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.

What do you imagine to be the ideal endpoint of rational self-definition within the trans community? In the best of all
possible worlds, how do you see people taking about and performing gender in 50 years? How do you prefer to think about your own gender? — Joshs

Good question. In the best of all possible worlds:

1. All emotive language is relegated to local social groups. Transgender/sexual language is detailed, precise, and clear in the language cross culturally.
2. Universal acceptance of one's personal expressions and worked out compromises within how that should be expressed within the larger culture.

As for me personally? I don't think of myself in terms of gender. I'm the sex that I am. That's it. I understand there are certain societal expectations of me because of that sex, but I don't find them any more inconvenient or important then any other expectation about me like my looks, my height, my job, or my living space. Ideally, I think that's where we should all be. I don't want to be disrespected for attributes about myself, but I definitely don't think I'm special or should have these things called out either. I'm not, "A short person". I'm just me.

Ideally, I hope people in the trans community gets to the point one day where they realize "They're just people", another part of the human race that is completely unremarkable for being who they are. I feel we're reaching that point with people being 'gay'. Instead of anyone caring if you're gay or not, people treat you based on who you are as a person with your day to day actions. Are you fun to talk with? Are you a good person? Do you lift the world up or bring it down? These are the things that are important. Less of a 'community' and more of a 'part of the human race' mentality.

I've had my fair share of posts a while back on these gender issues which in hindsight only appeared out of a pathetic defensive need. I had, at that time, recently come to find a person close to me is transgender of a certain sort at a certain stage in the process. As of late, after taking a break, I've come to grips more with the perceived looming threat that questioning this "narrative" comes with. — substantivalism

I understand a close friend of mine is thinking about transitioning. We've had conversations like this, though they were difficult at the time. Its at emotional times like these that I feel we should ask ourselves to be more objective.

Emotional appeals are often irrational and not fully voiced. Its a simple example, but when someone complains about a movie. "I didn't like the movie, it sucks." "Why?" I don't know, but the director should be fired and never make a movie again." While this interchange is inconsequential between friends, if the person has the power to actually fire the director and ensure they never make a movie again, we need to ask if the action taken from the initial emotion is rational.

To me, the transgender/transexual community is finding its footing in its desire to be accepted by society, as well as accept itself. As such it is at an extremely immature stage of rational thinking, and is mostly in a reactive and nascent stage of thought. If it remains this way, it will fail. People do not tolerate such things for long. It needs rational discourse. It needs to refine its language and be more clear in its desires and intents. It needs better arguments. If not, I feel it will cause damage both inside and outside of its community and find itself in a worse position than it started with.

A -> B -> C Nothing caused A. A is a first cause[effect]
— Philosophim
With all due respect, Philo, I think you are mistaken: nothing causes A, etc (re: random vacuum fluctuations). — 180 Proof

No worry, challenge away! You have a lot of experience and a keen mind, I definitely want to hear what you think.

I don't think we're in disagreement here. A "first cause" as I define it is the beginning of a causal chain. Meaning a first cause is not a 'first caused', but something which exists as the start of every chain of causal questioning. A first cause 'is'. Which means that yes, nothing causes A. But A is the start. In your case, the universe has no start, but has always existed. There is nothing which caused the universe to always exist. There is nothing which caused a 'start'.

And that's the beginning of the causal chain which explains our universe. If we were to take all the causal history of our universe and place it into a set, there would still be the question, "What caused the universe to be infinite and have always existed?" The answer is: "Nothing". There was nothing which caused our universe to exist in this way, it simply does. There are now no more questions of prior causality to explore. Thus the start of the causal chain, or the first cause.

Different existence isn’t more existence.

Being is just what is in the sense of the whole; and the whole is not increasing when you combine two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. It is a transformation of parts of the whole into different stuff. — Bob Ross

Lets tackle this a minute as I think this is really key to what I'm doing here. I'm not saying I have it figured out, so I really want to look at this more closely. The allowance of different existence is more existence than if it was not there. If hydrogen and oxygen had no potential to combine into water, that would be much less existence in the world. For one, life as we know it would be impossible. So its a fact that there is more existence in the universe that hydrogen and oxygen can combine into water.

The question is really my measurement. I can calculate potential existence which is all the ways a material existence can express itself in combination with other existences. Those combinations create new identities, which are expressions of existence that could not happen when isolating the individual identities that make up the new one. Thus, one potential existence is "Hydrogen can combine with itself and oxygen to create water." But then there's the potential existence of its reality over time. While hydrogen has an overall potential to become water, does it have the potential to become water in the next second based on what's around it? Basically 'contextual potential' versus overall potential.

I haven't included contextual potential yet as its hard enough just thinking about and communicating existence as flat potential in combination with expressions etc. We've been implicitly talking about it however when we talk about constrained examples. It comes into the light more with difficult to realize potentials such as a life. While it is extremely easy to end a life, it is relatively much more difficult to build one again. I don't know how to measure that value and may be another form of statistics if dived into deeply.

So for the most part, I've kept it out of the conversation and decided to keep it as simple as possible. Thus I note that hydrogen and oxygen can bind into water, through I don't measure their statistical likelihood or difficulty in doing so. This is mostly a side consideration though, and the most important thing is that there is something to the potential formation of water. This allows all of life. Eliminate that, you and you eliminate a lot of potential existence.

I think we are in agreement, then, that your ideal state is the most complicated actually possible state of arrangements of entities in reality with the addition that this state is self-sustaining. I think that amendment covers your concerns here. — Bob Ross

Yes, we haven't explored too much in depth, but the theory in general I feel fits into bits and pieces of other moral theories I've explored. Harmony is often times a higher level of existence than its lack. Nice to see an agreement!

1. I wasn’t referencing my view of ‘objectivity’, because it is irrelevant to my earlier point (about your view lacking evidence and argumentation for it being, in principle, about objective morality). I was using the standard definitions in metaethics and colloquial settings. — Bob Ross

Ah, I see! I will agree I have not been able to prove there is an objective morality. All I've been able to argue is that if there is an objective morality, 'existence is good' is the only logical thing I can see it being. Thus it is by no means an empirical conclusion, but a logical one. But this is generally what philosophy is. If it was empirically confirmed, it would be a science. From my initial conclusion, what I am building is arguably not objective either, but an attempt at measurement that fits in with the initial conclusion. It is an attempt at building something objective, though this can only be proven with exploration. Its not an easy task, but I feel there's something there in its initial setup.

All moral theories, and all epistemic theories, rely fundamentally on intuitions: that isn’t unique to ‘subjective moralities’. However, I agree that, under ‘subjective moralities’, it is entirely possible for one person to be right that something is wrong (that a normal person would intuit is wrong, such as “torturing babies for fun”) while another person could be equally right that the same thing is right—since the proposition is indexical. — Bob Ross

I would say intuitions are generally what spark disagreement. An objective morality, if discovered, would transcend intuitions. And I do not mean a claimed objective morality, but a solidly proven one. Our intuitions that the Sun circles around the Earth my exist, but they are objectively wrong. An objective theory of morality would be able to claim, "Your intuition is objectively wrong, and here is rationally why."

So in your case where you invent a scenario that goes against both of our moral intuitions, you need to present a much more specified and provable argument for it to be taken seriously.

