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.

It is trivial to conclude that none of these alternatives admits of a prior state, since that would require an additional, unaccounted state. Nothing interesting follows from this, nor is the first cause hypothesis any different from the other two in this regard. — SophistiCat

Perhaps you can't think of anything interesting that follows from this, but I can. The idea that first cause entities are logically necessary is fascinating to me. This makes it more than a supposition, but a sound logical conclusion to follow. What does that entail for our universe? This leads to entirely knew philosophical threads that have this idea as a logical basis to start.

I think the idea that you are reaching for is not first cause but brute fact. Each of the alternatives is a brute fact in this presentation, since there is no reason/explanation/justification for whichever one of them actually obtains (at least not in this context). — SophistiCat

That's likely just a semantic distinction then. If you want to call a first cause a "brute fact", that's fine. My question of course is why does that brute fact exist? In which case we can say, "It doesn't have anything prior that caused it to be, it just is." So I don't think we're in disagreement here.

I'll try, an argument adapted from a book. The phenomenon is blowing an old tree stump out of the ground with some dynamite. Question: what exactly, causes the dynamite to explode? Informally, lots of things. But formally? Exactly? Care to take swing at it?

The idea is that the idea of cause is neither simple nor adequate for exact purposes. It's just a useful adoption of language to the world. But nothing of the world itself. And if you think it is, then show us on — tim wood

Sure, good example. What you're talking about is measurement of scale. I've written an old post that goes into a theory of knowledge and breaks down that very type of question. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9015/a-methodology-of-knowledge/p1 Suffice to say, its too complex for me to go over in this topic. So for my part, I am completely confident that cause and effect are more than convenient adoption of language, but real world applications that are expressed within expanding or contracting contexts. Again, I would love to speak on it more in depth, but I would derail my own thread!

Agree, scientists have already overcome and shown that cause-effect is a naïf-intuition that works well in our daily life but it breaks as you go macro or micro...
Can we common-mortals understand and comprehend this? NO. It requires strong and strict study on physics as well as "playing" a lot with new technologies that allow you to interact and exercise with the counter-intuitive micro quantum world.
This reality is only accessible to few people in the world. It is ineffable using current language and is only represented by formulas and mathematical language that "represent" those counter-intuitive laws.
And this ineffable reality is as real as it is the mobile phone and the TVs you have today in your homes. They work thanks to scientists understanding this counter intuitive reality. — Raul

Feel free to attempt to show why cause and effect break down then. The idea that only a few people can comprehend this is, in my mind, an excuse for being unable to explain an idea in a way that fits with reality. Are you saying there are times in physics where a force can be applied and there is literally zero affect, both on the applying force, and receiving force? I would like to see that.

so there can be no such thing as an uncaused cause
— Olivier5

Of course there is not such thing as "uncaused cause", — SpaceDweller

According to my OP, it is actually the opposite that is true. It is impossible for there not to be an uncaused cause. Feel free to critique the OP and see if you can find a hole.

Check me on my reduction: the only necessary existence is something that exists, because it exists? If that’s correct, it’s merely Aristotle revisited: that which exists, exists necessarily. That doesn’t say that which exists necessarily doesn’t have a cause. — Mww

No, that's not what I'm saying. There is no necessary existence. It is simply that if we are to think about the end logic of causality, it is necessary that there must be a place in the chain that has no prior explanation for its existence.

The best one can say is, that which exists without at least a logical reason is utterly incomprehensible to us as humans, whose intellect is entirely predicated a priorion the principle of cause and effect. — Mww

I've heard things like this before, and I consider it wrong. If I can logically conclude that it must exist, then it must. At that point, I can start thinking about the logical consequences of such an existence. Knowing that such things must exist in the universe we inhabit may allow us to consider threads of thought we may have dismissed. Man has always tried to grasp the incomprehensible. At one time, the idea of space was outside of man's intellectual and physical capabilities. Theories spring to ideas which can then be tested. To me, this is an essence of philosophy. To reach for the things just out of our grasp, and see if we can actually reach it.

If there is something said to exist within the universe necessarily given from the fact of its reality, why not the universe itself? If that something’s cause isn’t infinitely regressive, why should the universe’s? The cause of the cause is not at issue; the subject here is a given real existence, whether a something, or a something known as “universe”. — Mww

At this point I think you've strayed too far from the OP. The argument is that there essentially is the possibility of infinite regressive causality, or finite regressive causality. Yet the argument concludes that even when we propose an infinite regressive causality, it is impossible to escape that fact that if it is infinitely regressive in causality, that there can be no outside reason for this, but the fact of its own existence.

