What caused space to always exist? Nothing. — Philosophim
Can you accept a paraphrase of: "A logical first cause is necessary" as follows: "Everything must have a beginning"? — ucarr
No, they're not the same thing. The point of the theory was to show that even in an infinitely regressive universe, a first cause is still logically necessary. — Philosophim
An eternal universe has nothing prior. It has no prior cause for its existence. — Philosophim
Lets imagine an eternal universe where water exists everywhere. It has always been, and will always be. Why? What caused the universe to exist in that way? Nothing. — Philosophim
Why did one type of eternal universe exist, whereas another universe does not? There is no answer besides the fact one type of universe, space and matter, exists. — Philosophim
It is not a presupposition, its a conclusion that we arrive at... — Philosophim
There is no answer besides the fact one type of universe, space and matter, exists. — Philosophim
You see Ucarr, the argument's conclusion is logically necessary. — Philosophim
He [ucarr] doesn't like the idea that there was nothing, then something. — Philosophim
What I'm trying to show him is that an eternally self-existent thing is no different. There is nothing which explains its being.* No limitations on what could have been besides the fact of its existence. — Philosophim
"Nothing" in this context can be read in multiple ways: a) nothing as in no cause of space; b) nothing as in nothingness, a something that caused space, in which case the infinite regress towards a true first cause is under way; c) nothing as a category which includes logic, so first cause cannot be logically necessary. — ucarr
My central point continues to be the claim no causation precludes any type of sequence, including something from nothing. — ucarr
Also, it should be noted that a causal chain exemplifies logical continuity as expressed: A ⟹ ~A = False. In English this sentential logic statement translates to "An existing thing does not imply the negation of itself." Following from this, claiming causeless first cause tries to equate sequence with the negation of sequence, the definition of first cause. — ucarr
I haven't forgotten your argument that before first cause a potential first cause can be anything, no restrictions and then, after inception of first cause, logical sequencing and its limitations are in effect.
This is an incomplete narrative of how first cause incepts because a declaration stating first cause can be anything in no way explains and justifies inception of first cause. — ucarr
If, as you say, even an infinitely regressive universe entails logical necessity of a first cause, that's merely saying in different words that: Everything, even an infinite universe, must have a beginning. In this situation of the causeless eternal universe, you're building a contradiction because there's no nothing for first cause to incept from. — ucarr
If you're postulating an infinitely regressive universe that contains local first causes, then you're constructing a contradictory universe because if there comes into existence something causeless, then it's necessarily another, independent universe. — ucarr
Anything contained within the causeless universe cannot be first-caused because, being a part of a causeless universe, by definition it cannot be separate from said causeless universe. — ucarr
Furthermore, the independent universe as first cause is building a contradiction because -- again -- in the situation of an eternal universe, there's no nothing for a first cause to incept from. — ucarr
You still haven't addressed the issue of the paradox of an eternal existence being self-caused. If a thing causes itself, then simultaneously it is and is not itself. This is a logical argument against existence of first cause. — ucarr
Also, in the situation of an eternal universe, the start point cannot be ascertained; it's impossible. Well, if a start point is impossible to ascertain, then logical necessity of a first cause it likewise impossible to ascertain. It can only be supposed axiomatically. — ucarr
In the case of an eternal universe, you cannot talk rationally about nothing (or anything else) causing the universe to exist because it's impossible to ascertain any logical reason for its existence. This is so because reason_cause imply sequence, but infinite value cannot be specified and therefore cannot be sequenced. — ucarr
Are you noticing how I always support my assertions with potentially falsifiable arguments? I never claim that such and such is so because my words say they are so. You do this over and over again. Your claims in this thesis always terminate in claiming it is so because the words you write say it is so. Your central claim is not potentially falsifiable — ucarr
Why did one type of eternal universe exist, whereas another universe does not? There is no answer besides the fact one type of universe, space and matter, exists.
— Philosophim
It is not a presupposition, its a conclusion that we arrive at...
— Philosophim
In your example, there is no arrival and no conclusion; instead, there is an observation and a declaration without any reasoning toward it: — ucarr
There is no answer besides the fact one type of universe, space and matter, exists.
— Philosophim — ucarr
You see Ucarr, the argument's conclusion is logically necessary.
