness in the argument or not. You have not even tried, asking for a concrete example instead.
Quoting Philosophim
You still have not addressed the argument. A "cause" must have an effect. This means that something is caused to change. That is the effect of the cause. The thing which changes exists prior to the cause, and posterior to the cause. It doesn't matter whether the cause is a "first cause" or not, the thing which is caused to change by the cause, exists prior to the cause.
Quoting Philosophim
Yes your argument is invalid. You say, if there is no prior cause then there is no prior reason. That is an invalid conclusion if "not all reasons are causes" is true.
Quoting Philosophim
There's no animosity on my part. It just seems like you get upset when you start to apprehend your mistakes.
If you look up a definition for deductive logic, you get something like, "The rules of correct inference from assumed premises." We cannot use logic on a first premise, because by definition, it is not derived from any premises. We cannot ever get to the bottom of infinite regression, because humans cannot calculate infinite processes. And circular logic is of course, also not considered valid under normal circumstances.
Of course, Hume was the first OG (so far as I know) to propose this dilemma, but he did not think of the 3rd option.
It seems to me that you can prove that these are the only 3 options, if you assume that logic is linear. Either causality is a ray (it has a beginning), or a line (it goes to infinity in both directions). If you admit the possibility of noneuclidean geometry, then the line could loop back into itself or cross itself (time travel). Actually, I just realized that there are 2 more options: there could be something without causality (a point), or nothing at all. But these other two options are not consistent with our sensory experience.
Since I am alive, I have to try to figure out what is valuable and important in life, even though there doesn't appear to be aby verifiable way to figure this stuff out. I find it useful, therefore, to assume that there is a first cause, which would be consistent with a creator God, because then I can start to imagine what the purpose of the universe is. I don't see a way forward (with respect to having a moral foundation) if the causality of the universe is infinite. I prefer to look to nature to learn about God, than human religious tradition, although the latter may sometimes be useful to learn proper psychological orientation. I have come to the idea then that God is an infinity of abstract potential (like the totality of all math), and that the material world exists in order to tangibly instantiate this potential. Then it seems clear that God is quite happy for existence to be exactly as it is, even if this existence is not pleasing to mortals. This worldview is psychologically pleasing because it provides a foundation for looking at any arbitrary thing and seeing good/beauty in it. This is especially helpful in situations where the attainment of selfish interests is totally impossible. When I can't have what I want, at least I can try to see that at least God is having his way. When it comes to personal or group suffering, the evolutionary process is useful for seeing the beauty of existence. Apparently to God, having life spontaneously improve itself through repeatedly instantiated proof by contradiction (the dying off of unfit forms) is more beautiful than the well-being of any individual organism.
Typically the form of energy, which shows up as entropic losses of a system, is in the form of heat. There is nothing all that mysterious about such heat energy. It simply becomes difficult to make any use of heat energy when all parts of a system are at nearly the same temperature.
No, I did not claim a first cause is the inception of all creation. A first cause is the inception of a causality chain. The entirety of our universe may very well be explained by several first causes over time culminating in today. A first cause does not necessitate that it be able to do anything. I just noted that there is no limitation on what could incept as a first cause. But once its incepted, it is what it is, which is possibly limited.
Quoting ucarr
To clarify, it is not that humans determine limitations on what can be, it is that identities are imposed limitations on what we call certain things. We do not call an elephant a human for example. Of course, someone could say, "What if a human formed that looked, behaved, and acted exactly as an elephant?"
I would simply say, "That's just an elephant".
To your point about a hydrogen atom, we do not identify a hydrogen atom as being able to create ex nihilo. Now, could someone say, "That is really similar to a hydrogen atom and it creates other existences besides itself". Sure. But its not a hydrogen atom as we currently define it, because hydrogen atoms cannot do that. Do you understand that this is mostly a semantics argument? What we call or identify as something does not limit what can be. But definitions limit us to looking at a narrow band of existence and saying, "That existence is the identity we call 'a hydrogen atom'"
Another thing to understand is that because all things are possible as first causes, its equally possible a hydrogen atom, as we identify it, just forms and exists as normal. There is not the need for anything out there, just as there is not the denial that anything out there is possible. While anything could have been possible, (and would still be as a first cause could happen at any time) what first causes actually happen are part of causality, and discoverable by working up the causal chain. So, if the big bang were a first cause for example, we could work up the chain of causality to find and prove that it is not possible that there was anything prior that caused the big bang.
Quoting ucarr
Because a first cause must act causally. A first cause has no prior cause for existence correct? Which means that a first cause cannot cause another first cause. It causes what it does, therefore what and how it causes something is rational. Only the inception of a first cause, and what it would be, is something which cannot be predicted with certainty.
Quoting ucarr
To detail into this, lets say a hydrogen atom appears as a first cause and causes another hydrogen atom. Whether we observe this or not is irrelevant, it is the reality of the situation. To cause something means there is some rule that indicates why the thing caused happened. Meaning, causal logic will always be in play.
If a hydrogen atom appears as a first cause then a helium atom appears as a first cause, the hydrogen atom did not cause the helium atom to appear. So you see, it is impossible for something which causes another to be free of causal logic. The first cause is not free of causal logic either, it is the start.
Quoting ucarr
Correct, that's one possibility if we don't yet know the reality.
Quoting ucarr
I don't see that. I think there's a difference between saying, "There's a reason for everything" and then spelling out what that reason is or how it must unfold.
Quoting ucarr
Because that's a law based on what we've observed with the matter that we've seen so far. Its been necessary to do physics. I would say that as an empirical law, this is true. As a logical law, this is not.
Quoting ucarr
True. We are just assuming its remained constant. This logically is not necessarily the case.
Quoting ucarr
No, I'm not saying that. Its possible that some first causes incept then vanish. Its possible that there are first causes that could exist for trillions of years. I'm only asserting that its possible that first causes happened over the time of the universe's inception, and still today. It doesn't mean they did or will, its just possible if we don't know about themQuoting ucarr
Yes. If it is the case that there was a 'first' first cause, it may have only existed for a short period of time then vanished. So prior to our universe, there could have been many first causes that blipped in and out of existence making a much more limited impact (or greater!) impact then our own.
Quoting ucarr
I do not believe in self-evident truth. Truth is what is. Knowledge is our best logical attempt at capturing what truth is. There is knowledge that is clearly sound, and knowledge that is questionable and likely built on some inductions.
Quoting ucarr
I believe some of the things about first causes are beyond experimentation or observation. Since we cannot predict the inception of a first cause, we cannot predict when one will happen. We could, if the first cause were very specific, trace back through causality and arrive at a point in which 'this X' must necessarily have been a first cause. But this must be proven, which means all other potential causes of 'X's inception must be ruled out.
I hope this answers your questions!
True. And I never make a claim that my point is empirically proven, its only logic.
Quoting Brendan Golledge
I have another thread where I'm exploring an objective morality with another fantastic poster, Bob Ross. Its evolved and become more clear than my initial post, but perhaps it might interest you to check it out. Long story short, existence is what is good, and ensuring the most realized and potential existence is what is best. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14834/a-measurable-morality/p1
Quoting Philosophim
Do you accept the following argument: Since by definition a first cause can't have any derivative first causes, each first cause is a discrete causality chain, and therefore the universe is coming into existence sequentially in time, and thus the big bang and its inception of the entire universe in an instant is wrong.
I'm not sure it makes any difference, but I think you have left out two options. I think the options are:-
1. A beginning, but no end (your ray).
2. An end, but no beginning.
3. No beginning and no end (your line).
etc.
This is really close. Let me break it down to be sure.
"Do you accept the following argument: Since by definition a first cause can't have any derivative first causes"
Yes, agreed.
"Each first cause is a discrete causality chain"
Results in a discrete causality chain that can intersect with other discrete causality chains, yes.
"therefore the universe is coming into existence sequentially in time"
Yes. Just to make sure, this does not preclude other first causes appearing during this time.
" and thus the big bang and its inception of the entire universe in an instant is wrong."
No, I want to clearly state that I am not stating "X is an actual first cause". We don't know how many first causes have happened since the big bang. We're not even sure if the big bang itself is a first cause. All we can logically conclude that there must be at least one, and its equally as probable that there could be more than one.
But to see if I can tackle another idea I see you might be conveying, lets say the big bang was the only first cause. The first cause is the bang. Everything that happens immediately after that is caused by the bang. If no other first causes appeared and had causal associations with what appeared from the big bang, then there would only be one first cause of our universe, the big bang. That of course must be proven.
Quoting Philosophim
So, the universe is still growing?
Quoting Philosophim
So, a first cause may not trigger a causal chain? Should it instead be called a birth? You imply it's logically possible for the universe to continue growing for a period of time so far unspecified?
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
Do you agree you imply a first cause is the means of its own inception? If you agree with this, do you acknowledge you also imply anything is possible? Do you acknowledge all possible inceptions implies contradictory inceptions can coexist, and thus the universe allows existence of paradoxes?
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
These two claims, taken to together, suggest first causes, if self-actualized, impose identities upon themselves. Do you agree this implies the universe comes into being as self-will unlimited?
Do you agree that if the means of an unprecedented inception is separate from the thing incepted, then the latter is not a first cause? Do you agree that, moreover, in this situation, the means of an unprecedented inception is an immaterial and all-powerful will to create, i.e., a deity?
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
How do you explain the above two quotes as non-contradictory?
How do you explain the last of the two above quotes as being a negation of the central tenet of your thesis: There is no limitation on what could incept as a first cause. Specifically, how do you explain the coming into being of a first cause if not ex nihilo?
Quoting Philosophim
Explain how the above is not weakened by the existence of water, as well as the other organic compounds containing hydrogen?
Quoting Philosophim
Do you agree the above is evidence you think first causes self-caused?
Quoting Philosophim
Do you agree the above is evidence you think the universe allows paradoxes? Do you agree, moreover, that a universe continually growing with new first causes can eventually become filled with paradoxes?
Quoting Philosophim
Do you agree the above contradicts: Quoting Philosophim
Do you agree that: Quoting Philosophim
And
Quoting Philosophim
do not connect because the former does not spell out what the reason is or how first causes unfold? Do you see that, instead, it's presented as a axiom from which your thesis proceeds. As such, it says in effect, eventually everything will be everything because things, like hydrogen, simply are. Do you see that this -- the core of your thesis -- precludes scientific investigation?
Quoting Philosophim
Do you see that in the above quote, immediately following your claim to dis-believe self-evident truths, you support this claim with a self-evident truth: "truth is what it is"?
Quoting Philosophim
Do you see that you, like scientists, sometimes take recourse to things beyond science in order to begin doing science (or philosophy). Science and philosophy are systemically dependent upon axioms.
Do you accept that some major implications of your thesis include:
a) the universe allows paradoxes; b) the conservation law re: matter-mass-energy, instead of actually being a law, is merely a plank within a working hypothesis still liable to refutation; c) the universe, because it continues to incept new matter-mass-energy into itself, exists as an open system.
I'm not sure what you mean. Does time continue? Yes. Is it necessarily the case that more first causes will happen? No. Is it necessarily the case that first causes won't happen? No.
Quoting ucarr
It will always be part of a causal chain the moment after it exists. Just thing of time. At any moment in time, there is something prior that exists within the causal chain of the first cause up to the first cause itself.
Quoting ucarr
I imply that any first cause is plausible. It doesn't mean that any one specific first cause can imagine has actually happened or will actually happen. To specifically state, "This first cause must have happened" requires us to prove it exists/existed.
Quoting ucarr
Lets carefully define what we mean by a contradiction. A contradiction is often defined as "Two things that cannot coexist". So can two things that cannot coexist co-exist? No. Because that's what they are. Would there be things that might seem contrary to us? Yes. But if they both co-exist, they are not contradictions.
If you mean two things that cancel each other out, sure. Matter and anti-matter for example.
Quoting ucarr
No. There is no prior imposition. Its just existence. Does an atom will itself to exist? It is by the forces outside of its control. A first cause does not need to have any imposition, consciousness, or awareness of itself. It simply is. Could a first cause come about that had what you note? Yes. But that is only one possibility, it is not necessary.
Quoting ucarr
Because part of the definition of a hydrogen atom is that it can merge with 2 oxygen to create water. This is a set rule. That is part of how we identify a hydrogen atom. If a helium atom joined with two oxygen, it won't make water. That's part of its defined identity by us. If we did not discriminate between a helium and hydrogen atom in our definitions, and called them both a hydrelium atom, we could say such an atom could either become water or not when combined with 2 oxygen. It is our naming that determines how we categorize things, but the reality of what a thing is does not care what we call it.
Quoting ucarr
I'm going to repost a quote from a few replies back:
Quoting Philosophim
To state something arises 'ex nihilo' is to state it arises without prior cause. If a first cause, causes something else to appear it does not appear 'ex nihilo'. It arises due to the first cause, and not simply from nothing.
Quoting ucarr
No, can you add a little more to what you mean here?
Quoting ucarr
No, I don't see that conclusion at all. First causes have no prior cause for their existence, yet what they cause can be traced back to that first cause. There is great meaning in cause, which we use today. None of what I'm stating invalidates the scientific method.
Quoting ucarr
No. I believe it may be possible in some instances for us to find a first cause scientifically. The bar for doing so of course is very high, and may be impossible in some situations. I also believe the consideration of first causes as a plausibility should be something to think about. But at the end of the day because the bar is so high, we keep looking for prior causes first.
Quoting ucarr
Let me clarify. "Self-evident" means "human's can grasp them without needing to prove them". I do not believe in that. I believe in knowledge as the best logical means we have to make claims about reality that are not contradicted by the truth in our use. Truth exists despite what we conclude or think. If you've read my knowledge paper I linked you in another thread, you'll know what I mean.
As for axioms, I believe axioms must be proven, not 'given'. An axiom should be extremely easy to prove, and generally is something that no one has ever been able to demonstrate as false.
Quoting ucarr
No, as covered above.
Quoting ucarr
Yes, but all laws exist this way. Laws are generally so time tested and above reproach that we do not need to call them theories anymore. However, no law is immutable.
Quoting ucarr
No. I've said this several times now and its very important that you understand this. I am not saying, "X first cause happened, will happen, or has happened". Its possible, but it must be proven. It is equally as possible that no other first causes have happened, or will happen. You cannot predict if a first cause will happen. You must conclusively prove that a specific first cause has happened to say it has.
Let me sum it as simple as possible: "All possibilities does not mean any one thing happened or will happen". The only way to see what happened is to prove it. The only way to see what will happen is to live through it. I make no claims that any one particular first cause happened, only that its logically necessary that there must have been at least one.
Quoting Philosophim
With this claim how are you not deconstructing the central premise of your thesis?
Quoting Philosophim
Are you saying knowledge of a first cause can only be empirical, not a priori? So, this gives your claim the status of a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of truth?
Quoting Philosophim
This is correct reasoning, but it suggests your claim needs to be altered to: Any logical first cause is possible. Again, this adds nothing to the database of established knowledge.
Quoting Philosophim
Again, this is either self-causation or eternal existence without creation.
Quoting ucarr
Re: a hydrogen atom creating existences other than itself: it's not creation absolute, but hydrogen plays an essential role in causing the existence of many compounds. Chemistry tells us elementary particles, like stem cells, can be re-purposed across the spectrum of the periodic chart. So, nitrogen -- even as a first cause -- is not really a unique thing. That's because nitrogen, which has, like hydrogen, neutrons, protons and electrons, consists of types of stuff already extant. As a birth, its a new arrangement of familiar stuff.
Quoting ucarr
You're not talking about causation of something within an established causal chain, such as our sun assembling hydrogen atoms within its elements-generating furnace. If you were, you wouldn't have used the verb: create.
Quoting Philosophim
This is more evidence you imply first causes are self-caused.
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
You've saying a cause, first or otherwise, must act causally. So why do you also say (per the above quote) that it isn't necessary that a cause be able to to anything, which is a way of saying it's not compelled to act causally. Do you mean if it acts, it must act causally? If so, can you call something a first cause if it does nothing?
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
As I understand you, your main claim is that first causes can happen sequentially in time. When describing these phenomena, you say vague things such as: a hydrogen atom forms ex nihilo, or you say even vaguer things such as: a hydrogen atom as first cause simply is, or There is no prior imposition. Its just existence. Does an atom will itself to exist? It is by the forces outside of its control. This is axiomatic jargon, not science. An example of scientific support for your argument might be something along the lines of saying: Because our phenomenal universe is open, it can continually increase its total volume of matter-mass-energy by absorbing such from other universes populating the multi-verse. Moreover, we know this because by calculating the total volume of dark matter within our universe at distant points in time from its inception to the present day, we see the total volume of dark matter steadily increasing.
Quoting Philosophim
Can you elaborate some specific details pertaining to how cosmologists can go about finding a first cause?
Quoting Philosophim
Can you provide a proof for: Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
You should consult your dictionary, unless you want to start a conversation explaining how you're redefining "axiom."
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
Since you think first causes are logically necessary, why do you say they're possible instead of saying they're necessary? Consider this tautology: all bachelors are unmarried men. Can you describe a set in which first causes are necessary members by definition?
I tried dealing with 1. and 2. earlier, in mathematical analogues, but there was no interest. I could easily deal with 3. as well, but that takes the thread away from the spectacular leap from a first cause being something imaginable to an existential realm.
A causes B causes C is a causal chain. Every point within that chain has a prior point except the first cause.
Quoting ucarr
The logical conclusion is that there must be at least one first cause. But if I'm going to claim, "This X is a first cause", it must be proven empirically, or with unwavering evidence. Meaning if I claimed "This atom is a first cause", I would need to prove it.
Quoting ucarr
A fine suggestion, but I'm not going to change it to that because I don't think its necessary and it would confuse other people. Sometimes you can't win with phrasing alone, you just have to walk through what things mean.
Quoting ucarr
I don't use the term self-causation because that can convey the intent that the first cause actively caused itself. That's not what I'm saying here. Second, a first cause does not need to be eternal. As I mentioned before, a first cause could appear and dissipate later. Its best to keep it simple. It just is. It exists without prior cause.
Quoting ucarr
I am talking about causation of something within an established causal chain. If I recall you were using the word create, so I followed suit. Creation is one form of causation. Just use causation if you don't like creation.
Quoting ucarr
Again, this is not what is intended. A first cause does not cause itself. A first cause is not caused by anything. Its just there. Its extremely simple, don't overcomplicate it by adding in the term 'self'. :)
Quoting ucarr
Ucarr, you keep pulling this sentence out of context. Let me clarify the context so you understand what this is referring to.
You said: "Why do you say above statement is not knowledge of the identity of the first cause? I ask this question because you identify first cause as what acts without limitation in causing the inception of creation."
You were implying that a first cause had to be the inception of all creation. You were implying to me that it had to be a particular way.
I replied with:
"No, I did not claim a first cause is the inception of all creation. A first cause is the inception of a causality chain. The entirety of our universe may very well be explained by several first causes over time culminating in today. A first cause does not necessitate that it be able to do anything."
The "anything" just meant that it did not have to be anything in particular like the inception of all creation.
So no, I'm not saying that its not compelled to act causally or anything else outside of the context of the above subject.
Quoting ucarr
This is not vague. This is what it is. Nothing then something. There's nothing else. Vagueness would assume I'm implying something else right? I'm not.
Quoting ucarr
No. No will. No self. No other. Nothing then something. That's it.
Quoting ucarr
This is a logical conclusion, not jargon. Jargon would imply I'm just throwing words together without thought care, or definitions. There may be a little language barrier between us that we're working out Ucarr, so don't get frustrated yet. :)
Its also never purported to be science. Its logically necessary there be at least one first cause. I'm not claiming any empirical fact of "X (Insert whatever variable you want) is the/a first cause". I'm not saying the big bang is or isn't a first cause for example. I'm just noting what a first cause is, that one is logically necessary, and what we can conclude from that being true.
Quoting ucarr
Certainly.
1. All forms of prior causality must be ruled out. This is extremely demanding.
2. To rule out all forms of prior causality, all prior events to the first cause should indicate that X should not happen, and yet it does.
Quoting ucarr
Sure. A man believes to the point that he knows he can fly if he jumps off a 50 story building. He jumps. The truth is, he cannot. To not detract from what we're doing here however, you may want to visit my other work on knowledge. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1
Quoting ucarr
I did not introduce the word axiom in the discussion. You brought it up and I was just noting I believe that nothing is self-evident but must be worked through. I'm not sure this line of thinking is anything more important than an aside, though, so may be an irrelevant to the scope of the discussion.
Quoting ucarr
No, I think it is necessary there is at least one first cause. Its possible that there are more. I think your confusion is you think I'm ascribing something like a self, or a will, or something else that causes the first cause to first be. There is nothing prior. Without any prior cause for a first cause to exist, there can be no predetermination or influence. It is the definition of real chaos. Not limited randomness. Absolute, unpredictable, anything goes randomness.
To clarify, "randomness" is just a mathematical approach we take when we are limited in our ability to measure or observe all the causes that go into an outcome until after the outcome is finished. A die roll is not 'truly random'. It has sides and obeys the physics and forces upon it. If we could dissect and observe every bit of force that would impact the object ahead of time, we would always know the outcome of the die. We say "1 in six" chance of any side popping up only because we can't know ahead of time what will pop up. But its all causal.
True randomness has nothing to measure. There are no prior constraints. There's no set up. There's nothing, then something. That's a first cause. Completely unpredictable and unlimited as what it could be before it happens.
Does it? What caused 3? What caused the line to be drawn that particular way instead of any other way? And if there is nothing that caused it to be drawn that particular way, then what prevents another line from being drawn a different way?
I dealt with the existential realm, but there was no interest in that either. So where does that leave us?
Quoting ucarr
Okay, for the record, this isn't you intending to say something exists prior to the first cause? Can you restate your intended meaning; I don't know how to read your above quote except as you saying something exists prior to the first cause.
Quoting Philosophim
I don't know how to read this except as a contradiction to the statement I addressed directly above.
Quoting Philosophim
How can you justify logically the existence of a first cause that simply is? This statement tries to make explicit that nothing causal or sequential is involved in the appearance of a first cause, but logic is specifically concerned with justifiable connections linking things together.
Quoting Philosophim
I think you imply self-causation in the case of a first cause. Since, by definition, nothing causal leads to a first cause, it follows implicitly that a first cause, if not eternal and uncaused, causes the inception of itself. What else could be the agency of the inception of a first cause if not itself?
Quoting Philosophim
What about a first-cause hydrogen atom? Doesn't it have to incept ex nihilo? Let me repeat my earlier question in a different way: Doesn't every first-cause entity have to self-incept ex nihilo? If not by self-inception, how do first-cause entities incept? Perhaps you'll say: "We don't know." If you play that card, then you have to stop saying first causes are logically necessary. How can you claim to know the logical necessity of existence of an entity whose agency of existence is totally mysterious?
Quoting Philosophim
Firstly, what you write -- regardless of the intentions in your head -- controls the content of your communication.
Secondly, from the limitations you impose: a) not self-caused; b) not caused by anything else; c) possibly extant, it follows logically that your first-cause entities, if they exist, have always existed. Given your limitations, can you name any other possibilities?
Let's look at your first-cause entities from a slightly different angle: with your description, they're not eternal, and thus they must begin. If there's a point where something doesn't exist, and then a later point when it does exist, its logically necessary that this something began to exist by some means. How else can we understand the transition from nothing to something? If you say first-cause entities have no causation whatsoever, and yet are not eternal, then you're positing a universe wherein science is not possible. We both know that's not our universe. So, it follows that your thesis is inconsistent with the universe we know. Moreover, your two limitations -- a) not caused; b) not eternal -- are inconsistent with each other. Finally, by the two previous arguments, first cause as you define it is self-contradictory: not caused means no beginning; no beginning but not always existing means not beginning to exist, so existing means not not beginning to exist, which means not not caused...
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
Why is true randomness -- completely unpredictable and unlimited, but active -- not the cause of what you call first cause? But it is: something, then nothing.
How is true randomness intelligible as a named activity if its nothing? Nothing cannot have a name.
How can what you call first cause be the resultant of intelligible activity if there's no causation? There's nothing to look at but the ultimate pretense of looking at.
How can you detect and measure levels of unpredictability and freedom from limitation with nothing unpredictable and unlimited? Rohrschach Test.
How can you perceive nothing then something with nothing temporal or existential or directional? If time is not essential then: Nothing then something is the cheating liar homunculus in the randomness.
Since every link in a causal chain is sourced in nothing, there's ultimately no distinction between first cause and links in a causal chain. The artificial partitioning into a causal chain is the abyss calling the nothing by a name unhearable.
There are no constraints in nothing, so constraint and causality cannot erase the signature of nothing stamped upon them.
Randomness won't countenance links in a causal chain, so talk of links in causal chains is distraction which cannot distract from Wittegenstein's silence.
[math]{{F}_{n}}(z)={{f}_{1}}\circ {{f}_{2}}\circ \cdots \circ {{f}_{n}}(z)[/math], [math]F(z)=\underset{n\to \infty }{\mathop{\lim }}\,{{F}_{n}}(z)[/math]
Ucarr, the context of the statement is implying the first cause of that specific chain. Not the 'first' first cause ever. Let me be clear and unambiguous. A first cause cannot be caused by something prior. So if you ever think I'm saying that, know that I'm not and you've misread the intent.
Quoting ucarr
If the start of a causal chain is a first cause A, the following results are caused by the previous set of existence. Potentially we could have many first causes, chain 1, 2, 3, etc. and they would all follow this pattern.
Quoting ucarr
That's the entire point of the post. :D I thought you assumed the logic leading to this conclusion was correct, then asking about the consequences of it. I'll summarize it again.
If we don't know whether our universe has finite or infinite chains of causality A -> B -> C etc...
Lets say there's a finite chain of causality. What caused a finite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason, it simply is.
Lets say there's an infinite chain of causality. What caused an infinite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason, it simply is.
It is impossible for there to not be at least one first cause. Therefore we know that first causes are possible, and have no reason for their existence besides the fact they exist.
Quoting ucarr
This may just be a language issue. There is no prior or external cause. Typically saying, "self-cause" implies that there is first a self, then a cause. That's not what I'm intending. There is no conscious or outside intent. It just is. That is the answer. Nothing more.
Quoting ucarr
Yes.
Quoting ucarr
Yes.
Quoting ucarr
It is possible that a first cause has always existed, yes.
Quoting ucarr
Yes. A first cause may have existed for five minutes and vanished, however its causal influence persists to today. Perhaps a first cause appeared as a big bang, and the result is a universe. Perhaps a first cause will appear for a nanosecond then disappear. There are no limitations.
Quoting ucarr
No. They can be eternal. Nothing external caused their existence.
Quoting ucarr
Its illogical to claim that something which has nothing prior that caused its existence, has nothing prior that caused its existence. Only the minds rebellion based on previous experience thinks otherwise. You understand the transition because it happened. That's it. That's the start of causality and the end of our questions up the causal chain.
Quoting ucarr
Incorrect. We just have to keep open that possibility that a first cause could happen. As I've mentioned, proving that any particular one thing is a first cause is a very high bar to reach. As soon as one proven element of external causality comes into play, what we're looking at can't be a first cause.
Quoting ucarr
No we don't.
Quoting ucarr
Not caused doesn't mean a first cause doesn't have a beginning. The beginning is the first cause itself. Two seconds from now a first cause atom could potentially appear then disappear. It had a beginning, a middle, and an end.
Quoting ucarr
True randomness is a description to understand the possibilities of a first cause. It is not a thing that exists that causes first causes. Just like saying a dice has a 1/6 chance of landing on one side, does not mean our created odds caused it to land on that side.
Quoting ucarr
I did not understand this question, could you clarify please?
Quoting ucarr
I don't see how you conclude this. If a causal chain is A -> B -> C, B causes C, A causes B, but nothing causes A. That's a clear distinction.
Quoting ucarr
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here either, could you go into more detail ucarr? Thanks.
Too right. From my point of view, this discussion suffers because it sets out to discuss metaphysics, which seems to be interpreted as discussing the issues unself-consciously, that it, without paying attention to the tools that are being used - the language. I am not dogmatic about linguistic philosophy, but that doesn't mean that attention to the language-game is not relevant.
Quoting Philosophim
I'm afraid that the rules of the game can give you the start, but not the end of the questions. There is always scope for that.
Quoting ucarr
You mean that randomness that is not an unknown explanation is the only "true" randomness. What makes it true, as opposed to an illusion?
Quoting ucarr
Wittgenstein's silence in the Tractatus is defined against a very limited concept of what can be said - that is, of what "saying" is. Fortunately, there are more expansive views available. How far he took advantage of them in the later philosophy to say something that that cannot be said is an interesting question. One does notice, however, that his use of language is no longer limited by that early account of language.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I'm not sure it is a question of interest or not, rather than a question of understanding or not.
We seem to have a range of philosophical approaches in play and a certain frustration because none of them seems to generate a constructive discussion. And so the nature of philosophy is called into question. What, exactly is at issue? What counts as a solution?
I don't know the answers. Perhaps we need to start from there, rather than a fixed position - which we all seem to have.
Quoting Philosophim
You're saying the domain of this conversation is a logical examination of what follows within a causal chain in the wake of its first cause?
Quoting Philosophim
I'm guessing you're excluding consideration of self-organizing, complex systems that are not conscious.
Quoting Philosophim
I'm guessing you're saying first causes can only be interacted with as givens. There's no way to approach a first cause mentally. The only mental reaction possible to the existence of a first cause is acceptance of it as a given, as an unsearchable fact.
Quoting Philosophim
Is this your description of circular reasoning?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Since first causes author causal chains, their just-ising into existence erects an impenetrable partition around the origins of our univese. If just-ising is the dead-end of physics and its examinations, then, yes, the domain of causality post-first-cause suspports science. However, the fundamentals as first causes are beyond reach of science. This renders post-causality science permanently incomplete.
Permanently incomplete science demotes it to local laws ultimately shrouded in mystery, and thus these local laws, having no metaphysical grounding, amount to little more than conjecture. Not knowing ultimate sources, local science must countenance the possibility that mysteries beyond the partition are really magic dissembling as science.
Quoting Philosophim
Maybe this sentence exemplifies one of those language problems you've mentioned. Something happening means -- under normal circumstances -- an energetic, animate phenomenon employing forces and materials within a surrounding material environment. Something happening by just-ising from nothing seems to preclude energy, animation, forces and material, not to mention an environment of similar composition.
This might be the point where the homunculus in your argument is hiding out. When you exhort the reader to instantaneously accept the just-ising into being as a something divorced from everything save nothing, you're cryptically doing away with physics-yet-magically-assuming-it because you present without explanation some means of a human perceiving this change out of nothingness with his/her powers of perception intact, or is QM entanglement of observer/object not in effect with observation of a first cause aborning?
Virtual particles pop out of a vacuum attached to a QM universe. Moreover, they have physical causes.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
You seem to be implying a priori knowledge permanently partitioned from empirical experience of ultimate causes and therefore uncorroborated independently are sufficient for belief in unsearchable first causes.
Quoting Philosophim
Are you sure an unsearchable beginning doesn't dovetail with eternal existence? If just-ising into being is unsearchable, how can we know its not eternal? You seem to be ignoring that human perception of just-ising empirically assumes real physics, something you magically dispense with in your pure randomness.
Quoting Philosophim
It sounds like a hypothetical conjecture that excludes physics. If true randomness has no relationship with first causes, why do you even mention it? You need it to think about first causes, but having no physics, inception of first causes have nothing to do with us. It seems likely your use of randomness facilitates circular reasoning within your head.
Now, you're going to say first causes might govern our lives through the causal chains they author. Well, you have another homunculus transporting first causes across the bridge from no-physics to physics. I don't expect you can explain how no-physics shakes hands with physics. No, you can't. That's why you must say first causes do just-ising as their way to enter our world.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Since first causes just-is their way into our world, there's no physics -- time, matter or vectors -- attached to their arrival. Sounds like a priori speculation without possibility of corroboration.
Quoting Philosophim
Can you explain how first cause -- sourced in nothing -- and causing subsequent causal chain which cannot exist without its sourced-in-nothing first cause, can spawn anything other than nothingness? If the source of something is nothing, how can it cause anything other than what caused it, nothingness? Yes, this is a logical argument, but you've stipulated that logic pertains within the causal chain. To continue, if nothing becomes something and causes subsequent somethings, how can you claim causal supervenience across a causal chain? Don't you have to maintain that original nothingness in order to claim supervenience? If so, then causal chains are really nothing. On the other hand, if you break the causal chain of nothing-to-something (you said it first: (from= causal) nothing to just-isness), how does first cause continue causality? Didn't Hume say something akin to this?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Your first causes from nothing might be invoking Wittgenstein's silent vigil over what cannot be spoken of.
Quoting Ludwig V
On the contrary, I'm suggesting true randomness cannot be contemplated because it deranges the foundational order of thinking.
Quoting Ludwig V
Suppose I succeed in stopping my internal dialogue, have I earned a nod from Walter White?
I'm saying at least one first cause is logically necessary, and the consequences of that being so.
Quoting ucarr
I'm not including or excluding anything but defining what a first cause is, and what that means for us.
Quoting ucarr
If you have discovered and proven something is a first cause, then yes. There's nothing else to consider about what caused it to exist.
Quoting ucarr
No. If there is a first X in a causal chain, there cannot be something prior which causes that first X.
A -> B -> C A is the first. You can't then say 1 -> A because then A was never the first, 1 was. This is about discovery, this is about what actually is first, whether we know that its first or not.
Quoting ucarr
Correct on the first part, but it doesn't render it permanently incomplete. Finding limits is part of completeness. Science is just as often about asserting what we cannot know as much as what we can know.
Quoting ucarr
Positive. Our ability to know it is irrelevant to what it is. Its entirely possible a first cause could start to exist at any time. That would be its beginning. If one does, has, or will, whether we discover it or not does not deny its logical possibility and then existent reality.
Quoting ucarr
Correct. Its not that all of these things can't incept, its just that nothing else causes them to incept.
Quoting ucarr
In my many replies I've been very consistent about this. Remember when you asked me, "Can there be a hydrogen atom that can do things that a hydrogen atom can't?" Recall what I said. I noted that a hydrogen atom is defined as having particular properties. If it doesn't have those properties, its not a hydrogen atom, its something else by our definitions.
Physics is a tool of definitions and measurements that are consistently applied to the world. The possibility of first causes does not destroy what physics is. It may amend it, as all discoveries do. Yes, a first cause is a logical consideration. But it must be proven. We can't just go about saying, "That's a first cause because we don't understand it." Not understanding it means it might be a first cause, but only after exhausting all possible causal influences which could have caused that thing to exist.
Regardless, a small adjustment to physics is not a reason to deny a logical conclusion. A logical conclusion is what it is. We don't deny it simply because we don't like what results from it. We have to deny it by showing there's a flaw in the logic, or accepting it and adapting.
Quoting ucarr
Can you break this up a bit so I can understand this better? I'm not quite sure what you're saying here.
Quoting ucarr
Because its the logical consequence of nothing coming from something. There is nothing to push, or restrict anything which is not caused by anything else. A restriction is an outside cause. Same with a push. Lets look at it this way. If a first cause was 60% likely to be an atom, and 40% likely to be a photon, there would be the question, "What causes these odds?" Meaning we're not really looking at a first cause.
Since a first cause has no prior cause, there is no outside cause that states, "This is more likely/less likely to appear. This must exist at this time." There are not outside causes, so no outside rules that shape or limit what a first cause can be.
Think about it another way Ucarr. Why does reality exist at all? Was there anything outside of reality which caused reality? Of course not. Meaning there was nothing that ruled that it had to be this way.
Quoting ucarr
I don't see how this is circular. Please explain.
Quoting ucarr
Ucarr, something I've noticed is you say I'm implying or asserting things that I have not implied or asserted. Try to avoid this in the future please. If you believe my logic leads somewhere, just point out how you think it leads there.
Quoting ucarr
Its just a logical conclusion, not an empirical assertion. Just like Einstein hypothesized the theory of relativity and his math checked out, it wasn't until they could test it that it could be considered empirically verified. I have never claimed this has been empirically verified, only logically necessary.
Now, if a first cause is ever empirically verified, it would then be a theory in physics. Right now its just a logical assertion. That's pretty much what philosophy does.
Quoting ucarr
Sure. Because there is no constraint as to what a first cause can be.
Quoting ucarr
Because that's what it is.
Quoting ucarr
A first cause is simply the start of all other causation in that chain. You're over complicating it again. A -> B -> C Nothing caused A. Keep it simple Ucarr. :)
Quoting ucarr
This again doesn't explain anything to me. What specifically in Wittgenstein's silent vigil is being evoked as you see it? Lots of people have very different opinions on what Wittgenstein was referring to. So I'll need your particular take to understand what you mean.
Quoting ucarr
It simply causes us to consider something we have not considered before. This does not disrupt thinking or logic. Its merely a continuation and updating of what we can consider.
Have any of these mathematical conveniences ever been detected?
Casimir effect:
Thanks. Those little buggers are elusive. It might take a virtual device to detect their presence.
I'm not sure what the foundational order of thinking is or even whether there is one. But it is true that we are so reluctant to accept "no cause" that we try to corral it by speaking of probability, which at least establishes a sort of order in the phenomena.
The fact that we can consider something does not prove that it exists or even that it could exist, so that does not get us far. We can even accept that Pegasus might exist, but we all know very well that it doesn't, any more than dragons do. In the case of first causes, the evidential bar is so high, that it is more plausible by far to believe that it will never be met, except in the context of a specific theory, which is far from conclusive.
