A Y is merely a state that has the question of whether there is an X or not. — Philosophim
That which has an unknown cause is a Y. That which has no prior cause, is an alpha. — Philosophim
you haven't accurately ascribed what a priori knowledge is. — Philosophim
Not what you said. Y has a cause, even if the cause is unknown.
That which has an unknown cause is a Y. That which has no prior cause, is an alpha.
— Philosophim — Mww
because the topic ultimately reduces to the principle of cause and effect, which in and of itself, because it is a only a mode of human cognition, has nothing to do with experience. Experience is certainly required for its objective validity, but not for its constructions a priori, re: Hume’s mistake. — Mww
It has been demonstrated that causality does not happen at the atomic & sub-atomic level. What is the prior event that causes a radioactive atom to decay? What is the prior event that causes a particle anti-particle pair to materialize out of nowhere? To the best of everyone's knowledge there are no prior events that cause these things to happen.I am not concerned with preserving causality, when I have yet to have anyone show me its broken — Philosophim
Perhaps it is self-explained, but perhaps it isn't. — Philosophim
What is the nature of the First Cause, given that it has no input? — PoeticUniverse
It has been demonstrated that causality does not happen at the atomic & sub-atomic level. — EricH
But even beyond that - and here is a question I'm really curious about. I'm fascinated by this behavior. Why is this so important to you that there must be a first cause? — EricH
I do not agree that you can know about cause and effect apart from experience. The idea boils down to whether there is a state prior to another that caused that secondary state to be. — Philosophim
Our language that we use to describe cause and effect can only exist because the world exists with cause and effect independent of our realization of it. — Philosophim
Still, it remains that no singular object of perception, in and of itself, can inform as to its cause, nor that it even had one. — Mww
What caused the words — Philosophim
Is this what you were talking about? Yes, this is part of cause and effect. Cause and effect are ways to measure the reason why a state changes from one to another over time. — Philosophim
Yeah....about that. What caused the words? And PLLL—EEEEEZZZEEE...don’t say my fingers caused the words. Finite causal regression writ large. — Mww
3. Alphas would seem to be incredibly small. — Philosophim
Is this what you were talking about? Yes, this is part of cause and effect. Cause and effect are ways to measure the reason why a state changes from one to another over time.
— Philosophim
I think you would benefit from doing some reading about causation (and disabusing yourself of the notion that there is only one kind and everyone agrees on what it is), explanation, grounding. When you have all these mixed up as you do, you end up with the kind of muddle that you have in your OP. — SophistiCat
Demonstrate to me that your fingers were not one X in the chain that caused those words to appear on the screen, and then you'll have something to stand on. — Philosophim
It has energy and so it can't be still, else naught would have further come forth. — PoeticUniverse
Random action, since no design could have been imparted? Or some default for the simplest? — PoeticUniverse
How much of it would there be? — PoeticUniverse
I already have something to stand on, and I don’t care about one X. — Mww
That said, fingers cause the keys to be struck, but do not on that account alone, cause the words. — Mww
How many clues do you need, to see where this inevitably leads? — Mww
It seems that an existent as a First Cause can’t come into being spontaneously, for the Possibility of this happening would be even more Fundamental, making for untold numbers of First Causes appearing. — PoeticUniverse
spontaneously — Philosophim
I think I mean 'spontaneously' as instead of the First Cause having always been—as a true Fundamental that never gets made or appears, being unmakeable and unbreakable due to having no parts. I favor the latter case as mandatory because the alternate of 'Nothing' is not the case nor could 'Nothing' even have being or even be meant as an opposite option. — PoeticUniverse
Logically, why could there not be "nothing"? — Philosophim
Doesn't nothing exist now? The fact that something can appear while nothing remains around it is not far fetched at all, considering we have many things that exist with mostly nothing around it. — Philosophim
No, it appears from the successful QFT that all is field. The quantum 'vacuum' is the best candidate for the First Cause, its energetic points having a value at every point, which is all that's meant by a field. Its behavior matches the math model based on harmonic oscillators. The elementaries come forth directly as the quanta of field excitations, as field arrangements, not as any new substance different from field. So, here we have something to go on to confirm the philosophy of the one First Cause that cannot not be. — PoeticUniverse
But a wave in water is still composed of molecules, and emptyness between those molecules. For fields, we have electron fields. Yet they are still composed of individual electrons, and "nothingness" between them. — Philosophim
I have no doubt at a larger scale, it functions like a field. But, this does not mean its proven that there is nothing more granular if you examine that field at a closer level. — Philosophim
I much appreciate the discussion Bob
I wrote another paper here which examines knowledge using basic principles. I've used that basis of knowledge for years now in my own life and philosophy, but of course you would not know that!
