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. — Philosophim

A definition defines a restriction, viz., the meaning of the word it defines. Consider: when no restrictions is applied to the writing of the dictionary, that restricts the writer of the dictionary from restricting certain meanings to certain words, and thus each of the words in the dictionary can have all of the meanings in the dictionary.

Discipline restricts behavior. The concept of good and bad depends upon discipline. Consider: when no restrictions is applied to the behavior of children, adults are restricted from disciplining children for bad behavior.

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

I can and did. — Philosophim

Is this an argument for someone claiming truthfully you're one thousand feet tall?

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

...if you're stating an unlimited universe is a restriction, this is a contradiction. — Philosophim

If a universe is varied by design, why is that not a restriction blocking it from being unvaried?

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. — Philosophim

The logical possibility is an entailment that exists within your mind.

What card you pull from a deck is directly related to what cards are in the deck you pull from. The cards in that deck add up to a number; each suit of each card adds up to a number, and those numbers determine mathematically the probability of each card being pulled.

Possibility cannot be excluded from real things. — ucarr

I don't know what you mean by this. — Philosophim

Can you cite some real things that are impossible?

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. — Philosophim

You're saying the scope of causality is equal to the scope of existence? If so, how is it that causation is contained within existence? Are you thinking not only is causation contained within existence, but also existence is contained within causation? If so, do you agree that universe=causation?

Consider your dialogue with Bob Ross.

Well, that’s a huge difference! An argument that the totality of what exists has no cause is true (trivially) because any cause—be itself caused or not—would be included in such totality; however, that the totality of caused things has no cause does not follow these lines of thinking—for an uncaused thing would be outside of that totality. You would have to provide some further argument—and perhaps I missed it—for why there would be no cause to such a series. — Bob Ross

No, the uncaused thing would be the limit inside of that totality. — Philosophim

Here's a replay of how we started examining your claim existence encapsulates everything that is."

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

Use the link below to return to the post. I want you to quote me when you think I'm being deceptive.

A definition defines a restriction, viz., the meaning of the word it defines. — ucarr

Ok, and the word 'unrestricted' is defined as having no restrictions. This is a silly argument that I'm not going to spend any more time on.

Is this an argument for someone claiming truthfully you're one thousand feet tall? — ucarr

No, I'm not 1000 feet tall nor claiming that. I don't understand what this example is supposed to point out.

If a universe is varied by design, why is that not a restriction blocking it from being unvaried? — ucarr

1. There is no design.
2. I said there was unlimited potential in regards to the origin of the universe.
3. The potential of what could have been is not the same as what actually happens. IE, I draw an ace from a deck of cards it does not negate the probability that I had a 4/52 chance of drawing a jack.

The logical possibility is an entailment that exists within your mind. — ucarr

No, its a logical possibility that is argued for that does not require my specific mind. This is not an argument Ucarr.

What card you pull from a deck is directly related to what cards are in the deck you pull from. The cards in that deck add up to a number; each suit of each card adds up to a number, and those numbers determine mathematically the probability of each card being pulled. — ucarr

Correct. My point is there are infinite cards of infinite varieties.

Possibility cannot be excluded from real things.
— ucarr

I don't know what you mean by this.
— Philosophim

Can you cite some real things that are impossible? — ucarr

A question does not clarify your initial statement. Clarify your initial statement first and I will answer this question.

You're saying the scope of causality is equal to the scope of existence? — ucarr

No. We've been over this. I don't use the term scope of existence. Use the vocabulary and ideas that I use or you're not addressing the argument.

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

The context is the OP. — Philosophim

"Scope of existence" equals "existence encapsulates everything that is."

"Plays within The universe" equals "Occurs within the universe."

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. — Philosophim

In terms of composition, the universes cause would simply be what it is, and nothing more. — Philosophim

Thus the solution can only be the conclusion that 'the entire universe is uncaused by anything else'. — Philosophim

With these two statements you say the universe is caused by what it is and nothing else. Is your premise that the universe has no cause outside of itself? Do you think this statement is equivalent to saying the universe is uncaused?

The nature of something being uncaused by anything outside of itself is a new venue of exploration for Ontology. — Philosophim

1. There is no limitation as to what 'could' have been, or can be. — Philosophim

Since non-existence precludes all that exists, how can there be possibilities within the mind of a thinker?

2. There is no limitation to what can be besides what is — Philosophim

Since non-existence precludes all that exists, how can there be anything that is?

