Quite so. It's perhaps worth noting that the same applies to what happens after the heat death of the universe. — Ludwig V
There must be something prior to the first "cause..." — Metaphysician Undercover
Although causal chains seem to be aligned with a passage of time for each link, one has to be cautious about saying "first tick" or something similar. Then you move into relativity of time measurements and if one makes them smaller and smaller the dynamical system described by the chain tends to a continuous process, with associated philosophical interpretations. — jgill
Because there is no prior cause for a first cause, there is no limitation on what a first cause could be.
— Philosophim
Regarding no limitation, what about the selfhood of the first cause? If selfhood establishes a boundary between self and other, and the first cause is a self, then: a) it's limited by the boundaries of its selfhood; b) the necessary network of self/other, upon which first cause depends for its existence as a self, prevents the solitary, temporal primacy of that said self. — ucarr
Correcta) it's limited by the boundaries of its selfhood; — ucarr
b) the necessary network of self/other, upon which first cause depends for its existence as a self, prevents the solitary, temporal primacy of that said self. — ucarr
You're saying a particular first cause can have a non-causal relationship with other things prior to it? — ucarr
Moreover, you're saying the attribute of first cause generally allows for a multiplicity of independent first causes temporally sequenced across a positive interval of time? — ucarr
Does this not imply that a particular first cause has a bounded domain of first causal influence upon a sub-set of the totality of existing things? — ucarr
Is this not a description of everyday causes such as: a) a virus causes pneumonia; b) a cloud saturated with water causes rain? — ucarr
Am I mistaken in my understanding of your purpose as being an examination of the first cause of all existing things, including existence itself? — ucarr
If first cause passes through time from its first tick to its second tick, time is co-equal with it. — ucarr
Further, there is nothing that forbids one thing existing in isolation in theory.
— Philosophim
I'm inclined to think the conservation laws forbid the total isolation of a thing. — ucarr
I had thought that it must be possible to "extend" our time-line beyond the Big Bang 14 billion years ago. If we treat "now" as the origin of the line. That's no different from treating the year Christ was born as the origin and extending it back from there.No. What you and many other people are accidently doing is confusing an origin with a first cause. An origin is a start for measurement. On a X/Y graph, the common origin is 0,0. However, we can also make the origin 50,50. Does that mean 0,0, suddenly does not exist? No. So imagine a line that represents a finite chain that starts at 1,2. We could do an origin at 0,0, but it would be pointless because there's nothing there. We could follow the line and make the origin at 10,15. — Philosophim
I'm not at all sure that this really makes sense. If there are other existences, then the question arises what caused them? If that question has an answer, then the first cause wasn't the first.If you mean that when a first cause appears, it is bound by what it is and then is bound by the natural consequences of its specific interactions with other existences, yes. — Philosophim
A pretty puzzle indeed. So the conclusion must be that something continues to exist after the heat death, even though time and space no longer exist. I did notice that heat death did not say that the temperature must be zero, only that temperature differences would be ironed out.So by the rules of the conservation law, that energy must still be within the system somehow, only not available to the system. — Metaphysician Undercover
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
It's not as simple as you make it sound. The question is not "why is this a first cause" because you have not identified a particular "concrete" cause which you claim is a first cause, and asking why is this a first cause. — Metaphysician Undercover
We cannot simply assume that there is nothing prior to the first cause because that is unjustified. — Metaphysician Undercover
Since you refused to accept conventional philosophy concerning different types of causation, I've found that I have to approach your argument from the distinction you've made between "cause" and "reason". — Metaphysician Undercover
Look, if there's no prior cause for something, there's no prior reason for something either.
— Philosophim
That is unjustified. To make that claim, you need to demonstrate how all reasons are necessarily causes. — Metaphysician Undercover
Furthermore, you have no premise which allows you to conclude that the reason for the first cause is not prior to the first cause, because you have not properly established the reason for the first cause. All you've said is that the reason for the first cause is that there is no prior cause. But that's only the reason why it is "first", it is not the reason why it is "cause". — Metaphysician Undercover
I don't know what you're talking about here. You've excluded the possibility of a prior reason being the cause of the first cause through definition. Therefore a prior reason of the first cause must necessarily be something other than a cause, and what you ask is nonsensical. — Metaphysician Undercover
A concrete example of the prior reason for a first cause is not required until you produce a concrete example of a first cause. I tried giving you concrete examples of first causes already, with free will acts, but you ended up rejecting them because they refuted your argument. — Metaphysician Undercover
Give me an example.
