[1] you concede it is infinite in "what caused there to be an infinite set of all causes?" — Bob Ross

No, I'm noting that we can take a group of infinite causes but still ask one more question. What caused that set of infinite causes? My point is that an infinite set of causes cannot fully explain the entirety of all causes. It must logically rest with this question.

[2] you are asking presupposing that a cause could exist which is not a member of a set of all causes — Bob Ross

Its not a presupposition, its a proof. We can take any set of infinite series, then ask what caused that set. I've done nothing outside the realm of mathematics or logic.

I think it is best we agree to disagree at this point — Bob Ross

Understood! Sometimes that's all we can arrive at in a conversation. Full respect and thanks for you points Bob.

The toe is not a 'life' but composed of several cellular lives. Same with the foot. The consciousness of the brain is the combination of cellular lives that creates something more than just a mere coexistence of life, but a mind.

I was referring to a person by ‘life’, not something that is merely alive. — Bob Ross

Understandable, but in my example, I am referring to a life as something which is merely alive. Anytime I state 'life' that is what I mean in this theory, and I don't believe I've implied anything else.

I fully accept that there is a desire to say its immoral

It is not a desire, it is an intellectual seeming. — Bob Ross

Without a rationale, I don't see the difference.

It would be helpful if you could explain why its immoral either within the theory, or somehow contradicts the theory.

As external coherence goes, even within moral realist circles, it goes against common intuitions—and I mean that in the sense of an intellectual seeming, not a desire or gut-feeling. Most moral realists will completely disagree with you that it is morally good to, all else being equal, sacrifice the one for the many (even though it would increase the actual and potential concrete entities). — Bob Ross

Understood, but why? What is the reasoning and rationale that lead to that conclusion, why does it conflict with the reasoning and rationale of this theory, and why is that superior? I know there are outside theories of morality that would both conflict and agree with what I've noted here. If I'm claiming that this is an objective morality, then is falsifiable. It can be wrong. I'm looking for chinks in the theory that another moral take could point out or demonstrate is a weakness.

Since we have no objective means of morality to measure, any outside subjective opinion of its immorality can be considered, but ultimately boils down to an opinion.

That is irrelevant to my external critique: I am saying that it is objectively wrong to sacrifice one for the many, all else being equal. — Bob Ross

While you are claiming this is objective, I have not seen on objective reason given so far. What leads us to an inevitable rational conclusion that it is objectively wrong to sacrifice one for the many in any circumstance?

But this is not a principle according to this theory.

You affirmed it in your justification: you said you should absolutely sacrifice the one to save the many because it increases, all else being equal, potential and actual concrete entities (e.g., cut of the arm to save the body); and I am absolutely inclined to agree with you that your theory would need to conclude this. — Bob Ross

Bob, I'm feeling you're being very straw man here. I've clearly stated several times that this is a contextual theory. I noted that based on the context, sometimes its wrong to kill one for the many, and sometimes its right. Further, I've the said that the only hard principle is, "More existence is good." "Killing one to save five" is not a principle, I've never claimed its a principle, and I've even demonstrated its not. Please review or ask questions if there is any confusion.

The outcome of the example is based on particular circumstances and context.

With all due respect, I don’t think you know what ‘all else being equal’ means. Here’s a link to a blog post about it. — Bob Ross

Bob, equal respect back, but your example isn't very good, and you're not using the phrase 'all else being equal' correctly for this theory either. I feel like you're constructing a view of my theory that is principled despite me telling you its contextual. And despite me telling you your examples need to be contextual and pointing out where they need improvements, you keep insisting they're good enough. They're not. If you cannot agree with me on this, then we throw the example away and go to tried and true methods that have existed for decades. We should not be debating examples, we should be debating the outcomes of good solid examples.

In a theoretically objective morality, consequentialism is the only real conclusion.

Absolutely not. If you affirm this, then you are disregarding duty and principles—which are entirely deontological. — Bob Ross

If it is objectively true that duty and principles were real moral precepts, there would be an objective consequence to demonstrate why that is. For example, 1+1=2. That is an objective conclusion. Lets say I claim that 1+2=2, which is wrong. However, I use have principles, or techniques like showing my work, and working proofs out when challenged. Because of this, I'm able to go back through my work and find my error. The 'intention' has value because it allows me to more easily catch my mistakes and come to the right conclusion. Its the consequence of having the intention that makes the intention valuable, not simply the fact of having the intention itself.

I have no issue with claiming duties and principles could be objective, but this would need to be proven. And I currently don't see in any possible objective attempt at arguing for duties and principles that there would not be some objective consequence, or outcome, that is behind the objective reason for holding them. Maybe you see one, and if so I would like to hear and think about it.

Some actions are wrong merely because they violate an ethical principle, and not because the action’s consequences do not maximize what is good. — Bob Ross

Which is fine, but what is the objective foundation for this ethical principle? Is it the opinion of people, or is there a solid rational argument behind that principle that can hold up?

Can you imagine an objective morality that is not consequentialist?

Yes, many. Kantianism, Aristotelianism, mine, etc.

The problem with consequentialism is that it makes the evaluation of right and wrong solely a matter of analyzing the consequences of actions; which precludes intentions, duty, principles, etc. — Bob Ross

Don't take the general philosophical summary of 'consequentialism' in subjective moral theories and apply it to this theory. This theory does not exclude intentions, duties, principles, etc. All of that is existence. The consequence that we are shooting for is to create more existence. Thus nothing that exists is excluded.

Likewise, it has absurd results in some cases (e.g., utilitarianism’s enslavement of 1% of the population, sacrificing one for the many, etc.). — Bob Ross

This is because these consequentialist theories are top down. They don't rely on a foundation and work up, they rely on subjective isolated outcomes that don't work when you take it down to a foundational level.

As a very clean example, take the 1 vs. 5 trolly problem (we discussed before). A consequentalist is usually inclined to say “sacrifice the one for the five”; and a deontoligist is inclined usually to say “do not pull the lever”. — Bob Ross

I understand this. But why is the deontologist objectively correct in relation to the theory I've proposed?

Ok, this means that Dave could not have been doing anything else but torturing.

This is so irrelevant. The question is if Dave is right to torture Billy to acquire the skill of torturing. You are misunderstanding what ‘all else being equal’ is and constantly sidestepping the hypothetical by importing new variables that don’t matter. — Bob Ross

What is the choice the person has Bob?

The choice is whether or not to torture Billy to acquire a new skill (of torturing people aptly). — Bob Ross

Do you see the contradiction I'm seeing here? I'm asking you what the person could do except torture Billy, and you tell me they have a choice. But then in the following you say its a question of whether they should or should not torture Billy. If they do not torture Billy, that means he does something else. This is a contextual comparative existence theory of morality. There has to be another option. Within my theory, you're telling me this guy is on a train about to hit five people, and there's no lever to push. That's not a moral question, that's a bad example. This isn't working Bob. Lets drop the example for now and go to traditional moral examples. We need as little to debate over as possible, and this thought experiment isn't cutting it. We can revisit this down the road, but for now we need to debate outcomes, not thought experiment examples.

If only what is good is to maximize the number of concrete entities, then it will not always pan out such that societies which enact such policies (as you described) are morally better. — Bob Ross

Bob, either you are misunderstanding the theory despite my explaining, or have constructed a straw man in your head that you will not let go. I have said repeatedly, that it is actual and potential existence. It is not 'more concrete entities'. Concreate entities are a base material existence, and new identities can be created by their expressions. We evaluate not only the numerosity of the expressions, but how they can also potentially express with one another over time. We could create a million identities that permanently destroy themselves over 1 second, and the superior moral existence would be one entity that lasts for years. Look, I like when you bring attacks and critiques.

Second, once again this theory is contextual. If we're speaking 'generally' that means, 'not always, but most of the time'. History has shown that generally, Republicans have done better than monarchies, and this is because there are few, if any, modern day successful states that run on a classical monarchist system.

The point is that you are just thinking about it in terms of “the means justifies the ends”; and you have too, since you have committed yourself to consequentialism. I reject it. — Bob Ross

The entire theory is based on the one consequentialist point, "More existence is good." If you reject that, then there's no conversation. We have to assume that's true to discuss the theory as is. If you don't want to assume that, that's fine, but that's an end to the discussion, not a debate.

Also, once again, you're claiming things I have never stated nor implied. I have never claimed the means justify the ends. This is once again a contextual existential evaluation theory of morality. My theory claims, "The means are part of the ends." You need to analyze everything.

I feel you are looking to outside philosophies to understand this philosophy, instead of taking your understanding of this philosophy and comparing it to outside philosophies critically. We're exploring a theoretically objective morality Bob with a bottom up approach. This is new stuff. I enjoy your criticisms and points, but I feel this time you're not fully grasping the theory I'm showing you, and when I try to explain, you seem to dismiss or ignore points that I feel are key to the theory. Lets try again!

However, it cannot have a first cause if one understands properly what an infinite set of all causes is. It is logically necessary that it does not have a first cause, ironically. — Bob Ross

No, because I can ask, "What caused there to be an infinite set of all causes?" Its always finite. The very nature of causation logically always leads to this.

Thank you very much for the link. I had not read it before. How does this explain the incident where the patient knew what the doctor was thinking? — Truth Seeker

I have not watched the video so could not tell you. However, it appears the video is already circumspect and I would question the rigor of the studies. If the doctor was speaking his thoughts out loud and the patient heard when they were not at brain death, this is not remarkable. This field is rife with inaccurate reporting, stories, and unscientific claims, so extraordinary claims need very tight and clear evidence to be considered seriously.

The second you say that C is not the entire end to the chain of causality, is the second you conflate C with something else. C is the series of causes in total, so, by definition, you cannot be correct in that there is a cause which is not a member of C. — Bob Ross

Are you sure you're addressing the argument or a set? I'm noting that even if you create an infinitely regressive universe, the causality still boils down to the one question, "What caused the infinite regress?" "Nothing". Even if you have an infinite regresses within infinite regresses. Take the entirety of it, wrap it in a variable, then ask what caused it all to be. The answer is always the same, "Nothing".

The first cause is the most fundamental one, the cause that each effect depends on. Every other cause needs God. So if he didn't exist, neither would anyone nor anything else. — BillMcEnaney

First, there is at least one first cause, there could be more. Second, a first cause does not have to be a God.

You may want to read this review: https://awareofaware.co/2023/05/09/rethinking-death/#:~:text=I%20say%20it%20was%20excellent,a%20couple%20of%20the%20NDEs.

"I have a lot of respect for Parnia and everyone else involved in this, but I find it extremely frustrating that there is data from AWARE II that shows EEG activity consistent with consciousness during CA and CPR after up to an hour (something he alluded to in the panel discussion), and yet they have never stated whether or not any of these EEG events were in patients who reported NDEs. They know, they have the data, so why not share that? I suspect that they have no EEG data at all in those patients as only a small percentage of the entire cohort had EEG data, and most of those sadly did not survive. Why not say that?"

Videos are generally not the best ways of learning about science. Stick to papers if you really want good solid answers. So far my above claim is true: There is no case (to my knowledge) of 100% brain death and people returning with REDs.

How do you know that there is no consciousness after brain death? What about all the people who have Recalled Experience of Death (RED) and the stories they tell of visiting other places and the beings they meet there? — Truth Seeker

Very simply, there has never been a case of actual death in these scenarios. Coma or unconsciousness sure, but no one has had brain death, come back, and had an experience during that actual death. The brain is still hearing things around itself, and if the eyes are opened during surgery light is still streaming into the brain. Your ability to consciously realize it isn't fully there, but its still being processed.

Have you ever dreamt before? I've encountered giant gorillas, super natural horrors, and realms beyond normal experience. The brain when devoid of full consciousness still functions and sorts experiences. If it thinks its going to die, then its thoughts can become pre-occupied with that as it struggles to live. Ever had an emotional traumatic experience and dream about it in a way that ends well? Vividness of experience does not require full consciousness. So a vivid experience of an unconscious person is not evidence of an actual death experience.

If the toe had a mind of its own (and was a person), then, no, I don’t think it would be moral to cut it off to save the body. The problem with your analogy is that the toe is inert and lifeless; while the individual is a life. — Bob Ross

The toe is not a 'life' but composed of several cellular lives. Same with the foot. The consciousness of the brain is the combination of cellular lives that creates something more than just a mere coexistence of life, but a mind.

I understand, however, that, according to your view, sacrificing one for the sake of saving the many, all else being equal, is good (because it leads to a maximal quantity of the “entities”); but, as an external critique, that seems immoral (to me). — Bob Ross

I fully accept that there is a desire to say its immoral. It would be helpful if you could explain why its immoral either within the theory, or somehow contradicts the theory. Since we have no objective means of morality to measure, any outside subjective opinion of its immorality can be considered, but ultimately boils down to an opinion.