3. This means that there is no prior causal meaning in existence besides the fact that it exists. — Philosophim

Since non-existence precludes all that exists, how can there be an existence that supports the fact that what exists exists?

4. But what about a God? — Philosophim

Since non-existence precludes all that exists, how can there be a God who exists as God?

If my questions are pertinent to your conclusion, then an eternal universe undecidable as to causation seems to me favored over a universe that began without an external cause. An eternal universe appears to avoid the problematical question of common ground between non-existence and existence.

Is "It simply was not, then it was." a continuity? Given non-existence as the initial state, there was no time so there's no temporal continuity from non-existence to existence. Is it an axiomatic statement about the hard fact of an eternal universe? Not quite because it seems to assume the presence of time in both the initial state and the final state. Eternal universe coupled with eternal time might be an axiomatic assumption that grounds physics.

The nature of something being uncaused by anything outside of itself is a new venue of exploration for Ontology. — Philosophim

Your theory embraces an eternal universe. Carl Sagan speaking in a video might be evidence your reasoning to an eternal universe does not open "a new venue of exploration for Ontology."

You can see the video by using the link below.

Sagan_ Eternal Universe

"Scope of existence" equals "existence encapsulates everything that is."

"Plays within The universe" equals "Occurs within the universe." — ucarr

Then just use the meaning and don't introduce new terms. "Scope" as you defined there is not the same as 'scope' as I defined it with causality. You putting that word in there is to implicitly make it the same when it is not. It only decreases the clarity of the conversation, so do not use it when the definition works fine.

With these two statements you say the universe is caused by what it is and nothing else. — ucarr

No, it is not caused. It is uncaused. Which is what I stated in the quote. You keep insisting on putting 'cause' in where I say 'uncaused'. Anytime you do this its going to be immediately dismissed going forward as I have pointed this out patiently enough.

Since non-existence precludes all that exists, how can there be possibilities within the mind of a thinker? — ucarr

What does non-existence have to do with the possibilities a mind can think of? Are you again trying to imply that non-existence causes something, or that something like possibility resides in non-existence? Because none of those are true.

Since non-existence precludes all that exists, how can there be anything that is? — ucarr

Yep, you're doing it again. You're linking nonexistence as somehow causally aligned with existence. Its not. This question doesn't make any sense.

If my questions are pertinent to your conclusion, then an eternal universe undecidable as to causation seems to me favored over a universe that began without an external cause. — ucarr

They are not pertinent, and while an eternal universe is possible, equally so a finite universe. In both cases Ucarr, they are uncaused. So if you agree that an eternal universe is possible, then you are holding onto an origin that is uncaused.

An external universe appears to avoid the problematical question of common ground between non-existence and existence. — ucarr

Incorrect. That's just a category to move the ball away from your discomfort. What caused that external universe? The same causality chain and answer still apply.

Is "It simply was not, then it was." a continuity? Given non-existence as the initial state, there was no time so there's no temporal continuity from non-existence to existence. — ucarr

Correct. If there is nothing, then something, there was no time, now there is time. Time is not a substance, it is a result of recognizing change. To recognize change, there must be a comparison to a previous state. If there is no previous state, that is essentially the zero position, or origin, in regards to time.

Eternal universe coupled with eternal time might be an axiomatic assumption that grounds physics. — ucarr

If there is an eternal universe and state has changed over that universe's existence, then time has also existed eternally. This is one possibility.

Your theory embraces an eternal universe. — ucarr

As only one of infinite possibilities. It is equally likely that it is a finite universe, and equally likely that things that are uncaused can still happen today. That's a bit of a jump from Sagan.

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. — Janus

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. — Bob Ross

The nature of truth has not been definitively demonstrated if what you mean by 'demonstrated' involves any kind of thesis. There are several conceptions of truth for example and there are problems with the JTB notion of knowledge.

I haven't said we don't know what truth is, just that we cannot give a definitive account of it. The Tarski sentence is just a formulation of the common understanding that truth is what accords with actuality. But then the question as to what actuality is can be asked and so on it goes. If you keep asking for the definitions of things you will go around in circles.

We can recognize what is true and what is not when it comes to direct statements about what is observed and we also know what is true by definition, and we can do science, and it is obvious that it works, and that it has come to form a vast body of conceptually coherent knowledge. We don't need more than that.

We cannot determine with certainty whether scientific theories are true...it is always possible that any theory will be superceded or improved upon. We count a theory as true provisionally if what it predicts is consistently observed to obtain.

