What is sensory input to you? — MoK

Things like sights and sounds.

You are talking about consciousness here. How consciousness is possible if we accept that only the physical exists and the physical intrinsically unconscious? — MoK

Because the physical is obviously capable of being conscious. You are conscious and physical. Therefore the physical can be conscious. To say the opposite is absurd. :)

The Hard Problem of consciousness is the philosophical question of how physical processes in the brain give rise to subjective experience. — MoK

But why? Because we have no way of objectively classifying subjective experience. Its important you understand the why behind that statement and not interpret it as if subjective experience isn't the result of physical processes.

That only means that there is a correlation between neural processes in the brain and experience. The correlation does not necessarily mean that the neural processes are the cause of experience. — MoK

Decades of brain science and anasthesia would beg to differ. That's like saying, "When I walk I move, but that's just a correlation with my legs and mobility."

According to physicalism physical process is governed by the laws of physics. — MoK

I don't ascribe to physicalism or any other ism. Those are summaries of certain ideas that allow simple digests of concepts. They are not ideas in themselves, and should never be ascribed to in themselves.

Are you saying that electrons, quarks, etc. can have experience? — MoK

I am saying we cannot currently know. That's the hard problem. What is it objectively like to be a quark? Is it like something to be a quark? What is it like to be you? Is it like something to be you? They are both the exact same problem for the exact same reason.

How something can be an object and subject at the same time? — MoK

We don't know exactly how, but we know it can. That's because each of us are subjects and objects. There is this strange insistence from people that there must be something else when we are the most clear evidence that an object can be a subject.

This quote shows you doubling down on unsupported declarations. You might argue that you're demonstrating the logic of a universe uncaused by anything outside of it. Critical to this demonstration by a chain of reasoning is the work of establishing logically the reality and efficacy of uncaused as an adjective attached to universe. — ucarr

And where have I failed to do this? You say, "What caused it?" and I answer, "Nothing, its uncaused." You ask, "How does the shift work?" The answer is, "Its uncaused, so it simply is there." There is no inbetween Ucarr. There is no, "Understanding the process" as there is no process. There is no cause. How do you expect me to answer? "Well X causes the uncaused thing?" I have noted several times the consequences of this, and what it means logically for a universe even today.

Ucarr, you keep treating uncaused reality as if its caused. Me pointing out to you repeatedly that uncaused reality is not caused is not an assertion without logic, its basic logic. All you have to do is demonstrate why my points are wrong on this. Saying, "You assert it without logic," when you have no argument of your own does nothing.

For quite some time we've been debating my interpretation of your above quote as: a) unlimited possibility; b) a restriction on the nature of the universe. See below. — ucarr

We have not been debating anything. You've stated a clear contradiction, I've called it out, and you have not presented a coherent argument that indicates its not a contradiction.

Maybe its time to admit I have a point? You're trying so hard to avoid the conclusion and argument I present without addressing the conclusion and argument itself. You seem more personally against the idea of an uncaused reality then you have a logical argument against it, and this line of argumentation will go no where.

I claim there cannot be only one thing, in a causal context. Ex nihilo nihil fit. If we want to maintain a principle of reason we cannot appeal to things created out of nothing. — JuanZu

If my argument is correct, then the principle of sufficient reason does not apply to the question of existential origin. It still holds other than this. Also, it is not that something is created 'out of' nothing. Its that there was nothing, then something. Or there always was. Either way, uncaused existence.

From my point of view the causality of the universe is closed in its structure, since we cannot think of one thing in the absence of any causal relation with another thing, nor of things created out of nothing. Therefore causality has no end. — JuanZu

It ends when you get to the full scope and ask what caused it. So whether we discover an infinite regress vs a finite regress, what caused it always has the same answer at the end of the scope. "Its uncaused."

To me that is irrational. How is it possible for one thing to completely form another thing out of nothing? — JuanZu

According to the argument I presented in the OP, its the only rational conclusion. How is it possible for anything to be at all? There is no reason, it simply is. To say, "X caused this," leaves the question of "Well what caused X?"

No, the mind is a result of the brain, not equal to it.
— Philosophim
Could you please define the mind? — MoK

A mind is a resulting process of sensory inputs and decisions. The mind can be intelligent, unintelligent, conscious, or unconscious.

When we are talking about the mind we are also talking about consciousness. If we accept that the neural process is merely a physical process then no room is left for consciousness. — MoK

Merely physical? :) Everything is physical MoK. Do you have your consciousness in another room or your head? Is your mind in your head or in your feet? Its tied to a physical location, therefore is physical itself. "Merely" does not diminish the amazing quality of a mind either. Physical reality is amazing.

The computer is a weak emergence. There is no explanatory gap in understanding a computer and how it functions. — MoK

That is because we fully understand a computer. We still have yet to fully understand how the brain works.

When it comes to consciousness, there is an explanatory gap, so-called the Hard Problem of consciousness. The problem is related to the fact that how something intrinsically is unconscious, electrons, quarks, atoms, molecules, etc. could become conscious when they form a brain. — MoK

No, that's not the hard problem at all. The hard problem is figuring out objectively what its like to have a subjective experience. I can objectively be classified as being in pain, but what is it like being in pain subjectively? We can evaluate brain states and objectively determine certain areas of consciousness. How else do you think we created anesthesia?

We also don't fully know what its like to subjectively be a molecule, quark, etc. Including what it is subjectively like to be a computer program like an ai. The hard problem is how do we objectively prove, duplicate, evaluate, and replicate subjective experience for scientific enquiry.