The problem is this word "universalization". The only universal is, "More existence is good"

All I meant, is that “one ought to sacrifice on to save five” as a principle is leads to a worse world (by my lights). — Bob Ross

But this is not a principle according to this theory. The outcome of the example is based on particular circumstances and context. In other circumstances and contexts, its immoral for one person to sacrifice to save five.

You are just too consequentialist for me (; — Bob Ross

I see no other way to judge morality. The problem with consequentialism within subjective morality is the consequent is subject to opinions. In a theoretically objective morality, consequentialism is the only real conclusion. With an objective base it doesn't matter what another person thinks. If true and reasoned through correctly, there should be a clear right or wrong answer. Or if one answer can be correctly concluded, we can use probability, statistics, and reasoned induction. Can you imagine an objective morality that is not consequentialist?

What could the person have been doing instead of torturing the victim?

Dave could not have been doing anything better: disregard it for the thought experiment. — Bob Ross

Ok, this means that Dave could not have been doing anything else but torturing. He couldn't just be thinking, meditating, talking with the person dying, he had to be torturing. Then there is no moral decision to make either. This is the opposite problem of derailment. You've taken the tracks and said, "This is going to hit five people no matter what you do, is this moral?" Morality has to involve some type of choice. What is the choice the person has Bob?

All else being equal, learning a skill increases the potential for concrete entities; and I don’t think you are denying that. — Bob Ross

Correct. My problem here is we can imagine alternative things the person could do to improve themselves besides torturing. For this to be a moral dilemma, there must be an alternative scenario.

That which creates better harmony, to use your terms, is going to be more existent that one which puts unnecessary stress on the body and lowers its health.

Yes, but how does it lower the potential or actual concrete entities? I don’t see a direct causal link between negative emotions and the decrease in potential/actual concrete entities. — Bob Ross

In the case of torture that should be clear. Cells are living things. Torture is putting undue stress or death to many cells of that body. This causes stress responses in the brain which put it in an emergency state of trying to avoid this, but powerless to do so.

"Long-term psychological problems reported by survivors of torture are usually classified as trauma, anxiety, depression, and, more rarely, problems of a psychotic nature, but health problems including pain are very frequent, and may include serious disease such as tuberculosis or human immunodeficiency virus with a background of poor nutrition and severe and immunocompromising stress."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4590125/#:~:text=Long%2Dterm%20psychological%20problems%20reported,human%20immunodeficiency%20virus%20with%20a

Lowered health of a life is less actual and potential existence, not more. When you are pre-occupied with pain you cannot function at your best. You can't work at your job as well, your relationships suffer, and your thoughts are trapped by pain instead of creativity or solving other problems in life.

Wouldn't society have been better off if the kind enacted policies which grew and supported people?

No (if I view it through the lens of your theory). — Bob Ross

You're going to have to explain this in more detail. I've never claimed this in my theory and I don't understand how you would think this conclusion could come about.

We know that monarchies as a form of government do not create the kind of robust, wealthy, and happy societies like republics for example.

A monarchy could create, total net, more actual concrete entities than a republic. — Bob Ross

Yes, in specific circumstances I'm quite sure we can imagine a scenario, or even find one in history, where a monarchy was overall more prosperous to its people, rights, and culture than a particular republic elsewhere in the world. But this was speaking in generalities. Generally rule through inheritance by one individual does not create the type of freedoms and integration of its citizens into policies like America for example.

Take napoleon, for example: his dictatorship inflicted much suffering onto people and unnecessary conquest; but he furthered the society in ways, which would not have been done otherwise, by use of force—e.g., higher education, public roads, public sewer systems, central banks, etc. The man was not a good person, but incidentally did good things that were very impactful on society. Total net, he was good for humanity IF one only thinks about it in terms of the consequences of his actual total net; — Bob Ross

We need to make sure the scenario is crafted correctly. If Napoleon had the option of implementing all of these positives to society without the suffering and unnecessary conquest, that would be better correct?

You seem to be taking a principled approach to a calculated consequentialist morality that is based on context. In general some things are better than others for creating more existence. That's all we're talking about. In limited situations where these general things are not available, then of course we work with what we have.

Here’s another scenario for you to digest: — Bob Ross

Lets not. I can see these custom examples seem to miss a lot of what this theory is about show me that you don't quite understand it yet. And Bob, don't take this the wrong way but these are not tight examples. We're debating the examples as much or even more than the actual theory. We need something stable so we can focus what to debate on. Traditional moral examples are good stable examples that we can then debate and learn about the theory. Once we cover those and feel we have a good grasp on the theory, then we can go back to crafting a good custom scenarios.

Happy Easter by the way! Whether you celebrate it or not, I hope the holiday treats you well. I may be slow in replies this week.

If you don't like the idea of atemporal causes, then I am talking about an infinite series of temporal causes and there are no other causes that are not in that infinite series.

The series, conceptually, can be represented as a set which I will call C.

C itself has no cause, because it is the series of all causes.

You are claiming either the series C is not infinite, or that C itself leads to a first cause. Neither can be true, so I am not following your argument for this part. — Bob Ross

No, I am not claiming that C is finite. It however is not the entire end to the chain of causality. "What caused C to exist?" still exists, and the finale answer is, "Nothing". this one question and answer cannot be part of that particular infinite causal chain, because the question is about the entire causal set itself.

You end. No consciousness. No continuation. You're dead. Some might think this is terrifying or hurts your feelings. Don't. Understanding what death is, is one of the greatest gifts you can have to live life to its fullest.

If you're sacrificing today for a reward later, don't. Sacrifice because you believe it creates a better world for today and the future.

If you're afraid of trying new things you really want to because it might make life uncomfortable, overcome that fear.

You only live once. No one will ever know what you experience but you. No one will know your story fully but you. The last thing you want in your last dying moments is regret at not having done enough with the time you had.

Love it. Appreciate it. Because eventually it will be gone.

PS___I'm proposing a new thread with similar implications but different presumptions : a First Cause implies a Final Cause, produced by the operations of an Efficient Cause, working in the medium of a Material Cause. What could we call it? The First Concept? The god-who-shall-not-be-named inquiry? — Gnomon

I do like the idea of a first cause also being a final cause. There is no more to question after you arrive at it after all. But you know the crux of your discussion, so I'm sure it will be named appropriately. I'll keep an eye out for it Gnomon. Even if I don't contribute (as I don't want to derail or lead back to this thread) I'll at least give it a read. :)

The principle of parsimony seems like an Occum's Razor argument. Since God is an assumption, and naturalism makes less assumptions, this makes sense. The only way anyone could have a viable disagreement with this decision is if they could make God a provable entity, and not merely an assumption. I don't believe finding any phenomena that cannot be explained naturalistically matters to this fact. I think more importantly, there is no phenomena that necessarily requires a supernaturalistic explanation for its existence. Good post! :)

For the sake of the argument, I am going to step up and respond with "My 'crazy' idea of reality is that it is an infinite series of atemporal and temporal causes, and this doesn't lead to there being a first cause".

By your admission in the quote above, you are arguing that somehow my claim here does end with a first cause. So, how does it? — Bob Ross

Something detailed in the later discussions but not mentioned in the OP for brevity was that it is there is 'at least' one first cause. I'm assuming that your atemporal things are also not caused correct? Those are first causes. There is no limit that only one first cause happens. Its a first cause in a causal chain, not the first cause in a universe.

So I don't see anything against what I've said here. As you noted though, I might be missing what you're saying. Can you go into more detail if this did not cover it?

Mhmmm, “its just a theory” is a comment only a person who doesn’t know what a theory is says as a cop-out: not my forte. But I get your point. — Bob Ross

Good. Of course you aren't a cop-out person. It is just way way of saying I understand that you don't agree with some of the underlying premises and have great respect for your humoring me and going along as if they were viable. It is a great credit to your mind and character Bob.

There’s a clear distinction, but they are not distinguishable in the sense you want it to be. Induced, abduced, and deduced conclusions all rest on intuitions. You cannot escape intuitions epistemically: there’s no such distinction whereof one concludes something without the aid of an intuition. Again, I mean “intuition” in the sense of an “intellectual seeming” and not a “gut feeling”. — Bob Ross

I see. I feel we would need to get down into the brass tacks of the definition to use 'intuitions' as such here. We can table that for another topic for now and just understand that when I use the term 'intuitions' it means 'strong feeling that we are inclined to think is correct' :)

In terms of your theory, I see how sacrificing one for five overall increase “existences”. However, it seems very immoral, by way of an external critique based off of moral intuitions. — Bob Ross

And that's a very fair critique. As I've noted, anytime the theories conclusions go against our moral intuitions, it needs to have a very good reason why. Part of that why is to ask, "What leads you to that intuition?" So under what other moral precept is this wrong? It of course may be unanswerable or "Just a feeling." Even if we don't have an explicit answer for why this is, its something to keep in the back of our minds as we continue. I value these intuitions, and maybe it will become more clear why they exist as we keep looking at examples.

Also, I would like to mention that, if you accept it in the case of lizards, then I don’t see why you don’t accept it for humans: it is basic consequentialistic calculation you are making here. — Bob Ross

Because we have human society, and human society is a greater existence than the individual as I noted. Think analogously to your body. If we could destroy a toe to save a foot, that seems good on its own. But if a side effect of saving the foot by destroying the toe was that the person went into a life long coma, that wouldn't be the correct action. Yes, the foot survives, but the greater part of the body, the consciousness, dies.

In other words, the universalization of such a principle as “one ought to sacrifice one to save five” leads to an overall worse world (by way of external critique); but if it is a better world (according to your theory) then it simply seems as though you have blundered somewhere. — Bob Ross

The problem is this word "universalization". The only universal is, "More existence is good". Everything else is a calculation based on context. The only universal we can conclude is "Sometimes its better for one person to sacrifice for five people, sometimes its not." Its not a helpful universal, but that's about the best we can get.

There is no other value in honing a skill if one's goal is simply to hone a skill.

It increased potential existence, which, according to you, is a valid moral consideration. — Bob Ross

You must consider actual existence as well. What could the person have been doing instead of torturing the victim? They could have been improving their skill in comforting a dying person, or empathy. And considering they're going to need empathy a lot more in life then torturing, since they're torturing merely as a skill and not application, would be overall more applied existence in the future then now.

The problem again is this is not restrictive enough. You're still leaving answers which let us, "Derail the tracks" so to say.

Taken in comparison of emotion vs emotion alone

Firstly, as said above, it is not a comparison solely of the worth of emotions: it is a comparison of actual and potential existence in terms of the consequences of which action one takes. — Bob Ross

Of course. But this is still a consideration.

Secondly, emotions are irrelevant themselves to your theory: what is good, according to you, is “more concrete entities”. You evaluate this in terms of actual and potential concrete entities. — Bob Ross

No, I never said they were irrelevant. Recall I posted how they were relevant for inspiring actions. Take a look back again. Beyond this, even at a cellular level emotions result in bodily changes such as stress hormones, faster heart beats, etc. While it is a scope down from the conscious mind the body too is a living and existent entity. That which creates better harmony, to use your terms, is going to be more existent that one which puts unnecessary stress on the body and lowers its health.

Likewise, many kings historically have committed series atrocities, but total net increased “existence”. This is the problem with pure consequentalism: it only cares about maximizing the goal (in this case, goodness) by way of an outcome. — Bob Ross

Again, you're not seeing the full picture. Did they create more existence through those atrocities? Wouldn't society have been better off if the kind enacted policies which grew and supported people? We know that monarchies as a form of government do not create the kind of robust, wealthy, and happy societies like republics for example. A big thing to think about in your examples going forwards is to think, "Was this the only option?"

Is there no end to dialogs about First Cause? Can these threads become infinite? — Gnomon

Ha ha! Its good to have a sense of humor about this. Always appreciate your contributions Gnomon.

If these side-track questions are of interest to posters on this First Cause thread, I might be inspired to start a new thread on tracing Causation from First Spark down the evolutionary trail to the emergence of Inquiring Minds, who ask unverifiable open-ended questions ; taking the risk of sounding stupid or clever on a public forum. :smile: — Gnomon

If you feel like there's something valuable in doing so, why not? No one will reach cleverness without first finding their footing on the stumbling blocks of stupidity. Show your light to the world even if its an odd color. :D

You've been extraordinarily generous with your time, energy, and patience in the interest of the thoroughness of our dialogue. — ucarr

You as well Ucarr! You kept a level head, worked tirelessly, and really thought deeply about the issue. You have my full respect!

Your exertions herein have afforded me an ample supply of time and opportunity to practice and develop both my debate strategy and my execution. — ucarr

I am glad that you had a positive experience with the conversation and that you enjoyed it. At the end of the day it is merely an idea to discuss.

I'm now going to bow out from our dialogue. — ucarr

Well I bow back. :) You were a wonderful conversation partner Ucarr. I respect your intellect and honest engagement throughout the discussion. I look forward to further discussions with you in the future, and feel free to jump back in any time.