Quoting ucarr
I'm afraid you have me there. I don't know whether you mean the actor or the civil rights activist. But I don't think Wittgenstein meant that. He didn't say there was any problem about asserting well-formed propositions, did he? Certainly, he didn't succeed in stopping his own internal dialogue - I'm not even sure that he tried. Maybe a Zen monk?
Exactly, well said Ludwig!
Quoting Philosophim
Is the following rephrasing acceptable: At least one cause and its causal chain are necessary.
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Is this interpretation correct: The definition of a first cause and whatever that entails is an acceptable object of examination within this conversation.
Is this a reasonable conclusion: A self-organizing, complex system is an acceptable object of examination within this conversation if it is not logically excluded from the definition of first cause.
Quoting Philosophim
Is this interpretation correct: A principal first cause constrained by the laws of physics cannot imply anything external, antecedent or contemporary with itself. However, if the laws of physics logically necessitate all instantiations of causation entail externals, logical antecedents and contemporaries, then its a correct inference there are no first causes.
Quoting Philosophim
Is this interpretation correct: The above claim ignores mereological issues associated with the work of defining a first cause.
Quoting Philosophim
Do you agree with this interpretation: This claim needs to be investigated as a possible false analogy. Argument: It's one thing to find the systemic limits of a discipline such as science. It's another thing to suppose a permanent partition within a discipline: first causes author causal chains, but they cannot be investigated because they simply are. First causes inhabit the phenomenal universe and create consequential phenomena in the form of causal chains, and yet the examination of causation as a whole comes to a dead end at its phenomenal starting point. The implication is that either within or beyond the phenomenal universe lies something extant but unexplainable.* Is this a case of finding the boundary of scientific investigation, or is it a case of halting scientific investigation and philosophical rumination by decree.
*The notion of total randomness causing something-from-nothing-creations suggests a partitioned and dual reality. The attribution of dualism to this concept rests upon the premise that total randomness cannot share space with an ordered universe without fatally infecting it.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
Interpretation - Our ability to know is irrelevant to what we know. Supposition - This claim ignores QM entanglement.
Given QM entanglement, it may be the case that what can incept is limited by what exists. An everyday parallel is the fact that certain microbes don't spawn and proliferate in liquid solutions with a pH above a certain level.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Something-from-spontaneously-occurring-self-organization preserves the laws of physics; something from nothing seems to violate physical laws: such a phenomenon suggests incept of energy to animate the creative process and energy suggests mass transformed to create the energy and mass transformed suggests energy to transform the mass...
Quoting Philosophim
You think it reasonable to characterize something-from-nothing as "... a small adjustment to physics..."?
Quoting Philosophim
I've been examining your definition of first cause as something-from-nothing within a closed system wherein matter-mass-energy are conserved. Again, I ask if you think it reasonable to characterize something-from-nothing as a small adjustment.
Quoting ucarr
You do maintain the standard of empirical proof of first causes. Nonetheless, you firmly assert their possibility. Since all you have at present is speculation via reasoning, I think it germane to the vetting process to invoke arguments like the one about conservation laws being preserved within a closed system. It's your job to explain logically how something-from-nothing happens. Merely stating that inception of a first cause is a case of: "It is what it is." amounts to a case of you dodging behind axiomatic jargon that's first cousin to street vernacular: "Hey, man. I don't know what else I can tell ya. It is what it is."
Here's the dodge: You claim a priori knowledge of the reality of first causes, then evade the work of empirical investigation by claiming the just-ising of first causes into our phenomenal universe. By using this dodge, you don't have to do any explaining of specific changes to known physics concepts that would have to be adjusted for the advent of empirical proof of first causes. You claim to support empirical proof of first causes, but you show no inclination to do any of the work entailed.
Normally, a priori theorems get vetted by the concepts established in the pertinent field. You preclude this vetting process by fixing on a theorem that specifically defines its subject as something that its pertinent field -- physics -- cannot investigate. By excluding causation as a whole from any examination of first causation, you dump the conversation into the field of Kant's noumenal ontology, a field that excludes not only science but knowledge in general.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
You can't establish it as a logical consequence if you can't show and explain how randomness morphs into a dynamic organizer of something. You're hiding another homunculus. It's the homunculus that confers onto randomness organizational powers.
Also, you need to argue why something-from-nothing as a logical consequence is not an ad absurdum reductio. If you can't defend against such a conclusion, then first cause is non-existent.
Quoting Philosophim
Your conclusion is not a self-evident truth -- since you claim to disavow self-evident truths, why are you claiming one here? Also, don't jump to the conclusion something outside of reality is self-evidently absurd: [math] ?-1= i[/math]
Why are we in the reality we observe? The simple answer: It's because we observe it. I'm saying what's real to us is a matter of perspective. We ask a natural question: Why is our reality what we perceive? The answer is that we ask the question because we're able to ask it. Even if we speculate about another kind of reality, we ask why it's not our reality because we're able to speculate about it.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
There's no organized run-up to the just-ising of first causes, so they are because they are. Your tautology is your shield.
Quoting Philosophim
It's your job to refute my interpretations of what you write with cogent arguments.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
So, first cause, like a deity, can create anything. Also, first cause, like a deity, cannot be explained causally. Instead, first causes and deities just are.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
You don't need an argument to support this because its nature is by definition, right?
Quoting Philosophim
You're the one suggesting randomness caused first cause. You're the one suggesting the questionable equation between randomness and nothingness.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
I'm speculating about your first causes just-ising into being as examples of ineffable creation.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
It doesn't disrupt thinking or logic because it's thinking about randomness, not randomness.
This thread is like a causal chain. What would you say about its first cause(s)?
Quoting Ludwig V
Note - "foundational order" is a pun with two senses: 1) the order inherent in thinking is foundational to the human identity; 2) the essence of thinking is its natural orderliness
I feel inclined to claim that order is thinking. Following this line, I want to say the world appears to us orderly because it's rendered to our awareness through our thinking. An idealist wants to establish the world is only ordered through thinking.
Neuroscience has no conjectures about the superstructure of neuronal communications?
Quoting Ludwig V
Consider the following sentence: Origin boundary ontology is a gnarly puzzle.
Is it sufficiently suggestive to give you a clear impression of what it's trying to communicate?
Are you inclined to believe origin stories must discard causation at the start point?
Quoting jgill
Quoting New Scientist
Quoting Ludwig V
I mean Bryan Cranston as Walter White, the Grand Wizard of Speed in a speed-crazy global empire. In the end, he could but retire to the sterile silence of his solitude and die.
Quoting Ludwig V
Maybe a practical application of the language of silence consists of the axiomatic supposition supporting analysis: things exist.
Philosophim seems to be saying, things exist causally. That's a mixed bag containing holism and analysis. Well, if holism leaps across the void and supervenes on analysis, that's a very suggestive conception. Is today's establishment science wrong in its pragmatic decision to keep within its analytical physicalism, with the axiomatic established as the boundary?
The key question for Philosophim is whether s/he's another immaterialist propounding a dualist reality without explaining the handshake between two parallel realms.
No, it is specifically a first cause, not just any cause.
Quoting ucarr
Perfect!
Quoting ucarr
Correct.
Quoting ucarr
The wording about physics is a little to vague for me. "A principal first cause cannot imply anything external, antecedent or contemporary with itself." Is simple and clear.
Quoting ucarr
Again, lets change this to be a little more to the point. "However, if it is found logically that all instantiations of causation entail externals, logical antecedents and contemporaries, then its a correct inference there are no first causes."
This is a logical argument, so of course is there is a logical counter it fails.
Quoting ucarr
Too vague. What do you specifically mean by mereological. The flat definition doesn't mean that that is how you understand the definition. Since I'm talking to you, I want to hear how you view this specifically.
Quoting ucarr
Add, "It is possible" to the start of the above sentence and its good.
Quoting ucarr
A logical boundary of scientific investigation. In no way should we stop science or philosophy.
Quoting ucarr
No dualism. Dualism implies the presence of two separate things. There is not a separate thing. There is simply a first cause's inception. Let me give you an example of total randomness that you may not be realizing. It can be completely random that the universe has one first cause, the big bang, and never has one again. There are an infinite number of possible universes where there is only one first cause. There are an infinite number of universes with 2 first causes. And so on.
Quoting ucarr
Ah, now this is interesting! There is nothing to prevent a first cause from happening, but if a first cause occurs in an already existent universe, it is possible that the first cause cannot coexist with what already exists and breaks down. Of course, its equally likely that it can coexist.
Quoting ucarr
If a first cause can be anything, and it is found to be true, that would not violate physical laws, that would simply become part of them.
Quoting ucarr
Yes because like Newton's laws to Einstein's relativity, most of the time Newton's laws is good enough. Most of the time in physics a first cause would never be considered as a case would have to factually present a case in which there could be no prior causality. That's a ridiculously high bar to clear.
And again, the impact to physics is irrelevant to the logical argument itself. We don't argue against a logical argument because we like or don't like where it leads. This is a mistake theists and atheists have been doing for centuries or they would have figured out what I did long ago. We argue against a logical argument based on its logical premises and conclusion.
Quoting ucarr
No, because I have had to repeatedly and tirelessly explain to people that there is nothing prior that is 'making' something. Its nothing, then something. Inception works much better. "nothing to something' will make me have to write 50 more responses to people explaining that no, nothing is not some thing that causes something. :)
Quoting ucarr
See? You think there's a cause that explains how it happens. There IS NO CAUSE ucarr. =D Do I need to type this 50 more times? I do say this with a smile on my face, but please, understand this basic point.
Quoting ucarr
Ha! But no. The logical argument has always been there ucarr. Try to show it to be wrong anytime.
Quoting ucarr
1. I already told you I don't believe in a priori knowledge.
2. I note that at least one first cause is logically necessary wherever causality exists.
3. I have never claimed this was an empirical conclusion, and have constantly stated that if one is to claim any one thing in this universe is a first cause, they must prove it.
So the rest of your argument is moot. Please try to address the argument as I do specifically and counter what it and I have been saying, not what you believe I'm implying.
Quoting ucarr
No, you are attributing there being something else behind the first cause. You can't help it. =) There is nothing Ucarr. Nothing. There is no organizer. There is no existent 'randomness' behind the scenes that's shuffling through like a slot machine. True randomness is merely a description to grasp potential. That is all.
Quoting ucarr
Please take the argument I've presented for why a first cause is logically necessary and point out where it falls into ad absurdum reductio.
Quoting ucarr
I am not claiming a self-evident truth. Ucarr, you have a bad habit of using terminology that I don't use as if I am using that terminology. I don't use that terminology intentionally. If you're going to introduce something, ask me like you've been doing, "Are you saying that a first cause is self-evident?" Because my answer is "No".
As to reality, if reality refers to everything, there isn't something that exists outside of that set. That's logical.
Quoting ucarr
1. This is not circular.
2. I have a clear argument that leads to the conclusion. I'm not saying, "There is at least one first cause because I say so." I gave you a summary of the argument already if you need to reference it.
Quoting ucarr
Ok, and one of the ways I do so is by asking you to focus on what's actually being stated instead of what you imagine is being stated. That's a fair request for a good discussion right? I don't want to continue to address straw man's. Please ask if you believe I'm intending something first before accusing me of it.
Quoting ucarr
I've already explained this several times, so please listen. It is possible. Possible. Not certain. Not is. Not necessarily. It is possible, that a first cause could create anything. However, it would cause what it created, those things would not be first causes themselves.
Sure, a deity is possible, but so is anything else. Meaning a deity is not necessary to explain anything. A deity could exist for five minutes and vanish. A deity could be good, bad, sad, mad, rad, etc. Or it could be some rocks appeared. Or a demonic unicorn. Or simply a photon. You are still narrowing your scope of true randomness, which is to be expected. All of our notions of randomness are really limits on what we can measure. In this case, its truly unlimited randomness.
Quoting ucarr
Correct. This is required for the definition of a 'first cause' to be logically consistent.
Quoting ucarr
You are the one overcomplicating it. :)
Quoting ucarr
Inception, not creation.
Ok, all done replying! Ucarr, we're sort of narrowing down the point to one major thing I see now. You're having a difficult time letting go of there being something that causes a first cause. Be it implicit, its still there. I am trying to be clear with my language, so please use the arguments and language that I give instead of attributing ideas that I am not intending, as If I'm intending them. Just check with me first if you think I'm implying more than I've written.
And thank you for being very discerning and thinking about this at length. I don't want to come across as if I think you're not doing a fantastic job. You are. I'm enjoying the discussion.
Good to see a little levity here! It all started when I read the Kalem cosmological argument long ago. Of course it was easy to see that the idea that a God had to be the start of the universe had no backing. But one thing I did think about was the idea of an origin. So I thought about it, figured others had come to the same conclusion but then realized they hadn't. Turns out people were so obsessed with proving or disproving a God that they missed the logic that remained in front of them.
It is my firm opinion after speaking with many people, that a major and fatal error many people do in discussions is view the end as the means, and the argument as the secondary. It should be switched. People shouldn't give a crap about the end. They should care about the argument and where it logically ends. Not where they want it to end.
Sure. Lets go with, "That which has an identity. An identity is how it interacts with what is around itself" Basically anything that isn't nothing, as nothing as a concept is the absence of identity.
It's nice to agree on something, isn't it? I wasn't sure whether you would welcome the agreement or criticize the way I undermined it.
Quoting ucarr
I'm not sure I have any clear grasp of what either statement means. Is 1) a version of the idea that the essence of humanity is rationality? If so, it depends what you mean by "rationality" and "essence", but is far from obviously true.
Quoting ucarr
I'm not sure the world does appear to us as orderly, though it is true that there is some order in it. But a lot depends on what you think of as order.
I mean, I can put my books on their shelf in order of size, price, weight, date of publication, name of publisher or printer, first letter of title, first letter of author, Dewey decimal classification etc. What's more, if you put them on the shelf at random, I can then find the order in which they are put. In short, I defy you to think of a way of putting them on the shelf that isn't in some order or another. Disorder among the books can only be defined in relation to some principle of ordering them. (I have not forgotten that "book" is more complicated than it might seem. Is the Bible one book or two or many? Is a volume of Gibbons' Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire a book or part of a book. Is a pamphlet a book?)
Quoting ucarr
Not really.
Quoting ucarr
It depends what kind of origin you have in mind - I mean what the origin in question is the origin of. In terms of this discussion, it does seem that the origin of a causal chain cannot be a cause, though if you change your definition of cause (or of what counts as an explanation) at that point, it may be possible to provide some sort of account.
Quoting ucarr
Maybe. Though I have seen people trying to discuss that statement.
Quoting ucarr
No. It wouldn't be what it is if it didn't. I might have something to say about a scientist who kept strictly within the boundaries of physicalism, even within working hours and we might decide to set different boundaries if circumstances changed.
I don't think an accurate assessment is undermining. Out of the people recently posting in this thread, I think you grasp the argument the best.
Quoting Philosophim
You've been saying a principal first cause, although it can incept as anything, cannot violate the physical laws of the thing it incepts as, right? If I'm correct in thinking this, it seems to me also correct a principal first cause is constrained by the definition of the particular things it incepts as.
If you chafe at constraint applied to a principal first cause, that gives me an opening to point out mereological issues and question whether you need to address them.
Quoting Philosophim
Do you agree making this determination is the heart and soul of our work in this discussion?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Mereological essentialism
In philosophy, mereological essentialism is a mereological thesis about the relationship between wholes, their parts, and the conditions of their persistence. According to mereological essentialism, objects have their parts necessarily. If an object were to lose or gain a part, it would cease to exist; it would no longer be the original object but a new and different one.
Wikipedia - Mereological essentialism
The last two sentences of the definition are especially important. If a first cause is a system, as is the case in your example of a first-cause hydrogen atom, then, as you've been saying, it cannot be a hydrogen atom if one of its necessary parts is missing.
Next comes the issue whether the necessary part is a thing-in-themself apart from the hydrogen atom. The answer is yes because we know electrons are parts of many elements and compounds, not just hydrogen atoms. So, if an electron is a thing-in-itself and its a necessary part of a hydrogen atom, then a hydrogen atom, even the first one, in order to exist, must contain an electron, another thing-in-itself like the hydrogen atom. Therefore, logically, we must conclude the electron is a contemporary of the hydrogen atom it inhabits, and thus the hydrogen atom cannot be itself and at the same time be a first cause.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
I understand you want to leave open the possibility the something-from-nothing origins of first causes are not permanently partitioned off from examination of causation as a whole by science, but your something-from-nothing just-iziming of first causes are, by your definition, beyond scientific reach.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
How is claiming logical necessity of things unexplainable refutable?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
I've underlined the sentence where you might be hiding a cryptic dualism: If total randomness spawned our universe, one inference that can be drawn is that there is a continuum from total randomness to order. The possible duality is the transition point from total randomness (while still within total randomness) to order, or even to proto-order. If this transition point is really an unexplained jump from zero order to extant order, then that's your hidden dualism.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Maybe the question remains: Does a postulated realm of reality without physics and its laws violate the laws of physics?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
You seem to be saying discovery of a first cause is unlikely. The unlikeliness of its discovery has no bearing on the radical impact of such a discovery.
Quoting Philosophim
You're right, but in this case I'm not attacking your logical argument. I'm attacking your characterization of the advent of something-from-nothing as an event requiring a small adjustment to physics.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
Yes, with your clarification here I better understand what you've been describing.
Some might think I'm playing a language game when I reflect on a first cause that has no cause being illogical. I defend raising this question because the gist of your argument is that first causation is logically necessary. Now, my argumentative question says a thing partitioned from its identity is illogical along the line of paradox. First cause, by definition, possesses the identity of causation. By definition then, first cause is in identity with itself. (No, I haven't forgotten your denial that first cause can be a self. My simple response is to say non-sentient things like first causes nonetheless are things in themselves.) It's perhaps a weird argument, but I'm driving towards saying inception of first cause cancels definition of first cause as causeless. This in part is a denial that inception as a starting point can be causeless. General Relativity with light holding highest velocity excludes any physical processes -- such as inception -- from occurring instantaneously.
Quoting Philosophim
Trying to partition an interval of time to a nearly infinitesimally small duration such that there's a moment after inception wherein cause is first established doesn't work because in that short interval of time you're implying first cause is not really itself, a paradox. If that's not the case, then there can be no positive time interval during which incepted first cause isn't itself establishing causation. So, no temporal creation without causation.
This is a logical attack on your claim by implication first-cause inception is instantaneous. Since you're leading with the claim first cause (by instantaneous inception) is logically necessary, you must defend your claim with logic. Axiomatic talk about nothing-then-something without a logical argument excluding, for example, General Relativity's exclusion of your claim from reality, won't do.
Quoting Philosophim
You're referring to your alpha logic in your OP?
Quoting Philosophim
You're saying I should only draw inferences strictly adherent to the precise sense in which you word your statements?
Quoting Philosophim
Must you exclude potential from the neighborhood of first cause?
Quoting Philosophim
You're saying you have reason to doubt your alpha logic can be reduced to ad absurdum reductio and, given this doubt, you want me to demonstrate such a reduction?
Quoting Philosophim
You're saying "First causes simply are." is not a self-evident truth?
Quoting Philosophim
You're speculating about reality having no boundary?
Quoting Philosophim
I've made important gains in my general abilities pertinent to rational conversation through our dialogue up to this point. I'll be heeding your suggestions for keeping close to the senses in which you (and others) intend your communications in words, phrases, sentences and concepts.
As for my getting stuck at the outer boundary of causation and thereafter being unable to enter into examination of causeless things, I put my best spin on what I've been doing by thinking I've been running through my inventory of commitments to causation en route to deepening my understanding of what you're trying to communicate with respect to your posited causeless realm of first cause. I don't want to further aggravate your annoyance with fruitless repetitions. With that goal in mind, I'm ready to withdraw from our dialog in favor of study suggested by what I've been learning from it.
If you're saying, "Once a first cause has incepted, it cannot be anything other than what it is," you are correct.
Quoting ucarr
I would say yes. This conclusion arises because of a logical argument which I have yet to see anyone disprove. It doesn't mean the argument can't be disproven, it just means no one has done it yet if this is the case. That's why I'm presenting it here. Let people stab at it, shake a stick at it, throw a pitchfork, anything to see if there's a weakness I'm not seeing.
Thank you for clarifying what was important to mereological to you.
Quoting ucarr
This is very similar, if not identical to what I've been saying. Though in hindsight I've phrased this differently depending on the context, so I'll be clear here. A first cause is at the moment of inception. The next tick of time is not the first cause. That is the first result of a first cause. In the past I've stated that a first cause could incept, then disappear moments later. This is taking the context of the first cause as the thing that forms and continues. While convenient to type a general idea more efficiently, this is not accurate in detail.
What I should have said is that the existence that proceeds from a first cause does not need to persist forever. As an example again, if what appears to be a photon appeared as a first cause, then disappeared five seconds later from existence, due to the rules and consequences of the first cause, that's possible. Technically a photon doesn't vanish in five seconds due to the consequence of its own existence. My apologies is my lack of specificity in this has caused any confusion, that would be on me. :)
Quoting ucarr
Correct. I stated this earlier in our discussion, though it would not be surprising if it was forgotten. Since a hydrogen atom is composed of other elements, the only way we could generalize the atom as a first cause if is all the elements of the hydrogen atom incepted in such a way as it would continue in the next moment like a regular hydrogen atom. It is the fundamental aspect which is a first cause. Only if several fundamentals incepted simultaneously and in a particular order could such a miracle occur. This is of course possible, but once again, must be proven that this occurred. I believe if such a rare instance were to happen, this is an instance in which it would likely be impossible to scientifically determine that it happened.
Quoting ucarr
This is a broader question about understanding what the laws of physics are. They are tested aspects about known reality that so far, have not been disproven. If one day multi-verse theory was found to be real, it would be a part of physics. If we proved that a first cause existed, that would be part of physics. Physics is not an innate truth of reality, it is a discovered knowledge about reality that we have determined through careful testing, logic, and application.
Quoting ucarr
True.
Quoting ucarr
I think its reasonable for people to resist such a claim. Indeed, I want to hear people's arguments against it to see if they're right.
Quoting ucarr
One thing I point out is a first cause is that which exists without prior cause. Self identities or constituent parts are fine as long as they are not prior to what is incepted like the hydrogen atom I just covered a few paragraphs ago.
Quoting ucarr
This is more of a problem with time partitioning than a first cause. This is exemplified by this problem. "I have to walk a distance of 10 feet. To walk a distance of ten feet, I must walk halfway there first. Then to walk a distance of 5 feet, I must walk halfway there first. This goes on for as long as we can invent halves of numbers, which is of course infinite. If this is the case, how do I ever arrive at the end of the initial ten feet?" The solution is that though our numbers can be reduced infinitely, there must be a fundamental minimum scale of distance. Same with time. Otherwise every second of time that has passed will have also crossed an infinity of halves.
Quoting ucarr
I have since summarized it for you better in a previous post. Hopefully that makes it easier to digest.
Quoting ucarr
Where possible, yes. Then if my vocabulary is incomplete or unclear, you can ask me to clarify or call me out on it. That puts the responsibility on me to clearly articulate my point instead of on you.
Quoting ucarr
I'm not sure what you meant by this, could you clarify please ucarr?
Quoting ucarr
Yes, please.
Quoting ucarr
No, they are a conclusion reasoned through by logic. If it was self-evident, there could be no discussion or debate. To my mind, nothing is self-evident. Feel free to argue against this, it only supports my point. :D
Quoting ucarr
I'm just saying that the word 'reality' is really a word that represents all of 'what is'.
Quoting ucarr
Not a worry at all. You are not aggravating or annoying ucarr! I appreciate your thoroughness, curiosity, and respectful critiques and attacks on the theory. Ask as long as you have questions that need answering, its not a problem.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
My general interpretation of your introduction of randomness as a state of things totally unpredictable had it positioned as the state preceding incept of first cause. Subsequent to that thinking, you've clarified that nothing -- including nothingness -- can have causal effect on a first cause. So, nothingness, and randomness join the list of excluded causal prior states. After your most recent clarification about randomness being an aide to understanding potential, I'm seeking clarification whether potential inhabits the list of the excluded. The simple answer is yes. However, your mentions of nothingness, randomness and now potential vaguely suggest they're subject to the gravitational pull of causal status due to our reasoning minds needing talking points to grasp nothing-then-something inception.
I know you've denied dualism, so, at the risk of repetition, clarify again how a real realm of acausal nothing-then-something is continuous with our universe of phenomena apparently obeying physical laws. Directly below is why I repeat the question.
Quoting Philosophim
Your underlined fragment suggests randomness in the role of the trigger of the singularity's rapid expansion. If that's not assignment of causal agency to randomness, its a talking point that flirts with such and the effect is the sending of a confusing and mixed communication. I now know that the purity of the randomness argues for no possible organization and no possible associated direction that in this context crosstalks with causation. Another thought -- I know you've already addressed it -- is that the pre-big bang of no physics is an utterly different state not only from our world today, but utterly different from the start of the shortest time interval possible post-big bang. I'm still in arrears of understanding how randomness-into-big band is not a partitioning of reality into two utterly distinct states populating a dual reality.
As I've already written, if randomness-into-big-bang not being a partitioning is an axiomatic presupposition, I can understand what's being conveyed while disagreeing with its possibility. But you argue that A ? B ? C... -- when you run it backwards -- loops around with logical necessity to a causeless inception point. I presume then, that what follows logically is another progression in a forward direction with endless circularity being the general state of things. I don't see any component of the argument that cancels the partitioning obvious to me. So, where does you argument cancel any notion of pre-big bang being a radically different reality than post-big bang, with expansion of the singularity inexplicably bridging across the utterly distinct realities?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
So, where does you argument cancel any notion of pre-big bang being a radically different reality than post-big bang, with expansion of the singularity inexplicably bridging across the utterly distinct realities?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
You're not answering my question, please do so. I'm pressing this point because saying all of what exists equals reality allows for the logical inference reality so defined has no boundary. Well, a reality with no boundary means the no-physics realm of nothing-then-something inhabits the same continuum inhabited by our everyday reality. This bilateral grounding of no-physics and physics compels you to explain logically how our universe contains a no-physics section and also a physics section without it being a dualist universe.
Quoting Philosophim
As you see above, I'm doing just that.
I'm afraid I can't resist some explanation why I can't contribute to this discussion. Paradoxical, I know, but then what's another paradox or two in this environment? You can always ignore me, and I don't complain at that, because my position doesn't take your dialogue forward. So I won't need to disrupt you again.
Quoting ucarr
I agree with this. The reason why this is so is simple. "Randomness" is being used unself-consciously, without an articulate understanding of how "random" (as opposed to "randomness" which is a misleading application of the grammatical rule that allows us to generate a noun corresponding to an adjective) is used in those applications where it is perfectly comprehensible and meaningful. If you want to extend the meaning of "random" beyond the Big Bang, it has to be done carefully and explicitly.
I don't think that "random" can be meaningfully extended beyond the Big Bang. Our normal use of "random" applies to events (which can also stand in causal relationships to each other. Ex hypothesi, those don't exist behind/before the Big Bang, so I can't grasp any meaning for it.
Quoting ucarr
Exactly. But the need to do that is inherent in the positing of the Big Bang (and another extension beyond the Last Cause is equally inevitable). That's the power of the argument for infinite causal chains. But trying to apply concepts that were developed to apply to what exists after the Big Bang to what (if anything) exists before/behind the Big Bang is extremely problematic and liable to lead nowhere. Whether the mathematicians are doing any better, I can't possibly judge. But I would have thought that their approach stands a better chance than anything that can be made from ordinary language.
:up:
Correct.
Quoting ucarr
Then that is not my intention. I was not aware it would come across like that. Thinking back to when I first fleshed it out, I haven't walked through my initial through process in concluding this, so let me do so now.
I remember at first thinking, "If anything is possible, then could some things be more possible than another? Not because of some prior cause, but because that's just the way the first cause played out?
(I know this doesn't make any sense, but just follow the example to see where I arrived in the end)
So I had a thought experiment. Lets say, if anything is possible, that there is a 40% chance of a universe forming from a big bang, and a 60% chance of a universe forming from a little whisper. I mean, its possible right? But what that also means is its equally possible that there's a 39% chance of a universe forming from a big bang, and a 61% of a big whisper. 38/62, 37/67...and so on.
In fact, I realized I could imagine any situation with odds, and realize that all odds had the same chance of happening when anything can happen. And if all odds for all possibilities are all possible...that means everything in the mathematical end has the same chance of happening.
That's one. I'll reiterate again another point I've made before as it was likely brushed over earlier. 'Randomness' as we know it is caused. 'True randomness' is uncaused. Randomness has limitations caused by other existential influences. We use randomness in situations where we have limits, but are missing some information that would lead us to predicting that absolutely necessary conclusion.
Again, I'll mention a die roll. The outcome of the die is predetermined by the forces that are already there. Unless a first cause happened to get in the way, a die roll will always land predetermined on a particular side. We'll say the one die. Your forces shaking the cup, gravity, friction, the surface of where it landed, and even the air resistance all cause the die to land on the one. We say, "It has a one out of six chance to land on the one," because we cannot measure it accurately ahead of time. But it was always going to land on the one.
When something has no prior cause for its existence, its actually truly unpredictable. Its inception is outside of determinism. There is nothing causing a big bang to form. There is nothing preventing a big bang from forming. There is nothing which would neither limit, cause, or incline a first cause to be. It simply is. And the logical consequence of this is that the inception of when, where, what, etc of a first cause is true randomness. Meaning anything is possible.
Quoting ucarr
No, that's not what I'm trying to suggest. I hope the above clarified, but I'll reiterate here. Randomness is not a role. It is a logical way to grasp that the inception of a first cause, what it is, where it forms, etc. are truly unpredictable, outside of determinism, and therefore truly random. Now, once its formed, it is no longer random in what it does. It is constrainted by what it is. But what it is, how it is, and why it is, is all truly random.
Quoting ucarr
If there is something which caused the big bang, then the big bang is not a first cause. I'm only using the big bang as a hypothetical example of a first cause give a more concrete example to the abstract. My argument for "there must be a first cause" is the variable X. When I say, "a photon, the big bang, etc.", I'm just temporarily putting a number like 1 or 2 there so we don't have to keep talking in terms of X all the time. Sometimes this makes things more clear.
So its not relevant whether or not there is something that caused the big bang. We just keep working up the causal chain and will eventually arrive at a first cause. So to sum, the argument is not addressing any one particular first cause, it is addressing the logic of any first cause.
Quoting ucarr
Because, and this is entirely understandable, you haven't let go of the need for prior causality. You haven't yet truly considered or understood the idea of what it means for there to be no prior cause. You keep inventing something that's a prior cause, and that's the wrong approach. And that's ok! :) Its a difficult shift. There is no prior cause, means no dualism, no God, no secret mechanism, no slot machine, no sub-quantum field that causes the quantum field, just...nothing. It just is.
Quoting ucarr
I'm not sure how this makes reality not have a boundary. Sum up everything that exists and that's the boundary.
Quoting ucarr
I'll mention this again, but its not a 'no-physics' reality. Its not separate, its just a part of reality. If a first cause was empirically proven, it would simply become part of physics. Physics is an attempt to measure, predict, and understand how forces and matter impact each other. This would just be one extra rule added to it.
Quoting Philosophim
No real meaning has ever been attached to possibilities. If what you are thinking is meaningful, you mean "Let's say, if anything is probable, that there is a 40% chance of a universe forming from a big bang, and a 60% chance of a universe forming from a little whisper." But to assign probabilities, you need to include all possible outcomes, and the total of your assignments must add up to 1.0 and no more. You need to assign a probability to all the "anythings" that you refer to in "if anything is possible". Unless you have a reason to assign different probabilities to different outcomes, you must assign the same probability to all outcomes. (Knowing the outcome doesn't count)
I think that there are infinitely many possibilities (including the possibility of a Big Bang and a Small Whimper). You cannot assign any special probabilities to either the Big Bang or the Small Whimper. However small a number you assign to each probability, either it will be infinitely small or the total will be infinity. This makes your assignments meaningless.
One more try...
The metaphor of a causal chain is helpful in one respect - each link in the chain is both cause and effect. The 10th link is the cause of the 11th link, and the effect of the 9th link. In the real world, no chain is infinite, but the possibility of another link, both before the first one and after the last one can never be excluded.
The actual causal chains that we formulate are constructed either in a practical context or in the context of a theory. They are limited in the first case by pragmatic considerations and in the second by the theories we have. So when we construct actual causal chains, there will always be a first cause and a last cause, and these will present themselves as brute facts - we discussed those a while ago.
Change the context and different possibilities will open up. Remove all context and the system is meaningless. That's why I cannot discuss this in the abstract and had to insist on discussing the first cause we actually know about.
Correct. That's what I'm trying to say with the examples.
Quoting Ludwig V
I did want to note that the conclusion applies to reality, not our knowledge or understanding of reality. "First cause" does not mean, "The start of where we decide to look at the causal chain." There is no human context. The big bang is not a known first cause, it is simply a proposed first cause. To know it is a first cause, we must prove that it is. So far, this has not been done. However, using the big bang as a 'fill in' first cause to get away from abstraction is very helpful and useful to do.
That's a complicated statement. I'm not at all sure that I understand it.
Quoting Philosophim
Sometimes it means exactly that. When it doesn't, it means "the first cause so far as we can tell".
Quoting Philosophim
How can there not be a human context when we are discussing it?
Quoting Philosophim
Well, there's a scientific argument about that, so now the burden of proof is on you to prove that it isn't and to explain what would count as a proof.
Quoting Philosophim
The through line of causal logic is crucial.
Quoting Philosophim
Yes. You're invoking probability.
Quoting Philosophim
I'll sound a note of doubt about this on the premise all odds on all things having equal chance of occurrence assumes unlimited time.
Quoting Philosophim
This implies randomness can be contemporary with the first of all first causes, and thus prior to all first causes subsequent to the first of all first causes. The effect of randomness being uncaused is that there are no first causes.
Also, if true randomness uncaused, as you claim, supports the prediction of certain outcomes, then it is -- your denials notwithstanding -- logical.
Firstly, when you're propounding your conclusion -- that first cause is possible and logically necessary -- you demand it be understood: unexplainable nothing must be accepted prima facie. This is the before-there's-nothing/after-there's-something transformation. So far, your arguments beg the question: How is there not a chain of causation from nothing to something? You have corrected me on my understanding of it as a chain of causation. You haven't explained why it's not.
Secondly, when you proceed to your logical argument this is true, your thinking -- like than mine -- does not remove itself from immersion within a logical perception of what you're trying to exclude from logic.
Your narrative contains a crucial disjunction between your axiomatic declaration of first cause and your exegesis of first cause with telltale rational underpinnings. These telltale rational underpinnings covertly assist you in your assertions of first cause's reality.
The point of disjunction happens when the causal chain reaches its last position prior to the location of first cause and the location of first cause. The gap stands between first cause on one side of the disjunction and second cause on the other side of the disjunction. First cause is not connected to the causal chain you claim it causes. The gap separating the leader from its followers is the gap between no-physics and physics.
Since you're talking about first cause causing a causal chain following after it, you have to bridge across first cause to second cause that bridges across to third cause, etc. You can't start building your bridge if first cause inhabits a realm no other existing thing inhabits. For this reason, whenever you attempt to talk logically about first cause causing second cause and so on, you have to covertly bring in logical connectors linking first cause to second cause.
The central flaw in your thesis appears to be inconsistency (between the no-physics realm and the physics realm). In your attempt to assert a no-logic realm as the start of a logical realm, you encounter the gnarly problem of explaining logically the non-logical inception of logic. Its easy to claim a no-logic realm causes a logic realm if you keep the two realms separated in a dualistic reality. The problem with this option is that the claim of a causal link must be taken as an article of faith.
Your first cause thesis is plagued by the same inconsistency devil plaguing theism and the big bang.
:up:
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, the air still vibrates with the fall. We don't need someone to hear the vibration of the air for the air to vibrate.
Quoting Ludwig V
No, a first cause is not an opinion. It is a truth. A first cause can have no prior cause for its existence. This is independent of whether we discover its existence or not. If we claim something is a first cause, it must be proven that there was no prior cause for its existence. It is not a belief. If for example we discovered something we had claimed was a first cause, did in fact have a prior cause, we would have been mistaken in calling it a first cause.
Quoting Ludwig V
Sure. For something to be proven as a first cause, all other possible prior causality must be ruled out. One theory about the big bang is that prior to it, there existed the big crunch. Basically all matter was sucked into itself, then exploded out again. That possibility would need to be proven false to claim that the big bang was a first cause.
No. That was the entire point. You even thumbed up Lucas's quote which agreed with mine.
Quoting ucarr
Lets clarify a difference here. Given infinite time, all things that are possible WILL happen. That's not what I'm stating. I'm stating that there is no way to predict at any any particular moment in time if a first cause will incept, and what it will be.
Quoting ucarr
This implies no such thing. I've mentioned several times randomness is not a cause. Its a descriptor to understand the inception of first causes entails. I feel like we're back sliding here. :) Remember, nothing causes a first cause. If you think I'm saying anything prior causes a first cause, know that I am not.
Quoting ucarr
Again, you're attributing randomness as some cause. Its not a cause. Its not a thing. Its a descriptor. Its a logical conclusion that we realize once we understand a first cause cannot be caused by anything prior.