Are you talking about weak or strong emergence here? Weak emergence is possible, but strong emergence is not possible. — MoK

I'm not talking about either. Weak or strong doesn't matter.

Since you describe a change of state from non-existence to existence, how do you evaluate from the initial state to the final state? — ucarr

I don't understand the question. There was nothing, then something. There's nothing to evaluate besides the fact there was nothing prior.

Your translation of my question is wrong. You say of state 1 "It simply was not..." You say of state 2 "then it was." I say explicitly "not from non-existence to the physics of the universe" - so I'm lining out something from nothing - and I say explicitly "not from causation..." - so I'm lining out causation - and finally I'm asking how do you evaluate from state 1 to state 2? — ucarr

My apologies if I misunderstood. My prior answer should answer this one as well.

The two clauses are not identical, so there is a change from first clause to second clause. If the change is due to random chance, then your statement has no chain of reasoning giving it philosophical force and meaning. — ucarr

As long as you understand there is nothing inbetween that causes the change, we're on the same page. Its not random chance, as there would have to be something that is going on that's random right? Its uncaused. We evaluate that an uncaused event is 'true randomness' as in completely unpredictable. If something ceased to exist without cause, then there is no reason it ceased to exist besides the fact it does not anymore. That is the only reasonable way to describe something that ceases to exist without cause that I can see.

In the peer reviews of theories such as we have here at TPF, "But we reach a point in which there is no causality." is a proposition that needs to be a conclusion arrived at by way of a correct evaluation of a chain of reasoning. — ucarr

Ucarr, that's the entire argument of the OP. Evaluate the argument of the OP and demonstrate why my reasoning is incorrect. I'm not just asserting this, its the conclusion of the full argument.

"Scope of existence" equals "existence encapsulates everything that is."

"Plays within The universe" equals "Occurs within the universe." — ucarr

Then just use the meaning and don't introduce new terms. "Scope" as you defined there is not the same as 'scope' as I defined it with causality. You putting that word in there is to implicitly make it the same when it is not. It only decreases the clarity of the conversation, so do not use it when the definition works fine.

With these two statements you say the universe is caused by what it is and nothing else. — ucarr

No, it is not caused. It is uncaused. Which is what I stated in the quote. You keep insisting on putting 'cause' in where I say 'uncaused'. Anytime you do this its going to be immediately dismissed going forward as I have pointed this out patiently enough.

Since non-existence precludes all that exists, how can there be possibilities within the mind of a thinker? — ucarr

What does non-existence have to do with the possibilities a mind can think of? Are you again trying to imply that non-existence causes something, or that something like possibility resides in non-existence? Because none of those are true.

Since non-existence precludes all that exists, how can there be anything that is? — ucarr

Yep, you're doing it again. You're linking nonexistence as somehow causally aligned with existence. Its not. This question doesn't make any sense.

If my questions are pertinent to your conclusion, then an eternal universe undecidable as to causation seems to me favored over a universe that began without an external cause. — ucarr

They are not pertinent, and while an eternal universe is possible, equally so a finite universe. In both cases Ucarr, they are uncaused. So if you agree that an eternal universe is possible, then you are holding onto an origin that is uncaused.

An external universe appears to avoid the problematical question of common ground between non-existence and existence. — ucarr

Incorrect. That's just a category to move the ball away from your discomfort. What caused that external universe? The same causality chain and answer still apply.

Is "It simply was not, then it was." a continuity? Given non-existence as the initial state, there was no time so there's no temporal continuity from non-existence to existence. — ucarr

Correct. If there is nothing, then something, there was no time, now there is time. Time is not a substance, it is a result of recognizing change. To recognize change, there must be a comparison to a previous state. If there is no previous state, that is essentially the zero position, or origin, in regards to time.

Eternal universe coupled with eternal time might be an axiomatic assumption that grounds physics. — ucarr

If there is an eternal universe and state has changed over that universe's existence, then time has also existed eternally. This is one possibility.

Your theory embraces an eternal universe. — ucarr

As only one of infinite possibilities. It is equally likely that it is a finite universe, and equally likely that things that are uncaused can still happen today. That's a bit of a jump from Sagan.

Within physicalism, the mind is equated to the brain or the brain process. What is the definition of mind to you and how could be caused by the brain? How the mind can affect the brain if it is caused by the brain? — MoK

No, the mind is a result of the brain, not equal to it. Is a fire equal to the sticks its on? But a fire must have a medium to burn and cannot exist without oxygen. Once you start a flame, does the flame not spread to the other sticks? You have to understand that neuronal activity results in a picture, and then your adjustment based on that picture is more neuronal activity. The computer you use is completely run on electrical gates that turn on and off. And yet from that, you're able to interact with and change what you see on the screen. Don't make the mistake of assuming that complex events cannot come from the build up of many simple things.

I think it is the opposite. That is the philosophy that guides science to see what would be the subject of focus. — MoK

I wouldn't call that the opposite, but how philosophy contributes to science. You cannot contribute to modern day science without first learning and understanding it.

A definition defines a restriction, viz., the meaning of the word it defines. — ucarr

Ok, and the word 'unrestricted' is defined as having no restrictions. This is a silly argument that I'm not going to spend any more time on.

Is this an argument for someone claiming truthfully you're one thousand feet tall? — ucarr

No, I'm not 1000 feet tall nor claiming that. I don't understand what this example is supposed to point out.