There are certain theories of math and philosophy that have succeeded by showing certain things are impossible, thus leaving us with a known alternative. That's essentially what the argument is doing.

The following points come to mind (in addition to a possible critique of causality itself):

1) It seems to me that if there can be such a thing as an uncaused cause, then there could be several such tings. There is no apparent reason to limit the number of "uncaused causes" to 1, so there could be a large number of "first causes", if those are defined as "uncaused causes".

2) If the law of reaction is true, then whenever object A has an effect on object B, B also has an effect on A. Therefore, a "cause" is a two-way street, an interaction, so there can be no such thing as an uncaused cause (at least if the law of reaction is universally true). — Olivier5

1. Nailed it. I find this exciting, and leads to new questions. Does this mean multiverse for example, is no longer a plausible theory, but almost logical certainty? A self explained existence does not need to exist forever. If any lifespan has an equal chance of forming, then wouldn't the universe be full of entities popping in and out of existence?

2. Almost correct. An uncaused cause has no prior reason for its existence. But what follows from its entering into existence would affect itself as well, yes. I would go so far to propose that a self explained entity could be completely indistinguishable from entities around it, besides the fact that its origin did not rely on anything else but its own existence. Proving an entity is self explained if it appeared and blended within a sea of existence that had already formed might prove impossible, as we might simply attribute the laws that are already around us on it, and merely assume things came before it, that in fact did not. I encourage you to let your imagination run wild here, its quite fun!

We have an atom that can, in a duration of time x, decay with 50% probability. Between times t0 and t1=t0+x, it did not decay. Between times t1 and t2=t1+x, it decayed. Let's call the time from t0 to t1 time span 1, and from t1 to t2 time span 2. Can we describe the cause of the decay in time span 2 as opposed to the lack of decay in time span 1? Can we say this cause in time span 2 is attributed to the properties contributing to 50% decay rate, and also that the cause of it not decaying in time span 1 is attributed to the 50% decay rate? — InPitzotl

Lets remember what odds are first however. Odds are a predictive model we use when we are limited in knowing particular information. Lets use an easier model to digest, as odds work the same no matter the complexity. Take a deck of playing cards. I know there are 52 cards. I'm going to draw a card after shuffling, without looking at the cards. There is a 4 out of 52 chance that the card drawn is a jack. We know this, because we know what the cards are made of, and we know the rules of drawing the deck. Probability is based on the knowable parts, and the knowable outcomes. It is a way to predict when we cannot observer the mechanism that will lead to one of the knowable outcomes.

Does that mean the cards don't follow causality? Does that if we could see the deck as it was being shuffled, that the jack would magically appear on the top of the deck outside of the shuffling? No. If the deck could avoid causality, then our odds would be worthless. If that did not explain what you were asking, please try to rephrase the question with a deck of cards example.

Spacetime is a classical concept (macro), like causality, that has no physical meaning at or shorter than a planck length (c10^-35 meters) or a planck interval (c10^-44 seconds) (nano). — 180 Proof

Isn't measurement a way we measure space? It doesn't matter how small it is, what you are describing fits in space. You also dodged my point about time. Can its state change over time? Can it interact with space time? If so, its not out of space time. That fits the definition of something being in space time. If you can explain how it doesn't, please try.

What caused the first cause, though? — Olivier5

A first cause has no prior cause. The point of the argument is that this is ultimately the universe will have a first cause origination. If you would like to show where the argument is incorrect, feel free.

So let's go the other way. There's no electricity flowing out of the transistor. Can we ask what caused no electricity to flow out of the circuit? Can the answer be, "The gate was off" and/or "the electricity was off"? — InPitzotl

Yes, you've nailed it.

Causality presupposes spacetime, therefore spacetime cannot be an effect of a cause; spacetime "allows for" causality. Einstein refers, more or less, to this as locality, no? — 180 Proof

How does plank space dodge spacetime? Are you saying it takes up no space? Then it is nothing, or God. I believe we both know arguments that have justified God this way are wrong. Why would it be any different here? Are you saying there is no time? Time is merely state change. Does the plank state never change? If it is outside of time, how can it interact with our universe in time? If it is outside of space, how can it interact with space?