Quoting ucarr
I don't demand it be accepted prima facie. I have an argument that leads to a conclusion. Go find the summary if you need. If you want to critique the argument, critique the argument. Please don't throw accusations without addressing the argument.
Quoting ucarr
There is no question begging. If we label an egg as "The first dinosaur egg", and it is true, can there be a dinosaur egg that exists prior to the first dinosaur egg? No. This is not begging the question, this is just a logical consequence of the term "first".
If its true that something is a first cause in a causation chain, then no prior cause can come before it. Nothing does not cause something, because nothing is...nothing. Its just a state prior to the first causes inception.
Quoting ucarr
I don't understand this. Can you try a second pass on it?
Quoting ucarr
I don't understand this either. Use the example I gave earlier. A -> B -> C. A is the first cause in the causal chain. Everything flows after. What is lacking in this example?
Quoting ucarr
A first cause does not follow anything. Again, if you ever find yourself thinking, "This caused the first cause" stop. Nothing does. I don't imply anything ever does. Thinking that something can cause a first cause is a complete contradiction.
Quoting ucarr
How is A -> B -> C covert? I don't quite understand your point here.
Quoting ucarr
There is no other realm ucarr. There is no "randomness" realm. There is no dualism. The conclusion that there is nothing to influence how, what, or when a first cause will incept is simply a logical conclusion we can reach once we realize there is no prior cause to it.
Please try again ucarr. Stop putting something into nothing. :) There is no prior cause to a first cause.
That's a very good example. "A cloud of philosophy condensed in a drop of grammar", as Wittgenstein would say. In this case, condensed in the definitions of two words - "sound" and "vibration".
I'm sure you know that the decision to exclude sounds, colours, tastes, smells, etc from physics was taken in the 17th century (first by Boyle, I believe) on the grounds that they are not amenable to mathematical representation. At the time, it was probably a sensible decision. But it set up a philosophical conundrum that has lasted from that day to this with no solution in sight.
So, you see, the conceptual framework that we apply to reality makes a difference to what reality we grasp. (I don't say it makes a difference to what is real. By definition, it doesn't.)
You prioritize the framework of physics in your intellectual life, but in your everyday life you have no problem knowing where sounds are and often what makes them and no problem knowing what colour the table is (and when it seems to be a colour that it isn't "really"). Neither has priority. Both are useful.
Quoting Philosophim
I didn't know about that. I'm not surprised. I have never believed that the Big Bang was the end of the story. It doesn't make any difference to our problem, does it? But it does confirm my view that the first cause is a moving target, not a fixed point.
Quoting Philosophim
Well, of course it is a truth. By definition. But you have also specified conditions for its discovery that seem to exclude the possibility of ever discovering it, except as a temporary phenomenon of whatever theory we devise.
Right. I'm not claiming that whether we can identify a first cause or not, it would still exist.
Quoting Ludwig V
What we believe is a first cause is likely a moving target. If we can prove any one particular thing is a first cause, then it would be no more of a moving target than anything else we prove.
Quoting Ludwig V
No, not a temporary phenomenon, but a hard proof. The bar to reach this is of course, extremely high. In many cases of first causes, its impossible to prove. I do not view this as a bad thing.
I wonder if its been lost in the discussion, but I am not once claiming, "This X is a first cause." I'm just noting that it is logically necessary that at least one first cause exist.
Here's the summary of the argument again. If we don't know whether our universe has finite or infinite chains of causality A -> B -> C etc...
Lets say there's a finite chain of causality. What caused a finite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason, it simply is.
Lets say there's an infinite chain of causality. What caused an infinite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason, it simply is.
Yes. I don't think we'll really get anything out of going through all that again. Nor do I think we'll get further than our partial agreement. I'm just trying to articulate my own take on it.
All good!
I've skimmed the thread, and most of it is over my little pointy head. But one sticking point seems to be confusing a logical First Cause (of some resulting chain of events) with an objective Thing or God operating in space-time. But your responses sound like what you have in mind is much more abstract & subjective, and more like a First Principle*1. That's simply a philosophical/mathematical concept, as contrasted with a physical/material object. And a mereological distinction is that the hypothetical Cause is not a part of the system of secondary causes & effects. The analogy I like to use is a pool-shooter, who stands outside the table and bouncing balls. :smile:
*1. First Principle :
In philosophy and science, a first principle is a basic proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption. First principles in philosophy are from first cause attitudes and taught by Aristotelians, and nuanced versions of first principles are referred to as postulates by Kantians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_principle
Quoting Gnomon
Correct. People seem to think I'm using this to claim the existence of some specific first cause like the Big Bang, God, etc. I am not, and note that doing so would be an extremely difficult burden of proof.
Quoting Gnomon
Also correct!
Quoting Gnomon
I'm only going to tweak this a bit for clarification. You may not be implying this, I just want to be clear that a first cause as proven here is not outside of our universe, but a necessary existent within our universe. The balls on the pool table are not separate from the pool shooter. The entirety of the interaction is part of the universe.
Finally, I think I did indeed deduce this from the propositions put forward here. So I wouldn't call it a first principle. Then again, I think everything needs to be deduced or proven in some way.
My Poolshooter analogy was intended to illustrate that the Initial Cause was a separate sub-System outside the sub-system affected. Not necessarily outside of the known universe. Unless, there are no other (isolated) physical sub-systems, in which case the causal effects would apply to the whole universe, without exception. And the First Cause would have to be Meta-Physical (i.e. not subject to physical laws).
So, if we are assuming that the chain of causation applies everywhere in the interconnected universe, then your immanent Cause could be its own Effect. For example the Cue ball is on the table, and can be impacted by the 8 ball. That's why my unique First Cause, or Causal Principle, is assumed to be off the table, outside the system affected.
However, some have postulated that, in a Multiverse of multiple self-contained cause & effect systems, our local 'verse was impacted by another verse, causing the Effect we call the Big Bang. But of course, evidence for an eternal chain of 'verses is unavailable from inside our own system. So, I prefer not to specify where the imaginary Poolshooter is standing, and just call him an abstract-but-necessary Principle. :smile:
Quoting Gnomon
Are you saying: a) unique First Cause is outside the chain of causation it affected?
Quoting Gnomon
Are you saying unique First Cause is necessary to chain of causation it's outside of and affecting?
Can you elaborate additional details about the unspecified whereness -- positionally speaking relative to the whole -- of abstract-but-necessary Principle?
Quoting Gnomon
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Gnomon
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
Are you saying: a) the logical first cause has no material physicality; b) the logical first cause that has no material physicality exists within our universe?
Quoting ucarr
Yes. My understanding of a logically necessary First Cause is a philosophical conjecture, not a scientific observation. So there is no "whereness" to specify. You can call it simply a Philosophical Principle, or a god, as you wish ; but like all fundamental Principles, the Prime Cause is a theoretical Concept, an Idea with "no material physicality". However, the referent is not an anthro-morphic deity located in space-time, but more like the Abstract Rational Principle of the US founding fathers, and the European philosophers such as Leibniz and Thomas Paine*1.
You can find more "details" under the heading of The Cosmological Argument*2. Colloquially, Deism is known as the "God of the Philosophers". As I said in the previous post : "But one sticking point seems to be confusing a logical First Cause (of some resulting chain of events) with an objective Thing or God operating in space-time". Philosophically, that confusion could be called a conflation of concepts & objects, of Ideality and Reality.
The scientific Big Bang theory understandably avoided the philosophical question of where the Energy & Laws of Nature came from. That's because those logical necessities for a Chain of Causation are presumably Eternal & Everywhere. Once you have Potential & Algorithms, the manifestation of Matter is a sequential physical Effect of a singular metaphysical Cause. So, it would be less confusing to call the prerequisites for a physical causal world a universal Philosophical Principle instead of a particular Scientific Fact. :smile:
*1. What is the deism theory of God? :
Rather, deism is the belief in a sole creator god who set the universe in motion according to nature's laws and then left it to run on its own. The evidence of a creator is discernible through human reason and logic and has nothing to do with any scriptural authority, revelation, or miraculous events.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/deism-the-founding-fathers-definition-beliefs-quiz.html
*2. Cosmological Argument :
Though they often disagreed, one principle of philosophy on which Plato and Aristotle agreed was that existence and the universe required a First Cause or Prime Mover - a god of some kind. Their argument was basically as follows. Every finite and dependent being has a cause. . . . .
https://lah.elearningontario.ca/CMS/public/exported_courses/HZT4U/exported/HZT4UU02/HZT4UU02/HZT4UU02A04/_ld1.html
I'm not sure where you got that. I'll point out again: This is not a claim of any 'one thing' being a first cause. Its just a logical note that there must be a first cause, and that first cause has nothing prior that limits or influences what it should be.
To be clear on definitions, I define 'the universe' as 'all that exists'. Is immaterial existence even a thing? I don't know. If it exists, then its a thing. If not, then its not.
Okay: You're saying: Quoting Gnomon
Okay: You're saying: Quoting Gnomon
So, First Cause is an abstract entity that inhabits the realm of mind.
Okay: You're saying: Quoting Gnomon
So, Prime Cause has a referent.
Okay: You're saying: Quoting Gnomon
So, our world is a causal chain following from an abstract entity that inhabits the realm of mind.
Okay: You're saying: Quoting Gnomon
So, our world is an eternal following-causal-chain in the sense that its origin, Prime Cause, is an eternal logical necessity.
Quoting Philosophim
So, you're saying that even though a first cause is logically necessary, that doesn't necessarily imply the necessity of a first cause of all first causes?
Are we looking at a concept of causation with potentially unlimited number of first causes and yet no first cause for the set of first causes?
Quoting Philosophim
You've said you're not making a claim that a thing -- such as a God, or the Big Bang -- acts as the first cause. Also, you've clarified that your thesis only posits the logical necessity of a first cause. Now you say you don't know if immaterial existence is a thing. Is it pertinent to the content and intentions of your thesis to suppose you take no definitive position on the materiality or immateriality of the logically necessary first cause?
Let me clear this up a bit.
First, if you remember a first cause cannot cause another first cause. That's just a first cause causing something else.
Second, its possible that there was a first cause that happened, then other first causes happened later. Or it could be that two or more first causes happened simultaneously.
I hope that answers the question.
Quoting ucarr
Correct because a first cause cannot cause another first cause. If A causes B, B is not a first cause.
Quoting ucarr
No Ucarr, I'm saying I'm not claiming any one PARTICULAR thing is a first cause. If the big bang is a first cause, then it is. I'm not claiming that it is. That's not what this is showing. I'm not saying "X" is a first cause. Just noting there must be at least one.
Quoting ucarr
Right. Its not anything I cover in here, nor is necessary to do so. I don't even know what immaterial existence is. Let someone else prove that.
Quoting ucarr
Its completely irrelevant whether there is immaterial existence or not. I talk about existence, and the adjective does not change that. It doesn't matter what form it takes.
Quoting Philosophim
My mistake. I should've written: So, you're saying that even though a first cause is logically necessary, that doesn't necessarily imply the necessity of a first [s]cause[/s] of all first causes?
Quoting Philosophim
Are we looking at a concept of causation with an unlimited number of possible and independent first causes?
Quoting Philosophim
So, you're saying anything that can exist might be a first cause?
Quoting Philosophim
By immaterial existence I mean an abstract concept -- or some such entity -- that inhabits the mind apart from matter. Have you not agreed with Gnomon (below) that concepts are immaterial and real?
Quoting Gnomon
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
Have you not agreed with Gnomon (above) that immaterial yet real concepts -- as distinguished from matter -- are useful for correctly understanding your thesis, and therefore pertinent to it?
Correct only in the technical fact that it is possible there were two different 'firsts' that happened at the same time.
Quoting ucarr
Its been a while, so recall the 'chains'. The start of each chain is separate and independent, though they might cross paths. Nothing I've stated here has negated what I've stated before.
Quoting ucarr
We're having a language barrier issue here. :) Think of it as a variable set Ucarr. I'm noting the variable of 'a first cause' is logically necessary. What's in that actual set, one or many more, is irrelevant. What actual first causes have happened over the lifetime in the universe is up for other people to prove. I am not saying that anything which exists can be a first cause. I'm just noting at least one first cause must exist. If you wish to claim that 'This thing right here is a first cause," you have to prove it.
Quoting ucarr
No. I don't care whether they're immaterial or not. Are they real? Yes. That's all that matters.
Quoting ucarr
I am speaking to Gnomon in the context that I know he understands, and only one aspect of it. That is not your context. I do not want to explain his full context and what parts I do and do not agree with, because I have already done that while speaking speaking to him. If he has questions, he can ask me. I can tell you that nothing has changed from our conversation in which I spoke to you Ucarr. So its best not to confuse yourself by trying to follow it. If you have questions from our previous conversations, please ask. Do not worry about Gnomon and myself.
I commend you on your durable patience with me.
Quoting ucarr
My intention here is to understand that a first of all first causes, if it happens, holds no special status because first causes are independent.
Quoting Philosophim
I've been striving to understand that the gist of your claim is to say each causal chain must have a first cause. In so stating, I understand you take no particular position on the ontic identity of a first cause and its following chain.
Quoting Philosophim
You've previously stated there're no limitations on what a first cause can be. Are you now presenting an elaboration that rejects the notion "there're no limitations on what a first cause can be and "anything that can exist might be a first cause"? are logically equivalent?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Are you allowing that "real" names a comprehensive set of things that funds first causes and that whether or not this set includes both material and immaterial things is irrelevant to your work in this conversation? Do you agree your indifference in this situation leaves open the door for inferring that logical necessity of first causes is amenable to both material and immaterial causes? I ask this question because the ontic identity of first causes is not normally a matter of indifference within examinations of causation.
Quoting Philosophim
You presume incorrectly my questions are darts aimed at your previous statements. I like to think I'm slowly improving my understanding of the intentions behind your words.
Are you advising me to stop undertaking my own independent inferential thinking because you think it [sometimes] erroneous?
In a concomitant action, are you trying to restrict the range of actions, techniques and approaches I can use in my interactions with you?
If you think you're repeating yourself in your responses, name the topic, tell me I'm repeating my questions thereof and I'll agree not to ask additional repeat questions on the topic.
You are correct.
Quoting ucarr
This is also correct.
Quoting ucarr
No. Please explain how you came to this conclusion from what I wrote.
Quoting ucarr
Ucarr, you are overcomplicating things again. I told you, "I don't know what immaterial means. Its not something I brought up." If it exists, it doesn't matter if its material, immaterial, in immaterial, or bizantiane whibble material. :) Real is what exists.
Quoting ucarr
I don't think they're darts, but you do seem to take strange leaps from what I'm saying. You read far too much into my words many times and often make conclusions I never assert.
Quoting ucarr
No. This is what I mean by you reading into things that aren't there. Why do you think this? Where did I tell you to stop? If I had one piece of advice when reading my writing, read only what I write. If I don't outright say I intend something, I don't.
Quoting ucarr
I don't think so. Why do you think that?
Quoting ucarr
Sure. I'm just telling you that nothing has changed.
I could agree with that statement, except that the "eternal" adjectives could be mis-interpreted. AFAIK the "causal chain" is spatial & temporal, not eternal : AFAIK, space-time began with a bang. The "logical necessity" is a concept in my mind, to explain the existence of the space-time world. It may be "eternal", but all I'm saying is that it is necessarily pre-big-bang. :smile:
Ha! Gnomon is not conspiring with to get our "story" straight. We just happen to view the First Cause postulate as a plausible philosophical explanation for the existence of a contingent & sequential Reality, in which a new thing or event necessarily follows from a previous event. The prior thing or event is what we call the "Cause"*1 of the subsequent thing or event. How we articulate that notion may vary. But in general we both seem to agree with the reasoning of Plato and Aristotle. If that sounds like Idealism to you, then so be it. :joke:
*1. What is Hume's theory of cause and effect? :
Hume saw causation as a relationship between two impressions or ideas in the mind. He argued that because causation is defined by experience, any cause-and-effect relationship could be incorrect because thoughts are subjective and therefore causality cannot be proven.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/the-metaphysics-of-causation-humes-theory.html
Quoting ucarr
I suspect that the term "immaterial"*2 may mean something different to you than to Gnomon & Philosophim. For example : concepts & ideas are not "real" but ideal. We are not trying to say what an abstraction is "made of", because it's not a material object, and is not "made of" any physical substance.
I know that conceptual abstractions, such as Souls or Selves*3, do not fit neatly into the worldview of Materialism. But, regardless of their "true nature", they are useful concepts for philosophical understanding. And abstractions are essential for material technology*4. For example, the imaginary (as-if) notion of an Electrical or Quantum Field has allowed engineers to build cellular communication systems that work well, even though we don't know the "true nature" of the invisible mathematical relationships that constitute the so-called "Field". :nerd:
*2. On the Meaning of "Immaterial" :
Things we think of as immaterial, such as consciousness and soul, are material phenomena that we think must be immaterial because we do not yet know their true nature. To claim that something is immaterial implies it does not exist. Consciousness surely exists, and there are many good reasons to think souls do too.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/memory-medic/202103/the-meaning-immaterial
Note --- I don't agree with this materialistic concept of "existence". Objects and Concepts "exist" in different "senses" : one is objective (sensory) and the other is subjective (ideational).
*3. The Soul is a Self-concept :
Self-concept is an overarching idea we have about who we are—physically, emotionally, socially, spiritually, and in terms of any other aspects that make up who we are.
https://positivepsychology.com/self-concept/
Note : I tend to use the secular concept of a "Self" to replace the religious concept of a "Soul". Neither is a material object, but a summation of all properties & qualities of a "Person", which is another abstraction. Hence, one abstraction can be a "component" of another concept, but you can't make anything physical from a pile of abstractions.
*4. Abstractions in Science & Technology :
[i]Abstraction is an integral part of computational thinking and problem solving. It is also one of the most difficult parts of computational thinking to conceptualize. Much of this difficulty has to do with the semantics of the word “abstraction,” which is often inferred to mean unclear or vague. However, the more relevant definition of abstraction as it pertains to computer science is “the summary of something” or “the extraction from something.” . . . .
Abstraction, as used in computer science, is a simplified expression of a series of tasks or attributes that allow for a more defined, accessible representation of data or systems. In computer programming, abstraction is often considered a means of “hiding” additional details, external processes and internal technicalities to succinctly and efficiently define, replicate and execute a process.[/i]
https://www.learning.com/blog/examples-of-abstraction-in-everyday-life/
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Here are the pertinent things you wrote:
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
In the first statement above in bold -- yours -- you ask for an explanation of my question:
Quoting ucarr
Your first quote above -- I'm saying I'm not claiming any one PARTICULAR thing is a first cause. -- is a logical descendent of: "There're no limitations on what a first cause can be."
My question was motivated by your second statement above in bold: "I am not saying that anything which exists can be a first cause."
Why is it not a contradiction of: "There're no limitations on what a first cause can be"?
The question is important because it's an essential supporting argument for your thesis.
On the same note: "A first cause is logically necessary." is the central focus of your thesis. Considering this, consider: Since logical necessity is a strict limitation, by your main argument -- There're are no limitations on what a first cause can be -- a first cause cannot be logically necessary. The necessity of its existence precludes its existence. Why is this not a Russell's Paradox type of contradiction that negates the truth value of your thesis?
Quoting ucarr
When something exists, its potential is realized. If it is a first cause, it must be proven that it is a first cause.
Prior to a first cause's inception, there is no limit as to what can potentially be incepted.
Imagine a die with all possibilities. Now the die is rolled. Whatever lands is what is. If someone claims, "Its a six", we should be able to prove that it did roll a six. Once it is rolled we are out of the realm of possibility and in the realm of actuality.
As you can see, no contradiction.
You have said: "... before first cause, nothing."
How do your descriptions of the inception of first cause have anything to work with other than nothing?
Consider -- In a valid argument, when all the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true.
Quoting Philosophim
Do you think your above premise -- rooted in something instead of in nothing -- avoids being evaluated as false and thus avoids casting doubt on the conclusion being true?
If you do, can you explain the avoidance?
Consider: x = the (all of) existence is necessary premise (this is logically antecedent to a first cause is necessary) (T) and y = your roll of the die premise (F)
We see in the conditional operator truth table that when
x ? y, with x = T and y = F, the statement evaluates as F
Do you think your above premise -- demonstrably false -- avoids plugging into the x ? y implication such that the statement evaluates as False?
If you do, can you explain the avoidance?
If it's true that: "before first cause, nothing," then a justification of this premise with a supporting premise that employs the material things of our everyday world as an example of first cause inception -- a rolling die with numbers on six sides -- cannot be a pertinent and probative example of first cause from nothing. For this reason, I evaluate the supporting premise as false.
From here it follows that if this supporting premise is false, and therefore not all of your premises are true, then your conclusion might still be true, but it's not a certainty.
I further underscore this point with sentential logic:
Consider: x = the (all of)-existence-is-necessary premise (this is logically antecedent to a first cause is necessary) (T) and y = your roll of the die supporting premise (F)
The binary logical operator takes two input values -- x and y -- and converts them into a truth-content value: with x = all of existence is necessary (T) and y = a roll of a die examples inception of first cause (F), we get
(x ? y) ? (T ? F) ? F
So, truth does not imply falsity.
If you want to arrive at a conclusion that is certainly true, you must develop pertinent, probative premises, all of which are true.
Let me break this down because this is still a run on of a sentence.
1. Before a first cause, there was nothing. Assume true.
2. A rolling die with numbers on six sides -- cannot be a pertinent and probative example of first cause from nothing.
Sure, I never used this as an example of a first cause from nothing. Its an analogy to make it simpler to understand the abstract point we're discussing Ucarr, not an actual example. The 'die' is an example of potential randomness. The result of a 'six' is an example of potential being realized. Nothing more. There is not an actual six sided die. There is nothing being rolled. We've gone over this before.
The point is that prior to a first cause's inception, the potential is limitless. After its inception, the result is what is. Thus prior to the inception of a first cause, "It could be anything." After the inception of a first cause, and all the causality that follows from it, there is a definitive first cause and definitive caused objects and states.
Thus, if I'm looking at things that already exist, not everything I look at can be a first cause. In this case, it must be proven that something which exists, or existed, was a first cause. Just like we don't know what side a six sided die will come up before we roll it, but we have to demonstrate what side it showed after it was rolled. Its just an analogy, not literal dice Ucarr.
I think you are sincerely trying to grasp an Idealistic worldview*1 that is radically different from your own Materialistic worldview*2. {pardon the pigeon-holing} Both are Metaphysical concepts created in philosophical Minds. Each perspective has developed a peculiar vocabulary of its own. So, you may think that Gnomon's worldview is Idealistic (no thing), and in direct opposition to Materialism (no thought). But my Enformationism worldview is not so easy to pigeonhole, because it is moderated by the Holistic BothAnd approach to understanding the Things of Reality and the Non-Things of Ideality.
Application of the BothAnd Principle*3 requires one to look at both sides of any Either/Or argument as-if they are merely qualitative aspects of an inclusive holistic comprehensive worldview. But it doesn't mean that you have to ultimately accept one side or another. Instead, its goal is 3D stereoscopic vision : attempting to approximate a god-like understanding of Everything Everywhere All-At-Once, yet without the power of omniscience. So, that ballpark conjecture may appear to straddle the conceptual gap between the polar opposites, like the Colossus of Rhodes.
For example : I just read this passage in Bernardo Kastrup's Science Ideated : "What seems to be beyond Coyne's ability to comprehend is that the dualism between mind and matter he implicitly relies on . . . . doesn't exist. To an idealist like me, there is no brain or matter outside or independent of mind. Instead, the 'material' brain is merely the extrinsic appearance, in some mind, of the inner mentation of (some other) mind." I understand the words, but I cannot imagine that bodies & brains are imaginary --- unless the image is in the Mind of God, which is itself a recursive idea in my mini-mind. So, it's also beyond my ability to imagine a world in which my own body is imaginary*4. My power of abstraction is not that omniscient.
Therefore, I can't grok Exclusionary Materialism (no mind) or Absolute Idealism (no matter). My body & brain seem to automatically "see" the world in terms of material phenomena. Yet, my brain-functions are able to Abstract the matter away, and to treat its logical structure (noumena) as-if it is a real thing. So, I can only make sense of that Metaphysical Duality by reminding myself that the "Map is not the Terrain". From that perspective, I can enjoy the pristine idea of a Mind, and the messy reality of a Brain. And I can imagine an abstract-logic First Cause, without leaving my idea-causing Brain behind. :smile:
Note --- The hypothetical "as-if" means an imaginary situation or a situation that may not be true but that is considered likely or possible.
*1. Idealism :
As an analytic idealist, Kastrup proposes that consciousness is the ontological primitive, the foundation of reality.
https://danielpinchbeck.substack.com/p/analytic-idealism-a-revolutionary
*2. Materialism :
Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions of material things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
*3. Both/And Principle :
[i]# My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
# The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to offset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system. In a philosophical sense, all opposites in this world (e.g. space/time, good/evil) are ultimately reconciled in Enfernity (eternity & infinity).
# Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ? what’s true for you ? depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.
# This principle is also similar to the concept of Superposition in sub-atomic physics. In this ambiguous state a particle has no fixed identity until “observed” by an outside system. For example, in a Quantum Computer, a Qubit has a value of all possible fractions between 1 & 0. Therefore, you could say that it is both 1 and 0.[/i]
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
*4. Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person believes in two contradictory things at the same time.
IS IT POSSIBLE TO BELIEVE (dueling) IMPOSSIBLE (incompatible) CONCEPTS?
Quoting Philosophim
Yesterday, I attacked this claim thus:
Quoting ucarr
After writing this, I thought it a pretty good argument. However, proceeding with caution, I decided to ask 180 Proof to examine the argument for flaws. He got back to me quickly with this:
Correct.
I'm now expressing big gratitude to 180 Proof. He's done a superb job fulfilling my request. I now believe his statement above detects a fatal flaw in my argument. Philosophim has claimed there is no limitation on what a first cause can be. At the opposite end of the spectrum, he has claimed there is a conclusive limitation on that a first cause can be: logical necessity.
On p.1 of this thread back in 2022 (if you've missed it), I had posted very brief logical and physical objections to the OP's incoherent claim of "logical necessity of the first cause" (i.e. there was/is no "first cause"). FWIW, here"s the link to my post (further supplimented on the next few pages of this thread) containing two other links to short posts:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/617855
Quoting 180 Proof
I'm taking serious note of these links to additional thinking on some implications of the thesis.
In my acknowledgment above, I'm only addressing the error in my reasoning you brought to my attention: In attacking: There's no limit on what a first cause can be, I made the mistake of applying my accusation of paradox to There's no limit on what a first cause can be as if it said: There's no limit on that a first cause can be. This is not something Philosphim has claimed, so the attack -- at least in its present form -- has no bearing on the correctness of the thesis.
Through my acknowledgement I don't intend to imply I now think Philosophim's thesis correct. I'm just clearing away the debris of my erroneous attack.
If you've already assumed the gist of this clarification, please forgive my superfluity.
180 proof is a great person to ask Ucarr. :) I'm glad he was able to clear up the issue for you. Feel free to read his argument against the OP. I did not think it addressed the argument back then, but I would be happy to discuss it with you if you would like.
Quoting Gnomon
Quoting Gnomon
Handshakes across the aisle.
(A) philosophical materialism (i.e. every concrete thing is "matter"-in-motion aka monism)
or
(B) methodological materialism (i.e. populating models with immaterial data – entities, causes – amplifies experimental error, therefore scientific (and historical) practices require eliminating as much immaterial data as possible as the preliminary method of decreasing a model's experimental error – making it (more) testable)
or
(C) ??? materialism ...
NB: (A) & (B) are how I use the terms which I think are a bit clearer than the standard (wiki? non-academic?) muddle. Btw, I consider myself a (nonstandard) p-naturalist ...
Thanks. Speaking of philosophical aisles :
Quoting ucarr
is much more knowledgeable of Philosophy than I am. But his worldview & belief system (Immanentism ; p-Naturalism) has an inherent limit that precludes consideration of some logical possibilities that go beyond space-time : his "conclusive limitation". I suspect that you might agree with that physical barrier, while disagreeing with the implied logical limitation : Abstract Reason can go (in imaginary scenarios) where no material body can go. The human Mind can project (fantasy or logic) into the Future and into the Past, in order to learn about otherwise unknowable possibilities : e.g. Arthur C. Clarke, 2001 A Space Odyssey*1.
In this thread, I never got the impression that you were arguing for any specific kind of First Cause (What), but merely reasoning about the logical necessity for something to kick-start the chain of Causation (That). The OP poses the question in generic (X or Y) & abstract (infinite prior causality) terms. So, I don't think 180's "distinction" really applies to this thread. He may be filling-in the "X" with a god-model of his own imagination.
When says that there is "no limit" on what the Cause of Being might be {see PS below}, he's merely admitting that we are speculating about a state & event that is empirically unverifiable (no known rules), but logically plausible (rules of reasoning) : for example -- the Multiverse conjecture tries to have it both ways : Eternal Laws of Nature, and Unlimited Causal Energy (i.e. no Entropy).
Nevertheless, for the purposes of an amateur forum, we can reasonably conclude that a contingent world (big bang beginning) requires a prior Cause of some kind (infinite ; recursive?), without taking the next step of identifying specific characteristics (loving, merciful?) of that Cosmic Causal Potential*2. However, space-time does place physical limits on "how causality functions". So, most causal conjectures are eventually forced to go beyond the physical barrier into the realm of Pure Reason .
Some anti-first-cause arguments attempt to refute "Logical Necessity" and Metaphysical Necessity with alternative definitions and modalities. But Philosophim also offers Mathematical Necessity. So, take your choice : Physical Limits, Logical Limits, Mathematical Limits, or anything goes. All human reasoning has inherent limits, beginning with our physical senses and motives. :smile:
*1. 8 predictions Arthur C. Clarke got right decades ago
https://www.cnet.com/pictures/8-predictions-arthur-c-clarke-got-right-decades-ago-pictures/3/
*2. "Because there are no other plausibilties to how causality functions, the only {logical} conclusion is that a causal chain will always lead to an Alpha, or first cause". — Philosophim
*3. "I'm a p-naturalist¹ and thereby speculatively assume that aspects of nature are only explained within – immanently to – nature itself by using other aspects of nature, which includes "consciousness" as an attribute of at least one natural species." ___180 Proof
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/867837
Note --- The First Cause speculation is not about any particular "aspect" of Nature, but about all aspects of Nature : the Cosmos as a whole living (dynamic, if you prefer) system that was born and is fated to die. Who or What caused this system of Causation?
PS___ 2 years ago : If a first cause is necessary
" Understood, but my argument counters that. If a first cause is logically necessary, it is not necessary that it be a God, because a first cause is not bound by any prior rules of causality for its existence." — Philosophim
I agree. That's why I refer to the philosophical Principle of First Cause or Necessary Being by various alternative names, including "BEING". But most people would equate those names with their own notion of "God". Which is why, for a while I spelled it "G*D", in order to indicate that it's not your preacher's notion of deity. Instead, it's what Blaise Pascal dismissively called "the god of the philosophers". Others call it simply "the god of Reason". That's what's left when you strip Religion of its traditional mythology & social regulations & emotional commitments. The power-to-exist is essential to living beings & non-living things, and is fundamental to philosophical discourse. It's the unstated premise of every assertion about what-is. So, I try to deal with the elephant-in-the-room head-on, instead of pretending it doesn't "exist" in conventional reality. ___Gnomon
I.e. mere possibilia :smirk:
:up:
Correct.
Quoting Gnomon
Also correct. Just one caveat for Ucarr. Currently we are unable to verify that something is a first cause, but we know what would be needed to do it. Thus any claim that "X" is a first cause would need to prove it.
Quoting Gnomon
According to the OP, looking at just the big bang and nothing else, it is not rationally necessary that it requires a prior cause of some kind. However, if we are to empirically claim, "The big bang is the first cause of the universe", we must prove that it is so. Until its proven, the possibility that something prior caused the big bang must rationally be explored as well.
Quoting Gnomon
This is what I think 180 Proof failed to understand. He's an intelligent person, but I believe was convinced the argument was trying to say something it wasn't. The major struggle I've had in this OP was getting people break free of the "first cause is a God" argument that has been locked in debate for decades. It can be hard to shake for some. My hopes were to get both atheists and theists to see that we're missing an incredible point in the midst of the overwhelming concern about proving/disproving deities.
The point is that the logical conclusion results in there necessarily being one first cause, and that there was nothing prior which caused or limited what that first cause could have been prior to its inception. Thus sure, a God is possible, but not necessary. To claim, "A God is the first cause" requires proof, and cannot be logically concluded. On the flip side, I think its a fascinating point to consider that the inception of our universe logically required an unlimited potential. That there logically is a beginning to reason. Further, the idea that a first cause could happen at any time is a fascinating concept that should be considered as a possibility in any causal exploration. Understanding the nature of it, as well as expected patterns can be very useful in critically analyzing any claims that this "X" is a first cause. We can close the philosophical debate on the logical necessity of a God, and move instead of the empirical proof required to demonstrate if any one belief that "X" is a first cause can hold against scientific rigor.
In his smirking reply to my post above --- "possibilities that go beyond space-time" --- indicates his prejudicial opinion that there can be nothing outside of space-time. {how do he know?} That working hypothesis may be necessary for the purposes of Empirical science, but it is self-limiting for the explorations of theoretical Philosophy. That would be like Columbus assuming the conventional belief of the era, that there is nothing over the horizon to the west of Europe.
That space-time-is-all presumption may be a convenient position for a confirmed Immanentist, but may also be a self-imposed blindfold for someone who is not so sure that what-you-see-is-all-there-is. Ironically, what 180 is missing, due to his no-god prejudice, is that the OP says nothing about going beyond the bounds of space-time to find a First Cause. It even specifically warns against "Infinite causality", which some might identify with a biblical god. So, I'd be interested in his astute argument for-or-against the notion of a logically necessary First Cause, for a chain-of-events that is integral-with and directly-connected to the physical sequences of space-time*1. In other words, a Self-Caused sequence, or Spontaneous Generation. Did our world have a First Cause or merely a First Step?*3
Many cosmologists have concluded that our bubble of space-time is bounded by a mysterious energetic beginning and an evanescent entropic ending*2. Some have postulated that the Big Bang was not an explosion from nothing into something, but merely an expansion of some pre-existing matter squished into a dimensionless mathematical Singularity. So, the experts disagree on the necessity for a First Cause, versus a resurrection from a previous incarnation of an un-caused (self-existent) eternally-cycling Multiverse. The M-verse has some basic characteristics of a traditional god, but presumably it's merely a cosmic mechanism without Consciousness or Entention. Sort of like a driverless taxi.
Is it possible to ontologically understand the Big Bang theory without considering a context of "possibilities that go beyond space-time"? :smile:
*1. Big Bang Self-Caused?
The Big Bang was the moment 13.8 billion years ago when the universe began as a tiny, dense, fireball that exploded. Most astronomers use the Big Bang theory to explain how the universe began. But what caused this explosion in the first place is still a mystery.
https://www.amnh.org/explore/ology/astronomy/how-did-the-universe-begin
*2. Beginning of Time :
The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. ___ Steven Hawking
https://www.hawking.org.uk/in-words/lectures/the-beginning-of-time
*3. Space & Time are Matter & Energy :
That makes Matter = Energy; Energy = Space; Space = Time. Therefore matter, energy, space and time are all interchangeable characteristics, which implies strongly that they are all forms of one thing.
https://alasdairf.medium.com/are-matter-energy-time-space-all-interchangeable-e2dbf7d411e5
Note --- Space-time is not a real thing, but the concept entails both Matter and Energy. Without Matter, there is no Space. Without Change, there is no Time.
I did not claim or imply this.
As I've stated in several of our exchanges, Gnomon, my metaphysical position more or less agrees with Spinoza's: there is no "outside of space-time" (or "beyond" with "possibilities") insofar as nature is unbounded in all directions (i.e. natura naturans is eternal and infinite) ... just as there is no edge of the Earth off of which one can fall, no north of the North Pole, etc.
Stop making up sh*t. :sweat:
It doesn't seem reasonable.
Maybe it's a process of testing ideas. That's fine.
Here's one. We don't know the exact nature of time. An interesting twist is the possibility of retrocausality or back propagation of signals.
The idea is if the present moment has some duration instead of being defined as only an instant, then there is a question of back propagation of signals. This would take the form of a physical remnant of a future state existing in present matter. Very much debated but it's a thing.
Another form of retrocausality is information based. Our brains hold concepts of past, present and future so an anticipated future event can affect the physical present. For example we do things based on future projections like storing food, preparing for storms, launching space probes and preparing for wars. All things not possible without brains so brains can affect matter. Would it be relavent to a first cause? I don't know but it's a mechanism that appears to operate differently than lesser forms of physical matter are capable of.
I use the terms retrocausality and back propagation loosely, as they have different meanings in other contexts.
Doesn't the {belief that eliminating immaterial data decreases a model's error} imply that immaterial things have no causal relationship with material things? By then, wouldn't methodological materialism imply a sort of metaphysical commitment against interactivism?
Quoting Mark Nyquist
The OP covers this. Let me break it down for you as simply as possible.
Lets take the idea that the universe has a clear finite start. A -> B -> C with A being the start. What caused A, or the entire set to be? Nothing. There is no prior cause.
