Nothing is uncaused like unicorns are uncaused. But unicorns being uncaused have nothing to do with anything; they're uncaused because they don't exist. — InPitzotl

Unicorns are caused - they are by our brains/minds depending on your philosophy.

It has nothing to do with "the first cause argument". Unicorns are uncaused therefore the first cause argument reifies nothing? — InPitzotl

As uncaused, nothing is a candidate for the title of a first cause with respect to being uncaused. If that's reification then the notion of a first cause is such that nothing has to be reified.

How many nothings are there? — InPitzotl

I don't understand the question.

Likewise, nothing can't cause for there's nothing to cause — InPitzotl

Yup!

The rest of your post doesn't make sense.

P. S. I'm not expecting a reply.

:smile:

The problem with our understanding of nirvana and matters nirvana-like is that it can only described using metaphors and metaphors, I've come to know, are open to multiple interpretations. Each person understands a metaphor under consideration in his own way - Rorschach inkblot tests! - and that, my little brain tells me, is a recipe for confusion & misunderstanding.

Everything we do, especially just living, net increases the entropy of the universe; fundamentally, we (biomes, civilizations, star systems) are mere maggots surfing the necrotic flow (dao) of cosmic decomposition. — Memo from King Ozymandias

Maggots! :grin: I never knew I was a maggot! :up:

I assume you're buddhist too and don't like it when people say things that are true? Seems strange though.

You can wiki it if you want. Buddhism is theistic but it is not theistic in the same way that most judeo christian practices are (for the majority of buddhist practices).

Wayfarer is just sticking to one narrow definition of theism and seemingly refusing to accept that there are broader meanings beyond belief in 'a creator' or 'deity'. — I like sushi

People seem to be under the impression that Buddhism is atheistic. It isn't - the entire Hindu pantheon is part of the Buddhist belief system - but what's unique to Gautama's religion is no god(s) is/are the supreme authority like in the Abrahamic triad. This seemingly small alteration in the status of god(s) makes a huge difference presumably. Wayfarer is probably alluding to this, what is a, recalibration of our relationship with god(s). More can be said I suppose.

I quoted you! You're also obviously reacting. — InPitzotl

I'm simplifying. The sun, $1.989 \times 10^{30}$ kg in physics, last I checked, can be treated as a point mass.

:lol:

Just kiddin'. You're right! Happy? :smile:

The Chewbacca Defense — InPitzotl

What that?

Ignoratio elenchi! Good day!

How is/should we measure gender equality/inequality?

Nirvana has something to do with babies.

No, you're stereotyping Buddhism by depicting it in the only terms you know, which is 'theism', as understood by WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic) culture. — Wayfarer

:up:

Meanwhile god laughs at your plans. — Miller

It stopped being funny a long time ago. :grin:

There's something subjective about entropy. The statistical argument for entropy goes like this:

1. There's only one particular arrangement of particles that interests you. Call it x.

2. For every x there are a large number of ways in which x is not the case. Call it Y.

3. Say, x : Y = 1 : 999.

4. Probabilities:

The P(x) = $\frac{1}{1000}$

and

P(Y) = $\frac{999}{1000}$

The entropy only increases if x is what you're interested in, right?

On a die roll, if you want a 3, the P(3) = $\frac{1}{6}$ but if you don't mind whether a 3 or a 5 or a 6 then the probability of getting what you want = $\frac{3}{6} = \frac{1}{2}$.

My family on my father's side has a stock phrase which is "nothing will happen" which annoys my mother to no end; she interprets that phrase as "it doesn't matter" or "Que Será, Será". :rofl: Women! You can never really understand them! You can f**k 'em though. :rofl:

@InPitzotl

Nothing can't be caused for there's nothing to cause.

The first cause can't be caused.

Both the first cause and nothing are uncaused.

However, the first cause is a cause but nothing is not a cause.

In terms of a prior cause, the first cause and anothing are identical but in terms of a post effect, they're not the same, the first cause has an effect but nothing can have none.

Ergo, hence, therefore, thus, there's something nothingish about the first cause.

Integrated Information Theory (IIT) is an attempt to measure the Mind in terms of Wholeness (Phi). It adds-up the unit parts and computes the degree of interconnectedness. That holistic function of the Brain/Mind complex is Consciousness : the ability to extract personal meaning from inputs of data from the environment. It converts concrete Quanta (physical sensations) into abstract Qualia (meta-physical feelings). — Gnomon

I suppose there's room enough in IIT for a lot of weird conclusions: crystals e.g. by virtue of the "interconnectedness" of their molecules/atoms and the worldwide website, for the same reason, should be considered conscious. :chin:

I don't want to be there when the shooting starts. — Gnomon

You wish! Anyway, hope everything turns out the way you want it to. Thanks for the reply.

