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 tings. 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). — Olivier5

1. Nailed it. I find this exciting, and leads to new questions. Does this mean multiverse for example, is no longer a plausible theory, but almost logical certainty? A self explained existence does not need to exist forever. If any lifespan has an equal chance of forming, then wouldn't the universe be full of entities popping in and out of existence?

2. Almost correct. An uncaused cause has no prior reason for its existence. But what follows from its entering into existence would affect itself as well, yes. I would go so far to propose that a self explained entity could be completely indistinguishable from entities around it, besides the fact that its origin did not rely on anything else but its own existence. Proving an entity is self explained if it appeared and blended within a sea of existence that had already formed might prove impossible, as we might simply attribute the laws that are already around us on it, and merely assume things came before it, that in fact did not. I encourage you to let your imagination run wild here, its quite fun!

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. — Mww

No, that's not what I'm saying. There is no necessary existence. It is simply that if we are to think about the end logic of causality, it is necessary that there must be a place in the chain that has no prior explanation for its existence.

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 priorion the principle of cause and effect. — Mww

I've heard things like this before, and I consider it wrong. If I can logically conclude that it must exist, then it must. At that point, I can start thinking about the logical consequences of such an existence. Knowing that such things must exist in the universe we inhabit may allow us to consider threads of thought we may have dismissed. Man has always tried to grasp the incomprehensible. At one time, the idea of space was outside of man's intellectual and physical capabilities. Theories spring to ideas which can then be tested. To me, this is an essence of philosophy. To reach for the things just out of our grasp, and see if we can actually reach it.

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”. — Mww

At this point I think you've strayed too far from the OP. The argument is that there essentially is the possibility of infinite regressive causality, or finite regressive causality. Yet the argument concludes that even when we propose an infinite regressive causality, it is impossible to escape that fact that if it is infinitely regressive in causality, that there can be no outside reason for this, but the fact of its own existence.

There are certain theories of math and philosophy that have succeeded by showing certain things are impossible, thus leaving us with a known alternative. That's essentially what the argument is doing.

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

Of course there is not such thing as "uncaused cause", — SpaceDweller

According to my OP, it is actually the opposite that is true. It is impossible for there not to be an uncaused cause. Feel free to critique the OP and see if you can find a hole.

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. — Raul

Feel free to attempt to show why cause and effect break down then. The idea that only a few people can comprehend this is, in my mind, an excuse for being unable to explain an idea in a way that fits with reality. Are you saying there are times in physics where a force can be applied and there is literally zero affect, both on the applying force, and receiving force? I would like to see that.

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 on — tim wood

Sure, good example. What you're talking about is measurement of scale. I've written an old post that goes into a theory of knowledge and breaks down that very type of question. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9015/a-methodology-of-knowledge/p1 Suffice to say, its too complex for me to go over in this topic. So for my part, I am completely confident that cause and effect are more than convenient adoption of language, but real world applications that are expressed within expanding or contracting contexts. Again, I would love to speak on it more in depth, but I would derail my own thread!

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. — SophistiCat

Perhaps you can't think of anything interesting that follows from this, but I can. The idea that first cause entities are logically necessary is fascinating to me. This makes it more than a supposition, but a sound logical conclusion to follow. What does that entail for our universe? This leads to entirely knew philosophical threads that have this idea as a logical basis to start.

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). — SophistiCat

That's likely just a semantic distinction then. If you want to call a first cause a "brute fact", that's fine. My question of course is why does that brute fact exist? In which case we can say, "It doesn't have anything prior that caused it to be, it just is." So I don't think we're in disagreement here.

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

No, I can't. That's because probability requires a certainty of certain facts for formulation. As soon as you said, "I might not be necessarily being fair," you remove the ability to make an accurate assessment of odds. Lets say for example you win 75% of the time, even though the odds if you were playing fair might be higher or lower. That doesn't mean that you were cheating.

There is a method in statistics called T-distribution. With this, we can calculate the likelihood of standard deviation. Further, I would have to play a large sample size of games to get a fair distribution. Even then, without knowing whether you are an honest player or not, I couldn't be sure the game was fair. It might be incredibly unlikely that I lose 75% of the time, but its not impossible.