Now lets take a set of looped time. A -> B -> C -> A... What caused the entire set to be? In other words, why is there no D? Nothing. There is no prior cause.
Logically, whether infinite regress or finite regress, we will reach a point in causality in which there is no prior cause for its existence. Feel free to ask for more details if needed.
I just got back to looking at this. It just relates to something I came across... retrocausality.
The brain model applies to brains as emergent and affecting matter in the present.
The signal back propagation idea is speculative but if it exists could be relavent to a first cause.
For me it's something to keep in mind.
No. The "belief" implies that "immaterial data" is indefinite or without sufficiently definite parameters with respect to material data, thereby, in effect, comparing apples & oranges (or facts & dreams). I think both conservation laws and the principle of causal closure, however, imply that only material entities can have causal relationships with material entities. Btw, isn't "immaterial thing" an oxymoron? :smirk:
First, we should point out that, not only the first cause but any cause is supposed to be necessary.
But this necessity kills causality itself: it's actually a problem in Spinoza's works that you probably already heard of. Since the cause cannot not produce the effect, it means the effect already lies in the cause somehow (and it means that time is a kind of illusion for Spinoza but that's another matter).
But then: how can the cause produce an effect, since the effect already exists?
Therefore, nothing can really be produced, and this kills causality. Or rather, it shows that causality is contradictory: causality can exist thanks to the absence of causality, and vice versa. That, of course, is a very short presentation of this subject (source: Brief Solutions to Philosophical Problems Using a Hegelian Method, Solution 10)
What does this even mean?
It might make sense. Absent any physical theory, logic says non-existent and non-physical things don't have any cause and effect relation.
The only option in which logic applies is two physical entities interacting.
If that's a wrong interpretation LFranc can correct us.
I'm still kicking around the idea of what brains can do and if brains should be considered in our cosmological models as they have some ability to control energy and matter in a way lesser forms of matter do not.
You point to time perseption being a problem.
I agree.
If you think of a timeline you have nothing and then physical matter bursting into existence.
Something is wrong with the time model.
Since we have matter now, maybe the best approach is to look at what we can learn from astronomy and particle accelerators. A universal principle of 'then' and 'now' is likely.
Is mathematics non-existent? Some might say yes. It's certainly non-physical. But cause and effect run thorough it like an intellectual river. In a typical theorem there is an hypothesis which gives rise to a conclusion.
My version,
Brain; (hypothesis... conclusion)
Yes, it's physically based.
We have the ability to physically hold non-physicals. So mathematics does exist in this physical form.
That's OK. We all have our versions.
OK. I'll let you speak for yourself. Contrary to my interpretation, you're saying that "there can be something outside of spacetime?" Yes or No? After you have corrected my understanding of your metaphysical position on space-time vs eternity question, please answer the questions below.
If I mis-interpreted your Immanentism position on the all-inclusive, no exceptions, expanse of space-time, I will apologize in this thread. But you would have to either reject the Big Bang theory outright, or explain the obvious implication of a time before space-time --- i.e. beyond the scope of scientific evidence. Unfortunately, unless you have slam-dunk & drop the mike evidence or argument, that discussion might require a new thread of its own. In any case, your earthbound "north of north pole" argument*1 is irrelevant to modern philosophical & cosmological conceptions of Space-Time.
Do you think Stephen Hawking was "making up sh*t" when he said that "Time . . . had a beginning"*2? Do you accept that a sequence with a beginning must have an end --- not to mention a First Cause? Do you agree that beginnings & endings are set boundaries, that logically imply possibilities beyond the boundaries*3? Was Hawking spreading "woo-woo"?
My metaphysical position also generally agrees with Spinoza . . . but with one scientific objection : in the 17th century, he plausibly assumed that "deus sive natura" was eternal, hence unbounded. But 20th century science found evidence to contradict that presumption*4. Which concept of "space-time" is compatible with your "metaphysical position" : 17th or 20th century? Again, I ask {how do he know?} :smile:
*1. How valid is "What is North of North Pole?" argument? :
"It is not an argument. It is an (imperfect, as always) analogy." ___Victor Toth
https://www.quora.com/How-valid-is-What-is-North-of-North-Pole-argument
*2. The Beginning of Time :
The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. ___Stephen Hawking
https://www.hawking.org.uk/in-words/lectures/the-beginning-of-time
*3. Did spacetime start with the Big bang? :
In particular Roger Penrose has developed a view that the period since the Big Bang should be called an aeon, and that there were earlier aeons each infinitely long. This makes the Big Bang a kind of transition period between two aeons.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5150/did-spacetime-start-with-the-big-bang
Note --- This is not my view. Simply an expert's opinion/conjecture that the BB had a precursor. He may be "making up sh*t", but he has pristine math to back it up.
*4. Immanence in Space & Time :
[i]As a prime example of a transcendent conception of space in this paper, Isaac Newton’s theories of space will be discussed as well as the mathematical framework within which Newton developed his physics: Euclidean space. On the other hand, as a role model for an immanent conception of space, Einstein’s general relativity will be analyzed as well as the geometry that lies behind this theory: Riemann’s differential geometry. . . .
Unlike transcendent conceptions of space, in which space provides a super-structure for the organization of bodies and events that change over time, immanent conceptions of space do not rely on the presumption that space exists prior to bodies.[/i]
https://www.performancephilosophy.org/journal/article/view/146/262
Everything doesn't exist all at once, but over time. It doesn't matter if there is perfect determinism, we have to watch it unfold. So no, causality is fine.
Quoting LFranc
I think we need the larger presentation because I'm not sure you're conveying the nuance needed here. Without the context of the paper, what you said makes no sense.
Quoting Mark Nyquist
This has no relevancy to a first cause that I can see. What caused your brain to remember X? What caused your brain to be created? And so we go down a chain of causality.
I'll try to rephrase it. The effect comes from the cause (by definition), so the effect includes the cause. For example, the plant includes its seed, because the plant is the-seed-that-grew. The plant is the continuation of the seed. (This continuation already blurs the border between cause and effect, by the way).
But we can also say that the cause includes its effect. Of course, we cannot perceive the effect while the cause is still here (we cannot see the plant when there's just a seed), but, if causality is necessary (like science and Spinoza say), then the cause has to produce this effect, in this specific way and at this specific moment. So, in a way the effect is already there in the cause, for nothing else can happen but this effect. As Philosophim says: Quoting Philosophim
It is true, we cannot perceive the simultaneity of the cause and the effect, we can just think about it. To Spinoza, "watching it unfold" is indeed just something that "we" do, humans, through what Spinoza calls "imagination" (which doesn't mean hallucination). But humans can comprehend, with rationality, that, in a way, everything happens at once, which is what Spinoza calls "considering things sub specie aeternitatis", "under the aspect of eternity", as you probably know.
Now, back to what I was saying in the previous comment: as you can probably feel, this reasoning leads to a cause that is hardly distinguishable from the effect, and vice versa, which kills causality (how could we think of causality without distinguishing a cause from an effect?). This applies to both concrete and abstract causal things.
Now, it is true that :Quoting Mark Nyquist
Science often thinks in terms of laws and not causes indeed. For example, law of gravitation: is it the Earth that attracts the moon or the other way around? The answer is: both, it's a law, a relationship, not a causality.
("Causality can exist thanks to the absence of causality": I agree it's not easy to understand without a larger context. That is the very conclusion of what I wrote beforehand, it's just a weird and a bit striking way to put it.)
I wanted to note that I have had no issue with this. My question to you is: "What caused space-time?" And to clarify how to think about this, take the idea that spacetime has always existed, and put it in a set. From spacetime is our ultimate cause for the existence of all other matter and phenomenon. This is still fine. So this set captures all of causality through infinite time.
Now the question: What caused this set? Was there anything necessary that lead to space-time existing, or does it just exist because it does? If there is nothing prior which explains why space-time had to have existed forever or exists as it does, then we have reached a first cause. It is the cause of all other things, yet has no cause for its own being besides its own existence.
What you might be implying here can be easily captured by determinism. If A causes B, then necessarily along a timeline it was A which caused B to happen. Causality is capturing all of the aspects that are necessary for A or B to exist. If something could exist without something necessary besides itself, in other words, A simply existed because of its own undeniable existence, and nothing else, we would call A a 'first cause'. A 'first cause' is the only aspect of existence free from the determinism of its inception, or eternal existence (if that is how it exists).
Quoting LFranc
Saying the effect is 'already there in the cause' is just a misuse of language. If the effect hasn't happened yet, its not there. We can say, "This cause will result in X effect in five seconds if nothing else enters the picture". That's fine. But that doesn't mean the cause and effect exist simultaneously. Determinism still requires time to unfold.
Quoting LFranc
Yeah, that's poetry, not anything based in actual fact. We can imagine a world without time, but we live in a world of time. You and I haven't already died right? So the notion that everything has happened all at once beyond flowery language and the imagination, is absurd in reality.
Quoting LFranc
Science often thinks in terms of causality as well. I've heard this claim that 'science doesn't like causality' and it turns out its only philosophers. Scientists use causality every single day as its core to science. "What causes gravity to exist?" is a great mystery scientists would love to solve.
This has been my take on mathematics. Once certain definitions and processes are settled, all that logically flows from them does, in a sense, exist. It's a matter of discovery.
Quoting LFranc
Quoting Michael
The existence of the cause implies the contemporaneous existence of the effect.
Example: Clouds saturated with water cause rain.
Quoting Mark Nyquist
Non-existence is an abstract concept which has an empty content.
Quoting Mark Nyquist
[s]Non-physical things[/s] abstract things have cause and effect relations via the support of the brain: the brain's memory functions allow sentients to recapitulate empirical experiences and then organize them sequentially and thematically ? logic and sets.
Quoting jgill
Show me how you will determine the calculation of input values and a binary operator after you die; show me how the universe will determine the calculation of input values and a binary operator after all sentients die.
Sorry. No idea what you are talking about.
Non-existent is a concept.
It does exist as brain state,
Brain; (a concept)
Brain; (a non-existent entity)
Also brains activate muscles so a concept can affect physical matter. Like the result of a math problem.
That's the only way an abstraction, concept, mathematical construct can affect physical reality.
Going back in the thread we might agree....
Not sure.
Quoting LFranc
Premise: "If the effect hasn't happened yet, its not there." -- Philosophim ? Effects only propagate in time.
Counter Premise: A priori deduction ? a posteriori deduction along the measurement axis of time.
OR
NOT
If A causes B, then necessarily along a timeline it was A which caused B to happen.
So,
Question A: Deduction can lead to knowledge only by empirical observation in time?
Question B: Deduction can lead to knowledge both by observation in time and by abstract reasoning?
Interpretation: A = F; B = T
So, by the conjunction logical operator: F & T = F and T & F = F. With this interpretation, the conjunction logical operator shows us that the two propositions cannot both be true.
Quoting LFranc
Since the above statement is true by definition, we know that we can arrive at knowledge a priori (by reasoning alone) when we apply a definition to a body of information that fulfills the definition.
Conclusion:
Proposition A: Quoting LFranc
Proposition B: Quoting Philosophim
Regarding the two above propositions: A = T and B = F .
Quoting Mark Nyquist
Agree
Quoting Mark Nyquist
Agree
Quoting Mark Nyquist
Agree
Quoting Mark Nyquist
Disagree, unless I distort your intended meaning
Quoting Mark Nyquist
Agree
Quoting ucarr
Quoting jgill
If you are physical, and your mind, being connected to your physical brain, is likewise physical, how do you connect with non-physical math?
Another question (implied by my questions up top): How does a non-physical thing (you dead) connect with another non-physical thing (math)?
What does this mean Ucarr? Are you saying that all a priori deductions don't take any time to realize? And I'm further confused in how any of this addresses the issue of cause and effect.
Quoting ucarr
Are you saying that abstract reasoning does not take time? Can we observe things outside of time? I'm not sure where you're going here.
David Hume addressed the philosophical Causation Problem by noting that, in Physics there is no Causation, only Change*1. Yet, the human mind attributes the Power of Causation (potential) to some unseen force. By the same reasoning, there are no Laws or Logic in the physical world. But the human mind seems to inherently "conceive" of consecutive Change as the effect of some prior physical input of Energy. It's a Belief, not a Fact.
Hence, for both Physicists and Philosophers, Causation is logically "supposed to be necessary" --- to explain an observed Difference --- even when the original impetus is not empirically observable : e.g. First Cause of all change in the world. Therefore, I suppose that "the Effect lies in the Cause" in the sense of Aristotle's Potential. Which again, is a metaphysical concept, not a physical force or object. Likewise, Einstein's "space warped by gravity" is a metaphysical concept, which some imagine to be an empirical observation. Consequently, philosophers need not expect to have their belief about Causation confirmed by empirical evidence. We can only argue about the plausibility of the logical inference from difference, n'est ce pas?
Therefore, in this thread, we are ultimately arguing about a metaphysical principle*2 to explain all changes in the world. So, if we track all physical changes back to the Big Bang, and stop, we have merely defined the First Effect, not the First Cause. :smile:
*1. What does Hume say about causality?
Hume argues that we cannot conceive of any other connection between cause and effect, because there simply is no other impression to which our idea may be traced. This certitude is all that remains. For Hume, the necessary connection invoked by causation is nothing more than this certainty.
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-causation/
*2. Metaphysical Primacy :
Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the fundamental nature of reality. This includes studies of the first principles of: being or existence, identity, change, consciousness, space and time, necessity, actuality, and possibility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics
Quoting Philosophim
Do a priori deductions take time to be true? How much time does it take for two + two to equal four?
Quoting Philosophim
Are we thinking through something already there, or do you suppose thinking logically creates logical truth moment to moment?
Do you imply a something-from-nothing first cause becomes true only as we think about it?
Do you intentionally imply only thinking about first cause in time makes it real and thus pairs time as a contemporary with first cause?
Quoting Philosophim
Are you supposing truth comes into existence in time during the time interval of our thinking about it?
Must two + two = four continually be recreated from non-existence across time by sentients thinking about it?
Quoting Philosophim
Are you asking if outside of time we can think through the experience of observing things?
With something from nothing, are you implying spacetime and matter_energy emerge as contemporaries?
Ucarr, I'm asking a question to understand what you're trying to say. Returning my question with a another question is just more confusing. :) In fact, all of my questions you just answered with questions. My questions are not statements, I'm just trying to figure out what you're saying.
Quoting Gnomon
After going to the doctor with mild symptoms, you're told your spinal column is infected with pneumococci bacteria. Since it's believed this infection causes spinal meningitis, you're advised to immediately undergo an aggressive program of antibiotics within the intensive care unit. Explain why you wouldn't dismiss this diagnosis as uncertain causal-belief-not-fact and go home untreated, or would you go home? Would you go home untreated, betting on fact-based-mind-over-uncertain causal-belief?
Quoting Philosophim
Perhaps now you can better appreciate my efforts towards independent inferential thinking in response to what you write.
You did okay in your exam of my previous post. Keep going.
No, I really don't understand what you're trying to say or how this relates to the topic. Your writing is unclear and I am making a good faith effort to understand it. Please try again to make what you are saying more clear. Otherwise, no, I am not going to keep going.
If you introduce a new idea and people have questions about it, it is your job to do whatever you can to make it clear when reasonable inquiry is made. Just like I have done for you when you have had questions about my work. The person who is introducing an idea, you in this case, is doing so with the intent to impart value and possibly persuade someone else. It is not the responsibility of someone who reads it and engages with you to solve your riddles when they are simply trying to understand your initial points. I am currently unable to understand your ideas, and I am respectfully asking you to clarify them if you want me to remain engaged.
I'm not saying that. Again, I'm saying this:
Quoting 180 Proof
for the reasons given in that post.
No apology needed.
I don't think so. BBT explains only the development of the current structure of spacetime (see R. Penrose's CCC¹) and not its "origin". Btw, in reference to quantum cosmology, I prefer the Hartle-Hawking No Boundary Conjecture² instead.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology ¹
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Astronomy__Cosmology/Supplemental_Modules_(Astronomy_and_Cosmology)/Cosmology/Carlip/The_Hartle-Hawking_%22no_boundary%22_proposal ²
Quoting Philosophim
On what grounds do you assume "space-time" was "caused"? It seems to me, Philosophim, you're asking, in effect, "what caused causality?" :roll:
No, not "first" but only: existence, being sui generis, is the only cause of everything – causality itself – which in Relativistic physics is often described as the "Block Universe" or in metaphysics, as Spinoza conceives of it sub specie aeternitatus, as "substance" (i.e. natura naturans³)?.
https://pursuingtraditions.wordpress.com/category/natura-naturans-vs-natura-naturata/ ³
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/#GodNatu ?
Quoting Philosophim
Okay.
How much time does it take for two + two to equal four?
An attack on answering this question can be made through the lens of the Idealization versus Measurement comparison. This comparison scheme is, in turn, part of the Abstractionism procedure.
So, the abstractionism procedure examines multiple empirical experiences and abstracts them from blooming creation down to a thematic pattern:
Syllogism: All humans are mortal; Socrates is human; therefore, Socrates is mortal.
Pythagorean Theorem: For any right triangle, the square of the length of the hypotenuse equals the sum of the lengths of the legs of the right triangle.
The two above abstractions are measurements of multiple empirical experiences condensed into approximations of an open-ended volume of thematically linked possibilities. The process of abstractionism is thus an idealization of otherwise unmanageable, blooming creation.
Let’s now look at Idealization Versus Measurement:
Speaking intuitively, we don’t want to say that on the day Pythagoras discovered the Pythagorean Theorem, it became true. Doing so implies that on the day before his discovery, it wasn’t true. This distinction illuminates a parallel distinction: empirical measurement experiences have time locally attached to them; abstract idealizations have time absentially attached to them.
Now we have an argument for opposing the maxim: “The map is not the terrain.” By force of the Idealization Versus Measurement distinction, we can say, “Yes, it is.”
In point of fact, the brain depends upon the condensation to idealization of abstractionism for manageable navigation of blooming creation, i.e., the real world of empirical experiences at every moment leads to sensory overload if it isn’t filtered through the condensation of abstractionism.
QM backwards engineers abstractionism by showing us that the seemingly discrete material physicality of things in the phenomenal world is in reality a sensorially overwhelming networked convolution of non-local events. The Heisenberg Equations help us navigate this experiential plethora by means of statistical analysis of probabilities.
The Heisenberg Equations, being an increase of measurement precision for otherwise undetectable non-locality effects at the scale of human experience, through their advanced circuitry-logic, instruct us against concluding QM is just academic pettyfogging.
QM bolsters fantastically the not-now-but-future-spacetime-distribution design of absential materialism.
Logic embodies the diva Faubourg Saint-Germain elan of highest-form abstractionism.
We want to declare logical truth immaterial and immortal, but, alas, it is an idealization of empirical measurement within the phenomenal world of material physicality.
"sub specie aeternitatis" is not poetry, it's an approach that is logically deduced from the fact of necessary causality. For Spinoza, time is something closer to "poetry" than eternity. As for my own position, it differs from Spinoza's, because I think that causality logically turns into its opposite in a dialectical way. (Brief Solutions to Philosophical Problems, solution 10)
I agree with you when saying that "Science often thinks in terms of causality as well."
I think you missed the point of my philosophical distinction between inferred Belief (certitude) in a Cause, and a scientifically-proven Fact of the Agent (bacteria) of an Effect (meningitis). The footnote gave the context*1. David Hume defined the concept of Causation as an inferred mental relationship, not a physical thing*2. Correlation does not prove Causation. If you don't agree, you can argue with Hume. From that philosophical perspective, the First Cause is an abstract concept, not a white-haired old Deity with a magic touch. :smile:
*1. What does Hume say about causality? :
Hume argues that we cannot conceive of any other connection between cause and effect, because there simply is no other impression to which our idea may be traced. This certitude is all that remains. For Hume, the necessary connection invoked by causation is nothing more than this certainty.
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-causation/
*2. Causation is a relation between objects that we employ in our reasoning in order to yield less than demonstrative knowledge of the world beyond our immediate impressions.
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-causation/
I can see why Hawking's spherical universe "conjecture" fits your Immanent belief system better than the Big Bang theory's exploding pin-point (Singularity) imagery. To each his own.
I suspect Hawking was merely echoing Einstein's god-like description of the universe --- as seen from outside --- imagined as a four-dimensional sphere : "finite" in volume, but "unbounded" in topology. That imagery suited his mathematical purposes, just as the counter-intuitive Block Time (eternalism) model illustrated his concept that our perception of dualistic Space (matter) & Time (energy) is merely a common-sense interpretation of monistic Space-Time. But, my layman's philosophical purpose & preference is different from Einstein's genius mathematical intention. :smile:
GOD'S {and Einstein's} VIEW OF HIS FINITE BUT UNBOUNDED CREATION
COSMOLOGIST'S MODEL OF BIG BANG
I'm actually not. To break down the entire conversation into a better summary than the OP, what I'm claiming is that there must be at least one thing that is uncaused, which then causes other things to happen. The case of an 'infinitely eternally existing space-time' is in your mind, is uncaused. The OP notes that such a thing must necessarily exist, so your belief in this existence is in alignment with the OP, not against it.
Quoting 180 Proof
My first thought when you explained this was, "That's basically God," I then read your links and saw that was what Spinoza was doing. Not in the Christian or deist sense of course, but describing a Godlike existence without the need for consciousness.
None of this contrasts with the point I'm making here. If you believe that a Spinozan type universe is possible, my points agree with this. The only difference is that any claim one makes to an 'uncaused substance' must offer proof that it is indeed uncaused. Otherwise, its an act of faith and just as possible as any other idea a person can come up with.
Quoting Gnomon
Yeah, that's what the astrologer (or witch doctor) said to the astrophysicist (or medical doctor).
Quoting Gnomon
You and Hume characterize causation as deduction?
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
Describe a situation in nature wherein necessity is important apart from sentients.
Necessity is not important, its what is. I'll repeat the example I already gave: If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around, it still vibrates the air molecules.
Quoting Philosophim
That's why you've been working your ass off with this conversation for months running? And by the way, who says "What is is not important?" Just because humans aren't necessary, that doesn't have to mean they aren't important.
Quoting Philosophim
So, you've been relaxing under island breezes.
Seems fitting after slaving in the trenches for a just cause.
I think we're having a language issue again. Also, I've enjoyed the conversation. This is a hobby, not work. If I could make a living doing this, I would.
Quoting ucarr
Lets go over this again so you can better understand my answer. The word 'important', I read as 'important to some sentient'. Its important for a purpose. My answer, "Necessity is not important, its what is," means that necessity is a fact. Whether its important to someone or thing is irrelevant. 1+1 = 2 isn't important, its a fact. Do you understand the answer now?
Quoting ucarr
I don't understand your answer. Again, what exists does not need to be observed to exist. Causality does not need to be observed to be a fact of reality.
Well, technically, Deduction from data*1 is just one way to understand Change in the world. It begins with observation of a general principle ((transformation ; metamorphosis) and subtracts (abstracts) everything that is not consistently associated with observed Effects. When Induction and Abduction also agree on the Deduction, we can be pretty sure that the Cause and Effect are correlated by some transformational Principle, that we call "Causation" --- or in some cases "Agency". And yet, due to the limitations of data and reasoning, mere Correlation of variables does not prove Causation. We could be missing something.
Aristotle called that agent of change "Morphe" (form). Other ancient thinkers used the term "Spirit" to label that invisible causal Agency, but moderns tend to use the term "Energy" or "Power". Now, in the 21st century, another term has been applied to describe physical Transformation : Information*2 --- or as I call it in my thesis : EnFormAction*3 (the power to transform). The bottom line here, is that Causation is not something we can see or touch or dissect physically. But we can analyze it by means of Reason. Hence, the agency of transformation must be rationally inferred or deduced. :smile:
*1. Deduction of Causation :
There are three types of causal reasoning: deduction, induction, and abduction. Deduction is the use of data and arguments to come to a guaranteed conclusion. Induction is when conclusions are drawn based on a limited set of data.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/causal-reasoning-definition-examples.html
*2. Energy :
Scientists define “energy” as the ability to do work, but don't know what energy is. They assume it's an eternal causative force that existed prior to the Big Bang, along with mathematical laws. Energy is a positive or negative relationship between things, and physical Laws are limitations on the push & pull of those forces. So, all they know is what Energy does, which is to transform material objects in various ways. Energy itself is amorphous & immaterial. So if you reduce energy to its essence of information, it seems more akin to mind than matter.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
*3. EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Quoting Gnomon
Do you assess this lack of proof as a metaphysical issue?
Only if it leads to false beliefs. Most of the time, correlation is "close enough for government work". But technically, in logic and statistics, conflation of correlation with causation is a fallacy. In complex situations, other factors may disguise the "true" cause {see stork/baby image}. :smile:
Gnomon Reply to LFranc in this thread :
"Therefore, in this thread, we are ultimately arguing about a metaphysical principle*2 to explain all changes in the world. So, if we track all physical changes back to the Big Bang, and stop, we have merely defined the First Effect, not the First Cause."
Correlation often, but not always, implies Causation :
It is certain, that not only in philosophy, but even in common life,we may attain the knowledge of a particular cause merely by one experiment, provided it be made with judgment, and after a careful removal of all foreign and superfluous circumstances. Now as after one experiment of this kind, the mind, upon the appearance either of the cause or the effect, can draw an inference concerning the existence of its correlative; and as a habit can never be acquired merely by one instance; it may be thought, that belief cannot in this case be esteemed the effect of custom. ___David Hume
https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/551312/who-first-coined-the-phrase-correlation-does-not-imply-causation
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Gnomon
I'm asking if work towards finding a proof is more appropriate for the philosopher than for the scientist.
Here's an old attempt to derive a contradiction from infinite time:
And another:
This proof is also invalid (left as an exercise for the reader), so I failed once again in my attempt to necessitate a finite past.
Here's a story, not a proof, demonstrating counter-intuitive infinites:
Say, why finish right at that time, and not some other time, any other time in fact? No sufficient reason (which is metaphysics, not logic). Our intuitions violated.
I keep coming up short, suggesting that an infinite past (duration) is not logically contradictory/impossible. Maybe "seemingly absurd" is more fitting?
The OP does not care if an infinite past is possible or not. The conclusion is the same.
What kind of "proof" --- for a "metaphysical issue" --- would you expect to find, as a philosopher? Can we send a philosophical space-probe back in time to find the empirical First Cause of the Cosmos? Can a valid logical argument prove the truth (existence/reality) of a metaphysical belief?
Mathematical "proof" is simply logical consistency (derived from true premises), and Empirical "proof" is based on abundance of non-contradictory physical evidence. Philosophical "proof", though, is a logical argument that is accepted as true in a convinced mind. But when two philosophers argue, the discussion can go-on indefinitely, without reaching a mutually satisfactory conclusion. So, I would say that finding slam-dunk proof --- for a Prime Mover --- is in-appropriate for mathematicians & scientists & philosophers.
For example, in Science Ideated, Bernardo Kastrup argues with two philosophers on the metaphysical existence of Consciousness : a process or qualia, not a physical thing. One argues that "consciousness doesn't happen, it's a mistaken construct", And the other says, "our introspective systems monitor these neural processes but misrepresent them as a simple quality". Have any of these thinkers proven anything? Is your belief or disbelief in your own personal Awareness based on objective evidence, or on personal experience --- the very non-thing in question? :smile:
PS___ First Cause arguments are mathematical/logical in that they are true only if the premises are true. Unfortunately, in this special case of reasoning, the First Cause is also the Premise in question.
Can you prove anything in philosophy?
It's a common misconception that you can prove whatever you like in philosophy. In reality, it's hard to find completely convincing arguments which conclusively establish some conclusion.
https://www.quora.com/Can-you-prove-anything-in-philosophy
Is it ever possible to really prove anything in philosophy? :
Richard Rorty saw philosophy as a tool that you used to solve problems. He agreed that you couldn't definitively prove things in philosophy
https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/12rjpo9/is_it_ever_possible_to_really_prove_anything_in/
What is the best evidence or proof for metaphysics? :
Metaphysics means what is “after” or “beyond” physics. So almost by definition, is outside the domain of physical evidence.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-best-evidence-or-proof-for-the-existence-of-metaphysics
Exactly! What we call "Causation" is not a physical or mechanical Force, but a logical inference from observation of sequential physical changes.
Your post metaphysically caused me to question how Matter can produce the sensed Effect we call "Gravity". Einstein's E=MC^2 formulation implies that the Energy constituting a physical object can be transformed (somehow) into intangible mathematical Mass, which we sensibly experience as Gravity. Similarly, the Brain (somehow) processes neural Energy into the metaphysical Experience we call "Mind". Chalmers was posing an equivalent question of Causation in asking how a lump of matter could produce the intangible-but-sensible*1 effect (feeling) we call "Mind". Is it magic, or physics, or metaphysics?
For the same reason, I conclude that the First Cause of the on-going changes in our world is not a physical force, but a metaphysical Potential with Actual physical effects. Aristotle provided a philosophical definition of the "Potential" principle*2. :smile:
*1. Sensible :
Sensible heat is literally the heat that can be felt.
https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Sensible_heat
*2. Aristotle's Potential Principle :
Matter is the potential factor, form the actualizing factor. (Aristotle further posited the existence of a prime mover, or unmoved mover, i.e., pure form separate from matter, eternal and immutable.)
https://www.britannica.com/topic/potentiality
Note --- Today we might call that "actualizing factor" of Causation the Power to Enform, i.e. Information. Matter is the substance acted upon, but EnFormAction is the cause of all changes.
Physics has no theory of how matter can warp space-time. But once it does that, the sense that something is pulling on us when we're walking up or down hill is actually caused by the surface of the Earth accelerating upward. Earth doesn't get any bigger when that happens because it has a property called "non-inertial" which I barely understand. All that now replaces the old force of gravity. But there are some ideas people are trying to work out saying that the quantum field is what is fundamental and that in itself actually creates space through informational effects. Maybe that will work out, maybe not.
Quantum theory changes everything. What seems to be a lump of matter is built up from something pretty non-material. There is no essential nature of matter because when you get close enough there are just probabilities of where things might be. That comes from waves in the quantum field that are not waves of force - but who knows what their nature is. The best theory now probably is the one that says they are waves of information. The probability of mass' position and momentum are just indicative measures of the waves and do not tell us everything about the waves. There is more going on in the quantum field than matter.
Because the nature of this field is still open for study, there is a real possibility that the best model will be that it is consciousness, or at least holds conscious potential in the same way it holds physical potential. And there are ways to quantify that mathematically in a way similar to how material potential is quantified. Bertrand Russell said that for all we know, the essential nature of matter and consciousness are the same. Now scientifically that might sort of hold, but it is more like they both arise from the same thing which in itself is neither. And there is a growing body of literature in physics that argues that quantum effects are necessary to explain brain processing, without even getting into the consciousness question.
The quantum field could be the prime mover!
Quoting Philosophim
Along one line of reasoning -- eternal existence -- there seems to be a conditional logical preclusion of a first cause:
If we imagine a structure of existence with only one universe, then I speculate that universe, if eternal (and thus uncaused), logically precludes a universal first cause for the totality of existence. However, on the question of local first causes -- meaning no first cause of all first causes, but only independent first causes -- then it seems to me an eternal universe does logically preclude a universal first cause, but not local independent first causes.
If we imagine a structure of existence featuring multi-verses, then I speculate that multi-verse, in parallel with the single universe structure, logically precludes a universal first cause for the totality of multi-verses, but not for independent universes with local first causes.
Question - Can you accept a paraphrase of: "A logical first cause is necessary" as follows: "Everything must have a beginning"? This is another way of examining logical necessity of first cause through the lens of an eternal existence.
When we substitute: "A logical first cause is necessary" with "Everything must have a beginning," we can ask the obverse of: "prove that a first cause logically cannot exist," which is: prove an eternal universe logically cannot exit."
Can you show that an eternal universe is logically impossible?
Do "A first cause is logically necessary," and "eternal universe" contradict each other?
If they do contradict each other, then what's at stake is whether one or the other question is answerable.
If it's not possible to logically examine an eternal universe -- it can only be assumed -- then the status of its existence -- viewed through the lens of logic -- is undecidable.
At this point in my rumination, I speculate that the critique of "First cause is logically necessary" along the axis of incoherence* leads to the same statement about its status: it can only be assumed; viewed through the lens of logic, its status is undecidable.
If "A logical first cause is necessary," and "eternal universe" do not contradict each other, then they are both axiomatic presuppositions undecidable with respect to logical necessity.
*The incoherence of "A first cause is logically necessary" -- per your "argument" -- is the unexplained leap from nothing to something. This leap unexplained -- foundational to your narrative -- provides evidence your narrative is an axiomatic presupposition; its central function: leaping from nothing to something, has no logical, process-based agency. Well, that absence contradicts your stated purpose: "A first cause is logically necessary."
No, they're not the same thing. The point of the theory was to show that even in an infinitely regressive universe, a first cause is still logically necessary.
Let me give you an example. Lets say that space has always existed. What caused space to always exist? Nothing. Therefore space is a first cause. It is something within causality that itself was not caused. So no, an eternal universe does not preclude a first cause. Why is the universe eternal opposed to not? What caused it to be that way? Nothing.
Quoting ucarr
There is nothing incoherent about it. Its simply the rational conclusion when thinking through the question of eternal versus finite regression. An eternal universe actually makes it even more obvious. In a finite universe there is at least still at least the question, "But maybe there was something prior?" An eternal universe has nothing prior. It has no prior cause for its existence.
Let me give you more examples. Lets imagine an eternal universe where water exists everywhere. It has always been, and will always be. Why? What caused the universe to exist in that way? Nothing. Now imagine its an eternal universe of just air. Same conclusion. Now an eternal universe of just space and matter. Same conclusion. Why did one type of eternal universe exist, whereas another universe does not? There is no answer besides the fact one type of universe, space and matter, exists.
It is not a presupposition, its a conclusion that we arrive at time and time again no matter how we tackle the problem. Assume "Finite universe exists" is false or true and we arrive at the same conclusion.
Quoting ucarr
Alright, lets imagine the multiverse. First, lets imagine a multiverse in which there is one universe that has eternally existed. What caused it? Nothing. Now lets imagine a multiverse where there are two separate universes that have always existed. What caused it? Nothing. And so on for infinity. Imagine that our multiverse is actually a set of eternally existent five universes. Why did a five universe exist instead of a one? Nothing. It exists because it does.
You see Ucarr, the argument's conclusion is logically necessary. There's no way to escape it. No matter what scenario you invent, the same question of, "What caused that to exist?" will always happen, and it will inevitably result in, "Nothing caused it to exist, it exists simply because it does." The idea that there is a way to escape this is what is incoherent. Try it. Give me an example of a universe that escapes this line of questioning and answers, and you'll have countered the argument. At least one first cause is the only coherent conclusion that can be reached. Maybe you can crack it, but I've been unable to.
seems to be reasoning from the assumption that the physical universe --- space-time, matter, energy --- could possibly be self-existent, hence no need for a First Cause or Creator. If so, the postulated Multiverse would be either infinite in parallel, in the sense of Many Worlds, or a serial re-incarnation of a single self-existent 'Verse.
On the other hand, ancient thinkers, such as Plato, Aristotle, Taoists, and Torah writers, seemed to assume that a perishable world (Death follows Life) of serial causation could not be self-existent*1. Even Plato's less-than-perfect workman --- demiurge --- follows a pre-existing plan. So, they reasoned that some non-perishable outside force or principle was necessary to jump-start the world of cycling causes & effects*2. Some postulations for The Eternal Creative Principle were : Forms, Logos, Tao, and the nameless eternal creator of Genesis*3. :smile:
*1. Craftsman vs Creator :
[i]‘The nature of things’ examines Plato's understanding of the natural world. In the Timaeus, Plato describes the creation of the world as work done by a divine Craftsman, who does the job by reference to a model — a system of rational principles. The real world is not, as we uncritically take it to be, the world around us that our senses report to us; it is rather what we grasp in thought when exercising our minds in abstract philosophical argument, in particular arguments which lead to what Plato calls Forms — the Forms which function as patterns for the Craftsman as he makes our world. . . .
Plato's God is a workman who does the best he can with the materials he has to work with; he creates order from chaos, but he does not create the original materials from nothing.[/i]
https://academic.oup.com/book/391/chapter-abstract/135200895?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Note --- In this scenario the demiurge obtained his materials from the principle of Chaos, which was merely Generalized Potential (Causality), but not organized into Matter or Energy. So the Prime Cause must include both Potential (power, energy) and Plan (laws, designs). Neither of which correspond to the mundane energy & matter of the physical world.
*2. On the First Cause :
"Our Stoic philosophers, as you know, declare that there are two things in the universe which are the source of everything — namely, cause and matter. Matter lies sluggish, a substance ready for any use, but sure to remain unemployed if no one sets it in motion. Cause, however, by which we mean reason, moulds matter and turns it in whatever direction it will, producing thereby various concrete results. Accordingly, there must be, in the case of each thing, that from which it is made, and, next, an agent by which it is made. The former is its material, the latter its cause." ___Seneca, Stoic philosopher
https://monadnock.net/seneca/65.html
*3. Nameless First Cause :
The Tao [Way] that can be told of is not the eternal Tao; The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The Nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth; The Named is the mother of all things.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780191826719.001.0001/q-oro-ed4-00006490
A first cause is self-existent though. I think that's the problem he has. He doesn't like the idea that there was nothing, then something. What I'm trying to show him is that an eternally self-existent thing is no different. There is nothing which explains its being. No limitations on what could have been besides the fact of its existence.
