It is not so much flawed as inadequate. Your persistent examples of billiard balls are the sort one might use to explain what "cause" and "effect" mean to a four-year-old. — SophistiCat
Now you first need to define this nature of existence in order to argue about it. — Nickolasgaspar
First of all causality doesn't exist. Its an abstract concept we as observers use to identify the order between interactions among entities and forces. Causality is a real phenomenon enabled by the EXISTENCE of those entities and forces. — Nickolasgaspar
This is what energy does.....produces work. Work causes things. — Nickolasgaspar
Not like billiard balls and acorns, no, the concept abstracted from principles does not really exist. The principles themselves don’t really exist either. — Mww
Somewhere in that chain the empirical mechanisms....physical causality.... necessarily become exhausted. — Mww
Not counter. Satisfy. By finite regressive causality. Like I said. You claim a time and place for an alpha but not the when or the what — Mww
It is reasonable to logically grant, but it is an empty proof, in that the proof of empirical conditions is not served by merely logical conclusions. — Mww
An inadequate argument is a flawed argument. I was a teacher for five years. If you can take a complex concept and break it down so that even a four year old can understand, it is one of the greatest accomplishments you can do. Thank you. — Philosophim
The principles themselves don’t really exist either.
— Mww
Of course they exist. We're talking about them right now. — Philosophim
If I can logically conclude that it must exist, then it must. — Philosophim
But you didn't explain a complex concept - you gave the sort of use example that would help four-year-olds connect the words "cause" and "effect" with something of which they already have some intuitive grasp. You didn't actually explain anything. Not only is this inadequate to a philosophical discussion of causality, but your repeated appeal to these simplistic examples is patronizing and insulting. — SophistiCat
Whatever we can talk about, exists? Something like this, you mean:
If I can logically conclude that it must exist, then it must.
— Philosophim
Yikes. — Mww
I think Philosophim's mistake is haphazardly assigning logical necessity, without question, to the "first cause", identified as Y. A better way of calling it is the given. Geometry considers this an acceptable starting point -- such as given the presence of Alpha Y, therefore X.Yikes. — Mww
I think Philosophim's mistake is haphazardly assigning logical necessity, without question, to the "first cause", identified as Y. A better way of calling it is the given. — Caldwell
Nuh. Science doesn't assume that. That's just you.The whole assumption of science is that laws work by causality. — Gregory
Virtual particles come from somewhere for example. We just don't know where from — Gregory
:blush:Oh oh. Now you went and done it. You hinted he may have made a mistake. To which, of course, invites the response that you, rather, may have not understood. — Mww
No it doesn't need to logically exist. That's what I'm saying. You call it a given.A first cause would be an alpha. .....What I conclude is that an alpha must logically exist. — Philosophim
Your assumption cannot be your conclusion. This is a fallacy. Therefore, I disagree.Does the conclusion make sense, or do you see a flaw somewhere? — Philosophim
Randomness occurs causally — Gregory
Russel, On the notion of CauseAll philosophers, of every school, imagine that causation is one of the fundamental axioms or postulates of science, yet, oddly enough, in advanced sciences such as gravitational astronomy, the word "cause" never occurs.
↪Philosophim The problem is basically in (1), where you set up an erroneous picture of causality.
Have a think about Has physics ever been deterministic? — Banno
I just don’t get how a thesis of a lousy couple hundred words, that’s been around in its various iterations for millennia, and argued to death, can be misunderstood, but apparently half of us, have. — Mww
A first cause would be an alpha. .....What I conclude is that an alpha must logically exist.
— Philosophim
No it doesn't need to logically exist. That's what I'm saying. You call it a given. — Caldwell
Your assumption cannot be your conclusion. This is a fallacy. Therefore, I disagree. — Caldwell
Randomness doesn't mean "without a cause" but instead "not perfectly predictable" — Gregory
In short, I find it impossible to function without induction. The only thing we can do is figure out which inductions are more reasonable than others. The paper ends up declaring that. Regardless, if you do find it an unreasonable induction, I would ask a more reasonable alternative be provided. Doubt for its own sake doesn't lead anywhere.