The question is not in the cards or the game, but in the unknowable mind of yourself. When there is a variable that is completely unknowable, but can greatly affect the outcome, you cannot calculate accurate odds. At that point you have have to make your best guess as to whether it is fair or not, and live with that decision.

To the point though, does this help explain my viewpoint of causality?

Edit: I read the discussion between you and the others after posting this, so you can be sure this was my personal and honest view, and not influenced by the other conversations.

That's because probability requires a certainty of certain facts for formulation. As soon as you said, "I might not be necessarily being fair," you remove the ability to make an accurate assessment of odds. — Philosophim

I think you're misreading the game. I can be unfair, but I can't change the game being played. All I can do is be maximally unfair but follow all of the rules.

With this, we can calculate the likelihood of standard deviation. — Philosophim

You're trying too hard. We're not talking about "in a given run". We're talking about, I set up a casino, you come play, and I have a viable business model where your funds slowly drain into my casino.

I read the discussion between you and the others after posting this, so you can be sure this was my personal and honest view, and not influenced by the other conversations. — Philosophim

And we're not talking about a puzzle you have to guess right at either. This is open ended. You can look up the answer. You can have other people do the work. I'll work it out myself, and you can use my workbook.

@tim wood gave an excellent crack at it here. I followed up with a few more details here. Picking up from there, assuming I cheat like I outlined in that post, all of the rest of the arrangements are symmetric... they're all of some form "PPM" where P is either red or black, in some permutation. In this arrangement you can pick either the first and second, the first and third, or the second and third cards; and you only win if you pick the first and second. So you win 1/3 of the time. This is where the puzzle gets fishy; in BBB or RRR arrangements, you win 100% of the time. In any other arrangement, you win 1/3 of the time. But when you actually play, you win 1/4 of the time. The 1/4 actuals seem a bit impossible to rig. But 1/4 is what we get.

The point of this game is that it is Bell's Theorem in disguise (as you requested; rephrased as a deck of cards example). The arrangements here are possible "riggings" that Terra Mater could make up; these are Hidden Variables. A meta-theory of how I might rig the game would be a Hidden Variable Theory. The analysis that the riggings only get down to your winning 1/3 of the time is a Bell Inequality. The 1/4 comes from quantum mechanics and agrees with experiment.

This brings me back to here:

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

...the puzzle stays open. Quantum mechanics would tell us the probabilities of this sort of match are 1/4. But classical probability can only bring us down to 1/3. Experiment appears to confirm quantum mechanics; that is, that Bell Inequalities are violated as per Bell's Theorem.

This isn't meant as a refutation against anything specific... but BT is definitely something that demands an explanation.

I gave you an example of an atom radioactively decaying. You followed up with a card analogy to make it easier. But atomic decay does not behave like cards. QM doesn't play by classical rules; it cheats.

Since you are trying to convey Bell's theory, lets go with that then. I see some problems with the thought experiment. But its not the thought experiment that is important, it what it is trying to convey.

I looked into it a bit, and was amused when I found that superdeterminism basically answers Belle's Theorem. Now I think I see what you were trying to get at by causality.

Yes, I am a super determinist. Once some type of existence is in play, it will act and react the same way identically each time. Except for one situation. An entity that is self explained being incepted.

To detail, imagine an electron spinning in accordance with the forces of the known universe. Yet for the briefest of seconds, a small entity, an alpha, pops into existence for 5 seconds. For that five seconds, it adds its influence within that universe. It doesn't do much of course. It just changes the flow of an electron for 5 seconds. But at that point, there is a record within the universe of something which altered the calculated outcome, and did something completely unpredictable. The cause and effect are all clear. The math is still the same. But the unknown and unpredictable was the alpha appearing for five seconds, then vanishing or dispersing, or perhaps traveling away from that particular electron and influences elsewhere.

All of that being said again, I am being consistent (I believe) with the OP I posted. Does this clear up what I mean by causality?

