Conceptually, causality presupposes spacetime, therefore spacetime cannot be an effect of causality; spacetime "allows for" causality. Einstein more or less refers to this as locality, no?

I have immense gratitude that someone finally took up the argument properly. You may be correct in 4. What I was trying to explain is the consequence of that tautology. While I believe it is a necessary point to explain, it may have been placed at the wrong point of the argument.

If we try to interpret "reason" in line with state causality, then the conclusion doesn't follow. The argument essentially says that since neither an infinite regress nor a causal loop admit a first cause, therefore a first cause must be the case. — SophistiCat

I would reword it to this: "The argument essentially says that since neither an infinite regress nor a causal loop have a prior cause for existing, we can only conclude these are themselves first causes.

In other words, there is no prior state that necessitates there exist the state of an infinite regress, or a finite regress. If you try to, you simply introduce a prior cause, and we're in the same position again. As such, the only logical conclusion is that the universe must have a first cause. The consequences of this have been discussed in a few posts here. If the argument is satisfactory to you, feel free to add to these discussions. If not, feel free to continue to critique.

I've been on a computer chips kick in my posts, so I suppose I'll continue with them. — Philosophim

I'm still not sure you answered my question.

A transistor can either be on, or off. If it is on, the electricity will travel through the gate. When it is off, the electricity is cut off. Imagine that we have power constantly running to the transistor. Now imagine that the circuit is complete. We have electricity traveling that circuit. What caused electricity to travel the entirety of the circuit? At a particular scale we can say, "The gate was on". Or we could be more detailed and say, "And the electricity was on." — Philosophim

So let's go the other way. There's no electricity flowing out of the transistor. Can we ask what caused no electricity to flow out of the circuit? Can the answer be, "The gate was off" and/or "the electricity was off"?

Causality presupposes spacetime, therefore spacetime cannot be an effect of a cause; spacetime "allows for" causality. Einstein refers, more or less, to this as locality, no? — 180 Proof

How does plank space dodge spacetime? Are you saying it takes up no space? Then it is nothing, or God. I believe we both know arguments that have justified God this way are wrong. Why would it be any different here? Are you saying there is no time? Time is merely state change. Does the plank state never change? If it is outside of time, how can it interact with our universe in time? If it is outside of space, how can it interact with space?

Despite all of these questions, I also don't want to miss the point of the OP. If it does not have a prior explanation for its existence, then it is a first cause. In my mind, all you're stating at this point is that you believe this is the first cause, opposed to God, or even the big bang. This does not counter the argument I've made.

So let's go the other way. There's no electricity flowing out of the transistor. Can we ask what caused no electricity to flow out of the circuit? Can the answer be, "The gate was off" and/or "the electricity was off"? — InPitzotl

Yes, you've nailed it.

What caused the first cause, though?

You must be an idealist, Philosophim, because you seem to believe that physics accounts for the ideal (i.e. non-physicality or logical priority) rather than, or over above, the physical (i.e. nature). :roll:

How does plank space dodge spacetime? Are you saying it takes up no space? — Philosophim

Like causality, spacetime is a classical concept (macro) that has no physical meaning at or shorter than a planck length (c10^-35 meters) or a planck interval (c10^-44 seconds) (nano).

What caused the first cause, though? — Olivier5

A first cause has no prior cause. The point of the argument is that this is ultimately the universe will have a first cause origination. If you would like to show where the argument is incorrect, feel free.

Spacetime is a classical concept (macro), like causality, that has no physical meaning at or shorter than a planck length (c10^-35 meters) or a planck interval (c10^-44 seconds) (nano). — 180 Proof

Isn't measurement a way we measure space? It doesn't matter how small it is, what you are describing fits in space. You also dodged my point about time. Can its state change over time? Can it interact with space time? If so, its not out of space time. That fits the definition of something being in space time. If you can explain how it doesn't, please try.

Yes, you've nailed it. — Philosophim

So to me, it sounds like your notion of causality is similar that of "reason" in the Principle of Sufficient Reason, with the exception that I've yet to hear a commitment to sufficiency. I'd now like to explore sufficiency.