If a universe is varied by design, why is that not a restriction blocking it from being unvaried? — ucarr

1. There is no design.
2. I said there was unlimited potential in regards to the origin of the universe.
3. The potential of what could have been is not the same as what actually happens. IE, I draw an ace from a deck of cards it does not negate the probability that I had a 4/52 chance of drawing a jack.

The logical possibility is an entailment that exists within your mind. — ucarr

No, its a logical possibility that is argued for that does not require my specific mind. This is not an argument Ucarr.

What card you pull from a deck is directly related to what cards are in the deck you pull from. The cards in that deck add up to a number; each suit of each card adds up to a number, and those numbers determine mathematically the probability of each card being pulled. — ucarr

Correct. My point is there are infinite cards of infinite varieties.

Possibility cannot be excluded from real things.
— ucarr

I don't know what you mean by this.
— Philosophim

Can you cite some real things that are impossible? — ucarr

A question does not clarify your initial statement. Clarify your initial statement first and I will answer this question.

You're saying the scope of causality is equal to the scope of existence? — ucarr

No. We've been over this. I don't use the term scope of existence. Use the vocabulary and ideas that I use or you're not addressing the argument.

So how is there a change of state from nothing to the physics of the universe? — ucarr

Its uncaused. So there is nothing that causes it to change.

Since we agree non-existence and existence are closed and cannot interact, how is there a change of state not from non-existence to the physics of the universe and not from causation but from... what? — ucarr

This is the part I get you're having trouble with. Let me translate your question. "You say there is nothing that causes it, but what causes it to appear?" Do you see the problem? There is nothing that causes it to appear. There is no cause.

You're describing a change of state, so you're describing something that happened, a change. What is it that served the function of making the change of state from nothing to the physics of the universe? — ucarr

Again, you're saying, "What caused the uncaused existence?" Nothing Ucarr. There is nothing that caused the state change.

Consider: Joe was thirsty. Joe ran a glass of water from the tap and drank it. Joe quenched his thirst.

This example shows a change of state of Joe from dehydration to hydration. What served the function of making the change of state in Joe from dehydration to hydration? Joe himself served the function of making the change of state in Joe. — ucarr

Sure, you're describing causal interactions. I'm not denying those exist. But we reach a point in which there is no causality. You keep trying to apply causality to something that is not caused. That doesn't work. If it is logical that something in the chain of causality is uncaused, then we have to logically consider it as it is, not like it is 'some other cause'.

If you jump to a conclusion without reasoning to it, and then, when queried about the "how" and the "why" of the conclusion, you double-down and repeat the conclusion as if its self-evident truth needing no further explanation — ucarr

No, I'm not jumping to a conclusion without reason. You have not stated my reasoning or conclusion is false, you are just having a hard time wrapping your head around the notion of something that is uncaused. I'm trying to show you what it means for something to be uncaused. You have not criticized it, but been unable to accept the idea of it and keep trying to put causality back in. That's all I'm noting. If you wish to criticize the logic that leads to my conclusion, or criticize my logic from what I conclude if something is uncaused, feel free to address it. But that's not what I've seen so far. I've simply seen your disbelief or insistance that there has to be some type of 'cause' in there. There isn't. That's what uncaused means.

Given that "Existence has no outside cause for its being." then, apart from existence, there is only non-existence as nothing extant stands outside of the set of existence, viz., nothing stands outside of the universe. — ucarr

Sure.

Non-existence is so self-effacing it cannot even be itself. We cannot directly speak of non-existence. We can only speak at it through the faulty reification of language. — ucarr

No, I think we can speak to the concept pretty easily. You're being a little artsy here which I get, but I'm not interested in poetic language. Nothingness is the absence of somethingness.

When you say, "If something is not caused... where are the rules? Where are the restrictions?" you imply an absence of restrictions equals unlimited possibility. From here you reason to our universe to which you attribute unlimited possibilities including causeless existence. — ucarr

To clarify, the causeless existence is what allows those unlimited possibilities, not the other way around. Further, this is only if we don't know the origin. Obviously what happens is what happens. Just like I can pull a jack from a deck of cards and measure that probability, the possibilities are irrelevant once we draw that card and see what it is.

If the universe is closed and internally self-sufficient, then its identity is totally bound to what it is and this is the absolute restriction of identity, as in A≡A. The universe posited within the isolation with which you enclose it cannot be anything possible; it can only be what it is. — ucarr

Correct. We have no disagreement on this. It is the card which was drawn.

As caused is to causation, so uncaused is to uncausation. From logic we know it's legitimate to conceptualize the negation of any existing thing, including abstract concepts. From this reasoning we see that if caused affords causation, the uncaused affords uncausation. — ucarr

Your example is mistaken though. The negation of uncaused is caused. Not 'uncausation'. 'Causation' is the noun describing the act of causality, so 'uncausation' would be a noun describing the act of uncausality. I've never introduced the term 'uncausality' so I'm not sure that it exists.

Continuing in this line of reasoning, if uncaused stands outside the causal universe, then likewise uncausation stands outside the causal universe. — ucarr

No, this is a misuse of the language concepts. That's like saying, "If no is the negation of yes, then no stands outside of the state of yes and no questions." Obviously when we talk about the causal universe we're talking about what is both caused and uncaused.

Normally you slap someone twice to break them out of hypnosis... you know the meme of Batman Slapping the F out of Robin? — DifferentiatingEgg

Ha ha! Look, I get it. We all get supremely frustrated with other people and posters some time, it happens. We're all people here and we've likely all had a blow up at one point. Just let your points speak for themselves. If people don't agree, don't take it personally.

