Good to see you again Ucarr! Great write up, let me see if I can justifiably answer your points.

The implication of a total existence from infinite possibilities is that non-existence is actually unlimited possibility. There’s an idea that nothingness equals no restrictions. — ucarr

This is the one area that I think you misinterpret from me. I am not saying "Something is formed from nothingness". Nothingness does not cause somethingness. Nothing and something are two very different things that do not cause each other. My point is only that existence has no outside cause for its being. There could be something that already exists for example, then something else appears elsewhere without prior cause. Arguably there's nothing to stop an overlap besides the statistically insignificant odds of it happening if something can appear anywhere at any time.

On the other side of the coin, we can ask, how existence, being self-contained, can do other than persist as existence. — ucarr

It persists as existence because the causal beginning point "It simply is" formed an existence that did not have anything within itself that it would cease to exist. There is nothing preventing an existence that formed and would only last for 12 seconds before ceasing to exist. The existence we have today has lasted for billions of years, but that doesn't mean that it has to. Statistically, its likely that the tiniest aspects of existence which are not composed of other existence, may very well fade out over time as one could last 1 billion and one seconds, 1 billion and two seconds, etc. In addition, these small aspect of existence may simply form at any time as well. Its an interesting cosmology to think about.

Now we have two posits about the origin of the universe: a) the universe is eternal; b) the universe is self-caused. — ucarr

These are not mutually exclusive. It is one possibility that the universe is both eternal, and does not have any prior cause that made it eternal.

This leaves us preferring to see the universe as self-caused and eternal. — ucarr

And it can also be the case that the universe is not eternal and has no prior cause that explains why it started to begin. So if what I've noted is true, both are equal possibilities with none being more necessary than the other.

Bob I'm not even too sure where to start with this one at this point. I feel you keep making this needlessly complicated and introducing aspects that I'm not including. I would read Ucarr's reply and my response to him to reset on the right track. Let me see if I can sum up your issues and get us back on a clearer path again.

What I was noting is that if something caused C, when taken as its members, and is not itself caused then that thing is not a member of C; and this is patently true because C contains only real things that are caused—which precludes things that are not caused — Bob Ross

No, this is not what C is. C is the entire sum of all scoped causality. So by consequence if A causes B, then C does not cause A. If nothing causes A, then there is no prior causality that caused A. That's all part of the scope.

Existence itself is not a property like other properties: you can’t ask “why is there being?” like “why is there red things?”. — Bob Ross

Why can't I? That fits in the scope. You'll need to explain why this question cannot be asked logically. For example I can say, "There are red things because light reflects off of them at a particular wavelength that we label as 'red'". That's a more narrow scope, but the scope of causality can be expanded further to the point of encapsulating everything. If it cannot, please point out in the OP where I make this mistake and why.

In terms of why do things exist, the question in an infinite regress would be that each one explains the other: that’s no problem to answer. — Bob Ross

What caused the infinite regress? Again, what caused it to be an infinite regress of diamonds versus garnets? What you're doing is limiting the scope, but you can't give me a logical reason why I can't expand it farther.

As you know, I would say that God is the explanation. The issue is that your argument tries to determine a priori that each cogent solution results in the idea of everything being uncaused; — Bob Ross

What caused God?

The answer is not that F causes C. Its that C is uncaused.

If you agree that sets aren’t real, then you must concede that C cannot be caused or uncaused. — Bob Ross

This doesn't address the point at all. I don't know what you mean by sets not being real, nor how this addresses the logic of something uncaused.

your proof is supposed to demonstrate all of them leading back to everything being uncaused; and so if there is even on solution that doesn’t lead back to that, then your thesis is void. — Bob Ross

Correct.

An infinite regression is one such example. — Bob Ross

No, because you have yet to demonstrate how an infinite regression is caused by something prior instead of uncaused.

Again, read Ucarrs post and my reply before responding Bob. I think that will help reset us on the same page again.

Unfortunately, I don't see any way forward either ):

I think we are going in circles at this point, so I am going to remove my hat from the ring. The last thing I will say is that, again, your arguments depend on conflations---especially between a set and its members and between C and A.

Not a worry Bob! We may not agree on these points but I always respect your honest engagement and viewpoint.

You too, my friend! I look forward to our next conversation.

The logic of a universal origin and meaning

Extract of Philo’s Main Points

My point is only that existence has no outside cause for its being.

Are you saying that existence has no outside cause and that it has no outside at all?

I'm saying the entire scope of causality (is the focal point of my argument)

Is it true you're saying the entire scope of causality is the focal point of your argument?

...the totality of caused things has no cause

Are you saying the totality of caused things has an uncaused beginning?

...the uncaused thing would be the limit inside of that totality (the totality of what exists).

Are you saying the uncaused thing began inside of the universe?

It simply was not (the universe), then it was. Or its always been.

Are you saying your logic of a universal origin and meaning gives equal weight to the possibility of: a) an uncaused universe; b) an eternal universe?

...the entirety of existence has no prior reason for its existence, and therefore could have been anything.

Is this the main argument for: The logic of a universal origin and meaning?

Are you saying that before the entirety of existence existed, the universe could have been anything?

Are you saying that existence has no outside cause and that it has no outside at all? — ucarr

I am saying that existence encapsulates everything that is. "Existences" are subdivided quantifications of existence. My note is that if you increase the scope of causality to its limit, there is no outside cause that creates existence, as whatever exists is part of existence.

Is it true you're saying the entire scope of causality is the focal point of your argument? — ucarr

I believe so, yes.

Are you saying the uncaused thing began inside of the universe? — ucarr

"Inside" is a tricky word if there was nothing to begin with. If there was at least one thing that existed and something uncaused appeared, then yes. But if there was absolutely nothing, that inception would be the beginning of the universe.

