Do you agree that causation is the natural form of shape-shifting within the our phenomenal world of material things? — ucarr
...a first cause would be a Y with no other X entity as its cause for existence. — Philosophim
Why do you not say a first cause is Y & ~Y in superposition? I ask this particular question with the assumption that a first cause must instantiate motion. — ucarr
...a photon can appear without any velocity — Philosophim
A first cause may be already in motion.. — Philosophim
Not quite right. For me, a cause must be prior to its effect (except when it is part of a causal analysis) and a distinct entity. So I interpreted "prior cause" as a pleonasm. But I see that I misunderstood.I think he missed the "prior" part as well. — Philosophim
Yes, you are not alone. I've seen some very well-known philosophers indulge themselves in that way. I don't think it is particularly helpful and it can be rather misleading. The terms here are very unclear and common usage is no help. In my usage. which I think is also common philosophical usage, a reason is not a cause, because it does not need to be an event or even a spatio-temporal entity.Mostly because I've been ingrained to use different words instead of the same one repeatedly in a sentence. :) In this case there was overlap, as if there is no prior cause, there is no prior reason. But not all reasons are causes just like not all cats are tigers. — Philosophim
Quite so.And, as I explained to Philosophim already, if we move to allow that "cause" of an event includes also the "reason" for the event, as a type of cause, then we must remove the defining feature of a chain, series, or sequence, because this type of cause does not occur in a chain. — Metaphysician Undercover
As I tried to say earlier, the reason you suggest for the first cause/reason is, to me, not a cause/reason at all, but a rejection of the request to provide one. "Because it exists" marks the limits of our explanations - a brute fact or a first cause.The reason why there can be no prior reason for a first cause, is that there is no prior causal event. There can be a reason as an explanation for why a first cause exists, "That is it simply exists." But there cannot be a prior reason, as there is nothing prior which causes it. Does this clear up the issue? — Philosophim
I always thought that the existence of something was always an empirical, not a logical question, so I'm treating your first cause as a possibility, not a certainty.And this, so far, is the only weakness I've seen in the argument. It is only a logical argument. A logical argument does not mean empirical truth. — Philosophim
I know where the information can be found. You have not demonstrated any specific type of other cause, only vague, "maybes". So far the main point is that a "first cause" means there can be no prior cause by definition. Since you cannot give me a concrete example that gets past this, I see no evidence of any refutation. — Philosophim
Ok, this is a much better point! What you're missing is the phrase 'prior reason'. If you noted I'm not saying that there isn't a reason for a first cause, I'm saying there is not a prior reason. — Philosophim
Just like I told him, there is overlap because if there is no prior cause, there is no prior reason. — Philosophim
The reason why there can be no prior reason for a first cause, is that there is no prior causal event. There can be a reason as an explanation for why a first cause exists, "That is it simply exists." But there cannot be a prior reason, as there is nothing prior which causes it. Does this clear up the issue? — Philosophim
This is not an empirical argument. This is a logical argument. When Einstein constructed his theory of relativity in regards to large bodies, logically, it was sound. It was only after they observed and measured an eclipse that they could empirically confirm it to be true. I make no empirical arguments here. I simply note that logically, if we continue to examine any chain of causality, whether that be finite or infinitely regressive, we will eventually run into a first cause. So no, there is no empirical observation as of yet that refutes this claim, nor any empirical observation that confirms this claim. This discussion is not an attempt at empirical proof, but a logical proof. As such, unless you can logically refute it, it stands.
