I agree that the changes you observe all have causes, I just think that's apriori knowledge. — frank

No, this is not knowledge at all. That is belief. For it to be knowledge, you must demonstrate that all changes you observe have causes. It is a strong and very useful belief, but it is not knowledge.

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.
— Philosophim

To the best of our knowledge this statement is false. — EricH

Please demonstrate how this is false. I can go around saying a lot of things are false, but it must be shown to be false, not merely believed to be false.

And this where faith comes in - to believe in the a god or gods or the supernatural requires a leap of faith. — EricH

This argument has nothing to do with faith or God. I often find theists and anti-theists become completely unreasonable when they suspect an argument is going for or against their personal belief. Please eliminate that inclination, and take the argument for what it is.

a way out of the OPs conundrum is to note that cause and effect are bound together, two sides of one coin. — frank

I fail to see this. Mind using this to demonstrate how this dismantles the OP? Anything can be claimed, but for it to matter, it must be logically shown.

The two alternatives here being necessity and possibility? — Mww

Lets clarify what necessity and possibility are.

Logical necessity is a logical conclusion that cannot be contradicted within the system. For example, if you define yourself as "the thing that thinks about what I am". You then say, "Either I exist, or I do not exist." Then if you think about what you are, it is logically necessary that "you" exist because you have eliminated the possibility of "you" not existing. You can expand the definition of "you", but then its a new system that has new considerations.

We could expand the scope of what "you" are into the realm of possibility. For example, you could say, "I like cherries, I like ice cream, I will probably like cherry ice cream." This is not logically necessary, but logically possible. Cherry ice cream exists, therefore you might like it. The flaw in the argument of possibility is the idea that liking cherries or ice cream has any bearing on whether you'll like cherry ice cream as many times a combination of foods we do not like creates a taste we do like.

As you can see, the OP is not an argument about logical possibility, but logical necessity.

It follows that if the validation given by experience is continued in kind into the infinite range of effects contingent on causes, it is logically impossible for there to be a cause that is not itself an effect. — Mww

I never claimed first causes are outside of cause and effect once they exist. The opposite in fact. While I stated an alpha is an entity that does not have an X, I did NOT state that an alpha could not have an X. The implicit (which perhaps should have been made explicit) understanding is that an alpha can, or cannot have a Z. And as we know, cause and effect are measuring tools of perspective. That which we are measuring to have been caused, is effected. This can of course turn around. Just as we can say the cue ball caused the 8 ball to move, we can state that the 8 balls acceptance of the force transfer from the cue ball, caused the cue ball to slow down substantially.

The only hard rule for an alpha, is that its initial existence for being has no X. I find it logically necessary that at least one alpha must exist in any chain of causality. If this clarifies the idea, do you agree that the argument fits the criteria for logical necessity?

We don’t know there is a first cause, yet we conclude logically there must be one. What we know today is that, in our experience, every change has a cause. So it is the case that what we know from limited experience contradicts what we logically conclude regardless of experience. — Mww

I don't think that's quite correct. What I did was take cause up to its logical conclusion. There are only two alternatives. If one is logically eliminated from actually being possible, only the other remains. Now where the theory could fail is if some third alternative arrives. Of course, I also think that's impossible. Its like saying the number 3 could exist in binary. If we include a 3, its not really binary anymore.

So I've proven with the information we have, that a first cause is necessary. And in that, I think that's new. Its not a "maybe", its a "logical certainty". The question of applicability and needing evidence is only in what form it would take.

there’s nothing to which a complementary negation doesn’t equally fit — Mww

Unless of course you can negate the argument. Currently its what I'm waiting for to hear from people. Because if people don't, then philosophically, this debate and any debate about finite vs infinite regression is concluded.

This for me is walking on thin ice ... Even worse, walking on the air; I get dizzy! :grin:

What I can do though is to try in my own way to prove or disprove your thesis: A first cause is logically necessary, which anyway, as I already told you, I find it quite interesting ...

Anyway, thank you a lot for your willingness to clarify things! — Alkis Piskas

I'm glad you're enjoying the challenge! If I've given you something to think and wonder on, whether it ends up holding true or false in the end, it is one of the greatest compliments I could receive. Feel free to keep asking for clarification where needed, and keep challenging it as your thoughts arise.

I remember years ago in a current continental philosophy class, being was described as that which could interact with another. I remember this struck me as odd, because "a" being always had to be identified in relation to "another". I remember not liking it at the time, but there was something undeniably powerful about the statement.

Having gained more knowledge over the years, I think there must always be another for "being", because something can only know what it interacts with. While in theory, there could be a single entity of "some thing", it would forever be unknown to anything. If a being falls in a forest of nothingness, it makes no sound.

A being is what exists, and we can only define what we are able to glean exists. We do this through some form of interaction, indirect, or direct. So beings will always be known in their interactions with other. For our purposes, it is when we can define a meaningful enough "thing" that creates an observable unique interaction from what is around it. The word "being" is a generic word meant to capture this concept. Words like "being" are formulas that can expand or contract as we shorten or widen the scope.

If you are looking for a definition of being that fits all scopes, then "that which interacts with something besides itself" is about all you can get. If that is unsatisfying, that is the nature of broadly scoped generalities. They have a very small sense of truth that will endure through more narrowly defined scopes, but will rarely reveal anything meaningful or useful for specific circumstances.