Absolutely not! That was a basic, reasonable hypothetical akin to any hypothetical you will find in normative ethics; and, as such, you need to be able to respond and contend with it without trying to shift the burden of proof on the opposition. — Bob Ross

If this were a subjective claim to morality, I would agree. But this is not. We're trying to be as objective as reasonably possible. I'm not trying to shift the burden of proof or say you can't use the example. I'm noting that examples have to attempt to use the objective theory to be good examples. The key to this theory is that morality is measurable in some way. Where we cannot be precise, we must be able to at least reasonably approximate, estimate, or use previously concluded guidelines.

That’s like you asking me: “In your theory, how does it handle the 5 vs. 1 trolly problem?”, and my response is “the scenario you have invented needs to be presented in a much more specified and provable argument to be taken seriously” — Bob Ross

No, that's a much more defined problem. In fact, I can answer that now. 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.

In fact, the conversation might go a lot smoother if we stick to well defined and commonly known ethical scenarios before going into our own inventions. But if you wish to keep the example you've given, there are a few things you must clear up for this to be evaluated correctly. This theory is about measurement. If you create a situation with relative measurement, you need to be specific about how much is being gained and lost in the exchange. I'll summarize the problems with your example again.

a. 'Unlock potential' is not a measurement
b. You cannot exclude the consideration of alternative ways of 'unlocking potential', or at least give me a reason why. If killing a baby would save millions of lives, but so would clapping my hands, then clapping my hands would be the moral thing to do. If the only way to save millions of lives was to kill a baby, then killing the baby would be the moral thing to do. That doesn't suddenly prove the abstract, "Killing a baby to save millions of lives is objectively the right thing to do." Context is key.
c. We need to start simple and work our way up to complex problems. If you had set the scenario up as, "If we don't torture this person, then people will die." this would have been something more easy to evaluate. Which is why I broke it down further into the important base question: "What are the moral values of human emotions"?

Give me some credit Bob, I'm not trying to dodge. :)

First, what does it mean to "unlock potential?"

It meant, in the scenario, that Dave, through experience, increases his abilities to torture people which is used in the field. Without it, arguably, he will not perform as proficiently in his work nor will he do it as creatively and skillfully as he could have. — Bob Ross

There are still a few problems with this. Why is torturing people good under the theory? You assume it is good, but this must be demonstrated first. Why is torturing this man the only way to become good at torturing? Does a soldier need to kill sick people before they go into the battlefield and kill the enemy? Its an odd scenario.

On top of that, the avoid any derailments, I stipulated that Billy has only an hour left to live, so it isn’t like Dave is significantly inhibiting or decreasing Billy’s overall potential — Bob Ross

I actually really liked the 'he'll live only an hour'. I think that provides some interesting consideration, you just have a lot of other unclear points and questions that need answering first in your example. In fact, this was the very type of example I gave in the submarine. Everyone is going to die in an hour, one person can kill the other nine to live nine hours. And in the end, its more moral for everyone to live for one hour. But you'll note I eliminated other considerations down to the point we could focus on just the time to live. Try narrowing down all incomplete aspects or variables of your example.

Second, is this the 'only way?'

Not a valid question in this case. The question is “in this scenario, would Dave be doing anything immoral by torturing Billy?”. — Bob Ross

No, a completely valid question when using the theory of existence. Its a theory about measuring existential gain and loss. Its necessary to discuss about what is relatively being gained and lost. When you enter into this theory, you must present moral scenarios using what the theory requires.

Third, is this proven or assumed?

Doesn’t matter: it is assumed as proven. That’s the whole point of hypotheticals (: — Bob Ross

To be fair here, I should have detailed what I meant. Do we have a measurable result that can conclusively show "This man will now be able to extract information from an enemy better than he would not have been able to before." Its a theory about measurement, so when we're asking to look at a result we need to have it measured in some way to make a comparison.

With respect to your treatise on emotions, I think it derailed the conversation — Bob Ross

It wasn't intended to derail, only explain some initial thoughts I had when I first started this theory years ago. This theory is not a carefully concocted theory that I've spent years mastering. Its a baby. With babies you like to talk about some of your feelings about them sometimes. But to be fair, you're probably more interested in the theory then my feelings about it. I'll try to keep the commentary down and just focus on the points. :)

Appreciate the conversation as always Bob!

So, A→C. Okay, you've shown me the transitive property via implication. No dispute from me, but the transitive property by implication is not what I'm focusing on when I accuse you of evasion. — ucarr

Then please be more clear. When you just throw a sentence with a question I have very little to go on. You need to give more context to your question. What are you intending? What are you trying to say? Are you asking the question as a challenge, or as a means for clarification? I don't know half the time and its frustrating when I'm trying to engage with you honestly when you do this.

As you can see, I ask you about the physical connection between first cause and the members of its causal chain. This is a particularly important question for you to answer because you say first cause is not a member of the set of its causations. — ucarr

Now this is much clearer. Try to give context and examples like this to your questions in the future Ucarr and we'll both have a better time. Yes, its not a member of the set of causations that involve time. But that set is a portion of the entire chain of causality. Lets say that there was an answer. A -> 2T + infinity = Y. In other words, the infinite universe was caused by something else. Now you can see the set is not the entire causal chain, but a part. Did A cause that specific eternal universe? Yes or no. And if nothing caused that eternal universe, then the final answer to the causal chain of why that eternal universe existed is that it was not caused by anything else.

Another way to see it is look at it as a finite universe, 2T + 1 = Y where the limit of T is 1. Or a finite universe with infinite sets of causality on its inception 2T + infinity = Y where the limit of T is 1. Or a universe with finite causality but infinite time 2T + 1 = y where the limit of Y is 0 but T has no limits. In all cases there's still the question, what caused it to be? And in all these potential cases, there is nothing else that caused this to be. The set is just a representation of a part of the causal chain Ucarr, not the entirety of the causal chain itself. The first cause is always part of the causal chain, as it is the start of the chain.

No. You fail to note the importance of "distinction" in context here. — ucarr

So that's an indicator to please add more context to your questions. Explain your thinking behind them. Otherwise I'm just guessing or assuming what you're meaning, and it may not be what you intended.

I'm specifically talking about what sets off first cause from its causations. The emphasis here is on the physical relationship between first cause and its causations, not on the definition of first cause. — ucarr

The physical relationship? I don't know, this is not an empirical assessment. This is an examination of a causal chain which is a question of, "What necessarily prior lead to this state of existence". We can capture a state of existence in as much or as little time as needed. "What happened 5 second ago to cause the current state of affairs? Ten seconds. 1 million seconds. What if we just examine what lead to the state result after all of the seconds? Why do we exist today? The big bang. What caused the big bang? Nothing. Lets take all of the seconds if they are infinite. What lead to the state of all of this existing? Nothing.

Now the question arises: "How is the second law of conservation preserved?" You must answer this question about one of the foundational planks upon which physics stands. — ucarr

I thought we already covered this on the idea that the first cause's inception is not bound by laws of causation. If you intend something else, please give an example of what you mean to this question.

Since causation is specifically concerned with how one thing causes another thing, it follows that claiming first cause is not directly connected to its set of causations results from direct observation of this disjunction. — ucarr

Again, I've never claimed this. You are confusing a set as the entire causal chain instead of a part of the causal chain.