We have an atom that can, in a duration of time x, decay with 50% probability. Between times t0 and t1=t0+x, it did not decay. Between times t1 and t2=t1+x, it decayed. Let's call the time from t0 to t1 time span 1, and from t1 to t2 time span 2. Can we describe the cause of the decay in time span 2 as opposed to the lack of decay in time span 1? Can we say this cause in time span 2 is attributed to the properties contributing to 50% decay rate, and also that the cause of it not decaying in time span 1 is attributed to the properties contributing to 50% decay rate?

Your scientific illiteracy seems too thorough. I explain and you can't recognize any explanation as such – like I've repeatedly said – as your incoherent OP shows.

We have an atom that can, in a duration of time x, decay with 50% probability. Between times t0 and t1=t0+x, it did not decay. Between times t1 and t2=t1+x, it decayed. Let's call the time from t0 to t1 time span 1, and from t1 to t2 time span 2. Can we describe the cause of the decay in time span 2 as opposed to the lack of decay in time span 1? Can we say this cause in time span 2 is attributed to the properties contributing to 50% decay rate, and also that the cause of it not decaying in time span 1 is attributed to the 50% decay rate? — InPitzotl

Lets remember what odds are first however. Odds are a predictive model we use when we are limited in knowing particular information. Lets use an easier model to digest, as odds work the same no matter the complexity. Take a deck of playing cards. I know there are 52 cards. I'm going to draw a card after shuffling, without looking at the cards. There is a 4 out of 52 chance that the card drawn is a jack. We know this, because we know what the cards are made of, and we know the rules of drawing the deck. Probability is based on the knowable parts, and the knowable outcomes. It is a way to predict when we cannot observer the mechanism that will lead to one of the knowable outcomes.

Does that mean the cards don't follow causality? Does that if we could see the deck as it was being shuffled, that the jack would magically appear on the top of the deck outside of the shuffling? No. If the deck could avoid causality, then our odds would be worthless. If that did not explain what you were asking, please try to rephrase the question with a deck of cards example.

A first cause has no prior cause. The point of the argument is that this is ultimately the universe will have a first cause origination. If you would like to show where the argument is incorrect, feel free. — Philosophim

The following points come to mind (in addition to a possible critique of causality itself):

1) It seems to me that if there can be such a thing as an uncaused cause, then there could be several such things. There is no apparent reason to limit the number of "uncaused causes" to 1, so there could be a large number of "first causes", if those are defined as "uncaused causes".

2) If the law of reaction is true, then whenever object A has an effect on object B, B also has an effect on A. Therefore, a "cause" is a two-way street, an interaction, so there can be no such thing as an uncaused cause (at least if the law of reaction is universally true).

See Kant, "Critique of Pure Reason"
— Artemis
I have read it before, and I have a good understanding of the subject matter. — Philosophim

The subject matter in this case makes clear you are correct, a first cause is logically necessary. The continuation of the subject matter also makes clear you are not correct, in that a first cause is logically impossible. Not sure why the discussion, if you’ve understood the argument pre-dating it, that says it better.
—————-

The argument shows that the only thing which must necessarily be, is that something within our universe has no reason for its existence, besides the fact of its existence. It has no prior cause for being. I note that this is logically necessary, because the only alternative that I can think of, "infinite regression" does not in fact have a prior reason as to why the universe should be infinitely regressive. — Philosophim

Check me on my reduction: the only necessary existence is something that exists, because it exists? If that’s correct, it’s merely Aristotle revisited: that which exists, exists necessarily. That doesn’t say that which exists necessarily doesn’t have a cause. To do so implies necessity is causality, a most serious categorical error.

Besides in the first....if that something is in our universe, how is it impossible the universe isn’t the necessity of its cause?

Besides in the second......the only thing that must necessarily be, is something that has no reason to be, is indulgently self-contradictory. The best one can say is, that which exists without at least a logical reason is utterly incomprehensible to us as humans, whose intellect is entirely predicated a priori on the principle of cause and effect.

Infinite regression wouldn’t have a reason for the universe being infinitely regressive? The universe, as a phenomenal existence, exists necessarily, as already established by the condition of something which is contained in it, thus eliminating infinitely causal regression for it, so who cares about the fact infinite regression has no prior reason for why it should be? Infinite regression itself has no priors at all, but the universe does, it being the effect of something, be what it may.