Yes, I am a super determinist. — Philosophim

Are you sure?

Yes, I am a super determinist. Once some type of existence is in play, it will act and react the same way identically each time. — Philosophim

That's not what superdeterminism means.

Superdeterminism means that Terra Mater is dealing the cards now, and on this particular deal she happens to deal BBR. So I have three options of two cards to pick, and if I pick at random, I would flip over the first two cards 1/3 of the time. But instead, just because the square of the cosine of 60 is 1/4, then Terra Mater mind controls me via my physical makeup to manipulate me into picking the second and third, or first and third, a sum total of an extra 1/12 of the time, such that my probability of picking the first two cards matches the square of the cosine of 60. This is the type of story you have to tell if you call yourself a superdeterminist.

Superdeterminism is kind of whacky. I'm agnostic on a lot of things; including a position on free will and a position on determinism... but it would take a lot to sell me on superdeterminism.

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 — InPitzotl

All right, then, the game is not fair. QED. Is that the point?

All right, then, the game is not fair. QED. Is that the point? — tim wood

No:

The point of this game is that it is Bell's Theorem in disguise — InPitzotl

What I can possibly do to rig the game is analogous to a Hidden Variable Theory. The "real" goal here is to explain the 1/4 probability (the "win" thing is just to encourage working the classical probabilities).

The arrangements here are possible "riggings" that Terra Mater could make up; these are Hidden Variables. — InPitzotl

But hidden variables have been ruled out by experiment, yes?

But hidden variables have been ruled out by experiment, yes? — tim wood

Yes. Experimental results violate Bell Inequalities. (FYI, there are "outs" for HVT's, but they require giving up something like locality, realism, etc; some choose to do so).

Fair, I have no idea what I'm talking about then, and am not interested in getting further away from the OP at this point. To that end, do you have enough information now to understand how I view causality?

Question: what exactly, causes the dynamite to explode? Informally, lots of things. But formally? Exactly? Care to take swing at it?
— tim wood

Sure, good example. What you're talking about is measurement of scale. — Philosophim

Nope. What I'm asking is for you to say what you think makes - causes - the dynamite explode?

Nope. What I'm asking is for you to say what you think makes - causes - the dynamite explode? — tim wood

Intentional or not, you are. How many seconds prior to the explosion should I consider? What scale of forces should I evaluate? Are we talking about the context of someone simply lighting the dynamite, or the subatomic forces aligned? How precise should it be? I suppose under the scale of everything the formulaic answer is, "All scales of force over X time units caused the dynamite to explode".

I don't see how this shows that causality does not exist.

And yours a partial list of possible understandings of "cause." But it begs the question of what you think the explosion is. Nor is cause denied. What I deny is that cause is anything more than a convenient fiction that should not be carelessly reified. No doubt it is of the greatest use to aver that flipping the switch causes the light to go on, but it doesn't.

As to the explosion, that itself is a function of perceived time. Over the right time scale, there is no explosion. And if no explosion, it would seem no cause of explosion. And likely that a clue as to why fields have replaced causes. Also, if there are causes, just how exactly can they be separated from their effects? And if unseparated, then just what exactly is a cause? None of this against a useful descriptor, but solid evidence against any thing that corresponds to it.

Nor does this have anything to do with Kant, because his cause is categorical.

And I observe that you still have assayed no answer to the question.

I'm waiting for you to give me an example of how a computer works without causality. — Philosophim

Well, I have already said, the phenomena of a computer, as a phenomena, evidently follows the rules of causation. That is not the point I am disputing. I am disputing whether these causal rules also apply to the computer, as it exists independently of human thought.

You should be able to explain your concept without using the word, and I will understand what you are intending to argue. — Philosophim

Roughly, phenomena is that which is perceived, or more broadly, that which can conceivably be perceived, as opposed to that which cannot.

But, I think I can reduce and simplify the discussion further: what reason do you have to suggest that we perceive causality (and not just infer it, or apply it as a rule)? I think it will be easier to move forward with our discussion once we get past this point.