Basically think proving formulas. If A is true, and B is true, C will always be true. But we will never be able to actively prove C is true by experience, because we cannot possibly test all C's in existence. C is logically necessary, but is ultimately an induction based on the idea that the truth of A and B will always hold no matter the situation.
If you can point out where I do, please do. I am interested in getting to the truth of the matter, and only other people can point out my blind spots.
Is that space also filled with other smaller things?
I do not deny that it may be impossible for true nothingness to exist, but I find it also impossible to deny that it might. The fact that we can doubt one, does not eliminate the possibility of the other.
I have heard this from a few posters. How exactly does the quantum world not have cause and effect? If it does not have cause and effect, then is it not simply an alpha? In which case, it seems the OP still stands.I have heard this from a few posters. How exactly does the quantum world not have cause and effect? If it does not have cause and effect, then is it not simply an alpha? In which case, it seems the OP still stands.
Correct. Something cannot cause itself, because then we are left right back to the question, "What caused it to cause itself?" So I find ascribing self-cause results in a contradiction, so should not be used.
I hope I addressed it. If not, please point it out!
And according to the conclusion of the OP, there must be a point in which the chain of causality ends.
It would be because if an self-explained entity was divisible, the reason for its existence would be the combination of those divisible parts.
It seems as though that you are implying that we should assess our options and pick the best one: I do not think this is the case. — Bob Ross
On the contrary, I would argue that we suspend judgment until an adequate alternative is produced (in other words: I am perfectly fine stating that I simply do not know enough to make a meaningful conclusion). — Bob Ross
To keep this brief, consider the process of perception, which I would argue one witnesses: I would argue one utilizes their built in “rudimentary reason”, which is essentially the most basic derived faculty of their existence, to “induce”, technically speaking, that they are indeed perceiving. However (and, again, I am keeping this extremely brief), this is very distinct from your OP, which I would characterize as mediate knowledge: the use of immediate knowledge that is extended (in this case via induction) to derive a principle from which to deduce. You see, if one were to remove a mediate form of knowledge, there immediate forms stay intact (left unaffected) because (I would argue) mediate forms of knowledge should never be prioritized above the immediate forms. Therefore, if all the options regarding a topic (that, most importantly, pertains to mediate knowledge claims) are unreasonable, then they should be removed even in the case that there is no alternative provided. — Bob Ross
However, mathematical induction (as far I as I understand it) attempts to induce that P(n) will be true for all natural numbers, which therefore is perfectly within its own scope and not over-extending, but it does not, most importantly, attempt to say that P(n) fundamentally works outside of a space/time fabric. — Bob Ross
one can’t assume that causality would be behave (even if they had extraordinary inductive evidence of causality’s uniformity in our universe) even remotely similar outside of the very two (conjoined) concepts: space and time. — Bob Ross
Now, this gets contradictory (on my part) very quickly because of my next issue: the seemingly semantic basis for this OP—that to ask for a sufficient reason for a self-explained first cause makes no sense! — Bob Ross
I do not deny that it may be impossible for true nothingness to exist, but I find it also impossible to deny that it might. The fact that we can doubt one, does not eliminate the possibility of the other.
I 100% agree here, but to be able to doubt something is distinctly different from doubting something on reasonable grounds. I am not advocating that we should disband notions because it is possible (or room to) doubt it, but, rather, it should be disbanded if the doubt introduces reasonable justification to disband it. — Bob Ross
You have done a marvelous job at addressing my questions! And thank you for that! But I would say that I am still having a hard time understanding how a “self-explained first cause” isn’t solely a semantical distinction? And even if I were to grant that it is perfectly valid to simply define PSR out of the concept, I would still have to confess that PSR (having such a strong will to live, metaphorically speaking) will wiggle itself back into existence! For I could then ask for a sufficient reason for why PSR is defined out of the concept. Hopefully you see my confusion. — Bob Ross
Jesus fuck. 11 pages of scientific illiteracy despite having been pointed out that fact on almost every page. :roll: — Benkei
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.