Consciousness=charge.
Virtual charge= Virtual Consciousness
Virtual charges=negative curvature
Negative curvature=Causing power — Raymond
If an infinite regress of prior causes leads to a contradiction, then there has to be a first cause. — Agent Smith
You have to prove that nothing causes consciousness. That's a very tall order. Proving that any one thing is self-explained has an incredibly high burden of proof, and arguably may be impossible. — Philosophim
I would ask, "Why is the causation 1/2^n power? — Philosophim
OK. At the present time we have a result of causation from an event having taken place 1/2 a year ago. At that time a previous event caused that result, the previous event having taken place 1/4 of a year prior to that event. Keep going back in time in this manner and you never reach an origin for this causation sequence, although the causation sequence started no further back in time than one year ago. — jgill
The end of our universe, at infinity, may cause a new bang at the singularity. — Raymond
At the singularity time is present in a sense that there is no begin point 0, which causes the difficulty. The paradox is that time was there but without direction. — Raymond
How does this apply to the OP? — Philosophim
Consciousness=charge.
Virtual charge= Virtual Consciousness
Virtual charges=negative curvature
Negative curvature=Causing power
— Raymond
None of this makes sense. Flesh out what your words mean please. — Philosophim
Suppose the infinite regress is a causation sequence that, going back toward an origin, is of the form 1/2^n. You never reach the origin, but the chain exists. Just babble — jgill
What first cause are you looking for? — Raymond
see. That's just an invention of your mind though. Regardless, that doesn't negate the OP. What caused the charge? What caused the singularity? If you say, "Nothing" then it is self-explained as I conclude in the OP — Philosophim
God(s) aused the universe. Who else? — Raymond
But in the realm of causal relations, the first cause of each new big bang is a causeless state — Raymond
Can we prove this? Why couldn't the big bang just happen? After all, if God is the first cause, why couldn't something else be? — Philosophim
That would be the definition of a first cause, which would not negate the OP. I'm not stating whether that is, or is not the first cause, but I am saying there must be one. — Philosophim
Can we prove this? Why couldn't the big bang just happen? After all, if God is the first cause, why couldn't something else be? — Philosophim
Ah,yes. I misunderstood. Even if infinite spatiotemporally, it has to come from somewhere? It all just is there? — Raymond
If a big bang is happening time after time, every time from s fresh state behind the bang preceding it, how can there be a first cause? — Raymond
Why caused the big bang to happen infinitely, and not just once, twice, or any other number? And if you have an answer, what caused that? And if you have an infinite number of answers, why caused there to be an infinite number of answers, instead of just one, two, or any other number? Eventually, "It just is." — Philosophim
1. Either all things have a prior cause for their existence, or there is at least one first cause of existence from which a chain of events follows. — Philosophim
You seem to be using a two different definitions of 'existence', one that applies to objects (things that are contained by space and time), and the other 'everything that is real'.Causality is the idea that a snapshot of existence is in the state that it is because of some prior state. — Philosophim
True only in classical physics. An easy example is the decay of an atom, which occurs uncaused. That Y has no X, and as such there is precedent for an 'alpha' as you call it.a. There is always a X for every Y.
No, they don't, but no rules are violated either. The usual rules don't apply where the rules are singular, which they are say at the big bang.4. Alpha logic: ... Plainly put, the rules concluded within a universe of causality cannot explain why an Alpha exists.
This is the second category, not the same thing as 'why the smiley is'.There can be no underlying reason for why the universe is. — Philosophim
That's like saying the first moment in time is now, or that space begins here on Earth. OK, I don't buy that time isn't bounded in the past direction. It certainly seems meaningless beyond the big bang singularity, even though there are hypothesis that discuss the physics beyond it. Whatever's beyond it, it isn't measured in 3 spatial dimensions of meters and a single dimension of time measured in seconds and such.First integer? Sure, that would be one. — Philosophim
You seem to be using a two different definitions of 'existence', one that applies to objects (things that are contained by space and time), and the other 'everything that is real'. — noAxioms
To say that there is a first cause is probably no more than to say — noAxioms
a. There is always a X for every Y.