Are you saying your logic of a universal origin and meaning gives equal weight to the possibility of: a) an uncaused universe; b) an eternal universe? — ucarr

Yes.

Are you saying that before the entirety of existence existed, the universe could have been anything? — ucarr

Yes.

Are you saying that existence has no outside cause and that it has no outside at all? — ucarr

I am saying that existence encapsulates everything that is. "Existences" are subdivided quantifications of existence. My note is that if you increase the scope of causality to its limit, there is no outside cause that creates existence, as whatever exists is part of existence. — Philosophim

Since existence encapsulates everything that is, that includes the entire scope of causality within the closed system of existence?

If the entire scope of causation is a proper subset of the entire scope of existence, then proper subset cannot contain a cause beyond its superset, the entire scope of existence?

Is it true you're saying the entire scope of causality is the focal point of your argument? — ucarr

I believe so, yes. — Philosophim

So your theory has at it center the greater scope of existence with the lesser scope of causality inside of it?

Are you saying the uncaused thing began inside of the universe? — ucarr

"Inside" is a tricky word if there was nothing to begin with. If there was at least one thing that existed and something uncaused appeared, then yes. But if there was absolutely nothing, that inception would be the beginning of the universe. — Philosophim

Are you saying that given a pre-existing universe, the uncaused beginning of the entire scope of causality must occur within the pre-existing universe?

Are you now saying the universe did come from nothing? Did you strike through your recent statement:

The universe did not come 'from nothing'. Nothing did not create anything. It simply was not, then it was. Or its always been. Either way, nothing made it into being or restricted what could have come into being. That is the only logical conclusion — Philosophim

Are you saying that before the entirety of existence existed, the universe could have been anything? — ucarr

Yes. — Philosophim

By saying, "Before the entirety of existence existed, the universe could have been anything," are you implying: a) unlimited possibility pre-dated the universe; b) unlimited possibility had a causal influence upon the universe?

Since existence encapsulates everything that is, that includes the entire scope of causality within the closed system of existence? — ucarr

Yes.

If the entire scope of causation is a proper subset of the entire scope of existence, then proper subset cannot contain a cause beyond its superset, the entire scope of existence? — ucarr

I don't know or care. The set is a tool to help you understand the concept, not a mathematically rigid logical model.

So your theory has at it center the greater scope of existence with the lesser scope of causality inside of it? — ucarr

No, I'm just talking about the scope of causality. I don't know what the scope of existence is.

Are you saying that given a pre-existing universe, the uncaused beginning of the entire scope of causality must occur within the pre-existing universe? — ucarr

No, I'm saying if there is nothing, then something, that something is the universe. The universe is all that exists. If there is nothing that exists, there is no universe.

Are you now saying the universe did come from nothing? — ucarr

No. Nothing and Something are not connected. Nothing cannot cause anything. Uncaused means uncaused Ucarr. Not that 'nothing' caused something.

By saying, "Before the entirety of existence existed, the universe could have been anything," are you implying: a) unlimited possibility pre-dated the universe; b) unlimited possibility had a causal influence upon the universe? — ucarr

No to both. There is no 'thing' that is generating probability. Its simply a a logical conclusion that results from understanding that if there is no prior cause for something being, then there are no rules for why it should or should not be.

This is a contradiction in terms: ontology is philosophy, not science. Science cannot get at ontology, being merely the study of the relation of things and not the nature of things. — Bob Ross

Ontology is the study of what exists—metaphysics is the study of the nature of what exists. Science is the only possible guide to both enquiries. Imagination alone won't do. Logic alone won't do. So, what are we left with?

Science involves both imagination and logic of course, but it does not stop there—it observes and studies the phenomena we encounter and the perceived invariances and speculates about how things are in ways that can be tested.

If the entire scope of causation is a proper subset of the entire scope of existence, then proper subset cannot contain a cause beyond its superset, the entire scope of existence? — ucarr

I don't know or care. The set is a tool to help you understand the concept, not a mathematically rigid logical model. — Philosophim

Do you think the mathematical and logical precision of set theory is mis-applied to your theory? If so, why have you chosen for your title: "The logic of a universal origin and meaning"?

So your theory has at its center the greater scope of existence with the lesser scope of causality inside of it? — ucarr

No, I'm just talking about the scope of causality. I don't know what the scope of existence is. — Philosophim

Why do you say you don't know what is the scope of existence given your earlier statement re-posted below:

I am saying that existence encapsulates everything that is. "Existences" are subdivided quantifications of existence. My note is that if you increase the scope of causality to its limit, there is no outside cause that creates existence, as whatever exists is part of existence. — Philosophim

Why don't you care about the relationship between the scope of existence and the scope of causation? Consider your earlier statement below:

The universe did not come 'from nothing'. Nothing did not create anything. It doesn't come 'from' anything. It simply was not, then it was. Or its always been. Either way, nothing made it into being or restricted what could have come into being. That is the only logical conclusion. — Philosophim

When you say nothing caused the universe and nothing restricted what it could become, you seem to be setting the stage upon which the chain of causation plays. Even though this statement makes it sound as if the unfettered scope and possible identity of existence is fundamental to the scope of causation, you're now clarifying that the relationship between existence and causation is not fundamental to your theory?

Are you saying that given a pre-existing universe, the uncaused beginning of the entire scope of causality must occur within the pre-existing universe? — ucarr

No, I'm saying if there is nothing, then something, that something is the universe. The universe is all that exists. If there is nothing that exists, there is no universe. — Philosophim

Is it true that the entire scope of causation plays within the universe? Does this agree with nothing caused the universe and nothing restricted what it could become?