You charge me with attacking you instead of attacking your thinking supporting the proposition. — ucarr

When i asked what you thought about this:

Does this raise a question about the practical value of isolating a first cause in abstraction? — ucarr

You didn't answer the question. You made it about me.

I think in your mind you've journeyed to a lonely place defined by the absoluteness of its isolation. Moreover, the solitary denizen of that yawning emptiness flails about, haunted by unbreakable seclusion. — ucarr

How else am I to interpret this? I wasn't attacking you, I was pointing out not to give your opinion about what you think of me, and just keep to the question about the theory.

you're hurling at me a derogatory opinion about my frustration with your perceived endurance of the veracity of your proposition. — ucarr

No, the only things I've been frustrated with are one sided questions without further explanation or not answering my question by giving an opinion on what you think about me. You are allowed to have your frustrations with me as well, I'm not perfect. Noting them helps each of us learn to give the other better communication and intent.

Well, causation -- whether viewed logically or empirically -- entails by definition a physical relationship between cause and effect, or am I mistaken? — ucarr

By physical I definitely mean existent. I can't tell you the exact mechanism between every cause. But causality can be simplified to, A exists which leads to B existing. So again, A -> B -> C. If there is no A, B is the first cause. If there is nothing that exists which causes A, then A is the first cause.

Is it not possible for a living organism to be a first cause? — ucarr

Yes. We went over this in depth with the idea of a first cause as an atom remember? We talked about all the parts, and how they would need to incept all at the same time, which technically means each part is a first cause that just happened to line up with the other first causes? We can shorten that specification to anything like 'a living thing'. This one has been a while and we've only gone over it once. If you need more than the reminder, feel free to ask.

There's no doubt of it; you're first causes hold the position of God. Inescapable God needs to be inspirational, or is the universe really that cruel? — ucarr

For the universe to be cruel there would need to be intent. There's no intent. Its not cruel or kind. It simply is. We as conscious beings can make the universe cruel or kind. My point is even if there existed a conscious God that had a plan, that plan would be completely made up by God with no higher purpose behind that God itself. Its the same boat no matter what. So smile, treat others well, and live a good life. :)

This is an argument not for causation -- first or otherwise -- but against it. It's a recognition and endorsement of self-actualization. — ucarr

I don't understand how self-actualization is against the idea of a first cause. They're two separate things in my book. I think a logical realization that ultimately, the reason for the universe is no higher than its uncaused inception, helps us to realize how important it is that we make something good out of what's here. Mud in the ground has no use on its own, but with some care you can make a house right? Take what's in the universe, enjoy it, and make it better than what it is in itself. Give it the meaning only you can.

Discussion on stoicism and their thoughts on death? — pursuitofknowlege

Doctor to a Stoic: "You're going to die"
Stoic with a bland expression on their face: "Ok".
Stoic dies months later expressionless.

Not much else to explore really. :D

But no one thought the people called dykes or fags were homosexuals. — Bylaw

I don't know where you got that.

Dyke is a slang term, used as a noun meaning lesbian. It originated as a homophobic slur for masculine, butch, or androgynous girls or women. Pejorative use of the word still exists, but the term dyke has been reappropriated by many lesbians to imply assertiveness and toughness.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyke_(slang)

Faggot, often shortened to fag in American usage, is a term, usually a pejorative, used to refer to gay men.[1][2] In American youth culture around the turn of the 21st century, its meaning extended as a broader reaching insult more related to masculinity and group power structure.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot#:~:text=Faggot%2C%20often%20shortened%20to%20fag,masculinity%20and%20group%20power%20structure.

The root of both words has always been about homosexuality. Yes, that slang further evolved into an insult to people, but that insult has always had the implication of homosexual underneath it.

My point was that tom boy was not used in this way. I can't even imagine a child or teenager calling someone a tomboy with hatred. — Bylaw

Then you weren't around when it was used on the playground. It was very often used as an insult by kids at other kids. But lets not get so bogged down in this that we get away from the original point that transgender is a cultural expectation in how a sex should act.

I don't see how their belief changes me. Yes, it's their decision, thoughts arose in their minds. Nothing happend to me. — Bylaw

I never said it did. My point is you are not a transgendered individual without a culture upon which you can measure it. Let me give you an example. Lets say a few women in your neighborhood start wearing orange shoes. Then you as a man start wearing orange shoes. Is that transgender? No, because no one cares.

Now lets say women start wearing orange shoes, and society for whatever reason starts to say, "Ah, orange shoes are feminine now." If you as a man start to wear orange shoes, you are now transgendered. The act of you 'being' by what you like, how you act, etc., is not inherently gendered or transgendered. Because gender is how others expect a particular sex to act. If no one has an expectation for a sex to act a particular way, then acting that way is not labeled as transgendered. Do you understand? You cannot be transgendered. Only society can make you transgendered.

I don't grant changes in them to be considered a change in me — Bylaw

Correct. And that's the point. You are you. Gender is an expectation of how you should act based on your sex by culture, which is enforced by others. You alone cannot be transgendered. You must have a societies gender expectation to cross.

How does someone know that they are transgender?
People can realize that they're transgender at any age. Some people can trace their awareness back to their earlier memories – they just knew.

Right, but only because society created a gender and their innate selves did not want to go along with that expectation. A boy who likes the color pink is transgender in their color preference in one society, while not transgender in their color preference in another society. What is societally independent is transexualism. The desire to change your body to the other sex is not societally created, and is a personal desire of the self.

For many transgender people, recognizing who they are and deciding to start gender transition can take a lot of reflection. Transgender people risk social stigma, discrimination, and harassment when they tell other people who they really are.

This is why its important to define transgender and transexual clearly. 'Gender transition' is nonsense. You cannot change your gender, as society is the one who creates your gender. You can defy your gender that culture ascribes to you, but you cannot transition. I can be a man who acts like a woman in all respects, but people still expect that as a man, I act a particular way, or gender. Transition can only be applied to transexuals. That is the act of body alteration to emulate the other sex in an attempt to appease personal desires, or attempt to be perceived as the other sex by society.

Do I become transgender if I get off a bus in the midwest, but stop being transgender when I get back on the bus since the other passengers are, like me travelling through the midwest? — Bylaw

Within the different cultures, yes.

How do we know if someone is transgender? Must others in the dominant cultural group openly express the judgment? — Bylaw

Yes.

If you understand those expectations, and go against them in public, then you are transgendered in your explicit violation of the cultural norms.
— Philosophim
So, if I don't know, then I am not transgendered while I am there? But then I at least partially own my gender. It would be part of my identity. — Bylaw

If you never knew that you were acting transgendered, then you would not know you were transgendered in that culture. If someone tells you that your actions are 'crossing gender lines or not meeting expectations', and you still act that way, then you know you are transgendered in that cultural expectation.

But then I at least partially own my gender. — Bylaw

This may be semantics, but I don't think you own gender. You decide whether to meet or defy a culture's gender expectations. That does not change other's cultural expectations. You can own crossing gender. You can even say as a man, "I act like society expects a woman to act." But you don't own the female gender. You are crossing into the female gender of that society. You don't get to dictate or own what that gender is.