I can't seem to get anyone to have a good discussion with over it, and it bothers me that I haven't had anyone to properly discuss a theory which is a potential solution to the problem of induction.
I am assuming a consistency in laws, and assuming things that may or may not exist. Where I think the deduction comes from is if these inductions were to be true, what would logically have to follow.
There are a few theories in math that also work this way. They make claims about number patterns that in theory should be logically true, but cannot be confirmed due to the fact there are infinite numbers. I think this is a fundamental of philosophy.
They are the conclusions of what we know today. Causality exists. So causality must either continue indefinitely, or definitely. Of course, maybe there's a third option we haven't thought of.
But among the two options of absurdity, we find that even an infinite regression end up having to be self-explained.
Once a self cause is existent, anything that it causes is now a secondary cause from the primary formation.
But thinking about it, I believe first causes by their nature or the base constitute parts of existence. Complex objects are really a combination of smaller objects. A complex object cannot be self-explained, but is explained by its interaction with other objects.
That being the case, a self-explained entity would seem to be indivisible.
I am using the general understanding of cause and effect with precision given as needed. If people have asked for clarification on what cause and effect means for the OP, I have given it with clear examples and evidence. If they countered these, examples they could give me definitive evidence showing it is flawed. — Philosophim
If you're trying to say causality doesn't really exist..... — Philosophim
I don’t care about one X.
— Mww
Well, the argument does. — Philosophim
The proof is in the fact that those words would not have appeared on the screen without some cause. Isn't that a perfectly reasonable thing to logically grant? — Philosophim
How many clues do you need, to see where this inevitably leads?
— Mww
I don't see where this inevitably leads at all....... — Philosophim
.......Please point out where this leads to, and also point out why this counters the OP. — Philosophim
Before I address your most recent reply, I wanted to apologize for a such a late response! — Bob Ross
With respect to the first sentence, I would like to ask: what laws are you referring to? Newtonian laws? — Bob Ross
You seem to be inducing a basic principle from which to deduce, which makes perfect sense — Bob Ross
I am referring to mathematical induction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_induction#:~:text=A%20proof%20by%20induction%20consists,case%20n%20%3D%20k%20%2B%201.I genuinely would like to know to what theories are you referring? Or, and this will be my last conjecture, are you referring to infinite series summations (and such)? — Bob Ross
To sum this section up, I will would say that, although you are totally right in utilizing the knowledge that we do know, I would say your statement “causality must either continue indefinitely, or definitely” to be, as you admit in the following sentence, to be only a given certainty in terms of what is closest to our lives — Bob Ross
Just like how I deem it impossible to truly conceive of true nothingness, I would also (for the same reasons) deem it impossible to truly know “Logic”. — Bob Ross
Furthermore, and most importantly, the extension of this principle, which is already on fragile grounds when extended into the quantum realm, to that which is beyond our basic understand of all things (namely space/time fabric) greatly increases my skepticism and uncertainty on the issue at hand. So much, in fact, that I am hesitant to grant the idea that it is even useful to derive any concepts from any sort of greatly extended forms of induction (at least, ontologically speaking). — Bob Ross
Which means, as you said, that the term ‘self-cause’ doesn’t really make any sense anymore — Bob Ross
I hope I addressed it. If not, please point it out!However, as hopefully I am demonstrating, there is still a level of explanation that I don’t think you are entirely addressing. — Bob Ross
if complex objects are merely constructed of smaller objects, then wouldn’t that be their explanations? — Bob Ross
those smaller parts are actually made of smaller ones, so, in a sense, the smaller parts of my hand are actually complex objects compared to its smaller parts (and so on and so forth!). Hence, I would argue, we end up with explanatory-collapsibility. I would say that we arbitrarily, within a relative scope, defining my hand to exist with respect to its smaller parts (objects), but I can also shift the scope to be of my cells to its smaller parts (objects) and the cells would now become the complex object. As far as I can tell, if one zooms in or out (so to speak), the explanations begin to cave in on themselves (providing little explanatory power the closer or farther away one goes). — Bob Ross
Not to reiterate, but, again, what is the sufficient reason for a self-explained entity (first cause) to be indivisible (other than the fact that semantically speaking it is pre-defined as such)? Again, I may simply be misunderstanding you, but I don’t see how that doesn’t require a reason. — Bob Ross
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.