Are you now saying the universe did come from nothing? — ucarr

No. Nothing and Something are not connected. Nothing cannot cause anything. Uncaused means uncaused Ucarr. Not that 'nothing' caused something. — Philosophim

I understand you to be saying non-existence and existence are closed and cannot interact.

By saying, "Before the entirety of existence existed, the universe could have been anything," are you implying: a) unlimited possibility pre-dated the universe; b) unlimited possibility had a causal influence upon the universe? — ucarr

No to both. There is no 'thing' that is generating probability. Its simply a a logical conclusion that results from understanding that if there is no prior cause for something being, then there are no rules for why it should or should not be. — Philosophim

When you say there is no prior cause for the universe, why do you not think there is non-existence followed the universe being caused by non-existence? Is it not clear that if, as you say, "...existence encapsulates everything that is," then before existence there could only be non-existence, and thus the transition from, "It simply was not, then it was," could only be brought about by non-existence?

Since you say, "...if there is no prior cause for something being, then there are no rules for why it should or should not be," why do you not think there being no rules governing being, not being and how to be amounts to unlimited possibility? Do you not agree that the universe of all existence cannot happen if it's not possible? Do you not agree that if possibility is necessary for a thing to happen, and if there are no restrictions on what that thing can be, then the possibility must be unlimited?

Eh, scientism doesn't work nor logical positivism. E.g., you can't scientifically determine the nature of truth, logic, mathematics, knowledge, some a priori modes of cognition, etc.

There is nothing science can say of, e.g., the nature of a proposition.

Likewise, metaphysics which is not derived from science may still be informed by it; and the parts that are not are guided by that application of reason to evidence---not the imagination (if it is done properly).

Do you think the mathematical and logical precision of set theory is mis-applied to your theory? — ucarr

Yes, I am not using set theory. That's why I'm telling you that the 'set' example is not the argument, just an example to help you understand. The argument is still logical.

Why do you say you don't know what is the scope of existence given your earlier statement re-posted below:

I am saying that existence encapsulates everything that is. "Existences" are subdivided quantifications of existence. My note is that if you increase the scope of causality to its limit, there is no outside cause that creates existence, as whatever exists is part of existence. — ucarr

Because I defined scope very clearly in the OP. Inserting, "Scope of all existence" is not a phrase I used or claimed. You're introducing something I've never asserted, and we don't want a straw man fallacy.

Why don't you care about the relationship between the scope of existence and the scope of causation? — ucarr

Because I never introduced the scope of existence. I don't know what this is. Again, a straw man.

Is it true that the entire scope of causation plays within the universe? Does this agree with nothing caused the universe and nothing restricted what it could become? — ucarr

I don't know what the phrase, "Plays within the universe" means. The argument has been presented, feel free to note where you disagree at this point. A couple of pure questions is fine Ucarr, but it feels like you're asking things that are plainly answered, and it feels like you're using ambiguous language as a trap. Don't do that. Submit your criticism and I'll clarify if there's a problem.

I understand you to be saying non-existence and existence are closed and cannot interact. — ucarr

Thank you for confirming this, I won't mention it again then.

then before existence there could only be non-existence, and thus the transition from, "It simply was not, then it was," could only be brought about by non-existence? — ucarr

'by' is not a good word to use as it implies that non-existence caused existence. We have confirmed it does not. The simple expression is, "It is uncaused." Not brought about. Not 'by'. Uncaused. No rules, no restrictions, nothing prior, no existence, no nothing. Its was not, then it was.

Since you say, "...if there is no prior cause for something being, then there are no rules for why it should or should not be," why do you not think there being no rules governing being, not being and how to be amounts to unlimited possibility? — ucarr

Why do we understand that a jack in a randomly shuffled deck has a 4/52 chance of being drawn? Because there are limitations and rules that establish what can happen. There is a fact of there only being 4 jacks and only 52 cards.

If something is not caused Ucarr, where are the rules? Where are the restrictions? There are none. Because there is nothing that caused it. Since there is nothing that caused it, there is nothing that restricts it from forming either. Give me an example of an uncaused existence that has restrictions and rules to see for yourself.

Do you not agree that if possibility is necessary for a thing to happen, and if there are no restrictions on what that thing can be, then the possibility must be unlimited? — ucarr

Lets clarify this one as well. There does not exist in the ether a 'possibility'. Its not out there just waiting. Its a logical conclusion of what is entailed by uncaused existence. If there are no restrictions, then anything is possible, yes. If we have an infinite deck of cards and each card type has an infinite amount in this deck then every card has an equal chance of being drawn.

Eh, scientism doesn't work nor logical positivism. E.g., you can't scientifically determine the nature of truth, logic, mathematics, knowledge, some a priori modes of cognition, etc.

There is nothing science can say of, e.g., the nature of a proposition.

Likewise, metaphysics which is not derived from science may still be informed by it; and the parts that are not are guided by that application of reason to evidence---not the imagination (if it is done properly). — Bob Ross

Demonstrating the nature of truth, and the other things you mention cannot be done. If it could be it would have been by now after more than two thousand years of trying.

Those are not scientific questions, they are semantic follies, but the nature of the world can only be investigated by science, not by imagination or logic alone.

If the entire scope of causation is a proper subset of the entire scope of existence, then proper subset cannot contain a cause beyond its superset, the entire scope of existence? — ucarr

Do you think the mathematical and logical precision of set theory is mis-applied to your theory? — ucarr

Yes, I am not using set theory. That's why I'm telling you that the 'set' example is not the argument, just an example to help you understand. The argument is still logical. — Philosophim

Since the argument from set theory supports your claim no first cause lies outside of the scope of existence, why do you object to it?