If people are judged mentally ill in a certain culture for doing things considered within the range of the normal in my culture, and I go there and do them, I am not mentally ill suddenly. — Bylaw

You are mentally ill in that culture, yes. This is why medical diagnosis attempts to cross culture and rely on science careful research and thinking.

Perhaps I am rude not to respect their traditions, given I know it, but I am not mentally ill suddenly then healthy when I get back on the plane. — Bylaw

Because mental illness in this case is not defined by you, but the culture you visited.

I don't think there is consensus at all about how transgendered is used. — Bylaw

Then that is a problem with the word. Words that convey ideas need to be as clear and unambiguous as possible, especially in major discussions about laws and life. And that's what we're doing here. Clarifying the word to the point where it can be used across cultures and allows consistent and rational communication without contradictions or bleeding unnecessarily into other terms.

But yeah, if someone says to me in my kilt that I am dressing like a woman, I'd probably say, 'Actually no. I'm not. But I know men here don't do this.' Unless I thought a crowd was ready to beat the hell out of me. But I wouldn't grant that the person was correct, except for self-protection and then I'd be lying. — Bylaw

Right, you would be implying that "Men in my culture wear kilts." Not that, "I decided alone that men wear kilts." Gender is cultural, and the culture does not care about whether we think its correct or not. We can try to persuade someone that its ok for a sex to act a particular way, but ultimately they have to agree with us. We can also decide which culture we belong to, or the gender definitions that we accept as defined, then decide to obey or cross. But we don't get to decide how gender is decided in any particular culture alone.

This ties in very closely with other traditions you mentioned. There is no objective reason or declaration from God that I wear a particular head piece or bow at prayer. Its culture. Culture can include gender, and it cannot. If I defied bowing at a particular point in prayer despite people telling me I should because in my religion I shouldn't, I would be transculture. (We normally say crossculture). Gender is just another aspect of culture, and follows the same norms just with expectations about how sexes should act instead of situations where sex is not important.

I’m more interested in why this has become such an issue at all. — Mikie

I have a good friend who once said, "The age of the internet got rid of taboos." I like the general sentiment. The motivation behind this is people who are different that want to be accepted into society. Its a re-examination of past prejudices and labels. I think its a fantastic subject to discuss philosophically.

Why I do think its become such an issue is because the definition of transgender vs transexual has been blurred. Its confusing. People don't understand it. Laws are being made to help accept trans people into normative society, but we must still balance accurate language use, as well as the logic of what is acceptance versus imposition.

My first impulse is to deem your non-response a blatant evasion. Could it be you have nothing to say about a first cause and its followers? — ucarr

Look at this again Ucarr. A -> B -> C Nothing caused A. A is a first cause. I don't see me evading anything, you seem to be overcomplicating the issue or seeing something there that I don't.

Why is a thought experiment to such a conclusion worth your time and effort? — ucarr

I have listed this repeatedly. Please go back and re-read where I mention the value of realizing what a first cause is and its consequences. I would relist this if it were once or twice, but I've already mentioned this at least 3 times.

So, first cause possesses the distinction of prior nothingness? — ucarr

Yes. This has been said numerous times as well Ucarr. Please stop asking the same questions again and again and just start asserting your thoughts. I will correct you if you make a mistake. My current correction is your mistake in asking the same question again and again. :)

Such an emergence would be stupendous if coupled with playing the role of an on-sight parent nurturing children, but you say, with pique, first cause is not party to its descendants. — ucarr

It would be stupendous. But such an empirical claim must be empircally proven. If you claimed, "This pregnant woman incepted out of nowhere with a biological age of 23," you better have airtight proof that your claim matches reality.

I think in your mind you've journeyed to a lonely place defined by the absoluteness of its isolation. Moreover, the solitary denizen of that yawning emptiness flails about, haunted by unbreakable seclusion. — ucarr

Yeah...that's an opinion about me not about the theory. Maybe you've just reached the end of exploring this Ucarr. We've gone over it numerous times, it still stands, and maybe its time to accept that. Admitting it works for now doesn't mean you have to like it, or that it can't be disproven in the future. But if we're descending into insults about the creator of the idea, it seems like the idea is pretty solid and there's nothing more to be said for now.

What sort of questions about nothing cry out for answers? Let's suppose our world has nothing for its ancestor. How does nothing animate and uplift human nature? — ucarr

Why do you need something else to do that? If there was something out there that intended humanity to be inanimate and hated human nature, wouldn't you give it the metaphorical finger and uplift humanity anyway? Purpose is not found from without. It is found from within us.

First cause has no truck with us? How dismal. — ucarr

Lets say there is a God Ucarr. It would know its a first cause. Meaning it would be in the same boat you're talking about. "Why am I hear? There's no outside reason for me, a God, to exist. Oh woe is me!" The God would need to make the same decision we do. They must find value and purpose in their own existence. So Ucarr, there is no escaping the reality that even a God has no prior cause, no prior purpose, no sanctioned greater purpose than what they are. That doesn't mean we can't decide to make purpose. To enjoy our humanity. To live life in a way that creates a world that satisfies us and those around us.

I find this peculiar and a bit confusing. The same amount of existence is there irregardless; so how is it really ever more, other than by the waive of a magic wand? — Bob Ross

Because two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom next to each other are not the same as water. Water only exists when a particular combination happens, and water has aspects that are different then hydrogen and oxygen alone. This base pattern is repeated through molecules, living creatures, intelligent creatures, and societies.

The ideal state of anything for you appears to be the most complicated possible arrangement of entities and composition thereof. — Bob Ross

While including the observation that sustaining this over time is more more existence overall then something which concentrates too much and causes collapse. Yes, complexity is a result of this, but not at the expense of existential longevity. It is a balance. As a reminder 100 existence over 1 second is not ever going to come close to 1 existence over all time.

By common standards both in metaethics and colloquial discourse, a moral judgment is objective if it is stance-independent and, subsequently, a moral theory is a form of moral realism or, colloquial, of “objective morality” IFF it describes what is stance-independently wrong and right; and the justification you gave for it being objective was merely that any rational agent would agree or, if I remember correctly, that it is internally incoherent to posit otherwise. — Bob Ross

I'm surprised to see you list that. I generally understood your view of subjectivity to mean the fact we could not ever understand the thing in itself and were therefore 'subjective' in any attempts to capture it. I agree with the portion about being subjective beings, or 'subjects', but do not find that to be what 'subjectivity' describes. We can handle our attempts to define things concurrent with things in themselves objectively or subjectively. But, the act of being a being or a subject which can attempt to attribute identities that are concurrent with things in itself is not 'subjectivity' as usually understood.

While you may believe the moral theory is subjective, and I do agree that parts of this discussion must be subjective as we do not have the means to elevate certain points to testable objectivity, the more important point is that deciding whether to BE moral, is a subjective act. I can see "X is objectively moral", but there is nothing which necessitates that I care. There is no punishment if I do not follow it. Many times there may not even be any personal reward. Whether this proposal of morality is objective or not, there is nothing in reality that compels a person to evaluate and be objectively moral beyond society and the self.

For life to have its full potential, suffering should be minimized where possible as it prevents life from acting as fully as it could.