— Philosophim
Example of what? — Metaphysician Undercover
As said above, "it simply exists" does not qualify as an explanation. So if you are using "reason" as synonymous with "explanation", you'll have to do better. — Metaphysician Undercover
I don't dispute your argument about "there necessarily must be a first cause", I dispute the further unjustified conclusion you make, that the first cause cannot have a prior reason. — Metaphysician Undercover
I've already demonstrated that. How quickly you forget. 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
As I've explained to you already. Your conception of "first cause" is a product of an unnecessarily restrictive definition of "cause", one which does not provide for all the things which are commonly, in philosophy, known as causes. Therefore it really is an opinion, your opinion. — Metaphysician Undercover
:up: Something circular going on here. It's a feeling I have had for this entire thread. — jgill
So philosophim refers back to causation, saying the reason for the first cause is the first cause itself, and that produces the vicious circle. But a vicious circle does not constitute a reason or explanation. — Metaphysician Undercover
But random is inconsistent with "reason". So philosophim refers back to causation, saying the reason for the first cause is the first cause itself, and that produces the vicious circle. But a vicious circle does not constitute a reason or explanation. — Metaphysician Undercover
My difficulty here is that you seem to be treating "existence" as if it were a property of the things that exist. — Ludwig V
If that's right, pointing to existence as a cause of anything is incomprehensible. — Ludwig V
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). — Ludwig V
I had thought that it must be possible to "extend" our time-line beyond the Big Bang 14 billion years ago. If we treat "now" as the origin of the line. That's no different from treating the year Christ was born as the origin and extending it back from there. — Ludwig V
I'm not at all sure that this really makes sense. If there are other existences, then the question arises what caused them? If that question has an answer, then the first cause wasn't the first. — Ludwig V
The cause of the explosion is the spark, the molecular structure of the explosive is (part of) the conditions. But that doesn't apply to a first cause like the Big Bang, which is the cause and origin of all the physical things in our universe. Or perhaps it does? — Ludwig V
Ah, well, that's different.Existence is a set of all things that exist. — Philosophim
But I don't understand you at all when you sayThe logical conclusion from there being a first cause is that there can be no prior cause for its existence, therefore there is no reason for its existence, therefore there is no reason for its existence, — Philosophim
. Why don't you just say "therefore there is no reason (or cause) for its existence"? I'm not saying there can't be a reason for its existence, just that there may not be one.besides the fact that it exists. — Philosophim
But I don't understand you at all when you say
besides the fact that it exists.
— Philosophim
. Why don't you just say "therefore there is no reason (or cause) for its existence"? I'm not saying there can't be a reason for its existence, just that there may not be one. — Ludwig V
...there is no limitation upon what can be incepted. — Philosophim
lets say a hydrogen atom appeared as a first cause. As soon as it exits, it is a hydrogen atom. Its limited by its parts and the rules of itself. — Philosophim
the necessary network of self/other, upon which first cause depends for its existence as a self, prevents the solitary, temporal primacy of that said self. — ucarr
I don't think that's quite it. The network of its continued self existence is bound by its formation. — Philosophim
After a first cause exists, it enters into causality with everything it can interact with. — Philosophim
I'm staying there can be no prior cause which influences the inception of the first cause. — Philosophim
I've described before that with multiple first causes, the intersection of their consequential causality over time ends up being more like a web with the start of a strand representing the first cause. — Philosophim
...something prior could exist, but if none of what exists causes a new existence, that new existence is a first cause. — Philosophim
I'm staying there can be no prior cause which influences the inception of the first cause. — Philosophim
A first cause is when there is a point in which there is no prior cause. It is irrelevant whether we measure it or realize it. And, as the argument shows, its logically necessary that there eventually be at least one. — Philosophim
I've described before that with multiple first causes, the intersection of their consequential causality over time ends up being more like a web with the start of a strand representing the first cause. — Philosophim
A first cause cannot pass through time. — Philosophim
...there is no prior cause which would prevent a first cause from appearing that does not follow conservation laws. — Philosophim
...there is no limitation upon what can be incepted.