Why do you say you don't know what is the scope of existence given your earlier statement re-posted below:

I am saying that existence encapsulates everything that is. "Existences" are subdivided quantifications of existence. My note is that if you increase the scope of causality to its limit, there is no outside cause that creates existence, as whatever exists is part of existence. — Philosophim

Because I defined scope very clearly in the OP. Inserting, "Scope of all existence" is not a phrase I used or claimed. You're introducing something I've never asserted, and we don't want a straw man fallacy. — Philosophim

Since we see here from your quoted posting of the statement, (Click on your name at the bottom of your quoted statement #2 in this post and it'll take you to your original post (with your name on the top banner) posted in Thread 3 two days ago) that I'm quoting your own words verbatim, why do you deny making the statement?

Because I never introduced the scope of existence. I don't know what this is. Again, a straw man. — Philosophim

Since written evidence of you defining "scope of existence" is available for public viewing here in Thread 3 of your conversation "The logic of a universal origin and meaning," why do you deny writing it?

Why do you say you don't know what is the scope of existence given your earlier statement re-posted below: — ucarr

I never use the phrase scope of existence anywhere in that quote. I don't know what you mean by it. I talk about the scope of causality. You have introduced a phrase 'scope of existence' that I don't understand. You cannot introduce a phrase I do not use then tell me I'm avoiding using it.

Make your point Ucarr and stop trying to get me to say things you want me to say instead of the things I'm saying.

I don't know what the phrase, "Plays within the universe" means. — Philosophim

I'm asking you if causation began after the universe existed.

...it feels like you're using ambiguous language... — Philosophim

Can you quote my ambiguous language?

then before existence there could only be non-existence, and thus the transition from, "It simply was not, then it was," could only be brought about by non-existence? — ucarr

'by' is not a good word to use as it implies that non-existence caused existence. We have confirmed it does not. The simple expression is, "It is uncaused." Not brought about. Not 'by'. Uncaused. No rules, no restrictions, nothing prior, no existence, no nothing. Its was not, then it was. — Philosophim

Here is my unedited quote:

When you say there is no prior cause for the universe, why do you not think there is non-existence followed by the universe being caused [by] non-existence? Is it not clear that if, as you say, "...existence encapsulates everything that is," then before existence there could only be non-existence, and thus the transition from, "It simply was not, then it was," could only be brought about by non-existence? — ucarr

Here's more evidence you have written about the universe being the scope of all that exists:

This is the one area that I think you misinterpret from me. I am not saying "Something is formed from nothingness". Nothingness does not cause somethingness. Nothing and something are two very different things that do not cause each other. My point is only that existence has no outside cause for its being. There could be something that already exists for example, then something else appears elsewhere without prior cause. Arguably there's nothing to stop an overlap besides the statistically insignificant odds of it happening if something can appear anywhere at any time. — Philosophim

With you saying directly above "My point is only that existence has no outside cause for its being," I ask again, "Why do you not think there is non-existence followed by the universe being caused [by] non-existence? Is it not clear that if, as you say, "...existence encapsulates everything that is," then before existence there could only be non-existence, and thus the transition from, "It simply was not, then it was," could only be brought about by non-existence?"

When you describe the uncaused universe as "It simply was not, then it was," you present a sequence of non-existence followed by existence. For this change to happen, there has to be movement from non-existence to existence. This, therefore, is you implying that non-existence moved to existence, viz, non-existence caused existence.

By your own words "My point is only that existence has no outside cause for its being." you imply that "...existence incapsulates everything that is," and thus when you say "It simply was not, then it was," you imply that only non-existence could have moved to existence.

Why do we understand that a jack in a randomly shuffled deck has a 4/52 chance of being drawn? Because there are limitations and rules that establish what can happen. There is a fact of there only being 4 jacks and only 52 cards.

If something is not caused Ucarr, where are the rules? Where are the restrictions? There are none. Because there is nothing that caused it. Since there is nothing that caused it, there is nothing that restricts it from forming either. Give me an example of an uncaused existence that has restrictions and rules to see for yourself. — Philosophim

You acknowledge that something does not come from nothing. This is a restriction that invalidates "If something is not caused... where are the rules? Where are the restrictions?" when it is applied to "Existence has no outside cause for its being."

If "Existence has no outside cause for its being," and thus “existence encapsulates everything that is,” then outside of existence lies non-existence.

Following from these stipulations, we see that an uncaused universe totally encapsulating everything can only have non-existence outside of itself.

This means, therefore, that uncausation, due to its logical priority, applies to everything that exists, and so it must also lie outside of the universe.

This means that uncausation equals non-existence.

You present a sequence of non-existence followed by existence. For this change to happen, there has to be movement from non-existence to existence. This statement, therefore, has you implying that non-existence moved to existence. What could do the moving other than non-existence?

If we understand that non-existence cannot do any moving, then we understand that uncaused equals non-existence.

Give me an example of an uncaused existence that has restrictions and rules to see for yourself. — Philosophim

By my argument above, there is no un-stipulated uncaused existence.

About the scope of composition I have always wondered if when we reach the limit of composition we come to find something very different from composite things: A simple thing, without parts. I wonder likewise whether this simple thing is in a higher order of existence with respect to composite things.

But I immediately realize that the whole (or the relational property of the whole) has a retroactive effect on all parts, including the simple parts of a whole. The relational whole acts as the context of the simple thing making the simple thing something that is not known from itself but from its context, that is, from its relation to the other things.

Then it would not be a problem to reach the limit of the composition, we do not reach something divine or of a superior order of existence (the bricks of god). We arrive at one more part of the whole, since these last parts of the composition are only possible to know and understand them by putting them in relation to other things.

This said in causal terms seems to indicate that there are always at least two and never a first cause. First there is relation in terms of ratio essendi. The relational aspect of things seems to be primary and determinative of the identity of things themselves.

Let's look at a stipulated uncaused existence.