If by causality, you really mean temporal causality; then that needs to be clarified in the OP. Your OP clearly, taken literally, is discussing an infinite causality in 6 and not an infinite of temporal causality. — Bob Ross

I suppose I thought I didn't need to mention that an infinitely regressive or looped universe would be infinitely causal over time. I'll take a look at it again.

You have not negated the possibility of an infinite of causality which does not lead to a first cause; instead, you have now negated the possibility of an infinite of temporal causality not having itself a cause (at best). — Bob Ross

Not having BEEN caused. Meaning that the answer to "What caused an infinite universe?" is still "Nothing". Its the same answer as a finite universe.

First cause - The point in causality in which there is nothing which caused a set of existence

This isn’t proven, because you are now shifting your argument to discuss the impossibility of an infinite temporal causality having no cause; well, that’s simply not what one would argue if they are arguing that causality is infinite proper. — Bob Ross

To be clear, I'm not arguing that its impossible for an infinite temporal causality to have no cause. I'll note this again, if A is an infinite universe, and G (Whatever it is, a God, timey wimey, etc.) -> X, then G caused an infinite universe. Now, G -> X enters into the total causality set of, "What caused G -> X, nothing". But that doesn't deny that X could have incepted without any G either. Whether the time in X has a limit of zero or no limit at all, the logic doesn't change. We will inevitably get to a point in which we encapsulate all of causality into its totality, and we find there is nothing which caused that existence to be.

I would also like to mention, that one could also posit coherently that T is equal to C because all causes are temporal; and that C/T is eternal and that C/T is not a first cause. In other words, using T instead of C doesn’t help your case, because T being eternal doesn’t make it a first cause. — Bob Ross

Oh! This is good! :) Its not that T is eternal, T just represents the number of 'time ticks' that we place into the equation. Also, if G creates X, G creates X at a particular time (or continuous). G is not outside of time either.

Example : The below is the entirety of C, or the first cause.
"What caused an infinite eternal universe? Answer: An infinite universe was caused by a God at time tick 5.
G at T (where T = 5) -> 2T + infinity where T = sum of all Ts (infinity)

The major problem is we're talking about a situation in which practically anything is possible. Because we're in the realm of infinity and time being malleable, we can come up with some crazy stuff that may or may not be empirically true. The point of this argument is literally to note: "Come up with whatever crazy idea of universal origin you want. It doesn't matter. It will always inevitably end up here."

No matter what we create, we eventually always reach an end. Lets go with the craziest of crazy setups. There are an infinite of infinites causes which cause an infinite set of eternally existing universes. So infinity Y -> Infinity X -> (continues). At the end, we can still take that entire idea and pop it into a variable X then asked, "What caused X?" And the answer is: Nothing. That's the proof Bob. The specifics do not matter. It is impossible to create causality which never ceases because all of causality will arrive at the last question: "You've laid the entirety of causality out, but what caused that?" And the answer is always the same: Nothing.

Will do. However, if I interpret your idea of “first cause” as merely “something which is no cause”; then this is a vacuously true truth that no one, atheist nor theist, will deny — Bob Ross

It is not something which is no cause. No, a first cause is part of causality. It is the moment in the causal chain that will eventually be reached in which we ask, "What caused X?" and the answer will be nothing. It is logically necessary that all questions of causality will arrive at this point.

But whatever you are feeling about the situation, the feelings drive the thoughts. — Brendan Golledge

This is really more the essence of what drives thinking instead of being social alone. Its our emotions. Our desires. What we want. Most people are rationalizing beings, not rational beings. And this makes sense if you think about it. We have desires to get things that we want, and we use our thoughts to get what we want. We don't use our thoughts innately to deny what we want.

Being rational is not innate. I believe it is a skill. It requires effort, technique, honesty, and a willingness to objectively look at one's emotional tendencies and wants, and reasonably control them. Its extremely difficult and can take years to master.

You and I are not immune to this. I'm constantly tempted to let my emotions about a subject override the conversation. I want to be right in every discussion I'm in. But that HAS to be reigned in. It must be beaten into its proper corner and place. :) Its a hard ask for many people to do. Take a look at your own motivations for posting the topic. What ultimately do you want out of it? Is it to justify God? To imply that other people are stupid whereas you are mentally superior? I don't mean that you've done any of this intentionally or to hurt you. But examining oneself in an honest life can be painful. A true thinker whose honest about their own motivations and rationalizations will be willing to hurt themselves far more than anyone else can hurt them.

However, when it comes to anything new, for which no known social consensus exists, they show themselves to be very stupid. — Brendan Golledge

One way we can look at it is, "They're stupid, I'm not." Which trust me, we all have the thought that everyone else is stupid and we're smarter than everyone else. :) Truly rational people have to fight to avoid falling into this poisonous thinking. Another way we can look at it is, "Thinking about new things is hard for most people without motivation to." Its not stupidity. Its about what people want. Why should someone think about something completely new when what they hold in their thoughts functions perfectly fine? Ask yourself this: Are you willing to think about a logically viable world where a God does not exist? Or are you more concerned with getting other people to think of a logically viable world where a God must exist?

You're not stupid. Neither are (necessarily) the people replying. Its about what you're motivated to think about. Someone replying to you may not care about your point because their idea that "There is no God," serves them great and they see the tendency to push, "There is a God," as a negative in their or other people's lives. So they're not really interested in exploring your new tendency. They're not curious as to whether there really is a God, they just want to preserve the emotional comfort and benefit their worldview gives them.

A second thing to consider is that this a public forum. It is not limited to trained philosophers, academics, or those who have practice and training in rational thought. A lot of times its just people with opinions. "Oh hey, this guy is arguing for God. Yeah, that's no good, let me just post real quick to shut that down." Again, this is not explicitly thought by some, but definitely comes across in their posts. I understand your frustration, as I have spent many years trying to get people to engage with particular posts of mine, yet found most people lacked the patience or curiosity to explore them. Keep at it though, I found at least one person on these forums who is willing to engage, and its wonderful when you can find someone like that.

I was disappointed to find that most of the replies did not even attempt to address the content of what I said, but replied superficially to some tertiary thing. — Brendan Golledge

True. My advice is to attempt one time to redirect someone back to the larger point, or address it one time if you feel that's showing good faith in the other person's engagement. If someone continues to show no interest in the actual argument, just move on. Don't ever take personal offense unless a person is intentionally trying to offend you.

I have written several posts on several forums in the last several months, and typically I got very few replies (I suppose I didn't use any buzzwords that lit up people's social brains), or else I reliably got +3/4 of the replies only in response to a particular buzzword, like "God", and the topic I wanted to discuss was left mostly unaddressed. — Brendan Golledge

You have to get people emotionally invested to click on your topic. Keep experimenting in titles. It doesn't have to be 'click bait', but you should put your self in the shoes of a random bored person. "Would I want to click on this and read what this random person is saying?" Remember that you are a nobody online. You are part of "the stupid people" that most everyone thinks everyone else is. :)

Second, try to keep your topic focused. The values of necessary thought started with complaints about other people not reading or thinking about your topic, accusations that we're all cultists, and then a reference to fear of God. Its a bit all over the place right? And as you can tell from the replies that you got, people are going to take one or two salient points and address those.

You begin with "On the Values Necessary for Thought" and end with 3 paragraphs on "Fear of the Lord is the Beginning of Wisdom." And you raise many issues in between. I do not wish to discuss all the issues raised and I do not know which of the many issues raised is the one you wish most to discuss. — Arne

This was said better than I could.

I want to end this not with a sense of beration, but one of encouragement. We all feel frustrated at times on these forums. Its perfectly normal, and you're in good company. Just don't get caught in the trap of thinking "I'm better and smarter than all of these other people." Its too easy to do. If it ever helps tell yourself say, "The better and smarter person wouldn't need to view themselves as better and smarter, they would work tirelessly to learn how to connect and convey their ideas an interesting way with people of all types and backgrounds." Keep at it. Focus on the ideas, and how to connect with others on those ideas. You have things to say and I think a little more organization in how you say it combined with some well written titles to get people in may get you more engagement.

When you posit that C is the set containing all causes (i.e., contingent events) and that the universe has a cause (i.e., is a contingent event), then the universe is a member of C and NOT C. You are conflating them. — Bob Ross

I'll be more detailed. C = The set of all causes in an eternal universe over time
What Y -> C? Nothing. There is nothing. There is just C, uncaused by anything else.

Philosophim, you must remember that the stipulation you gave is that C, which can be whatever you want to call it, is a set of infinite elements containing every cause — Bob Ross

To be clear, "every cause over time". Once all of causality over time has been encapsulated in CT, there's still a question of causality that does not involve time. "What caused CT to be?" That question and answer is in C. As noted most simply, an eternal God could have caused an eternally existing universe. So C, all of causality, would be G -> CT. Does something eternal causing something eternal sound ridiculous? Sure, but so does an eternally existing universe. The point of the argument is not to point out what is viable as we have no empirical means of proving or disproving any of these proposals. Its to point out that no matter what someone comes up with, in the end we will reach a point in causality where there is nothing which caused the state we're looking at.

Now, I do want to go a little more meta into the phrase "First cause". When I originally wrote this paper two years ago, it was to gain traction and get the atheists and theists in here together. I was new to the forums, and I understood that taglines needed to be interesting enough to get people to go in and read them. Its a phrase that has a very particular meaning. First cause - The point in causality in which there is nothing which caused a set of existence. If I were to rewrite this today, I would not use the term "First cause", but I would still use the underlying concept. That there is a point in causality that is always reached in which there is no cause for that state in question.

I mention this, because you may be having an issue with the phrase. If you do, dismiss the phrase. Its the underlying concept that matters. And that if this is the case, we have an instance of true randomness as to why that state exists as there is nothing which would have caused it to be or not be besides the fact that it simply exists. Whether finite or infinite, conscious or unconscious, the inception of the universe 'just happened'.

Hello Ucarr, I've had some time to look over your reply and I'm going to try to parse down to what is relevant, and what I think has gotten too far off topic. I had planned to go line by line, but honestly a lot of these arguments just aren't important to the overall scope of the discussion, so I think its best to drop them.

Here are the things which I think are irrelevant to the topic:

Zero as representing nothing. This is a common understanding in math that we should not debate and I feel misses the true point you're trying to make. What I think you're trying to say is that "Nothing" cannot exist. My definition of nothing is "The absence of something". Feel free to take it from there.

Quantum mechanics. Your entire point in introducing quantum mechanics seems to be that it has some influence on true randomness. Let me be clear: True randomness cannot be influenced. Meaning no introduction of anything is going to influence it. What you want is to believe that true randomness is not possible. That we can argue. But you're going to have to argue against it from a logical position, as it is purely a logical conclusion, not an empirical one.

Multiplying null sets. I'm not multiplying a null set by anything in my example. I'm just using a set as an encapsulation of "All causality over time" into a variable. Then I include it in propositional logic. That's it. You seem to be debating that I can do this. I can. I will not be arguing this with you. This is basic logic. I am not going to debate you for pages about basic logic and math.

What you can argue about is, "If nothing caused an infinite universe to exist, what does that logically entail?" Because that is the scope of this conversation. If you agree an infinite universe is uncaused, which you did in your reply, then all of the above is moot.

Also a more interesting an viable discussion in my mind is Bob Ross's points. Take a read on those and see if you can back him up.

I picked a couple of other things out that I thought needed direct addressing. I'll cover these below. If you think I've avoided or missed something pertinent that you would like me to directly cover that doesn't fit into the summaries I've written above, just request it on your next reply and I'll go over them.

Firstly, infinite causal chains are central to your premise. Is this an admission your premise is therefore flawed? Secondly, I'd like to see you argue against the logical merit of infinity as a concept, thereby simultaneously arguing against the logical merit of your premise. — ucarr

I wanted to clear this up so you understand what's going on here. I'm not debating whether infinity can or cannot exist. You are saying, "Infinity exists" and I'm saying, "Lets say it does," then concluding if it does there must still be a first cause. Having infinity as a concept is the only conceivable way of denying a first cause. You HAVE to have infinity as a viable argument, or that's it, the discussion is a done deal. No one blinks an eye at a finite universe having a first cause. So it behooves you to go with the idea that infinity is a viable concept that can exist in reality.

I want you to understand, I could make this an argument against infinity being a viable existent reality. Its fairly easy to do. For example, if the universe has existed infinitely, then this means an infinite amount of time has passed before now. An infinite amount of time can never pass, because that would mean there's an end, and thus not an infinite amount of time. BUT, I'm not doing that. I'm saying, "Ok, lets go with it, it doesn't matter". Do you understand now?

I know you're not persuaded by my logic and I, likewise, am not persuaded by yours. I hope you don't feel obligated to refute my arguments here. — ucarr

This is not about your or my logic or arguments. Its about 'the logic". Your opinion and my opinion are irrelevant at the end of the day. We are nothing. Whether I or you believe in an argument is irrelevant. What we are trying to do is parse out what is logical in as objective a manner as we can. I am not trying to convince you, and you shouldn't be trying to convince me Ucarr. If you present an argument, I'm going to answer it if its relevant to the argument. Your job is to viably attack it without bias, and my job is to viably defend it without bias. And if we both do an honest job, maybe we'll hammer the logic clearly so there's no doubt objectively that it works or does not work. I'm not saying that you or I do not have bias, but we should both try and keep it in check where possible.