"Nothing" is being reified here. — InPitzotl

If nothing is being reified and seeing that it's true that nothing is uncaused, the problem then lies in the first cause argument - it necessitates a reification of nothing.

Plus, you seem to be implying nothing is just a concept. Are you sure?

No... that argument makes no sense anyway. It doesn't even allow for the uncaused possibility, much less the partially caused and uncaused. Furthermore, it kind of concludes the notion of a first cause it itself introduced (the one "only nothing" can be) does not make sense, making the entire argument a bit moot — InPitzotl

1. The first cause has to be uncaused.
2. Only nothing has no cause.
Ergo,
3. The first cause is nothing.
4. Nothing can't cause anything
Ergo,
5. The notion of a first cause makes zero sense — TheMadFool

Premise 1 can't be denied.

The sticking point is 2. I'll dial down the rhetoric and offer a more realistic argument:

1. The first cause is uncaused.
2. Nothing has no cause
Ergo,
3. The first cause could be nothing

Is this version of my argument more reasonable?

If it is, please give me an example of something as opposed to nothing that's uncaused. Oh, wait! That's precisely the problem we started off with. And, to top it all off the assumption was if it's something then it has a cause. The infinite regress that this entails being the thorn in our side and hence, a first cause. However, this leads to a contradiction: all things have a cause AND some things have no causes (first cause).

To avoid this contradiction, a way out of this quagmire, is to say that the first cause = nothing (no infinite regress & no contradiction).

See?

No you don’t. Nature is what is. We can call it anything we like, impose on it rules and symbols, think about it this way or that way. Language is a human faculty, like seeing. There’s every reason to believe, and no reason not to believe, that the brain is involved in these systems.

Incidentally, non-human animals and babies (pre-linguistic) interact with the world just fine without language. Many aspects of human activity, from habits to sleeping, doesn’t involve language. Language itself is simply expression of thought. So if we’re searching for a ground, language seems like a shaky one indeed. — Xtrix

I was offering a theo-technological point of view - God as the creator of the universe (the coder who created the simulation). It seems my thesis immediately runs into a problem - the chicken and egg situation.

Returning to more mundane, down-to-earth theories, I suppose there's no real reason to oppose Chomsky's idea of the gene-language connection although, from what I know, he's probably incapable of giving a detailed exposition of how exactly genes and language interact; what he's done is merely propose a thesis topic and chances are he's hoping someone will prove his point for him à la mathematicians and their conjectures.

Does it matter to my argument?

Is nothing partially caused and partially uncaused?

There's nothing in nothing to be caused wholly or partially.

The universe follows the so-called laws of nature. Laws are akin to if not actual instructions on how nature should behave. Instructions are given in a language.

Did the laws of nature precede nature itself?

To build nature, one needs a language to do so and hence, here to, language precedes nature.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God. — John 1:1

Think of the simulation hypothesis. Before I can create a simulated reality, I need a language to encode the information necessary to undertake the task. Coding 101.

Since genes are, in this context, part of the simulation, the language used to create the simulation came much before genes ever saw the light of day on earth and, presumably, other planets/words.

John was right on the money, I suppose.

Are viruses alive?

This puzzle is very much like what Richard Dawkins (atheist + evolutionary biologist + author) - the originator of the meme concept - talks about on the launching of a book of his: Between any two points in an evolutionary chain, interbreeding can occur i.e. there is essentially no difference between them; however, the bigger the gap between two such points, the more unlikely is a successful mating. In other words, a difference in degrees, after a certain threshold, becomes a difference in kind. The difference betweeen viruses and humans is that of kind; ergo, if one is considered alive, it becomes difficult to say the other is too. Go smaller - take a bacteria - and few will complain if you say a virus is alive.

N.B. we're made of a trillion or so cells, bacteriaish and we have DNA &RNA, virusish.

Non sequitur!

Caused and uncaused exhausts all possibilities.

Is this Buddhism?

Look, your dad was a cop, so you became a crook.

My dad was a crook, so I became a cop.

We’re not that different. — John Hartley (Red Notice 2021)

Later in the movie, towards the end...

No. My dad was a con man, and I hated him.

So I decided to become better than he ever was.