— Philosophim
Don't confuse the logical decision to make an unexplainable observation axiomatically with logically explaining the content of that observation. You're doing the former, not the latter. — ucarr
He [ucarr] doesn't like the idea that there was nothing, then something.
— Philosophim
I don't accept the claim: "Something from nothing" declared without explanation proves logical necessity of a first cause. — ucarr
What I'm trying to show him is that an eternally self-existent thing is no different. There is nothing which explains its being.* No limitations on what could have been besides the fact of its existence.
— Philosophim
Generally, I accept all of this. Specifically, I don't accept an axiomatic declaration as a rational explanation of the logical necessity of first cause. — ucarr
“When we say that a set is finite or infinite, we are referring to the number of elements in the set, not to the "extent" (putting it roughly) of those elements.” — ucarr
The critical question pertinent to our debate is whether or not you can talk logically about the before or after of a bounded infinity. When talking logically about the start of a chain of causality, you’re talking about the beginning of a continuity. That’s talking about the extent of a series. Since the infinite number of elements populating the series precludes you from ascertaining a start point, you can’t claim logically that before the start point there were such and such necessary conditions because you cannot specify a start point. — ucarr
It's illegitimate to do so by simply making the declaration: "This is the start point, and before the start point there was nothing, thus the start point examples an uncaused start point, i.e., a first cause.” Doing this examples arbitrarily marking a start point by decree — ucarr
A first cause exists, it does not negate itself. If it did, it would be gone. I'm not understanding how you see a first cause implies its own negation. — Philosophim
I'm not claiming something comes from nothing. A first cause doesn't come from anything. I'm just noting that prior to a first causes inception, there is no prior causation... — Philosophim
I first establish what a first cause is, something which is not caused by anything prior or else. The consequence of this logically means that prior to the inception of a first cause, there was no reason why it should, or should not have formed. And if there is no reason why a first cause should or should not have formed, there is no limitations or rules that shape what a first cause should, or should not be. — Philosophim
...we're taking the entire set of the eternal regressive universe and asking, "What caused this to exist?" The answer is nothing besides the fact that it exists. Thus a first cause. — Philosophim
When looking at a regressive infinite universe, we're going up the causal chain until we get to the point in the chain where we ask, "What caused an infinitely regressive universe to exist?" — Philosophim
If you're postulating an infinitely regressive universe that contains local first causes, then you're constructing a contradictory universe because if there comes into existence something causeless, then it's necessarily another, independent universe. — ucarr
No, its another separate causal chain inception. A first cause is the inception of a causal chain. — Philosophim
Anything within a causal chain caused by something prior cannot be a first cause. But this does not prevent something outside of that particular causal chain from appearing and starting its own causal chain. — Philosophim
You're making the mistake of looking at the universe instead of the causal chain of that universe. — Philosophim
. That's why there's the question whether or not self-causation is fatal:If something negates itself, its gone. A thing cannot both exist and not exist at the same time. — Philosophim
I'm asking you to give me an example of a universe without a first cause in its causation chain. — Philosophim
"Assume it is false, what do we arrive at?" The frustration Ucarr is your inability to demonstrate it is false so far. Which is fine, keep trying. If it were clearly false, we would not be still having this discussion. — Philosophim
...you cannot talk rationally about nothing (or anything else) causing the universe to exist because it's impossible to ascertain any logical reason for its existence. This is so because reason_cause imply sequence, but infinite value cannot be specified and therefore cannot be [logically] sequenced. — ucarr
Why did one type of eternal universe exist, whereas another universe does not? There is no answer besides the fact one type of universe, space and matter, exists. — Philosophim
You know this isn't correct at this point. This is frustration. Don't let that win. I've laid the reasoning out clearly at this point. — Philosophim
Don't confuse the logical decision to make an unexplainable observation axiomatically with logically explaining the content of that observation. You're doing the former, not the latter. — ucarr
If you're going to assert that, you need to demonstrate that. Otherwise this is just not wanting to accept a conclusion. — Philosophim
Why did one type of eternal universe exist, whereas another universe does not? There is no answer besides the fact one type of universe, space and matter, exists. — Philosophim
First comes the logical necessity of a first cause, then comes the conclusion that this means the inception of a first cause cannot be explained by anything else, thus there is nothing prior which could cause a limit on what or would not incept as a first cause. — Philosophim
Maybe you're right that its axiomatic, but can you break it down how you arrive that its merely a declaration? — Philosophim
What I'm trying to show him is that an eternally self-existent thing is no different. There is nothing which explains its being.* No limitations on what could have been besides the fact of its existence. — ucarr
According to the worldview of Materialism, "nothing" is non-sense. And, since the physical world does exist, it must have always existed in some form or other. Also, how or why it came to be is not an empirical question, hence more non-sense. If there is nothing to explain its existence, then it's provenance is a matter of Faith, or Reason.A first cause is self-existent though. I think that's the problem he has. He doesn't like the idea that there was nothing, then something. What I'm trying to show him is that an eternally self-existent thing is no different. There is nothing which explains its being. No limitations on what could have been besides the fact of its existence. — Philosophim
There is the question whether a first cause, lacking a precedent, must be eternal. — ucarr
Also, there is the question whether or not an eternal existence is self-caused rather than uncaused. — ucarr
Given: No should and no should not, we have equilibrium as nothing. Given: No restrictions and no intentions, again we have equilibrium as nothing.
