When something is a first cause, it is an uncaused thing which then enters into causality. There is no limitation as to what a first cause could be, as it has no prior explanation for its being. It is unlinked from determinism as to why it exists. However, once it exists, its interactions with other existences then involve causality, or determinism — Philosophim

I've always required examples to flesh out philosophical or mathematical ideas, so I will return to the causal chain ${{F}_{n}}(z)={{f}_{1}}\circ {{f}_{2}}\circ \cdots \circ {{f}_{n}}(z)$ which is defined in a region of the complex plane. My colleague at Trondheim proved the theorem I have mentioned, but later I proved a much simpler version,changing the hypotheses slightly.

Think of a large disc in the plane, full of points,z, and each individual function in the chain taking any such point and producing another point in that disc. Assume that each of these functions draw any two points in the disc slightly closer to one another. Then, when you start the chain you can use any point in the disc as a "first cause". The chain will converge to a single value of z within the disc, but the degree of accuracy of that limit will vary depending upon original choice. That is to say some values of z as first cause will take longer to get close to the ultimate limit. Bigger values of n.

(In fact, in a paper of mine in the Proceedings of the AMS many years ago I showed that if the individual functions approach a specific function, f(z), one may be able to choose a "first cause" that will get the ultimate result the fastest.)

Another recommendation: Take up Zen under the tutelage of a Master. This would give your life a rigid focus, enforced by the physicality it employs. You will change if you take the practice seriously. I've seen it happen.

Why is it always better to cease to exist.

Keep thinking "It is better to exist" You have to corral your thoughts and Zen will do the job if you persevere.

"Or the math department. They don't even want the bins." — Wayfarer

Not true. Housekeeper of a famous mathematician asked what the mathematician does. Answer after deliberation: "He scribbles on paper, then scowls and wads it and throws it in the wastebasket".

The steps in a dynamical system or causation chain occur at time intervals. Are there chains that display instant movement, like instant velocity? This involves smaller and smaller times between steps. Here
are comments related to instantaneous motion in causation chains.

If math is not your thing don't bother.

↪jgill
Wasn't there a gallery of your images on the site somewhere? I'd like to link it. — Banno

There are a few Here, and you can see what the math looks like.

Look at my icon carefully. I could not have planned it and then created the necessary math, in my wildest dreams. — jgill


What are the axes of your drawing? — wonderer1

Like the standard Euclidean plane. Vertical (imaginary) axis in center and horizontal (real) axis across the middle. Sometimes I shift my focus to a small section of the complex plane. I did this to isolate and magnify my Quantum Bug icon.

So in a way of speaking, the images emerge form some, but not all, of the equations? — Banno

There is always an image arising in the manner I have described. Even an empty frame. I never know what will materialize from a mathematical procedure ( I don't do fractals or other well-known imagery). The math procedure I use is not one others use to the best of my knowledge. Mine is intimately connected to cause and effect chains. Not simple iteration of a complex function.

Look at my icon carefully. I could not have planned it and then created the necessary math, in my wildest dreams.

And since all change requires time — Metaphysician Undercover

This depends on the meaning of the word "change". Most usages do require time to complete, but if one thinks of "to change" is "to differ", then time need not be a factor.

dy/dx = 10 vs. dy/dt =0 if x is not a function of time.

So which is it: is the butterfly reducible to the equations, or does it emerge from them...?

Isn't emergence no more than Emperor Reduction in his new clothes?

(@jgill, any thoughts?) — Banno

Not a lot. I can only refer to my own "creations", that are observable in the complex plane. By the way, I program from scratch in BASIC, being old with little time to waste on a plethora of languages, several of which (Fortran, Pascal, . . .) I have used in the distant past.


There first is a defining mathematical procedure giving a point in the complex plane for each point in play. The procedure can be very simple or very complex. In both cases one paints pixels in the plane corresponding to some aspect of the resulting point, like size of its modulus. Point by point the process paints a picture.

Philosophically, one can rather easily go from the procedure to the picture, obtaining a visual account of the feature you are describing, like size. But, it is virtually impossible to start with the big picture and deduce the mathematical procedure. Viz. the image above. So the imagery emerges from the mathematics.

Sometimes the math leads to chaos upon iteration. Other times interesting patterns emerge. So, images emerge from math, but not the other way around (usually). I don't see reductionism in play here.

The Lorenz attractor is a case where patterns are affected by attracting fixed points or sets of such points. In much of the math I have done infinite compositions - infinite causal chains if you wish - take points toward attracting fixed points. There are also repelling fixed points where you can guess what happens by the title of the point. And of more complexity there are indifferent fixed points that both repel and attract.