I’m arguing that nothingness cannot support an intersection with somethingness. — ucarr

This is an empirical claim, not a logical claim. There is nothing logical which negates the idea that there was nothing, then something. If an eternal universe is uncaused, then there was nothing which caused it. And if nothing caused it, then it was truly random. This is not a multiplication by zero event and insisting that it is, is a straw man. I would re-read Bob Ross's points again, as I think he has a much more viable argument then what has been listed so far.

The series itself has no cause, and this makes it the first cause. But then you are saying the series is the first cause. — Bob Ross

It is the first cause to the question, "What caused this universe?" The answer is that, as it exists. It is explained by its own existence, and nothing else.

You also must consider that we're not evaluating the set, we're evaluating the set as part of a causal chain.

An infinite set of all causes is not a part of a causal chain. — Bob Ross

How not? X = Set of all causes within a universe over time. What caused X? Nothing. Whether that time has a limit of zero or none at all, we still have the question of what caused it.

You also must consider that we're not evaluating the set, we're evaluating the set as part of a causal chain.

An infinite set of all causes is not a part of a causal chain. — Bob Ross

Lets say something did cause an infinite universe to exist. For example, a universe has some weird time power that explodes into an infinitely eternal universe elsewhere. Or for theists a God. In this case X = Set of all causes within a universe over time and A -> X. An infinite set is now part of a causal chain. Remove A, and !∃x -> X is still part of a causal chain.

A brute fact is not necessarily a cause. — Bob Ross

True. But in the chain of causality I can start with, "What caused this infinite universe for infinite time T?" Nothing. Ok, then I can say, "What caused the universe to be in the state that it is in time T? Or between time T and T+5. But the first cause to all of it, why the universe for all T is there in the first place, is it just is. Nothing else caused it.

Hopefully that answered your points Bob.

Geez Ucarr, that is a LOT to go over. I'm going to try to condense a lot of this down to relevant points. I'm heading out of town tomorrow and this is going to take some time to write. Hopefully I'll have it by Sunday.

Hey again Ucarr. I can see some of our conversation is devolving into opinionated statements. Since so much is being written, I'm going to be ignoring those and focusing on arguments and points you've made. If you think I've mistakenly missed a point, please bring it up in your reply and I'll tackle it on my next response.

Statistical probability is a math-based science. Calculating probabilities is not educated guesswork. Either the math is correct or it isn't. — ucarr

Probability is absolutely educated guesswork Ucarr. No one knows what card will be drawn next. Its an educated inference about the future. It might take 49 card draws before we see our first jack despite the odds being 4/52.

Don't imagine the casinos in Vegas depend on educated guesswork for their profits. — ucarr

Yes, they do. The casino's only survive because the long term odds balance out to their predicted outcomes. There are several points in games where a person cleans out the house. But those points typically don't happen long often enough and often enough to override the losses.

If you dial down determinism and probability to zero, you are left with neither form nor content. One might refer to any remainder, if such exists, as undefined. The intelligibility of form and content won't allow your pure randomness to come on stage. — ucarr

This is the reverse of what I've noted. The more constraints you have, the more deterministic it becomes and the number of possibilities approach zero. A coin has the constraint there only being two sides in consideration, and we are completely constrained on measuring or knowing the force of the quarter toss. That's why there are only two possibilities. Removing all constraints reveals all possibilities and is the negation of determinism. So no, this does not approach a probability of 0.

You're correct about rejoicing with Bob Ross over his understanding first cause cannot be verified empirically. Were that the case, with pure randomness extant empirically, you and Bob Ross wouldn't exist. — ucarr

That doesn't make any sense. If the big bang randomly happened, we're still here. You are confusing true randomness as having to happen all the time, or that it must negate other things that have happened. There is no 'has to' outcome. It doesn't have to happen at any time. It could happen once over there, then happen again over there after a few billion years. The time for a first cause to happen is not a fixed roulette that's happening every second. Its completely unpredictable. Us all existing today is a completely viable outcome from true randomness, as are any and all possible universes.

Neither. Zero is a number. It holds a place on the number line between -1 and 1. Don't confuse it with non-existence. — ucarr

If you have zero dollars Ucarr, money owned by you does not exist. The debate over zero has gone on for a long time. When it was first introduced many people thought it was impossible as well. We've long settled that debate. It is a representation of non-existence in this instance Ucarr. Completely viable and real. If you want to turn this into a debate about the number zero I think we've long crossed the threshold of reasonable arguments.

Consider: ∅={ }; this is the empty set. So, if ∅={ } = nothingness and (1) = first cause, then they are disjoint sets, meaning they have no common members. So, the intersection of ∅={ } and (1) takes us right back to ∅={ }. — ucarr

I don't see the point. I'm not using an empty set nor multiplying by zero.

Here is an argument that implies your pure randomness is an idealization. If, as I believe, pure randomness is the absolute value of disorder, then it's not found in nature. — ucarr

Pure randomness has nothing to do with 'the value of disorder' whatever that is. Explain to me how entropy has anything to do with "What caused an infinite universe to exist?" You keep confusing the point that true randomness comes from the result of a first cause being necessarily true. If you want to counter the idea of true randomness, you need to attack what proves it to be true, not the concept of true randomness itself. The concept of true randomness comes about as a necessary conclusion if a first cause is true.

You can walk into an empty room. You can't walk into a non-existent room. — ucarr

This is poor language use, not a proof. I can walk into a vacuum sealed room right? Or a room empty of air? Non-existence as a concept is quite viable Ucarr. Are you sure the concept of infinity is?

Just above you agreed thoughts are things. Still earlier, you agreed the presence of a thing changes what it observes, so your thoughts observing true randomness change it. — ucarr

My thoughts on true randomness change true randomness? How? How does my thinking about an atom incepting randomly change true randomness?

Every infinite causal chain inevitably traces back to its first cause. If it does it's not infinite because infinity never begins. If it doesn't, it's not a causal chain because every causal chain has a first cause. — ucarr

You are once again confusing the infinite causality within the universe with the causal chain of that universe. There is still the question in the chain, "What caused that infinite universe to exist?" Either something caused the infinite universe to exist, or it didn't right?

My point is that an equation that computes to either infinity or undefined does not represent: "Every causal chain inevitably arrives at a first cause." — ucarr

No, and I've never claimed that. "What caused the infinite universe?" is the first question of the causal chain when 'Nothing' is the answer.

I'm assuming an infinitely existing universe makes sense and is possible. If you agree, then the equation makes perfect sense.
— Philosophim

I agree. An eternal universe makes sense. One of it's salient attributes is the absence of a beginning. If you try to say an eternal universe is itself a first cause, you're positing it in its causal role as the outer parentheses set with itself as the inner parentheses set, but you're prohibited from doing so by the rule of set theory that says a set cannot be a member of itself. — ucarr

Correct. But I'm not doing that because there's another question on the causal chain. "What caused the infinite universe to exist?"

Let me repeat a second time what I repeated above:
Infinity is not a discrete number. It therefore cannot be precisely situated on the number line. It therefore cannot be precisely sequenced in a series populated with numbers. For these reasons, infinite values cannot be computed directly. — ucarr

Ok, and I'm going to repeat that this is irrelevant to the question, "What caused the infinite universe to exist?" The set is only meant as a way to capture all of the causality within an infinite universe. Set of X = [all causality within an infinite universe]. The equation was just a way to represent it over time, which is perfectly viable if you believe that infinity exists.

I'll ask you very plainly again, because you keep dodging this. If an infinite universe exists, at any time T does there exist an infinite amount of prior causality? Its a clear yes or no question. If you answer yes, then my equation is fine. if you answer no, then my equation is not fine, but then again, we also just demonstrated an infinite universe is illogical and can't be put on the number line. If you dodge this question again, I'm going to assume you don't want to answer and I'm going to dismiss your complaints about my equation.

My reference to QM, therefore, is, in turn, a reference to a first cousin of randomness, quantum certainty. Since elementary particles are also waveforms, and since waveforms and their uncertainties are related to randomness, QM, which deals with these uncertainties, might also be speculated to deal with randomness, this especially given the relationship between random quantum fluctuations and the singularity. — ucarr

How does this relate to our conversation on probability being a set of restrictions that enable us to reasonably guess at a future? How does this relate to a probability that has no restrictions? QM can't cause true randomness. True randomness is uncaused. Nothing causes true randomness, therefore nothing can influence true randomness. QM is still based off a set of restrictions that we know. Its no different then the randomness of a die roll.

From the evidence above, it's clear to me you're talking about gross measurement tools being grossly inaccurate — ucarr

This may be a language issue, so I'll point out the definitions.

Inaccurate - Measurements which are unreliable.
Reliable - Measurements which are consistent
Measurements can be accurate despite impacting the target. For example, if I hit a cue ball into a billiard ball with X force, y spin, at Z angle, the ball will billiard ball will reliably result in a set velocity in w direction. Measurements that impact other things are not inaccurate. The fact that the cue ball changes the billiard balls velocity does not mean our measure is inaccurate.

An example of an inaccurate measurement would be a stretchable ruler that constantly fluctuates in size and inches width. Or trying to measure something at a distance by spacing your thumb through the air without precision. QM measurements are not inaccurate, they just affect what is being measured because the size of our measuring tool cannot help but affect the thing being measured.

Perhaps now -- given the similarity of uncertainty and randomness -- you can see my reference to QM is not random. — ucarr

Perhaps now you can see that your reference to QM does not solve the question, nor does covering this subject do anything for your case.

I could show the pertinence of QM within this context, but I acknowledge that that pertinence introduces narratives too far afield from your points. — ucarr

That's conceding the point then.

Regarding #1 -- My direct attack -- were that my purpose herein -- would be an attempt to show that first cause doesn't exist. I think 180 Proof is doing a successful job in managing that objective. — ucarr

Then you have not adequately understood his points or read my counters. He has not. Feel free to answer my counters to him if you think they aren't good.

I'm not directly attacking "first cause is logically necessary." Perhaps it is. — ucarr

Then there's really nothing else to discuss. My equations are just ways to help you understand the situation when an infinite universe is proposed. If you don't personally like them or understand them, use the set I gave you. If you don't like that, just use the verbal argument I gave you.

That the infinite series of causality just is, doesn't make it a cause; thusly, it is not a first cause. — Bob Ross

Correct. The series itself is not a first cause. The answer to the question, "What caused the infinite universe to exist?" is the first cause. Its, "Nothing". So once we reach that point, we've found our first cause. The infinite universe as a whole exists without something else causing it. The series is HOW the universe exists, or when taken into a set can be used as example of its causal structure over time. But the universe itself isn't caused by anything else.

You also must consider that we're not evaluating the set, we're evaluating the set as part of a causal chain. Once the set is established, there is still the last question in the causal chain. Thus the first cause is, "An infinite universe exists". After that we can use the set to evaluate how exists causally over time.

The key to understanding this is to understand that causes can be grouped. For example, "What caused the universe to exist at this point?" can be answered with, "The entirety of the universe that has existed thus far." And on the flip side, "What has caused the universe to exist through all time and thus far?" the answer is once again, "Nothing, it is uncaused and simply is."

If you wish to call that a 'brute fact', I'm fine with that. My overall point is that anywhere in a causal chain we will always reach a point in which there is no prior cause within the chain.

The infinite series of 'causality' is really the infinite series of causality-es, and asking "what caused-e this infinite series?' is an incoherent question, so we throw it out. — Bob Ross

Its a perfectly coherent question. Working through the answer might seem incoherent because people don't like to accept that we've reached an end to causality (and what it entails), but I think its a coherent question with a coherent answer.

Have either of you read Process and Reality by Alfred North Whitehead? — AmadeusD

No, but I'll check it out. Thanks!

It all starts with the idea that "Existence is better than no existence". What is existence? What 'is'. Matter, thoughts, concepts, etc. But how do we separate existences into discretes?

You conflated them again. “existences” here refers to beings, and ‘existence’ refers to Being. — Bob Ross

Apologies for an error in my grammar in this case for sure, but you understood my point that an 'existence' is just a discrete identity of existence right?

If "Being" is existence, then "Beings" are just discrete identities within existence. Meaning that from my definition, more discrete identities is equivalent to more existence

The first sentence I have no quarrel with; but the second doesn’t follow. More discrete identities equals more beings, and definitely not more Being. — Bob Ross

Take it in reverse then. If we decreased the number of discrete identities, we would have less existence correct? More existences then by proxy are 'more existence'. And I am not using the term 'Being', but my breakdown of existence. You introduce other philosophical terms as if its the argument a lot Bob. :) Take the idea of existence and existences that I am noting, and see what I'm stating first. If "Being" is identical in every way to my definition of "Existence", then we can interchange it. I'm not sure we're there yet though.