Give me an example of an uncaused existence that has restrictions and rules to see for yourself. — Philosophim

If something is not caused Ucarr, where are the rules? Where are the restrictions? There are none. Because there is nothing that caused it. Since there is nothing that caused it, there is nothing that restricts it from forming either. — Philosophim

You apply the restrictions when you try to deny them. No rules is a restriction. No restrictions is a restriction. "Since there is nothing that caused it, there is nothing that restricts it from forming either." is a restriction. You can't describe something without applying limits to what it is. Anything goes is unintelligible. You describe your uncaused universe in such a way that it becomes what you want to believe about it. You want to believe in a maximally versatile universe. That's a restriction because it's not allowed to be a narrowly defined and unvaried universe.

Do you not agree that if possibility is necessary for a thing to happen, and if there are no restrictions on what that thing can be, then the possibility must be unlimited? — ucarr

Lets clarify this one as well. There does not exist in the ether a 'possibility'. Its not out there just waiting. Its a logical conclusion of what is entailed by uncaused existence. If there are no restrictions, then anything is possible, yes. If we have an infinite deck of cards and each card type has an infinite amount in this deck then every card has an equal chance of being drawn. — Philosophim

If an uncaused existence entails a logical possibility, then, by the existence of the uncaused existence, the logical possibility also exists. Were this not the case, you could not make logical conclusions about the possibilities entailed by the uncaused existence. Possibility cannot be excluded from real things.

...it feels like you're using ambiguous language...
— Philosophim

Can you quote my ambiguous language? — ucarr

My point was you kept using phrases like "scope of existence" and "Plays within The universe". These phrases could mean anything and need more detail.

With you saying directly above "My point is only that existence has no outside cause for its being," I ask again, "Why do you not think there is non-existence followed by the universe being caused [by] non-existence? — ucarr

And I tell you again, non-existence cannot cause existence. Uncaused Ucarr. Your conscious or unconscious refusal to use the vocabulary I've given you is not my inability to communicate that.

When you describe the uncaused universe as "It simply was not, then it was," you present a sequence of non-existence followed by existence. For this change to happen, there has to be movement from non-existence to existence. — ucarr

No, there does not. There's no movement. There was nothing, then something. That's it. No inbetween. No cause. No non-existence going, "Whelp, time to start existing!" :)

This, therefore, is you implying that non-existence moved to existence, viz, non-existence caused existence. — ucarr

No. I thought we settled this earlier.

I understand you to be saying non-existence and existence are closed and cannot interact.
— ucarr

Thank you for confirming this, I won't mention it again then. — Philosophim

You're going back on what you stated earlier. The above is what stands. I don't know whether you're aware you're doing it or not, but before you post next time check yourself please.

You acknowledge that something does not come from nothing. This is a restriction that invalidates "If something is not caused... where are the rules? Where are the restrictions?" when it is applied to "Existence has no outside cause for its being." — ucarr

I don't get it. Use the deck analogy I gave otherwise this doesn't make any sense.

This means, therefore, that uncausation, due to its logical priority, applies to everything that exists, and so it must also lie outside of the universe. — ucarr

Uncausation is not a thing Ucarr. You repeatedly make this mistake. It does not exist outside of the universe. It is a logical conclusion. You keep inserting a 'thing'. Uncaused is not a thing. Non-existence is not a thing. There was nothing, then something. No inbetween. No movement. That's it. I've been gracious on this as I'm hoping you just don't understand it. Your insistence in continually not just using the concept of 'uncaused' is starting to look like you're trying to be sneaky and dishonest. I expect next post you will not have this problem.

Try again using the terms I've provided. Nothing, something, no going from one state to another. Just non-existence, then existence.

You apply the restrictions when you try to deny them. No rules is a restriction. No restrictions is a restriction. "Since there is nothing that caused it, there is nothing that restricts it from forming either." is a restriction. — ucarr

No, that's the definition of no restriction Ucarr. If you're saying "No restriction is a restriction," you've cancelled yourself out.

You can't describe something without applying limits to what it is. Anything goes is unintelligible. — ucarr

I can and did. Your ability to comprehend it or desire not to accept it has no bearing on whether its a logical conclusion.

You describe your uncaused universe in such a way that it becomes what you want to believe about it. — ucarr

No, my wants have nothing to do with the argument. I'm only noting what is logically concluded. You want it to be some other way, not me Ucarr.

You want to believe in a maximally versatile universe. That's a restriction because it's not allowed to be a narrowly defined and unvaried universe. — ucarr

This is not a belief. Again, if you're stating an unlimited universe is a restriction, this is a contradiction.

If an uncaused existence entails a logical possibility, then, by the existence of the uncaused existence, the logical possibility also exists. — ucarr

That's an outcome. Once I pull a jack out of a deck of cards then I have the reality that I drew a jack. That has nothing to do with the possibility of the what could have been drawn before it was drawn. Again, use the deck analogy I gave Ucarr.

Possibility cannot be excluded from real things. — ucarr

I don't know what you mean by this. Try again using the idea of 'uncaused' without trying to insert something inbetween non-existence and existence please.

Why do you say you don't know what is the scope of existence given your earlier statement re-posted below: — ucarr

I never use the phrase scope of existence anywhere in that quote. I don't know what you mean by it. I talk about the scope of causality. You have introduced a phrase 'scope of existence' that I don't understand. You cannot introduce a phrase I do not use then tell me I'm avoiding using it. — Philosophim

Here's the quote with the pertinent statement in bold; click on your name at the bottom and it will take you to your post from two days ago.

I am saying that existence encapsulates everything that is. "Existences" are subdivided quantifications of existence. My note is that if you increase the scope of causality to its limit, there is no outside cause that creates existence, as whatever exists is part of existence. — Philosophim

You don't use the words "scope of existence," but "existence encapsulates everything that is" means the same thing. Furthermore, when you say "My note is that if you increase the scope of causality to its limit, there is no outside cause that creates existence, as whatever exists is part of existence." you specifically relate the lesser scope of causality to the greater scope of existence.