My wife and I started Equilizer 3 on Netflix tonight, but left it temporarily after the first 15 minutes since its beginning is too gruesome. I'll go back to it tomorrow.

All the old BBC murder series - several of which I haven't even seen once. What a treat! — Vera Mont

The John Nettles Midsomer Murders were a delight. :smile:

Self-destructive tendencies are a symptom of a deeper problem within a person, which is better relegated to the field of psychiatry and psychology. Instead of glorifying it within the philosophical discussion, we should understand that it is a problem. — L'éléphant

Amen

An assignment of causation does not exclude the possibility of other things having the same effect. So in the example above, saying that heat causes water to boil does not exclude the possibility that something else as well, such as a drop in pressure, could also cause water to boil. That A is judged to cause B does not exclude the possibility that something else might also cause B as well. — Metaphysician Undercover

:up:

Now, I ask you to use logic, and see with your mind, logically, that it is possible for there to be time passing without change occurring — Metaphysician Undercover

This reflects what Minkowski spacetime infers. This is referred to as being at rest in a particular frame of reference.

However, time passing, itself, is not observed. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes.

Where Ui is the universe at time i, it is true that Ui causes Ui+1 — Relativist

A little beyond my pay grade, but thanks. :smile:

Another take on multiple causation. A philosophical approach employing ideas from probability.

Barbie rings my bell. My favorite actress. :smile:

Hope this is all sufficiently clear. It will be repeated as often as is necessary in this thread. — Wayfarer

Quite clear, my friend. And mostly I agree. It makes me wish this Fellow were eligible. I'd vote for him.

Lets say that only two particles exist in the entire universe. They stay exactly 1 meter away from each other for eternity. Is there time? — Philosophim

Are they moving in reference to something else, like revolving? I have brought this up earlier. It has seemed odd that Minkowski spacetime might imply the passage of time with no physical movement.

That is why the point where the moving wheel touches the road is not following the path of a cycloid. It is a point moving in a straight line at the same speed as the car is moving. — Agree-to-Disagree

I agree. The point under discussion is not a point on the wheel, more of a point on the road that moves with the movement of the vehicle. But whatever.

You have created an interesting and highly literate thread, Count. :clap:

Perhaps climate change should go to the Lounge as well. Keeping it the main page makes it more philosophy than science?

Physics is very much invested in causality -- which is the prize of metaphysics — L'éléphant

I love causality. Most of the math exploration I do these days is mathematical analogues of causality chains in the complex plane. So, is philosophy very much invested in physics? Should it be? Is philosophy equipped, in general, to circumvent details and pull quantum tricks out of its big hat?

Just poking. :cool:

Virtual particles are not, currently, "directly observable." They have effects that can be observed, which is why the idea has gained currency — Count Timothy von Icarus

In the one-dimensional Casimir Effect one could encounter the Harmonic series, which does not converge. By manipulating this series one can derive a convergent series (where the expression 1/12 might pop up) corresponding to measurements. The magic here could be interpreted as the effects of virtual particles. Or more or less as I "understand" it. Pop science keeps pushing the notion, but I suppose a physicist might also. This is strange territory where philosophy can't seem to abstain trespassing. :chin:

Neil de Grasse Tyson says that where the moving wheel touches the road, its speed is zero. True or false? — frank

Yes. The speed of the road is zero. Next question?

Being 40 years would already disqualify a person in most of the world's military — Lionino

We were talking about rossii, and I don't know his age. Did I miss something?

My mind keeps convincing me that the most rational thing one can do is, in fact, commit suicide. — rossii

Stop reading the philosophical shit that pulls you in this direction. Take up a physical challenge, like hiking or climbing.

If it is an option, join the military. — Lionino

The psych test might be a problem. But otherwise the military does provide a kind of meaningfulness.

I don't see the Syndrome in play here. Once he began going to religious meetings with his wife a new personality began to evolve. He was welcomed into that community with open arms. He found a path that became more attractive the longer he followed it.

Sometime later he told me, "I used to worry so much about so many things and my life was meaningless, but now when a problem arises I put myself in God's Hands and let him guide me."

When one forms a causal chain mathematically, one can assume that at each step a single causal function exists. But in the real world a host of causal "forces" may be in play at each step, and somehow they must average out to prolong the expansion. Here is an attempt to corral those forces in the simplest mathematical structures.

Note that this looks at causal expansions starting at an original cause and moving forward through time.