— Philosophim
You're saying inception equals a supernatural deity? — ucarr
You're saying inception can incept a hydrogen atom not limited by its parts and the rules of itself? — ucarr
Your saying inception can incept a first cause that possesses a boundary of selfhood beyond which there is no otherness? Moreover, you're saying the boundary of selfhood is simultaneously not a boundary since there is no otherness? — ucarr
With the above two quotes you're saying each family of causation runs parallel with all other families of causation? — ucarr
Moreover, you're saying each new first cause requires a new study of causation starting from scratch? — ucarr
You're saying pre-existing causal chains suggesting general causality predating a new first cause have no pertinence to a new first cause? — ucarr
You're saying a first cause can enter into causality in spite of it having no cause? — ucarr
You're saying that first cause, having no cause, took possession of its form by means of a non-existent cause? — ucarr
You're saying the number line has an end? — ucarr
You're saying being able to intersect doesn't imply merging causal chains share a common first cause? — ucarr
You're saying first causation is a phenomenon that transpires with time interval equal to zero? — ucarr
You're saying first causation is free to violate the conservation laws? — ucarr
You're saying first causation is axiomatic and thus beyond the domains of science, logic and reason? — ucarr
Please articulate an argument supporting this premise. — ucarr
Naive question. Am I not right that, strictly speaking energy is work done - the capacity to do work is called "potential energy", isn't it? — Ludwig V
I've given several examples. All I'm asking is for you to do the same. I'm not asking for proof that such a thing exists, just give me a possible example of something which makes logical sense that could exist. In my mind you're dodging the issue here. — Philosophim
Metaphysician...I've been kind so far and given you as much benefit of the doubt I can. This is stupid. You are better than this. Go to anyone else besides me and say that sentence and watch their confused looks. This is why I keep asking you for examples. If you cannot show how such a statement can logically exist I'm going to assume you're trolling or you are arguing in bad faith. Work on this and give me something good to think about please. — Philosophim
What? No. If there's no prior cause, then there is nothing prior which caused a first cause to exist. If there is nothing prior to cause something, there is no prior reason for the existence of it either. — Philosophim
Now we can reason about the existent thing. But we cannot say there is a prior reason, as there is nothing prior that caused it. Please demonstrate a situation in which there is no prior cause for something, yet there is a prior, and by this I mean temporal, reason for it. — Philosophim
I'll try explaining again. Lets take an example of a photon that appears without prior cause. Now, once it exists, it is bound by causality by what it is. Meaning it can't suddenly act like an atom, because it is a photon. It can't interact with other things as an elephant suddenly, because it is a photon. It is the first cause in a causality chain only because nothing caused it to exist. But its continued existence begins a causal chain with whatever happens at the next time tick of its existence. — Philosophim
If there is no prior cause, there is no prior reason. — Philosophim
Random is not inconsistent with an explanation, — Philosophim
there is no limitation upon what can be incepted — Philosophim
You're saying inception equals a supernatural deity? — ucarr
No, I'm saying there's no prior cause for a first cause to exist, so there cannot be any prior limitations as to what a first cause had to be. No prior cause means no restraints as to what could have been. — Philosophim
You're saying inception can incept a hydrogen atom not limited by its parts and the rules of itself? — ucarr
01) No, because then its not a hydrogen atom anymore. A hydrogen atom has a clear definition and limitation of what it can be. — Philosophim
02) I'm saying there's no prior cause for a first cause to exist, so there cannot be any prior limitations as to what a first cause had to be. No prior cause means no restraints as to what could have been. — Philosophim
03) If a hydrogen atom incepts as a first cause, its still a hydrogen atom because that's what it is. — Philosophim
It doesn't mean that a first cause hydrogen atom cannot later bump into a first cause helium atom. But this influence is only after the inception of each, and neither can incept the other. — Philosophim
You're saying that first cause, having no cause, took possession of its form by means of a non-existent cause? — ucarr
It did not exist by any prior cause. It has no intention or possession, as that would be prior to its inception. It simply is, no prior cause. — Philosophim
I'm saying its axiomatic, but not beyond the domains of science, logic, and reason. — Philosophim
A cause, by definition, has an effect on something. The thing which it has an effect on must preexist the cause. In other words, "cause" implies "change", and "change" implies something which changes. — Metaphysician Undercover
I've seen you put up some examples of a possible first cause, (like a photon suddenly coming into existence from nothing), but none of your examples make any sense to me. A photon is a quantum of electromagnetic energy, it comes from an electron, it doesn't just come into existence from nothing. — Metaphysician Undercover
I've told you why it is illogical to say that there is nothing prior to the first cause, it's restated at the very beginning of this post, in my reply to ucarr. — Metaphysician Undercover
A cause, by definition, has an effect on something. The thing which it has an effect on must preexist the cause. In other words, "cause" implies "change", and "change" implies something which changes. — Metaphysician Undercover
Reasserting the same invalid conclusion gets you nowhere. That there is no prior cause does not imply that there is no prior reason, because reason is the broader term. — Metaphysician Undercover