Hello @Philosophim,
I really enjoyed your post (regardless of the position I would take on the issue at hand) due its thorough and substantive nature. With that being said, I do have to confess that I do not share your view as described in your initial post and, therefore, I would like to provide you with some of my thoughts pertaining to the matter at hand (which you can naturally do what you like with). Furthermore, I will try to be chronological (as best I can) with my remarks, but I apologize in advance if it seems a bit all over the place.
My first remark pertains to the very concept of “causality”, which I think can be reasonably inferred as your basis of your argument (although please correct me if I am wrong here). To be quite frank, I am very skeptical, to say the least, of any form of causation beyond physical (material) causation which, I would profess, is confined to space-time fabric. To say some effect was caused by some cause implies, I would argue, that (1) the cause came before the effect (no matter how minute or minuscule of a duration of time) and that (2) some form of matter was “converted”, so to speak, into something spatially different (whether directly perceived or abstractly inferred) than it previously was (which is then defined as the effect and investigated to determine the cause—which, in turn, is derived from the principle of sufficient reason). I would like to emphasize the implications of the two aforementioned properties of causality: without a spatial-temporal framework, causality is something that is (assuming there is a kind of causality separable from space-time) completely out of the scope of my perceptions and thoughts—thereby potentially unobtainable in my current biological state. All notions of causation, that I at least can fathom, has some sort of ties (no matter how subtle) to the two aforementioned properties (namely the spatial and temporal implications)--kind of like how I can’t actually, in a literal sense, fathom true nothingness (and I don’t mean that in a scientific sense of the term). Just like how to think of true nothingness one must necessarily tie it (no matter how subtle) to the closest imaginable absence of all things (such as empty space-time fabric), so it is with causation (I would argue). Now, before I continue, I would like to bring forth a common counter argument I hear, which I thought you may be interested to hear along with my ideas as they have been thus far portrayed: there is an argument out there (and I would confess I have found it to be relatively common of one) to consider there to be simultaneous causation—that is, the effect and the cause occur simultaneously. An example of such would be (as Immanual Kant put it) a ball sitting on a cushion: the cause simultaneously, in its very act, conceives the depression in the cushion. Another example is the act of sitting down simultaneously creates a lap. Now, I do have to say that I do not consider any of these to be actually simultaneous, but for the sake of providing counter examples (as the best I can), I ought to include them. Just to very briefly discuss why I don’t consider them simultaneous, I think that the reason causation can be, at times, perceived as simultaneous is simply because without measuring tools that have incredible amounts of precision (unlike our immediate senses) it seems as though the ball simultaneously caused the depression in the cushion; however, no matter how convincing it may seem to the naked eye, I would argue that more precise measuring tools enable us to conclude that the ball, no matter how incredibly quickly applied, requires a certain amount of time to effect the cushion and, thereby, create the depression. In terms of the lap example, I would argue that sitting down and “creating a lap” are two defined concepts that represent the same physical thing and, therefore, do not represent two different effects (in other words, saying “the process of sitting created a lap” is synonymous with saying “the process of sitting caused you to sit in a particular style we call a ‘lap’ in our language”--there is still one physical cause causing one physical effect). Now the reason I bring up all this skepticism pertaining to causation is that I view causal arguments for a first cause to be, simply put (and I am not trying to undermine your argument), the process of induction being utilized to infer something that is well beyond that which any given experience could reasonably supply to induction itself. In other words: to infer a first cause one must utilize induction, induction is an inference (and, thereby, reasoning) derived from experiences, any given experience is necessitated from a spatial-temporal framework, but yet the conclusion pertains to something beyond a spatial-temporal framework. I would say that this kind of logic is exactly how your #1 premise is derived and, quite frankly, I would argue this is the logical basis of your whole argument (as I would say it is an argument of causality).
My second remark pertains to your a-c options (or possible explanations) pertaining to the derivation of our world. You see, I am also not entirely convinced that those are the only three options. I would say there are five (if one is going to use logic and its metalogical principles, which I won’t elaborate here, but I would be skeptical of this too): eternal existence, self-manifestation (causa sui), infinite regression, infinite loop, and arbitrary stopping point. Firstly, I think you may have too hastily lumped all causes that are defined as “not having a prior cause” into your “first cause” (c), when, in fact, I think there are at least (at a minimum) two distinct sectors: eternal existence and self-manifestation (causa sui); I would be personally unwilling to say that these two concepts are synonymous or analogous to one another—although I would concede that they both fit under your “first cause” (c) definition. Without going to deep into it, I would just like to briefly highlight the major difference between the two: one simply is while the other caused itself. To elaborate a bit further, I shall quote you:

If an Alpha exists, its own justification for existence, is itself.