Moreover, I've never mis-represented you because I've always quoted what you wrote verbatim.

Make your point Ucarr and stop trying to get me to say things you want me to say instead of the things I'm saying. — Philosophim

Whenever I make reference to something I claim you said either explicitly or implicitly, I always quote your words verbatim, as I've done here.

About the scope of composition I have always wondered if when we reach the limit of composition we come to find something very different from composite things: A simple thing, without parts. I wonder likewise whether this simple thing is in a higher order of existence with respect to composite things. — JuanZu

And we would still ask, "What caused that to exist?" The answer is always the same in the end of the causal chain.

This said in causal terms seems to indicate that there are always at least two and never a first cause. First there is relation in terms of ratio essendi. The relational aspect of things seems to be primary and determinative of the identity of things themselves. — JuanZu

An interesting point. But we can imagine a universe consisting of one simple thing. That would exist correct?

You don't use the words "scope of existence," but "existence encapsulates everything that is" means the same thing. — ucarr

Ok, so you admit that I don't use the phrase "Scope of existence". I also cannot read your mind and noted, "I don't know what you mean by 'scope of existence'. Now I know. Why not just say, "Existence encapsulates everything that is"? It makes your point clear and I know what you're talking about.

you specifically relate the lesser scope of causality to the greater scope of existence. — ucarr

I specifically relate the scope of causality to all of existence. There is no, 'lesser or greater' scope. That's you being dishonest with a phrase of your own invention to create a straw man in a poor attempt to make this a set theory argument. Got ya. Be honest with me and stop playing games Ucarr.

Moreover, I've never mis-represented you because I've always quoted what you wrote verbatim. — ucarr

You have quoted me and stated I used the phrase "Scope of existence" when i did not. Now you're just flat out lying. I don't mind an honest conversation Ucarr, but you're using underhanded tactics. That's only used by people who have no legitimate argument. Stop with the games and trying to twist what you want in what I'm stating. I can only conclude at this point that if you take what I say at face value, you have no actual counter. Why do all this otherwise?

And we would still ask, "What caused that to exist?" The answer is always the same in the end of the causal chain. — Philosophim

If it is a causal chain we cannot assume that it is one thing that existed alone and suddenly gave birth to a second thing. The causal relation as a relation requires at least two or more. Causality does not consist in creating things out of nothing (one thing creating a second thing out of nothing) but in creating things out of other various things (plural). That is why the idea of a first cause is so problematic.

Perhaps the problem is to understand causality in a linear and horizontal way and not in a vertical way in the order of coexistence.

An interesting point. But we can imagine a universe consisting of one simple thing. That would exist correct? — Philosophim

Yes, it can be said that it is possible that only one thing exists. But then we could no longer speak of causal relationships, don't you think?

...it feels like you're using ambiguous language... — Philosophim

Can you quote my ambiguous language? — ucarr

My point was you kept using phrases like "scope of existence" and "Plays within The universe". These phrases could mean anything and need more detail. — Philosophim

Since you supply only phrases without context, I think your evidence is no less vague than that you ascribe to my words.

When you describe the uncaused universe as "It simply was not, then it was," you present a sequence of non-existence followed by existence. For this change to happen, there has to be movement from non-existence to existence. — ucarr

No, there does not. There's no movement. There was nothing, then something. That's it. No inbetween. No cause. No non-existence going, "Whelp, time to start existing!" :) — Philosophim

Consider: a) 2+2=4; b) 4. With a) we have an equation that moves from the expression 2+2 to its evaluation which is 4. This is a change that involves motion along the number line from 2 through twice 2 to 4. With b) we have 4 alone. No change is shown. If we stay at 4, all we can do is repeat 4 over and over.

When you say "There was nothing, then something." and then follow with "That's it. No inbetween. No cause. No non-existence going, "Whelp, time to start existing!" you make a declaration that you haven't evaluated. It's unsupported and is therefore unlike the evaluation of the expression 2+2 which, paired with = 4 creates an equation that evaluates the expression 2+2 down to one number 4.

When you declare, 4 and then, when challenged to give an expression paired with an equation that evaluates to 4, you double down and repeat, 4! You refuse to elaborate a chain of reasoning that concludes with 4.

Your repetition “4, 4, 4…” is an example of your practicing circular reasoning that masquerades as fundamental truth. Given 2+2=4, a chain of reasoning that reaches a conclusion of 4, which can be shown as a valid movement along the number line, allows the writer of the equation, when asked what the conclusion is, to say “4.” If asked repeatedly, the writer of the equation can do like you and repeat, “4,4,4…”. This person has established a fundamental truth, the evaluation of the equation to 4. The difference between this person and you is that they’ve done to work of evaluating the expression 2+2 to the conclusion =4. You have not done the work of evaluating by a chain of reasoning to the conclusion, "There was nothing, then something." All you have is what you believe to be a conclusion to a fundamental truth without the work of evaluating to it via a chain of reasoning. When challenged to produce your chain of reasoning to your conclusion, you double-down and repeat the conclusion.

You are confusing the circularity of repeating an unproven conclusion with the justifiable repetition of a conclusion from a chain of reasoning to a fundamental truth. Fundamental truths can only be repeated because they can't be reduced any further. You are promoting your circular reasoning: "There was nothing, then something." and then follow with "That's it. No inbetween. No cause. No non-existence going, "Whelp, time to start existing!" by masquerading it as fundamental truth. All your circular reasoning is saying is, "There was nothing, then something." Ask me again, and I'll tell you the same.