If there is something said to exist within the universe necessarily given from the fact of its reality, why not the universe itself? If that something’s cause isn’t infinitely regressive, why should the universe’s? The cause of the cause is not at issue; the subject here is a given real existence, whether a something, or a something known as “universe”.
————-

Causality is the idea..... — Philosophim

A first cause would be if the 8 ball moved and there was no reason why it should have moved, internally, or externally.

Does that clarify causality? — Philosophim

Why would it? A first cause is unconditioned, true enough, but the unconditioned necessarily presupposes the series of all possible conditions, which says nothing whatsoever about the idea of causality. All causes, as principles, have objects in their respective effects; causality, as mere idea and not in itself a principle, has no object. To claim causality has an object is reification of an abstraction in concerto, a logical no-no. That certain temperature or pressure is necessary to turn water into ice doesn’t clarify necessity. That jumping up is followed by falling down doesn’t clarify unity.

Anyway.....the same dance but to a different tune, is still the same dance. It just looks funny.

so there can be no such thing as an uncaused cause — Olivier5

Of course there is not such thing as "uncaused cause", because otherwise scientists would already long time ago sing their victory over God.
The headlines would be all over the internet and local TV stations, common man.

The lowest point that scientists come to are virtual particles, their sudden and fast appearance and disappearance is known as "uncertain", which is far from uncaused cause.

Singularity breaks the laws of physics, it can be simulated only mathematically again into infinity therefore no result.
To break that infinity we would have to know the limits of whole universe, not just observable portion.

otherwise scientists would already long time ago sing their victory over God. — SpaceDweller

That song has been sung, I think.

I guess you're referring to string theory and multiverse, because that's the only one that attempts to "solve" infinity or unobservable universe, which are theories for which one can't even perform experiments, so very far from any proof.

If not then it must be a good joke unless they managed to prove Aristotle wrong.

No, I was referring to the death of God, i.e. the demise of religion as a credible source for truth and its replacement by science.

:up:
Agree, scientists have already overcome and shown that cause-effect is a naïf-intuition that works well in our daily life but it breaks as you go macro or micro...
Can we common-mortals understand and comprehend this? NO. It requires strong and strict study on physics as well as "playing" a lot with new technologies that allow you to interact and exercise with the counter-intuitive micro quantum world.
This reality is only accessible to few people in the world. It is ineffable using current language and is only represented by formulas and mathematical language that "represent" those counter-intuitive laws.
And this ineffable reality is as real as it is the mobile phone and the TVs you have today in your homes. They work thanks to scientists understanding this counter intuitive reality.

Ah OK, I guess I'm uninformed then :worry:
But you the famous question right, what is truth?

Just count how many people in your immediate surroundings are getting vaccinated against COVID-19, vs the number of people in your immediate surroundings who are burning candles at church instead.

Truth is a correct enough representation of reality, no?

:up:

"Phenomena" is a dangerous word that is often thrown around without any real definition. — Philosophim

I'll try, an argument adapted from a book. The phenomenon is blowing an old tree stump out of the ground with some dynamite. Question: what exactly, causes the dynamite to explode? Informally, lots of things. But formally? Exactly? Care to take swing at it?

The idea is that the idea of cause is neither simple nor adequate for exact purposes. It's just a useful adoption of language to the world. But nothing of the world itself. And if you think it is, then show us one.

The idea is that the idea of cause is neither simple nor adequate for exact purposes. It's just a useful adoption of language to the world. — tim wood

Indeed. See "Three senses of the word ‘cause'" in Collingwood's Essay on Metaphysics.

I would reword it to this: "The argument essentially says that since neither an infinite regress nor a causal loop have a prior cause for existing, we can only conclude these are themselves first causes.

In other words, there is no prior state that necessitates there exist the state of an infinite regress, or a finite regress. If you try to, you simply introduce a prior cause, and we're in the same position again. As such, the only logical conclusion is that the universe must have a first cause. — Philosophim

I can't make sense of this. You presented three alternative hypotheses - infinite regress, causal loop, first cause - each of which encompasses all states of the world at all times. It is trivial to conclude that none of these alternatives admits of a prior state, since that would require an additional, unaccounted state. Nothing interesting follows from this, nor is the first cause hypothesis any different from the other two in this regard.