We're behind anonymous text and all have different backgrounds and could be in a weird mood that day. The person you're chatting to could be a minor, an elderly person, a Phd, or someone just curious about philosophy and pretty new to it all. Using harsh language or attacks often just gets the other person defensive or dismissive. You obviously have some education in philosophy and have some good things to contribute. Slap with your points, not your language is all.

↪That you're even focusing on Nietzsche is the mootest point ...A unicorn can say it... it doesn't matter... imagine your penis saying it:

Tom Storm trigger? More like yap on and on and on completely missing the fucking point... which is why you're probably crap with understanding Nietzsche.... — DifferentiatingEgg

Hey, you need to lay off the language and insults like that. We're glad to have your ideas and thoughts and its ok to slip up here and there, but make an effort to tone the insults and personal attacks down. Not everyone is going to agree with or understand your points and that's ok. Don't take it personally.

MoK, the problem with your argument is that it ignores basic science about the brain. Your mind is caused by your brain. That's a pretty well established fact at this point in history. Philosophy has to be constructed on the science and current understanding of the day or else its just logical fiction.

If its a good one, yes.
— Philosophim

How would it rule that out? — frank

Make sure it avoids conspiracy theories and has standards for posting.

Would a science forum assure me that I'm not peeping into another universe when I'm asleep? — frank

If its a good one, yes. :)

How do you tell what is real while awake? Lets use sight. Light floods into your eye, hits a nerve, which sends electrical signals to your brain. Your brain constructs a visual reality for you. You don't actually see reality, you envision reality. Meaning you have the capacity in your brain to think something is real when its just a representation.

That's all dreams are. That partial construction and exercise of the brains ability to construct a conscious reality. Its not another dimension, and its not real outside of your own image. If you doubt this, go to a science forum. Philosophy that does not address the science of its day in its musings is not philosophy, but ignorance masquerading as profoundness.

Since you supply only phrases without context, I think your evidence is no less vague than that you ascribe to my words. — ucarr

The context is the OP. If there is something I am saying that is unclear, please ask me to clarify as I've attempted to.

When you say "There was nothing, then something." and then follow with "That's it. No inbetween. No cause. No non-existence going, "Whelp, time to start existing!" you make a declaration that you haven't evaluated. — ucarr

The evaluation is the OP. Its the only logical conclusion.

It's unsupported and is therefore unlike the evaluation of the expression 2+2 which, paired with = 4 creates an equation that evaluates the expression 2+2 down to one number 4. — ucarr

The argument supports it. You are having trouble imagining it or understanding it because you have never experienced it before. But that's not an argument against its logic. You are using an incorrect metaphor. Something uncaused it not 2+2=4. Its 1. A whole integer without parts. You keep inserting causality where something is uncaused. If you can show that the logic of the OP cannot lead to something uncaused, feel free to present that argument. But all you're presenting here is essentially, "I don't like it or have experience with it, therefore it just can't be." That's not an argument, that's just a protestation.

You have not done the work of evaluating by a chain of reasoning to the conclusion, "There was nothing, then something." All you have is what you believe to be a conclusion to a fundamental truth without the work of evaluating to it via a chain of reasoning. — ucarr

No Ucarr. You and I both know I reasoned to it. And you're avoiding that argument entirely because you can't counter it. That's why you keep trying to make these outside argument instead of addressing the argument directly. Ucarr, lets say something existed forever. What caused it? Nothing right? Its not that an uncaused existence is beyond your understanding. Its that you've never considered the logical consequence of what the existence of even one uncaused thing means. That's the new territory. And like new territory people are either fascinated by it or react against it. You're still in 'react' mode which is fine. But I'm trying to get you to get to the 'fascinated' part which is quite frankly much more fun. :)

You are confusing the circularity of repeating an unproven conclusion with the justifiable repetition of a conclusion from a chain of reasoning to a fundamental truth. — ucarr

No, I have the argument in the OP. Feel free to point out where you think it fails logically. Your addition example is not addressing something uncaused, but involved causality. Use the vocabulary I've provided, use the examples I've provided and address the argument. Otherwise all you've stated is an expression that you don't like it which is not enough to counter the argument.

If it is a causal chain we cannot assume that it is one thing that existed alone and suddenly gave birth to a second thing. — JuanZu

Maybe. The problem is we're talking about universal origins, and we're talking about theory, not fact. For all we know its possible that there is something that formed that then formed something else.

Causality does not consist in creating things out of nothing (one thing creating a second thing out of nothing) but in creating things out of other various things (plural). That is why the idea of a first cause is so problematic. — JuanZu

Understood, and again, I think this is a good thing to think about. One of the conclusions about my point here is that anything can exist at anytime without prior cause. So why would it only be one thing that is uncaused? Why would it be 1 billion things? Why not one thing, then another thing 1 second later? What if there are still uncaused things happening throughout the universe as we speak? My point in all of this is that the argument does not conclude it has to be only one thing.

Perhaps the problem is to understand causality in a linear and horizontal way and not in a vertical way in the order of coexistence. — JuanZu

I believe we have to consider it in all ways, thus expanding the scope out to everything.

Yes, it can be said that it is possible that only one thing exists. But then we could no longer speak of causal relationships, don't you think? — JuanZu

At that point we would be looking at something that is uncaused and what that would entail.