If it is a causal chain we cannot assume that it is one thing that existed alone and suddenly gave birth to a second thing. — JuanZu

Maybe. The problem is we're talking about universal origins, and we're talking about theory, not fact. For all we know its possible that there is something that formed that then formed something else.

Causality does not consist in creating things out of nothing (one thing creating a second thing out of nothing) but in creating things out of other various things (plural). That is why the idea of a first cause is so problematic. — JuanZu

Understood, and again, I think this is a good thing to think about. One of the conclusions about my point here is that anything can exist at anytime without prior cause. So why would it only be one thing that is uncaused? Why would it be 1 billion things? Why not one thing, then another thing 1 second later? What if there are still uncaused things happening throughout the universe as we speak? My point in all of this is that the argument does not conclude it has to be only one thing.

Perhaps the problem is to understand causality in a linear and horizontal way and not in a vertical way in the order of coexistence. — JuanZu

I believe we have to consider it in all ways, thus expanding the scope out to everything.

Yes, it can be said that it is possible that only one thing exists. But then we could no longer speak of causal relationships, don't you think? — JuanZu

At that point we would be looking at something that is uncaused and what that would entail.

They have been demonstrated, but not scientifically. I don't know why one would expect it to be proven scientifically when it is presupposed for science to work in the first place.

If you really don't believe we know what truth is, then you can't do science properly; because it depends on investigating the truth.

Since you supply only phrases without context, I think your evidence is no less vague than that you ascribe to my words. — ucarr

The context is the OP. If there is something I am saying that is unclear, please ask me to clarify as I've attempted to.

When you say "There was nothing, then something." and then follow with "That's it. No inbetween. No cause. No non-existence going, "Whelp, time to start existing!" you make a declaration that you haven't evaluated. — ucarr

The evaluation is the OP. Its the only logical conclusion.

It's unsupported and is therefore unlike the evaluation of the expression 2+2 which, paired with = 4 creates an equation that evaluates the expression 2+2 down to one number 4. — ucarr

The argument supports it. You are having trouble imagining it or understanding it because you have never experienced it before. But that's not an argument against its logic. You are using an incorrect metaphor. Something uncaused it not 2+2=4. Its 1. A whole integer without parts. You keep inserting causality where something is uncaused. If you can show that the logic of the OP cannot lead to something uncaused, feel free to present that argument. But all you're presenting here is essentially, "I don't like it or have experience with it, therefore it just can't be." That's not an argument, that's just a protestation.

You have not done the work of evaluating by a chain of reasoning to the conclusion, "There was nothing, then something." All you have is what you believe to be a conclusion to a fundamental truth without the work of evaluating to it via a chain of reasoning. — ucarr

No Ucarr. You and I both know I reasoned to it. And you're avoiding that argument entirely because you can't counter it. That's why you keep trying to make these outside argument instead of addressing the argument directly. Ucarr, lets say something existed forever. What caused it? Nothing right? Its not that an uncaused existence is beyond your understanding. Its that you've never considered the logical consequence of what the existence of even one uncaused thing means. That's the new territory. And like new territory people are either fascinated by it or react against it. You're still in 'react' mode which is fine. But I'm trying to get you to get to the 'fascinated' part which is quite frankly much more fun. :)

You are confusing the circularity of repeating an unproven conclusion with the justifiable repetition of a conclusion from a chain of reasoning to a fundamental truth. — ucarr

No, I have the argument in the OP. Feel free to point out where you think it fails logically. Your addition example is not addressing something uncaused, but involved causality. Use the vocabulary I've provided, use the examples I've provided and address the argument. Otherwise all you've stated is an expression that you don't like it which is not enough to counter the argument.

This, therefore, is you implying that non-existence moved to existence, viz, non-existence caused existence. — ucarr

No. I thought we settled this earlier. — Philosophim

No, there does not. There's no movement. There was nothing, then something. That's it. No inbetween. No cause. No non-existence going, "Whelp, time to start existing!" :) — Philosophim

So how is there a change of state from nothing to the physics of the universe?

I understand you to be saying non-existence and existence are closed and cannot interact. — ucarr

Thank you for confirming this, I won't mention it again then. — Philosophim

Since we agree non-existence and existence are closed and cannot interact, how is there a change of state not from non-existence to the physics of the universe and not from causation but from... what? to the physics of the universe?

You're describing a change of state, so you're describing something that happened, a change. What is it that served the function of making the change of state from nothing to the physics of the universe?

Consider: Joe was thirsty. Joe ran a glass of water from the tap and drank it. Joe quenched his thirst.

This example shows a change of state of Joe from dehydration to hydration. What served the function of making the change of state in Joe from dehydration to hydration? Joe himself served the function of making the change of state in Joe.

It's not enough for the requirements of either science or philosophy to say, "Joe was thirsty, then he wasn't." In both disciplines, you must reason from the expression of an initial state to a final and different state by way of a chain of reasoning that logically evaluates from the initial state to the final state. If you merely say, "Joe was thirsty, then he wasn't." you're jumping from an initial state to a final state without elaborating the equation of reasoning that bridges together the two states.

If you jump to a conclusion without reasoning to it, and then, when queried about the "how" and the "why" of the conclusion, you double-down and repeat the conclusion as if its self-evident truth needing no further explanation, then your repetition of the conclusion is circular reasoning ( "Why is it true?" "It's true because I say it's true." "Why is it true?" "It's true because...") masquerading as fundamental truth.

You acknowledge that something does not come from nothing. This is a restriction that invalidates "If something is not caused... where are the rules? Where are the restrictions?" when it is applied to "Existence has no outside cause for its being." — ucarr

I don't get it. Use the deck analogy I gave otherwise this doesn't make any sense. — Philosophim

Given that "Existence has no outside cause for its being." then, apart from existence, there is only non-existence as nothing extant stands outside of the set of existence, viz., nothing stands outside of the universe. Non-existence is so self-effacing it cannot even be itself. We cannot directly speak of non-existence. We can only speak at it through the faulty reification of language.