Beat him at his own game. — John Hartley (Red Notice 2021)

It cannot be caused, or uncaused — Philosophim

:chin:

1. The first cause has to be uncaused.

2. Only nothing has no cause.

Ergo,

3. The first cause is nothing.

4. Nothing can't cause anything

Ergo,

5. The notion of a first cause makes zero sense.

What Chomsky points out is trivial -- he's saying there's a genetic component to language, and that's all. I've never understood why this is controversial. Of course it's hard-wired into us somehow — Xtrix

Last I checked, genes, and their components DNA/RNA, constitute a language. The bases - Adenine (A), Thymine (T), Cytosine (C), Guanine (G) - are the letters and the words are base triplets (ATG for example), each triplet coding a specific amino acid. Google for more information.

Also, what of Galileo's claim that "the Book of Nature is written in mathematical language"? Genes are, what?, a chapter in the Book of Nature and that means...since the universe needed a language, a mathematical one...Chomsky is wrong - language precedes genes.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God. — John 1:1

That is not true for the "brain in the vat" idea since we have nothing to "explore". — Nickolasgaspar

What do you mean? The brain in a vat scenario is possible, no? It is an instance of exploring what I refer to as the possibility space (self-explanatory term).

My sole point was that not all ideas can be treated as "possible" — Nickolasgaspar

Of course! I'm not at all saying that, given a set of facts, some possibilities are immediately ruled out.

its a numerical perspective of what is verified as possible. — Nickolasgaspar

And?

Let me clarify my position:

Possible: In the simplest, classical-logic, sense, if x is possible then x doesn't lead to a contradiction.

E.g. if I flip a coin, it's possible to get a head or a tail. Heads and tails are possibilities.

Probable: Mathematically, take what's possible, say x, and find a number that expresses the likelihood of x.

E.g. the probability of getting a heads = $\frac{1}{2}$

My question is simple: If it doesn't matter, it doesn't seem to, that humanity be grouped into various factions holding opposing, contradictory beliefs, why can't one individual also be allowed the same privilege? The issue of compatibility as pertains to the OP in particular and to various systems of beliefs is, I think, moot!

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. — Ralph Waldo Emerson

If tensions, conflicts and irresolvable dilemmas are the spice of every culture, a human who belongs to any particular culture must hold contradictory beliefs and be riven by incompatible values. It's such an essential feature of any culture that it even has a name: cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is often considered a failure of the human psyche. In fact, it is a vital asset. Had people been unable to hold contradictory beliefs and values, it would probably have been impossible to establish and maintain any human culture. — Yuval Noah Harari

limits of intuition — the affirmation of strife

:up: I had a different opinion up until I read what you wrote!

As you consider the next question, please assume that Steve was selected at random from a representative sample:

An individual has been described by a neighbor as follows: "Steve is very shy and withdrawn, invariably helpful but with little interest in people or in the world of reality. A meek and tidy soul, he has a need for order and structure, and a passion for detail." Is Steve more likely to be a librarian or a farmer?

The resemblance of Steve's personality to that of a stereotypical librarian strikes everyone immediately, but equally relevant statistical considerations are almost always ignored. Did it occur to you that there are more than 20 male farmers for each male librarian in the United States?

Now where did I read that? :chin:

Why are farmers so far down the Hackliste?

Did you know?

Astronomy, science, then math (the rest is history) were all simply byproducts of farming? A farmer should be proud as hell that his profession opened the doors to civilization as we know it. Who would've thought such was the truth? I definitely wouldn't but that's because I wasn't paying attention. :joke:

This has raised more questions for me: you've put the multiplication into "intuition", and it is clearly some very simple maths, but I'm not sure I wouldn't have put it into "logic"/"intellect"... Maybe the divide is not so sharp — the affirmation of strife

Intuition seem to be more of an emotion - it feels right/it feels wrong.

Logic - it's right/it's wrong.

That's why I alwats felt/believed that realization (feeling the truth e.g. an equation) is more important than "mere" comprehension

There seems to be two assumptions made by philosophers here:

1. Humans have an innate "intuitive" faculty.
2. We can readily rely on this faculty to obtain knowledge.

Objection to 1: The idea that we all possess intuitive faculties is a considerable assumption. How does on go about substantiating such a claim?

Objection to 2: Science often makes discoveries that are counter-intuitive. In fact, history shows us that scientific breakthroughs are made by challenging traditional assumptions and intuitions. — Wheatley

An example will perhaps illustrate the difference between intuition and logic:

Say you visit a store to buy some things. You're not paying attention (like all of us) to what you're doing. Picking up a few items you rush back to the clerk at the counter. You absent-mindedly place the items you want to buy on the table. The clerk then scans the items and tells you, without batting an eyelid, "that'll be $3000 sir."