. In light of the two aforementioned concepts (eternal existence and self-manifestation), I am not entirely certain as to if you are arguing for a “first cause” that created itself (which would constitute it being its own justification) or if it just is (which, I would argue, isn’t its own justification: it has no justification because, one method of argument would be that, it isn’t within the scope of the principle of sufficient reason). Secondly, I would like to point out that both forms of indefiniteness, as far as I could tell, in your 3 options (namely a and b) were references to actual infinities—contrary to potential infinities. A potential infinite is that which is infinite constrained within the boundaries of a finite (think of theoretically continually walking halfway towards a door, or getting smaller and smaller measurements within one meter on a ruler), which have been both mathematically and in practicality proven to be not only possible but true (as far as my knowledge goes). On the contrary, an actual infinite is that which is infinite and is not constrained within a finite, which (as far as I know) has not been proven to exist. The reason I am bringing this up is because of what you said here:

Infinitely prior, and infinitely looped causality, all have one final question of causality that needs answering. "Why would it be that there exists an infinite prior or infinitely looped causality in existence? These two terms will be combined into one, "Infinite causality.”

Although I would concede that actual infinities have not been proven to exist, if they do exist, then they would not be subject to your criticism here: they would be just as out of bounds of the principle of sufficient reason as anyone could (at least) argue for any type of “first cause”. Furthermore, I would argue that your critique actually pertains to potential infinities: that a infinite within a finite must have, well, a finite cause—which makes sense. Again, I merely trying to point out that there may be a completely different “infinite” of which I don’t think you addressed (at least, at a minimum, adequately) in your initial post.
I apologize for how long my reply is, but I have an inkling that you would rather have a too long response than one that is way too short. My final remark I will make pertains to your conclusion:

Because there are no other plausibilties to how causality functions, the only only conclusion is that a causal chain will always lead to an Alpha, or first cause.

I honestly don’t see how this follows. At best, I would say that your argument (as portrayed thus far) gets you to disproving a and b, but that doesn’t logically mean that c is automatically true. Now, I have heard counter arguments that it isn’t an appeal to ignorance fallacy if one has definitively proven that the options at hand are the only ones and, thereby, proving that process of elimination is a perfectly valid argument; however, with the consideration of what I have said henceforth, I do not see how one could possibly prove that a-c (or even if you were to accept my previously mentioned five possibilities) are literally the only options: I don’t think this situation is analogous to stating “the cat is either in the kitchen or it isn’t” which upon disproving one or the other would necessarily prove the contrary. Moreover, I think that scenarios like the previous cat statement are the only true scenarios where I would agree with proving one thing by disproving another. Another way I think about it is, to state that all options are truly exhaustive, one must necessarily know all the possibilites about the given subject: I certainly don’t think I could possibly ever reasonably determine that I know all the actual possibilities of how this world, as I know it, came about (in terms of derivation, however I could say it came about in terms of the big bang or evolution, but those aren’t absolute stopping points like a first cause).
Anyhow, in conclusion, I hope that this post found you well and hopefully I brought up some remarks that, although you may not agree with, sparks some sort of intellectual contemplation. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.
Bob

What I deny is that cause is anything more than a convenient fiction that should not be carelessly reified. No doubt it is of the greatest use to aver that flipping the switch causes the light to go on, but it doesn't.