I'm not seeing how this is any different from claiming: "First cause popped into existence from nothing." — ucarr
Following from this we have: a) there is no something-from-nothing, so, no first cause from nothing; b) there is no other thing in the role of a precedent for first cause. Given these restrictions, first cause cannot pop into existence from nothing and it cannot come from a precedent, thus it must be eternally self-caused. — ucarr
It's okay to claim: "First cause popped into existence from nothing." Maybe so. I'm only claiming this declaration is not the conclusion of a logical sequence of reasoning. — ucarr
You can't fulfill the claim of your title until you present a logical sequence of reasoning that necessarily concludes with: "First cause popped into existence from nothing." — ucarr
When you say you establish what a first cause is, you merely define first cause. That's okay to do. — ucarr
You can't fulfill the claim of your title until you present a logical sequence of reasoning that necessarily concludes with: "First cause popped into existence from nothing." When you say you establish what a first cause is, you merely define first cause. That's okay to do. However, it's a claim of truth based on words asserted without a logical sequence of reasoning to justify them. Proceeding from here, you claim no reasons for or against existence of a first cause and no restrictions or intentions as to what the identity of first cause shall be. That's okay to do. However, again, it's a claim of truth based on words asserted without a logical sequence of reasoning to justify them. — ucarr
Perhaps your conversation title should be: Concluding A First Cause Simply Exists is a Logical Necessity. Isn't this what you've been saying over and over? — ucarr
Okay. You're saying a first cause is uncaused. I think we agree this is a definition for which logical proof is impossible. — ucarr
If first cause refers to an eternal universe, there follows the question whether anything is caused because everything has always existed, whether actually or potentially. — ucarr
Going up an infinite causal regression does not conclude with arrival at a point; the points continue without arrival being possible. — ucarr
If something is part of an existing universe, how can it be without precedent? No, a first cause, by your oft-repeated definition: "Something which is not caused by anything else." cannot be other than a new and independent universe. An existing universe cannot spawn a first cause. — ucarr
I'm asking you to give me an example of a universe without a first cause in its causation chain.
— Philosophim
An eternal universe is an example because it has no beginning and no causation. — ucarr
I can't prove existence of such a universe logically. I can only declare it as an axiom from which reasoning follows. — ucarr
Below I reprint an argument you haven't responded to:
...you cannot talk rationally about nothing (or anything else) causing the universe to exist because it's impossible to ascertain any logical reason for its existence. This is so because reason_cause imply sequence, but infinite value cannot be specified and therefore cannot be [logically] sequenced. — ucarr
Why did one type of eternal universe exist, whereas another universe does not? There is no answer besides the fact one type of universe, space and matter, exists.
— Philosophim
This is not a sequence of reasoning. If it were, you would include a list of possible reasons for only one type of universe — ucarr
You think claiming as fact "there is but one type of universe" is reasoning? Give me a logical explanation for your belief. See my statement above (infinity cannot be sequenced) for an example of
reasoning toward a conclusion. — ucarr
I therefore conclude, logically, that completing the circuit requires bypassing the plastic. — ucarr
My example parallels:
Why did one type of eternal universe exist, whereas another universe does not? There is no answer besides the fact one type of universe, space and matter, exists.