And this, so far, is the only weakness I've seen in the argument. It is only a logical argument. A logical argument does not mean empirical truth. By the way, Bob Ross is the only other poster to my mind who understood and communicated this right off the bat. Well done, I consider him one of the best philosophers on these boards. :) So, if you wish to say, "I don't care about what logic says, I only care about empirical proof" then I will simply nod my head and state, "That's fine." But that in itself does not show it is a false logical argument. — Philosophim
I hope I'm not being too pedantic, but I think that's not quite what Hume says. He accepts the sceptical argument against the scholastic notion of a "power" that a cause exerts to produce its effect, but then says that we will continue to think and speak of causation based on a custom or habit arising from the association of our idea of the cause with our idea of the effect (not an intuition).I think Hume hit the nail on the head. Causation is a word that exists to account for a human intuition. — Lionino
In the case of the Big Bang, time and space are created by it and do not exist before it. So nothing can be prior to it, whether cause or reason. But, it seems to me that a cause cannot exist outside time, whereas a reason can. So there is reason to think that there might be a reason for the Big Bang. But I don't see that there could be a cause for it. (I have no idea what the reason might be, but there seem to be some interesting speculations around.)The conclusion "there is not a prior reason" is unsupported. — Metaphysician Undercover
Anything that cleans up our language is worth looking in to.Perhaps a physically reductionist causation is something worthy looking into.....but at least it allows us to clear up our language. — Lionino
In the case of the Big Bang, time and space are created by it and do not exist before it. — Ludwig V
So nothing can be prior to it, whether cause or reason. — Ludwig V
But, it seems to me that a cause cannot exist outside time, whereas a reason can. So there is reason to think that there might be a reason for the Big Bang. But I don't see that there could be a cause for it. (I have no idea what the reason might be, but there seem to be some interesting speculations around.) — Ludwig V
Time and space are conceptions we apply toward the understanding of our surroundings. Kant calls them pure a priori intuitions. It does not make sense to say that they are a part of the things which surround us, just like it doesn't make sense to say that numbers and geometric shapes are a part of our surroundings. — Metaphysician Undercover
It does not mean that Kant is correct. Scientists showed us in the 20th century that time and space are affected by physical facts. — Lionino
...a photon can appear without any velocity
— Philosophim
Do you dispute that a photon with rest mass entails infinite quantities, and that equations describing practical situations break down upon approach to functions with infinite input/output values? — ucarr
More generally, how can something be first cause if its essential makeup entails differentiable constituent components co-equal in primary status? — ucarr
Why do you not think the logical necessity of a first cause positions it as an antecedent to the first cause it necessitates? — ucarr
n my usage. which I think is also common philosophical usage, a reason is not a cause, because it does not need to be an event or even a spatio-temporal entity. — Ludwig V
And, as I explained to Philosophim already, if we move to allow that "cause" of an event includes also the "reason" for the event, as a type of cause, then we must remove the defining feature of a chain, series, or sequence, because this type of cause does not occur in a chain.
— Metaphysician Undercover
Quite so. — Ludwig V
The reason why there can be no prior reason for a first cause, is that there is no prior causal event. There can be a reason as an explanation for why a first cause exists, "That is it simply exists." But there cannot be a prior reason, as there is nothing prior which causes it. Does this clear up the issue?
— Philosophim
Again, you have no logic to support this conclusion, that the reason for the first cause could only be "it simply exists". Your argument does not deal with reasons at all, it deals with causes, so any assertions you make about the reasons for the first cause are only unsupported opinions. — Metaphysician Undercover
As I tried to say earlier, the reason you suggest for the first cause/reason is, to me, not a cause/reason at all, but a rejection of the request to provide one. "Because it exists" marks the limits of our explanations - a brute fact or a first cause. — Ludwig V
I always thought that the existence of something was always an empirical, not a logical question, so I'm treating your first cause as a possibility, not a certainty. — Ludwig V
My discussion of intention, free will, final cause, did not consist of vague maybes. — Metaphysician Undercover
Ok, this is a much better point! What you're missing is the phrase 'prior reason'. If you noted I'm not saying that there isn't a reason for a first cause, I'm saying there is not a prior reason.
— Philosophim
That, as I demonstrated is a faulty conclusion. The conclusion is that there cannot be an event prior to the first cause as the cause of it. The conclusion "there is not a prior reason" is unsupported. — Metaphysician Undercover
You have no premise to draw this conclusion. A "cause" as described by your "chain of events", is an "event". We might say that a cause, or an event suffices as "the reason" in some instances, but it does not in all instances. This implies that "reason " is the broader term, with a wider range of meaning. If the inverse was the case, if all reasons were causes, then "no prior cause" would imply "no prior reason". But that is not the case, so "no priior cause" does not imply "no prior reason". Conversely, "no prior reason" would imply "no prior cause" as "reason" has logical priority over "cause", "cause" being included within "reason". — Metaphysician Undercover
Again, you have no logic to support this conclusion, that the reason for the first cause could only be "it simply exists". Your argument does not deal with reasons at all, it deals with causes, so any assertions you make about the reasons for the first cause are only unsupported opinions. — Metaphysician Undercover
My reference to empirical evidence was simply to show that your definition of "cause" is not consistent with empirical evidence, it is therefore a false premise. — Metaphysician Undercover
Your definition of "cause" is false, and as I've explained many times to you already, you need to broaden your understanding of what a "cause" is. — Metaphysician Undercover
So nothing can be prior to it, whether cause or reason.