As to the explosion, that itself is a function of perceived time. Over the right time scale, there is no explosion. And if no explosion, it would seem no cause of explosion. And likely that a clue as to why fields have replaced causes. Also, if there are causes, just how exactly can they be separated from their effects? And if unseparated, then just what exactly is a cause? None of this against a useful descriptor, but solid evidence against any thing that corresponds to it.

Nor does this have anything to do with Kant, because his cause is categorical.

And I observe that you still have assayed no answer to the question. — tim wood

I mentioned earlier to one of the posters that cause and effect are more than fiction, as evidenced by your ability to post a reply. If we did not have an understanding of cause and effect, your post would not be able to be converted into a particular set of 1's and 0's that are read, streamed over a line, interpreted and saved to a server, then retrieved by everyone else when we visit. All of this happens over time, and apart from our perception.

While you may not personally believe in cause and effect, I see no evidence for this to be the case. As to your explosion question, I felt I gave a pretty clear answer. You have to give a clear scope, and then the question can be answered. I gave you a formula for basically all scopes. The answer to your question is not a specific answer, it is all the answers. Give me a specific scope, and I will give you the specific answer for that scope, that does not contradict any of the other scopes.

A cause is separated by its effect by the application of an outside force. So in the case of a cue ball hitting the 8 ball, the cue balls transferred force moved the 8 ball. What caused the cue ball to veer in another direction withe less speed was the the 8 ball that it collided into and absorbed much of the cue ball's force.

Again, I feel I'm answering all of these questions. I am also not trying to convince you that causality exists. I'm assuming it exists. As I have the answers to your queries, I am satisfied that your points have not shown my assumptions to be wrong. If you cannot present a convincing argument that causality does not exist, then at that point the OP itself will need to be critiqued. One way you could convince me that causality does not exist as more than a convenient fiction is explain how you posted online without causality.

But, I think I can reduce and simplify the discussion further: what reason do you have to suggest that we perceive causality (and not just infer it, or apply it as a rule)? I think it will be easier to move forward with our discussion once we get past this point. — _db

A good idea and a great gesture. Causality is not perceived, it is concluded. Try holding your breath. Try living without taking another breath. You will find it is impossible. A cause that allows you to live, is the air that you breath. With science, you can get more detailed. You can examine the different gasses and discover a certain range of oxygen mixed with other gasses is necessary for your life. One of the causes of your life is the air you breath.

If you don't eat, you run out of energy and die. What caused that person to die? They didn't eat. To deny cause and effect is to deny the very things that are causing you to remain alive. As such, cause and effect stands on some pretty solid ground. If you are going to turn that into shaky ground, you need some real world examples like how I can live without air or food. Until then, I see no convincing argument that can claim causality is something that merely exists in the mind.

Causality is not perceived, it is concluded. — Philosophim

If you are going to turn that into shaky ground, you need some real world examples like how I can live without air or food. — Philosophim

Again, remember that I have not rejected the notion that causality is not applied to phenomena. The examples that you call "real world" are all subject to the conditions of space and time, i.e. they are phenomena. I cannot provide you with an example that violates this rule, because the requirement of doing so is not valid.

Most likely you will agree that things like color, taste and smell are subjective and do not belong to the thing in itself. I would like you to demonstrate why causality is different. To be sure, causality is inter-subjective, which grounds its objective validity. But independent of the human mind and its constraint of phenomena to space and time, is causality anything?

First, thank you for your passionate and thoughtful response! There are many good points here.

I view causal arguments for a first cause to be, simply put (and I am not trying to undermine your argument), the process of induction being utilized to infer something that is well beyond that which any given experience could reasonably supply to induction itself. — Bob Ross

Absolutely true. The OP is an argument of abducto ad absurdum. Meaning, I am not showing that a first cause is necessary by showing proof of a first cause, but instead showing that if we assume there is no first cause, there exists an absurdity, or contradiction. The argument shows that I simply cannot logically deduce a situation that does not have a first cause, even when I propose an infinite regress.

That being said, it leaves it open to what we could explore that first causes would be. To me, this is the exciting part. If it is logically necessary that a first cause exist, would we see evidence of that in the universe? Is multiverse theory actually a statistical certainty, and not merely a fun theory? Is the nature of reality essentially infinite time and possibility?