I suffer from anxiety and for the last 10 or so hours I'm having an episode — TheMadFool

No good! I know it might not help much, but I think you're a pretty cool person who's kept this forum interesting. I hope it settles down soon, and you can get some rest. When the suffering seems unbearable, just remember that it will pass, like it always does.

My short answer to this is people can say anything they want when there are no consequences for it.
"I would sacrifice my life and run into a burning building to save a baby." Sitting here at home with no real risk of this happening, I can feel very good about myself as I run the imagery through my mind. But then a real fire happens. There's a baby crying. Suddenly there are real consequences. If I die, who will take care of my dog? Maybe the building will collapse before I get out, and we'll both die. Maybe...

Lots of people can sit on their couch and talk about how moral and ethical they'll be. Then one day when you're walking down the street, a bank car overturns and millions of dollars fly out the back. Before you are several hundred dollars that could easily pay this months rent, and let you pay off some debt. There are tons of people in the street collecting money already. There's no way you'll get caught, or arrested, or even blamed. Heck, if you started collecting it to give you back, people would probably think you were a fool. Do you actually not steal in this instance?

Torture is about fear of loss. On paper you wouldn't do it. But then you don't know if that guy has information that could get some of your people killed. That bastard is an enemy who attacked us, with the intent to murder us. If we don't torture him, more people might die. Am I willing to let my own people die for some murderer who is here to kill my family and friends?

Sorry you've experienced it by the way. I'm not saying it was right. What I'm trying to say is being moral isn't just about knowing what is moral, it is about having the courage and conviction to follow it. Many people will have the former, fewer will have the later.

I think the biggest issue with this is you need to condense and clarify your points. When you define something such as autonomous morality, you should clearly define it, then use examples to demonstrate that definition.

This is an act that no human would say "it is amoral, it is immoral". To all this is a truly moral act. — god must be atheist

Not one of the components are learned, inasmuch as the reaction to immediately risk the self in a rescue mission is not learned but automatic, and the elation-guilt reward-punishment system is not learned and furthermore can't be circumvented or avoided by the individual. — god must be atheist

But then you later say,

There are a few other examples of autonomous moral behavior.

One is the moral obligation to kill your rival if you find him or her in an intimate act with your spouse. — god must be atheist

But not everyone would react this way. Some would kill their partner. Some might find it arousing. I think you were trying to imply that that autonomous morality was the emotions within the individual that compel you to do actions of a social nature? And these emotions would be innate, not learned from society correct? Every example you give should reinforce your clear definition, and leave room for doubt or error. We all struggle with this, its not just you. But I believe you start taking societal moral norms and applying them to autonomous morality, and it makes it confusing.

Non-autonomous morals are always social or societal. Biological evolution made it possible in humans to have the moral effect programmed by societal pressure. Educators in societies shape behavior, or at least attempt to, to make people act according to the rules of their host society. — god must be atheist

Here I think you do better. Non-autonomous morals are those placed by 1 or more people on others. This might coincide with one's autonomous morals, but it also may not. A society generally enforces it ethical model on people, and those who have an autonomous mismatch of a certain threshold are punished by society.

The far-reaching effect is our logical ability to reject the theories attempted to be built by all previous moral philosophers to date, up to, but not including, moral system theories by evolutionary theorists. — god must be atheist

That's a neat claim, but why? I didn't really get that from your paper.

There you go again making the same basic mistake. You just can't seem to get over the cause/explanation equivocation. — SophistiCat

Feel free to better explain how I am making this equivocation then. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just not seeing where you are coming from.

Yeah, well, you know. I want to know stuff. That first causes are logically necessary tells me not a damn thing about stuff. — Mww

Its not science, its philosophy. Philosophy helps us come to logical conclusions apart from application, so we can let our mind wander to possibilities that perhaps could one day be applied. For example, if it is the case that first causes are logically necessary, we can also conclude that there is no need for there to be only one, and that one could happen at any moment. This leads to questions about why the universe isn't loaded with them. Check the last paragraph of my reply to Bob Ross to see some of the things of consequence I've been thinking of.

Thing is....there’s no possibility of demonstrating a failure in pure logic predicated on universals alone, all particulars in succession must be substituted to falsify the proposition/theory, which effectively reduces the logical necessity for first causes to a worthless tautology. — Mww

Perhaps you think tautologies are useless, but they can help narrow questions of scope. The debate between infinite regression and finite regression has existed for quite some time. This give a definite answer to the idea of a first cause. The conclusion of a long debate in philosophy can be useful, and opens up further ideas as I've already mentioned.

...Because, however, the mere form of a cognition,... — Mww

Of course. You have to take your idea and apply it to reality to determine its real. You can logically predict things about reality, test them, and find them to be true however no? Scientists predicted the big bang purely through logical consequences. Does that mean its proven? Of course not. Does that mean its interesting and makes us think on further possibilities? Absolutely. The quest for philosophy is to find the limits of logical consequences with ideas. If we can apply and test them, they become science. I am not doing science, but creating an idea that is logically sound. While I may fail at science, do I fail at philosophy here?