You say, Establishment happens by first cause of the starting point of creation. You say, Inception of creation proceeds without limitation. How does what you say differ from what is said by the rabbi, the priest or the minister? — ucarr
Given the part of your quote underlined above, why cannot a first cause incept a hydrogen atom not limited by its parts and the rules of itself? — ucarr
Why is your 02) quote not a contradiction of your 01) quote immediately above? — ucarr
Do you agree that if a hydrogen atom as first cause is utterly alone, and yet nonetheless can cause things not a hydrogen atom to exist, as its definition of first cause requires, then its ability to cause subsequent inception of all things without limitation is indistinguishable from the creative power of a supernatural deity? — ucarr
Why do you not agree that positing an infinity of individual causes of an infinity of individual things is a trivial and circular statement about the universe as it's generally known by the public (everything is everything)? — ucarr
It did not exist by any prior cause. It has no intention or possession, as that would be prior to its inception. It simply is, no prior cause.
— Philosophim
Why do you not think the underlined portion of your above quote implies something that simply is is eternal and thus has no inception? I ask this with the understanding inception implies establishment which, in turn, implies a process which is a cause. — ucarr
I'm saying its axiomatic, but not beyond the domains of science, logic, and reason.
— Philosophim
How do science, logic and reason examine what simply exists without the possibility of explanation? — ucarr
The hypothetical Big Bang was an energetic outburst, but from what or where? And the projected Heat Death is the end of that cosmic energetic cycle. In a philosophical sense, the First Cause of the "Bang" was Aristotelian Potential which actualized into the Causal forces of Nature. But, like a run-down cell phone battery, the original potential fades back into the chaos of entropy, which no longer has the "ability" to cause Change. But the Potential for future energy remains in the chemistry of the battery, which only needs re-formatting to again produce useful Energy.This leaves us with the question of, "what form could this energy have?". It is not "energy" as we know "energy", because "energy" is defined as the capacity to do work, and this energy is denied of that capacity. It is only "energy" because the law of conservation dictates that it must be conserved as "energy". — Metaphysician Undercover
You say, Inception of creation proceeds without limitation. — ucarr
...my point is that such an existence wouldn't be a hydrogen atom as we define it today. Whatever it is could exist, and to an untrained eye it might look like a hydrogen atom, but it cannot have the same exact composition as a hydrogen atom, or it would not have the special qualities you note. — Philosophim
Anything that does not exist as a hydrogen atom, is not a hydrogen atom. Once the existence is in reality, its rules are set. — Philosophim
...if an object can incept other things, it must do so within the limitation of what it is. — Philosophim
Inception of creation proceeds without limitation. — Philosophim
Why do you not agree that positing an infinity of individual causes of an infinity of individual things is a trivial and circular statement about the universe as it's generally known by the public (everything is everything)? — ucarr
Sorry Ucarr, I did not understand the question. I'm not sure what statements I've made that you're referencing here. — Philosophim
It does not need to be eternal. A first cause has the potential of happening five seconds from now. A first cause could have happened 10 seconds ago. What formed may very well be completely unstable and exist for a nano-second. Or five seconds. Or 500 years. Or eternal. — Philosophim
A first cause could have happened 10 seconds ago. What formed may very well be completely unstable and exist for a nano-second. Or five seconds. Or 500 years. Or eternal. — Philosophim
How do science, logic and reason examine what simply exists without the possibility of explanation? — ucarr
I think this question is too broad and you'll need to focus on something specific. What are you referencing in particular that you believe is outside of explanation? — Philosophim
I'm saying its axiomatic, but not beyond the domains of science, logic, and reason. — Philosophim
It wasn't meant to be a literal example, it was meant to give you a visual of something not being there, then there. The big bang is another typical example. Does that work better? — Philosophim
And I've asked you to give a concrete example. I've even noted that I believe you aren't doing it because you know if you do, your point will collapse. That's a challenge anyone who believed in their point would rise to. — Philosophim
Ok, and a first cause is that which is not caused by something else. This does not show that what I stated is wrong. Cause 'implies' change? What does that mean? The definition of cause has been clearly noted, you've recognized it, and this doesn't address the point at all. Also, no example despite my request. — Philosophim
I've already gone over reason and prior reason. I was the one to say these words first to Ludwig, " All causes are reasons, but not all reasons are causes." So are the words I used to validate my points now invalid? — Philosophim
So I think we're done. I hope our next conversation doesn't have as much animosity from you next time. Especially after we started off so nicely when I said it was good to see you. Remember that? Lets end this on a high note. — Philosophim
The supposed "heat death" is an interesting issue. The heat death is the result of entropy which is the natural effect of the passage of time. "Entropy" refers to energy which is unavailable to the system, but cannot be shown to have escaped the system. So by the rules of the conservation law, that energy must still be within the system somehow, only not available to the system.