You don't use the words "scope of existence," but "existence encapsulates everything that is" means the same thing. — ucarr

Ok, so you admit that I don't use the phrase "Scope of existence". I also cannot read your mind and noted, "I don't know what you mean by 'scope of existence'. Now I know. Why not just say, "Existence encapsulates everything that is"? It makes your point clear and I know what you're talking about.

you specifically relate the lesser scope of causality to the greater scope of existence. — ucarr

I specifically relate the scope of causality to all of existence. There is no, 'lesser or greater' scope. That's you being dishonest with a phrase of your own invention to create a straw man in a poor attempt to make this a set theory argument. Got ya. Be honest with me and stop playing games Ucarr.

Moreover, I've never mis-represented you because I've always quoted what you wrote verbatim. — ucarr

You have quoted me and stated I used the phrase "Scope of existence" when i did not. Now you're just flat out lying. I don't mind an honest conversation Ucarr, but you're using underhanded tactics. That's only used by people who have no legitimate argument. Stop with the games and trying to twist what you want in what I'm stating. I can only conclude at this point that if you take what I say at face value, you have no actual counter. Why do all this otherwise?

About the scope of composition I have always wondered if when we reach the limit of composition we come to find something very different from composite things: A simple thing, without parts. I wonder likewise whether this simple thing is in a higher order of existence with respect to composite things. — JuanZu

And we would still ask, "What caused that to exist?" The answer is always the same in the end of the causal chain.

This said in causal terms seems to indicate that there are always at least two and never a first cause. First there is relation in terms of ratio essendi. The relational aspect of things seems to be primary and determinative of the identity of things themselves. — JuanZu

An interesting point. But we can imagine a universe consisting of one simple thing. That would exist correct?

...it feels like you're using ambiguous language...
— Philosophim

Can you quote my ambiguous language? — ucarr

My point was you kept using phrases like "scope of existence" and "Plays within The universe". These phrases could mean anything and need more detail.

With you saying directly above "My point is only that existence has no outside cause for its being," I ask again, "Why do you not think there is non-existence followed by the universe being caused [by] non-existence? — ucarr

And I tell you again, non-existence cannot cause existence. Uncaused Ucarr. Your conscious or unconscious refusal to use the vocabulary I've given you is not my inability to communicate that.

When you describe the uncaused universe as "It simply was not, then it was," you present a sequence of non-existence followed by existence. For this change to happen, there has to be movement from non-existence to existence. — ucarr

No, there does not. There's no movement. There was nothing, then something. That's it. No inbetween. No cause. No non-existence going, "Whelp, time to start existing!" :)

This, therefore, is you implying that non-existence moved to existence, viz, non-existence caused existence. — ucarr

No. I thought we settled this earlier.

I understand you to be saying non-existence and existence are closed and cannot interact.
— ucarr

Thank you for confirming this, I won't mention it again then. — Philosophim

You're going back on what you stated earlier. The above is what stands. I don't know whether you're aware you're doing it or not, but before you post next time check yourself please.

You acknowledge that something does not come from nothing. This is a restriction that invalidates "If something is not caused... where are the rules? Where are the restrictions?" when it is applied to "Existence has no outside cause for its being." — ucarr

I don't get it. Use the deck analogy I gave otherwise this doesn't make any sense.

This means, therefore, that uncausation, due to its logical priority, applies to everything that exists, and so it must also lie outside of the universe. — ucarr

Uncausation is not a thing Ucarr. You repeatedly make this mistake. It does not exist outside of the universe. It is a logical conclusion. You keep inserting a 'thing'. Uncaused is not a thing. Non-existence is not a thing. There was nothing, then something. No inbetween. No movement. That's it. I've been gracious on this as I'm hoping you just don't understand it. Your insistence in continually not just using the concept of 'uncaused' is starting to look like you're trying to be sneaky and dishonest. I expect next post you will not have this problem.

Try again using the terms I've provided. Nothing, something, no going from one state to another. Just non-existence, then existence.

You apply the restrictions when you try to deny them. No rules is a restriction. No restrictions is a restriction. "Since there is nothing that caused it, there is nothing that restricts it from forming either." is a restriction. — ucarr

No, that's the definition of no restriction Ucarr. If you're saying "No restriction is a restriction," you've cancelled yourself out.

You can't describe something without applying limits to what it is. Anything goes is unintelligible. — ucarr

I can and did. Your ability to comprehend it or desire not to accept it has no bearing on whether its a logical conclusion.

You describe your uncaused universe in such a way that it becomes what you want to believe about it. — ucarr

No, my wants have nothing to do with the argument. I'm only noting what is logically concluded. You want it to be some other way, not me Ucarr.

You want to believe in a maximally versatile universe. That's a restriction because it's not allowed to be a narrowly defined and unvaried universe. — ucarr

This is not a belief. Again, if you're stating an unlimited universe is a restriction, this is a contradiction.

If an uncaused existence entails a logical possibility, then, by the existence of the uncaused existence, the logical possibility also exists. — ucarr

That's an outcome. Once I pull a jack out of a deck of cards then I have the reality that I drew a jack. That has nothing to do with the possibility of the what could have been drawn before it was drawn. Again, use the deck analogy I gave Ucarr.

Possibility cannot be excluded from real things. — ucarr

I don't know what you mean by this. Try again using the idea of 'uncaused' without trying to insert something inbetween non-existence and existence please.

Why do you say you don't know what is the scope of existence given your earlier statement re-posted below: — ucarr

I never use the phrase scope of existence anywhere in that quote. I don't know what you mean by it. I talk about the scope of causality. You have introduced a phrase 'scope of existence' that I don't understand. You cannot introduce a phrase I do not use then tell me I'm avoiding using it.

Make your point Ucarr and stop trying to get me to say things you want me to say instead of the things I'm saying.