We are not justified in saying “that is just how reality is” because there may very well be exceptions to the rule we have not reached, in which case, we really didn’t know just how reality is at all. — Mww

No disagreement here. But we can only conclude logic with what we know today correct? Your assertion can be applied to every single bit of knowledge mankind has ever gleaned from the world. It doesn't mean I've done anything wrong here. :)

I never wandered from it. I support the logical necessity of first causes; followed by a great big fat gigantic....so what? Even if true, we can do nothing with it, it makes no difference in The Grand Scheme of Things, and as an intellectual exercise, ended as soon as it began. Anyone with a modicum of metaphysical prowess already knew all about it, and no one else cares.

Still fun to play with, though, so...thanks for that. — Mww

I have had fun thinking about it as well. Perhaps you may have fun thinking of the next stage that I started with Bob Ross. Its been a great conversation regardless.

Y is an object that we believe has an X, but we do not know if it does
— Philosophim
But you have established that "X represents an existent prior causality to Y". So, if we know that X exists, how can we not know that Y has an X? — Alkis Piskas

No, I am saying that we don't know. Perhaps there is an X for a Y, or perhaps there is not. If there does not exist for a particular Y, then that Y is an alpha. Basically a Y without a X. I suppose I don't change Y to something else when we know there is an X for that Y, which I could see causing confusion. If I said a Y that we knew had an X was called a "why", would that help? :D

So then a Y may or may not have an X.
An Alpha is a Y that does not have an X.
A Why is a Y that does have an X. (Why? Because X. I can put a little levity here right?)

With that in mind, see if you can continue the rest of the argument. Part of asking for feedback from the forums is so it could be rewritten and amended better to be clearer. So your feedback is welcome!

This is such an old and commonly discussed topic that I am at a loss as to what to recommend. See Agrippan (Munchhausen) trilemma, principle of sufficient reason, metaphysical grounding. — SophistiCat

Hm, I don't think those conclude the same thing that has been concluded here. But, I appreciate your input to the conversation.

It all starts on a more precise understanding of the Self, how the Self comes to mind and how we create categories and concepts. Happy to talk this in a Tertulia if you join us to Discord's Philosophy Bookclub. — Raul

Certainly Raul. Fantastic contribution here and discussion. Thank you.

If there exists an X which explains the reason why any infinite causality exists
— Philosophim

This would only stand up if you proved that such an X actually exists. This is a condition you set up which is not shown or proven to be true. — god must be atheist

Let me clarify the point. I am saying "if" there exists an X. If there does not, then the infinite regress's cause for existence, is the fact that it exists. There can be no prior reason for its existence, but itself. The only way this cannot be is if an X exists for that infinite regress. And if that is the case, we repeat the process ad nauseum, still arriving at the same conclusion of the OP.

BTW, and to the OP, doesn't logic itself require a cause, or a story of origin? — Olivier5

Yes. I have a theory of that, but that will have to wait for another time.

I much appreciate the discussion Bob. Do not worry about being concise!

This may be a fundamental difference between you and I: I think deduction is actually less reliable than induction (with respect to the topic at hand) because it requires the use of a basic principle (or principles) that then can be “explored”, so to speak, to logically determine its consequences. — Bob Ross

I understand. I wrote another paper here which examines knowledge using basic principles. I've used that basis of knowledge for years now in my own life and philosophy, but of course you would not know that! It is here https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9015/a-methodology-of-knowledge if you are interested in reading it after this conversation is over. I can't seem to get anyone to have a good discussion with over it, and it bothers me that I haven't had anyone to properly discuss a theory which is a potential solution to the problem of induction.

But back to the topic, to your definition of induction, I will agree that that the argument is inductive. I am assuming a consistency in laws, and assuming things that may or may not exist. Where I think the deduction comes from is if these inductions were to be true, what would logically have to follow. But you are 100% correct in the fact this is is something we cannot actively prove or confirm through evidence. There are a few theories in math that also work this way. They make claims about number patterns that in theory should be logically true, but cannot be confirmed due to the fact there are infinite numbers. I think this is a fundamental of philosophy. Science seeks to put our theories to the test, while philosophy tries to narrow the field of ideas to those that have the most logical reasons to test, or try to answer logically situations that, at that moment of human history, cannot be tested by science.

I do not see how a first cause, which would defy all laws and logic we have thus far (especially causality), is any less “absurd” than an actual infinite. To say something just infinitely regresses, or infinitely loops around, has just as little explanatory power (I would say) as saying it just is, or that it is its own cause in itself. — Bob Ross

You are correct. Both are outside of the ability to confirm though experience. They are the conclusions of what we know today. Causality exists. So causality must either continue indefinitely, or definitely. Of course, maybe there's a third option we haven't thought of. But among the two options of absurdity, we find that even an infinite regression end up having to be self-explained.

I am saying this because I was under the impression that you were arguing against the idea of an infinite regression, but I would say that an actual infinite regression is just as valid, so to speak, on contrary to a potential infinite regression, as the idea of a first cause which is self-caused. — Bob Ross

Yes, I am not denying that an infinite regression is possible, but the fact that there exists an infinite regression, is self caused.

I would like to, first and foremost, to agree with you that I also think that your argument (as presented hitherto) is open to the idea of multiple first causes — Bob Ross

Yes, there is nothing in the argument that implies only one first cause would exist, or can exist. If a first cause has no prior explanation for its existence, there is no rule constraining or pushing a first cause to exist. Meaning there is no reason multiple first causes could, or could not happen. Further, there is no reason a first cause has to continue to exist once it is formed. What does necessarily have to happen however, is if it forms among other existences in space and time, it must be part of space and time. Further, it can cause, and be effected by other matter that share the properties of space and time. So while a first cause has no prior cause for its inception, once it enters reality it can interact with, it can be acted upon and vice versa.

