The idea of 'causation' presupposes time, because a cause is defined as prior to its effect, and causation is a temporal process. — unenlightened
The reasoning demonstrates that even an infinite regress falls into a finite regress of causality.
— Philosophim
Why is that? I'm a little slow today — jgill
Meh. Causality is not found in formal logic.
Certainly not in modal logic.
A first cause is not logically necessary. — Banno
We know some things don't (have causality). That ought be enough to put this to rest. — Banno
But logic in general is our best tool to analyze whether ideas fit in with the nature of existence as we know it. — Philosophim
this only begs the question. Being is still not required to conform to logic even if logic is "our" best tool. — Arne
Look at the logic I point out about being — Philosophim
but it is when we look at the logic of being
— Philosophim
Seriously, what is "the logic of being"? — Arne
nature of existence — Philosophim
nature of existence
— Philosophim
What does that even mean? What do you mean by "existence"? — Arne
I would like to just make a suggestion, reading through this OP for the second time I realized you don't seem to be actually claiming a first cause is logically necessary: instead, it is from the idea that all the options lead to a first cause based off of empirical claims. — Bob Ross
The notion of cause being used is broken. — Banno
In addition, the very notion in the OP that something is cause to exist is problematic in logical terms. In classical logic things pretty much either exist or they do not; their existence is guaranteed by the domain of discourse. The special existential predicate "∃!" requires it's own special variant. — Banno
Finally, the structure of the argument in the OP is quite unclear. — Banno
The fuse burning down, or at some point the burning fuse and the explosion occurring at the same time. — tim wood
And I am under the impression that scientists do not concern themselves much with cause-and-effect except either informally or when they know exactly what they mean — tim wood
I appreciate the suggestion Bob, but I don't think I use any empirical claims. In fact, when we spoke about this last time I believe the point you noted was despite the logic of the claims, you were one of the only people who noted we lacked empirical fact to back it. I agreed with you then and still do today. The claim is not that it is empirically necessary that there be a first cause, but logically based off of the definition of a first cause vs an infinitely regressive cause.
And what exactly is prior causality? Whatever it is it cannot be causality, unless "prior" is meaningless. And not being causality, then what is it?then examining prior causality, — Philosophim
The idea of 'causation' presupposes time, because a cause is defined as prior to its effect, and causation is a temporal process. — unenlightened
The bowling ball causes the depression in the cushion.
Cause is not always prior to effect. Indeed sometimes it is impossible to decide which event is the cause and which the result. — Banno
The efficient cause or that which is given in reply to the question: “Where does change (or motion) come from?”. What is singled out in the answer is the whence of change (or motion). — https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/#FourCaus
Cause is not always prior to effect — Banno
sometimes it is impossible to decide which event is the cause and which the result. — Banno
With this traditional understanding of efficient causation, however, one can then validly affirm that, “the person letting the bowling ball slip from their hands (efficiently) caused the change in the form of the cushion that lied just underneath,” for the first occurrence as (efficient) cause extends prior to the time-span of the second occurrence as effect (despite the teleology previously mentioned remaining intact—to here not address the formal and material causes which could also be argued to occur). — javra
Various quantum effects, for a start. — Banno
The bowling ball causes the depression in the cushion. — Banno
Cause is not always prior to effect. Indeed sometimes it is impossible to decide which event is the cause and which the result. — Banno
I apologize: I mis-re-read it: nevermind! I re-read it again and, yes, this is purporting that a first cause (an ‘alpha) is logically necessary, since the form of the argument is that there are 3 exhaustive options (A, B, and C) and both A and B entail C, so C is logically necessary.
I really should not indulge myself in this OP while we have two pending discussions going, but I can’t help it (: — Bob Ross
Let me just ask: what sense of the term ‘cause’ is being used here? It doesn’t seem to be physical causality but, rather, mere explanation: am I remembering correctly? — Bob Ross
And what exactly is prior causality? — tim wood
First of all, it seems to me that to raise the possibility of a first cause one must start from a simple entity [non-composite: since if it is composite we cannot speak of a cause in the singular but of causes in the plural].
Secondly, the creation of the world [as an effect] must be treated as a binary relationship Where A causes B. More than two make several causes, and not a single cause.
Thirdly, this binary relationship must be understood as creation from nothing [as God is supposed to have created the universe from nothing: Creatio ex nihilo]. Since if there were a thing B affected by a thing A, B would have to be presupposed coexisting with A.
Fourthly, the first cause cannot be a single thing differentiating itself (monism) or being the cause of itself. That destroys the difference between cause and effect. The creator and the created. — JuanZu
How can the first cause affect nothingness to produce the world?
Can not. Ex nihilo nihil fit. — JuanZu
But not physically necessary! — Vaskane
With mischievous playfulness/smart assed remarks. — Vaskane
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.