I am thinking of Being as a substance: that substance, by my lights, is not increasing when you are able to meaningfully separate, through identity, two different things upon one emerging from the other. Are you claiming to the contrary? — Bob Ross

The term 'substance' is defined differently between many philosophers. So I don't want to bring connotations I'm not intending into the discussion. Existence is 'what is'. Existences are discrete identities within existence. For the purposes here, what I have deemed a valid discrete existence is that which expresses itself in a unique way. Thus the more expressions there are within existence, the more existence there is.

"Existence is good." I'm not
sure "Existences" are innately good;

By my lights, your whole analysis or ‘increasing existence’ is actually ‘increasing identities’; so it is confusing me that you are saying that you are unsure as to whether existences (beings) are good. — Bob Ross

To be clear, it is not so much 'increasing identities' as evaluating how material existences can express on their own and compared to each other. The identity is based in part on something real, not merely taking a random cut out of existence and calling it an identity. I know you don't think 'material existence' is important, but this is why it is. If you wish, you can call it, the 'smallest identity' within the sea of identities to not derail the topic. The key really is at the end of the day finding meaningful discretes within existence, not merely within an observer. The leap from blob to things.

Whether I'm creating things optimally or not, the only way to evaluate a morality that is based on, "Existence is good," is to observe some means of quantifying which can be standardized in some way. And yet, it shouldn't be about a life's ability to quantify, but something which would still be a reasonable quantification even if living beings did not exist. The idea of "Space" seems to make this easier. There is the status of 'things' not touching or touching. When they touch they behave a different way then when not touching. This would happen whether people were able to observe this or not. Thus an expression is how some 'thing' exists when alone or touching another 'thing'.

This combination of expressions creates new expressions that can then repeat this pattern. Once again, imagine a universe where no atoms every combined into molecules. Now imagine they do and create the richness of our universe. Do you see how ours is a universe of greater existence than that? Can we honestly say the former universe is as good as ours? No, both my intuitions and the idea of expressions say its not.

Then, what makes more beings good? Is, somehow, more beings directly correlated to more Being? Is that the idea? — Bob Ross

It is the above idea I'm trying to get at.

I think the best that I can argue is that if there is an objective morality, "Existence is good" must be at the base of it all.

This is, if I remember correctly, because you think it is internally incoherent to posit that non-existence is good; but I don’t think it is. — Bob Ross

I agree it is not incoherent if an objective morality does not exist. If it does, then I believe its incoherent. But we've gone over that and agreed to disagree on this for now. I appreciate you humoring me as if it were so. This means that even if what we're exploring here sounds viable, you get full rights to say, "Eh, but its just a theory." :)

Intuitions are subjective, while facts are objective.
…
Let me define intuition. Intuition is a strong feeling that bends us for or against a decision/conclusion.

I was meaning ‘intuition’ in the philosophical sense: an intellectual seeming. If by ‘intuition’ you mean ‘a gut feeling’; then I rescind my earlier comments about it. Inuitions, in your sense, are useless to epistemology. — Bob Ross

Correct. Generally if I bring up a term and it could be deemed in a philosophical sense versus modern English sense, its going to have a modern English meaning. If I do bring up a particular philosophical lexicon, I will be usually make an attempt to define it clearly. As I've told you before, I find the introduction of many philosophical terms problematic. They are often interpreted differently by people, require an exploration into the philosophers that coined them and debated over them, and generally bog down conversation into debates over terminology rather than 'the idea'. I also want to be able to communicate my ideas with non-philsophers. Cultural lexicons are not useful for such things.

However, this does not negate my original point, which used my sense of the term, that epistemically all knowledge is predicated on intuitions (about evidence); so the proof that the earth revolves around the sun being a fact is predicated on some set of intuitions—being that it is epistemic. — Bob Ross

You've read my knowledge theory, so you know I don't ascribe to that. :) I believe there is a clear distinction between reasoned and deduced conclusions versus intuitions. But I think this is another debate we could have another time and probably irrelevant to the scope of the thread.

No question-dissect the first lizard and save the others if there was no chance of failure or complications.

I disagree with that. — Bob Ross

Why? Do you disagree because it doesn't make sense for the theory, or do you disagree because it clashes with another theory? This is why we need to start with simple and clearly defined cases first. If you disagree with something as fundamental as this, its no wonder you're having difficulties with my points that we need to break down more complex arguments. Hammer into this on your next reply, I want to see where you're coming from here.

The next scope after individual human beings is society.

Why? That’s entirely arbitrary. — Bob Ross

How so? We've already noted that its reasonable that a moral scope can go up or down one within a conversation. As you have not limited societal considerations from the example, its a reasonable consideration. If you want to limit societal examples, use the lizard example so we can ensure any implicit ideas or feelings about human society are removed.

They key difference is whether the doctor respects the agency from the human being involved. Volunteering your life is fine, but taking it against your will is not.

Why? How would it, total net, in society, decrease “existences”? — Bob Ross

I mentioned a whole portion about society cooperation and unity. I can go deeper into this, I want to make sure you caught that first.

We are sacrificing a life for...what?

Dave is torturing Billy to practice torturing. — Bob Ross

I'm really trying to get this home Bob, but there needs to be a comparative existence evaluation here. An off the cuff analogy to what you're saying here is, "We're exchanging some liters for a kilogram". I don't know how to compare the two. If you can't construct a proper comparison, we can't do a moral evaluation. We are losing something to get something else. What is the value of what is being lost versus the value of what is being gained? If you don't know, then its a bad example and we need to break it down until we can know.

What value is returned?

Dave is better at torturing people, and this increases the “potential beings/existences” he is capable of. — Bob Ross

Once again. What is being lost in either quantity, and what is being gained by quantity? Do we have a pattern of return we can reuse with something we've already figured out quantities of? Again, this is an incomplete example to ask.

Why is torturing good?

That just begs the question: I am asking you whether or not it is immoral for Dave to torture Billy in this scenario. I am surprised you are going to such extents to avoid answering. — Bob Ross

Again, I'm surprised after I've already told you: I'm not trying to avoid the answer. Listen again. You are saying we are going to torture someone. Implicitly, that means you believe there is a value to be gained. What is it, and can we quantify it against the man on the table? What is the context and scope of what is at play here? That's how you use this theory. You can't use a theory of moral evaluation without proper evaluation in your example. Like the trolly problem, 1 life for 5 lives is simple. You're comparing apples and oranges and we haven't decided how valuable a apple or an orange is yet.

o be completely transparent with you, I think you already know that most people would automatically say “no, it is immoral for Dave to torture Billy, because it is does not respect Billy’s rights” without needing any further elaboration; but I think you equally recognize that your theory doesn’t afford such an easy answer.... — Bob Ross

I thought that went without saying. We've established a theory, and now we have to apply this nascent theory to moral examples to see what would come out. I mean, if you came up with a theory of harmony, and I gave you an example that had a question about "what is harmonous about this situation?" we would sit down and try to determine that right? We would have to contextualize an example through the lens of the harmony theory, same here. You're using a theory that quantifies existence, so you need to make sure your examples can be quantified in some way, and ready to be quantified where they aren't yet.

As I suspected, we're going to be talking about your example for 2-3 more replies aren't we? I suppose you'll take my request to 'use established examples so don't get bogged down and can build your understanding of the theory', is going to be assumed as dodging though. So *sigh* here we go. :P

...because the deciding factor, by-at-large, for you in this scenario is going to be potential existences. Quite frankly, I think you are committed to saying it is morally permissible and obligatory all else being equal (but I don’t want to put words in your mouth). — Bob Ross

It is potential and actual expressed existence. We cannot exclude one or the other as that dictates the entire set of existence. No, in the loose case you've presented we're not even close to concluding that its morally permissible. Depending on how it scoped, it might be. We need a proper scope and measurements we can evaluate.

"If we torture this man 1 hour prior to his death, we absolutely will save five lives."

I understand that you want me to add in something like “and Dave will only have been able to torture an evil captive effectively in order to save millions of lives from a terrorist attack with the practice he got from torturing Billy”; but I am not going to do that. — Bob Ross

You don't have to do that specific example, but you need to do better than what you have now. I need some type of quantified context to compare here.

Right now, the scenario is claiming Dave will increase overall, all else being equal, potential “existence” (as you put it) because he has a new skill, and is better at it. — Bob Ross

Maybe you're misunderstanding this theory. This theory of moralities only blanket statement is: "More existence is better". But that's all determined by the context and measurement of the situation. My theory cannot state, "Torturing is always wrong." unless I have provided all possible contexts and measurements of torture and its always found to be a total loss of existence. It may be that "Torturing is always wrong," but I can't claim that without working through all the possibilities. Maybe you'll make a context and evaluation where torturing this guy is moral. But I can't make a judgement one way or another until you specify the context and quantities out.

If you can't quantify it, then we can't answer it according to the theory.

This doesn’t make sense. You are saying that you cannot answer if Dave is acting immorally when he tortures Billy for practice; when answer should be an emphatic “yes”. — Bob Ross

According to my theory, why should it be yes with this little to go on? I hope the above is helping you understand a bit better that this needs more details and context.

What value does being a better torturer give?

Originally, I was saying it would help him as a member of a government agency; so presumably to save lives by torturing captured opponents. However, to keep this really simple, let’s say it is just for its own sake. Dave is practicing torturing people for the sake of being better at it; just like how one can practice basketball for the sole sake of getting better at it. — Bob Ross

Sure, this one is a little more defined and straight forward. What we need to do is establish the worth and value of human emotions, where I did prior in terms of actions. Self-improvement alone is simply for the emotion of self-satisfaction. There is no other value in honing a skill if one's goal is simply to hone a skill. Taken in comparison of emotion vs emotion alone, one person's satisfaction is not worth another person's horror. Add in bodily degradation and cell damage, and torturing another person for pleasurable self-improvement is definitely not moral. Finally of course there are several other ways to improve one's ability to torture that do not inflict unnecessary harm on another individual.

An honestly even simpler comparison is bullying a person. Lets say I make fun of another person for pleasure. I decrease their emotions which lowers their health a bit and diminishes them as a person for my self-gratification. The bully also has loss. A lower view of humanity as things opposed to a cooperative entity. A misapplication of use of their feelings. Feelings are supposed to strive to compel us to take action. Emotions which compel us to decrease societal cohesion or hurt other people for fun compel us to lower existence. Not when the option exists for the bully to interact with another person that makes them feel neutral/better while the bully also can feel great about themselves. We could dovetail into moral status, or just moral base emotions again if you wish.

Anyway, consider the overall points in seeing moral issues through the lens of the theory and lets see if we can focus on that. Good writing as always Bob, I'll catch your reply when I can.

Can you show me one equation in your reference that doesn't compute to infinity? Yes, you can. There's one equation that computes to "undefined."
— ucarr

Which one?
— Philosophim

It's your citation. Find it yourself. — ucarr

This took me a minute to find what you meant. I thought you meant an equation I had written here. Did you mean my reference to Cantor? If so, what is your point? I don't believe any of the equations I used in my example resolve to undefined.

Can you cite an equation with infinity as an input value that computes to a well-defined discrete position on the number line? It needs to be a number neither irrational nor approximate.
— ucarr

Its logic.
— Philosophim

No. Can you cite a math equation that... (see the underlined above) — ucarr

No, you're ignoring the point. I'm simply using the equation to represent a set. If the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time, will there always be infinite prior causes? Yes. At every point T, will there be additional causes? Yes. If you agree to this, then you agree to the equation. If the form of the equation bothers you, turn it into an array set of values where t is the index. Its the same thing.

If you disagree that this is possible, then explain to me how an infinitely existing universe does not have an infinite amount of prior causes at any second of that universe's existence? Because as I told you before Ucarr, you're treading in disproving that an infinitely existing universe makes any sense. I'm assuming an infinitely existing universe makes sense and is possible. If you agree, then the equation makes perfect sense. You're not fighting against my point Ucarr. You're inadvertently arguing against yours.

And Ucarr, the logic and math are all ways to break down the argument into a way you can see more clearly. The argument hasn't changed.
— Philosophim

Nor has its faulty logical support. — ucarr

This is not an argument Ucarr. If you're just going to give opinions, then my argument stands as logical.

First, we discussed earlier how true randomness cannot be influenced by anything else. So QM is useless.
— Philosophim

My citation is not in reference to your true randomness narrative. It refers to placing an irrational number onto the number line without calculating in terms of limits. Your mistake entails assuming that because you see no connection between our debate and QM, therefore I must be randomly throwing it into the mix. — ucarr

If its not in reference to true randomness, I don't see the point then.

A common misconception about the uncertainty principle in quantum physics is that it implies our measurements are uncertain or inaccurate. — ucarr

I never said our measurements were uncertain or inaccurate. I stated our measurements affect the outcome.