And this leads back to the issue I had with the technicality of "A self cause creating itself". Once a self cause is existent, anything that it causes is now a secondary cause from the primary formation. This has lead me to wonder at a few things. And here, this is recently considered territory for me, and I am curious what you think. If it is the case that more than one first cause can form, why would we not see more? But thinking about it, I believe first causes by their nature or the base constitute parts of existence. Complex objects are really a combination of smaller objects. A complex object cannot be self-explained, but is explained by its interaction with other objects.

That being the case, a self-explained entity would seem to be indivisible. Anything at the scale of our general observations is divisible. Now, that is not to say more than one self-explained entity could form in such away with another self-explained entity as to create a more complex object. But when you consider the odds of a self-explained entity appearing alone, versus the odds of it appearing in perfect tandom with another self-explained entity, it seems like it would be smaller and smaller odds that a self-explained entity appeared at once as an ever more complex object, like a person, or a planet. It doesn't mean that primary entities couldn't combine later once formed, but that may also take time and incredible luck and timing for them to be intertwined in such a way as to create a long term stable complex object.

But that's just some extra thought for now. Your grasp of the situation I think is rather tight, and you have a keen mind for this. Continue to ask questions as you see fit!

My apologies Bartricks, I had logged in this forum a couple of days ago under the wrong email, and did not realize I had an old account I had forgotten about until I saw the name on my post. My original post was on the first page from Wirius. I did not receive your reply notice on this account of course, and I just realized you had responded to the other account.

We seemed to be in agreement until here:

You have just begged the whole question by assuming that we are innocent! It's absurd. Look, if God exists, you're in a prison. That's the point I was making. It follows logically. Here: — Bartricks

While you understood omnipotence, I think omnibenevolence was neglected. An omnibenevolent being would do that which is perfectly good. Now if that being is already omnipotent, it can even do things that are contradictions, why would it need to jail anyone?

Guilty beings could simply be reformed, or even changed on God's whim. Lessons could be imparted without any suffering or punishment. If God requires that the guilty must be punished, then God simply wants to watch guilty beings suffer for its own sake. There is no lesson that could not be learned without suffering, and yet this God inflicts suffering on its guilty victims. You have assumed an omnibenevolent, omnipotent being would only avoid inflicting suffering on the innocent. But that's not the case. They would also avoid inflicting suffering on the guilty.

To inflict suffering on the guilty, when you could reform them with your omnipotence is not omnibenevolent. That's a being with a less than perfect morality. So you haven't solved the problem of evil, you've only confirmed it.

I read the whole thing. Again, very impressive!

I'm not saying cause-effect does not exist. We humans have created the words cause and effect to describe something. What I'm saying is that they don't work to properly describe reality. — Raul

If cause and effect cannot accurately represent reality, then they are unicorns that do not exist. Cause and effect is a 4D measurement of states over time, and discovering which forces caused those state changes over time. It describes reality with accurate enough precision, that we know it exists. How did you type the words to post your idea? What caused the words to appear on your computer screen? Are you saying there is no cause, nor effect?

I'm hearing a lot of, "They're just words that don't really work". But I'll need to see it demonstrated to me the situation of cause and effect that I just showed, is false. Show me an argument that clearly indicates there is no cause that allowed the effect, those letters that appear on the screen. If you can do it honestly, I will be impressed. Can you argue with the letters on your keyboard, showing why you did not cause those letters to appear on the screen?

If this question is for you relevant to this discussion I think you're too biased by using a language in wrong context. — Raul

How? How am I using it in the wrong context? It seems clear to me. There must be more than a claim, you have to give me a reason that backs that claim.

Not really, they talk about action-reaction and anyway my point is that cause-and effect is not enough to describe reality. — Raul

Action-reaction is another way of saying cause and effect. Reaction means a response to an action, an affect from a cause.

I assume that by "unknown" it is meant that Y has a prior causality but it is unknown, and that unknown causality is represented by X, rather than it does not have a prior causality or that it is unknown whether it has a prior causality or not. — Alkis Piskas

No, and I thank you for pointing that out. I should detail that explicitly. Y is an object that we believe has an X, but we do not know if it does. That is why there is no contradiction. An alpha is a Y that is discovered to have no prior X.

One of these, of course, is called "first cause," but as a fact about the causal structure of the world, it is not located anywhere in time, nor is it a cause in the usual sense (only in a loose sense that is synonymous with "explanation" or "reason"). — SophistiCat

This is fair. "First cause" is simply a label for the underlying concept. And that concept is that every chain of causality must end. The end point logically, cannot have a prior explanation for its initial existence. It is called a "first cause" because that generally fits the narrative, and also communicates that once it is formed, it enters into causality. The only important note is that there is no prior causality. If you have a better word for this, I'm very open to it.

Whatever meaning you prefer to use, if you use it consistently throughout, then it doesn't appear that you have managed to say much with your argument. — SophistiCat

I think pointing out that there must be something in our universe that does not have a prior explanation for its existence is a pretty big thing to say. If you're not interested, fair. But if you're not saying I'm wrong, I and others find that interesting. Since you seem to think there was a simpler way to prove this, feel free to show it.