This leaves us with the question of, "what form could this energy have?". It is not "energy" as we know "energy", because "energy" is defined as the capacity to do work, and this energy is denied of that capacity. It is only "energy" because the law of conservation dictates that it must be conserved as "energy". — Metaphysician Undercover
Why do you say above statement is not knowledge of the identity of the first cause? I ask this question because you identify first cause as what acts without limitation in causing the inception of creation. — ucarr
If first cause proceeds without limitation, why do you imply that first cause, acting to cause hydrogen atom, must follow limits that humans use to make sense of the world? — ucarr
You imply that first cause must act logically. Why do you not think that's a limitation upon the actions of first cause? Why do you not think implying first cause must act rationally is not a case of you projecting your logical thinking onto first cause? — ucarr
Even if you're not talking about cosmic first cause and instead are talking about one of the subsequent first causes, why must cosmic cause acting without limitation incept a subsequent causality that resembles human logical thinking. — ucarr
The following is my paraphrase of something you said earlier: A cause that's the first of all first causes doesn't prohibit subsequent non-cosmic first causes for other things.
If this is so, then our universe can be filled with a vast number of non-cosmic first causes. — ucarr
This is similar to saying, "there's a reason for everything that happens." This is a trivial truth agreed upon by the multitudes. "Everything is everything (for a reason)." — ucarr
Why do you not think a universe filled with first causes is a conception of the universe that explodes the following conservation law: matter_mass_energy are neither created nor destroyed. — ucarr
If non-cosmic first causes can pop material objects into the universe from nothing, then the total volume of the mass_matter_energy of the universe is constantly fluctuating instead of remaining constant through conservation. — ucarr
If you say incept of every new first cause disappears an earlier, established first cause, the problem is solved. — ucarr
Does this hold true for the cosmic first cause, with cosmic first cause = the first of the first causes? — ucarr
Some characterize axioms as self-evident truths. — ucarr
This characterization is a preface to saying the assumption upon which we're building our working premise lies beyond the reach of experimentation, observation, collection of data, compiling of data statistics, analysis of data and building logical arguments supported by data. — ucarr
It seems to me that you can prove that these are the only 3 options, if you assume that logic is linear. Either causality is a ray (it has a beginning), or a line (it goes to infinity in both directions). If you admit the possibility of noneuclidean geometry, then the line could loop back into itself or cross itself (time travel). Actually, I just realized that there are 2 more options: there could be something without causality (a point), or nothing at all. But these other two options are not consistent with our sensory experience. — Brendan Golledge
I find it useful, therefore, to assume that there is a first cause, which would be consistent with a creator God, because then I can start to imagine what the purpose of the universe is. I don't see a way forward (with respect to having a moral foundation) if the causality of the universe is infinite. — Brendan Golledge
A first cause is the inception of a causality chain. — Philosophim
Do you accept the following argument: Since by definition a first cause can't have any derivative first causes, each first cause is a discrete causality chain, and therefore the universe is coming into existence sequentially in time, and thus the big bang and its inception of the entire universe in an instant is wrong. — ucarr
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.