Intuition: You picked up, what?, a maximum of 3 items. To be on the safe side let's make that 5. You remember glancing at the most expensive item you chose and you recall the last time you bought one it was around $20. A back-of-the-envelope calculation (5 × $20 = $100). The clerk has made a mistake or the calculator is broken.

Logic: You ask the clerk to tell you the price of each item. You turn on the calculator app on your phone and do the math. You look at the cashier/clerk, disapprovingly of course, and tell her she's made a mistake.

Intuition: :brow:

Logic: :nerd:

Do you see the relation to the Private Language argument?

Following a rule is essentially a social activity. Following a rule while alone is a back-construction from following a rule in a community.

That's why each of your examples starts with a social situation. — Banno

Now that you mention it, yes!

I can't tell whether one informs the other though. Intriguingly, qualia - the ineffable aspect of morally relevant experiences (what is it like to feel pain/joy?) - seems to both matter (the unpleasantness/pleasantness of pain/joy is the deciding factor) and not matter (beetle-in-the-box).

You are 'others' too — I like sushi

@Banno $\uparrow$

I have been thinking lately that what we want for ourselves is often projected onto others and that this is due the above — I like sushi

The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would like others to do unto you.

Banno $\uparrow$. For your attention.

I see your point - the rules I follow when I'm the only one around will be different from when I live in a community. One could even say that as a lone individual, say living as an anchorite, I can live without rules/principles.

However, let's examine this business of others in re morality. What about others is the basis of ethics? The low hanging fruit, the obvious answer, is the ability to feel pain & joy. If this ability (disability?) were absent, others are as morally relevant as a pebble or a dead stump of a tree. Right?

I, even when I'm all alone, can feel pain & joy and that, as we've seen above, is the deciding factor with respect to others vis-à-vis ethics. It follows then, doesn't it?, that I have to be ethical/good towards myself?

We're talking about two different things and that's why we're not able to see eye to eye on the issue.

You're concerned about the kinds of "moral" rules that, I concede, will differ, for sure, between a loner and a person living in a society. [What makes one happy/sad is the issue]

I'm saying that there'll/there has to be "moral" rules whether you're living all by yourself or among others. [That we can be happy/sad at all is the issue]

I hope this clarifies the situation.

@Banno

1. Why must you be good to others?

2. Because others can be happy (good) and sad (bad).

3. I, a hermit in the Carpathian mountains, can be happy and sad.

Ergo

4. I and all lone individuals like me must be good to myself.

Not sure what to make of that post.


Are you now agreeing with me? — Banno

:lol:

I'm not sure how to get my point across but let's look at two well-known theories of morality:

1. Utilitarianism: The Greatest Happiness Principle which is basically the rule that one has to maximize happiness.

2. Kantian ethics: The categorical imperative states that "act only on those maxims which you would will to be a universal law"

Do you see others mentioned in these moral rules? Phrased differently, you can be happy...so it's ethical to maximize your happiness (egoism?) and is it possible to universalize a maxim that's not aligned to a loner's wellbeing?

OK, let's suppose that it is (it isn't).

Then what is welfare? Is it living long? Is it living happily - not the same thing. Is it living with the maximum pleasure? is it eating as much cheese as possible?

What ever is chosen, will be for the individuals welfare, because there is no other criteria for that welfare. — Banno

Yes, welfare would, inter alia, include a long, fulfilling life and happiness too. As these would be considerations one will, for certain, factor in our relations with others, they also form the basis of our relations with ourselves.

Imagine a single individual stranded on a deserted island. "If," he thinks, "there were other persons with me, I'd expect them to be good to me." In other words this Ribinson Crusoe character cares about his wellbeing. Does it not follow then that he should be good to himself?

On your argument, whatever he chooses to do will be ethical.

It does nothing. — Banno

I beg to differ. Where there's life, wellbeing is an issue and wellbeing is just another name for ethics. Being alive, a solitary individual has a moral duty to be concerned about his personal welfare.

As for choice, as I mentioned before, we have a greater degree of freedom when it comes to how we treat ourselves as compared to how we treat others. This freedom is what we might call our right but I still feel this has to be balanced with every single person's fundamental right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as enshrined in the US constitution.

You just did my argument for me. You based your ethical statement on the health of others. Hence, ethics enters into our thinking only when we encounter others. — Banno

But, our own health?

My stand is that ethics is about life, how we treat it. A loner has life. Ergo, he's obligated to be ethical towards himself. Health is just the tip of the iceberg as regards wellbeing in life.