Again, I just don’t see how this says anything. The possibility of infinite regressive, and even infinite progressive, causality, is logically given. Do you mean there is no outside reason other than its being logical? What other reason could there be for that which is merely a logical proposition? — Mww

Fair question. If it turns out that all of causality is infinitely regressive, what caused it to be that way? If you introduce an X, or a prior explanation, then its not really infinitely regressive right? If we continue for an infinity of infinities, we still can only come to the conclusion, "it simply is, because that is how reality exists". There is no outside cause for why infinite regression would exist, its existence would be self explained, a first cause, an alpha.

But there being no reason whatsoever for me being rich, is incomprehensible, whether I care about the reason or not. I simply cannot suddenly be rich (a change) without a reason (a cause), whether I conclude anything respecting it, or not. — Mww

True, but you're straying from the OP again. :P Lets try to keep the counter examples to the OP if possible. Btw, I enjoy your points, and think you are making excellent conversation. I'm just trying to steer it back tot he original point.

If the bridge is washed out, my path across it is impossible. — Mww

That's not really the same thing as the OP's points. Really, my best example of what the OP is trying to do, is the OP itself. But perhaps a better example is a light switch. If you turn it off, the light goes off. But if you turn it on, you expect it to light up. However, you find that when you turn it on, there's actually a circuit behind it that prevents it from turning on. You thought turning it on was an option, but its actually impossible. Therefore, the light switch can never turn the light on. Don't go crazy on the thought experiment. Its just to get you in a certain mindset. Use the OP if you find that mindset wrong.

Granted already; there is a first cause logical necessity. But only in the case of a chain comprised of a regressive series. Doesn’t work that way for a progressive series. Next month cannot be explained without the priority of next week. — Mww

Yes, agreed.

Is that a 'value'? Why is it important what comes 'first' or if something does come 'first'? Do you apply more value to first or second and if so why do you do this? — I like sushi

I'm just trying to speak in the terms you were using. I don't value anything more than another.

Real in what way? Why does the value 'real' come into play here? Are claiming that cause and effect are real because you value them or because you value cause and effect or because you don't value them. I'm guessing you apply the term 'real' to them because you value them so when you say 'real' you mean of 'value'. The question is then 'value' how and due to what distinction? — I like sushi

Real means what exists. What is not real, does not exist. Can you demonstrate that cause and effect do not exist?

I can show you. Here. I had no need whatsoever to type the words you said I wouldn't be able to stop myself from typing! :D — I like sushi

Did your fingers press the keys to type the words? Of course they did. Those fingers pressing the keys caused the words to appear on the screen. Its important that when obvious conclusions arrive in a discussion, we admit to them, even if we don't personally like them.

If we break down the cause and effect into the item you gave (typing) then I can just keep on dividing up any given act. For example I could say that the cause of me typing on a keyboard is my want to communicate, but then I could ask where this 'want' comes from. I could say my thoughts instigate my want, but what instigates my thoughts. Or I could move in another direction and ask what instigated that particular thought to type, or did I even think about typing or merely acted to the cause of reading your post? Where does this go? What direction do I take? Is this meaningful and if so, or not, how? — I like sushi

Yes, that is the scale of measurement. Cause and effect are a 4 dimensional measurement that analyzes states at one point in time, compares them to a previous point in time, and attempts to prove there is a necessary relation between it and the other states around it, that caused the current state to exist. We can use whatever time units we want, limit or expand the forces, etc. Its just like 2d measurement. I can measure length. But at what scale? Inches, cm, nanometers? What is the precision we desire, or is practical for predictive outcomes? You don't think because length measurement is a model, that there is no length right?

i can assure you that the expression "cause and effect" never came up in my 4 years of college. — EricH

A force collides with an object and causes it to move 1 meter per second upon impact. What caused the object to be in the state of velocity of 1 m/s?

We factually know that this is not true. Events at the atomic and sub-atomic level have no prior "cause". Events do follow certain statistical patterns, but each event is totally random with no prior "cause". — EricH

I'm not sure what facts you're getting. Feel free to link to them. My understanding is there are plenty of forces at play like the weak, strong force, etc. An atom does not typically turn into a bomb unless certain causes happen correct? Something having odds or statistics does not eliminate cause and effect. Your cell phone works due to our understanding of quantum mechanics. If the quantum level was truly random, there would be no prediction or manipulation that we could do which would allow the precision communication of a cell phone. Finally, quantum foam as a theory does not destroy cause and effect.

I'll let Artemis address your last paragraph.

Cause and effect are brought about due to categorical distinctions. Within distinctions values are emergent. — I like sushi

Cause and effect are four dimensional measurements of the world. They are representatives of the world, just like words and math are. But, we can have inaccurate measurements, and accurate measurements. Is there a cause and effect behind you ability to type out words on the screen as a response? Of course there is, and it is accurate. The fact that cause and effect can be used inaccurately does not deny cause and effect.

To ask about a ‘first cause’ states that there is a first cause as ‘cause’ and ‘first’ are framed via temporal appreciation not via atemporal appreciation. — I like sushi

I've never removed time. Time is simply the relation between two state changes. If things can change, there is time. If they cannot, there is no time. I am not claiming first causes are apart from time.