Gravity (pulling action without material connection) was a mystery to Newton, and a mathematical/logical concept to Einstein. His immaterial notion of causation may be related to his incredulous "spooky action at a distance" characterization of quantum entanglement, which involves sharing Information. In the 21st century, scientists have correlated Causal Energy with Knowable Information*1. :smile:
*1. A proposed experimental test for the mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
A recent conjecture, called the mass-energy-information equivalence principle, proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy and exists as a separate state of matter.
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/sci/article/2022/9/091111/2849001/A-proposed-experimental-test-for-the-mass-energy
Quoting Gary Venter
What is warped by Gravity is not just space, but Space-Time, which seems to include everything in the universe ( Space : matter ; Time : energy ). The quantum fields (17 types???) are not material objects, but Mathematical/Logical relationships between infinite "quantum oscillators" --- whatever that is. For my own philosophical purposes, I imagine the Quantum Field as Aristotle's eternal Potential, which when Actualized into space & time (matter & energy) becomes everything in the world that we can sense (i.e. Reality). :nerd:
Quoting Gary Venter
Einstein's E=MC^2 equation related invisible Energy and mathematical Mass to a dimensionless logical constant, which together we humans experience as Matter. Plato also related "rational principles" (Forms) with the creation of physical matter. Was he on to something, that took centuries to be expressed in a simple T-shirt equation? :joke:
Quoting Gary Venter
Your comments remind me of my own Information-based philosophical worldview. We seem to be thinking along the same lines.
My personal thesis, Enformationism, postulates that the essence of physical Matter & Energy, and of metaphysical Consciousness, is the Principle of Potential that I call EnFormAction (power to give form to the formless). That's similar to Plato's First Cause (Form), and Aristotle's Prime Mover (Energy).
I'd like to compare notes, to see where you got your ideas about Quantum Physics & Information. Mine probably originated in John A. Wheeler's 1989 "it from bit" conjecture. :grin:
Quoting Philosophim
"Nothing" in this context can be read in multiple ways: a) nothing as in no cause of space; b) nothing as in nothingness, a something that caused space, in which case the infinite regress towards a true first cause is under way; c) nothing as a category which includes logic, so first cause cannot be logically necessary.
If first cause is logically necessary, then logic is contemporary with (if not prior to) first cause.
My central point continues to be the claim no causation precludes any type of sequence, including something from nothing. Also, it should be noted that a causal chain exemplifies logical continuity as expressed: A ? ~A = False. In English this sentential logic statement translates to "An existing thing does not imply the negation of itself." Following from this, claiming causeless first cause tries to equate sequence with the negation of sequence, the definition of first cause. Herein lies the heart of the incoherence of your claim.
I haven't forgotten your argument that before first cause a potential first cause can be anything, no restrictions and then, after inception of first cause, logical sequencing and its limitations are in effect.
This is an incomplete narrative of how first cause incepts because a declaration stating first cause can be anything in no way explains and justifies inception of first cause. First cause via something from nothing might be true, but such a declaration is an axiomatic presumption; logical necessity has no part in it.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
If, as you say, even an infinitely regressive universe entails logical necessity of a first cause, that's merely saying in different words that: Everything, even an infinite universe, must have a beginning. In this situation of the causeless eternal universe, you're building a contradiction because there's no nothing for first cause to incept from.
If you're postulating an infinitely regressive universe that contains local first causes, then you're constructing a contradictory universe because if there comes into existence something causeless, then it's necessarily another, independent universe. Anything contained within the causeless universe cannot be first-caused because, being a part of a causeless universe, by definition it cannot be separate from said causeless universe. Furthermore, the independent universe as first cause is building a contradiction because -- again -- in the situation of an eternal universe, there's no nothing for a first cause to incept from.
You still haven't addressed the issue of the paradox of an eternal existence being self-caused. If a thing causes itself, then simultaneously it is and is not itself. This is a logical argument against existence of first cause.
Quoting Philosophim
You are therefore traveling the road to self-causation. On the other hand, if you accept that in the situation of an eternal universe, there is no causation because everything has always existed, with only the variation of forms giving the appearance of change, then the problem is solved. However, I know you don't accept this because causation lies at the core of what you claim.
Also, in the situation of an eternal universe, the start point cannot be ascertained; it's impossible. Well, if a start point is impossible to ascertain, then logical necessity of a first cause it likewise impossible to ascertain. It can only be supposed axiomatically.
Quoting Philosophim
In the case of an eternal universe, you cannot talk rationally about nothing (or anything else) causing the universe to exist because it's impossible to ascertain any logical reason for its existence. This is so because reason_cause imply sequence, but infinite value cannot be specified and therefore cannot be sequenced.
Your crucial mistake in your thesis is thinking one can reason back to the beginning of an infinite sequence. By definition an infinite sequence, i.e., infinite value, has no beginning_ending. Beginnings and endings are specific whereas infinite values are undefined as with 1/0 = undefined.
Are you noticing how I always support my assertions with potentially falsifiable arguments? I never claim that such and such is so because my words say they are so. You do this over and over again. Your claims in this thesis always terminate in claiming it is so because the words you write say it is so. Your central claim is not potentially falsifiable. It is circular reasoning true by definition.
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
In your example, there is no arrival and no conclusion; instead, there is an observation and a declaration without any reasoning toward it: Quoting Philosophim
The argument here isn't about the legitimacy of your observation; it's about whether or not you followed a chain of logic in making it. You haven't.
Quoting Philosophim
Don't confuse the logical decision to make an unexplainable observation axiomatically with logically explaining the content of that observation. You're doing the former, not the latter.
Quoting Philosophim
I don't accept the claim: "Something from nothing" declared without explanation proves logical necessity of a first cause.
Quoting Philosophim
Generally, I accept all of this. Specifically, I don't accept an axiomatic declaration as a rational explanation of the logical necessity of first cause.
*With this statement you prove I'm correct in saying your declarations about first cause are not logical, your stated purpose.
“When we say that a set is finite or infinite, we are referring to the number of elements in the set, not to the "extent" (putting it roughly) of those elements.”
Set Theory: Bounded Infinity
Note - To find my source linked above, scroll down the page to "4 Answers," and then read the paragraph directly below.
This is a distinction made in observation of a set of numbers. Consider the set of numbers between 0 and 1. The number of elements in this set is infinite, yet the set has boundaries, so it’s an example of a bounded infinity. It’s important to note that no part of the set can possibly go to infinity. This limitation pertains to the extent of the set.
In a parallel situation, an eternal universe can be a bounded set of infinitely many existing things. So, the number of elements in this set is infinite, yet the set has boundaries, so it’s an example of a bounded infinity. Likewise, no part of this set can possibly go to infinity. This means the set of existing things, in parallel with the set of numbers mentioned above, has a limitation of specifiable content always short of its infinite extension. This precludes logical discussion about a start for the infinite extension. In consequence, it’s logical to talk axiomatically about what cannot be explained logically.
The critical question pertinent to our debate is whether or not you can talk logically about the before or after of a bounded infinity. When talking logically about the start of a chain of causality, you’re talking about the beginning of a continuity. That’s talking about the extent of a series. Since the infinite number of elements populating the series precludes you from ascertaining a start point, you can’t claim logically that before the start point there were such and such necessary conditions because you cannot specify a start point.
It's illegitimate to do so by simply making the declaration: "This is the start point, and before the start point there was nothing, thus the start point examples an uncaused start point, i.e., a first cause.” Doing this examples arbitrarily marking a start point by decree. That’s okay to do. Science and math oftentimes make decrees about a certain premise being an arbitrary start point for a sequence of reasoning that follows. These arbitrary start points are not arrived at logically. In this situation, an arbitrary start point is called an axiom.
What’s not okay to do is to claim you can progress through a chain of reasoning from nothing to an arbitrary start. Just as there is no specifiable start, there is also no specifiable continuity leading to an unspecifiable start. This is another way of saying no part of the set can go to infinity. Doing so is therefore incoherent because the illegitimate continuity jumps from nothing to an artificially specified unspecifiable start point.
The intended way of reading it is a).
Quoting ucarr
We're in agreement here then. I'm not claiming something comes from nothing. A first cause doesn't come from anything. I'm just noting that prior to a first causes inception, there is no prior causation or 'no thing'. Nothing is not a 'thing', but the absence of anything.
Quoting ucarr
A first cause exists, it does not negate itself. If it did, it would be gone. I'm not understanding how you see a first cause implies its own negation.
Quoting ucarr
You have my logic backwards. I'm not saying anything can be a first cause, thus justifying the inception of a first cause. I first establish what a first cause is, something which is not caused by anything prior or else. The consequence of this logically means that prior to the inception of a first cause, there was no reason why it should, or should not have formed. And if there is no reason why a first cause should or should not have formed, there is no limitations or rules that shape what a first cause should, or should not be.
Quoting ucarr
No, I am not saying everything needs a beginning. Again, we're taking the entire set of the eternal regressive universe and asking, "What caused this to exist?" The answer is nothing besides the fact that it exists. Thus a first cause.
Quoting ucarr
No, its another separate causal chain inception. A first cause is the inception of a causal chain. When we're talking about 'the universe' we're implicitly talking about, "What caused the universe," What I'm noting is all causal chains have a point in which we reach an 'end', or the start of causation. When looking at a regressive infinite universe, we're going up the causal chain until we get to the point in the chain where we ask, "What caused an infinitely regressive universe to exist?" And the answer is, "Nothing, it exists without any prior causation." Thus the first cause.
Quoting ucarr
Anything within a causal chain caused by something prior cannot be a first cause. But this does not prevent something outside of that particular causal chain from appearing and starting its own causal chain.
Quoting ucarr
The real contradiction is nothing that something else creates a first cause. It is completely in keeping with logic that the inception of a first cause entails nothing prior causes its inception. You're making the mistake of looking at the universe instead of the causal chain of that universe.
Quoting ucarr
Can you explain this? I'm not sure how you arrive at this conclusion. If something negates itself, its gone. A thing cannot both exist and not exist at the same time. How do you conclude what's being said here leads to this?
Quoting ucarr
You are confusing the "start of the universe" with the "start of the causal chain". The start of the causal chain is taking all the causation within that universe and putting it in a set. Then asking, "What caused this set?" Nothing. There is no prior cause.
Let me give you another example which might make this more clear. Lets say that there IS something which causes an eternally existing universe to be. There is an existence A which is able to retroactively cause an infinitely regressive universe B. Is this somehow less contradictory? And does it escape the inevitable question, "What caused A?" The answer is no to both. If you are stating that my conclusion is wrong, then you have to accept the alternative situation. This is what I'm trying to get you to see. All you're doing is noting, "A first cause cannot exist with an eternal universe," but you're not examining what that must necessarily entail if this is true either. Its why I'm asking you to give me an example of a universe without a first cause in its causation chain.
Quoting ucarr
As I've noted, we can do this by taking the set of causation within the infinite universe and asking what caused the set.
Quoting ucarr
Its very falsifiable. But I have yet to see its false. My arguments conclude it is true. That's very different from it not being falsifiable. As I've noted above, I've tried to say, "Assume it is false, what do we arrive at?" The frustration Ucarr is your inability to demonstrate it is false so far. Which is fine, keep trying. If it were clearly false, we would not be still having this discussion.
Quoting ucarr
You know this isn't correct at this point. This is frustration. Don't let that win. I've laid the reasoning out clearly at this point.
Quoting ucarr
If you're going to assert that, you need to demonstrate that. Otherwise this is just not wanting to accept a conclusion.
Quoting ucarr
Just to repeat, I am not claiming this. You have the order of logic backwards. First comes the logical necessity of a first cause, then comes the conclusion that this means the inception of a first cause cannot be explained by anything else, thus there is nothing prior which could cause a limit on what or would not incept as a first cause.
Quoting ucarr
Maybe you're right that its axiomatic, but can you break it down how you arrive that its merely a declaration? Let me give you an example. A declaration is "A". I could easily state, "Not A" and as far as declarations go, both are viable. But what I'm noting is that if you start with "Not A" it necessarily leads to "A", and if you declare "A", it necessarily leads to A. That's not a declaration, that's a proof where we conclude A must be true.
Quoting ucarr
Correct.
Quoting ucarr
Your mistake is that you are looking inside the set for a start point. The start point is not inside the set. It is the question of what caused the entire set. If I have an infinite series of decimals vs an infinite series of whole numbers, they are separate infinites in what they express correct?
As an analogy, I'm asking, "What caused the universe to be a set of whole numbers vs a set of decimals?" The answer is again, nothing. There was no outside cause which necessitated it be whole numbers or decimals. There is no outside reason which caused an infinitely regressive eternal universe to be composed of space vs water. There is no outside reason for the eternal universe to exist in such a way where a big bang happened, vs none at all. And remember, if you deny it, give me the alternative Ucarr. If I'm wrong, what does that entail, and does that make any sense at all?
Quoting ucarr
Again, the mistake here is only looking inside of the set for causality. The causal chain extends out to include the set itself. This is not by decree, but the natural next step in going through the chain of causality.
Quoting Philosophim
There is the question whether a first cause, lacking a precedent, must be eternal. Also, there is the question whether or not an eternal existence is self-caused rather than uncaused.
Quoting Philosophim
Following from this we have: a) there is no something-from-nothing, so, no first cause from nothing; b) there is no other thing in the role of a precedent for first cause. Given these restrictions, first cause cannot pop into existence from nothing and it cannot come from a precedent, thus it must be eternally self-caused. But here we encounter a contradiction: causation separates the causal force from the thing it causes, however, in the case of self-causation, this separation evaluates as self ? ~self (self implies not-self), a contradiction. This therefore leads us to claim existence (of the universe) is eternal and there is no first cause.
Quoting Philosophim
Given: No should and no should not, we have equilibrium as nothing. Given: No restrictions and no intentions, again we have equilibrium as nothing.
I'm not seeing how this is any different from claiming: "First cause popped into existence from nothing."
It's okay to claim: "First cause popped into existence from nothing." Maybe so. I'm only claiming this declaration is not the conclusion of a logical sequence of reasoning. This is an issue because of what your title for this conversation claims: "A Logical first cause is necessary." You can't fulfill the claim of your title until you present a logical sequence of reasoning that necessarily concludes with: "First cause popped into existence from nothing." When you say you establish what a first cause is, you merely define first cause. That's okay to do. However, it's a claim of truth based on words asserted without a logical sequence of reasoning to justify them. Proceeding from here, you claim no reasons for or against existence of a first cause and no restrictions or intentions as to what the identity of first cause shall be. That's okay to do. However, again, it's a claim of truth based on words asserted without a logical sequence of reasoning to justify them.
Quoting Philosophim
Okay. You're saying a first cause is uncaused. I think we agree this is a definition for which logical proof is impossible. An uncaused first exists without explanation. Fine. But don't claim your observation of the unexplainable equals proof of logical necessity. As I cautioned in my previous post, don't confuse the logical decision to merely observe and accept the existence of the unexplainable with the logical explanation of the unexplainable.
If first cause refers to an eternal universe, there follows the question whether anything is caused because everything has always existed, whether actually or potentially.
Quoting Philosophim
Going up an infinite causal regression does not conclude with arrival at a point; the points continue without arrival being possible. For this reason, there can be no logical assessment of what constitutes a first cause. All you can ever do, given the definition of first cause, is declare it without logical proof. Each time you declare a first cause, you're logically concluding its a concept the existence of which can only be accepted without an explanatory sequence of reasoning. Again, don't confuse your logical conclusion about what you can know and explain regarding a first cause with a logical explanation of the inception of a first cause. Perhaps your conversation title should be: Concluding A First Cause Simply Exists is a Logical Necessity. Isn't this what you've been saying over and over? If you had used this title in the first place, most folks would've agreed with you and this conversation would've ended long ago.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
If something is part of an existing universe, how can it be without precedent? No, a first cause, by your oft-repeated definition: "Something which is not caused by anything else." cannot be other than a new and independent universe. An existing universe cannot spawn a first cause.
Quoting Philosophim
There might be a first-cause-as-universe within another separate universe, but an existing universe cannot spawn something not related to itself. So, this appears to be a restriction upon what a first cause can be: it must be its own universe.
Quoting Philosophim
Since I reject logical first cause I look at something similar in terms of uncaused eternal universe.
Quoting Philosophim. That's why there's the question whether or not self-causation is fatal:
"...causation separates the causal force from the thing it causes, however, in the case of self-causation, this separation evaluates as self ? ~self (self implies not-self), a contradiction."
Quoting Philosophim
An eternal universe is an example because it has no beginning and no causation. I can't prove existence of such a universe logically. I can only declare it as an axiom from which reasoning follows. This axiom cannot be derived logically. It is, however, logical for me to conclude that this axiom is a necessary start point for reasoning. Since an unexplainable axiom is a necessary start point for a sequence of reasoning, it's clear the axiom stands beyond the reach of logic.
Quoting Philosophim
Below I reprint an argument you haven't responded to:
Quoting ucarr
Here I'm talking about infinite-causal-chain-as-universe. I'm claiming you can't posit a first cause start point of an infinite-causal-chain-as-universe because any sequence -- once identified as infinite -- has no specifiable start point or end point. My logic is simple: if you can't find something, you can't claim it's either a start point or an end point. If this is true, then your claim a first-cause start point (for an infinite causal chain) is logically necessary is false because the math logic of infinity denies existence of start points and end points within infinite sequences.*
I wonder if you'll oblige my explicit request for you to counter-argue the specific points I've raised here.
*This is even true for infinite sequences that have boundaries. Such infinite sequences lie within specified start and end points, but the volume of the members is a separate thing (infinite) from the extent of the members (finite). Consider the sequence from 0 to 1.
Quoting Philosophim
This is not a sequence of reasoning. If it were, you would include a list of possible reasons for only one type of universe. All entries but one on this list would be crossed out and a sequence of reasoning provided to explain and justify the exclusions. Instead, it's an axiomatic statement about space and matter used as a premise for claiming there is but one type of universe. It's okay to do this, but it's an axiomatic claim, not a logical explanation.
Quoting Philosophim
You think claiming as fact "there is but one type of universe" is reasoning? Give me a logical explanation for your belief. See my statement above (infinity cannot be sequenced) for an example of
reasoning toward a conclusion.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Imagine I don't know that a certain plastic, being a non-conductor, acts as an insulator against the flow of electric current. After repeatedly trying to get current to pass through the plastic to another conductor that completes a circuit that makes a motor run, I run a series of tests and see that whenever the plastic is excluded from the circuit, the motor runs. I therefore conclude, logically, that completing the circuit requires bypassing the plastic. I've made a logical conclusion about a state of affairs I've observed. Indeed, this is logical thinking. However, I shouldn't go forth to other people claiming I have a logical explanation for why the plastic keeps the motor from running. I'm merely observing what is happening as an axiom of unexplained truth that the motor doesn't run when the plastic is included in the circuit.*
*A chemist might enter the narrative with an explanation why the motor doesn't run with the plastic included in the circuit: it lacks the loosely bonded electrons needed to supply the current necessary to complete the circuit.
My example parallels: Quoting Philosophim
This is an observation, not an explanation. You have no argument towards claiming logically only one type of universe exists. On the basis of your information-scarce observation, there's no logical reason to conclude there exists only one type of universe. You insist people believe your claim because you say so.
Quoting Philosophim
You merely state as fact: "logical necessity of a first cause." There's no explanation why logical necessity of first cause. Your state an observed what; you don't state an explained why.
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting ucarr
I've put in bold letters what's at the center of our debate: "There is nothing that explains the being of a first cause."
Here we have your fatal mistake in mostly your own words. By definition -- not by a sequence of reasoning -- you state without explanation the truth about a first cause: it's an axiom by supposition. Moreover, it cannot be explained logically because, as you say, "There is (by definition) nothing which explains its being."
According to the worldview of Materialism, "nothing" is non-sense. And, since the physical world does exist, it must have always existed in some form or other. Also, how or why it came to be is not an empirical question, hence more non-sense. If there is nothing to explain its existence, then it's provenance is a matter of Faith, or Reason.
Ancient Materialism (e.g. Atomism) was a hypothetical solution to a philosophical question. But sensible modern Materialism seems to be primarily an alternative to religious answers to "Why?" questions*1. Apparently, it assumes that philosophy is impotent (decorative) to answer any questions about Reality. Hence Ideal notions, such as "something from nothing", are literally nonsensical, since we cannot sense nothingness. And from the perspective of modern Materialism, non-sensible is non-sensical.
Although you seem to be trying to evade the implication of "spiritual beings", by limiting the discussion to logical reasoning, not religious doctrine, even your First Cause is --- by definition of Materialism --- un-real, and non-sensible, therefore implausible. In Materialism, what is Real, is what is sensible*2.
Ironically, modern science postulates several causal features of reality that are logical inferences instead of sensory observations. For example Energy is the universal cause of all changes in the world, but we never detect the Energy per se, we only infer its logically-necessary existence from after-effects in material objects. Likewise, the notion of electric or quantum Fields is a logical inference from observation of changes in the material world*3. How that universal or local field came to be --- "popped into existence" --- is irrelevant for pragmatic Science : it just is, and it works.
Those invisible and intangible features of Reality, are accepted because they allow us to predict physical behavior. But most of those predictions are logical extrapolations from known rules of Nature. And how do we know those regulations of physical behavior? By rational inference, as expressed in terms of a> philosophical Epistemology, or b> scientific Natural Laws, or c> religious Supernatural beliefs. None of which are empirical observations, but unlike First Cause, some do have practical applications in the Real world.
The First Cause is simply another inference from logical necessity. But is it Real? Of course not. It's Ideal. A belief, not a fact; just like an unexplainable quantum Field --- Scientists like to think it's a fact, "because it works". The Prime Mover only works in the beginning of world-making, not during its mundane operations. Like Plato's world-creating Craftsman, the First Cause does its work, then disappears into the work itself as ongoing Causation : e.g. Energy. :smile:
*1. What is the metaphysical theory of materialism?
In general, the metaphysical theory of materialism entails the denial of the reality of spiritual beings, consciousness and mental or psychic states or processes, as ontologically distinct from, or independent of, material changes or processes.
https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/materialism/v-1
*2. Sensible :
[i]a> based on or acting on good judgment and practical ideas or understanding
b> practical and functional rather than decorative.[/i]
*3. Is the Quantum Field real? :
For generations, physicists argued whether those quantum fields were actually real, or whether they were simply calculational tools. Nearly a full century later, we're certain that they're real for one unambiguous reason: they carry energy.
Note --- Both QF and Energy are logical inferences, not observations
Provenance :
[i]a> the place of origin or earliest known history of something.
b> the beginning of something's existence; something's origin.[/i]
"In the beginning there was no beginning" (i.e. there is no north of the North Pole just as there is no edge of a sphere or first point on a circumference).
There is no question, its one of the main points of the OP. Whether the universe is finite or infinitely regressive, there is necessarily a first cause.
Quoting ucarr
Its uncaused. For something to be self-caused it would need to exist, then do something to ensure it exists. A self-sustaining entity is part of causality. "Why does A exist in state B at this time? Because A existed in state B one second prior". That's self-sustaining which is not a first cause.
Quoting ucarr
Right, this is a consequence of the conclusion that a first cause must exist. You didn't counter that a first cause must logically exist, which is where we arrive at the conclusion that the inception of a first cause is not caused by anything else.
Quoting ucarr
A} needs to be clarified. Nothing doesn't cause something. It just means there is nothing which causes the inception of the first cause. b) is fine as long as you mean, "There is nothing which causes the first cause". Given these restrictions the only conclusion is that something can incept without nothing causing it. Self-cause does not work. Being explained by the fact that it does exist does not mean, "It causes itself as a first cause".
Quoting ucarr
How so? If a first cause is uncaused by something else, then its existence cannot be explained by something else. This means its existence cannot be limited by something else either. Meaning, there is no logical reason for its existence besides the fact it exists. Meaning that what can potentially be a first cause is limitless. This is all a clear logical flow Ucarr. Address this specifically if you think its not logical.
Quoting ucarr
I'm going to state this clearly again. This is not the point of the thread nor the title. The point is that a first cause is necessary. The conclusion that its inception happened without anything prior causing it, and concluding that anything could have happened, concludes from examining the logical conclusions of what being a first cause entails. These are two separate issues.
Quoting ucarr
True.
Quoting ucarr
Ucarr, are you accidently confusing logical necessity with empirical necessity? The theory of relativity was logically correct. It was only confirmed as empirically correct when observing an eclipse. I've never stated my points are empirically correct. Logical correctness is "If we take these statements and definitions, reasonably this is the only conclusion we can reach." It doesn't mean it actually exists. Logically, I've presented the argument several times now. And not once have you taken the argument and demonstrated why the logic is incorrect. Do that and you'll have an argument. Otherwise, my points stand.
Quoting ucarr
Its an odd way to word it Ucarr. 'Concluding' is redundant, and 'simply' is unnecessary. "Exists" doesn't work because that's present tense and I don't know if a first cause continues to exist or not. The title is proper English without redundancy.
Quoting ucarr
If you mean empirical, yes, that's going to be extremely difficult to do. As a definition, its fine. I'm not sure what you mean by 'logical proof is impossible'. If we can start with 'not A' (our definition) and demonstration that we need to conclude 'A' as true at the end, then this is a logical proof that A must be.
Quoting ucarr
No, an eternal universe that has causation in it is comprised of causal moments. Meaning that which has not happened yet does not exist. That which no longer exists, does not exist. We're just referring to the causal chains that lead up to this point of reality. So there is no question that causality exists in such a universe.
Quoting ucarr
You are misunderstanding how the set of an infinitely regressive universe still has to answer "What caused it?". Here's another example.
Here is a set of infinite regressive causality: 2t + infinity = Y
Infinity represent the number of causal existences in the universe. t stands for time, which for an infinite universe, has an arbitrary origin. So time can flow infinitely forward and backwards with no beginning or end. 2 represents that after every tick of that universe, 2 more causes happen.
Now here's the question which you have to answer Ucarr. Why is it 2t + infinity = Y and not 3t + infinity = Y? Is there anything outside which caused it to be one way over the other? How about 4t? Or -1T +2? You see we've captured the causal chain of the infinite universe, but that still hasn't answered "What caused that universe to exist?" My point is there is no outside cause by logical proof. If you say "A" is what caused the universe to be 2T + infinity = Y, I'm going to ask, "And what caused A?" And we're right back at the same conclusion, "Nothing". You have to logically break out of this to have a point.
Quoting ucarr
I never said another first cause was caused by the universe it incepts in. I noted that a first cause could incept within an universe because there is nothing that can cause it not to. For example, potentially there could have been other matter that was in existence before the big bang (if we are using the big bang as an example, not a literal, first cause). There is nothing within the logic I've noted that would prevent this from happening, therefore it is logically permitted.
Quoting ucarr
Then the first cause of the universe when we ask, "What caused a universe which has no beginning and is eternal" is "Nothing". This is proving my point Ucarr, not countering it.
Quoting ucarr
And that's not an issue. I can't either. I also can't prove the universe did not eternally exist. Its irrelevant. Whether the universe eternally existed or did not, there is at least one first cause. THAT I've logically proven.
Quoting ucarr
I've answered this earlier here.
Quoting ucarr
What? No. Its reasonable because the alternative proposal, "That a universe without a first cause can exist" leads to the conclusion that "A first cause must exist". Go back to the math sets I wrote.
Quoting ucarr
I'm not claiming there is but one type of universe, and you know that at this point. Please don't resort to claims like this. You know I have stated several times that there is at least one first cause, and that I make no claim as to what that specific first cause is empirically or logically.
Quoting ucarr
Yes, you used logic but also empiricism. This is an empirical claim, not a logical claim. You have not proven that its logically impossible to complete the circuit unless you bypass the plastic. You only know given the materials, tools, and techniques you have, you have no other means of completing the circuit by bypassing the plastic. If you proved that there was no method in existence which could. A logical proof would be an argument that demonstrates that no matter what material, tool, or techniques anyone comes up with, even those we haven't discovered yet, it is impossible to complete the circuit without bypassing the plastic.
I am noting that given an infinitely regressively caused universe or a finitely regressively caused universe, a first cause is logically necessary.
Quoting ucarr
This is not an observation, this is an example. The explanation is noting that at least one first cause is logically necessary. And this is an example of that being true. The logical proof allows you to plug in any type of universe you can imagine, and its still true. I'm not saying this prooves "One type of universe exists". I'm noting that no matter what it exists, a matter universe, non-matter universe, or 2t + infinity = y universe, there must be at least one first cause in its one or many causal chains.
Quoting ucarr
If a first cause is true, then it follows that "There is nothing that explains the being of a first cause." The logic is in showing that there must be at least one first cause. If you can demonstrate that it is not necessary that there is at least one first cause within a chain of causality, then of course its moot. Look at it this way. "Flying unicorns fly. But if we don't prove a flying unicorn is logically necessary, its moot." First causes have no prior cause for their existence, which means nothing explains its being. But if we don't prove a first cause is logically necessary, its moot.
Your goal is to demonstrate that a first cause is not necessary. You are not going to win by challenging the definition of the first cause, if the definition is logically necessary. The only way to do that is to demonstrate that logically a universe can exist that does not inevitably arrive at a first cause within its causal chain. Keep trying Ucarr!
Nonsense. :D Nothing is the negation of material. You can't have materialism without it. "Aether theories" have largely been discredited in the scientific world from my understanding. Not that it really matters. Do materialists understand the number zero? Then we're good.
Quoting Gnomon
There is no logical conclusion which leads to the idea that since the material world exists, it must have always existed. Nor is that an empirical conclusion. My proof is a logical proof, not an empirical one so I don't care if they dismiss it because its not empirical. They seem fine holding the idea that existence must have always existed without any empirical proof, so I can't take them seriously.
Quoting Gnomon
I'm not saying "Something from nothing". Nothing is not causing something. Its something incepted despite there being nothing which caused it to be. If non-sensible is non-sensible than once again, claiming that the universe has always existed is also nonsense. If they dismiss the question out of hand, I don't care once again as this is a logical exploration, not empirical.
Quoting Gnomon
Bingo. Which is why the argument against logical conclusions that do not have empirical means of testability is hypocritical and can be hand waved away.
Quoting Gnomon
Its not idea either. Its a logical conclusion through reason. Denying it inevitably leads back to its necessity. So its not a matter of faith either, but reason.
Quoting Philosophim
By making a small change to your last sentence, I get a proposition: Logically, a universe cannot exist that does not inevitably arrive at a first cause within its causal chain.
Does this alteration produce a proposition you endorse? Furthermore, does this proposition lie within the core of what you're saying in this conversation?
To make it even simpler, remove universe. "Every causal chain inevitably arrives at a first cause". I say this because we might have definitions of 'universe' that might differ here based on the context of the conversation.
The important point is the causal chain. So for example, if universe 1 creates universe 2, universe 2 is part of the causal chain that leads to universe one. If universe 1 and universe 2 incept as first causes, they are two separate causal chains. The easier and core problem is demonstrating a causal chain that does not have a first cause.
So, it's correct to say your core proposition within this conversation goes as follows:
Quoting Philosophim
Correct.
I'm recalling from memory you citing Hume re: causation. The gist of your point is that causation, in his view, is an inference from observed patterns of apparently connected changes in states of being within the world. His conclusion, as reported by you, states that the concept of causation stands upon empirically-derived impressions of the world. In closing, you said these impressions are generally understood to fall short of a proof of the concept of causation.
Do you reject the belief causation resides within dynamical systems of self-organization phase-shifted across ascending levels of organization towards effects?
Quoting Philosophim
What does Y stand for in your equation?
Total number of causations within that point of time on the chain.
I would prefer that you quote the assertions you are responding to. I don't remember exactly how I worded the comments on Hume's causation. But I wouldn't say that "the concept of causation stands on empirically-derived impressions". Empirical typically implies recorded & confirmed scientific evidence. But up until Hume's day, the notion of Causation (by some invisible entity) was taken-for-granted by most people, as a reasonable-but-untested inference from sensory observations. Therefore, Hume was philosophically & scientifically critical of that presumption.
The connection between sequential causal events (what we now call Energy) was invisible & intangible. There was no discernible difference between the putative "cause" and the presumed "effect". And 17th century Natural Philosophy had no formal concept of Energy, but the ancient notion of Spirit persisted. So he, not I, said the commonsense belief in Causation --- perhaps as a manifestation of heavenly Spirit acting in the world --- "falls short of" empirical proof. Where Kant spoke of "consult not experience", I'm guessing he was referring to what we now call Empirical Science. :smile:
David Hume & the Theory of Causation :
Hume's theory of causation states that causality is formed from the relationship between two impressions or ideas in the mind. However, because knowledge comes from experiences, assumptions of causality are intrinsically flawed and cannot be proven.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/the-metaphysics-of-causation-humes-theory.html
Kant and Hume on Causality :
[i]And as the first imagination or invention of a particular effect, in all natural operations, is arbitrary, where we consult not experience; so must we also esteem the supposed tye or connexion between the cause and effect, which binds them together, and renders it impossible that any other effect could result from the operation of that cause. . . .
Thus, although Kant does not explicitly mention Hume in Dreams of a Spirit-Seer, the parallels with Hume’s Enquiry are striking indeed[/i]
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-hume-causality/
Quoting ucarr
Could you rephrase that question in more conventional terms? Or explain your terms in more detail. For the record, I don't deny Causation; but I do think it's a mental inference, not a spiritual force, in the world. Instead, the term Energy now covers physical actions that used to be attributed to Spirits.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Given a first cause, is it correct to say the next thing following the first cause -- the first thing caused by the first cause -- appears as the first causation? Subsequent links in the causal chain are, likewise, causations?
Regarding your equation:
Quoting Philosophim
Does Y have an infinite value?
Seems good to me. This is definitely clear in a finitely regressive universe. In the case of the formula of an infinitely regressive universe, because there is infinite time and we are capturing all possible causations within infinite time, there is no 'first causation". Essentially the first cause comes about after we capture all possible infinite causations in that universe, then ask the next question, "What caused it to be this way?"
Quoting ucarr
Anything + infinity is still infinity. I'm not questioning at this point whether this is possible, we're just looking at what its like to capture the set of all causations within an infinite universe.
Quoting Gnomon
What I presented comes from Deacon. I thought I'd try to articulate an important chain of causation: non-life to life. As for everyday causation:
Quoting ucarr
Here's what's presently of interest to me:
Quoting Gnomon
Is it correct to say you see causation -- structurally speaking -- as a generalization in parallel with the specific energy-and-change relationship with respect to an invisible agent that causes transformation from one state-of-being to another state-of-being?
Quoting Philosophim
Am I correct in understanding you to be saying the procedure for comprehending the value of an infinite causal chain entails looking at the infinite causal chain as a whole?
Moreover, am I correctly inferring that by looking at an infinite causal chain as a whole, I'm drawn by a sequence of reasoning to the necessarily logical conclusion that an infinite causal chain is a first cause?
It entails eventually putting it into a set.
Quoting ucarr
No, the chain is not the first cause. The first cause of the chain occurs after you take all other causality within that universe. So you have mapped out that it is eternal and infinitely regressive. What remains after that is, "What caused the universe to be?" Go backwards if you wish. Start with the set, then you can explore every single bit of cauasality within that set. None of what is in the set caused the set, an infinitely eternal universe, to be.
Quoting Philosophim
The infinite causal chain equals members populating a set?
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
Is first cause a member of the causal chain?
Quoting Philosophim
At this point, you have evaluated down to two things: first cause; causal chain as members populating a set?
No, as mentioned before its the set of all causations within that universe up to the point in which we ask, "What caused that universe?"
Quoting ucarr
Ucarr, this is not complicated. Do you have a point or are you just going to keep asking odd questions? I've told you what this is several times already.
Quoting ucarr
It's not clear to me if the universe contains things that are causations mixed with things that are not causations. Is it the case that whatever is not a causation is a first cause?
Regarding: 'up to the point in which we ask, "What caused that universe?,"' it's not clear to me when this point is reached. Is this the point when: "It entails eventually putting it into a set." Does this evaluation of all causations into a set occur in time as we know it?
It's not clear to me where the first cause is in relation to its chain of causations. Is first cause inside or outside of the set of all causations?
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
What do you want me to understand from these two comments?
I want to hear your point of view. I want a discussion. I don't mind answering some questions, but you've only posted questions for the last six posts without any feedback, and I'm failing to see this going anywhere at this point. Please try to engage and not make this a one sided 20 questions alright? Did you understand my point two posts ago? I don't know, I hope you did. Its getting to the point where I expect you'll ask, "What time is it?" "Is it true this means you like the color blue?" :D I'm laughing over here but really, please try to not just ask questions.
Quoting ucarr
I have been over this numerous times at this point. Its been answered already several posts up, please review. We had a lengthy discussion about first causes and how they enter into causality once formed. Please look for that again.
Quoting ucarr
Yes. We take the entirety of the causations over the infinite time in the universe then ask, "What caused this to be?" Why is it 3T + infinity = y instead of 2T + infinity = y? Do you see my frustration here? I feel like I'm going over the same stuff again and again. Please take some time to review what I've already written first before asking questions as we've covered a lot already.