I think the idea that you are reaching for is not first cause but brute fact. Each of the alternatives is a brute fact in this presentation, since there is no reason/explanation/justification for whichever one of them actually obtains (at least not in this context).

Lets use an easier model to digest, as odds work the same no matter the complexity. — Philosophim

Not... exactly.

Does that mean the cards don't follow causality? — Philosophim

You tell me. I'm still asking you what your concept of causality is. It appears to me that you are indeed committing to sufficiency here though.

If that did not explain what you were asking, please try to rephrase the question with a deck of cards example. — Philosophim

Hmmm... that might be interesting. Okay.

Let's imagine you and I are playing a card game; here is how it works.

We take turns. I always shuffle the deck (incidentally, I am not necessarily being fair; take that into account). After the shuffle, I deal three cards in front of you face down... left, right, and center. Then it's hands off for me; the rest is entirely on you.

Here's what you do. You pick any two of those cards... your choice. If the two cards are the same color (both black, both red), you win. If the two cards are different colors (black/red, red/black), you lose. I offer you two to one odds; you pay me $1 if I win (<- corrected), and I pay you $2 if you win. FYI, there are only ever two colors when you turn the cards over; each card is always either red, or black.

So here's the first question. Is this a fair game? Can you prove it? Can you work out the minimal probability that you'll win?

So here's a quick cheat sheet. Somehow, you lose 75% of the time. That's just a given. If you play 1000 times, you just plain lose around 750 times. Play 10000, and you just plain lose around 7500 times. Can you tell me how that works?

So here's the first question. Is this a fair game? Can you prove it? Can you work out the minimal probability that you'll win? — InPitzotl

The game is not fair in that the chance on winning and losing is the same, if played fair. Well, they differ a bit as there are relative very few more different cards combinations. So the chance of getting two the same is slightly less. If 75 percent of the time one looses, then the play ain't fair, although you can always say that it's a coincidence. Paying 2$ and 1$ ain't fair, as the chances are the almost the same.

I think the idea that you are reaching for is not first cause but brute fact. — SophistiCat

That's good. Even if we reason that there is no alternative to the Existent having to ever be, with no creation of it, it's still a brute fact with some understanding to why it has to be brute.

All of our local seeming causes and effects from what the Existent forms are really just the continuing one big effect of the Existent. For the convenience of calculations and localizing to an event of interest, we place artificial boundaries to bound our local notion of a cause and effect.

The Permanent Existent formed our temporary universe, and so it could form more universes.

So here's a quick cheat sheet. Somehow, you lose 75% — InPitzotl

Hmm. Given three cards, each either R or B, there are eight possible arrangements of R and B. And there are three ways of choosing two of three cards. That is, 24 possibilities. Twelve of those are either RR or BB, the other twelve RB (or BR). Given the payout is not equal, it seems then not a fair game. It seems the odds of drawing a match v. drawing a mismatch are even, so the payouts ought to be even.

I await your revealing the error in this reasoning.

Given three cards, each either R or B, there are eight possible arrangements of R and B. — tim wood

That's correct. Eight isn't a large number, so let's list them. The possible arrangements are BBB, BBR, BRB, BRR, RBB, RBR, RRB, and RRR.

And there are three ways of choosing two of three cards. That is, 24 possibilities. — tim wood

That's also correct. But I think you're missing this:

I always shuffle the deck (incidentally, I am not necessarily being fair; take that into account). — InPitzotl

So there are 24 possibilities here, but that doesn't mean they're equally likely. I could be stacking the deck. So pretend you're me, maybe. How would you rig the odds? Well, in the BBB and RRR case, you're guaranteed to win... so maybe I just never give you those deals.

So let's say I do that. I'm only going to give you BBR, BRB, BRR, RBB, RBR, and RRB deals. Now how often do you win?

I await your revealing the error in this reasoning. — tim wood

It's not really that kind of puzzle. The whole point of this puzzle is that it looks fishy. It's more relevant that it looks fishy than that you solve it (it's also not new; though it's slightly in disguise here).