I cannot value one thing about another without two things. I can value myself above myself in terms of temporal difference (the me previously to the future me) but this is likely a trick as the ‘now’ is the accumulation of past/future me not distinct from it. — I like sushi

Well, I am valuing two things. A first cause leads to a second right?

None of this likely helps the discussion though because it is meant as means of putting an end to it — I like sushi

No, trying to show that the discussion is along the wrong path is helpful. Analyzing whether are assumed premises are valid is incredibly important. But, I don't think you've succeeded in showing the premises of cause and effect aren't real. Try to explain to me how you can type words on your keyboard without cause and effect. Do that, and there might be a foothold here.

Against this backdrop, we could explore possibilities in re the so-called laws of nature e.g. in the case of the Big Bang (first cause), was gravity negative? — TheMadFool

Yes, an excellent point. We can only have faith that the rules of causality were the same billions of years ago as they are today. But perhaps they were not. Perhaps gravity is not a constant, but changes. But does that eliminate cause and effect itself? No. What it eliminates are our formulas of consistency being applied to the past.

The cause-effect intuition (Hume was great explaining it) implies a cause of a cause in a infinity loop what is irrational in itself. That's it! — Raul

I think this is incorrect. Hume was talking about predicting the future. Hume couldn't deny we could figure out cause and effect in the moment. His point was we could never be certain cause and effect would continue. Why should the rules and laws of physics remain constant tomorrow? Or even an hour from now. It is an inductive belief based on habit. And it may very well be the case that tomorrow, cause and effect stops working. All we are left with at that point is things that are essentially self-explained, and cannot be predicted or tell us its past.

That does not mean cause and effect is irrational, or incorrect. Look at the words you typed. What caused that? The question makes perfect sense to you. Try to answer that question without cause and effect in a way that is meaningful in reality. If you can do that, I will consider that cause and effect is not real.

No need for several universes. This very universe of ours appears made of things popping in and out of existence all the soddin' time. An non-determinist universe is a universe in constant creation. — Olivier5

So here are some cool things to consider. If there are no rules as to what should be self-explained, then it seems like there are no limitations as to what could form self-explained. Well, within the limitations of definition. A complex object would arguably not be 1 self explained entity, but several forming at the exact time in a way that caused a stable identifiable existence apart from just the individual combinations. This would be exceedingly rare, and might pull in Cantor's cardinality to calculate the odds of such an event. Of course, perhaps that's irrelevant in a sea of infinite possibilities, but intuitively (for all that's worth) it would seem the case that over a set period of time, it would be more likely that there is a greater set of simple alphas that form independently, versus an increasingly smaller set of alphas that form with the correct way and timing into a more complex objct.

Yes, this does mean the universe would BOTH be deterministic, and non-deterministic. Once something forms, it is deterministic. But, the addition of an unpredictable alpha, even an incredibly tiny one for a few seconds, throws the forces off "just" slightly enough to never be 100% predictable. Here we have a solution to the deterministic problem that is logically consistent.

As for multiverse theory, it still might be a bunk theory, as we are attributing a possibility to an unknown. All we know is our notion of space. But what is there is a notion of space that can exist, but could never interact with our notion of space? I can't say its impossible (though in how we define space, maybe it is, another discussion) but it seems that if anything could form without prior explanation, why couldn't it?

You like to think that, up to you. Do you understand quantum mechanics? — Raul

In general, yes I do.

I think in the microscopic quantum world things don't happen in a lineal cause-effect way. — Raul

Based on what evidence? We can believe and have opinions on all sorts of things. I'm not asking for personal beliefs or opinions. I'm asking someone to give me a hard fact that causality doesn't exist. Explain to me how you are able to press the keys on your keyboard to type words, and you expect those words to appear, and this can be understood without causality.

Why is Schrödinger equation full of probabilistic functions? Do you think it is because we don't know enough so we replace a "deterministic" function by a probabilistic one? — Raul

Yes, that is exactly that. The whole point of the experiment is when we don't observe the cat. The experiment continues without guesswork if we watch the cat the entire time. Quantum mechanics are understood because we understand rules that consistently work. Due to incredible difficulty of measuring and monitoring the quantum world, we are left with math that leads us to probabilities. But the math should not be confused as representing the quantum world as unpredictably random, but a predictable randomness based off of the knowledge we have, the the knowledge that we know we don't have.

I believe the world, what we call the reality is much more complex than the naïf-intuition of cause-effect.
I guess I'm not the only one, let s ask the physicists ;-) — Raul

No need. Any physicist will tell you cause and effect exists. I could ask any one of them, "What causes your keyboard to type words," and they will attempt to provide an explanation. But not one of them will say, "There is no cause, words just appear without explanation."

Also, we shouldn't need to ask a physicist if you have the answer yourself correct? If it is more than a belief, show it. If not, why should your belief matter to me? You could believe that unicorns control the world as well right? If you can't demonstrate that, is that a belief I should bother considering?

As to your explosion question, I felt I gave a pretty clear answer.
— Philosophim
Clear enough, but not to the question. — tim wood

I may not have understood the question then. Could you try to rephrase it to make it more clear?

Then what is "in between"?
I'm assuming it exists.
— Philosophim — tim wood

Are you asking what's in between the cause and effect? Time. What scale of time do you want to talk about? The only time when there is no cause and effect is if time is zero. Cause and effect are 4d measurement's essentially.