Quoting ucarr
What? Are you saying that the formulation of the formula 2T + infinity = Y occur in time? A causation chain in total is not taken in 'time'. Its an evaluation of everything that has happened so far. You are given the formula 2T + infinity = Y. This formula contains all the causality by time in that universe. So you say, "That's neat. What caused the universe to be infinite and eternal in that way?" Is it "Nothing" or is there something else that caused it? If there's nothing which caused it to be eternal, then there was nothing that deigned its inception; it simply is. A first cause to all the rest of the causality.
Quoting ucarr
I haven't forgotten you telling me after inception the causal chain develops within the everyday world as we know it.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Since both of your equations evaluate to the same result, I wonder whether there's any meaningful distinction between them.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
I understand you to be telling me you arrive at your premise: Quoting Philosophim
by way of a thought experiment.
I don't considering each time tick that passes we have a different number of causations added. But if you don't think its meaningful, tell me why!
Quoting ucarr
Yes, this is an example to help you understand the abstract points I've been making throughout our discussions. Is the thought experiment logical? Does it add clarity to the abstract? What do you think of it?
Most people will agree, including many atheists, that the idea of a universe having a cause does not get us to a god and certainly not a specific deity. And what of idealism in this frame of contingency? Even idealism might recognise the eternity of consciousness with various expressions of it wafting in and out.
Correct. This is not an empirical proof, but a logical proof based on what we know today. Its nice to someone understand it right off the bat. :)
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
What I remember pertinent to first causes within the context of causality is that after inception, a first cause is henceforth subject to the laws of physics in application to all things inhabiting the natural world.
Here's a question I think unaddressed and important that arises: With the exception of first causes, is it true that -- within the everyday world of things material and otherwise -- all things are part of a causal chain that inevitably arrives at a first cause?
Quoting Tom Storm
You respond to Tom Storm's uncertainty about universal contingency with "correct." Is it the case your thesis posits universal contingency abstractly while, in fact, empirically you're uncertain about it being true? Is it the case your uncertainty -- if it exists -- stems from a lack of empirical verification? If so, your uncertainty might be tied to deep and complex questions about the veracity of knowledge a priori with respect to phenomena supposedly amenable to empirical verification. You've addressed the issue of empirical verification by saying it's a nearly impossible standard to meet. To my thinking this throws doubt upon the probativity of your thought experiment.
For a parallel, consider Einstein and his theories of General and Special Relativity. He developed them abstractly as thought experiments employing calculations. Subsequent to the publication of his papers, empirical verifications of their claims were established. The logical and the empirical are sometimes two halves of one whole.
Quoting Philosophim
Your implied dismissal of any crosstalk between the logical and the empirical herein notwithstanding, the two modes of inquiry are indeed herein inter-dependent because, as I've learned from Gnomon, causation is believed but not yet proven.
I write the above paragraph in reference back to the importance of: "It's not clear to me if the universe contains things that are causations mixed with things not causations."
I know you think I'm pettifogging your thesis with irrelevant blather; I hope my questions are piquant.
The phrase --- "Do you reject the belief causation resides within dynamical systems of self-organization phase-shifted across ascending levels of organization towards effects?" --- is over my head. So I can't agree or deny. If you say so, I'll assume it makes sense to Deacon. :smile:
Quoting ucarr
Again, above my pay grade. But yes, as I understand Causation, the agent of "transformation" is invisible, and is knowable only by inference from observations of state A (before) and state B (after) the physical changes noted. The "invisible agent" is called by various names by scientists : energy, inertia, mass, photon, potential, etc. When a cue ball hits a stack of billiard balls, some unseen something seems to have been transferred from the moving cue ball to the stationary eight ball. We still don't know what-it-is, in material terms, but we do know a lot about what it does, its physical actions & reactions.
In my personal thesis, I follow the implications of cutting-edge physics --- which is also over my head --- to draw philosophical inferences about Causation, Transformation, and Information. The term "information" originally applied only to ideas in a human mind. But now it is being used to describe all kinds of Transformations*1. Physicists tend to think of physical Energy as fundamental, but some philosophers view Information as the primitive of Causation*2. Studies of complex systems, such as biological entities, have been enhanced by treating Information as an analog of Energy*3. So you can call that "invisible agent of transformation" Energy or Causation or Information or Spirit, depending on the context, and your own proclivities. :nerd:
*1. Does Energy = Information? :
Energy is a mysterious force that causes things to move. Energy is not information but it is required to transfer information
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-nature-of-energy-a-philosophical-perspective.122587/
*2. What is information? :
Information philosophy extends that study to the communication of information content between material objects, including how it is changed by energetic interactions with the rest of the universe.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/
*3. Complexity, Entropy & the Physics of Information :
They connect the natural sciences to the science of computation, and they characterize the emergence of classical physics from the quantum realm in the early universe.
https://www.sfipress.org/news/complexity-entropy-and-the-physics-of-information
Correct. More accurately, it exists in the way it exists, and interacts with others in a resultant manner that can be codified into rules and laws.
Quoting ucarr
Yes. To not be would be complete and utter chaos that could never be understood, codified, or made into any sort of law.
Quoting ucarr
Correct. An empirical verification would only occur if we examined everything in the universe and came to a scientifically concluded result. Arguably, this is beyond empirical verification. So in any empirical test, we look for contingency. So far no one has ever established in any empirical test that contingency does not exist.
Quoting ucarr
It is not uncertainty in the logical sense. It is the correct and logical conclusion to draw in the empirical sense. There are many conclusions that we cannot make when referring to the empirical that are largely accepted in the purely logical sense.
Quoting ucarr
A fair doubt to have, but when we cannot explore things empirically, logic based on what we currently know is all we can do. Can I empirically verify that pie can exist in reality as an irrational number? No. Pi's irrational measurement extends beyond our tools. However, we can estimate using significant digits and use it. Pi as a logical number is irrational and infinite. Pi as an empirical number is finite.
Quoting ucarr
Correct, and I believe I've used this example before. Logically, the theory worked. But it still had to be tested empirically to confirm it as empirically true. Prior to the empirical test, did it mean it wasn't logically true? No, it was logically true with what was known at the time. This is why it was even attempted as an empirical application to begin with.
The logical layout of the necessity of a first cause, and its logical consequences, have a clear map to lay out in an empirical test. In most instances, its impossible as no one can predict when a first cause will happen. But, it could be an accident one day in a lab setting that a first cause happens. That's extremely unlikely of course.
The more important aspect of the logical nature of a first cause is to ensure that people don't throw around empirical claims like "The big bang or God" is a first cause. Because a big bang or God could potentially be first causes in potential, but to claim they are in actual requires empirical proof. We can no longer say, "The big bang is logically a first cause." No, its not. Any question of any specified claim of a first cause is no longer in the realm of the logical, but the empirical.
Quoting ucarr
I would question what you mean by 'not proven'. Without causation all of science and reason goes out the window. If causation is gone, then I can't say you typed your reply to me. "You" didn't cause it. And that's absurd.Quoting ucarr
According to the thesis I've put forward, its logically possible. First causes would not be causations, but everything after their inception would be.
Quoting ucarr
I did not think this, I was just tired of one sided 20 questions without feedback or further interactions. :)
Quoting Gnomon
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Perhaps Gnomon can elaborate so rules of inference governing formal proofs not yet satisfied by reasoning about causation.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Regarding causal chains, you define two types of things in the world: first causes and causations.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
What you say above is a re-wording of some of your earlier statements. What you're saying is generally clear, but now I want to take a closer look at some details. You say a first cause is not part of its causal chain. After inception, when the first cause is in the world existing as it exists, how is it physically related to its causal chain?
Let's imagine a new type of bacterium incepts into our world. Empirical examination leads medical science to believe it causes a new type of disease with unique symptoms. During its lifetime, the first cause bacterium reproduces. As the first cause, is the first cause bacterium distinguishable from its offspring? Is it indistinguishable from its offspring? Does nature provide any means by which a first cause is known as such? If it doesn't, don't we have to doubt there's any way to isolate a first cause beyond the domain of abstract reasoning? Does this raise a question about the practical value of isolating a first cause in abstraction?
If an effective treatment for the new type of bacterium is developed, does any knowledge of the first cause bacterium, whether abstract or empirical, amount to anything more than an academic exercise in thought experimentation?
That's definitely not what I intended. The first cause is the start of the causal chain.
Quoting ucarr
It is distinct in the fact that if we were to trace the bacteria back to the first, we would find there was no evidence of there being a prior bacterium.
Quoting ucarr
What do you think? Ucarr, I've told you the value already in understanding the idea. What do you think about that?
Quoting ucarr
If you cure cancer for one person, that doesn't require us to learn the full ancestry of the person. The logic is about prior causation, so its use is in questions about prior and ultimate causation.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
My first impulse is to deem your non-response a blatant evasion. Could it be you have nothing to say about a first cause and its followers? Let me examine your thoughts a bit further. If a first cause is not part of its causal chain, is not connected to its causations, what meaning does first cause possess? Merely repeating over and over that its a necessary first means nothing real and practical if you can't elaborate details of first cause active in our daily world. Merely being necessary to the inception of a descendent translates to a man who sires a child and then abandons both the child and its mother. Why is a thought experiment to such a conclusion worth your time and effort?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
So, first cause possesses the distinction of prior nothingness? Such an emergence would be stupendous if coupled with playing the role of an on-sight parent nurturing children, but you say, with pique, first cause is not party to its descendants.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
I think in your mind you've journeyed to a lonely place defined by the absoluteness of its isolation. Moreover, the solitary denizen of that yawning emptiness flails about, haunted by unbreakable seclusion. Might this be where Nietzsche landed finally, with the last, dimming glow of twilight absorbing into the darkness of his transcendent idols?
Quoting Philosophim
What sort of questions about nothing cry out for answers? Let's suppose our world has nothing for its ancestor. How does nothing animate and uplift human nature? Perhaps more important is the question how does our first material ancestor, first cause -- no more connected to us than nothing -- impact our lives? At least the God of antiquity has thrown a Tanakh our way. First cause has no truck with us? How dismal.
Hey, I'm just accepting David Hume's reasoning, about the universality of cause & effect. I'm not an expert in these matters, so you can argue with him.
Today, we associate the word "Energy" with physical changes in the world. Yet it is defined, not as a physical thing, but as an "ability" or "capacity" or "efficacy" or "potential" which are no more empirically provable than "causation". Personally, I take predictable physical determinism for granted, for pragmatic reasons, and make no attempt to prove it, logically or empirically. I assume that's what Hume meant by "certitude". :smile:
David Hume & the Theory of Causation :
Causation describes a cause-and-effect relationship, where one thing causes another to occur. However, Hume argued that causation is not always empirically sound because it cannot be proven because experiences are subjective and flawed.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/the-metaphysics-of-causation-humes-theory.html
David Hume: Causation
Once more, all we can come up with is an experienced constant conjunction. Of the common understanding of causality, Hume points out that we never have an impression of efficacy. Because of this, our notion of causal law seems to be a mere presentiment that the constant conjunction will continue to be constant, some certainty that this mysterious union will persist. Hume argues that we cannot conceive of any other connection between cause and effect, because there simply is no other impression to which our idea may be traced. This certitude is all that remains.
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-causation/
Is it ever possible to actually 'prove' causation? :
You can prove 'causation' with respect to one context and one event but never on a universal canvas of time where you can explain all things at the same time. You will necessarily make some assumptions. So proof of 'causation' will come with that baggage of unexplained assumptions.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-ever-possible-to-actually-prove-causation
Look at this again Ucarr. A -> B -> C Nothing caused A. A is a first cause. I don't see me evading anything, you seem to be overcomplicating the issue or seeing something there that I don't.
Quoting ucarr
I have listed this repeatedly. Please go back and re-read where I mention the value of realizing what a first cause is and its consequences. I would relist this if it were once or twice, but I've already mentioned this at least 3 times.
Quoting ucarr
Yes. This has been said numerous times as well Ucarr. Please stop asking the same questions again and again and just start asserting your thoughts. I will correct you if you make a mistake. My current correction is your mistake in asking the same question again and again. :)
Quoting ucarr
It would be stupendous. But such an empirical claim must be empircally proven. If you claimed, "This pregnant woman incepted out of nowhere with a biological age of 23," you better have airtight proof that your claim matches reality.
Quoting ucarr
Yeah...that's an opinion about me not about the theory. Maybe you've just reached the end of exploring this Ucarr. We've gone over it numerous times, it still stands, and maybe its time to accept that. Admitting it works for now doesn't mean you have to like it, or that it can't be disproven in the future. But if we're descending into insults about the creator of the idea, it seems like the idea is pretty solid and there's nothing more to be said for now.
Quoting ucarr
Why do you need something else to do that? If there was something out there that intended humanity to be inanimate and hated human nature, wouldn't you give it the metaphorical finger and uplift humanity anyway? Purpose is not found from without. It is found from within us.
Quoting ucarr
Lets say there is a God Ucarr. It would know its a first cause. Meaning it would be in the same boat you're talking about. "Why am I hear? There's no outside reason for me, a God, to exist. Oh woe is me!" The God would need to make the same decision we do. They must find value and purpose in their own existence. So Ucarr, there is no escaping the reality that even a God has no prior cause, no prior purpose, no sanctioned greater purpose than what they are. That doesn't mean we can't decide to make purpose. To enjoy our humanity. To live life in a way that creates a world that satisfies us and those around us.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Gnomon
Quoting edu/hume-causation/
For an explanation supporting the reality of causation, I'm inclined to cite the second law of conservation: matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed. In conjunction with this, I'm inclined to propose that matter and energy are continually changing form and position via self-organizing dynamical systems across time and space. In a complicated way, causation is about shape-shifting. So, causation tells us our world is thoroughly networked.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
So, A?C. Okay, you've shown me the transitive property via implication. No dispute from me, but the transitive property by implication is not what I'm focusing on when I accuse you of evasion.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting ucarr
As you can see, I ask you about the physical connection between first cause and the members of its causal chain. This is a particularly important question for you to answer because you say first cause is not a member of the set of its causations. You're apparently talking about causation without physical connection between first cause and its set of causations. You say you're only concerned with a logical argument while leaving an empirical argument to other thinkers. Well, causation -- whether viewed logically or empirically -- entails by definition a physical relationship between cause and effect, or am I mistaken?
If I'm mistaken, and you're ready to demonstrate how your logical truth directly impacts our material world, then you're opening a big can of worms regarding top-down causation from mind directly to physical effect. Whether or not this is possible is an unresolved debate. This issue is too large for you to ignore completely.
If I'm not mistaken, then your proposition: "Every causal chain traces back to a first cause," needs to explain how it is that material causal chains trace back to origins from which they're materially disconnected.
These two big and unresolved issues motivate me to charge you with evasion.
Quoting Philosophim
Again, I'm not herein focused on the simple transitive property you keep repeating.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
No. You fail to note the importance of "distinction" in context here. I'm specifically talking about what sets off first cause from its causations. The emphasis here is on the physical relationship between first cause and its causations, not on the definition of first cause. If I were muddled about the definition of first cause, I would've asked: "What's the definition of first cause?"
Now the question arises: "How is the second law of conservation preserved?" You must answer this question about one of the foundational planks upon which physics stands.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
For this reason, you must explain and justify the partition you posit between a first cause and the set of its causations. It is clear to you that partitioning first cause from its causal chain implies a citation from empirical evidence, right? Since causation is specifically concerned with how one thing causes another thing, it follows that claiming first cause is not directly connected to its set of causations results from direct observation of this disjunction.
I make this argument, in part, because we don't say "causation" when we talk about a chain of reasoning evaluating to a conclusion.
If you do have a logical proof first causes are separate from their sets of causations, I wonder why you don't present it. It's reasonable to think it essential to your proposition.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
You charge me with attacking you instead of attacking your thinking supporting the proposition. Is it not possible for a living organism to be a first cause? If so, I've misunderstood what you've been telling me about a first cause: "There are no limitations on the inception of a first cause."
If there's truth in my defense here, then the accusation of a personal attack flies back in your direction: you're hurling at me a derogatory opinion about my frustration with your perceived endurance of the veracity of your proposition.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
You seem to be forgetting we're talking about first causes. First causes, by your definition, are the inescapable sources of the many causations that populate our world. Causations always trace back to them. Well, that includes the human population. There's no doubt of it; you're first causes hold the position of God. Inescapable God needs to be inspirational, or is the universe really that cruel?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
This is an argument not for causation -- first or otherwise -- but against it. It's a recognition and endorsement of self-actualization. Well, first cause and self-actualization being twins, you've inadvertently supported the denial first cause and its set of causations are separate. After all, humans and gods alike, we're all in the same boat.
Ironically, this endorsement -- meant to exalt God and humanity together -- trivializes the logical dimensions of first cause in isolation. The interweave of God and humanity self-actualizing together -- an existential project -- dwarfs the importance of logical isolation.
Then please be more clear. When you just throw a sentence with a question I have very little to go on. You need to give more context to your question. What are you intending? What are you trying to say? Are you asking the question as a challenge, or as a means for clarification? I don't know half the time and its frustrating when I'm trying to engage with you honestly when you do this.
Quoting ucarr
Now this is much clearer. Try to give context and examples like this to your questions in the future Ucarr and we'll both have a better time. Yes, its not a member of the set of causations that involve time. But that set is a portion of the entire chain of causality. Lets say that there was an answer. A -> 2T + infinity = Y. In other words, the infinite universe was caused by something else. Now you can see the set is not the entire causal chain, but a part. Did A cause that specific eternal universe? Yes or no. And if nothing caused that eternal universe, then the final answer to the causal chain of why that eternal universe existed is that it was not caused by anything else.
Another way to see it is look at it as a finite universe, 2T + 1 = Y where the limit of T is 1. Or a finite universe with infinite sets of causality on its inception 2T + infinity = Y where the limit of T is 1. Or a universe with finite causality but infinite time 2T + 1 = y where the limit of Y is 0 but T has no limits. In all cases there's still the question, what caused it to be? And in all these potential cases, there is nothing else that caused this to be. The set is just a representation of a part of the causal chain Ucarr, not the entirety of the causal chain itself. The first cause is always part of the causal chain, as it is the start of the chain.
Quoting ucarr
So that's an indicator to please add more context to your questions. Explain your thinking behind them. Otherwise I'm just guessing or assuming what you're meaning, and it may not be what you intended.
Quoting ucarr
The physical relationship? I don't know, this is not an empirical assessment. This is an examination of a causal chain which is a question of, "What necessarily prior lead to this state of existence". We can capture a state of existence in as much or as little time as needed. "What happened 5 second ago to cause the current state of affairs? Ten seconds. 1 million seconds. What if we just examine what lead to the state result after all of the seconds? Why do we exist today? The big bang. What caused the big bang? Nothing. Lets take all of the seconds if they are infinite. What lead to the state of all of this existing? Nothing.
Quoting ucarr
I thought we already covered this on the idea that the first cause's inception is not bound by laws of causation. If you intend something else, please give an example of what you mean to this question.
Quoting ucarr
Again, I've never claimed this. You are confusing a set as the entire causal chain instead of a part of the causal chain.
Quoting ucarr
When i asked what you thought about this:
Quoting ucarr
You didn't answer the question. You made it about me.
Quoting ucarr
How else am I to interpret this? I wasn't attacking you, I was pointing out not to give your opinion about what you think of me, and just keep to the question about the theory.
Quoting ucarr
No, the only things I've been frustrated with are one sided questions without further explanation or not answering my question by giving an opinion on what you think about me. You are allowed to have your frustrations with me as well, I'm not perfect. Noting them helps each of us learn to give the other better communication and intent.
Quoting ucarr
By physical I definitely mean existent. I can't tell you the exact mechanism between every cause. But causality can be simplified to, A exists which leads to B existing. So again, A -> B -> C. If there is no A, B is the first cause. If there is nothing that exists which causes A, then A is the first cause.
Quoting ucarr
Yes. We went over this in depth with the idea of a first cause as an atom remember? We talked about all the parts, and how they would need to incept all at the same time, which technically means each part is a first cause that just happened to line up with the other first causes? We can shorten that specification to anything like 'a living thing'. This one has been a while and we've only gone over it once. If you need more than the reminder, feel free to ask.
Quoting ucarr
For the universe to be cruel there would need to be intent. There's no intent. Its not cruel or kind. It simply is. We as conscious beings can make the universe cruel or kind. My point is even if there existed a conscious God that had a plan, that plan would be completely made up by God with no higher purpose behind that God itself. Its the same boat no matter what. So smile, treat others well, and live a good life. :)
Quoting ucarr
I don't understand how self-actualization is against the idea of a first cause. They're two separate things in my book. I think a logical realization that ultimately, the reason for the universe is no higher than its uncaused inception, helps us to realize how important it is that we make something good out of what's here. Mud in the ground has no use on its own, but with some care you can make a house right? Take what's in the universe, enjoy it, and make it better than what it is in itself. Give it the meaning only you can.
Well if so, name at least one non-contingent, or impossible to change or be changed (i.e. necessary), fact. :chin:
Quoting Philosophim
With all due respect, Philo, I think you are mistaken: nothing causes A, etc (re: random vacuum fluctuations).
You're exactly the person to ask this of in relation to the old, something from nothing trope. My question is: as far as we know everything in our universe is contingent - but what of potential realities outside of this, outside of our knowledge? Or before the singularity, etc? Do we know enough about reality to know if contingency is a necessary phenomenon?
and also that "our universe" itself – a fact – is contingent
What of "them"? Whether or not "they" are (or consist in) non-contingencies, such "potential realities" would be both astronomically remote from and fundamentally unrelated to "our universe" (and its, as Witty says, totality of facts.)
"Before" (a temporal relation) spacetime does not makes sense ... and accounting for QG (rather than just GR), Hartle-Hawking hypothesizes that the BBT does not require an initial "singularity".
I don't think "we know" anything at all about "reality" except that it constrains reasoning and thereby whatever is/can be known. When I wrote
Quoting 180 Proof
I'd assumed facts (only) as constituents of "our universe" and meant for you / someone to posit either a concrete (i.e. known) or a conceivable (i.e. rationally understood) fact that is impossible to change or be changed.
Your description of Causation sounds similar to my own thesis of Enformationism. It takes the Power to Transform (EnFormAction : energy + form + action) as the fundamental fact of the world. Physicists tend to refer to it as a Universal Quantum Field, from which all kinds of Matter may emerge. Like Energy though, EFA is not a material thing, but a dynamic Potential to cause changes in physical constitution and in metaphysical form : "changing form" ; "shape-shifting".
My unconventional notion of Causal Information can be traced back to quantum physicist J. A. Wheeler's "It from Bit" postulation. It's also indirectly related to Tegmark's Mathematical Universe hypothesis. In my blog posts, I often refer to EnFormAction (power to transform) as a "shape-shifter". And that concept of "changing form" is exemplified in Einstein's E=MC^2 equation of causal Energy with sensible mathematical Mass, which we experience as real tangible Matter.
This unorthodox mash-up of physics & metaphysics is hard to grasp, but once you get-it, that understanding of how the world is "net-worked" by Causation will explain a lot of philosophical mysteries. :smile:
Self Organization :
It is as though, as the universe gradually unfolds from its featureless origin, matter and energy are continually being presented with alternative pathways of development: the passive pathway that leads to simple, static, inert substance, well described by the Newtonian of thermodynamic paradigms, and the active pathway that transcends these paradigms and leads to unpredictable, evolving complexity and variety.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
The many forms of Information :
But the universal substance of reality might be called an Information Field, analogous to a Quantum field as an immaterial pool of potential.
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page29.html
The EnFormAction Hypothesis :
That neologism is an analysis and re-synthesis of the common word for the latent power of mental contents : “Information”. “En” stands for energy, the physical power to cause change; “Form” refers to Platonic Ideals that become real; “Action” is the meta-physical power of transformation, as exemplified in the amazing metamorphoses of physics, whereby one kind of thing becomes a new kind of thing, with novel properties.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
No worry, challenge away! You have a lot of experience and a keen mind, I definitely want to hear what you think.
I don't think we're in disagreement here. A "first cause" as I define it is the beginning of a causal chain. Meaning a first cause is not a 'first caused', but something which exists as the start of every chain of causal questioning. A first cause 'is'. Which means that yes, nothing causes A. But A is the start. In your case, the universe has no start, but has always existed. There is nothing which caused the universe to always exist. There is nothing which caused a 'start'.
And that's the beginning of the causal chain which explains our universe. If we were to take all the causal history of our universe and place it into a set, there would still be the question, "What caused the universe to be infinite and have always existed?" The answer is: "Nothing". There was nothing which caused our universe to exist in this way, it simply does. There are now no more questions of prior causality to explore. Thus the start of the causal chain, or the first cause.
My goal is to nuance the following premise: “Logically, an infinite causal chain cannot exist that does not inevitably arrive at a first cause."
I will argue that given an eternal universe – which can be construed as an infinite causal chain – a precisely determinable first cause is not possible.
I will show why an infinite causal chain cannot inevitably and precisely arrive at a first cause.
Question – Has pi been situated on the number line? Answer – Yes, but asymptotically.
Philosophim, you’re establishing a set containing an infinite series and then counting back to its start point and asserting no prior member to the start point can exist.
Can an infinite series be counted? Yes, but there are rules for doing this type of counting.
Your domain of operations for this premise is set theory.
For the math representation of your premise, you need an equation that computes toward the limits bounding your infinite series. In other words, you must treat the volume of your infinite set as an approximation forever approaching a limit.
Structurally speaking, you’re concerned with infinite volume of membership juxtaposed with limited extent.
Your input values need to all be finite and configured with math operators that compute for approximation towards the limits bounding your infinite series.
Your language for your premise needs to draw a parallel: Infinite causal chains are infinite series made empirical and bounded by eternal existence instead of by limits.
My Argument – Infinity is not a discrete number. It therefore cannot be precisely situated on the number line. It therefore cannot be precisely sequenced in a series populated with numbers. For these reasons, infinite values cannot be computed directly.
In order to compute an infinite value, you must treat it as if it’s a discrete number; this is achieved through approximation to a number. In its calculation with infinite values, calculus establishes limits toward which infinite series approximate; it’s as if they’re discrete numbers situated on the number line.
A parallel to these calculations of calculus are sequences of reasoning towards axioms. An axiom is a limit for logical reasoning. It cannot be precisely sequenced within a chain of logical reasoning. Logic approximates toward its axioms just as calculus approximates toward infinite values, i.e., toward limits.
The Crux: QM Governs Cosmology – an infinite causal chain cannot have a precise first cause because it amounts to putting the whole number line – infinite in volume – within itself. Infinite values can be bounded (as argued above) but they cannot be definitively sequenced.
Claiming an infinite series has a precise first cause is an irrational attempt to sequence an infinite value within itself. Put another way, it’s the attempt to make something – a number sequence – greater than itself. This is a paradox. The compatibility of an infinite value with sequencing must be asymptotically approached as an infinite progression towards a limit.
The empirical parallel to the above argument is the attempt to sequence being – general existence – logically. You cannot precisely sequence general existence logically, that is, you cannot definitively attach a first cause to general existence for the same reason you cannot discretely sequence the whole number line within itself. The attempt to do so involves putting general existence into a logical sequence as if it were rationally compatible with reasoning. You cannot reason definitively with imprecisely sequenceable values, i.e., with infinite values.
Premise – Imprecise sequenceability, an attribute of an infinite value, such as the whole number line or general existence, precludes definitive analysis. Without definitive analysis, infinite values can only be axiomatic. Axioms are the necessary start points of analysis. They can be forever approached as an approximation to a limit, and this is an analytical_logical process, but the asymptote does not equal the limit. So, there can be a logical approach to proof of infinite values, but no complete and final proof of them. Well, analysis_logic is rooted in continuity, and there is a gap in the continuity linking infinite values with analysis_logic.
This gap is the door-ajar entrée for QM into our universe.
Given these limitations, the attempt to sequence an infinite value amounts to claiming a given thing is greater than itself; this irrational claim holds moot sway within QM, as in the instance of superposition; prior to measurement, the cat is neither dead or alive. This points our reasoning mind towards an eternal universe without a discrete first cause being possible.*
My Conclusion - The nuancing of: “Logically, an infinite causal chain cannot exist that does not inevitably arrive at a first cause."leads to "Moot Instead of Necessary." So, at the matrix of 3D+T, an infinite causal chain probabilistically arrives at an ad hoc, QM super-positional first cause towards the next-order matrix of dimensional expansion.
Undefined> 1/0 (nothing-to-something).
Within the objective materialism of modern science, logic and computation assume axiomatically the eternal existence of matter, energy, motion, space, and time. These five fundamentals preclude any direct connection between something and nothing. Therefore, all existing things are mediated through the fundamental five.
Nothing-to-something takes forever when the bounded infinity structure – infinite volume within limited extent – applies.
If we represent the infinite series of nothing-to-something as undefined, or 1/0, and observe that infinitely small approximates to the limit of zero, then infinitely-small-to-zero and its reverse take an infinite amount of time. So, speaking logically and computationally, nothing-to-something is a bounded infinity of undefined.
*Of course, a thing-greater-than-itself is really just the fun-house mirror distortion of higher-dimensional expansion as seen in its collapsed state at our level of perception at 3D+T. In actuality, superposition is the whereness of a material object with more than 3 spatial dimensions. Because whereness beyond 3D is so radically different, it renders QM’s insights into higher dimensional whereness as whacky gross distortions of normal whereness, i.e., common sense perception of material objects at the dimensional expansion of 3D+T.
And thus, as I've pointed out already , it's not a "first cause" but is the only cause (e.g.) à la Wheeler's one electron postulate.
Not quite. For me, existence itself (i.e. no-thing / vacua (à la atomist void or spinozist substance)), not "the universe" – a random inflationary fluctuation (according to QG), "always exists" (how could it not?)
This is so because "prior causality" is as incoherent as "prior existence" or "prior randomness" or "prior spacetime" ...
Analogously, the number line itself (i.e. infinity) is not the "first" number. Zero is not the "first" number. Logically, there cannot be a "first" number, Philo. Wherever we happen to "start" counting is not necessarily "first" in the sequence of events.
I personally cannot ascribe to that view of causality. My communication is in terms of causality in the normative sense of "what is necessary for X outcome to exist". However, my view of causality can express itself in a similar way. I've noted earlier that we can set the identity of the 'result' as lumped together as we wish. For example, I can ask, "What caused America to be discovered" is not the same as asking, "What caused the ball to move 1 meter at 90 degrees one second prior?"
Taking the later example to its end, this can go both ways. I could group all the time after an effect and look at the moment right before it all as its cause. So, just like the idea that "Everything in the universe prior to this time caused the ball to move a this second", I can reverse it and say, "Everything in this universe up to this second was caused by what?" With a finite universe this is more apparent. "The big bang caused everything else that followed".
In an infinite universe, the totality of causation that we're looking at is the universe itself. So, in the case of the manifestation of a single entity (Like the electron), I can still ask, "What caused that single entity to be?" Your reply that there is no answer is the answer. Nothing caused it to be. It simply is. So I don't think we're at odds here besides semantics.
Quoting 180 Proof
Whether we use 'the universe' or 'existence' its all the same to me. "What caused existence?" is as you noted, an absurd question. Because the answer is nothing. Some existence cannot have caused existence to be. If that's the case then there was no limitation on what could have or not have existed. There is only what is, but to ask "What caused it to be?" has the logical answer, "Nothing". Thus we can state rationally that no matter how the universe incepted, whether it truly is infinite, or truly is finite (empirical claims which no one has proven yet) the logical answer will always be the same to "What caused it to be?"
Quoting 180 Proof
The difference here is instead of calling the question incoherent, I simply not the answer. Anything other than "Nothing" devolves into an incoherent argument for sure.
Quoting 180 Proof
Correct, but we're not talking about the number line. I had to note that earlier to others that I am not talking about a mathematical origin which is customizable. I am talking about a line of questioning, a chain of causation, upon which we meet an end. No matter if the universe is infinite, 'always existed', finite, or any other variation of universe a person wishes to propose, we will always reach an end while navigating its regression. This end, which is "What caused this universe to exist?" is always, "Nothing". It is "0". That is the first cause, not a number on a number line.
"Nothing / O" = beginning-less =/= first (anything). As for "the universe", QG describes it as (in my words) a random inflationary quantum fluctuation, perhaps one out of infintely many; you commit a compositional fallacy, Philo, arguing from the causal structure intrinsic, or dynamics internal, to "the universe" to the conclusion that "the universe" is the effect of a "first cause" that is extrinsic, or external, to it when, in fact, our best science (QG) describes "the universe's" earliest planck diameter as a random event – a-causal. The "BB" didn't happen c13.81 billion years ago – the limit of contemporary cosmological measurements – but is, in fact, still happening ("banging") in the manifest form of the ongoing development – expansion – of the Hubble volume (i.e. observable region of spacetime). Again, neither logic nor physics agrees with your conclusion. Your argument only works, Philo, with pre-modern, non-scientific premises but today is, at best, not sound.
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting 180 Proof
What if I characterize nothingness as undefined somethingness, and represent it as 1/0, with
no-beginning zero = potential matter-energy-motion-space-time moving infinitely across time towards something. Does this imply a category of something-not-exactly-existential?
My attempt at naming something not-exactly-existential is strained and probably fallacious, but I'm trying to honor a metaphysical notion that nature always hedges her bets, even re: the phenomenon of eternal existence.
Quoting 180 Proof
Quoting 180 Proof
Quoting 180 Proof
I see your commentary here as an elaboration and illumination of my enduring intuition something is fundamentally wrong with separating an existing thing from all other existing things, and also something is fundamentally wrong with partially separating any component of a causal chain from its associate causations.
I do not claim that a first cause is extrinsic to the universe. A first cause is merely the point in the chains of causality throughout the universe that lead to the point in which there is nothing prior.
Quoting 180 Proof
I agree that a first cause is true randomness. What I'm calling a 'first cause' is acausal in its inception. If the earliest plank diameter is uncaused, or true randomness, then it fits the definition of 'first cause'. Once again, we're not at odds, just taking a different semantic route to get to the same conclusion. One of Ucarr's main contentions with my claim of a first cause is that a first cause is an instance of true randomness. True randomness is the lack of limitations on what could, or could not have been. Not like the constraints of rolling a die which are really just a lack of knowledge which would necessarily lead to the outcome.
Quoting 180 Proof
I make no claims that the big bang is, or is not a first cause. The idea that the bang is 'still happening' is the same to me as, "Causality is continuing." to understand what I mean, let me use an example. Pretend that an atom appears uncaused. By this I mean it is a completely true random event. One second, no atom, and the next, an atom. From the moment of the atom's inception, it enters into causality. In your view, the atom would still be 'atoming'. :)
Each tick of time is a step in this chain. So at the moment of inception, it is a first cause. The second moment of its existence is caused by the continual existence of the first moment of its existence. And so on and so forth. So if the atom exists for five minutes, as an example we can break down each second and ask, "What caused the atom to exist at 3:49?" This could be explained anywhere prior in the causal chain. We could simply reference 3:48. Or the set of time between 1 and two minutes. Or the entire five minutes its existed. But eventually we would reach the point of inception, and there would be no further causality. That moment where there is no prior causality, is the moment of first cause. I view the big bang in the same way assuming that it happened to be a first cause.
Taking a universe that is infinite, "The big bang has always existed." for example, results in nothing different. We can take any time within that infinity, and ask what prior causes lead to that moment. We can even take the entire set of causality within the infinite universe that has happened and still ask, "What caused this to happen?" That is the moment of first cause. We have reached the point in which the answer is nothing, which by consequence means its existence is true randomness.
To be clear, I am not claiming any one thing that has been discovered so far is a first cause. I'm just addressing the point that logically, there is a limit to prior causality and that we will eventually reach a point in our causation query in which there is no prior cause for some existence. The causation query should not be confused with the time that has passed, but the point in our query in which there is no other answer.
If you understand, you may be asking what the value is in my proposal.
First, science may change. What is considered the first cause of today, plank diameter, may be found to have been caused by something else as science and technology change. Yet the conclusion I've made here does not.
Second, no one can make a claim that "X is a necessary first cause" without extensive proof. Meaning that a claim of a particular God, Big Bang, or even Plank length formation, must be proven to have had no prior cause. The idea of any of these being necessary first causes by logic is out.
Third, this opens up a very interesting possibility. If a first cause is truly random, what's to prevent another first cause from happening? There isn't any. True randomness cannot be constrained or predicted. Could we examine a spot of nothingness over time and monitor if 'something' happened out of the blue? Even if we discovered something, we would still need to prove it was truly random, but it adds an interesting wrinkle in the examination and possibly even history of your universe.
Finally, I believe its more palatable to a general audience. Causality, like it or not, is still part of the common vernacular in both daily speech, and yes, science. Despite many people's claims that 'science disregards causality', I have found that mostly only philosophers do so. Causality is alive in well in generally practiced science. I believe the concept generates a conclusion that doesn't require a great leap in logic, or a paradigm shift in thinking. Its simple, yet leads to I think a logical conclusion that can be agreed upon. If you remain unconvinced, that's fine, I'm just trying to flesh out the logic a bit to demonstrate we might be on different roads but are reaching a similar conclusion.
This is the crux of our disagreement. I understand 'randomness' to mean uncaused, acausal, without cause; you are denying this, claiming the opposite – that randomness itself (as if its an entity rather than a property) is a "first cause". This difference is more than a semantic dispute, sir. One of us is spouting jabberwocky ... :roll:
Ok, sounds good.
Quoting ucarr
I'm grouping all of the causality within an infinite universe in a set which then leads to one final question of causality, "What caused all of that causality?" This is commonly stated as, "What caused the universe?" So I'm not counting back to any start point. I'm noting that the starting point in causality is "What caused the universe?"