This doesn’t seem to imply that it is wrong, though, to torture someone in a manner where they do not benefit from it. For example, it seems quite plausible that in some situation allowing a person to torture someone else would actually total net increase potential existence by “unlocking” the full creativity and potential of the perpetrator. — Bob Ross

Ah good, I've been waiting for discussions like this. When I first came up with this theory I explored it for a while. But then, I became terrified. I realized that a subjective form of ethics gives people wiggle room. It allows most people to rely on intuitions, and we can rely on a general good in society that usually keeps things together. But then I thought, "What if you could take a little of what is here and turn it into evil?" Either through misunderstanding (which is fixible) or more worrisome, malicious intent to control.

I feel this is mostly because moral precepts once ingrained in an individual, are incredibly difficult to change. Why that is, I can only speculate. But my observation is that generally such things are core to a person in some special way. Can you imagine a dictator teaching an 'objective' morality to its populace, ingraining the youth from a young age? One that was just enough as a strong start to a theory, but then twisted to their own design? Its hard enough to convince people their subjective morality is wrong, but a rationalized 'objective' morality? I honestly don't know if people can handle it. This is not in regards to this theory alone, but any objective theory of morality in general.

To this point, we also need some guidelines in discussing this attempt at objective morality that will help the most. If our intuitions tell us its wrong, we need a VERY good reason and clearly proven means to say, "This is still objectively true despite our moral intuitions". So in your case where you invent a scenario that goes against both of our moral intuitions, you need to present a much more specified and provable argument for it to be taken seriously.

Lets examine your scenario more closely and I think we'll see its not an objective scenario, but an abstract scenario. First, what does it mean to "unlock potential?" Second, is this the 'only way?' Third, is this proven or assumed? I see you making a similar mistake to the "I tear a piece of paper in half therefore I have two pieces of paper now." You're using language that isn't clearly measured to ask about a theory that requires us to clearly measure (or at least follow guidelines from previous measures).

To really analyze this we need to break it down into pieces. The most easily measured piece is to simplify the scenario into a much simpler one where we can 'measure' one thing at a time. For now, lets start with a very simple scenario. "Hurting others for pleasure". And yet looking at even this, there's an even simpler question: "What is the moral value of emotions in humans?" An objective morality must build itself piece by piece. This is the approach we must make to every moral quandry.

Of course this is laborious and can easily be bogged down in technicality and as precise measurement as imagined. So we must try our best in this casual conversation on a philosophy board to find a reasonably small measure to discuss that does not require careful calibration, while also not being too abstract.

With that, lets start on your first piece: "What is the moral value of emotions in human beings?" I'm sure there is entire literature on this topic alone, but let me try to condense this to a few points I think we can both agree on.

1. Emotions are a way to quickly make judgements that compel action.
2. Moral actions are those which preserve the current total existence, or create more.
3. Moral emotions are those which lead to judgements of equal or greater existence to one's current state of being.

Of course, then there's the question of 'the emotion itself'. In other words, we take the judgement away from it. If i could take a pill which erased all negative or uncomfortable emotions, would that be good? The problem is we are beings that need to make judgements to live. At its most basic, the simple act of eating. If I never made a judgement to eat again, I would die.

But what if I tracked calories and simply ate because I knew I should? What if I could make judgements correctly in my life without needing any emotion, thus thus I could always be happy and content while still making all the correct judgements in life? As you can see, we are in the rabbit whole of breaking this down. Eventually we could go into the overall chemistry of a person. What would being constantly happy do to you? Do we find we actually need a certain amount of chemical stressors in our lives to live longer? We could spend papers and days going down the scope rabbit hole of questions and building block.

So as you can see, there is a difficulty of "Where do we stop to have a meaningful conversation and get anywhere?" What if my not addressing the chemistry of emotions actually IS important when we finally get up to the part of torture? This is where we must create some guidelines.

1. If both parties agree that a claimed moral action seems unintuitive according to the theory, scope must be continually reduced to explain where this comes from.
2. The more esoteric and unlikely the example, the more specification in the example is needed.
3. Complex examples should be built out of already understood simpler examples.
4. If the complexity is too much to explore, both parties can take previous guidelines and agreed upon intuitions as 'good enough for now'.

So, examining your thought experiment, to me the most simple and common scope I can think to start with is about emotions moral value in relation to judgement. Lets see if you agree with my processes and guidelines above and see where you align with this first proposal about emotions as I've already typed enough for now!

What you say above is a re-wording of some of your earlier statements. What you're saying is generally clear, but now I want to take a closer look at some details. You say a first cause is not part of its causal chain. After inception, when the first cause is in the world existing as it exists, how is it physically related to its causal chain? — ucarr

That's definitely not what I intended. The first cause is the start of the causal chain.

Let's imagine a new type of bacterium incepts into our world. Empirical examination leads medical science to believe it causes a new type of disease with unique symptoms. During its lifetime, the first cause bacterium reproduces. As the first cause, is the first cause bacterium distinguishable from its offspring? — ucarr

It is distinct in the fact that if we were to trace the bacteria back to the first, we would find there was no evidence of there being a prior bacterium.

Does this raise a question about the practical value of isolating a first cause in abstraction? — ucarr

What do you think? Ucarr, I've told you the value already in understanding the idea. What do you think about that?

If an effective treatment for the new type of bacterium is developed, does any knowledge of the first cause bacterium, whether abstract or empirical, amount to anything more than an academic exercise in thought experimentation? — ucarr

If you cure cancer for one person, that doesn't require us to learn the full ancestry of the person. The logic is about prior causation, so its use is in questions about prior and ultimate causation.

What I remember pertinent to first causes within the context of causality is that after inception, a first cause is henceforth subject to the laws of physics in application to all things inhabiting the natural world. — ucarr

Correct. More accurately, it exists in the way it exists, and interacts with others in a resultant manner that can be codified into rules and laws.

Here's a question I think unaddressed and important that arises: With the exception of first causes, is it true that -- within the everyday world of things material and otherwise -- all things are part of a causal chain that inevitably arrives at a first cause? — ucarr

Yes. To not be would be complete and utter chaos that could never be understood, codified, or made into any sort of law.

My issue with contingency is that we don’t know enough about reality to know if all things are contingent.
— Tom Storm

You respond to Tom Storm's uncertainty about universal contingency with "correct." Is it the case your thesis posits universal contingency abstractly while, in fact, empirically you're uncertain about it being true? — ucarr

Correct. An empirical verification would only occur if we examined everything in the universe and came to a scientifically concluded result. Arguably, this is beyond empirical verification. So in any empirical test, we look for contingency. So far no one has ever established in any empirical test that contingency does not exist.

Is it the case your uncertainty -- if it exists -- stems from a lack of empirical verification? — ucarr

It is not uncertainty in the logical sense. It is the correct and logical conclusion to draw in the empirical sense. There are many conclusions that we cannot make when referring to the empirical that are largely accepted in the purely logical sense.

You've addressed the issue of empirical verification by saying it's a nearly impossible standard to meet. To my thinking this throws doubt upon the probativity of your thought experiment. — ucarr

A fair doubt to have, but when we cannot explore things empirically, logic based on what we currently know is all we can do. Can I empirically verify that pie can exist in reality as an irrational number? No. Pi's irrational measurement extends beyond our tools. However, we can estimate using significant digits and use it. Pi as a logical number is irrational and infinite. Pi as an empirical number is finite.