And if I assume you owe me $100, can I expect a check in the next day or two? — tim wood

Nope! Ha ha ha! We can of course believe all sorts of things, but that is not knowing all sorts of things. You really should go read my knowledge paper, I explore this idea in depth. To bring it to a simple real world example, when I press the space bar key on my keyboard, I expect a space between my words. Pressing the space bar causes the space to appear between the words. Am I wrong? Is that not a good example of cause and effect?

If not, what would you replace it with? It is incredibly easy to say, "I doubt everything," but its impractical, and if you read my paper, does not lead to knowledge. I have knowledge of cause and effect. I use it effectively and consistently in my daily life without fail. If its wrong, give me something that is just as, or more effective to try. But asking questions that cast doubt on something, just to doubt it, is something anyone can apply to any concept.

First, thank you for your passionate and thoughtful response! There are many good points here.

I view causal arguments for a first cause to be, simply put (and I am not trying to undermine your argument), the process of induction being utilized to infer something that is well beyond that which any given experience could reasonably supply to induction itself. — Bob Ross

Absolutely true. The OP is an argument of abducto ad absurdum. Meaning, I am not showing that a first cause is necessary by showing proof of a first cause, but instead showing that if we assume there is no first cause, there exists an absurdity, or contradiction. The argument shows that I simply cannot logically deduce a situation that does not have a first cause, even when I propose an infinite regress.

That being said, it leaves it open to what we could explore that first causes would be. To me, this is the exciting part. If it is logically necessary that a first cause exist, would we see evidence of that in the universe? Is multiverse theory actually a statistical certainty, and not merely a fun theory? Is the nature of reality essentially infinite time and possibility?

If you believe my sense of causality to be the entire foundation of the argument, I agree. What I would put to you however, is does a first cause really function outside of space and time? Prior to its existence, yes. But once it exists, is it not part of space and time? One thing to also conclude from the argument is I am not stating there is only one first cause. If there is the possibility for one first cause, there is the possibility of several. Thus a first cause could appear while other existent things also exist. Perhaps yes, there is a first cause that could exist in a different plane of existence and time we cannot comprehend. But we're talking about our universe. First causes within our universe would necessarily have to be part of the space and time that results from them. That is because, as you noted, causality happens both ways. For space and time to come from a first cause, it must also be able to encounter space and time.

You see, I am also not entirely convinced that those are the only three options. I would say there are five (if one is going to use logic and its metalogical principles, which I won’t elaborate here, but I would be skeptical of this too): eternal existence, self-manifestation (causa sui), infinite regression, infinite loop, and arbitrary stopping point. Firstly, I think you may have too hastily lumped all causes that are defined as “not having a prior cause” into your “first cause” (c), when, in fact, I think there are at least (at a minimum) two distinct sectors: eternal existence and self-manifestation (causa sui); I would be personally unwilling to say that these two concepts are synonymous or analogous to one another—although I would concede that they both fit under your “first cause” (c) definition. — Bob Ross

Perfect. I have purposefully avoided the idea of eternal existence and self-manifestation because many will think I have an underlying theistic motive, and make the argument about what they believe I'm trying to say, versus just looking the argument for what it is. You are correct however. My only minor quibble would be self-causation, but that's technical and honestly irrelevant. I agree they all fit under the "first cause" definition.

In light of the two aforementioned concepts (eternal existence and self-manifestation), I am not entirely certain as to if you are arguing for a “first cause” that created itself (which would constitute it being its own justification) or if it just is — Bob Ross

Here is where the technicality arises. If something creates another thing, even if it is itself, that created thing is caused by the original thing, the first cause. I feel this is more word play and I think can be simplified into the fact that it just is.

Although I would concede that actual infinities have not been proven to exist, if they do exist, then they would not be subject to your criticism here: they would be just as out of bounds of the principle of sufficient reason as anyone could (at least) argue for any type of “first cause” — Bob Ross

I had to read this part a few times to make sure I understood. Please correct me if I'm wrong here. If you are implying that we could argue for any type of first cause, that is a conclusion of the argument. A first cause has no explanation for why it exists, therefore it is not constrained by prior rules as to why it should exist. That does not mean it wouldn't have rules after it formed, just no rules limiting it or requiring it to be a certain "thing".

The point of addressing actual infinities was to eliminate the only other option to the idea of finite regression. If we cannot have a situation that does not always boil down to a first cause, there must inevitably exist a first cause.

I apologize for how long my reply is, but I have an inkling that you would rather have a too long response than one that is way too short. — Bob Ross

You are all to right Bob!

I do not see how one could possibly prove that a-c (or even if you were to accept my previously mentioned five possibilities) are literally the only options — Bob Ross

You are also correct. But they are the only known options we have. I cannot bring logic into that which we have no knowledge of. As such, I am left with what I do know. If there was another option that came into light in the future, then the argument would be invalid. However, within the confines of what we do know, does the argument make sense? I think I've made a decent case.

I appreciate again your well thought out answer and critques, it was a joy to read a fellow passionate thinker!

But, I think I can reduce and simplify the discussion further: what reason do you have to suggest that we perceive causality (and not just infer it, or apply it as a rule)? I think it will be easier to move forward with our discussion once we get past this point. — _db

A good idea and a great gesture. Causality is not perceived, it is concluded. Try holding your breath. Try living without taking another breath. You will find it is impossible. A cause that allows you to live, is the air that you breath. With science, you can get more detailed. You can examine the different gasses and discover a certain range of oxygen mixed with other gasses is necessary for your life. One of the causes of your life is the air you breath.