If you believe my sense of causality to be the entire foundation of the argument, I agree. What I would put to you however, is does a first cause really function outside of space and time? Prior to its existence, yes. But once it exists, is it not part of space and time? One thing to also conclude from the argument is I am not stating there is only one first cause. If there is the possibility for one first cause, there is the possibility of several. Thus a first cause could appear while other existent things also exist. Perhaps yes, there is a first cause that could exist in a different plane of existence and time we cannot comprehend. But we're talking about our universe. First causes within our universe would necessarily have to be part of the space and time that results from them. That is because, as you noted, causality happens both ways. For space and time to come from a first cause, it must also be able to encounter space and time.

You see, I am also not entirely convinced that those are the only three options. I would say there are five (if one is going to use logic and its metalogical principles, which I won’t elaborate here, but I would be skeptical of this too): eternal existence, self-manifestation (causa sui), infinite regression, infinite loop, and arbitrary stopping point. Firstly, I think you may have too hastily lumped all causes that are defined as “not having a prior cause” into your “first cause” (c), when, in fact, I think there are at least (at a minimum) two distinct sectors: eternal existence and self-manifestation (causa sui); I would be personally unwilling to say that these two concepts are synonymous or analogous to one another—although I would concede that they both fit under your “first cause” (c) definition. — Bob Ross

Perfect. I have purposefully avoided the idea of eternal existence and self-manifestation because many will think I have an underlying theistic motive, and make the argument about what they believe I'm trying to say, versus just looking the argument for what it is. You are correct however. My only minor quibble would be self-causation, but that's technical and honestly irrelevant. I agree they all fit under the "first cause" definition.

In light of the two aforementioned concepts (eternal existence and self-manifestation), I am not entirely certain as to if you are arguing for a “first cause” that created itself (which would constitute it being its own justification) or if it just is — Bob Ross

Here is where the technicality arises. If something creates another thing, even if it is itself, that created thing is caused by the original thing, the first cause. I feel this is more word play and I think can be simplified into the fact that it just is.

Although I would concede that actual infinities have not been proven to exist, if they do exist, then they would not be subject to your criticism here: they would be just as out of bounds of the principle of sufficient reason as anyone could (at least) argue for any type of “first cause” — Bob Ross

I had to read this part a few times to make sure I understood. Please correct me if I'm wrong here. If you are implying that we could argue for any type of first cause, that is a conclusion of the argument. A first cause has no explanation for why it exists, therefore it is not constrained by prior rules as to why it should exist. That does not mean it wouldn't have rules after it formed, just no rules limiting it or requiring it to be a certain "thing".

The point of addressing actual infinities was to eliminate the only other option to the idea of finite regression. If we cannot have a situation that does not always boil down to a first cause, there must inevitably exist a first cause.

I apologize for how long my reply is, but I have an inkling that you would rather have a too long response than one that is way too short. — Bob Ross

You are all to right Bob!

I do not see how one could possibly prove that a-c (or even if you were to accept my previously mentioned five possibilities) are literally the only options — Bob Ross

You are also correct. But they are the only known options we have. I cannot bring logic into that which we have no knowledge of. As such, I am left with what I do know. If there was another option that came into light in the future, then the argument would be invalid. However, within the confines of what we do know, does the argument make sense? I think I've made a decent case.

I appreciate again your well thought out answer and critques, it was a joy to read a fellow passionate thinker!

While you may not personally believe in cause and effect, — Philosophim

Never said that.

As to your explosion question, I felt I gave a pretty clear answer. — Philosophim

Clear enough, but not to the question.

A cause is separated by its effect — Philosophim

Then what is "in between"?

I'm assuming it exists. — Philosophim

Exactly! And you can do that. And if I assume you owe me $100, can I expect a check in the next day or two?

One way you could convince me that causality does not exist as more than a convenient fiction is explain how you posted online without causality. — Philosophim

I assume it! And that leaves us with your causality "proved" by your assumption, and disproved by mine. But I have all along acknowledged causality as a useful idea, a useful fiction. You apparently want it to be real in some sense. So, demonstrate it. It seems to me that the exploding dynamite is a very clear sample to work with.