By your own projection... — DifferentiatingEgg

If you haven't read this section, do so now. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/480/site-guidelines-note-use-of-ai-rules-have-tightened

You are off topic and attacking me personally. Last warning before I flag your post for a moderator.

↪Philosophim lol, Mr. IS-OUGHT himself... — DifferentiatingEgg

To help you do better on these forums, feel free to address my points here instead of a personal opinion you have about my character.

Thinkers just debate logical arguments. Debating what we should call a thought process like 'process philosophy' is a waste of time. Either the argument a person presents is logically sound or it isn't. Most people aren't going to care what you label it, especially on these public forums. This is a debate for bored people who aren't working on solving real issues of philosophy.

Do you think the mathematical and logical precision of set theory is mis-applied to your theory? — ucarr

Yes, I am not using set theory. That's why I'm telling you that the 'set' example is not the argument, just an example to help you understand. The argument is still logical.

Why do you say you don't know what is the scope of existence given your earlier statement re-posted below:

I am saying that existence encapsulates everything that is. "Existences" are subdivided quantifications of existence. My note is that if you increase the scope of causality to its limit, there is no outside cause that creates existence, as whatever exists is part of existence. — ucarr

Because I defined scope very clearly in the OP. Inserting, "Scope of all existence" is not a phrase I used or claimed. You're introducing something I've never asserted, and we don't want a straw man fallacy.

Why don't you care about the relationship between the scope of existence and the scope of causation? — ucarr

Because I never introduced the scope of existence. I don't know what this is. Again, a straw man.

Is it true that the entire scope of causation plays within the universe? Does this agree with nothing caused the universe and nothing restricted what it could become? — ucarr

I don't know what the phrase, "Plays within the universe" means. The argument has been presented, feel free to note where you disagree at this point. A couple of pure questions is fine Ucarr, but it feels like you're asking things that are plainly answered, and it feels like you're using ambiguous language as a trap. Don't do that. Submit your criticism and I'll clarify if there's a problem.

I understand you to be saying non-existence and existence are closed and cannot interact. — ucarr

Thank you for confirming this, I won't mention it again then.

then before existence there could only be non-existence, and thus the transition from, "It simply was not, then it was," could only be brought about by non-existence? — ucarr

'by' is not a good word to use as it implies that non-existence caused existence. We have confirmed it does not. The simple expression is, "It is uncaused." Not brought about. Not 'by'. Uncaused. No rules, no restrictions, nothing prior, no existence, no nothing. Its was not, then it was.

Since you say, "...if there is no prior cause for something being, then there are no rules for why it should or should not be," why do you not think there being no rules governing being, not being and how to be amounts to unlimited possibility? — ucarr

Why do we understand that a jack in a randomly shuffled deck has a 4/52 chance of being drawn? Because there are limitations and rules that establish what can happen. There is a fact of there only being 4 jacks and only 52 cards.

If something is not caused Ucarr, where are the rules? Where are the restrictions? There are none. Because there is nothing that caused it. Since there is nothing that caused it, there is nothing that restricts it from forming either. Give me an example of an uncaused existence that has restrictions and rules to see for yourself.

Do you not agree that if possibility is necessary for a thing to happen, and if there are no restrictions on what that thing can be, then the possibility must be unlimited? — ucarr

Lets clarify this one as well. There does not exist in the ether a 'possibility'. Its not out there just waiting. Its a logical conclusion of what is entailed by uncaused existence. If there are no restrictions, then anything is possible, yes. If we have an infinite deck of cards and each card type has an infinite amount in this deck then every card has an equal chance of being drawn.

First, you don't have to do anything in life. Amputate your arm if you wish. Snort cocaine. Beat your head into a wall until you crush your nose into your face. There is nothing forcing you to do anything. So the idea that an argument against suicide has to be, "Because I have to live", is absurd.

Do you want to live? That's a perfectly fine reason not to commit suicide. Argument over. Now the greater question: Do you want to live, but currently you're not really feeling it right now? Go talk to a psychologist or friend. Try to get to the root of why you're not feeling that way when you once did. You cannot take personal emotional issues and turn them into philosophical issues. Good luck.

Since existence encapsulates everything that is, that includes the entire scope of causality within the closed system of existence? — ucarr

Yes.

If the entire scope of causation is a proper subset of the entire scope of existence, then proper subset cannot contain a cause beyond its superset, the entire scope of existence? — ucarr

I don't know or care. The set is a tool to help you understand the concept, not a mathematically rigid logical model.

So your theory has at it center the greater scope of existence with the lesser scope of causality inside of it? — ucarr

No, I'm just talking about the scope of causality. I don't know what the scope of existence is.

Are you saying that given a pre-existing universe, the uncaused beginning of the entire scope of causality must occur within the pre-existing universe? — ucarr

No, I'm saying if there is nothing, then something, that something is the universe. The universe is all that exists. If there is nothing that exists, there is no universe.

Are you now saying the universe did come from nothing? — ucarr

No. Nothing and Something are not connected. Nothing cannot cause anything. Uncaused means uncaused Ucarr. Not that 'nothing' caused something.

By saying, "Before the entirety of existence existed, the universe could have been anything," are you implying: a) unlimited possibility pre-dated the universe; b) unlimited possibility had a causal influence upon the universe? — ucarr

No to both. There is no 'thing' that is generating probability. Its simply a a logical conclusion that results from understanding that if there is no prior cause for something being, then there are no rules for why it should or should not be.