— Ludwig V
Based on what I said above, this is not a sound conclusion. It appears like the intuitions and concepts which we use to understand our world, and our universe, would not be applicable toward understanding the reality of whatever the conditions were prior to the Big Bang, but this does not imply nothing can be prior to it, in any absolute sense. What it is that was prior to the Big Bang would most likely require a completely different conceptual structure to understand it. — Metaphysician Undercover
"What causes this atom to exist?" We note the protons, neutrons, and electrons in a particular order. But this is not a prior cause, just the inner causal make up of the atom in general. — Philosophim
Why do you not think the logical necessity of a first cause positions it as an antecedent to the first cause it necessitates?
— ucarr
Could you clarify this with an example? You definitely make good points ucarr, I'm just not quite getting it here. — Philosophim
My point is that there is no way to predict when or how a first cause would form or exist. To say a first cause must form a particular way (e.g. via logical necessity) or is likely to form at a particular time would require a cause outside of itself. — Philosophim
Pretty soon, you've got the entire phenomenal universe as you and I know it today popping into existence as the first cause. But the phenomenal processes I've been describing happen in time. If you remove the time element for an atom, or for a universe, either way the primacy of being first becomes meaningless. — ucarr
Let's suppose the entire universe is the first cause. If everything has always existed co-temporally, then first cause is meaningless. — ucarr
In this example, logical necessity is, by definition, logically prior to the ontic status of the first cause it necessitates. It is the logical cause of the "first" cause. — ucarr
The first cause is only in the first time tick. — Philosophim
The universe cannot always have existed co-temporally as a first cause. The first cause is only in the first time tick. — Philosophim
Lets imagine that we first spy a hydrogen atom that forms with apparently no prior cause. Any time tick before this, the atom is not there. — Philosophim
Once it is there, we know an atom is composed of particular parts. Lets pretend, for simplicities sake, that protons, neutrons, and electrons are fundamental particles. We say, "What causes this atom to exist?" We note the protons, neutrons, and electrons in a particular order. But this is not a prior cause, just the inner causal make up of the atom in general. — Philosophim
The first cause is only in the first time tick.
— Philosophim
From this I conclude you're grounding the primacy of first cause within temporal sequence. So, the first cause is first in time before all other things existing in time. — ucarr
Sidebar 1 - Notice I've made "forms" bold. If there's a "forms" before the first time tick of existence of the hydrogen atom, then this preceding "forms" (i.e. physical processes) exists before the first time tick of the hydrogen atom. — ucarr
Sidebar 2 - Notice I've made "there" bold. If there's a "there" before the first time tick of existence of the hydrogen atom, then this preceding "there" (i.e. spacetime) exists before the first time tick of the hydrogen atom. — ucarr
If you can posit theoretically the popping into existence of an atom as first cause, why cannot you posit theoretically the popping into existence of a universe as first cause? — ucarr
In either case, when you categorize the variety of existing things as being unified as one collective thing: a) atom; b) universe, they're all equal (by your own argument above) with respect to temporal primacy of existence. — ucarr
If there's no reason to partition atom and universe with respect to which collective can be first cause temporally, then first cause in terms of temporal sequencing is meaningless. In other words, existence in general, being first cause, makes the notion of a first cause in terms of temporal sequencing meaningless — ucarr
If, on the other hand, you posit an innate temporal sequence of existing things, with some things not existing in any conceivable way prior to a specific point in one-directional time, then you must ask yourself if positing any existing thing generates an infinite regress of prior existing things because: a) no existing thing exists in isolation; b) every existing thing is a roadmap to other existing things (i.e. quantum entanglement); c) an existing thing, if divisible, cannot pre-exist that thing's sub-components necessary to its existence. — ucarr
The first cause is only in the first time tick. In the second time tick, the state of existence is caused by the first cause. — Philosophim
Because there is no prior cause for a first cause, there is no limitation on what a first cause could be. — Philosophim
The key to being a first cause is that it is not caused by something prior. — Philosophim
That does not mean that other things prior to a first cause cannot exist like other first causes. — Philosophim
The photon did not cause the big bang; they are both first causes of their respective causality chains. — Philosophim
For example, a photon appears with no prior causality here. Five minutes later and thousands of miles away, a big bang appears uncaused as well. The photon did not cause the big bang; they are both first causes of their respective causality chains. — Philosophim
...a) no existing thing exists in isolation; b) every existing thing is a roadmap to other existing things (i.e. quantum entanglement); c) an existing thing, if divisible, cannot pre-exist that thing's sub-components necessary to its existence. — ucarr
I don't believe so if my point has been clarified.