If you don't eat, you run out of energy and die. What caused that person to die? They didn't eat. To deny cause and effect is to deny the very things that are causing you to remain alive. As such, cause and effect stands on some pretty solid ground. If you are going to turn that into shaky ground, you need some real world examples like how I can live without air or food. Until then, I see no convincing argument that can claim causality is something that merely exists in the mind.

What I deny is that cause is anything more than a convenient fiction that should not be carelessly reified. No doubt it is of the greatest use to aver that flipping the switch causes the light to go on, but it doesn't.

As to the explosion, that itself is a function of perceived time. Over the right time scale, there is no explosion. And if no explosion, it would seem no cause of explosion. And likely that a clue as to why fields have replaced causes. Also, if there are causes, just how exactly can they be separated from their effects? And if unseparated, then just what exactly is a cause? None of this against a useful descriptor, but solid evidence against any thing that corresponds to it.

Nor does this have anything to do with Kant, because his cause is categorical.

And I observe that you still have assayed no answer to the question. — tim wood

I mentioned earlier to one of the posters that cause and effect are more than fiction, as evidenced by your ability to post a reply. If we did not have an understanding of cause and effect, your post would not be able to be converted into a particular set of 1's and 0's that are read, streamed over a line, interpreted and saved to a server, then retrieved by everyone else when we visit. All of this happens over time, and apart from our perception.

While you may not personally believe in cause and effect, I see no evidence for this to be the case. As to your explosion question, I felt I gave a pretty clear answer. You have to give a clear scope, and then the question can be answered. I gave you a formula for basically all scopes. The answer to your question is not a specific answer, it is all the answers. Give me a specific scope, and I will give you the specific answer for that scope, that does not contradict any of the other scopes.

A cause is separated by its effect by the application of an outside force. So in the case of a cue ball hitting the 8 ball, the cue balls transferred force moved the 8 ball. What caused the cue ball to veer in another direction withe less speed was the the 8 ball that it collided into and absorbed much of the cue ball's force.

Again, I feel I'm answering all of these questions. I am also not trying to convince you that causality exists. I'm assuming it exists. As I have the answers to your queries, I am satisfied that your points have not shown my assumptions to be wrong. If you cannot present a convincing argument that causality does not exist, then at that point the OP itself will need to be critiqued. One way you could convince me that causality does not exist as more than a convenient fiction is explain how you posted online without causality.

Nope. What I'm asking is for you to say what you think makes - causes - the dynamite explode? — tim wood

Intentional or not, you are. How many seconds prior to the explosion should I consider? What scale of forces should I evaluate? Are we talking about the context of someone simply lighting the dynamite, or the subatomic forces aligned? How precise should it be? I suppose under the scale of everything the formulaic answer is, "All scales of force over X time units caused the dynamite to explode".

I don't see how this shows that causality does not exist.

Fair, I have no idea what I'm talking about then, and am not interested in getting further away from the OP at this point. To that end, do you have enough information now to understand how I view causality?

Since you are trying to convey Bell's theory, lets go with that then. I see some problems with the thought experiment. But its not the thought experiment that is important, it what it is trying to convey.

I looked into it a bit, and was amused when I found that superdeterminism basically answers Belle's Theorem. Now I think I see what you were trying to get at by causality.

Yes, I am a super determinist. Once some type of existence is in play, it will act and react the same way identically each time. Except for one situation. An entity that is self explained being incepted.

To detail, imagine an electron spinning in accordance with the forces of the known universe. Yet for the briefest of seconds, a small entity, an alpha, pops into existence for 5 seconds. For that five seconds, it adds its influence within that universe. It doesn't do much of course. It just changes the flow of an electron for 5 seconds. But at that point, there is a record within the universe of something which altered the calculated outcome, and did something completely unpredictable. The cause and effect are all clear. The math is still the same. But the unknown and unpredictable was the alpha appearing for five seconds, then vanishing or dispersing, or perhaps traveling away from that particular electron and influences elsewhere.

All of that being said again, I am being consistent (I believe) with the OP I posted. Does this clear up what I mean by causality?

So here's the first question. Is this a fair game? Can you prove it? Can you work out the minimal probability that you'll win? — InPitzotl

No, I can't. That's because probability requires a certainty of certain facts for formulation. As soon as you said, "I might not be necessarily being fair," you remove the ability to make an accurate assessment of odds. Lets say for example you win 75% of the time, even though the odds if you were playing fair might be higher or lower. That doesn't mean that you were cheating.

There is a method in statistics called T-distribution. With this, we can calculate the likelihood of standard deviation. Further, I would have to play a large sample size of games to get a fair distribution. Even then, without knowing whether you are an honest player or not, I couldn't be sure the game was fair. It might be incredibly unlikely that I lose 75% of the time, but its not impossible.

The question is not in the cards or the game, but in the unknowable mind of yourself. When there is a variable that is completely unknowable, but can greatly affect the outcome, you cannot calculate accurate odds. At that point you have have to make your best guess as to whether it is fair or not, and live with that decision.

To the point though, does this help explain my viewpoint of causality?

Edit: I read the discussion between you and the others after posting this, so you can be sure this was my personal and honest view, and not influenced by the other conversations.