For a parallel, consider Einstein and his theories of General and Special Relativity. He developed them abstractly as thought experiments employing calculations. Subsequent to the publication of his papers, empirical verifications of their claims were established. The logical and the empirical are sometimes two halves of one whole. — ucarr

Correct, and I believe I've used this example before. Logically, the theory worked. But it still had to be tested empirically to confirm it as empirically true. Prior to the empirical test, did it mean it wasn't logically true? No, it was logically true with what was known at the time. This is why it was even attempted as an empirical application to begin with.

The logical layout of the necessity of a first cause, and its logical consequences, have a clear map to lay out in an empirical test. In most instances, its impossible as no one can predict when a first cause will happen. But, it could be an accident one day in a lab setting that a first cause happens. That's extremely unlikely of course.

The more important aspect of the logical nature of a first cause is to ensure that people don't throw around empirical claims like "The big bang or God" is a first cause. Because a big bang or God could potentially be first causes in potential, but to claim they are in actual requires empirical proof. We can no longer say, "The big bang is logically a first cause." No, its not. Any question of any specified claim of a first cause is no longer in the realm of the logical, but the empirical.

because, as I've learned from Gnomon, causation is believed but not yet proven. — ucarr

I would question what you mean by 'not proven'. Without causation all of science and reason goes out the window. If causation is gone, then I can't say you typed your reply to me. "You" didn't cause it. And that's absurd.

I write the above paragraph in reference back to the importance of: "It's not clear to me if the universe contains things that are causations mixed with things not causations." — ucarr

According to the thesis I've put forward, its logically possible. First causes would not be causations, but everything after their inception would be.

I know you think I'm pettifogging your thesis with irrelevant blather; I hope my questions are piquant. — ucarr

I did not think this, I was just tired of one sided 20 questions without feedback or further interactions. :)

I know what the one's called 'dyke' went through. I know what the guys called fag went through. — Bylaw

Right. And my point was that sexual preference has been treated much more harshly and in a different light than transgender. There is tacit acceptance of transgender actions up to a point. Even a hint of an incorrect sexual preference was often extremely villified. The grander point is they are two separate topics, so lets keep it that way if possible.

Well, we're all doing that, we're just at varied distances from the places that see them this way. And given subcultures and individuals, we're all probably near people who do this. Stuff happens when they see me. The do/feel/react in certain ways. — Bylaw

No disagreement. If you're separate from that culture, you're not 'transgendered'. And this is also my point in dividing transgender from transex. What gender is, can be so different from culture to culture that we can't use gender as a cross cultural description of a person's sex. Sex does not care about culture and should not be confused with gender.

Viewing you as transgendered doesn't make you differently sexed.
— Philosophim
Nor does it make you differently gendered. It doesn't do anything unless it leads to action on the part of that person making the judgment. — Bylaw

That is determined by the culture you are in. If you are viewed as transgendered, then you are in that culture. You can try to change their minds, but its ultimately their decision.

That last sentence says it for me. The actually event is in the beholders. I act in way X in my city and people don't see me as transgendered, except in some neighborhoods. I travel to another land or enter a subculture's turf in my country or meet by partner's parents and her big family. They judge me differently. I didn't become transgendered. — Bylaw

You became transgendered in that culture. I think this is the confusion some people have. You do not own gender. Gender is not a personal identity. Culture creates gender and you decide to act in accordance with those expectations, or not. If you understand those expectations, and go against them in public, then you are transgendered in your explicit violation of the cultural norms.

A man who wears a kilt in Scotland is not transgendered. A man who wears a kilt in a cultural setting where its seen as female gendered, they are transgendered in their specific dress. When you 'identify' as a gender, you are explicitly identifying your gender with what is regarded as gender within that specific culture. So if you're a Scottish man and get told you're "Dressing like a woman," you would claim, "No I'm not! This is a kilt that men wear!" Your gender you are referring to is the male gender in Scotland. You don't own gender. Gender owns you because it is an expectation from people other than yourself that they expect you to comply with.

I haven’t mentioned the move to discard black in favor of African American. What was behind this initiative? The concern was that black, in referring to a biological
feature common to certain people , associated that group with the concept of race. — Joshs

An odd goal if you're going to make it about geographic locations which are strongly associated with race. It wasn't to eliminate the concept of race, it was an intention to remove the negative connotation people had with the word 'black'. That also failed. Many black people do not like the term african american. They don't have African ancestry, they've been in America for generations and find the term insulting. And people just take the negative connotation they have with the word black and carry it over to African American, making them a two word description that's that much different from a one word 'caucasion' or 'white'. Strange we don't say, "European American" for white people eh?

It was
thought that African, on the other hand, would direct one toward a cultural rather than biological identification, just as indigenous or native peoples accomplishes relative to ‘Indian’. — Joshs

Which again, is terrible. If you're a fifth generation black man in New Jersey, you have nothing culturally in common with Africa. Race does not dictate your culture. Its racist to think that way.

Race is no longer considered by geneticists to be a coherent scientific notion, and has been used mainly to discriminate against individuals. — Joshs

No, race is very important still. Both to combat racism, such as shunting all black communities into their own district despite odd geographical breakdowns in the district, and more objectively in the medical community. If you're black, you are more likely to have certain genetic diseases or issues that someone of another racial decent would have. Its difficult to impractical to erase race. We want to erase prejudice and racism associated with race. A person should be able to say, "I'm black" and that be no more impactful on someone's judgement about them then, "I have brown hair."

The term ‘person of color’ achieves something similar but in a more inclusive way. It’s important to note that built into the embrace of blackness as a term is that it includes within its meaning the sense of being a minority in danger of marginalization. — Joshs

Sounds like its about being afraid from calling out people who aren't white, but still get lumped in together as 'not white'. Isn't it odd that white is not a color with this phrase?

It’s important to note that built into the embrace of blackness as a term is that it includes within its meaning the sense of being a minority in danger of marginalization. In other words, it is considered important that a word which distinguishes one group from others on the basis of the particular surface indicator of skin color should be used not only as a banner of pride but of continuing struggle for acceptance. — Joshs

I'm going to preface this with some information about myself. I taught high school math at minority inner city schools for five years. Often times my kids and parents were 60% black and 40% hispanic. So my views on this are real world practical and not armchair theory. If you want to accept people, don't give them special words or terms. Also don't eliminate race, because black people are black, hispanic people look hispanic, etc. Neither shame NOR pride should be given about someone's race. Pride should be in your accomplishments and character in life. Educate people that race does not mean culture.

I also lived several years in an all black apartment complex as a white person. I got to know a few blacks over the years and I can tell you right now, being black does not mean you ascribe to 'black culture'. I would say off the cuff, 20% of people really liked stereotypical black culture, about 60% just went along with it, and 20% hated it. People are people and no different than any one else. There is no pride needed in being black, just like there is no pride needed in being white. Its just a biological aspect of yourself, nothing more.

Also, in places of economic success, you find there's really not a 'struggle for acceptance'. I've worked in high level jobs with middle class black workers who were popular or not based on their personality, not because they were black. We have to be very careful not to ascribe anything to skin color or race besides the biology, and how that was adapted for the climate their ancestors adapted to. Anything else flirts with prejudice and racism. I see the same flirtation with transgenderism and sexism when people assume gender affects sex.