Despite all of these questions, I also don't want to miss the point of the OP. If it does not have a prior explanation for its existence, then it is a first cause. In my mind, all you're stating at this point is that you believe this is the first cause, opposed to God, or even the big bang. This does not counter the argument I've made.

I have immense gratitude that someone finally took up the argument properly. You may be correct in 4. What I was trying to explain is the consequence of that tautology. While I believe it is a necessary point to explain, it may have been placed at the wrong point of the argument.

If we try to interpret "reason" in line with state causality, then the conclusion doesn't follow. The argument essentially says that since neither an infinite regress nor a causal loop admit a first cause, therefore a first cause must be the case. — SophistiCat

I would reword it to this: "The argument essentially says that since neither an infinite regress nor a causal loop have a prior cause for existing, we can only conclude these are themselves first causes.

In other words, there is no prior state that necessitates there exist the state of an infinite regress, or a finite regress. If you try to, you simply introduce a prior cause, and we're in the same position again. As such, the only logical conclusion is that the universe must have a first cause. The consequences of this have been discussed in a few posts here. If the argument is satisfactory to you, feel free to add to these discussions. If not, feel free to continue to critique.

Just because something cannot be caused in a classical mechanical view of causality does not mean there's no reason why it exists. The problem is you keep talking about time and causality surrounding circumstances that aren't subject to those notions. It's incoherent to consider questions about time and causality surrounding the planck epoch. — Benkei

If a thing has a reason for its existence, that means something caused it to exist. Explain to me how plank space isn't subject to causality, don't simply assert it as if it is true. I didn't buy it in the Kalem argument, and I don't buy it now. I'm asking a perfectly coherent question. Don't simply assert that its incoherent, show why its incoherent.

I strongly agree with your point that asking what came before the planck-epoch becomes incoherent because there was no notion of time to refer to on the basis of the no-boundary theory and therefore non notion of causality in the classical sense. — Benkei

Isn't this the same argument the theists have been making about God for centuries? Considering plank space is only a theory at this point with many untested assertions, isn't this just a more detailed God argument?

If plank space is caused then there is a prior or underlying reason for its being. If plank space is uncaused, then there is no reason for its existence, besides the fact that it exists. And if something could be that has no prior causality, then logically, you can't conclude any reason why it exists. Meaning you cannot conclude that time did not exist prior to plank space either. It is the same reason why the Kalem cosmological argument fails.

SpaceDweller What's unclear about this statement:
The classical (macro) concept of "causality" has no physical meaning at or below the planck scale (nano).
— 180 Proof — 180 Proof

Why not? Why can't I simply ask, "What caused the plank scale to exist?" Either something caused it to exist, or it exists simply because it does, without a prior explanation.

I finally get what you're trying to say OP.

Hume: There is no logical necessity in causality. No reason why if the first two times I hit a ball and it rolled away, at a particular speed and direction, the third time I repeat my action, the ball should faithfully replicate the behavior precisely as before.

The idea of cause, we can forget about first cause, as having to do with logical necessity is a category mistake - like saying red is loud! — TheMadFool

Not a worry. I'm thinking at this point that I did not write a clear enough idea in my desire to keep it within a certain size. That is on me, and no one else.

About Hume, Hume was talking about causality as an induction of belief about the future. In other words, there was no reason to believe the rules of causality (or really, rules of anything) would be the same tomorrow. However, that doesn't mean we cannot test the rules of today, and come to the conclusion that causality exists. Hume noted that our belief that the rules would be stable tomorrow could be nothing more than a belief. So far, that belief has held true. So can we know the future? Never.

So in the same vein, we can examine the distant past. Perhaps it is the case that billions of years ago, the rules of the universe functioned differently. Perhaps objects existed that were pure chaos and had no explanation for their being. While we can trace up what the past "should" be if the rules are the same, its really a matter of faith. Still, I think its a matter of faith we can cling to. Further, I can see no alternative to chaos and causality. Chaos is essentially a first cause, while causality is the expected response to external forces.

So, with the inductive belief that causality still existed back then, and as I have no other belief in my mind, I try to come to a logical conclusion with causality, and with a first cause, what must necessarily exist without prior causality.