a. No existing thing exists in isolation
To clarify, there's a reason I call it a first cause. Because immediately after its existence it enters into causality. Meaning one time tick after, its has its own reference at a prior time tick to explain why it state of existence is as it is at the second tick of time. Further, there is nothing that forbids one thing existing in isolation in theory. Nothing I'm noting is negating the universe as it is today, and we clearly have a lot of things. :) — Philosophim
Further, there is nothing that forbids one thing existing in isolation in theory. — Philosophim
b) every existing thing is a roadmap to other existing things (i.e. quantum entanglement)
Once a first cause exists, it is within causality within its own temporal changes, or if there are other resulting chains of causal existence from other first causes. — Philosophim
c) an existing thing, if divisible, cannot pre-exist that thing's sub-components necessary to its existence. True. Though as you mentioned earlier, " when you categorize the variety of existing things as being unified as one collective thing: a) atom; b) universe, they're all equal (by your own argument above) with respect to temporal primacy of existence." — Philosophim
also agree this would be a problem. But I am not using the term reason to explain another cause. That would clearly contradict my notion that a first cause is absolute, so I think even a moderately charitable reading of what I've been expressing would conclude I'm not attempting to blatantly contradict myself. — Philosophim
I have noted many times why this must be, but it might have been missed. First, I'm using 'reason' as an explanation. "Why is this a first cause?" Reason: Because it has no prior cause which caused it. Pretty simple. — Philosophim
And I'll note again, "reason" is not being used as "cause", but explanation. So to your point, "Because it exists" marks the limits of our explanations, yes. — Philosophim
Your point has largely been, "Maybe there's a prior cause to the first cause." This is what I'm addressing. I have not seen a concrete example that demonstrates a situation in which there is a first cause, then you show that logically, there is actually a prior cause to that. If we had a concrete example, we could look at that. And if you have and I've missed it, don't get mad, just repost it. — Philosophim
Look, if there's no prior cause for something, there's no prior reason for something either. — Philosophim
Give me a concrete example of what you mean by a first cause having a prior reason without that prior reason being the cause of the first cause. — Philosophim
Give me an example. — Philosophim
I just typed out the definition of reason and noted I'm using it as a synonym to 'explanation'. I'm uninterested in your opinions that I have no logic, I'm interested in if you can take the logic I've noted, and give a good example of counter object that would demonstrate that my logic is wrong. — Philosophim
Incorrect. You only have empirical evidence of things which have prior causality. As I've noted, we do not have empirical evidence of things which do not. This does not negate the logic that there necessarily must be a first cause. — Philosophim
No, I don't need to do anything. I've clearly laid out what a cause and first cause is as defined here. You need to demonstrate with some concrete examples why this definition is either impossible, contradictory, or doesn't make sense. — Philosophim
If you simply don't like it, that's not my problem. Its on you to demonstrate how one of the most basic logical statements you can construct, "There can be no cause prior to a first cause" is somehow illogical. To my mind where I have given you every benefit of the doubt I can, you have not done so. — Philosophim
Do you understand that if there is something which caused the Big Bang, then the Big Bang is not a first cause? A first cause is not an opinion or belief. It is a reality that we either know about, or do not know about. — Philosophim
See, "because it has no prior cause" does not answer the reason why any particular cause is a first cause — Metaphysician Undercover
:up: I was going to write the similar content of the post long before, but yes that is the crucial point.A "first cause" is "first" in relation to a specific chain. There may be a multitude of different chains. The "first" of one chain may be prior in time to the "first" of another chain. Therefore the assertion "there can be no cause prior to a first cause" is illogical. — Metaphysician Undercover
Something circular going on here. It's a feeling I have had for this entire thread. — jgill
Quite so. It's perhaps worth noting that the same applies to what happens after the heat death of the universe.It's simply a matter of recognizing that concepts naturally conform to the things which they are applied to, and if we want to understand what is outside of those things, like cause of and prior to them, we need to provide the concepts which can do this. — Metaphysician Undercover
My difficulty here is that you seem to be treating "existence" as if it were a property of the things that exist. I'm sure you are aware that this has been contested ever since Kant and Hume, and with Russell and Frege's treatment of it in the predicate calculus this has been a staple of analytic philosophy ever since. If that's right, pointing to existence as a cause of anything is incomprehensible. I wouldn't rule out the possibility of it qualifying as an non-causal explanation of something, but it can hardly explain why something exists (circularity). If you disagree, then there is scope of a discussion of the point, but you can't expect others to accept what you say on the face of it. In short, I agree with both the quotations below:-So it is possible, like anything else, that there was only one first cause and that's all of existence. It has the same meaning as any other kind of first or set of first causes we could have. — Philosophim
In sum, all of this draws a circle back to saying temporal primacy of existence is meaningless. — ucarr
As said above, "it simply exists" does not qualify as an explanation. — Metaphysician Undercover
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.