Quoting ucarr
Sure, the limit for time in an infinite universe is infinity.
Quoting ucarr
Incorrect. Infinity is a representation of a set of numbers. Just like 23 represents a set of 23 ones. Read here: https://www.mathnasium.com/math-centers/sherwood/news/what-infinity-sher#:~:text=In%20Math%2C%20%E2%80%9Cinfinity%E2%80%9D%20is,mathematician%20John%20Wallis%20in%201657.
If you want to say I'm wrong, you're going to have to prove I am wrong, not merely say I am.
Quoting ucarr
I don't understand this, can you go a little more in depth?
Quoting ucarr
Math is symbolic representation of quantities. You can symbolically represent infinity. You may not have heard of Georg Cantor's work on infinite sets. Here's an intro: https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/mathematics/georg-cantor-the-man-who-discovered-different-infinities/
Quoting ucarr
Incorrect again. Read Cantor.Quoting ucarr
Ucarr, randomly bringing quantum mechanics into this isn't going to work either. You misunderstand that statement and what it means. I can go into depth on this later if needed, but you need to understand Cantor and infinities first.
Quoting ucarr
An assumption does not prove that the assumption is correct. For our current purposes assuming such is fine for calculations, but is not proof itself that it is true.
Quoting ucarr
You don't want to go this route Ucarr. I can say it doesn't because when there is nothing, there is no time. On the other hand, if you include time what you're saying is that an infinite amount of time would have to pass to get to this moment. Ucarr, if the universe has existed for infinite time, didn't you just disprove that the universe has always existed?
Read up on Cantor and revisit this.
Let me clarify. Randomness is not causing anything. "Randomness" does not exist as a thing. Its a concept. Let me word it this way: A big bang (as an example) incepts. Prior to its inception, there was nothing. Since nothing caused it, we conclude it was completely random. But that doesn't mean 'randomness' caused the big bang. We just realize logically that if nothing caused it, it was not constrained to happen or not happen. Proving a logical first cause must exist proves that true randomness has existed and thus could continue to exist.
On the flip side, the claim that a plank length is truly random does not prove that it is truly random.
"So why is the Planck length thought to be the smallest possible length? The simple summary of Mead's answer is that it is impossible, using the known laws of quantum mechanics and the known behavior of gravity, to determine a position to a precision smaller than the Planck length. Pay attention to that repeated word "known." If it turns out that at very small lengths, some other version of quantum mechanics manifests itself or the law of gravity differs from our current theory, the argument falls apart. Since our understanding of subatomic gravity is incomplete, we know that the statement that the Planck length is the smallest possible length is on shaky ground."
https://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2013/today13-11-01_NutshellReadMore.html
There is always the proposal that we simply can't detect something smaller now, but we will be able to one day. Thus its not logically proven that plank length is truly random, or if true randomness can exist. However, my logical proof of a first cause consequently logically proves that true randomness exists. Because to your point a property of something acausal is that it existence is entirely random.
Is true randomness a phenomenon; is inception of first cause an event? These questions are meant to suggest how all things -- including true randomness -- generate networks of connections that contextilize their identites.
Can what could or could not have been lie beyond probability in the case of true randomness? Does the concept of true randomness suggest to you its bond with time forever approaching but never reaching actuality? This question is meant to suggest entropy weakening true randomness to something not authentically random. More specifically, this question is meant to suggest every thing -- because of its existence -- generates entropy. In this particular context, the irony is that entropy -- the measure of increasing randomness -- diminishes the purity (non-randomness) of true randomness. (This also suggests there is no purity because there is no total isolation).
Is probability only possible in the absence of true randomness? This question is meant to suggest the presence of probability generates a measure of determinism regarding the outcome of events.
Quoting Philosophim
Is rolling a die more phenomenal than inception of a first cause? This question is meant to suggest any event -- including inception of a first cause -- by the fact of its existence, prevents true randomness; if something exists, the specificity of its existence as a particular thing with specific dimensions and attributes means that its process of being created is not random; creation cannot carry out a design of creation toward a specific thing by means of true randomness; there's no initial period of a thing's existence when, during its coalescence into a clearly defined thing, its being randomly assembled with the randomness of its assemblage gradually diminishing to zero.
Is inception of a first cause less eventuary than rolling a die? This question is meant to suggest events cannot happen with their determinism at zero.
Is inception of a first cause less presential than rolling of a die? This question is meant to suggest the presence of a specific thing (all things are specific) precludes the pure isolation of from nothing. Moreover, a particular thing-in-itself cannot be a first cause in of itself because -- per QM -- a thing-in-itself cannot only be a thing-in-itself. From Heisenberg we have reason to believe we can't know every essential attribute of a thing simultaneously, and thus we infer that all things are networked and thus we infer that no apparently distinct thing is truly distinctly alone and only unto itself. There is no transitional period when a thing is distinctly alone and unto itself in a process of transformation into existence within the natural universe governed by the laws of physics.
Quoting Philosophim
Imagine that each causation within a causal chain -- because of the fact of its existence -- generates a prior (or subsequent) causation. How does the chain of causation reach the point of no prior (or subsequent) causation?
Quoting Philosophim
Let us suppose true randomness is not a process. Is it still a phenomenon? This question is meant to suggest that if true randomness is to any degree intelligible -- as in the case of it being a phenomenon, even if not a process to a specifiable end, then it must possess a specificity of form and content and this is a curiously ironic entropy-by-presence of a particular thing that diminishes the non-randomness of "pure" randomness (I say non-randomness of "pure" randomness because I equate "true" with "pure." By definition it is something wholly unmixed and that implies absolute isolation (extreme disequilibrium). But if a thing is specific in its form and content, it cannot be wholly isolated because specificity of form and content is naturally connected to prior specificity of form and content by the design of the agency that brought it into being. If this were not so, the particular thing would not have been brought into being. Because of what we know from QM (superposition) we know this applies no less to self-creation. So, the phenomenal thing -- through the agency of its existence as a specific thing -- ironically randomizes the purity of true randomness by agency of the entropy of its presence.
If existence is eternal, you're metaphysically constraining existence to a binary structure of "to be" or "not to be." Do you feel completely comfortable excluding a grayscale gradient between "to be" or "not to be"?
Suppose you could choose whether or not the universe is binary or complex. Which would you choose?
Quoting ucarr
You are counting back to a start point: Quoting Philosophim
Logic is the soul of your argument; logic is continuity; many times have you written, in your own words, for every causal chain we can count back until it's not possible to count back any further; this is the start point,i.e., the first cause.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Computing with Infinity
Can you show me one equation in your reference that doesn't compute to infinity? Yes, you can. There's one equation that computes to "undefined."
So, all of your authorizing equations compute to a non-specific value. You want to represent an infinite causal chain mathematically. You use ? for the representation. Okay. What's important to your argument, by my interpretation, is logically working back through an infinite causal chain to a first cause which has nothing prior to it. Your first cause is not non-specific. Arguably, its most important attribute is its well-defined position in specificity as number one. The heart of your premise entails tracing back to a well-defined number one position for the start of real things.
Can you cite an equation with infinity as an input value that computes to a well-defined discrete position on the number line? It needs to be a number neither irrational nor approximate.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
You're making a logical argument about the beginning of causal chains of real things. You've said this is true for a universe posited as existing eternally. Set theory has an established procedure for binding infinite series with limits that can be mathematically approximated to with no final arrival at the limit.
The point in our context here is that this insuperable disjunction between a bounded infinite series and its limit is evidence your premise is incoherent: the infinite series you're tracing back to first causes cannot reach their first causes. There's a gap of separation within your thought experiment you can approximate to mathematically, but you can't bridge that gap.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
In my quote you don't see me denying infinity can be represented symbolically.
In the link to Cantor's differing levels of infinite series, can you cite a passage addressing infinity conceptualized as an infinite series with a discrete starting point?
Cantor's Levels of Infinity
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
You need to highlight a passage in Cantor that addresses discretely sequencing an infinite value on the number line without approximation to a limit. That's what I'm specifically talking about. What are you specifically talking about?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
You need to go into probative details now because: a) you need to meet the same standard you apply to me: Quoting Philosophim; b) show how my reference to QM is random and irrelevant to this context; c) show how my citation of Shrödinger's Thought Experiment is both misunderstood by me and misapplied to this context.
If we represent the infinite series of nothing-to-something as undefined, or 1/0, and observe that infinitely small approximates to the limit of zero, then infinitely-small-to-zero and its reverse take an infinite amount of time. So, speaking logically and computationally, nothing-to-something is a bounded infinity of undefined.
Quoting Philosophim
You're debating against my claim nothingness doesn't exist. How is it you think you can slam dunk my claim by merely stating that nothingness does exist. I see you believe my 1/0 argument is wrong. Where is your argument proving this?
Explain how an eternal universe and a universe with infinite time difffer.
Number 6 in the OP is false, and springs from a conflation of an originally valid conception of causality into a conception of explanation—i.e., number 1 starts with a standard conception of causality about events and by the time one gets to 6 it somehow transformed into a conception about explanations without conceding that the conception changed.
If one sticks to the original use of the conception of causality, then 6 doesn’t follow because an a need to explain an infinite chain of events is not an event; and if they accept the use of causality as merely explanations then 6 doesn’t disprove the possibility of an infinite chain of events (which is required for the OP's conclusion to hold).
Lets break this down again. Probability as we know it is built off of constraints. These constraints are our capability to measure or observe aspects that would be needed for precise calculation. Thus shuffling cards that we cannot see. There is no true randomness in shuffling. If we were looking at the other side we would see exactly where the cards are.
The other constraint we consider are the rules involved. A die bounces because of things like mass and gravity. There are tangible things we can measure combined with things that we cannot measure that allow us to make a probability, or educated guess at a constrained outcome.
True randomness has no constraints. Its not that there isn't something that we can observe or measure, its that there is nothing there to measure at all. Whenever an outcome happens, there was nothing that had to be for it to happen. There was nothing to limit what would be, and nothing to push what would be.
I don't know if this answers your question as 'beyond probability'. In one sense, it is a probability born out of the lack of constraints on rules, and the ultimate restraints on measurements.
Quoting ucarr
Entropy is just the separation of matter and energy from a higher state to a lower state over time. This has nothing to do with true randomness.
Quoting ucarr
Based on how I've defined probability, what do you think?
Quoting ucarr
True randomness is not constrained. Something which can be constrained has laws, and is therefore not truly random. There is nothing to constrain or influence Ucarr. You keep seeing it as a 'thing'. It is a logical concept.
Quoting ucarr
This is only because our measurement impacts the results. The QM level is so small that anything we bounce off of it to detect it is going to alter its velocity. You can get the same effect by bouncing a baseball off of a softball. This has nothing to do with true randomness.
Quoting ucarr
That's the same thing as 2T + infinity = y
Quoting ucarr
What is your definition of phenomenon?
Quoting ucarr
True randomness is not a thing. It is a logical concept and conclusion.Quoting ucarr
QM is not going to help you. You are taking things that exist and trying to impact true randomness as if its some dimension somewhere. Its not. Same with regular randomness. There is not a "90% dimension" where a certain dice roll comes out." We can influence the rules and constraints that exist to give us a logical prediction that changes the odds. But since true randomness is born out of a situation that has no rules or constraints, there is nothing to influence.
There was nothing which could have changed or prevente the inception of the universe Ucarr. It just happened.
Quoting Bob Ross
That's just some poor word choices on my part. I had a few paragraph discussions with others on this, but they never referenced point 6 specifically. I'll go back and edit it to be clearer.
Quoting Philosophim
Lets edit this to: "If there exists an X which caused any infinite causality exists, then its not truly infinite causality, as there is something outside of the infinite causality chain."
Quoting Bob Ross
6 has never been intended to disprove an infinite set of events. The argument accepts that there could ben an infinite or finite set of events.
In the causal chain, yes.
Quoting ucarr
Which one?
Quoting ucarr
Its logic. I've written this before in brief but will reference it again.
Causality can be written as "If A then B" or "If A -> B".
Further in logic we can use the terminology Everything or Something. I won't use the formal symbols because copy pasting annoying. :)
So we have the set 2T + infinity = Y
Does Something -> 2T + infinity = Y? No.
And Ucarr, the logic and math are all ways to break down the argument into a way you can see more clearly. The argument hasn't changed.
Quoting ucarr
Again, you're looking in the wrong place. Look at the logic above.
Quoting ucarr
I don't mind, I just wanted to give you a chance to address the first part because it makes the second part moot.
First, we discussed earlier how true randomness cannot be influenced by anything else. So QM is useless.
Second, the uncertainty principle is all based off of our measuring tools being too strong. The way we measure things is by bouncing smaller particles off of larger things. Usually the particles are small enough that the bounce does not impact its location or velocity. But in the quantum world, what we bounce off of the things we are measuring affects the outcome. We're measuring the smallest things with some of the smallest things, not smaller things.
So in the case of the cat, its not that the cat is both alive and dead before we measure it. Its that the outcome could be that it is alive or dead, but we won't know until we smack it with a particle to see it.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting ucarr
Quoting 180 Proof
We're looking at a metaphysical binary structure for existence, and thus everything conceivable is metaphysically constrained to a fundamental binary. Can we liberate ourselves from this constraint?
You're almost certainly correct in your perception of the status of existence as indivisible lest there be self-contradiction, so that keeps us confined within the binary. And yet, however, we frequently question the existence of things conceived mentally. I know, this is retracing Meinong.
I'm just thinking a possible attack upon the binary might involve configuring an equation that computes a probability that sits between two limits as a bounded infinity. This is supposed to be a mathematical picture of an approach to an existing thing with no arrival, thus partial existence.
With establishment of a grayscale zone between "to be," and "not to be," we might calculate non-binary wave function states that might predict a class of elementary particles hovering between differential_integral functions.
Let's imagine these elementary particles bridge QM and Relativity states. Our work might be moving us toward T.O.E. Consider that tough problems in practice point to unexamined problems in our metaphysical commitments. Perhaps the existence binary is blinding us to the bridge linking QM with Relativity.
I don't know what you are talking about (re: the underlined above).
Quoting 180 Proof
:chin:
Quoting Philosophim
Are you talking about constraints that empower precision of measurement: "our capability to measure or observe," or constraints that limit precision of measurement: "shuffling cards that we cannot see"?
Quoting Philosophim
This puts me in mind of a generalization: There is no true randomness in practice, i.e., in our phenomenal world. In other words, material things, acting through their presence, always insert a measure of determinism regarding outcomes. This is so because material things have entropy attached to themselves. Consequently, the entropy of a material thing diminishes the purity of possible outcomes, i.e., true randomness. So, in our phenomenal world, material outcomes of material things in motion always have a measure of determinism attached. Probability cannot be cancelled in the real world. Therefore, your thought experiment with true randomness is an idealization.
Quoting Philosophim
Yes. This is the real world.
Quoting Philosophim
There is no true randomness outside of a thought experiment.
There is no nothingness outside of its paradoxical presence within a thought experiment. The metaphysical binary of existence confines us to existence via self-contradiction. We cannot exit ourselves from existence, not even via our thought experiments. Your thought experiment re: nothingness is thoroughly embedded within existence. If it weren't, it wouldn't be possible for you to entertain yourself with the thought of it. At no time are you making contact with nothingness, so your arguments from a supposed but fictional nothingness are paradoxical non-starters.
Quoting Philosophim
If by higher state you mean level of organization of material things into functional systems, then explain why level of organization has nothing to do with its opposite: no organization, i.e., randomness?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
I think the answer is "yes." I also think it not possible to have a state of total non-organization. So, no true randomness. If no true randomness, then no general anything-is-possible.
Quoting Philosophim
In a complicated way, thoughts are things.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
True randomness breaks apart all connections of the material universe. Just as you can't observe an elementary particle without changing it, you can't observe true randomness through a thought experiment without changing it. In all cases of what you experience and therefore know, you're connected with the objects of your observation. In your act of observing true randomness, you prevent it from being true.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
As I recall, y is an infinite value, and thus it has no discretely specifiable position on the number line; it's unlimited volume over limited extent between limits. It never arrives at a start point (or an end point).
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Since a phenomenon is an object of a person's perception, what's already been said about observation of a material thing (facts as thoughts are material things) applies here too.
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
With your language you're saying -- literally -- that true randomness does not exist. Well, I agree. The difference between us, however, is that I intend to say that whereas you don't, even though you do. Moreover, by extension of the transitive property, you're saying your thought experiment doesn't exist. I know you think your thought experiment is dimensionless, but your brain is not. No brain, no thought experiment, so your thought experiment, in a complicated way, inherits the dimensions of your brain.
Quoting Philosophim
Within the context of your thought experiment. And, as you think, your thought experiment has no dimensions, so, by your thinking, where does that posit the universe? Well, the one you think incepted from nothingness exists within the context of your thought experiment within your brain. See below for your own verification of this.
Quoting Philosophim
I agree. I would coin this alpha with the term "potential". As potential is inherently defined by itself. It "is" that which can "do". Potential is as potential does. It requires no prior cause but does give rise to time and causality when it acts.
I'll state again, both. I covered that in the first two paragraphs.
Quoting ucarr
Its not a measure of determinism, its determinism. Probability is a an educated guess at what will likely happen based on deterministic rules that we know.
Quoting ucarr
Probability cannot be cancelled. If we have randomly shuffle some cards and pull a card, its a 4/52 chance its a jack. You can change the situation. So if I put one more jack in there its 5/53 chance of pulling a jack. My thought experiment on true randomness is not an idealization, its a correctly concluded conclusion. That which is not caused by something else, has no constraints, and thus prior to its inception could not be predicted. True randomness is the only thing which cannot be predicted.
Quoting ucarr
There is also no probability outside of constraints. Probability is not randomness. It is an educated inductive prediction based on what is known and what cannot be known.
Quoting ucarr
There is zero contradiction in stating that nothing is possible. Its simply the absence of something. Is zero impossible or a contradiction Ucarr? Because zero is a symbolic placeholder for 'nothing'.
Quoting ucarr
No, a higher energy state. Entropy is 'random' because we cannot measure exactly when something will go to a lower state of energy. However, it can be reasonably approximated over time as we have an average decay rate for different forms of matter.
Quoting ucarr
"Yes" does not counter my points. "You think" does not counter the points either. A belief that you cannot have a state of toral non-organization does not counter why its been concluded to necessarily exist.
Quoting ucarr
I'm pretty sure that when you go into space, there's a whole lot of nothing. And there is nothing paradoxical about it. And this is more than 'a thought experiment'. This is a reasoned argument that leads to a logical conclusion. That's what you have to overcome.
Quoting ucarr
True. But in this case the thought is a representation, not actual randomness itself.
Quoting ucarr
Not at all. If the big bang is the first cause of this universe, it was truly random in its inception.
Quoting ucarr
This makes no sense. Please explain why.
Quoting ucarr
Only in the fact that you are observing things that are bouncing off of it like light or sound. If you touch it or impact it that's actual change that you're imparting on it.
Quoting ucarr
What? :D Ucarr, this makes no sense. If something random incepts into existence and I happen to see it, how did I prevent it from incepting?
Quoting ucarr
Correct. I've never claimed it does. That changes nothing of what stated.
Quoting ucarr
I still don't understand what you're trying to say.
Quoting ucarr
I'm saying it does not exist as a dimension dice roll. It does not exist 'as a process' We cannot watch a truly random deck of cards being shuffled. Just like there is no dimension of "coin flipping" that we can influence to change the calculated odds of the coin being 50/50 heads or tails. It does not exist as a 'thing'. An individual coin flip exists as a thing, and we can influence the coin flip. But we can't influence the probability itself. Probabilities in any form are predictive inductive concepts based on the limitations of the known situation. So if I cannot influence the coin predictably nor know what side it will land on, its a 50/50 probability because we have a limitation that it will land on one side or the other. If there are no limitations, then anything is possible. And because there are no limitations, we cannot limit it. Unless you want to declare the logic of 'probability as a concept' is incorrect, you're not going to have any luck demonstrating anything was not possible prior to the inception of a first cause.
Quoting ucarr
This is a logical proof, not an empirical proof. I've mentioned this many times already. This is not just, 'a thought experiment'. You need to logically demonstrate two things:
1. Why a first cause is not necessary.
2. Why a first cause would not be completely random.
You're working too hard to avoid these direct points. If you wish to concede you cannot counter these logical points, then that's fine. But pointing out that its not empirical is not a counter to its logical necessity when I've clearly pointed out this is not an empirical conclusion.
This doesn't resolve the ambiguity but, rather, re-enforces it: when you use the term 'cause' in the infinite chain, it does not refer whatsoever to the same thing as when you use the term 'cause' outside of it. You are using the term 'cause' in two toto genere different senses, and conflating them.
To say that X 'caused' the infinite series of causality is NOT to claim that the infinite series is caused in the same sense as each member of its causality. X 'causing' the infinite series is really an non-causal (in the sense that you used it to discuss the infinite series itself) explanation of why the infinite series is there.
Otherwise, if you mean to refer to 'X "caused" <...>' in the same sense as causality within the series, you are simply not contending with an actual infinite series of causality when positing X: if the infinite series is the totality of all causality, then there is necessarily no causality outside of it and, thusly, X cannot 'cause' the infinite series but, at best, can only be afforded as a brute fact explanation.
Brute facts are not necessarily causes; although they could be.
As far as I understand, and correct me if I am misremembering, your point with 6 is intended to posit the infinite series as itself a cause and to say it is the first; but this only works if one is conflating your two senses of the term 'cause'.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
It's your citation. Find it yourself.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
No. Can you cite a math equation that... (see the underlined above)
Your premise -- Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
Nor has its faulty logical support.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
All I see in the citation to Cantor is math irrelevant to my math claim your equation is a failure.
Quoting Philosophim
My citation is not in reference to your true randomness narrative. It refers to placing an irrational number onto the number line without calculating in terms of limits. Your mistake entails assuming that because you see no connection between our debate and QM, therefore I must be randomly throwing it into the mix.
Quoting Philosophim
Incorrect. Here's a quote from the link below: A common misconception about the uncertainty principle in quantum physics is that it implies our measurements are uncertain or inaccurate. In fact, uncertainty is an inherent aspect of anything with wave-like behavior.
Heisenberg Uncertainty _CalTech
Material things are connected, thus we can't always make complete measurements locally, as in the case of complementary attributes such as position and speed when distributed in waveform. Moreover, these effects are in play at the human scale of experience, but they're too minute to be detected by our senses.
Quoting Philosophim
It is the case the cat is both alive and dead before measurement. Denying this means denying superposition. Is that what you're doing?
Here's what I'm conveying.
Lets say the set of an infinite universes causality can be written as 2T + infinity = y where T is time and Y and the flat numbers are causes. Now lets say someone comes in and says, "Something else caused that infinite universe to be." So a God or some time traveling matter.
A -> 2T + infinity = Y
Quoting Bob Ross
I posted this with the idea that any type of way to get around the argument would go. As noted earlier a God or some timey wimey stuff. Instead of debating whether such a thing is possible, I just thought, "Lets assume it is." So all I'm noting here is that either something caused the infinite universe to exist, or nothing did. If something else did, and that was the first cause, then we have a finite causal chain of logic (if of course nothing caused A to be). And if nothing did, then the answer to what caused the universe to be infinite is the same as "What caused X to exist?" Nothing. Either way, we reach a point in causality in which there is no other cause for a state's existence.
This took me a minute to find what you meant. I thought you meant an equation I had written here. Did you mean my reference to Cantor? If so, what is your point? I don't believe any of the equations I used in my example resolve to undefined.
Quoting ucarr
No, you're ignoring the point. I'm simply using the equation to represent a set. If the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time, will there always be infinite prior causes? Yes. At every point T, will there be additional causes? Yes. If you agree to this, then you agree to the equation. If the form of the equation bothers you, turn it into an array set of values where t is the index. Its the same thing.
If you disagree that this is possible, then explain to me how an infinitely existing universe does not have an infinite amount of prior causes at any second of that universe's existence? Because as I told you before Ucarr, you're treading in disproving that an infinitely existing universe makes any sense. I'm assuming an infinitely existing universe makes sense and is possible. If you agree, then the equation makes perfect sense. You're not fighting against my point Ucarr. You're inadvertently arguing against yours.
Quoting ucarr
This is not an argument Ucarr. If you're just going to give opinions, then my argument stands as logical.
Quoting ucarr
If its not in reference to true randomness, I don't see the point then.
Quoting ucarr
I never said our measurements were uncertain or inaccurate. I stated our measurements affect the outcome.
Quoting ucarr
Agreed. Mathematical wave behavior is a probability. The best example I can give is a light photon can be treated like a wave or a particle. Now does the light electron turn into something else? No, its still a photon. Particle calculations are when we can treat it like a bullet fired from a gun. Waves are when we can only create probable limits. So for example when electrons are floating around an atom, its more of a 'cloud'. Its easier to represent it in a wave equation (bounded uncertainty) vs a particle (Which asserts certainty in its specific location)
And why do we calculate this way? Because at times its impossible to measure something as a particle and waves make it easier.
But, this is getting ridiculous now. How does this have to do anything with the main argument? I'm not seeing any reference to these points I made:
You need to logically demonstrate two things:
1. Why a first cause is not necessary.
2. Why a first cause would not be completely random.
Everything should be in service of this to be on track. This is not a debate about QM unless you can demonstrate why its pertinent to the above two points.
And here is culprit of why your OP doesn't prove that there must be a first cause:
That the infinite series of causality just is, doesn't make it a cause; thusly, it is not a first cause.
The cause of the infinite series of causality is NOT a cause: the use of the term 'cause' in 'the cause of the infinite <...>' is mere accidental word-play. That the infinite series of causality has no explanation for its existence does not entail that it is a cause: it is a brute fact, but not a cause.
If this is true, then the infinite series of causality is a valid option that doesn't collapse into a first cause; whereof every cause is in the infinite chain and the infinite chain itself is a brute fact.
The fundamental problem is that you are using this 'alpha' as a first cause in two different sense. Perhaps it would help clarify by denoting it with two different words. I shall call a cause in the sense of a contingent event a 'cause-e' and a cause in the sense of an explanation a 'cause-i'.
The infinite series of 'causality' is really the infinite series of causality-es, and asking "what caused-e this infinite series?' is an incoherent question, so we throw it out. Asking "what caused-i this infinite series?" is perfectly valid, and the answer is, according to you, 'nothing'. So the cause-i of this infinite series is nothing, and, consequently, the infinite series is a first cause-i in the sense that it is a brute fact.
That it is a first cause-e is incoherent, and makes no sense. That it is a first cause-i has nothing to do with whether or not it is a cause-e. Your argument conflates these two, muddies the waters, and claims that it is merely 'a first cause'. The reason, prima facie, people will disagree with you is that a cause usually, in colloquial and philosophical settings, refers to cause-e, not cause-i.
Bob
Quoting Philosophim
Statistical probability is a math-based science. Calculating probabilities is not educated guesswork. Either the math is correct or it isn't. Uncertainty due to a range of possible outcomes -- soft constraint -- is completely scientific. Don't imagine the casinos in Vegas depend on educated guesswork for their profits.
Quoting Philosophim
Mathematics governs how many ways 52 cards can be shuffled. The number is astronomical, but its not vague.
As you say with 4/52, there's a calculated chance governing possible outcomes. No guesswork.
Quoting Philosophim
If you dial down determinism and probability to zero, you are left with neither form nor content. One might refer to any remainder, if such exists, as undefined. The intelligibility of form and content won't allow your pure randomness to come on stage. Likewise your mind -- the epitome of compact, efficient form and content -- won't allow you to think your way into pure randomness, except paradoxically.
You're correct about rejoicing with Bob Ross over his understanding first cause cannot be verified empirically. Were that the case, with pure randomness extant empirically, you and Bob Ross wouldn't exist. Non-existence cannot contemplate the nature of itself, but existence can and does even to the point of thought experiments that negate it.
Quoting Philosophim
And "This sentence is false."
Quoting Philosophim
Neither. Zero is a number. It holds a place on the number line between -1 and 1. Don't confuse it with non-existence.
Consider: ?={ }; this is the empty set. So, if ?={ } = nothingness and (1) = first cause, then they are disjoint sets, meaning they have no common members. So, the intersection of ?={ } and (1) takes us right back to ?={ }. This is like multiplying any positive number by 0. The result is 0. Also, disjoint sets means first cause and its causations are separated; this is self-contradiction.
This is another refutation of something-from-nothing. As you see above, when nothing has nothing in common with something, nothing persists.
Measuring Entropy
Why can't we measure entropy?
In simple words, entropy is a measure of the disorder of the system. No one can find the absolute value of disorder. But, the change in disorder can be measured. For example, the water molecules in ice are more ordered than in water; and the water molecules in water are more ordered than in vapor phase.
Here is an argument that implies your pure randomness is an idealization. If, as I believe, pure randomness is the absolute value of disorder, then it's not found in nature.
Quoting Philosophim
My belief is based upon my attack upon: 2T+?=Y.
Quoting Philosophim
Firstly, space is not empty; it's a thing. That's why is warps under the influence of massive objects, like the earth. Also, don't confuse emptiness with non-existence. You can walk into an empty room. You can't walk into a non-existent room.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Representations are highly ordered things.
Quoting ucarr
Just above you agreed thoughts are things. Still earlier, you agreed the presence of a thing changes what it observes, so your thoughts observing true randomness change it.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Every infinite causal chain inevitably traces back to its first cause. If it does it's not infinite because infinity never begins. If it doesn't, it's not a causal chain because every causal chain has a first cause.
Quoting Philosophim
My point is that an equation that computes to either infinity or undefined does not represent: "Every causal chain inevitably arrives at a first cause."
Quoting Philosophim
You're saying this while believing an eternal universe with infinite prior causes inevitably arrives at a first cause with nothing prior to it?
Quoting Philosophim
With t as the index, does the index extend to infinity?
Quoting Philosophim
I agree. An eternal universe makes sense. One of it's salient attributes is the absence of a beginning. If you try to say an eternal universe is itself a first cause, you're positing it in its causal role as the outer parentheses set with itself as the inner parentheses set, but you're prohibited from doing so by the rule of set theory that says a set cannot be a member of itself.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Have you forgotten the assessments repeated below, or do you deny they're logical assessments of your logical support for you premise?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting ucarr
Quoting ucarr
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Let me repeat a second time what I repeated above: Quoting ucarr
My reference to QM, therefore, is, in turn, a reference to a first cousin of randomness, quantum certainty. Since elementary particles are also waveforms, and since waveforms and their uncertainties are related to randomness, QM, which deals with these uncertainties, might also be speculated to deal with randomness, this especially given the relationship between random quantum fluctuations and the singularity.
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
From the evidence above, it's clear to me you're talking about gross measurement tools being grossly inaccurate, and moreover, you're claiming The Uncertainty Principle is all about that measurement inaccuracy. If you meant something else, you failed to use the correct words.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Perhaps now -- given the similarity of uncertainty and randomness -- you can see my reference to QM is not random.
Quoting Philosophim
I could show the pertinence of QM within this context, but I acknowledge that that pertinence introduces narratives too far afield from your points.
Quoting Philosophim
Regarding #1 -- My direct attack -- were that my purpose herein -- would be an attempt to show that first cause doesn't exist. I think @180 Proof is doing a successful job in managing that objective.
I'm not directly attacking "first cause is logically necessary." Perhaps it is. This time round, I'm merely trying to set a standard of proof for the claim by examining your logical support in the form of equations. As you know, I deem your current equations a failure.
Regarding #2 -- I'm already on the job of refuting this claim. Below is a copy of my next-to-last posting to this conversation.
Quoting ucarr
Correct. The series itself is not a first cause. The answer to the question, "What caused the infinite universe to exist?" is the first cause. Its, "Nothing". So once we reach that point, we've found our first cause. The infinite universe as a whole exists without something else causing it. The series is HOW the universe exists, or when taken into a set can be used as example of its causal structure over time. But the universe itself isn't caused by anything else.
You also must consider that we're not evaluating the set, we're evaluating the set as part of a causal chain. Once the set is established, there is still the last question in the causal chain. Thus the first cause is, "An infinite universe exists". After that we can use the set to evaluate how exists causally over time.
The key to understanding this is to understand that causes can be grouped. For example, "What caused the universe to exist at this point?" can be answered with, "The entirety of the universe that has existed thus far." And on the flip side, "What has caused the universe to exist through all time and thus far?" the answer is once again, "Nothing, it is uncaused and simply is."
If you wish to call that a 'brute fact', I'm fine with that. My overall point is that anywhere in a causal chain we will always reach a point in which there is no prior cause within the chain.
Quoting Bob Ross
Its a perfectly coherent question. Working through the answer might seem incoherent because people don't like to accept that we've reached an end to causality (and what it entails), but I think its a coherent question with a coherent answer.
Quoting ucarr
Probability is absolutely educated guesswork Ucarr. No one knows what card will be drawn next. Its an educated inference about the future. It might take 49 card draws before we see our first jack despite the odds being 4/52.
Quoting ucarr
Yes, they do. The casino's only survive because the long term odds balance out to their predicted outcomes. There are several points in games where a person cleans out the house. But those points typically don't happen long often enough and often enough to override the losses.
Quoting ucarr
This is the reverse of what I've noted. The more constraints you have, the more deterministic it becomes and the number of possibilities approach zero. A coin has the constraint there only being two sides in consideration, and we are completely constrained on measuring or knowing the force of the quarter toss. That's why there are only two possibilities. Removing all constraints reveals all possibilities and is the negation of determinism. So no, this does not approach a probability of 0.
Quoting ucarr
That doesn't make any sense. If the big bang randomly happened, we're still here. You are confusing true randomness as having to happen all the time, or that it must negate other things that have happened. There is no 'has to' outcome. It doesn't have to happen at any time. It could happen once over there, then happen again over there after a few billion years. The time for a first cause to happen is not a fixed roulette that's happening every second. Its completely unpredictable. Us all existing today is a completely viable outcome from true randomness, as are any and all possible universes.
Quoting ucarr
If you have zero dollars Ucarr, money owned by you does not exist. The debate over zero has gone on for a long time. When it was first introduced many people thought it was impossible as well. We've long settled that debate. It is a representation of non-existence in this instance Ucarr. Completely viable and real. If you want to turn this into a debate about the number zero I think we've long crossed the threshold of reasonable arguments.
Quoting ucarr
I don't see the point. I'm not using an empty set nor multiplying by zero.
Quoting ucarr
Pure randomness has nothing to do with 'the value of disorder' whatever that is. Explain to me how entropy has anything to do with "What caused an infinite universe to exist?" You keep confusing the point that true randomness comes from the result of a first cause being necessarily true. If you want to counter the idea of true randomness, you need to attack what proves it to be true, not the concept of true randomness itself. The concept of true randomness comes about as a necessary conclusion if a first cause is true.
Quoting ucarr
This is poor language use, not a proof. I can walk into a vacuum sealed room right? Or a room empty of air? Non-existence as a concept is quite viable Ucarr. Are you sure the concept of infinity is?
Quoting ucarr
My thoughts on true randomness change true randomness? How? How does my thinking about an atom incepting randomly change true randomness?
Quoting ucarr
You are once again confusing the infinite causality within the universe with the causal chain of that universe. There is still the question in the chain, "What caused that infinite universe to exist?" Either something caused the infinite universe to exist, or it didn't right?
Quoting ucarr
No, and I've never claimed that. "What caused the infinite universe?" is the first question of the causal chain when 'Nothing' is the answer.
Quoting ucarr
Correct. But I'm not doing that because there's another question on the causal chain. "What caused the infinite universe to exist?"
Quoting ucarr
Ok, and I'm going to repeat that this is irrelevant to the question, "What caused the infinite universe to exist?" The set is only meant as a way to capture all of the causality within an infinite universe. Set of X = [all causality within an infinite universe]. The equation was just a way to represent it over time, which is perfectly viable if you believe that infinity exists.
I'll ask you very plainly again, because you keep dodging this. If an infinite universe exists, at any time T does there exist an infinite amount of prior causality? Its a clear yes or no question. If you answer yes, then my equation is fine. if you answer no, then my equation is not fine, but then again, we also just demonstrated an infinite universe is illogical and can't be put on the number line. If you dodge this question again, I'm going to assume you don't want to answer and I'm going to dismiss your complaints about my equation.
Quoting ucarr
How does this relate to our conversation on probability being a set of restrictions that enable us to reasonably guess at a future? How does this relate to a probability that has no restrictions? QM can't cause true randomness. True randomness is uncaused. Nothing causes true randomness, therefore nothing can influence true randomness. QM is still based off a set of restrictions that we know. Its no different then the randomness of a die roll.
Quoting ucarr
This may be a language issue, so I'll point out the definitions.
Inaccurate - Measurements which are unreliable.
Reliable - Measurements which are consistent
Measurements can be accurate despite impacting the target. For example, if I hit a cue ball into a billiard ball with X force, y spin, at Z angle, the ball will billiard ball will reliably result in a set velocity in w direction. Measurements that impact other things are not inaccurate. The fact that the cue ball changes the billiard balls velocity does not mean our measure is inaccurate.
An example of an inaccurate measurement would be a stretchable ruler that constantly fluctuates in size and inches width. Or trying to measure something at a distance by spacing your thumb through the air without precision. QM measurements are not inaccurate, they just affect what is being measured because the size of our measuring tool cannot help but affect the thing being measured.