— Philosophim
This is an observation, not an explanation. You have no argument towards claiming logically only one type of universe exists. On the basis of your information-scarce observation, there's no logical reason to conclude there exists only one type of universe. You insist people believe your claim because you say so. — ucarr
I've put in bold letters what's at the center of our debate: "There is nothing that explains the being of a first cause."
Here we have your fatal mistake in mostly your own words. By definition -- not by a sequence of reasoning -- you state without explanation the truth about a first cause: it's an axiom by supposition. Moreover, it cannot be explained logically because, as you say, "There is (by definition) nothing which explains its being." — ucarr
According to the worldview of Materialism, "nothing" is non-sense. — Gnomon
And, since the physical world does exist, it must have always existed in some form or other. Also, how or why it came to be is not an empirical question, hence more non-sense. If there is nothing to explain its existence, then it's cause is a matter of Faith. — Gnomon
Hence Ideal notions, such as "something from nothing", are literally nonsensical, since we cannot sense nothingness. And from the perspective of modern Materialism, non-sensible is non-sensical. — Gnomon
Ironically, modern science postulates several causal features of reality that are logical inferences instead of sensory observations. For example Energy is the universal cause of all changes in the world, but we never detect the Energy per se, we only infer its logically-necessary existence from after-effects in material objects. Likewise, the notion of electric or quantum Fields is a logical inference from observation of changes in the material world*3. How that universal or local field came to be --- "popped into existence" --- is irrelevant for pragmatic Science : it just is, and it works. — Gnomon
The First Cause is simply another inference from logical necessity. But is it Real? Of course not. It's Ideal. — Gnomon
Your goal is to demonstrate that a first cause is not necessary. You are not going to win by challenging the definition of the first cause, if the definition is logically necessary. The only way to do that is to demonstrate that logically a universe can exist that does not inevitably arrive at a first cause within its causal chain. — Philosophim
By making a small change to your last sentence, I get a proposition: Logically, a universe cannot exist that does not inevitably arrive at a first cause within its causal chain. — ucarr
Every causal chain inevitably arrives at a first cause. — Philosophim
So, it's correct to say your core proposition within this conversation goes as follows:
Every causal chain inevitably arrives at a first cause — ucarr
Ironically, modern science postulates several causal features of reality that are logical inferences instead of sensory observations. For example Energy is the universal cause of all changes in the world, but we never detect the Energy per se, we only infer its logically-necessary existence from after-effects in material objects. Likewise, the notion of electric or quantum Fields is a logical inference from observation of changes in the material world*3. How that universal or local field came to be --- "popped into existence" --- is irrelevant for pragmatic Science : it just is, and it works. — Gnomon
Now here's the question which you have to answer Ucarr. Why is it 2t + infinity = Y and not 3t + infinity = Y? Is there anything outside which caused it to be one way over the other? — Philosophim
What does Y stand for in your equation? — ucarr
I would prefer that you quote the assertions you are responding to. I don't remember exactly how I worded the comments on Hume's causation. But I wouldn't say that "the concept of causation stands on empirically-derived impressions". Empirical typically implies recorded & confirmed scientific evidence. But up until Hume's day, the notion of Causation (by some invisible entity) was taken-for-granted by most people, as a reasonable-but-untested inference from sensory observations. Therefore, Hume was philosophically & scientifically critical of that presumption.I'm recalling from memory you citing Hume re: causation. The gist of your point is that causation, in his view, is an inference from observed patterns of apparently connected changes in states of being within the world. His conclusion, as reported by you, states that the concept of causation stands upon empirically-derived impressions of the world. In closing, you said these impressions are generally understood to fall short of a proof of the concept of causation. — ucarr
Could you rephrase that question in more conventional terms? Or explain your terms in more detail. For the record, I don't deny Causation; but I do think it's a mental inference, not a spiritual force, in the world. Instead, the term Energy now covers physical actions that used to be attributed to Spirits.Do you reject the belief causation resides within dynamical systems of self-organization phase-shifted across ascending levels of organization towards effects? — ucarr
What does Y stand for in your equation? — ucarr
Total number of causations within that point of time on the chain. — Philosophim
Why is it 2t + infinity = Y and not 3t + infinity = Y? — Philosophim
Given a first cause, is it correct to say the next thing following the first cause -- the first thing caused by the first cause -- appears as the first causation? Subsequent links in the causal chain are, likewise, causations? — ucarr
Why is it 2t + infinity = Y and not 3t + infinity = Y?