If math is not your ticket, ignore the above. :cool:

Shades of the Deep South, where I grew up. Sad.

I'm dissappointed that you are mislead by these types of claims, as you're one of the wiser and more level-headed contributors on this forum. — Wayfarer

Thanks for the compliment. But listen carefully here: "Surge the Border"

Do you really think those wanting to immigrate pay much attention to "context"?

I don't think the Biden administration bears particular blame for the movement of undocumented immigrants — Wayfarer

You are correct. Blame is not his alone. But he did call upon those fleeing their oppressive governments to "Surge the borders" of the US.

And they have.

If this is true, all he did was change the label on his good works. It's the same god, the same basic belief, with slightly different by-laws. — Vera Mont

As much as I can recall this is a true story, perhaps inaccurate where my memory fails. He and I were bouldering companions while I got my doctorate and he got his masters at the same institution. We would go climbing together two or three times a week around 1970. At least at that time there were some real differences between the religions. However, the Catholic Church has moderated a bit over the intervening years.

I haven't talked with him in years. But I see EWTN has a fairly recent hour long interview with him and his wife. They were Pentecostals before Catholics, I see. He worked with a Watergate conspirator turned preacher at some point.

I think there may be differences between alternate histories (like Lem's theory) and alternate timelines. But I'm too tired to cogitate. :yawn:

What does this mean, exactly? That paying no attention to a philosophical discussion is a virtue? — Wayfarer

Oh my, you are on a roll. :gasp: First you suggest machine gunning people crossing the Rio Grande, and now you suggest the obvious. Sad days, indeed. :cool:

Where did they go? — Paine

Texas, S. Carolina, etc. as far as I recall. Cheaper to live in those states among other amenities.

Are there alternatives? Could they be, you know, machine-gunned as they cross the Rio Grande? — Wayfarer

Your suggestion, not mine. :gasp: I did not realize you have a dark side! I would try to prevent them entering the US by humane means. Perhaps ship them to Australia. My wife spent a year in your country and liked it there.

220,000 higher income individuals left CA in 2021. Bye. :smile:

Well, CA and NY seem concerned about that issue.

About 300,000 left NY in one year and about 100,000 migrants arrived in NYC. So, actually, the population is decreasing and NY needs more migrants to make the census count to gain or keep seats in the House.

When one rich person leaves and one poor person moves in. It's happening. Not necessarily one-to-one. But in general.

A long time ago a good friend of mine, a young man at the time, inhabited a world that was falling apart - or so he perceived it. He had no job, despite an advanced degree in the sciences, his wife threatened to leave him and take their two small children. He was at wits end.

His wife, a devout Christian, insisted on him joining her father's church (her father was pastor), or she would leave. He gritted his teeth and joined the church - and focused on acquiring the "belief" upon which the church was founded. In other words, he told himself, "You will believe what they believe".

Some would say, You can't believe something you don't believe down deep - it will always be a superficial belief. But my friend would prove them wrong.

He not only came to strongly believe the faith, he became a missionary, working with prison inmates along the Gold Coast of Africa. He spoke with President Reagan about his work.

Now, here is the truly odd part of the story. His church was protestant, and my friend wrote published articles about the dangers of Catholicism. Then, one day, he and his wife and family converted to the Catholic faith, and he became a Deacon of the Church, working with the homeless.

If you make up your mind to believe, it's not an impossibility. And it's a possible way out of your dilemma.

If one looks at a kind of causation chain that has taken one from birth to the present, at each temporal step a host of causes converges to form the next step, not an easy thing to grasp. Stanislaw Lem had an Ergodic theory of history in which going back in time and performing an act wouldn't necessarily cause a radically different present. The fact that so many aspects of causation go into effect for a moment might mean that they "average out" and any one might have very little effect compared to the others.

The Grandfather paradox might not be completely binding. Give it some thought.

Trump appears to be in the mold of Mussolini - the arrogant stances and stern facial imagery. Back then the Italian people wanted someone to come in and bring order out of chaos, and he did, at least for awhile.

I wouldn't be giving Trump a second glance if it were not for the imbecile who is president now and the way he opened the borders of our country and allowed hundreds of thousands to migrate here non legally. I suspect the reasoning was to flood municipalities with people who would probably vote Democratic at whatever levels they could. Cities, counties, perhaps states. This might shift the House into Democratic hands. Non-civilians voting in national elections is problematic.

The irony is that the big Democratic sanctuary cities are losing high income tax payers to be replaced with homeless and welfare subjects.

Don't pay any attention to me. I'm old and doddering, the third stage of the Riddle of the Sphinx.