In fact, uncertainty is an inherent aspect of anything with wave-like behavior. — ucarr

Agreed. Mathematical wave behavior is a probability. The best example I can give is a light photon can be treated like a wave or a particle. Now does the light electron turn into something else? No, its still a photon. Particle calculations are when we can treat it like a bullet fired from a gun. Waves are when we can only create probable limits. So for example when electrons are floating around an atom, its more of a 'cloud'. Its easier to represent it in a wave equation (bounded uncertainty) vs a particle (Which asserts certainty in its specific location)

And why do we calculate this way? Because at times its impossible to measure something as a particle and waves make it easier.

But, this is getting ridiculous now. How does this have to do anything with the main argument? I'm not seeing any reference to these points I made:

You need to logically demonstrate two things:
1. Why a first cause is not necessary.
2. Why a first cause would not be completely random.

Everything should be in service of this to be on track. This is not a debate about QM unless you can demonstrate why its pertinent to the above two points.

This doesn't resolve the ambiguity but, rather, re-enforces it: when you use the term 'cause' in the infinite chain, it does not refer whatsoever to the same thing as when you use the term 'cause' outside of it. You are using the term 'cause' in two toto genere different senses, and conflating them. — Bob Ross

Here's what I'm conveying.

Lets say the set of an infinite universes causality can be written as 2T + infinity = y where T is time and Y and the flat numbers are causes. Now lets say someone comes in and says, "Something else caused that infinite universe to be." So a God or some time traveling matter.

A -> 2T + infinity = Y

Otherwise, if you mean to refer to 'X "caused" <...>' in the same sense as causality within the series, you are simply not contending with an actual infinite series of causality when positing X: if the infinite series is the totality of all causality, then there is necessarily no causality outside of it and, thusly, X cannot 'cause' the infinite series but, at best, can only be afforded as a brute fact explanation. — Bob Ross

I posted this with the idea that any type of way to get around the argument would go. As noted earlier a God or some timey wimey stuff. Instead of debating whether such a thing is possible, I just thought, "Lets assume it is." So all I'm noting here is that either something caused the infinite universe to exist, or nothing did. If something else did, and that was the first cause, then we have a finite causal chain of logic (if of course nothing caused A to be). And if nothing did, then the answer to what caused the universe to be infinite is the same as "What caused X to exist?" Nothing. Either way, we reach a point in causality in which there is no other cause for a state's existence.

Are you talking about constraints that empower precision of measurement: "our capability to measure or observe," or constraints that limit precision of measurement: "shuffling cards that we cannot see"? — ucarr

I'll state again, both. I covered that in the first two paragraphs.

So, in our phenomenal world, material outcomes of material things in motion always have a measure of determinism attached. — ucarr

Its not a measure of determinism, its determinism. Probability is a an educated guess at what will likely happen based on deterministic rules that we know.

Probability cannot be cancelled in the real world. Therefore, your thought experiment with true randomness is an idealization. — ucarr

Probability cannot be cancelled. If we have randomly shuffle some cards and pull a card, its a 4/52 chance its a jack. You can change the situation. So if I put one more jack in there its 5/53 chance of pulling a jack. My thought experiment on true randomness is not an idealization, its a correctly concluded conclusion. That which is not caused by something else, has no constraints, and thus prior to its inception could not be predicted. True randomness is the only thing which cannot be predicted.

There is no true randomness outside of a thought experiment. — ucarr

There is also no probability outside of constraints. Probability is not randomness. It is an educated inductive prediction based on what is known and what cannot be known.

There is no nothingness outside of its paradoxical presence within a thought experiment. The metaphysical binary of existence confines us to existence via self-contradiction. We cannot exit ourselves from existence, not even via our thought experiments. Your thought experiment re: nothingness is thoroughly embedded within existence. If it weren't, it wouldn't be possible for you to entertain yourself with the thought of it. At no time are you making contact with nothingness, so your arguments from a supposed but fictional nothingness are paradoxical non-starters. — ucarr

There is zero contradiction in stating that nothing is possible. Its simply the absence of something. Is zero impossible or a contradiction Ucarr? Because zero is a symbolic placeholder for 'nothing'.

Entropy is just the separation of matter and energy from a higher state to a lower state over time. This has nothing to do with true randomness.
— Philosophim

If by higher state you mean level of organization of material things into functional systems, then explain why level of organization has nothing to do with its opposite: no organization, i.e., randomness? — ucarr

No, a higher energy state. Entropy is 'random' because we cannot measure exactly when something will go to a lower state of energy. However, it can be reasonably approximated over time as we have an average decay rate for different forms of matter.

Based on how I've defined probability, what do you think?
— Philosophim

I think the answer is "yes." I also think it not possible to have a state of total non-organization. So, no true randomness. If no true randomness, then no general anything-is-possible. — ucarr

"Yes" does not counter my points. "You think" does not counter the points either. A belief that you cannot have a state of toral non-organization does not counter why its been concluded to necessarily exist.

There is no true randomness outside of a thought experiment.

There is no nothingness outside of its paradoxical presence within a thought experiment. — ucarr

I'm pretty sure that when you go into space, there's a whole lot of nothing. And there is nothing paradoxical about it. And this is more than 'a thought experiment'. This is a reasoned argument that leads to a logical conclusion. That's what you have to overcome.

In a complicated way, thoughts are things. — ucarr

True. But in this case the thought is a representation, not actual randomness itself.

True randomness breaks apart all connections of the material universe. — ucarr

Not at all. If the big bang is the first cause of this universe, it was truly random in its inception.

Just as you can't observe an elementary particle without changing it, you can't observe true randomness through a thought experiment without changing it. — ucarr

This makes no sense. Please explain why.

In all cases of what you experience and therefore know, you're connected with the objects of your observation. — ucarr

Only in the fact that you are observing things that are bouncing off of it like light or sound. If you touch it or impact it that's actual change that you're imparting on it.

In your act of observing true randomness, you prevent it from being true. — ucarr

What? :D Ucarr, this makes no sense. If something random incepts into existence and I happen to see it, how did I prevent it from incepting?

That's the same thing as 2T + infinity = y
— Philosophim

As I recall, y is an infinite value, and thus it has no discretely specifiable position on the number line; it's unlimited volume over limited extent between limits. It never arrives at a start point (or an end point). — ucarr

Correct. I've never claimed it does. That changes nothing of what stated.

Let us suppose true randomness is not a process. Is it still a phenomenon?
— ucarr

What is your definition of phenomenon?
— Philosophim

Since a phenomenon is an object of a person's perception, what's already been said about observation of a material thing (facts as thoughts are material things) applies here too. — ucarr

I still don't understand what you're trying to say.

With your language you're saying -- literally -- that true randomness does not exist. — ucarr

I'm saying it does not exist as a dimension dice roll. It does not exist 'as a process' We cannot watch a truly random deck of cards being shuffled. Just like there is no dimension of "coin flipping" that we can influence to change the calculated odds of the coin being 50/50 heads or tails. It does not exist as a 'thing'. An individual coin flip exists as a thing, and we can influence the coin flip. But we can't influence the probability itself. Probabilities in any form are predictive inductive concepts based on the limitations of the known situation. So if I cannot influence the coin predictably nor know what side it will land on, its a 50/50 probability because we have a limitation that it will land on one side or the other. If there are no limitations, then anything is possible. And because there are no limitations, we cannot limit it. Unless you want to declare the logic of 'probability as a concept' is incorrect, you're not going to have any luck demonstrating anything was not possible prior to the inception of a first cause.

Within the context of your thought experiment. And, as you think, your thought experiment has no dimensions, so, by your thinking, where does that posit the universe? Well, the one you think incepted from nothingness exists within the context of your thought experiment within your brain. See below for your own verification of this.

Hey, welcome back Bob! You still retain the title of the first person who realized this could not be proven empirically.
— Philosophim — ucarr

This is a logical proof, not an empirical proof. I've mentioned this many times already. This is not just, 'a thought experiment'. You need to logically demonstrate two things:

1. Why a first cause is not necessary.
2. Why a first cause would not be completely random.

You're working too hard to avoid these direct points. If you wish to concede you cannot counter these logical points, then that's fine. But pointing out that its not empirical is not a counter to its logical necessity when I've clearly pointed out this is not an empirical conclusion.

“More existence” is not synonymous with “more entities”, and you seem, so far, to be confusing the two (with all due respect). When you denote something with “more existence”, that is more of Being, not more beings. — Bob Ross

You bring up an interesting note with Heidegger. I definitely have struggled with the idea of expressions and potential existence. Its a means to measure, but is it a good means? Does it convey the core underlying idea of "Existence is better?"

Why is this important? Because, if you are claiming “more entities is better”, then your argument is about finding maximal complexity and number of beings; whereas if you are claiming “more existence is better” then your argument is about the increase of Being itself. — Bob Ross

Perhaps my analytical mind is overcomplicating this, but I genuinely can’t tell which claim you are intending to make; and so far it seems like you intend to provide an “ontological” analysis but then provide an “ontical” one. — Bob Ross

No, I don't think you're overcomplicating the issue. Its a key base of the theory, so it really needs to be hammered into and explored. Lets explore from the base and why I'm grouping 'existence' apart from 'beings'.

It all starts with the idea that "Existence is better than no existence". What is existence? What 'is'. Matter, thoughts, concepts, etc. But how do we separate existences into discretes? The way I do that is to note what I call expressions, or when there is a unique interaction between a 'glob' of existence and another 'glob' of existence.

Do we call this a being? Thoughts exist, but we would not normally call it a 'being'. Also it seems odd to call an atom a 'being', but maybe so. If "Being" is existence, then "Beings" are just descrete identities within existence. Meaning that from my definition, more discrete identities is equivalent to more existence. The end goal to all of this is to measure the underlying point, "Existence is good." I'm not
sure "Existences" are innately good; it is the fact that they are part of the glob of existence which is what makes them good. Existences are also not separate from existence. Its just the parceling of a piece of existence into something quantifiable. Its basic, and intended to be as simple of a jump from "Existence" to identities of "Existences" as possible.

In the end, we are discrete identifiers, and this is how we measure. If we're going to measure existence, this seems to be the best start from my viewpoint. I'll take your thoughts on this.

By proof, I just mean an argument which provides reasonable evidence for, that hopefully I will find sufficient to conclude that, your position at least validly purports that “more existence [or entities] is better” is objectively true. — Bob Ross

True. I think the best that I can argue is that if there is an objective morality, "Existence is good" must be at the base of it all. Where I'm making a less certain step is stating "More existence is good." Because that means I have to quantify. But how do I quantify existence appropriately? Is my quantification of existence merely a human perception that's easily digestible to us? Or is my quantification something that stands the test against reality? Of this I am unsure.

Thus it is by no means an empirical conclusion, but a logical one.

I would never, nor should anyone ever, demand your to prove via solely empirical tests that morality is objective because that is impossible: metaethics is, and always will be, philosophical. This does not, however, mean that no proof can be provided; nor that metaethics is not a science. — Bob Ross

Agreed. The question here is can the theory which I'm proposing be applied? Its one thing to claim a logical conclusion, but does it work in practice? As you can tell, this bleeds out from my knowledge theory that something which cannot be applied cannot be applicably known. An objective morality must be something more than an idea. It must be useful with real results that make sense.

It is an attempt at building something objective, though this can only be proven with exploration.

There is never going to be a way for you to explore your way into proving that “more existence [or entities] is better”: that is a prize sought after in vain—for ethics, at its core, will always be arguments from reason without a definitive scientific test that can be performed to verify it. Viz., you will never run into a phenomena that “more existence is better”, nor any test of phenomena that renders it (definitively) true. — Bob Ross

True. I'm more concerned with the quantization of existence and the theories proposed leading to logically consistent results. Further, I have a concern with things outside of our precision. Estimates and patterns seem to be the best way to discuss this in a general sense of the theory, but I'm not naive enough to think there won't be exceptions. Exceptions can generally be handled as long as the core underlying structure is strong. That's my main concern at this moment.

"Your intuition is objectively wrong, and here is rationally why."

This is impossible. Your “rational why” is predicated off of intuitions as well. You are shooting yourself in the foot by trying to argue with an inuitionless perspective. — Bob Ross

I'm not talking about "My" rational why at this point, as in no way can I claim its purely figured out. I'm noting in the abstract sense that rational conclusions which are confirmed to be facts trump intuitions. Intuitions are subjective, while facts are objective. If I intuit that eating meat that's been on the counter for 2 days will be fine, food poisoning will demonstrate that intuition to be wrong.

Our intuitions that the Sun circles around the Earth my exist, but they are objectively wrong.

That they are objectively wrong is based off of intuitions of the (overwhelming) evidence that the earth revolves around the sun; and not some sort of epistemically inuitionlessly obtained “objective truth”. — Bob Ross

Let me define intuition. Intuition is a strong feeling that bends us for or against a decision/conclusion. This is purely subjective and may differ between individuals. The fact that the Earth revolves around the sun is not determined by our feelings, but by the objective conclusions we've made through definitions, observation, and tests. I think we can both agree that 'truth' is something outside of knowledge. A fact however, is objective. No matter my personal viewpoint or opinion on the matter, it still stands.