Quoting ucarr
Perhaps now you can see that your reference to QM does not solve the question, nor does covering this subject do anything for your case.
Quoting ucarr
That's conceding the point then.
Quoting ucarr
Then you have not adequately understood his points or read my counters. He has not. Feel free to answer my counters to him if you think they aren't good.
Quoting ucarr
Then there's really nothing else to discuss. My equations are just ways to help you understand the situation when an infinite universe is proposed. If you don't personally like them or understand them, use the set I gave you. If you don't like that, just use the verbal argument I gave you.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
When a probability is calculated, either the computed probability is right or wrong. So, there's no guesswork involved in computing a probability equation. That the range is what is calculated is not uncertain. When you list 4/52 as a ratio expressing the probability of drawing a certain kind of card within a range of possible draws, there's nothing uncertain about the correctness of this computed ratio. What's uncertain is which particular member of the set computed by the ratio will be chosen and where within the range of possibilities. So, yes. We have to guess what and when one of the four possibilities will be chosen, but that there are four possibilities to be possibly chosen over the specified range is certain. If this weren't so, you wouldn't be quoting the odds as "4/52."
"It might take 49 card draws before we see our first jack despite the odds being 4/52."
The range is from 1 through 49 possible draws. What's uncertain is the exact number of draws within the specified range. The science of probabilities concerns itself with telling you what the range will be. By definition, a range of probabilities is about the range of probabilities, not about exactly when a member will be chosen.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Casinos don't run on educated guesswork. Educated guesswork involves knowledge pertinent to outcomes, but probability, being a science, follows strict rules that govern computations. Do you think pollsters get paid to do educated guesswork about possible outcomes of elections? When tv stations call election results before all of the ballots are tallied, do you think that's educated guesswork?
Your explanation supports my claim (this is an indication we're saying the same thing in different words). In your explanation, you describe what the casinos know. What they know are the odds. Knowing the odds is not educated guesswork. Why do you think successful gamblers -- casinos being the best example -- always know the odds? Also, at a 15% to 30% profit margin, do you think casinos are just getting by?
Quoting Philosophim
This is a simplification of nature. Regarding a higher number of constraints in one situation compared to the number in another situation, the total level of constraint varies complexly rather than simply because of the possibility of constraints upon constraints.
Quoting Philosophim
Removing constraints in relation to determinism is governed bi-directionally. At the top end of the continuum of determinism, removal of constraints increases possibilities up to a point, and then the effect reverses if there isn't a certain amount of checking constraints maintained at the bottom end of the continuum of determinism.
The process of removal of constraints can't go all the way to a total removal of constraints because that would mean total removal of intelligibility. You won't have any real and useful things if all constraints are removed because real and useful things -- being the products of constraints -- necessarily introduce intelligibility into a medium. Any medium populated by intelligible things has necessary constraints upon both the parameters of the medium itself as well as upon the intelligible things populating the medium. Without this no form, no content, no consciousness perceiving form and content. This is another way of arguing against the possibility of nothingness* and true randomness.
*Nothingness is a thing. It's not possible to reason with unthingly nothingness because its not possible for existence to transcend itself.
Quoting Philosophim
Can it ever happen? If true randomness exists empirically, the fact of its existence contradicts the definition of its existence. Any type of existing thing has a measure of determinism attached to it as a thing in itself. It would not be intelligible were this not the case. Kant might be right that we can't know a thing in itself, but I think he's only right up to a point. By his narrative, we can know a thing in itself as a thing that can't be known, otherwise what is he talking about?
Quoting Philosophim
Incorrect. Money owned by me in this situation can be represented by the number zero. So, I own money at volume zero. Don't confuse zero with nothing. Zero represents a specific volume of something, thus the representative and the thing represented are alike not nothing. Also, consider: $0.10 compared with $.010. Ten cents is ten times greater than one cent, a big difference. By changing the position of the zero in relation to the decimal point, the value decreased by a factor of 10. That zero effects that change is evidence that representation of nothing and being nothing are two different things.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
The statement makes an explicit point: nothing interacting with something always results in nothing. So, no something-from-nothing. There's only nothing from nothing. You've argued that nothing in your argument is not a thing. With nothing as a thing, say, a thing represented by zero, nothing-as-a-representable-nothing can interact with something along the lines of (0)X=0. Nothing that is not a thing cannot be discussed without contradiction.
Philosophim's Main Premise -- Every causal chain inevitably arrives at a first cause.
This being your main premise, a claim that inhabits the domain of set theory, everything you write in the conversation -- in order to be pertinent -- should hold reference to set theory. Therefore, I'm advancing a pertinent argument in this conversation whenever I employ set theory logic within my arguments.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Firstly, how can you make a declaration of fact about something you know nothing about?
Quoting Philosophim
Isn't this what you believe? You're the one propounding first cause from nothing.
Quoting Philosophim
You keep telling me how to manage my argumentation. Are you trying to control my narrative? When I couple this behavior with you repeatedly telling me not to draw my own inferences from what you write, and declaring that, instead, I should ask for your explanations of your meanings, I conclude that, firstly, you're trying to focus my attention on your intended meanings as distinguished from what you write and, secondly, that you have scant respect for the independence of my thinking. I'm inclined to think you are a bully. This isn't ad hominem; it's a reasoned argument drawn from the evidence cited here.
Quoting Philosophim
Either point of attack is sound.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
This is an argument. It's your job to disprove it.
Quoting Philosophim
In making your sequence of argumentative statements, you leave out one crucial statement: I can walk into a non-existent room. Why do you leave out this statement?
Quoting Philosophim
Firstly, infinite causal chains are central to your premise. Is this an admission your premise is therefore flawed? Secondly, I'd like to see you argue against the logical merit of infinity as a concept, thereby simultaneously arguing against the logical merit of your premise.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Your thoughts are organized. The content of your thoughts are likewise organized. "True randomness" within your reasoning thoughts is light years removed from what you intend it to mean. Organization and disorder always fight on contact. Be thankful that organization, in your case, continues to win. Do you imagine you could reason with true randomness in an argument if your mind was randomized?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
I've been arguing an infinite series doesn't arrive anywhere specific. That means the infinite series does not arrive at its limit, the universe. So that, in turn, means no final position along the infinite series has been reached, thus triggering the encounter with its first causation. Let's pretend for the moment it does reach its discrete end. When you reason that: There is still the question in the chain, "What caused that infinite universe to exist?" you uncouple your infinite series from its first cause. This uncoupling destroys your premise: Every causal chain inevitably arrives at its first cause. You're saying, instead, when the sequence of the chain is fully encompassed, there's still something beyond it. So, the total infinite chain has not and cannot arrive at its first cause. If it could, the question wouldn't remain.
Your premise, along this line of examination, is fundamentally flawed because you configure it with an organization that necessitates a separation of first cause from its causations. You've committed yourself to this design and you've memorialized this commitment in the written record of this
conversation:
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
When you address the problem of an infinite series having neither a beginning nor an ending, you destroy your premise by negating "A chain of causation inevitably arriving at a start point." The uncoupling of first cause from it chain of causations causes this negation.
You have also memorialized another closely related problem within the conversation:
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
If that question pertains to something that's a part of the causal chain, then you've got a set being a member of itself. If the question does not pertain to something that's a part of the causal chain, and thus the universe is not part of the causal chain, then with an infinite causal chain you have the incoherence problem because infinite series have no beginnings or endings.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
It's not irrelevant because:
Quoting Philosophim
Aside -- Now we see why you keep trying to focus my attention on what you intend to mean rather than on what you write.
As you admit above: 2T+infinity=Y says in writing that your math description of an infinite causal chain arriving at a first cause happens in terms of an infinite series for which this can't happen. Believe what I intend, not what I write.
Quoting Philosophim
No. An eternal universe is uncaused. Your equation fails, but the concept of an eternal universe does not fail alongside of it. In our conversation, you, not I, have been writing equations with infinity as an input value. I'm not trying to put an eternal universe on the number line with an equation that computes an infinite value. The standard of failure you cite is your equations; I have no involvement with your equations. I have no proof the universe is eternal, and you offer no proof its illogical.
Quoting Philosophim
My defense only addresses your accusation I dragged in QM randomly. No, QM uncertainty -- like the concept of randomness -- relates to uncertainty.
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
All of the above is irrelevant to the issue in dispute: whether or not you erroneously identified The Uncertainty Principle as being a measurement problem. Given the evidence of what you wrote, as quoted above, there can be no doubt of it.
Quoting Philosophim
You're spinning away from the issue to separate issues.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
No. If you're familiar with Venn Diagrams, then you know intersecting sets with members in common as well as non-common members is not an example of a random collision of wholly unrelated things.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Neither I, nor 180 Proof, are so far persuaded by your logic. Also, neither I, nor 180 Proof are persuaded by your claim you and he are really on the same page.
I know you're not persuaded by my logic and I, likewise, am not persuaded by yours.
I hope you don't feel obligated to refute my arguments here.
Perhaps you're willing to make a closing comment on our dialogue.
If you are, I'll go first with mine and then let you have the last word.
If the series itself is not a first cause and there is no cause for the series; then there is no first cause.
OR
The series itself has no cause, and this makes it the first cause. But then you are saying the series is the first cause.
An infinite set of all causes is not a part of a causal chain.
My point is that chain of all causes, being infinite, will never reach such a point; and the series itself is not caused and thusly is not a first cause.
It can’t be. Let’s break it down.
Let’s call the set of all causes, C.
Let’s call a cause, k.
C, when evaluating if this set were infinite, would have an infinite amount of members.
Asking “what caused this infinite series?” is asking for a cause (k) that is not in the set C, but this is impossible because every cause (k) is a member of C (by definition). That is why it is incoherent, and, actually, logically impossible:
!{ ?k ( k ? C ) && ?k ( k ? C) }
Now, if by “cause” you mean merely what explains the set C, then that is not incoherent because C’s members are causes, and not mere explanations. That’s why I separated semantically cause-e from cause-i.
A brute fact is not necessarily a cause.
The issue is that you won’t reach any end in the set C when enumerating each k; and saying C exists as a brute fact does not make it a first k. You are conflating things here.
It is the first cause to the question, "What caused this universe?" The answer is that, as it exists. It is explained by its own existence, and nothing else.
Quoting Bob Ross
How not? X = Set of all causes within a universe over time. What caused X? Nothing. Whether that time has a limit of zero or none at all, we still have the question of what caused it.
Quoting Bob Ross
Lets say something did cause an infinite universe to exist. For example, a universe has some weird time power that explodes into an infinitely eternal universe elsewhere. Or for theists a God. In this case X = Set of all causes within a universe over time and A -> X. An infinite set is now part of a causal chain. Remove A, and !?x -> X is still part of a causal chain.
Quoting Bob Ross
True. But in the chain of causality I can start with, "What caused this infinite universe for infinite time T?" Nothing. Ok, then I can say, "What caused the universe to be in the state that it is in time T? Or between time T and T+5. But the first cause to all of it, why the universe for all T is there in the first place, is it just is. Nothing else caused it.
Hopefully that answered your points Bob.
:100:
When you posit that C is the set containing all causes (i.e., contingent events) and that the universe has a cause (i.e., is a contingent event), then the universe is a member of C and NOT C. You are conflating them.
What is happening is you are starting with C (an infinite set that contains all causality) and then treating C as if it is one of its members (k) without realizing it.
Philosophim, you must remember that the stipulation you gave is that C, which can be whatever you want to call it, is a set of infinite elements containing every cause; so the only way you can get the result you are wanting (which is that C is a cause and is the set of all causes) is with an incoherent circular dependency: C := {..., C, ...}.
Hello Bob Ross,
I come to you asking a favor. Can you examine my argument below and tell me if it contains any fatal flaws?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting ucarr
One wants to claim the null set is disjoint with all other sets. Nevertheless, since the null set is a subset of all sets – including the universal set – then the null set is not disjoint from itself as a subset of any other set. But this simply means the nothingness of the null set is of one piece with the nothingness of its own nothingness as the subset of all other sets. So, again, the null set is disjoint with any somethingness in all other sets. So, again, no somethingness-from-nothingness.
Unfortunately, I was unable to parse exactly what you are trying to argue.
In set theory, it is vacuously true that the null set is a proper subset of all other sets because technically there are no members of the null set that are not in the given (other) set; and the intersection of the null set and any other set is just the null set.
It seems like you are trying to argue that since the set of all causes intersection with the null set would result in the null set, that something not having a cause is impossible. The problem with such an argument is twofold: firstly, that something that has no cause would not be a member of the set of all causes NOR a member of the null set and, secondly, the intersection of two sets equaling the null set just means that it has no communal members (which doesn't itself entail that it is impossible for there to be a member of either of the sets).
Let's say the set of all causes is C and that the set of all non-causes is N.
N cannot equal the null set, unless it has no members. So, if there were a thing which has no cause, then, being a member of N, N's intersection with C would result in the null set not because it was the null set but because they share no communal members. Crucially, this just means that the two sets have no communal members and NOT that it is impossible for there to be a thing which has no cause. It is expected that they would not share communal members, so I am failing to understand what you are trying to argue.
Quoting Bob Ross
I’m arguing that nothingness cannot support an intersection with somethingness. I’m choosing my words carefully because I’m not saying nothingness can or cannot cause somethingness. I know first cause is uncaused. However, first cause incepting in nothingness is, as I say, a somethingness nothingness cannot support.
I support this claim by saying all existing things are networked. Therefore, no existing thing exists in pure isolation from other existing things, and this pure isolation is the implication of first cause as it is defined.
*I made "either" above bold because, in the case of a set with an element being disjoint with the null set, and that disjunction evaluating to a null set, I don't see how the null set (of the disjunction) can contain an element (not common to the other set) since that contradicts the definition of a null set as a set with no elements.
Okay. (Aside from the asterisk immediately above) everything is clear up to this point. Let me run by you one additional consideration: The intersection of disjunct sets is supposed by me to show that the null set is disjunct with every set except itself. So, even if the other set contains a member, its disjunction with the null set evaluating to a null set resultant shows that an intersection of nothing to something always results in nothing.**
A simpler notation for this argument says: 0(X)=0.
I brought up the fact the null set is a subset of every set to show -- in the interest of thoroughness -- that when we consider the null set conjunct with every set because of the null set being a universal subset, it's still a conjunction of nothingness with nothingness.
**This is presumably a directional truth because the reverse: something-to-nothing is apparently possible, although a sound argument that something never reduces to nothing is perhaps possible.
Here are the things which I think are irrelevant to the topic:
Zero as representing nothing. This is a common understanding in math that we should not debate and I feel misses the true point you're trying to make. What I think you're trying to say is that "Nothing" cannot exist. My definition of nothing is "The absence of something". Feel free to take it from there.
Quantum mechanics. Your entire point in introducing quantum mechanics seems to be that it has some influence on true randomness. Let me be clear: True randomness cannot be influenced. Meaning no introduction of anything is going to influence it. What you want is to believe that true randomness is not possible. That we can argue. But you're going to have to argue against it from a logical position, as it is purely a logical conclusion, not an empirical one.
Multiplying null sets. I'm not multiplying a null set by anything in my example. I'm just using a set as an encapsulation of "All causality over time" into a variable. Then I include it in propositional logic. That's it. You seem to be debating that I can do this. I can. I will not be arguing this with you. This is basic logic. I am not going to debate you for pages about basic logic and math.
What you can argue about is, "If nothing caused an infinite universe to exist, what does that logically entail?" Because that is the scope of this conversation. If you agree an infinite universe is uncaused, which you did in your reply, then all of the above is moot.
Also a more interesting an viable discussion in my mind is Bob Ross's points. Take a read on those and see if you can back him up.
I picked a couple of other things out that I thought needed direct addressing. I'll cover these below. If you think I've avoided or missed something pertinent that you would like me to directly cover that doesn't fit into the summaries I've written above, just request it on your next reply and I'll go over them.
Quoting ucarr
I wanted to clear this up so you understand what's going on here. I'm not debating whether infinity can or cannot exist. You are saying, "Infinity exists" and I'm saying, "Lets say it does," then concluding if it does there must still be a first cause. Having infinity as a concept is the only conceivable way of denying a first cause. You HAVE to have infinity as a viable argument, or that's it, the discussion is a done deal. No one blinks an eye at a finite universe having a first cause. So it behooves you to go with the idea that infinity is a viable concept that can exist in reality.
I want you to understand, I could make this an argument against infinity being a viable existent reality. Its fairly easy to do. For example, if the universe has existed infinitely, then this means an infinite amount of time has passed before now. An infinite amount of time can never pass, because that would mean there's an end, and thus not an infinite amount of time. BUT, I'm not doing that. I'm saying, "Ok, lets go with it, it doesn't matter". Do you understand now?
Quoting ucarr
This is not about your or my logic or arguments. Its about 'the logic". Your opinion and my opinion are irrelevant at the end of the day. We are nothing. Whether I or you believe in an argument is irrelevant. What we are trying to do is parse out what is logical in as objective a manner as we can. I am not trying to convince you, and you shouldn't be trying to convince me Ucarr. If you present an argument, I'm going to answer it if its relevant to the argument. Your job is to viably attack it without bias, and my job is to viably defend it without bias. And if we both do an honest job, maybe we'll hammer the logic clearly so there's no doubt objectively that it works or does not work. I'm not saying that you or I do not have bias, but we should both try and keep it in check where possible.
Quoting ucarr
This is an empirical claim, not a logical claim. There is nothing logical which negates the idea that there was nothing, then something. If an eternal universe is uncaused, then there was nothing which caused it. And if nothing caused it, then it was truly random. This is not a multiplication by zero event and insisting that it is, is a straw man. I would re-read Bob Ross's points again, as I think he has a much more viable argument then what has been listed so far.
I'll be more detailed. C = The set of all causes in an eternal universe over time
What Y -> C? Nothing. There is nothing. There is just C, uncaused by anything else.
Quoting Bob Ross
To be clear, "every cause over time". Once all of causality over time has been encapsulated in CT, there's still a question of causality that does not involve time. "What caused CT to be?" That question and answer is in C. As noted most simply, an eternal God could have caused an eternally existing universe. So C, all of causality, would be G -> CT. Does something eternal causing something eternal sound ridiculous? Sure, but so does an eternally existing universe. The point of the argument is not to point out what is viable as we have no empirical means of proving or disproving any of these proposals. Its to point out that no matter what someone comes up with, in the end we will reach a point in causality where there is nothing which caused the state we're looking at.
Now, I do want to go a little more meta into the phrase "First cause". When I originally wrote this paper two years ago, it was to gain traction and get the atheists and theists in here together. I was new to the forums, and I understood that taglines needed to be interesting enough to get people to go in and read them. Its a phrase that has a very particular meaning. First cause - The point in causality in which there is nothing which caused a set of existence. If I were to rewrite this today, I would not use the term "First cause", but I would still use the underlying concept. That there is a point in causality that is always reached in which there is no cause for that state in question.
I mention this, because you may be having an issue with the phrase. If you do, dismiss the phrase. Its the underlying concept that matters. And that if this is the case, we have an instance of true randomness as to why that state exists as there is nothing which would have caused it to be or not be besides the fact that it simply exists. Whether finite or infinite, conscious or unconscious, the inception of the universe 'just happened'.
If by causality, you really mean temporal causality; then that needs to be clarified in the OP. Your OP clearly, taken literally, is discussing an infinite causality in 6 and not an infinite of temporal causality.
The issue with making your argument with an infinite of temporal causality is that it affords you no grounds to prove that an infinite of causality leads to a first cause. You are not contending with what you need to (which is all possible options for causality) when you attack an irrelevant (straw man) of the concept of an infinite causality proper.
You have not negated the possibility of an infinite of causality which does not lead to a first cause; instead, you have now negated the possibility of an infinite of temporal causality not having itself a cause (at best).
This isn’t proven, because you are now shifting your argument to discuss the impossibility of an infinite temporal causality having no cause; well, that’s simply not what one would argue if they are arguing that causality is infinite proper. You have straw manned their position.
If all states are contingent and there is an infinite of them, then they can be represented in a set, C, which has an infinite amount of elements, k. In C, there is absolutely no state, k, which is not contingent (and thusly caused). If C is eternal, it is not eternal analogous to God (to use your example) because positing God posits an external entity to that set of causality; whereas the infinite set of causality is being posited itself as eternal; thusly, there is no first cause. Every cause is a member, k, of C. You haven’t negated this at all, but, rather, posited a subset of C, let’s call it T, which contains every member of C that is temporal.
I would also like to mention, that one could also posit coherently that T is equal to C because all causes are temporal; and that C/T is eternal and that C/T is not a first cause. In other words, using T instead of C doesn’t help your case, because T being eternal doesn’t make it a first cause.
Now:
Will do. However, if I interpret your idea of “first cause” as merely “something which is no cause”; then this is a vacuously true truth that no one, atheist nor theist, will deny; and has nothing to do with the ordinary idea of a ‘cause’.
Bob
Quoting Philosophim
I acknowledge that of the two of us, Bob Ross has a deeper grounding within sentential logic.
You've been extraordinarily generous with your time, energy, and patience in the interest of the thoroughness of our dialogue. Your exertions herein have afforded me an ample supply of time and opportunity to practice and develop both my debate strategy and my execution.
I'm now going to bow out from our dialogue.
Henceforth, I will follow your dialogue with Bob Ross.
This is the old "Something-from-Nothing" argument. Raising the old "Why is there something instead of nothing?" head scratcher.
43 pages and counting. Is there no end to dialogs about First Cause? Can these threads become infinite? We can trace this particular thread back to an Original Post, but the Why Something? question must have pre-existed in human minds all the way back to ancient Greek philosopher's debates on "kinoúmenon"*1. Was that Initial Kinesis a phenomenon (thing) or noumenon (nothing)?
I don't have anything to add to this no-beginning-never-ending debate, except to give it an outlet to a side issue. I recently began reading Bernardo Kastrup's new book : Science Ideated, in which he defends his Analytic Idealism worldview (Panpsychism ; Cosmopsychism) against rival views, especially Materialism, e.g. "The “hard problem of Consciousness : The impossibility of explaining qualities in terms of quantities". Ironically, all these metaphysical conjectures about What Is Real?, ultimately raise the question about How Reality Began.
His cogently argued defense of an abstruse concept motivated me to look into Cosmopsychism, as an answer to Chalmer's challenge to Materialism. Thus inspired, I added a post to my blog. It begins with an enigma at the other end of the causal chain : How Does The Brain Create Mind?*2. But the reasoning about Reason eventually followed the logic of evolution back to the Big Bang. At which point Science is stumped, and Philosophy begins.
The blog post eventually gets back to the foundation of my own personal worldview : "Plato and Aristotle, in wrestling with the same essential questions, postulated several abstract entities : First Cause (creative agency), Logos (mind, reason), Prime Mover (energy, force), Form (design, structure), and Matter (that which receives Form)". So, why not combine all those hypothetical primordial forces into one universal agency of causation : the power to enform?
If these side-track questions are of interest to posters on this First Cause thread, I might be inspired to start a new thread on tracing Causation from First Spark down the evolutionary trail to the emergence of Inquiring Minds, who ask unverifiable open-ended questions ; taking the risk of sounding stupid or clever on a public forum. :smile:
*1. Unmoved Mover :
The unmoved mover (Ancient Greek: ? ?? ?????????? ?????, romanized: ho ou kinoúmenon kineî, lit. 'that which moves without being moved') or prime mover (Latin: primum movens) is a concept advanced by Aristotle as a primary cause (or first uncaused cause) or "mover" of all the motion in the universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover
*2. How Does the Brain Create Mind? :
So, the “hard question” for Science is “how does it work?”. What are those special arrangements of matter that produce the experience of Qualia : e.g. Red or Pain? Can we take our experiences & feelings for granted, but deny their phenomenality ? their knowable substance? What is the essence of experience? How do we produce imagery & feelings from a mechanical material brain?
http://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page14.html
Note -- Click where indicated by a pointer arrow to see hidden images.
I suppose I thought I didn't need to mention that an infinitely regressive or looped universe would be infinitely causal over time. I'll take a look at it again.
Quoting Bob Ross
Not having BEEN caused. Meaning that the answer to "What caused an infinite universe?" is still "Nothing". Its the same answer as a finite universe.
Quoting Bob Ross
To be clear, I'm not arguing that its impossible for an infinite temporal causality to have no cause. I'll note this again, if A is an infinite universe, and G (Whatever it is, a God, timey wimey, etc.) -> X, then G caused an infinite universe. Now, G -> X enters into the total causality set of, "What caused G -> X, nothing". But that doesn't deny that X could have incepted without any G either. Whether the time in X has a limit of zero or no limit at all, the logic doesn't change. We will inevitably get to a point in which we encapsulate all of causality into its totality, and we find there is nothing which caused that existence to be.
Quoting Bob Ross
Oh! This is good! :) Its not that T is eternal, T just represents the number of 'time ticks' that we place into the equation. Also, if G creates X, G creates X at a particular time (or continuous). G is not outside of time either.
Example : The below is the entirety of C, or the first cause.
"What caused an infinite eternal universe? Answer: An infinite universe was caused by a God at time tick 5.
G at T (where T = 5) -> 2T + infinity where T = sum of all Ts (infinity)
The major problem is we're talking about a situation in which practically anything is possible. Because we're in the realm of infinity and time being malleable, we can come up with some crazy stuff that may or may not be empirically true. The point of this argument is literally to note: "Come up with whatever crazy idea of universal origin you want. It doesn't matter. It will always inevitably end up here."
No matter what we create, we eventually always reach an end. Lets go with the craziest of crazy setups. There are an infinite of infinites causes which cause an infinite set of eternally existing universes. So infinity Y -> Infinity X -> (continues). At the end, we can still take that entire idea and pop it into a variable X then asked, "What caused X?" And the answer is: Nothing. That's the proof Bob. The specifics do not matter. It is impossible to create causality which never ceases because all of causality will arrive at the last question: "You've laid the entirety of causality out, but what caused that?" And the answer is always the same: Nothing.
Quoting Bob Ross
It is not something which is no cause. No, a first cause is part of causality. It is the moment in the causal chain that will eventually be reached in which we ask, "What caused X?" and the answer will be nothing. It is logically necessary that all questions of causality will arrive at this point.
You as well Ucarr! You kept a level head, worked tirelessly, and really thought deeply about the issue. You have my full respect!
Quoting ucarr
I am glad that you had a positive experience with the conversation and that you enjoyed it. At the end of the day it is merely an idea to discuss.
Quoting ucarr
Well I bow back. :) You were a wonderful conversation partner Ucarr. I respect your intellect and honest engagement throughout the discussion. I look forward to further discussions with you in the future, and feel free to jump back in any time.
Ha ha! Its good to have a sense of humor about this. Always appreciate your contributions Gnomon.
Quoting Gnomon
If you feel like there's something valuable in doing so, why not? No one will reach cleverness without first finding their footing on the stumbling blocks of stupidity. Show your light to the world even if its an odd color. :D
I don't think you are fully appreciating yet what I am offering here. So, to get right to the point, here's what I would like to address:
For the sake of the argument, I am going to step up and respond with "My 'crazy' idea of reality is that it is an infinite series of atemporal and temporal causes, and this doesn't lead to there being a first cause".
By your admission in the quote above, you are arguing that somehow my claim here does end with a first cause. So, how does it?
Something detailed in the later discussions but not mentioned in the OP for brevity was that it is there is 'at least' one first cause. I'm assuming that your atemporal things are also not caused correct? Those are first causes. There is no limit that only one first cause happens. Its a first cause in a causal chain, not the first cause in a universe.
So I don't see anything against what I've said here. As you noted though, I might be missing what you're saying. Can you go into more detail if this did not cover it?
Ho, ho, ho! Apparently, the answer to my rhetorical endless-dialog weary-query is "?". Some philosophical questions, once borne into being, just won't go away. I just found a new thread*1, on the same old timeless subject --- the beginning of beginnings --- asserting that the emergence of cause & effect space-time from Nothing (i.e. no space, no time) is logically impossible. But others take issue with that inductive*2 assumption, which Hume destructed. Some seem to postulate that the idea of "eternity-infinity" is thinkable, therefore logically plausible. So, brandishing our ironic swords, back to the cyclical-beginning we go again, once more, encore!
Since the assumption of incessant causation is of interest to posters on this forum, why not do like the astronomers in the 1950s did : from repeated observations of expanding space, they traced the evidence back to a point of no-further-evidence, leaving the Original Cause of expansion as an open question for feckless philosophers to waste spare-time on. So "once more unto the breach!", let's work backwards from the current observation of expanding-natural-sentience-into-artificial-intelligence, keeping our rational eyes peeled for evidence of the elusive space-time origin of thinking beings, from whatever source. Who wants to go first? :grin:
PS___I'm proposing a new thread with similar implications but different presumptions : a First Cause implies a Final Cause, produced by the operations of an Efficient Cause, working in the medium of a Material Cause. What could we call it? The First Concept? The god-who-shall-not-be-named inquiry?
*1. Creation from nothing is not possible :
This means that {in space-time} time is required for the act of creation. There is no time in nothing therefore the creation from nothing is impossible. {my bracket}
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14998/creation-from-nothing-is-not-possible
*2. Induction :
"assumes that the future will resemble the past"
Philosophy Magazine, Feb-Mar 2024
I do like the idea of a first cause also being a final cause. There is no more to question after you arrive at it after all. But you know the crux of your discussion, so I'm sure it will be named appropriately. I'll keep an eye out for it Gnomon. Even if I don't contribute (as I don't want to derail or lead back to this thread) I'll at least give it a read. :)
I am talking about an infinite series of atemporal and temporal causes (i.e., the sum of all causes). In this series, there may be atemporal causes (as I am at least, in principle, allowing their existence)--i.e., there are things which exist contingently but are not subject to time.
If you don't like the idea of atemporal causes, then I am talking about an infinite series of temporal causes and there are no other causes that are not in that infinite series.
The series, conceptually, can be represented as a set which I will call C.
C itself has no cause, because it is the series of all causes.
You are claiming either the series C is not infinite, or that C itself leads to a first cause. Neither can be true, so I am not following your argument for this part.
Quoting Gnomon
Did you commit a typo? Perhaps you were intending to write: space-time?
Quoting Gnomon
And now, before the next round of beer and peanuts, a title pitch from the chronically gassy, Dept. of Crabby Chyrons : How Set Theory Got Started: A Cosmic Mystery.
In our premiere episode, thrill to the edge of your seat watching Charger, a supremely irreverent electron with velocity learn to do the secret handshake with Ghost Universe.
No, I am not claiming that C is finite. It however is not the entire end to the chain of causality. "What caused C to exist?" still exists, and the finale answer is, "Nothing". this one question and answer cannot be part of that particular infinite causal chain, because the question is about the entire causal set itself.
The second you say that C is not the entire end to the chain of causality, is the second you conflate C with something else. C is the series of causes in total, so, by definition, you cannot be correct in that there is a cause which is not a member of C.
Are you sure you're addressing the argument or a set? I'm noting that even if you create an infinitely regressive universe, the causality still boils down to the one question, "What caused the infinite regress?" "Nothing". Even if you have an infinite regresses within infinite regresses. Take the entirety of it, wrap it in a variable, then ask what caused it all to be. The answer is always the same, "Nothing".
Quoting BillMcEnaney
First, there is at least one first cause, there could be more. Second, a first cause does not have to be a God.
Science can't explain why there's something instead of nothing since science assumes that there's something. That would make your argument circular if you argued scientifically to explain why there's something. Science is about causes and and how they produce their effects. Science doesn't explain what "causes causation."
Thomists believe in two general kinds of causal series, a linear causal series and a hierarchical one. Here's an example of a linear one.
I marry my girlfriend Elina. She gives birth to our children Marie and Timothy. Our daughter and our son start their own families and my grandchildren. Their children make my great grandchildren, and so forth. So, I could have infinitely many descendants because they can survive their parents. Like Elina and me, our descendants have built-in causal power that doesn't keep flowing from their ancestors. My children and their children aren't like a string of Christmas tree lights that must keep talking electricity from an outlet to keep each bulb lit. In the analogy, electricity represents existence and God's causal ability.
Now here's an example of a hierarchical causal series. You board an Amtrak train to ride from Albany, New York to Manhattan. When the engine pulls the first car, pulling power flows to every other car in the train. If the engine wouldn't work, the train would stand still.
Arrange 1,000 dominos on your floor. Then tap the first domino to topple it and knock the others down one by one. You started the series when you pushed the first domino. So you're like the train's locomotive and God since the series depends on you. You enabled each domino to except the last one thee power to tip the next one. Just as the train needed to engine to pull the train cars, the group of dominos relied ultimately on you.
But God is the cause who makes everyone else and everything else exist now. He's why there's something instead of nothing. If you ask what caused God, I'll remind you that he has no cause. Since his existence is built into him, he doesn't get it from another source.
He doesn't even cause himself to exist since "self-causation" implies a self-contradiction. For a cause to produce its effect, that cause must come before or be with its effect. On the other hand, for an object to make itself begin to exist, the cause and the effect must exist and not exist in the same respect at the same time.
In a hierarchical causal series, there must be cause that sustains every other cause and each effect. That's why the universe and each object in it depends on God. God explains why there's anything at all besides himself. His existence is built into him. He makes everyone else and everything else exist. He sustains it. He sustains the natural world, each natural process in it, and makes even merely possible events possible.
Science can't explain why there's something instead of nothing. Again, science presupposes that there's something.
I am addressing the argument. Your OP has to demonstrate that every logical possibility, not actual possibility, leads to a first cause; and this means that if reality is an infinite set of all causes that that must also logically necessitate a first cause (still). However, it cannot have a first cause if one understands properly what an infinite set of all causes is. It is logically necessary that it does not have a first cause, ironically.
Thusly, it is not logically necessary that there is a first cause.
No, because I can ask, "What caused there to be an infinite set of all causes?" Its always finite. The very nature of causation logically always leads to this.
I think it is best we agree to disagree at this point; as anything else I say will be a reiteration. Your very question is logically contradictory on a couple fronts (i.e., [1] you concede it is infinite in "what caused there to be an infinite set of all causes?" and then turn around and say it is finite; and [2] you are asking presupposing that a cause could exist which is not a member of a set of all causes).
If you are being logically consistent, you will need to ask "what caused there to be an infinite set of some causes?": that's all that can be afforded to your position without conceding the truth of a logical contradiction.
No, I'm noting that we can take a group of infinite causes but still ask one more question. What caused that set of infinite causes? My point is that an infinite set of causes cannot fully explain the entirety of all causes. It must logically rest with this question.
Quoting Bob Ross
Its not a presupposition, its a proof. We can take any set of infinite series, then ask what caused that set. I've done nothing outside the realm of mathematics or logic.
Quoting Bob Ross
Understood! Sometimes that's all we can arrive at in a conversation. Full respect and thanks for you points Bob.
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Bob Ross
Bob Ross' words speak for me as well.
Since I see great value in the rules of order within American courtrooms, I want to deliver my closing argument as a way of staying the course and seeing things through to the end.
You shouldn't feel the need to respond because you've already done so multiple times. It's good practice for me to endeavor to summarize my main points within an economical closing. I've gotten a good workout through my engagement with you, so I want to spend some of the capital I've earned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Validity – If the premise of an argument is true, and its conclusion is also true, then the argument is valid.
Also, if the premise of an argument is false, and its conclusion is also false, then the argument is valid. However, in this instance, validity is not meritorious. Since the premise and the conclusion are both false, the argument holds validity in terms of falsehood.
Consistency – If an argument is steadfast and reliable throughout, then it is consistent.
However, in this instance, consistency is not meritorious. Since the premise and the conclusion are both false, the argument is consistently false.
Premise – A first cause incepts with no antecedents. So, nothing, then first cause, then causal chain.
Conclusion – Every causal chain eventually arrives at a first cause.
Using validity and consistency as standards of judgment, when both the premise and the conclusion are false, then the argument holds validity and consistency in terms of falsehood.
Argument for premise being false (set theory) – the null set is disjunct from every set, including itself.
A, B are called disjoint (not connected by common members) if A ? B = ?. So ?, the null set, having no members, exists disjoint from all other sets, including itself:
? ? {1,2,3…} = ?
Argument for conclusion being false (calculus) – The conclusion is proven false by the sum of an infinite series to a limit.
Quoting jgill
Premise Negated – Given nothing, inception of something is impossible. If no thing exists, there’s no thing to do an inception.
In order to self-incept, you have to be greater than yourself. That means being inside the set of causation and simultaneously outside the set of causation.
This is Russell’s Paradox: If you have a set that contains all sets that don’t contain themselves, then that set must contain itself because it doesn’t contain itself, and, if it contains itself, then it must exclude itself.
Let R = {x | x ? x}, then R ? R ? R ? R
Quoting Philosophim
Since Philosophim posits that: Every causal chain eventually
arrives at a first cause.” for him to also say: the first cause is outside of the entire
set, he implies the first cause, by definition, is simultaneously inside the
entire set and outside of it. This is Russell’s Paradox. If he denies Russell’s
Paradox fits this example, then the fatal problem seems to be incoherence: the
first cause is disconnected from its chain of causations.
Quoting Bob Ross
Bob Ross also sees a set logic problem with a first cause causing all of causation from within the causal chain.
Conclusion Negated – With an infinite series, whether it consists of numbers, or causations, there is no beginning nor ending. Beginnings and endings can only be approached by an infinite series without arrival.