This strategy to knowingly keep using a term that in part connotes marginalization is seen in the embrace of the word ‘queer’. It has built into its sense both the recognition that certain groups have been considered as freaks, perverts or pathological by the dominant culture, and that these groups are turning that meaning into a positive by celebrating their non-conformity. — Joshs

Correct because this word was a poorly defined word used to lump a group of people into a weird and negative context. The root meaning of 'queer' is 'strange'. I agree in this instance to change the word. Homosexual is more of a scientific identity, and I would think the slang term of 'gay' would have more negative connotation. I think in general because these words aptly and accurately describe the situation, "A person of one sex who has attraction to another person of the same sex," that its not innately offensive. The concern here is to make sure that people don't discriminate against homosexuals, no matter what we call them.

You have argued that black means the same thing as negro or colored; they all refer to skin color. But the fact is all these words mean different things in different contexts for different people. What is relevant here is that there were predominant meanings associated with some of them that were damaging to the group they weren’t being applied to. — Joshs

I understood your point about changing from negro to black. But did you understand my reply in how that does not apply to pronouns?

it’s emergence was associated with bold messaging such as ‘black is beautiful’ and ‘black power’. Beauty and power are concepts that were not generally associated with negro and colored. Blackness was designed to be as much a cultural as a physical concept, reflecting the rapid and dramatic changes in attitude that took place in the 1960’s. — Joshs

I still think this is a damaging solution. You are not beautiful because you are any type of color. You are beautiful because you are pretty to others. You should not have pride nor shame in your skin color. It shouldn't matter besides attraction preference. That's where we need to get to as emphasizing that your skin color or sex makes you more or less special is just another form of racism and sexism.

Many women would say yes. But what evidence do we have that cultural stereotypes are ingrained within the word ‘she’ that have affected women on a day to day basis? For starters, applying for a bank loan, mortgage, credit card or job was a very different experience for a woman than for a man. — Joshs

Which, if true, does not change my point about pronouns describing people's sex. If your name is Angela, a gendered name associated with being female, it doesn't matter if you mark, "he/him" on your application. People aren't stupid. A better solution is to not name your kid names highly associated with one gender so people don't know from your name alone. And if you notice on forms, people do not ask what sex or race you are except to keep it optional. Changing pronouns and clearly telling people what they are brings sexual connotations to situations that shouldn't require them.

Again, the more important part is to ensure that women are not discriminated against. That we educate society that barring certain biological general differences, one should take a person on the merit of their character and actions than their sex.

But one might ask, is there a way to change attitudes about femaleness without eliminating she? — Joshs

No. People are going to look for sex always. Just like people are going to see that a person is black or white. Pretending it doesn't exist, or saying, "I'm white" when you're clearly black, is not a rational way to solve the problem. The problem isn't with being a particular sex or race. Its about societies prejudices and isms in how race and sex are treated.

So far I’ve been arguing that harmful cultural prejudices make their way so frequently into what we mean when we use a word like ‘negro’ or ‘she’ that the groups affected by these uses felt it necessary to call attention to such uses by playing with the language. — Joshs

I don't think this happens frequently. It happens. And when it does, we should evaluate how to handle it.

Your concern has been that, however we decide to re-educate ourselves concerning the detrimental cultural aspects, we must protect those words that provide a clear meaning of physical and biological differences. “Blackness” allows us to have our cake and eat it , too, by changing attitudes without getting rid of the physical meaning. But eliminating words that refer to the biological sex binary would seem to block access to such clarity. — Joshs

Yes, that's basically my point. We can't ignore biological realities, and sexual biology is a reality that has real consequences in life. We need to work to stop sexism, not eliminate the identification of sex.

But how many of the occasions when we reflexivity use the word ‘she’ involve a need to know the biology of the person we are dealing with? — Joshs

Probably not many. In my own writing I generally avoid pronoun usage unless its pertinent. If I'm talking about a woman giving birth, I'm going to use the word she. If I'm talking about someone doing heavy lifting I'm going to use pronouns because physical labor is associated with strength, and it gives a picture of they type of men and women in that job.

People in general are not 'not a sex'. So when describing a person its fairly important in the written or spoken word. I can say, "He was wearing a dress," versus "She was wearing a dress," and different images come to mind. Its not a statement that makes any judgement values. Its just a statement of the situation that conveys the reality of what's going on clearly.

I suggest the reason for this is our tacit assumptions that our cultural assumptions concerning the roles of and behaviors don maleness and femaleness of those we are interacting with is relevant. — Joshs

While I agree people are going to ascribe cultural expectations, or gender to hearing about a sex, there are also practical and biological considerations as well. If I'm interested in a mate based on my sexual preference, I want to know the sex. And as mentioned earlier, its nigh impossible for most people to imagine a sex neutral person as that isn't the norm of day to day experience, or the reality of the people we are describing. Just as we should not be ashamed to mention a person is black as an attribute only, we should not be ashamed to mention sex as an attribute only.

Some may accept a biological binary, some may not. For those that do, they can simply refer to it directly, leaving out all gender implications. — Joshs

This is honestly what I'm going for. Let sexes be the sexes and understand that gender is a cultural construct that flirts with prejudice and sexism.

Do you think that the umbrella of transgender can include within it a notion of gender not tied to any knowledge of biological sex? For instance, those who believe that everyone has their own unique gender, just as everyone has their own personality dispositions. and that biological sex is not relevant to this fact. — Joshs

No. That's just an aspect of your personality. Gender is "Cultural expectations of your sex". Expectations from you apart from your sex are just cultural expectations of people. If you remove sex, you remove gender.

Also, I really appreciate your thoughts and replies. I can see your viewpoint articulated well and I hope the discussion is enjoyable. :)

↪Philosophim I really respect your responses to Joshs. Wanted to throw that out. He's playing a game, and you're not biting. It's great to see. — AmadeusD

While I appreciate the compliment, I caution against despairaging anyone here for their view. Josh's argument may be genuine, and that's what philosophy discussion should be about. Lets hear each others viewpoints and think about them. Josh is not insulting me nor do I believe he is trolling. Lets just give people the benefit of the doubt for productive conversations. :)

I don't think this is morality, this is just a proper way to identify people.
— Philosophim

You are way too educated and too smart to let yourself get away with this sort of thing. I'm going to leave it there. — unenlightened

I also appreciate the compliment, but in my own understanding and assessment of morality, I really do not see it as a moral issue. If you want me to explain I will, but I also understand if you wanted to simply post your comment and leave it.

I believe people should be free to do what they want to do in life. There are people who also want to cut their arm off. If after a discussion they still want to, let them.
— Philosophim
Are we really at such a point that a 'discussion' mitigates other such concerns that may have primacy with regards to such extensive/extreme modifications. — substantivalism

Yes. People are more rationalizing than rational. It takes effort and often times training to truly think rationally. Rationalization is about creating arguments that give you what you want. A person who is rationalizing will not accept rational refutation of their rationalization easy, because the point wasn't to be rational, it was to give the mind a non-cognitive dissonance way of justifying getting what they want.

And before I or anyone else thinks they are above it all, we're not. We all do it on some basis and its easy to slip up even when actively trying not to.