Taking into consideration that the person does not know the value of the human beings on the tracks, and the statistical likelihood that any one person is going to equal or surpass the impact on existence that 5 people will in total, you should change the track to hit the one person every time.

What about the 5 patients thought experiment? Is is moral for the doctor to kill and dissect one innocent, healthy person to save 5 terminally ill patients? — Bob Ross

This is a fine follow up. First we've established the solution for the first part which you have no problem with. Now we can go into the second part.

If we are not considering the complexities of human society, then yes. Let me clarify. Lets replace the human beings on the table with lizards. Lizards don't care about one another, and they don't form societies. No question-dissect the first lizard and save the others if there was no chance of failure or complications.

Recall earlier when talking about moral issues that scope can go up or down by one. The next scope after individual human beings is society. While killing the one innocent person against their will to save five others might seem fine outside of society, how would that affect society?

Society would be affected negatively. Society works as a whole because there must be some trust in society as preserving one's personal success in some way. At its lowest its fear that if you leave society you'll starve and die. At its highest ideal its that you trust everyone around you to make completely rational and unselfish decisions for the greater good.

Human society is not the same as a clump of cells. Each human being has awareness and agency. Societies work in part because there is a modicum of respect for this sense of agency. When you destroy societies trust that it will not respect your agency, they begin to foment rebellion, mistrust, and secrets. This ends up costing and hurting more than the five people saved over time.

The problem in this case is not the 1 vs five people. If a person volunteers to die for the other five, few would consider this immoral by intuition. They key difference is whether the doctor respects the agency from the human being involved. Volunteering your life is fine, but taking it against your will is not. If you wish me to explore this in more detail I will, but I'll leave it here for now because there's a lot more to cover in my overall response to you.

I think my example is just as defined, I think you are just fully appreciating that everything else is equal. — Bob Ross

Well, its not. :) I gave you a few reasons why. I had a professor who berated me for my own personal examples when common examples would serve first, so I get your feeling. On further thought I realized he was right. If there is a common example it is better to address because they have been examined by several people over years and have been honed to be clear, concise, and convey the point well. Further, it helps to take and compare something familiar to a brand new theory. If the theory can handle the well honed cases, then you can stretch and get creative.

Lets see...after looking at all of your objections as to why your thought experiment is valid, let me sum it up the problem as this is already on overall lengthy reply. You are not quantifying values in your example. We are sacrificing a life for...what? What value is returned? "Better torturing" does not tell me value. Why is torturing good? A much better example would be, "If we torture this man 1 hour prior to his death, we absolutely will save five lives." Here we have values that we can consider. If you can't quantify it, then we can't answer it according to the theory.

This current example just needs to be made more clear and other questions implicit in the example need to be solved first. What value does being a better torturer give? What is the moral value of human emotions? How does torturing a dying man help with getting information from a soldier who wants to go back to his family? Its not as simple or straightforward of an example as you think it is.

I think that if you understand that it is invalid to ask “what other ways could one save the people that are tied to the tracks besides pulling a switch (and condemning one party to death or letting one party die)?” then you can understand that it is invalid to ask “what other ways could Dave practice torture without torturing someone?”. You are inadvertently trying to smuggle new variables into the equation — Bob Ross

I wanted to address this one specifically as a further example of a refined and well known example vs one that needs a second pass. First, for those familiar with the trolley example it already known that you can't stop the train. Part of the problem is, "There's no way to stop the train, the only option is to switch tracks." This is one of the first questions people will ask who are not familiar with the trolley problem. So no, I'm not smuggling variables into the equation. I'm asking you for the limitations of the thought experiment. If you don't explicitly limit it, then people are going to say, "Then have the man practice in a way that doesn't hurt an innocent person."

Alright Bob, these are getting long again! Let me know what you think.

You are counting back to a start point: — ucarr

In the causal chain, yes.

Can you show me one equation in your reference that doesn't compute to infinity? Yes, you can. There's one equation that computes to "undefined." — ucarr

Which one?

Can you cite an equation with infinity as an input value that computes to a well-defined discrete position on the number line? It needs to be a number neither irrational nor approximate. — ucarr

Its logic. I've written this before in brief but will reference it again.
Causality can be written as "If A then B" or "If A -> B".
Further in logic we can use the terminology Everything or Something. I won't use the formal symbols because copy pasting annoying. :)

So we have the set 2T + infinity = Y
Does Something -> 2T + infinity = Y? No.

And Ucarr, the logic and math are all ways to break down the argument into a way you can see more clearly. The argument hasn't changed.

In the link to Cantor's differing levels of infinite series, can you cite a passage addressing infinity conceptualized as an infinite series with a discrete starting point? — ucarr

Again, you're looking in the wrong place. Look at the logic above.

You need to go into probative details now because: a) you need to meet the same standard you apply to me:
If you want to say I'm wrong, you're going to have to prove I am wrong, not merely say I am.
— Philosophim
; b) show how my reference to QM is random and irrelevant to this context; c) show how my citation of Shrödinger's Thought Experiment is both misunderstood by me and misapplied to this context. — ucarr

I don't mind, I just wanted to give you a chance to address the first part because it makes the second part moot.

First, we discussed earlier how true randomness cannot be influenced by anything else. So QM is useless.

Second, the uncertainty principle is all based off of our measuring tools being too strong. The way we measure things is by bouncing smaller particles off of larger things. Usually the particles are small enough that the bounce does not impact its location or velocity. But in the quantum world, what we bounce off of the things we are measuring affects the outcome. We're measuring the smallest things with some of the smallest things, not smaller things.

So in the case of the cat, its not that the cat is both alive and dead before we measure it. Its that the outcome could be that it is alive or dead, but we won't know until we smack it with a particle to see it.

Hey, welcome back Bob! You still retain the title of the first person who realized this could not be proven empirically. A few others have understood that since then. Welcome back at another stab at the rest of the logic.

Number 6 in the OP is false, and springs from a conflation of an originally valid conception of causality into a conception of explanation—i.e., number 1 starts with a standard conception of causality about events and by the time one gets to 6 it somehow transformed into a conception about explanations without conceding that the conception changed. — Bob Ross

That's just some poor word choices on my part. I had a few paragraph discussions with others on this, but they never referenced point 6 specifically. I'll go back and edit it to be clearer.

6. If there exists an X which explains the reason why any infinite causality exists, then its not truly infinite causality, as it is something outside of the infinite causality chain. That X then becomes another Y with the same 3 plausibilities of prior causality. Therefore, the existence of a prior causality is actually an Alpha, or first cause. — Philosophim

Lets edit this to: "If there exists an X which caused any infinite causality exists, then its not truly infinite causality, as there is something outside of the infinite causality chain."

then 6 doesn’t disprove the possibility of an infinite chain of events — Bob Ross

6 has never been intended to disprove an infinite set of events. The argument accepts that there could ben an infinite or finite set of events.

Can what could or could not have been lie beyond probability in the case of true randomness? — ucarr

Lets break this down again. Probability as we know it is built off of constraints. These constraints are our capability to measure or observe aspects that would be needed for precise calculation. Thus shuffling cards that we cannot see. There is no true randomness in shuffling. If we were looking at the other side we would see exactly where the cards are.

The other constraint we consider are the rules involved. A die bounces because of things like mass and gravity. There are tangible things we can measure combined with things that we cannot measure that allow us to make a probability, or educated guess at a constrained outcome.

True randomness has no constraints. Its not that there isn't something that we can observe or measure, its that there is nothing there to measure at all. Whenever an outcome happens, there was nothing that had to be for it to happen. There was nothing to limit what would be, and nothing to push what would be.

I don't know if this answers your question as 'beyond probability'. In one sense, it is a probability born out of the lack of constraints on rules, and the ultimate restraints on measurements.

This question is meant to suggest entropy weakening true randomness to something not authentically random. — ucarr

Entropy is just the separation of matter and energy from a higher state to a lower state over time. This has nothing to do with true randomness.

Is probability only possible in the absence of true randomness? — ucarr

Based on how I've defined probability, what do you think?

This question is meant to suggest any event -- including inception of a first cause -- by the fact of its existence, prevents true randomness — ucarr

True randomness is not constrained. Something which can be constrained has laws, and is therefore not truly random. There is nothing to constrain or influence Ucarr. You keep seeing it as a 'thing'. It is a logical concept.

From Heisenberg we have reason to believe we can't know every essential attribute of a thing simultaneously — ucarr

This is only because our measurement impacts the results. The QM level is so small that anything we bounce off of it to detect it is going to alter its velocity. You can get the same effect by bouncing a baseball off of a softball. This has nothing to do with true randomness.

Imagine that each causation within a causal chain -- because of the fact of its existence -- generates a prior (or subsequent) causation. How does the chain of causation reach the point of no prior (or subsequent) causation? — ucarr

That's the same thing as 2T + infinity = y

Let us suppose true randomness is not a process. Is it still a phenomenon? — ucarr

What is your definition of phenomenon?

This question is meant to suggest that if true randomness is to any degree intelligible -- as in the case of it being a phenomenon, even if not a process to a specifiable end, then it must possess a specificity of form and content — ucarr

True randomness is not a thing. It is a logical concept and conclusion.

Because of what we know from QM — ucarr

QM is not going to help you. You are taking things that exist and trying to impact true randomness as if its some dimension somewhere. Its not. Same with regular randomness. There is not a "90% dimension" where a certain dice roll comes out." We can influence the rules and constraints that exist to give us a logical prediction that changes the odds. But since true randomness is born out of a situation that has no rules or constraints, there is nothing to influence.

There was nothing which could have changed or prevente the inception of the universe Ucarr. It just happened.

So a male might be a zachar but not a gever. And I think this distinction reverberates in society today. Masculinity is achieved, not automatically granted to all males regardless of condition or behavior. — BitconnectCarlos

Right, that's gender. Its the same as saying a woman who's aggressive and mean isn't a real woman. When society expects men or women to act a certain way, it still doesn't change their sex.

So for this reason I think it's wrong to call transwomen "men." They are not. They occupy a unique third space. — BitconnectCarlos

If you mean transwoman as in 'transexual', yes. If you mean transwoman as transgendered man, no. A transgendered person is defying the expectations of their sex. A transwoman is defying their very sex, attempting to be another sex as well as practice the gender of that sex.

Are they women though? No. You can never change your sex. Can you emulate and try to get other people to see you as the other sex? Sure. So we do have a third category, transwoman/man when one sex decides to consistently present as the other sex. A man or woman who passes off emulating the other sex well will likely be called that emulated sex in public. But when it comes down to situations that are based on biological sex, a transwoman is not a woman and a transman is not a man. A transman should still go see a gynecologist while a transwoman should not.

IN a world where there are female and male brains, easily identifiable and uncontroversial - aberrations in development could feasibly lead to an otherwise fully male person attaining some behaviour due to their brain structure, only found in 'female brains'. — AmadeusD

Of course. If the only way a male could have a certain behavior that is exclusive to females is if they had some type of exclusive biological aspect that matched a female brain. And by this, it would have to be a demonstrated defect, incredibly rare and not a variation of brain composition. It would be like a male having a vagina or a female having a penis.

If the earliest plan[ck] diameter is uncaused, or true randomness, then it fits the definition of 'first cause'
— Philosophim
This is the crux of our disagreement. I understand 'randomness' to mean uncaused, acausal, without cause; you are denying this, claiming the opposite – that randomness itself (as if its an entity rather than a property) is a "first cause". This difference is more than a semantic dispute, sir. One of us is spouting jabberwocky ... :roll: — 180 Proof

Let me clarify. Randomness is not causing anything. "Randomness" does not exist as a thing. Its a concept. Let me word it this way: A big bang (as an example) incepts. Prior to its inception, there was nothing. Since nothing caused it, we conclude it was completely random. But that doesn't mean 'randomness' caused the big bang. We just realize logically that if nothing caused it, it was not constrained to happen or not happen. Proving a logical first cause must exist proves that true randomness has existed and thus could continue to exist.

On the flip side, the claim that a plank length is truly random does not prove that it is truly random.

"So why is the Planck length thought to be the smallest possible length? The simple summary of Mead's answer is that it is impossible, using the known laws of quantum mechanics and the known behavior of gravity, to determine a position to a precision smaller than the Planck length. Pay attention to that repeated word "known." If it turns out that at very small lengths, some other version of quantum mechanics manifests itself or the law of gravity differs from our current theory, the argument falls apart. Since our understanding of subatomic gravity is incomplete, we know that the statement that the Planck length is the smallest possible length is on shaky ground."
https://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2013/today13-11-01_NutshellReadMore.html

There is always the proposal that we simply can't detect something smaller now, but we will be able to one day. Thus its not logically proven that plank length is truly random, or if true randomness can exist. However, my logical proof of a first cause consequently logically proves that true randomness exists. Because to your point a property of something acausal is that it existence is entirely random.