On the other hand, if you're content with your claim as just an assumption of yours, then we have no difference.

Not a worry. I'm thinking at this point that I did not write a clear enough idea in my desire to keep it within a certain size. That is on me, and no one else.

About Hume, Hume was talking about causality as an induction of belief about the future. In other words, there was no reason to believe the rules of causality (or really, rules of anything) would be the same tomorrow. However, that doesn't mean we cannot test the rules of today, and come to the conclusion that causality exists. Hume noted that our belief that the rules would be stable tomorrow could be nothing more than a belief. So far, that belief has held true. So can we know the future? Never.

So in the same vein, we can examine the distant past. Perhaps it is the case that billions of years ago, the rules of the universe functioned differently. Perhaps objects existed that were pure chaos and had no explanation for their being. While we can trace up what the past "should" be if the rules are the same, its really a matter of faith. Still, I think its a matter of faith we can cling to. Further, I can see no alternative to chaos and causality. Chaos is essentially a first cause, while causality is the expected response to external forces.

So, with the inductive belief that causality still existed back then, and as I have no other belief in my mind, I try to come to a logical conclusion with causality, and with a first cause, what must necessarily exist without prior causality. — Philosophim

What I find intriguing is that there's a difference between acausality (no patterns) and amended causality (changing patterns). I think people, at least I do, conflate the two.

Allow me to explain.

Hume's problem of induction is ambiguous as regards these two (acausality vs. amended causality) because in both cases our predictions, based on how things were and are, fail. Is it because the world has become patternless (no laws/rules) or is it that it begins to adopt new patterns (a different set of rules/laws)? In the former, causality ceases to exist but in the latter, causality persists, only in a different form.

Against this backdrop, we could explore possibilities in re the so-called laws of nature e.g. in the case of the Big Bang (first cause), was gravity negative?

$F = -G\frac{m_1m_2}{r^2}$

?

an excuse for being unable to explain an idea in a way that fits with reality — Philosophim

You like to think that, up to you. Do you understand quantum mechanics?
Check the "quantum causal loops", try to explain the entanglement with causal-effect approach, try to think on a cause-effect way when trying to understand quantum decoherence... .
I think in the microscopic quantum world things don't happen in a lineal cause-effect way.
Why is Schrödinger equation full of probabilistic functions? Do you think it is because we don't know enough so we replace a "deterministic" function by a probabilistic one?
I believe the world, what we call the reality is much more complex than the naïf-intuition of cause-effect.
I guess I'm not the only one, let s ask the physicists ;-)

Does this mean multiverse for example, is no longer a plausible theory, but almost logical certainty? A self explained existence does not need to exist forever. If any lifespan has an equal chance of forming, then wouldn't the universe be full of entities popping in and out of existence? — Philosophim

No need for several universes. This very universe of ours appears made of things popping in and out of existence all the soddin' time. An non-determinist universe is a universe in constant creation.

Feel free to attempt to show why cause and effect break down then. — Philosophim

I'm not physicists and I don't have the math tools to do it but it is easy to so the other way around, trying to break the cause-effect.
The cause-effect intuition (Hume was great explaining it) implies a cause of a cause in a infinity loop what is irrational in itself. That's it!
It works in certain situations (daily life scale) it doesn't in others (micro-quantum, macro-blackholes, etc)

Cause and effect are brought about due to categorical distinctions. Within distinctions values are emergent.

We can ask if values beget distinctions or distinctions beget values. It is only of ‘value’ to ask not to answer.

To ask about a ‘first cause’ states that there is a first cause as ‘cause’ and ‘first’ are framed via temporal appreciation not via atemporal appreciation.

I cannot value one thing about another without two things. I can value myself above myself in terms of temporal difference (the me previously to the future me) but this is likely a trick as the ‘now’ is the accumulation of past/future me not distinct from it.

None of this likely helps the discussion though because it is meant as means of putting an end to it :)