At this point she understands within that culture that her behavior is seen as belonging to the male gender, not the female gender. If she says to herself, "I don't care, I'm still going to be me." she is transgendered in that culture.
— Philosophim
I'd still quibble over the language. I'd say now she knows how she's going to be judged there. And she doesn't really have a way to not be her, at least in the short term. She'd just be hiding who she was, and like feeling the aggression and hiding it. So, if the views make her something, she's still that something, but managing the camouflage it. — Bylaw

No denial that she's hiding what she is. Gender often asks us to behave, act, and dress in ways we would rather not. Much of gender is a holdover from a less technologically advanced and enlightened society, and is too often an undercurrent of sexism. Gender is a social construct, and a social construct that pressures you to act, dress, or behave a certain way.

So, are you transgender as a transvestite when you dress that way, or all the time? — Bylaw

All that it takes for a person to make a transgender action is to do something cross gender. What I think we in society label as a "transgender person' is someone who engages in cross gender behavior in public in their daily life. Everyone is going to cross some culture or group of people's idea of how a man or woman should act. If a person constantly and willfully crosses that line, despite knowing the culture would frown on it, that's being a 'transgender person' in that culture.

What if you are traditionally male in your culture 99% of the time, but once in a while you dress up as a woman to get sexual pleasure? — Bylaw

Sounds like a kink or fetish to me. Which is fine. In matters of sexual gratification, "You do you." :) Specifically why I wouldn't consider it a cross gender action is that society does not assume that women and men's expected dress is designed for their personal sexual pleasure.

Or, the same man otherwise who instead likes to be dominated sexually, sometimes. I suppose I am probing here because I think it might be better not to label people and in a binary way — Bylaw

See, this is one of the weirdest things to come out of the transgender community to me. Sexual orientation, sexual fantasies, and sexual practices, do not change your sex or are even transgender in my view. Sex is weird on so many levels I just don't blink an eye. Sexual pleasure and kinks are often about taboos or 'I shouldn't be doing this." Which is normal to both sexes. Its completely unsurprising that cross dressing or cross gender role play would turn some people on. We already processed that sexual orientation doesn't change your sex with gay people. That would be like saying, "As a man you had sex with a man, so you're a woman now." Its absurd to me.

But that's just the thing: to me, at least in general, they were not told that. It was not a term of insult, nor was it part of getting them back on the right side of the gender fence. It was a kind of minority normalness. Oh, she's a tom boy. Now that might have been in the subculture I was in, loosely urban U.S. — Bylaw

I think because you were not a tom boy, that you don't have the understanding of what tom boys went through. Further today we're seeing some tom boys being told they're transgender and should transition. Finally, I'm sure you understand you don't have to say specific words to understand that logically, you're implying something underneath. Calling someone a tom boy is expressing publicly that a woman is not behaving within the cultural gendered norm of their sex.

There was a qualititative difference between being called a tom boy and being called a 'fag' say. One could say, parent to parent, Oh your girl's quite the tom boy and not get into a fist fight. — Bylaw

Same with calling someone else's son a girly man or mama's boy. Being transgender doesn't have anything to do with your sexual orientation. The issues with sexual orientation and crossing the gender divide differ in societal importance, and in general there was a much bigger backlash to sexual orientation crossing than gender crossing.

My quibble has less problem with this last description - the actions are transgendered there, which they would be even if I never realized during my whole stay. Rather than become transgendered. — Bylaw

To be clear from earlier. Everyone makes transgendered actions. To be identified as 'transgendered' you must be someone who willfully violates gender norms consistently and willfully.

I did understand that one wasn't changing sex in this situation. I just don't think you're changing anything at all. The new situation is what is happening in the way you are viewed. Just as the viewing one as male - if the other group thought you were actually male when you're not - doesn't make you male, the viewing you as transgendered doesn't make you differently gendered. — Bylaw

Viewing you as transgendered doesn't make you differently sexed. Being transgendered by definition, is committing actions associated with the cultural expectations of the other sex, and not your sex. You do not own gender. Culture does. Gender is not genetic. You can be a girly boy or a manly man. Neither is gender. You can like painting your nails or not as a man. That is not gender. Gender is culture's expectation of how you should act based on your sex.

Good conversation Bylaw, I really appreciate you digging in. :)

↪Philosophim Nicely put. My issue with contingency is that we don’t know enough about reality to know if all things are contingent. We know a little about of our localised universe. — Tom Storm

Correct. This is not an empirical proof, but a logical proof based on what we know today. Its nice to someone understand it right off the bat. :)

Since both of your equations evaluate to the same result, I wonder whether there's any meaningful distinction between them. — ucarr

I don't considering each time tick that passes we have a different number of causations added. But if you don't think its meaningful, tell me why!

I understand you to be telling me you arrive at your premise:
Every causal chain inevitably arrives at a first cause
— Philosophim

by way of a thought experiment. — ucarr

Yes, this is an example to help you understand the abstract points I've been making throughout our discussions. Is the thought experiment logical? Does it add clarity to the abstract? What do you think of it?

Do you have a point...
— Philosophim

Keep trying Ucarr!
— Philosophim

What do you want me to understand from this? — ucarr

I want to hear your point of view. I want a discussion. I don't mind answering some questions, but you've only posted questions for the last six posts without any feedback, and I'm failing to see this going anywhere at this point. Please try to engage and not make this a one sided 20 questions alright? Did you understand my point two posts ago? I don't know, I hope you did. Its getting to the point where I expect you'll ask, "What time is it?" "Is it true this means you like the color blue?" :D I'm laughing over here but really, please try to not just ask questions.

It's not clear to me if the universe contains things that are causations mixed with things that are not causations. Is it the case that whatever is not a causation is a first cause? — ucarr

I have been over this numerous times at this point. Its been answered already several posts up, please review. We had a lengthy discussion about first causes and how they enter into causality once formed. Please look for that again.

Regarding: 'up to the point in which we ask, "What caused that universe?,"' it's not clear to me when this point is reached. Is this the point when: "It entails eventually putting it into a set." — ucarr

Yes. We take the entirety of the causations over the infinite time in the universe then ask, "What caused this to be?" Why is it 3T + infinity = y instead of 2T + infinity = y? Do you see my frustration here? I feel like I'm going over the same stuff again and again. Please take some time to review what I've already written first before asking questions as we've covered a lot already.

Does this evaluation of all causations into a set occur in time as we know it? — ucarr

What? Are you saying that the formulation of the formula 2T + infinity = Y occur in time? A causation chain in total is not taken in 'time'. Its an evaluation of everything that has happened so far. You are given the formula 2T + infinity = Y. This formula contains all the causality by time in that universe. So you say, "That's neat. What caused the universe to be infinite and eternal in that way?" Is it "Nothing" or is there something else that caused it? If there's nothing which caused it to be eternal, then there was nothing that deigned its inception; it simply is. A first cause to all the rest of the causality.

The infinite causal chain equals members populating a set; they are more commonly referred to as the universe? — ucarr

No, as mentioned before its the set of all causations within that universe up to the point in which we ask, "What caused that universe?"

At this point, you have evaluated down to two things: first cause; causal chain as members populating a set? — ucarr

Ucarr, this is not complicated. Do you have a point or are you just going to keep asking odd questions? I've told you what this is several times already.