Doesn't 'pop up' imply it popped up from a origin point/event, and thus, by my use of the term 'cause', this origin point/event is the cause? Otherwise, what is the significance of 'popping up'? Is it what the claim to be 'nothing-ness', you claim pop has no meaning?

Doesn't 'pop up' imply it popped up from a origin point/event, and thus, by my use of the term 'cause', this origin point/event is the cause? — Barkon

No. There is no specific prior event that causes the atom to decay at that particular point in time.

Otherwise, what is the significance of 'popping up'? Is it what the claim to be 'nothing-ness', you claim pop has no meaning? — Barkon

The philosophical concept of causality does not apply to physical phenomena at the atomic & sub-atomic level. The words "significance" and "meaning" do not have any meaning/usage here.

Things don't pop up for no reason, in fact, that is an assertion that implies a cause(in this case, 'no reason'). Given this, it is wiser to assert that the universe came into existence by some manifestation in, per se, a multiverse, than it is to park randomly on the conjecture it just popped up for no reason. We must assume a cause, so we must base theories on an existence that was caused rather than aiming at cause-less-ness and failing to describe it alongside many other inconsistencies concerning things happening without causes. — Barkon

I'm not sure what prompted you to make such an emphatic assertion. David Hume threw a monkey wrench into ancient confident causal assumptions with his astute observation that "correlation does not prove causation". {my emphasis} Nevertheless, a long chain of observed & recorded cause & effect links does point to the logical conclusion that certain kinds of temporal Priors (before state) are consistently followed by specific Posteriors (after effects). Otherwise, empirical science would not be as successful as it has been. And Bayesian Probability calculations allow us to calculate a reasonable expectation for a specified result.

Both sides of the contentious Causation controversy are personal opinions (beliefs) though, grounded on generalization from limited evidence. Causation was taken for granted by philosophers until the secularization of Science in the Enlightenment era, due to rejection of church authority on such questions. Yet, Modern Science is still based on the conditional presumption that every type of event that consistently follows another event was caused by the prior. Otherwise, our experience of the "arrow of time" would be misleading.

Even today, secular scientists typically assume continuity-of-causation all the way back to the beginning of Time : Big Bang theory. But at that point, natural knowable causation ends and supernatural conjectural causation must be inserted. Hence, their chain-of-causes abruptly ends at the beginning. So, any a priori causation or First Cause ceases to be a scientifically answerable question. Any speculations beyond that point are illegitimate, except for religious or philosophical purposes. I must assume that your OP was not a scientific statement, nor a religious doctrine, but merely philosophical in intent. :smile:

PS___FWIW, I just added a blog post in response to Arthur Schopenhauer's World As Will assertion that all change in the world results, not from a logical consecutive chain of causation, but from "a blind, unconscious, aimless striving devoid of knowledge" In other words, our world is not orderly, but chaotic; not rational, but random. I disagree with him, and agree with your assertion that we amateur philosophers "must assume a cause". Yet, some scientists & philosophers assume that they are exempt from that rational necessity, in cases that could be misconstrued as religious statements.


Schopenhauer’s Will as Intention :
Schopenhauer argued that the flawed world is not rationally organized. But, if so, how could reasoning beings evolve, and how could human Science gain control over the physical realm?
http://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page19.html

You are pushing back the issue and falling into infinite regress of causes.

See Aristotle, Aquinas, Hume. — Lionino

Lol what? A cause definitely does not require an infinite regress. Don't blame it on those people, they were very smart. But 99 percent of all people do not know how to solve the infinite regress. It really takes a sophisticated philosophy, far more than trivial conjecture, even if the person is smart their philosophy is always rather practical because people usually don't have the required passion to truly think as deeply as they possibly can...and then go even deeper than that, hence they never solve the infinite regression.

Appeal to authority is also a fallacy. :smile:

Your whole comment is a lot of self-fellating nonsense about how you are so much more enlightened than others without giving any reasons at all for other to believe it — in fact you couldn't even read my post properly, even though it is a very short and simple post. Next time try actually making a good post with information in it.

Your whole comment is a lot of self-fellating nonsense about how you are so much more enlightened than others without giving any reasons at all for other to believe it — in fact you couldn't even read my post properly, even though it is a very short and simple post. Next time try actually making a good post with information in it. — Lionino

Ad hom...is another logical fallacy. :blush:

Ad hom...is another logical fallacy. :blush: — chiknsld

You don't know what "ad hom" means. Pointing out "fallacies" (where there is none) is not impressive or interesting after high school.

You are beginning to sour my disposition...let's take a step back and see if we can settle this in more reasonable means...do you have anything constructive to say?

I say this with fair warning. :smile:

Infinite regress is fine. Trying to escape it is where trouble arises, in the absence of relevant information.

double up?

Goodness gracious...how much help do you people need?

What? And this is also in relation to your next post?

Don't play games with me. I am almost 40 years old.

But I do look young :)

I am almost 40 years old. — chiknsld

That is too young for Alzheimer's.

You are still battling logical fallacies.

Should I just be ignoring this weird tangent?

Stop, while you are ahead. :smile:

Please solve the following equation:
$x^{2}-3x=0$

Solve the following equation...I the best philosopher you will ever encounter...

Do not test my patience.

Another babbling special-needs individual who can't do middle school math, somehow even worse than OP.

That's better :smile: ...more of what this site needs!

Keep going genius!

So, Hume aye.

Goodness gracious, wtf you people are making me respond with words, but I really only like to respond with logic.

Spare me anymore of your emotional outbursts.

...buying another 12 pack of beers as it is the only thing that let's me relate to your slow, boring, phrases.