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

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

Since you describe a change of state from non-existence to existence, how do you evaluate from the initial state to the final state?

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. — Philosophim

Your translation of my question is wrong. You say of state 1 "It simply was not..." You say of state 2 "then it was." I say explicitly "not from non-existence to the physics of the universe" - so I'm lining out something from nothing - and I say explicitly "not from causation..." - so I'm lining out causation - and finally I'm asking how do you evaluate from state 1 to state 2?

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

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. — Philosophim

Your translation of my question is wrong. You start with your first clause "It simply was..." You follow with your second clause "then it was not." The two clauses are not identical, so there is a change from first clause to second clause. If the change is due to random chance, then your statement has no chain of reasoning giving it philosophical force and meaning. If your statement is not a conclusion from a chain of reasoning, then it's just an observation of what might've happened.

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'. — Philosophim

In the peer reviews of theories such as we have here at TPF, "But we reach a point in which there is no causality." is a proposition that needs to be a conclusion arrived at by way of a correct evaluation of a chain of reasoning. Merely repeating

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

across multiple threads does not embody a valid evaluation.

Since you describe a change of state from non-existence to existence, how do you evaluate from the initial state to the final state? — ucarr

I don't understand the question. There was nothing, then something. There's nothing to evaluate besides the fact there was nothing prior.

Your translation of my question is wrong. You say of state 1 "It simply was not..." You say of state 2 "then it was." I say explicitly "not from non-existence to the physics of the universe" - so I'm lining out something from nothing - and I say explicitly "not from causation..." - so I'm lining out causation - and finally I'm asking how do you evaluate from state 1 to state 2? — ucarr

My apologies if I misunderstood. My prior answer should answer this one as well.

The two clauses are not identical, so there is a change from first clause to second clause. If the change is due to random chance, then your statement has no chain of reasoning giving it philosophical force and meaning. — ucarr

As long as you understand there is nothing inbetween that causes the change, we're on the same page. Its not random chance, as there would have to be something that is going on that's random right? Its uncaused. We evaluate that an uncaused event is 'true randomness' as in completely unpredictable. If something ceased to exist without cause, then there is no reason it ceased to exist besides the fact it does not anymore. That is the only reasonable way to describe something that ceases to exist without cause that I can see.

In the peer reviews of theories such as we have here at TPF, "But we reach a point in which there is no causality." is a proposition that needs to be a conclusion arrived at by way of a correct evaluation of a chain of reasoning. — ucarr

Ucarr, that's the entire argument of the OP. Evaluate the argument of the OP and demonstrate why my reasoning is incorrect. I'm not just asserting this, its the conclusion of the full argument.

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. — Philosophim

I claim there cannot be only one thing, in a causal context. Ex nihilo nihil fit. Causality presuposses relations n+1, If we want to maintain a principle of reason we cannot appeal to things created out of nothing.

From my point of view the causality of the universe is closed in its structure, since we cannot think of one thing in the absence of any causal relation with another thing, nor of things created out of nothing. Therefore causality has no end or start.

For all we know its possible that there is something that formed that then formed something else. — Philosophim

To me that is irrational. How is it possible for one thing to completely form another thing out of nothing?

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. — 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. — Philosophim

You say "No, I'm not jumping to a conclusion without reason." Here's an example of it.

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

This quote shows you doubling down on unsupported declarations. You might argue that you're demonstrating the logic of a universe uncaused by anything outside of it. Critical to this demonstration by a chain of reasoning is the work of establishing logically the reality and efficacy of uncaused as an adjective attached to universe.

Your readers ask you, “What’s the logic of an uncaused universe?” Frequently you respond with

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

Your best statement about the rational promise of your theory appears in the OP as follows:

The nature of something being uncaused by anything outside of itself is a new venue of exploration for Ontology. — Philosophim

You say "You have not stated my reasoning or conclusion is false..." Regarding

1. There is no limitation as to what 'could' have been, or can be. — Philosophim

For quite some time we've been debating my interpretation of your above quote as: a) unlimited possibility; b) a restriction on the nature of the universe. See below.

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. It’s 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

.

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. — Philosophim

I claim there cannot be only one thing, in a causal context. Ex nihilo nihil fit. If we want to maintain a principle of reason we cannot appeal to things created out of nothing. — JuanZu

If my argument is correct, then the principle of sufficient reason does not apply to the question of existential origin. It still holds other than this. Also, it is not that something is created 'out of' nothing. Its that there was nothing, then something. Or there always was. Either way, uncaused existence.