— Philosophim
Does Y have an infinite value? — ucarr
Could you rephrase that question in more conventional terms? — Gnomon
After going to the doctor with mild symptoms, you're told your spinal column is infected with pneumococci bacteria. Since it's believed this infection causes spinal meningitis, you're advised to immediately undergo an aggressive program of antibiotics within the intensive care unit. — ucarr
For the record, I don't deny Causation; but I do think it's a mental inference... — Gnomon
In the case of the formula of an infinitely regressive universe, because there is infinite time and we are capturing all possible causations within infinite time, there is no 'first causation". Essentially the first cause comes about after we capture all possible infinite causations in that universe, then ask the next question, "What caused it to be this way?" — Philosophim
Am I correct in understanding you to be saying the procedure for comprehending the value of an infinite causal chain entails looking at the infinite causal chain as a whole? — ucarr
Moreover, am I correctly inferring that by looking at an infinite causal chain as a whole, I'm drawn by a sequence of reasoning to the necessarily logical conclusion that an infinite causal chain is a first cause? — ucarr
It entails eventually putting it into a set. — Philosophim
No, the chain is not the first cause. — Philosophim
Every causal chain inevitably arrives at a first cause. — Philosophim
The first cause of the chain occurs after you take all other causality within that universe. So you have mapped out that it is eternal and infinitely regressive. What remains after that is, "What caused the universe to be?" — Philosophim
The infinite causal chain equals members populating a set; they are more commonly referred to as the universe? — ucarr
At this point, you have evaluated down to two things: first cause; causal chain as members populating a set? — ucarr
The infinite causal chain equals members populating a set; they are more commonly referred to as the universe?
— ucarr
No, as mentioned before its the set of all causations within that universe up to the point in which we ask, "What caused that universe?" — Philosophim
Do you have a point... — Philosophim
Keep trying Ucarr! — Philosophim
Do you have a point...
— Philosophim
Keep trying Ucarr!
— Philosophim
What do you want me to understand from this? — ucarr
It's not clear to me if the universe contains things that are causations mixed with things that are not causations. Is it the case that whatever is not a causation is a first cause? — ucarr
Regarding: 'up to the point in which we ask, "What caused that universe?,"' it's not clear to me when this point is reached. Is this the point when: "It entails eventually putting it into a set." — ucarr
Does this evaluation of all causations into a set occur in time as we know it? — ucarr
It's not clear to me if the universe contains things that are causations mixed with things that are not causations. Is it the case that whatever is not a causation is a first cause? — ucarr
The infinite causal chain equals members populating a set; they are more commonly referred to as the universe? — ucarr
No, as mentioned before its the set of all causations within that universe up to the point in which we ask, "What caused that universe?" — Philosophim
We had a lengthy discussion about first causes and how they enter into causality once formed. — Philosophim
Regarding: 'up to the point in which we ask, "What caused that universe?,"' it's not clear to me when this point is reached. Is this the point when: "It entails eventually putting it into a set." — ucarr
Yes. We take the entirety of the causations over the infinite time in the universe then ask, "What caused this to be?" Why is it 3T + infinity = y instead of 2T + infinity = y? — Philosophim
Does this evaluation of all causations into a set occur in time as we know it? — ucarr
A causation chain in total is not taken in 'time'. Its an evaluation of everything that has happened so far. You are given the formula 2T + infinity = Y. This formula contains all the causality by time in that universe. So you say, "That's neat. What caused the universe to be infinite and eternal in that way?" Is it "Nothing" or is there something else that caused it? If there's nothing which caused it to be eternal, then there was nothing that deigned its inception; it simply is. A first cause to all the rest of the causality. — Philosophim
Every causal chain inevitably arrives at a first cause — Philosophim
Since both of your equations evaluate to the same result, I wonder whether there's any meaningful distinction between them. — ucarr
I understand you to be telling me you arrive at your premise:
Every causal chain inevitably arrives at a first cause
— Philosophim
by way of a thought experiment. — ucarr
↪Philosophim Nicely put. My issue with contingency is that we don’t know enough about reality to know if all things are contingent. We know a little about of our localised universe. — Tom Storm
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.