True only in classical physics. An easy example is the decay of an atom, which occurs uncaused. That Y has no X, and as such there is precedent for an 'alpha' as you call it. — noAxioms
First integer? Sure, that would be one.
— Philosophim
That's like saying the first moment in time is now, or that space begins here on Earth. — noAxioms
OK, I don't buy that time isn't bounded in the past direction. — noAxioms
As an aside, can you answer a question: What is a distinguishing characteristic of a unicorn? I mean, one legend has it that it blows rainbows out of its butt, but I don't think that one is universally agreed upon. — noAxioms
Probably poorly worded on my part. I'm speaking not of 'all things' (despite saying that), but reality itself, the container of the objects, which in this case is spacetime.If something applies to "everything that is real," then it also applies to any of its subsets like objects. — Philosophim
Right. So the existence of an alpha isn't a problem. There is a time before the decay event, but there isn't a time before say the emission of material from a white hole, so time can be bounded.I think you misunderstand, if there is no cause for the decay of an atom, than that decay is the "alpha", or the first cause.
But there is an integer before it, by any standard (not just counting) ordering of the integers. It's still only a semi-applicable example (180 came up with it I think) since the set of integers is unbounded and time isn't necessarily unbounded.No, it literally means the fact that the first integer is 1. :)
A lot of them apparently, since there are plenty of sets of events, none of which share a common cause, at least not one in our spacetime.I'm not addressing what you believe is a first cause. I'm addressing that logically, there must be a first cause.
It wasn't really a question about your knowledge of the subject. It was a question about the unicorns.Big question that's more about epistemology. I have an entire other thread where I cover that. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9015/a-methodology-of-knowledge
Close enough. I mostly agree: Horse-like, but not actually a horse. The horn was what I was after.In short, if we're talking my personal definition of a unicorn, it can be anything. If we're talking about a societally agreed upon term for a unicorn, I would say the essential property that most people agree on is that its a horse with a horn on its head, and followed slightly less with "magical".
I'm not trying to assert any one specific first cause. All I'm asserting is that if you follow the logic of causality, it necessarily results that there must be a first cause. — Philosophim
Causality is potential. To refer to it as a ‘first cause’ and state that it ‘must be’ is logically inaccurate. — Possibility
If you follow the logic of qualitative geometry, a two-dimensional shape can only manifest in relation to a three-dimensional aspect. Therefore, a four-dimensional existence can only manifest in relation to a five-dimensional aspect. — Possibility
This makes the presumption that there is a current state.Causality is also an explanation for why there is a current state. — Philosophim
Causality is also an explanation for why there is a current state.
— Philosophim
This makes the presumption that there is a current state. — noAxioms
Causality is also an explanation for why there is a current state. — Philosophim
And why is that? What is the cause for this? — Philosophim
Did you see how your language shifted? Now you’re referring to cause as a principle, which is structurally different to an agent. — Possibility
No, I said that you're making the assumption that there is one. The assumption has implications to the topic at hand, which is why I'm dredging it up.This makes the presumption that there is a current state.
— noAxioms
Please clarify. Are you implying there is no "now"? — Philosophim
That question also presumes it.Do you not exist at this time?
I can think of no empirical test that falsifies the alternative, so no, it isn't clear.We clearly exist currently don't we?
That statement also assumes (begs) it.If we observe something currently, then that state is current as well correct?
There's where the implication comes in (bold above). The assumption has the 3D universe contained in time: The universe wasn't there at some time in the past, and at some point in time, the alpha event 'happened', and thereafter the universe was there. It makes for a larger container that contains the universe (itself a container of space, but not a container of time).Why couldn't the big bang just happen? — Philosophim
Please clarify. Are you implying there is no "now"?
— Philosophim
No, I said that you're making the assumption that there is one. — noAxioms
We clearly exist currently don't we?
I can think of no empirical test that falsifies the alternative, so no, it isn't clear. — noAxioms
If we observe something currently, then that state is current as well correct?
That statement also assumes (begs) it. — noAxioms
Physics suggests (doesn't prove) that the universe is 4D spacetime, and is not something contained in time, but rather something that contains it. — noAxioms
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.