Why should I let you do such a thing? Let's start with that. — Arcane Sandwich

Obviously you're not interested in this discussion. Another day and another post then.

I don't think that's physically possible. Like, how would you even do it? Do you set up a sort of trap to catch it? — Arcane Sandwich

I think we're having a semantic disagreement. Let me be more specific and you can describe it in whatever terms you would like.

Lets say that science claims that ten tons of force in X direction will result in it traveling Y kilometers in Z direction. We apply the force, and the result happens without the introduction of new variables. Looks like the causal prediction was true.

Lets say that science does the same, no new variables are introduced, but the distance falls short one meter every time. Our causal claim does not match to reality, therefore is not true.

Are you saying that existence has no outside cause and that it has no outside at all? — ucarr

I am saying that existence encapsulates everything that is. "Existences" are subdivided quantifications of existence. My note is that if you increase the scope of causality to its limit, there is no outside cause that creates existence, as whatever exists is part of existence.

Is it true you're saying the entire scope of causality is the focal point of your argument? — ucarr

I believe so, yes.

Are you saying the uncaused thing began inside of the universe? — ucarr

"Inside" is a tricky word if there was nothing to begin with. If there was at least one thing that existed and something uncaused appeared, then yes. But if there was absolutely nothing, that inception would be the beginning of the universe.

Are you saying your logic of a universal origin and meaning gives equal weight to the possibility of: a) an uncaused universe; b) an eternal universe? — ucarr

Yes.

Are you saying that before the entirety of existence existed, the universe could have been anything? — ucarr

Yes.

↪Philosophim Reality is what it is. Truth is why it is what it is. — EnPassant

Causality is why it is what it is. If we have captured causality that is real, then it is true.

Look, I think climate change denialists should take half of their brain out of their head, make a smoothy out of it, then drink it. I think they're some of the dumbest and ethically lowest human beings on the planet. That being said...they should be given a chance to say whatever they want. As long as they are not outright insulting or trolling, this is a place where all ideas should be discussed. Self-righteousness is something we ought to be very careful of. We debate all people, not just the educated, ethical, or highly intelligent.

Suspicious page alert Banno.

Not a worry Bob! We may not agree on these points but I always respect your honest engagement and viewpoint.

Bob I'm not even too sure where to start with this one at this point. I feel you keep making this needlessly complicated and introducing aspects that I'm not including. I would read Ucarr's reply and my response to him to reset on the right track. Let me see if I can sum up your issues and get us back on a clearer path again.

What I was noting is that if something caused C, when taken as its members, and is not itself caused then that thing is not a member of C; and this is patently true because C contains only real things that are caused—which precludes things that are not caused — Bob Ross

No, this is not what C is. C is the entire sum of all scoped causality. So by consequence if A causes B, then C does not cause A. If nothing causes A, then there is no prior causality that caused A. That's all part of the scope.

Existence itself is not a property like other properties: you can’t ask “why is there being?” like “why is there red things?”. — Bob Ross

Why can't I? That fits in the scope. You'll need to explain why this question cannot be asked logically. For example I can say, "There are red things because light reflects off of them at a particular wavelength that we label as 'red'". That's a more narrow scope, but the scope of causality can be expanded further to the point of encapsulating everything. If it cannot, please point out in the OP where I make this mistake and why.

In terms of why do things exist, the question in an infinite regress would be that each one explains the other: that’s no problem to answer. — Bob Ross

What caused the infinite regress? Again, what caused it to be an infinite regress of diamonds versus garnets? What you're doing is limiting the scope, but you can't give me a logical reason why I can't expand it farther.

As you know, I would say that God is the explanation. The issue is that your argument tries to determine a priori that each cogent solution results in the idea of everything being uncaused; — Bob Ross

What caused God?

The answer is not that F causes C. Its that C is uncaused.

If you agree that sets aren’t real, then you must concede that C cannot be caused or uncaused. — Bob Ross

This doesn't address the point at all. I don't know what you mean by sets not being real, nor how this addresses the logic of something uncaused.

your proof is supposed to demonstrate all of them leading back to everything being uncaused; and so if there is even on solution that doesn’t lead back to that, then your thesis is void. — Bob Ross

Correct.

An infinite regression is one such example. — Bob Ross

No, because you have yet to demonstrate how an infinite regression is caused by something prior instead of uncaused.

Again, read Ucarrs post and my reply before responding Bob. I think that will help reset us on the same page again.

Good to see you again Ucarr! Great write up, let me see if I can justifiably answer your points.

The implication of a total existence from infinite possibilities is that non-existence is actually unlimited possibility. There’s an idea that nothingness equals no restrictions. — ucarr

This is the one area that I think you misinterpret from me. I am not saying "Something is formed from nothingness". Nothingness does not cause somethingness. Nothing and something are two very different things that do not cause each other. My point is only that existence has no outside cause for its being. There could be something that already exists for example, then something else appears elsewhere without prior cause. Arguably there's nothing to stop an overlap besides the statistically insignificant odds of it happening if something can appear anywhere at any time.

On the other side of the coin, we can ask, how existence, being self-contained, can do other than persist as existence. — ucarr

It persists as existence because the causal beginning point "It simply is" formed an existence that did not have anything within itself that it would cease to exist. There is nothing preventing an existence that formed and would only last for 12 seconds before ceasing to exist. The existence we have today has lasted for billions of years, but that doesn't mean that it has to. Statistically, its likely that the tiniest aspects of existence which are not composed of other existence, may very well fade out over time as one could last 1 billion and one seconds, 1 billion and two seconds, etc. In addition, these small aspect of existence may simply form at any time as well. Its an interesting cosmology to think about.

