As to your explosion question, I felt I gave a pretty clear answer.
— Philosophim
Clear enough, but not to the question. — tim wood
Then what is "in between"?
I'm assuming it exists.
— Philosophim — tim wood
And if I assume you owe me $100, can I expect a check in the next day or two? — tim wood
You like to think that, up to you. Do you understand quantum mechanics? — Raul
I think in the microscopic quantum world things don't happen in a lineal cause-effect way. — Raul
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? — Raul
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 ;-) — Raul
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. — Olivier5
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! — Raul
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? — TheMadFool
Cause and effect are brought about due to categorical distinctions. Within distinctions values are emergent. — I like sushi
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 like sushi
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. — I like sushi
None of this likely helps the discussion though because it is meant as means of putting an end to it — I like sushi
Any physicist will tell you cause and effect exists. — Philosophim
Either all things have a prior cause for their existence, or there is at least one first cause of existence from which a chain of events follows. — Philosophim
We factually know that this is not true. Events at the atomic and sub-atomic level have no prior "cause". Events do follow certain statistical patterns, but each event is totally random with no prior "cause". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam
In the last 100 years our knowledge of the physical universe has grown exponentially and new discoveries are being made - we are likely just scratching the surface here. To think we can draw any sort of grand philosophical conclusions about the nature of reality is an act of hubris. We must be humble and acknowledge that we really don't know what's going on. — EricH
Well, I am valuing two things. A first cause leads to a second right? — Philosophim
But, I don't think you've succeeded in showing the premises of cause and effect aren't real. — Philosophim
Try to explain to me how you can type words on your keyboard without cause and effect. — Philosophim
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. — Philosophim
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. — Philosophim
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. — Philosophim
that which exists without at least a logical reason is utterly incomprehensible....
— 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. — Philosophim
At this point I think you've strayed too far from the OP. — Philosophim
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. — Philosophim
Hume was talking about predicting the future. — Philosophim
Doesn't the second premise imply the first one? Wouldn't each event in a chain of events have a prior one that is its cause? But this is not important. What follows is!1. Either all things have a prior cause for their existence, or there is at least one first cause of existence from which a chain of events follows. — Philosophim
I assume that by "unknown" it is meant that Y has a prior causality but it is unknown, and that unknown causality is represented by X, rather than it does not have a prior causality or that it is unknown whether it has a prior causality or not. The reasons I assume that first meaning are:Y: represents an existence that has an unknown prior causality.
X: represents an existent prior causality to Y. — Philosophim
OK, this doesn't add anything to the situation at this point, except the fact that Y has at least one "child".Z: Represent an existence caused by Y. — Philosophim
I see a conflict here, since I have established that Y does have a prior causality, so Alpha cannot be an instance or existence of Y, since it has no prior causality!Alpha: A Y existence that is identified as having no prior causality — Philosophim
But the math should not be confused as representing the quantum world as unpredictably random, but a predictable randomness based off of the knowledge we have, the the knowledge that we know we don't have. — Philosophim
Any physicist will tell you cause and effect exists. — Philosophim
"What causes your keyboard to type words," — Philosophim
As I said in my response to your OP, the entire argument, to the extent that I could make sense of it, hinges on an equivocation about the word "cause". Whatever meaning you prefer to use, if you use it consistently throughout, then it doesn't appear that you have managed to say much with your argument. My most generous interpretation of it is as an argument for the existence of brute causal fact(s), as opposed to the unrestricted principle of sufficient reason. But that is not novel, and could have been (and has been) stated much more clearly. — SophistiCat
i can assure you that the expression "cause and effect" never came up in my 4 years of college. — EricH
We factually know that this is not true. Events at the atomic and sub-atomic level have no prior "cause". Events do follow certain statistical patterns, but each event is totally random with no prior "cause". — EricH
Is that a 'value'? Why is it important what comes 'first' or if something does come 'first'? Do you apply more value to first or second and if so why do you do this? — I like sushi
Real in what way? Why does the value 'real' come into play here? Are claiming that cause and effect are real because you value them or because you value cause and effect or because you don't value them. I'm guessing you apply the term 'real' to them because you value them so when you say 'real' you mean of 'value'. The question is then 'value' how and due to what distinction? — I like sushi
I can show you. Here. I had no need whatsoever to type the words you said I wouldn't be able to stop myself from typing! :D — I like sushi
If we break down the cause and effect into the item you gave (typing) then I can just keep on dividing up any given act. For example I could say that the cause of me typing on a keyboard is my want to communicate, but then I could ask where this 'want' comes from. I could say my thoughts instigate my want, but what instigates my thoughts. Or I could move in another direction and ask what instigated that particular thought to type, or did I even think about typing or merely acted to the cause of reading your post? Where does this go? What direction do I take? Is this meaningful and if so, or not, how? — I like sushi
If the bridge is washed out, my path across it is impossible. — Mww
Granted already; there is a first cause logical necessity. But only in the case of a chain comprised of a regressive series. Doesn’t work that way for a progressive series. Next month cannot be explained without the priority of next week. — Mww
Again, I just don’t see how this says anything. The possibility of infinite regressive, and even infinite progressive, causality, is logically given. Do you mean there is no outside reason other than its being logical? What other reason could there be for that which is merely a logical proposition? — Mww
But there being no reason whatsoever for me being rich, is incomprehensible, whether I care about the reason or not. I simply cannot suddenly be rich (a change) without a reason (a cause), whether I conclude anything respecting it, or not. — Mww
One of these, of course, is called "first cause," but as a fact about the causal structure of the world, it is not located anywhere in time, nor is it a cause in the usual sense (only in a loose sense that is synonymous with "explanation" or "reason"). — SophistiCat
Whatever meaning you prefer to use, if you use it consistently throughout, then it doesn't appear that you have managed to say much with your argument. — SophistiCat
I assume that by "unknown" it is meant that Y has a prior causality but it is unknown, and that unknown causality is represented by X, rather than it does not have a prior causality or that it is unknown whether it has a prior causality or not. — Alkis Piskas
I'm not saying cause-effect does not exist. We humans have created the words cause and effect to describe something. What I'm saying is that they don't work to properly describe reality. — Raul
If this question is for you relevant to this discussion I think you're too biased by using a language in wrong context. — Raul
Not really, they talk about action-reaction and anyway my point is that cause-and effect is not enough to describe reality. — Raul
I'm just trying to speak in the terms you were using. I don't value anything more than another. — Philosophim
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.
Is multiverse theory actually a statistical certainty, and not merely a fun theory? Is the nature of reality essentially infinite time and possibility?
Prior to its [first cause’s] existence, yes. But once it exists, is it not part of space and time? ...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 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.
If something creates another thing, even if it is itself, that created thing is caused by the original thing, the first cause.
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.
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.
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.
Finally, quantum foam as a theory does not destroy cause and effect. — Philosophim
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.