I will argue that given an eternal universe – which can be construed as an infinite causal chain – a precisely determinable first cause is not possible. — ucarr

Ok, sounds good.

Question – Has pi been situated on the number line? Answer – Yes, but asymptotically.

Philosophim, you’re establishing a set containing an infinite series and then counting back to its start point and asserting no prior member to the start point can exist. — ucarr

I'm grouping all of the causality within an infinite universe in a set which then leads to one final question of causality, "What caused all of that causality?" This is commonly stated as, "What caused the universe?" So I'm not counting back to any start point. I'm noting that the starting point in causality is "What caused the universe?"

For the math representation of your premise, you need an equation that computes toward the limits bounding your infinite series. In other words, you must treat the volume of your infinite set as an approximation forever approaching a limit. — ucarr

Sure, the limit for time in an infinite universe is infinity.

You should immediately discard your current would-be equations that use infinity as one
of your input values. Using infinity as an input value is a violation of math form. It’s like trying to start a combustion engine with water instead of gasoline. Fundamentally wrong. If, however, you have your own math that rationally discards proper math form, that’s another matter. Do you have your own system of math? — ucarr

Incorrect. Infinity is a representation of a set of numbers. Just like 23 represents a set of 23 ones. Read here: https://www.mathnasium.com/math-centers/sherwood/news/what-infinity-sher#:~:text=In%20Math%2C%20%E2%80%9Cinfinity%E2%80%9D%20is,mathematician%20John%20Wallis%20in%201657.

If you want to say I'm wrong, you're going to have to prove I am wrong, not merely say I am.

Your language for your premise needs to draw a parallel: Infinite causal chains are infinite series made empirical and bounded by eternal existence instead of by limits. — ucarr

I don't understand this, can you go a little more in depth?

Infinity is not a discrete number. It therefore cannot be precisely situated on the number line. It therefore cannot be precisely sequenced in a series populated with numbers. For these reasons, infinite values cannot be computed directly. — ucarr

Math is symbolic representation of quantities. You can symbolically represent infinity. You may not have heard of Georg Cantor's work on infinite sets. Here's an intro: https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/mathematics/georg-cantor-the-man-who-discovered-different-infinities/

The Crux: QM Governs Cosmology – an infinite causal chain cannot have a precise first cause because it amounts to putting the whole number line – infinite in volume – within itself. Infinite values can be bounded (as argued above) but they cannot be definitively sequenced. — ucarr

Incorrect again. Read Cantor.

Given these limitations, the attempt to sequence an infinite value amounts to claiming a given thing is greater than itself; this irrational claim holds moot sway within QM, as in the instance of superposition; prior to measurement, the cat is neither dead or alive. — ucarr

Ucarr, randomly bringing quantum mechanics into this isn't going to work either. You misunderstand that statement and what it means. I can go into depth on this later if needed, but you need to understand Cantor and infinities first.

Within the objective materialism of modern science, logic and computation assume axiomatically the eternal existence of matter, energy, motion, space, and time. These five fundamentals preclude any direct connection between something and nothing. Therefore, all existing things are mediated through the fundamental five. — ucarr

An assumption does not prove that the assumption is correct. For our current purposes assuming such is fine for calculations, but is not proof itself that it is true.

If we represent the infinite series of nothing-to-something as undefined, or 1/0, and observe that infinitely small approximates to the limit of zero, then infinitely-small-to-zero and its reverse take an infinite amount of time. So, speaking logically and computationally, nothing-to-something is a bounded infinity of undefined. — ucarr

You don't want to go this route Ucarr. I can say it doesn't because when there is nothing, there is no time. On the other hand, if you include time what you're saying is that an infinite amount of time would have to pass to get to this moment. Ucarr, if the universe has existed for infinite time, didn't you just disprove that the universe has always existed?

Read up on Cantor and revisit this.

you commit a compositional fallacy, Philo, arguing from the causal structure intrinsic, or dynamics internal, to "the universe" to the conclusion that "the universe" is the effect of a "first cause" that is extrinsic, or external, to it — 180 Proof

I do not claim that a first cause is extrinsic to the universe. A first cause is merely the point in the chains of causality throughout the universe that lead to the point in which there is nothing prior.

to it when, in fact, our best science (QG) describes "the universe's" earliest planck diameter as a random event – a-causal. — 180 Proof

I agree that a first cause is true randomness. What I'm calling a 'first cause' is acausal in its inception. If the earliest plank diameter is uncaused, or true randomness, then it fits the definition of 'first cause'. Once again, we're not at odds, just taking a different semantic route to get to the same conclusion. One of Ucarr's main contentions with my claim of a first cause is that a first cause is an instance of true randomness. True randomness is the lack of limitations on what could, or could not have been. Not like the constraints of rolling a die which are really just a lack of knowledge which would necessarily lead to the outcome.

The "BB" didn't happen c13.81 billion years ago – the limit of contemporary cosmological measurements – but is, in fact, still happening ("banging") in the manifest form of the ongoing development – expansion – of the Hubble volume (i.e. observable region of spacetime). — 180 Proof

I make no claims that the big bang is, or is not a first cause. The idea that the bang is 'still happening' is the same to me as, "Causality is continuing." to understand what I mean, let me use an example. Pretend that an atom appears uncaused. By this I mean it is a completely true random event. One second, no atom, and the next, an atom. From the moment of the atom's inception, it enters into causality. In your view, the atom would still be 'atoming'. :)

Each tick of time is a step in this chain. So at the moment of inception, it is a first cause. The second moment of its existence is caused by the continual existence of the first moment of its existence. And so on and so forth. So if the atom exists for five minutes, as an example we can break down each second and ask, "What caused the atom to exist at 3:49?" This could be explained anywhere prior in the causal chain. We could simply reference 3:48. Or the set of time between 1 and two minutes. Or the entire five minutes its existed. But eventually we would reach the point of inception, and there would be no further causality. That moment where there is no prior causality, is the moment of first cause. I view the big bang in the same way assuming that it happened to be a first cause.

Taking a universe that is infinite, "The big bang has always existed." for example, results in nothing different. We can take any time within that infinity, and ask what prior causes lead to that moment. We can even take the entire set of causality within the infinite universe that has happened and still ask, "What caused this to happen?" That is the moment of first cause. We have reached the point in which the answer is nothing, which by consequence means its existence is true randomness.

To be clear, I am not claiming any one thing that has been discovered so far is a first cause. I'm just addressing the point that logically, there is a limit to prior causality and that we will eventually reach a point in our causation query in which there is no prior cause for some existence. The causation query should not be confused with the time that has passed, but the point in our query in which there is no other answer.

If you understand, you may be asking what the value is in my proposal.

First, science may change. What is considered the first cause of today, plank diameter, may be found to have been caused by something else as science and technology change. Yet the conclusion I've made here does not.

Second, no one can make a claim that "X is a necessary first cause" without extensive proof. Meaning that a claim of a particular God, Big Bang, or even Plank length formation, must be proven to have had no prior cause. The idea of any of these being necessary first causes by logic is out.

Third, this opens up a very interesting possibility. If a first cause is truly random, what's to prevent another first cause from happening? There isn't any. True randomness cannot be constrained or predicted. Could we examine a spot of nothingness over time and monitor if 'something' happened out of the blue? Even if we discovered something, we would still need to prove it was truly random, but it adds an interesting wrinkle in the examination and possibly even history of your universe.

Finally, I believe its more palatable to a general audience. Causality, like it or not, is still part of the common vernacular in both daily speech, and yes, science. Despite many people's claims that 'science disregards causality', I have found that mostly only philosophers do so. Causality is alive in well in generally practiced science. I believe the concept generates a conclusion that doesn't require a great leap in logic, or a paradigm shift in thinking. Its simple, yet leads to I think a logical conclusion that can be agreed upon. If you remain unconvinced, that's fine, I'm just trying to flesh out the logic a bit to demonstrate we might be on different roads but are reaching a similar conclusion.

A first cause 'is'.
— Philosophim
And thus, as I've pointed out already ↪180 Proof, it's not a "first cause" but is the only cause (e.g.) à la Wheeler's one electron postulate. — 180 Proof

I personally cannot ascribe to that view of causality. My communication is in terms of causality in the normative sense of "what is necessary for X outcome to exist". However, my view of causality can express itself in a similar way. I've noted earlier that we can set the identity of the 'result' as lumped together as we wish. For example, I can ask, "What caused America to be discovered" is not the same as asking, "What caused the ball to move 1 meter at 90 degrees one second prior?"

Taking the later example to its end, this can go both ways. I could group all the time after an effect and look at the moment right before it all as its cause. So, just like the idea that "Everything in the universe prior to this time caused the ball to move a this second", I can reverse it and say, "Everything in this universe up to this second was caused by what?" With a finite universe this is more apparent. "The big bang caused everything else that followed".

In an infinite universe, the totality of causation that we're looking at is the universe itself. So, in the case of the manifestation of a single entity (Like the electron), I can still ask, "What caused that single entity to be?" Your reply that there is no answer is the answer. Nothing caused it to be. It simply is. So I don't think we're at odds here besides semantics.

In your case, the universe has no start, but has always existed.
Not quite. For me, existence itself (i.e. no-thing / vacua (à la atomist void or spinozist substance)), not "the universe" – a random inflationary fluctuation (according to QG), "always exists" (how could it not?) — 180 Proof

Whether we use 'the universe' or 'existence' its all the same to me. "What caused existence?" is as you noted, an absurd question. Because the answer is nothing. Some existence cannot have caused existence to be. If that's the case then there was no limitation on what could have or not have existed. There is only what is, but to ask "What caused it to be?" has the logical answer, "Nothing". Thus we can state rationally that no matter how the universe incepted, whether it truly is infinite, or truly is finite (empirical claims which no one has proven yet) the logical answer will always be the same to "What caused it to be?"

There are now no more questions of prior causality to explore.
This is so because "prior causality" is as incoherent as "prior existence" or "prior randomness" or "prior spacetime" ... — 180 Proof

The difference here is instead of calling the question incoherent, I simply not the answer. Anything other than "Nothing" devolves into an incoherent argument for sure.

Thus the start of the causal chain, or the first cause.
Analogously, the number line itself (i.e. infinity) is not the "first" number. Zero is not the "first" number. Logically, there cannot be a "first" number, Philo. Wherever we happen to "start" counting is not necessarily "first" in the sequence of events. — 180 Proof

Correct, but we're not talking about the number line. I had to note that earlier to others that I am not talking about a mathematical origin which is customizable. I am talking about a line of questioning, a chain of causation, upon which we meet an end. No matter if the universe is infinite, 'always existed', finite, or any other variation of universe a person wishes to propose, we will always reach an end while navigating its regression. This end, which is "What caused this universe to exist?" is always, "Nothing". It is "0". That is the first cause, not a number on a number line.

I had in mind memories of growing up feeling different and alienated from most of my male classmates, as well as my father, brothers and cousins, on the basis of behaviors and comportments that I believe I was born with, that I didn’t fully understand or know how to articulate. — Joshs

Sure, I felt the same way. The difference I think between you and I is that I don't feel the need to be accepted by those who don't. I do just enough to not get in trouble, but violate every expectations if I believe its wrong. I do not care if I never find another person like me in the universe. I do not like adoration. I do not want to be viewed as special. I want to mostly be left alone and not criticized for doing the things I like to do in life. I want to be able to chat with other people and it not have ego or fear involved, just an exchange of ideas.

It sounds like you have never had to think about yourself in terms of gender because your gender behavior never stood out from your peers — Joshs

No, I often behave in ways that do not fit the expectations of other people. My differences are not important enough to warrant more than social isolation and rejection however. Those that reject me based on these differences are not worth my time or care. In cases where expression of this difference was dangerous, I learned to play along until I could get away. Those that accept me for who I am are worth my time and care. I have never chased or worried about those that have rejected me for my choices, except for when I was young and first learning to date. Even in that area I eventually learned that shaping myself for what I perceived others expectations to be was a fools errand.

I notice you haven’t said anything about the studies associating gender with functional brain organization, like that mentioned earlier in this thread by wonder1: — Joshs

You missed this then. I noted that yes, behavior differences can be driven by sex, but the only way they are provably so is if they are only found in that sex. If behaviors are found cross sex, then they are obviously not restricted to sex alone.

we identify highly replicable, generalizable, and behaviorally relevant sex differences in human functional brain organization localized to the default mode network

Notice the word 'generalizable'. That means in the median or majority of cases. This does not mean all cases. Meaning a female who is more aggressive than general does not fit the general curve of expectations from being female. It does not mean they are male.

This can be taken in other aspects besides behavior. Height, weight, musculature, intelligence. There is a generalization between all people, and sometimes within sex. But variations from the general do not change your sex. A 5 foot 4 male is not female, despite that fitting the average female height in America. And if you're a man that wants to be intimate with another man? You're still just as much of a man as someone who wants to be intimate with a woman.