Click on my icon. — jgill

I see you are an expert in complex dynamical systems. The sense in which I was using "complex systems" was more mundane than that. Even without taking chaos into consideration, when you get beyond a very simple system, assigning cause may be impossible.

How can one describe a "possible world"? — jgill

There is a realm of possibility. I didn’t invent the saying ‘true in all possible worlds.’ — Wayfarer

I didn't know Possible Worlds was a philosophical concept going back to Leibniz ("Best of all possible worlds"). I see how alternative histories would be one kind. Thanks.

I see you are an expert in complex dynamical systems. — T Clark

Not really. I've dabbled in a specific type of CDS for fifty years, but it's not a popular area of investigation.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause (for its existence) — Ghost Light

A special case of the principle of sufficient reason.

So, the thrust is to derive something that does not fall under the premise, something immutable or atemporal.
This, in turn, implies inert, lifeless (perhaps even kind of boring).
The closest that comes to mind is abstracts, but, either way, nothing resembling mind (experiencing, thinking, etc).
Those wishing to promote a sentient being (outside the premise), would then entertain special pleading, or have to take a path analogous to a multiverse type thing (unparsimonious, "orthogonal temporality"?).



, in modal logic, a possible world is just a self-consistent whole.
This expression thereof can make reasoning easier.

CP = Whatever begins to exist has a cause (for its existence).

Both Craig and Loke (along with many other supporters of the Kalam Argument) argue that it is irrational to deny this principle. The question I have is, (1) Can this causal principle be rationally denied? and (2) What would the benefits/costs be of rejecting this principle? — Ghost Light

I would deny that it's irrational to reject this principle, which is to say that it's not logically impossible to have an infinite number of overlapping contingent causal explanations in both directions of time. It doesn't necessarily follow that there has to be a first cause. It may be reasonable to assume a metaphysical first cause, but it's certainly not irrational to to deny a first cause. Moreover, as has already been pointed out, even if you accept a first cause, this doesn't necessarily get you to God. One could argue that the first cause is something other than a God. We just don't know what that first cause could be, or who it could be.

For my money, I would bet on an intelligence behind the universe, but that doesn't mean it's God. Moreover, if there is a God, I don't see that that God is defined in terms of some religious ideology or dogma.

↪jgill
, in modal logic, a possible world is just a self-consistent whole.
This expression thereof can make reasoning easier. — jorndoe

Good heavens, I should have kept my distance from this topic! :gasp:

Yes, you can deny the claim that everything must have a prior cause, because it cannot be proven that everything has a prior cause. In fact, we can conclude the opposite.
Let us say the universe is full of infinitely regressive causality. It's existed infinitely versus having a finite starting point. This universe is the sum of everything. All possible worlds, universes, God's etc. We cannot introduce anything outside of this, it's everything that exists.
One question springs to mind. Why does that universe exist as is? Surely we can imagine things existing differently. But there is nothing outside of this infinite universe. Any outside cause you want to introduce is merged within the set, and we arrive at the same question again.
The answer is simple. This universe is the way it is, because it is. There is no outside reason. It exists, because it does. It is an uncaused universe not bound to any rules outside of itself. Since this is concluded with an infinite universe, and the same conclusion happens with a finite universe, we can only conclude that the reason for any universe existing boils down to the fact that it exists. The origin of any universes existence, is uncaused. This is the only logical conclusion we can arrive at.