When you say, "If something is not caused... where are the rules? Where are the restrictions?" you imply an absence of restrictions equals unlimited possibility. From here you reason to our universe to which you attribute unlimited possibilities including causeless existence.

The mind struggles to reach a sense of the absolute negation of non-existence because the mind exists totally immersed within existence, and thus all of its conceptions are existing things, including non-existence. If the universe is closed and internally self-sufficient, then its identity is totally bound to what it is and this is the absolute restriction of identity, as in A≡A. The universe posited within the isolation with which you enclose it cannot be anything possible; it can only be what it is.

This means, therefore, that uncausation, due to its logical priority, applies to everything that exists, and so it must also lie outside of the universe. — ucarr

Uncausation is not a thing Ucarr. You repeatedly make this mistake. It does not exist outside of the universe. It is a logical conclusion. You keep inserting a 'thing'. Uncaused is not a thing. Non-existence is not a thing. There was nothing, then something. No inbetween. No movement. That's it. — Philosophim

As caused is to causation, so uncaused is to uncausation. From logic we know it's legitimate to conceptualize the negation of any existing thing, including abstract concepts. From this reasoning we see that if caused affords causation, the uncaused affords uncausation. Continuing in this line of reasoning, if uncaused stands outside the causal universe, then likewise uncausation stands outside the causal universe.

If non-existence is not a thing, then nothing likewise is not a thing. We know language reifies things lacking the hard boundaries of a steel girder.

So how is there a change of state from nothing to the physics of the universe? — ucarr

Its uncaused. So there is nothing that causes it to change.

Since we agree non-existence and existence are closed and cannot interact, how is there a change of state not from non-existence to the physics of the universe and not from causation but from... what? — ucarr

This is the part I get you're having trouble with. Let me translate your question. "You say there is nothing that causes it, but what causes it to appear?" Do you see the problem? There is nothing that causes it to appear. There is no cause.

You're describing a change of state, so you're describing something that happened, a change. What is it that served the function of making the change of state from nothing to the physics of the universe? — ucarr

Again, you're saying, "What caused the uncaused existence?" Nothing Ucarr. There is nothing that caused the state change.

Consider: Joe was thirsty. Joe ran a glass of water from the tap and drank it. Joe quenched his thirst.

This example shows a change of state of Joe from dehydration to hydration. What served the function of making the change of state in Joe from dehydration to hydration? Joe himself served the function of making the change of state in Joe. — ucarr

Sure, you're describing causal interactions. I'm not denying those exist. But we reach a point in which there is no causality. You keep trying to apply causality to something that is not caused. That doesn't work. If it is logical that something in the chain of causality is uncaused, then we have to logically consider it as it is, not like it is 'some other cause'.

If you jump to a conclusion without reasoning to it, and then, when queried about the "how" and the "why" of the conclusion, you double-down and repeat the conclusion as if its self-evident truth needing no further explanation — ucarr

No, I'm not jumping to a conclusion without reason. You have not stated my reasoning or conclusion is false, you are just having a hard time wrapping your head around the notion of something that is uncaused. I'm trying to show you what it means for something to be uncaused. You have not criticized it, but been unable to accept the idea of it and keep trying to put causality back in. That's all I'm noting. If you wish to criticize the logic that leads to my conclusion, or criticize my logic from what I conclude if something is uncaused, feel free to address it. But that's not what I've seen so far. I've simply seen your disbelief or insistance that there has to be some type of 'cause' in there. There isn't. That's what uncaused means.

Given that "Existence has no outside cause for its being." then, apart from existence, there is only non-existence as nothing extant stands outside of the set of existence, viz., nothing stands outside of the universe. — ucarr

Sure.

Non-existence is so self-effacing it cannot even be itself. We cannot directly speak of non-existence. We can only speak at it through the faulty reification of language. — ucarr

No, I think we can speak to the concept pretty easily. You're being a little artsy here which I get, but I'm not interested in poetic language. Nothingness is the absence of somethingness.

When you say, "If something is not caused... where are the rules? Where are the restrictions?" you imply an absence of restrictions equals unlimited possibility. From here you reason to our universe to which you attribute unlimited possibilities including causeless existence. — ucarr

To clarify, the causeless existence is what allows those unlimited possibilities, not the other way around. Further, this is only if we don't know the origin. Obviously what happens is what happens. Just like I can pull a jack from a deck of cards and measure that probability, the possibilities are irrelevant once we draw that card and see what it is.

If the universe is closed and internally self-sufficient, then its identity is totally bound to what it is and this is the absolute restriction of identity, as in A≡A. The universe posited within the isolation with which you enclose it cannot be anything possible; it can only be what it is. — ucarr

Correct. We have no disagreement on this. It is the card which was drawn.

As caused is to causation, so uncaused is to uncausation. From logic we know it's legitimate to conceptualize the negation of any existing thing, including abstract concepts. From this reasoning we see that if caused affords causation, the uncaused affords uncausation. — ucarr

Your example is mistaken though. The negation of uncaused is caused. Not 'uncausation'. 'Causation' is the noun describing the act of causality, so 'uncausation' would be a noun describing the act of uncausality. I've never introduced the term 'uncausality' so I'm not sure that it exists.

Continuing in this line of reasoning, if uncaused stands outside the causal universe, then likewise uncausation stands outside the causal universe. — ucarr

No, this is a misuse of the language concepts. That's like saying, "If no is the negation of yes, then no stands outside of the state of yes and no questions." Obviously when we talk about the causal universe we're talking about what is both caused and uncaused.