Now we have two posits about the origin of the universe: a) the universe is eternal; b) the universe is self-caused. — ucarr

These are not mutually exclusive. It is one possibility that the universe is both eternal, and does not have any prior cause that made it eternal.

This leaves us preferring to see the universe as self-caused and eternal. — ucarr

And it can also be the case that the universe is not eternal and has no prior cause that explains why it started to begin. So if what I've noted is true, both are equal possibilities with none being more necessary than the other.

There is no argument for God being unchanging in the context you're using.
— Philosophim
There are several arguments for that. Please see Count Timothy von Icarus post here. By change, I mean going from one state to another state. — MoK

My point is that's a gross misunderstanding of the text and quite frankly, stupid. If someone holds that argument don't even waste your time.

Hi EricH, I wanted to say first of all I love your light hearted style of posting, much appreciated. :)

As I use them, the words “true” and “false” are adjectives which describe properties of statements/propositions. The words “truth” and “falsehood” are the noun forms of the adjectives; they identify statements/propositions that have the property of being true/false. — EricH

I agree with this.

Any discussion of wisdom, knowledge, belief etc is a separate topic which has no bearing on the semantics of the word “truth”. — EricH

This is a common mistake among newer philosophers. Any discussion of true and false must involve the context of belief and knowledge in some sense of the discussion. Its because there are a few questions that always pop up? "Do you believe it is true, or do you know it is true?" "What is truth apart from our beliefs and knowledge?" Often times when speaking about 'truth' people mistakenly blend in belief or knowledge and conflate the two. So the division is actually pretty important.

1) Statements are true if they accurately (or as accurately as possible) describe the real world (AKA reality, the universe, existence, what is, etc) This is commonly referred to as the Correspondence Theory of Truth.
2) Mathematical/logical propositions are true if they follow the rules of a particular mathematical/logical framework -e.g. Peano Arithmetic. Any particular proposition can be true in one mathematical system and false in another. — EricH

No objection here either. What's important here is that you have clearly established that we are talking about truth as a state of reality, not a belief or something we know.

Mathematics is not true by virtue of being. Mathematical statements/propositions are true or false within the rules/context of a particular framework, but the words “true” and “false” do not apply to the field of mathematics (the manipulation of numbers and symbols). Mathematics is neither true not false. — EricH

Almost, we just have to clarify the context. Is it true that 1 captures 'an identity'? Is it true that 1+1=2? Is it a belief, or is it a known truth? After all, we just don't believe that 1+1=2, we know that 1+1=2. 1+1=3 would be false, but this is because we know it to be false. So true and false do apply to mathematics, its just when we have correct math its 'true' and incorrect math is 'false'. Is it a truth apart from knowledge and belief, or is it true in virtue of the knowledge that created math?

If you are using the word “truth” as a synonym for “existence” then the following sentence is semantically correct:

“According to our best scientific knowledge, truth came into existence 13.8 billion years ago” — EricH

Close! If there was no existence, then that would be the truth of 'what is'. In this case, 'what isn't'. If it helps, think of the state of A vs not A. A if false if it doesn't exist, and A is true if it does. But if A does not exist I can also say, "It is true that A does not exist". So the same if there was no existence all those years ago.

Absolutely! That is exactly what you are doing here - you are giving the word “truth” an additional context that converts it into a “wiggle word”. There are already two clear & distinct contexts in which we can use the word “truth”, there’s no compelling need to give it this third definition. — EricH

I don't think it is wiggly though. Truth is, "What is". In the first two cases it is 'what is' apart from belief and knowledge. In the second case it can also be 'What is" despite belief and knowledge. I'm noting that some people also use truth to say, "Its true that I believe X" and "Its true that I know y." In the case of these statements however, it doesn't mean that what one knows or believes is true itself, its that its true that you know or believe it.

Its false that a pink elephant exists (True that it does not exist)
Its true that I believe there is a pink elephant.
Its true that I know there is a pink elephant.

In every case the term true as 'What is" is the same, its just that belief and knowledge introduce a context in which we have to be careful. Is true targeting the state of the person's outlook on A, or whether the underlying outlook A is true or not?

I would consider “knowledge” and “belief” to be wiggle words - and as I stated they have nothing to do with the point I am trying to communicate. There are endless discussions out here on TPF debating the meanings/usages of these words - and it seems like no two people can agree. — EricH

Fair enough.

As long as we remember that belief and knowledge are assessments of what is true, and not 'Truth' itself, its a bit easier to sort out a solid meaning of truth that more easily avoids being a wiggle word.
— Philosophim
I’m not sure what you’re saying here. You’ve capitalized ’Truth’. Are you asserting that there is this, umm, thing out there called Truth? — EricH

Hopefully the above clarified the issue. Its basically the difference between the state of our outlooks on A, versus whether A is true or false apart from our outlooks.

I asked for the argument for God being unchanging. I didn't ask whether God is immortal or not. — MoK

There is no argument for God being unchanging in the context you're using. I'm noting that 'immutable' in this sense is the fact of the eternal nature. You have to be very careful to understand the context and not just use out of context meaning of the words. No one, and I mean no one, is saying that God literally cannot act, think, evolve, etc. Your argument is a straw man. If you want to attack what people are saying, note the fact of God's eternal existence or ineffability.

What is the argument for God's essence to be immutable? — MoK

My understanding again is this is meant to convey that God cannot be created or destroyed. God always was, and always will be.