From my point of view the causality of the universe is closed in its structure, since we cannot think of one thing in the absence of any causal relation with another thing, nor of things created out of nothing. Therefore causality has no end. — JuanZu

It ends when you get to the full scope and ask what caused it. So whether we discover an infinite regress vs a finite regress, what caused it always has the same answer at the end of the scope. "Its uncaused."

To me that is irrational. How is it possible for one thing to completely form another thing out of nothing? — JuanZu

According to the argument I presented in the OP, its the only rational conclusion. How is it possible for anything to be at all? There is no reason, it simply is. To say, "X caused this," leaves the question of "Well what caused X?"

This quote shows you doubling down on unsupported declarations. You might argue that you're demonstrating the logic of a universe uncaused by anything outside of it. Critical to this demonstration by a chain of reasoning is the work of establishing logically the reality and efficacy of uncaused as an adjective attached to universe. — ucarr

And where have I failed to do this? You say, "What caused it?" and I answer, "Nothing, its uncaused." You ask, "How does the shift work?" The answer is, "Its uncaused, so it simply is there." There is no inbetween Ucarr. There is no, "Understanding the process" as there is no process. There is no cause. How do you expect me to answer? "Well X causes the uncaused thing?" I have noted several times the consequences of this, and what it means logically for a universe even today.

Ucarr, you keep treating uncaused reality as if its caused. Me pointing out to you repeatedly that uncaused reality is not caused is not an assertion without logic, its basic logic. All you have to do is demonstrate why my points are wrong on this. Saying, "You assert it without logic," when you have no argument of your own does nothing.

For quite some time we've been debating my interpretation of your above quote as: a) unlimited possibility; b) a restriction on the nature of the universe. See below. — ucarr

We have not been debating anything. You've stated a clear contradiction, I've called it out, and you have not presented a coherent argument that indicates its not a contradiction.

Maybe its time to admit I have a point? You're trying so hard to avoid the conclusion and argument I present without addressing the conclusion and argument itself. You seem more personally against the idea of an uncaused reality then you have a logical argument against it, and this line of argumentation will go no where.

Or there always was. Either way, uncaused existence. — Philosophim

I think we agree on this, given the structural closure of causality. That is what I have referred to with these two restrictions:

1. Ex nihilo nihil fit
2. Causality implies only relations between two or more things.

There has always been causality.

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. — Philosophim

Language, which posits things performing actions, cannot apply to non-existence because it allows no language and its concepts. Our minds, likewise, stand apart from non-existence because it allows no concepts aimed at describing and comprehending it. We agree that non-existence and existence cannot intersect; I'm elaborating some details of what their non-intersection implies.

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. — Philosophim

I acknowledge that your un-causation is a symmetry with causation in that it is the not-doing of causation, and thus the net balance to zero is maintained. The not-doing of un-causation allows unlimited possibilities and therefore, we see logically that un-causation within non-existence devoid of causation is equivalent to no restrictions and unlimited possibility. Looking from the opposite direction, in symmetry with un-causation we see that where there is the doing of causation, there is restriction based upon the attributes of the things caused. For example, within our universe there is entropy such that operational systems go forward toward increasing disorder; things gradually fall apart over time. This is a restriction such that we don't see randomly increasing order. The dropped egg shatters into disordered parts; the shattered egg doesn't reverse direction and reassemble itself. Causation produces contingent things; in our world of contingent things with specific attributes, restrictions abound.

What's pertinent to our debate is the fact that the unlimited possibilities of un-causation produces no actuation of those possibilities as real, operational things. Causation does that. The critical question posed to your theory is how causation enters the chain of events extending from non-existence to a causal universe filled with contingent things.

Causation of a causal universe filled with contingent things is problematic because causation logically prior to the universe isn't an origin of existence. It leaves us stuck in the bog of infinite regress.

Enclosing causation within the universe does nothing to solve the problem because un-causation logically prior to the universe has no power to actualize possibilities. "Uncaused" universe is just a word game that paints over the truth of "Uncaused" universe, another something-from-nothing argument. Evidence this is true is your repetition of your mantra:

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

Repeatedly pulling a card from a deck over a large number of times with the jack appearing at a frequency predicted by the mathematically calculated probability distribution is a confirmation of the logic and the accuracy of the calculation. A confirmation of an evaluation to a calculated result is not irrelevant to the probabilities. It is fundamental to the probabilities.

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, then 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. — Philosophim

I'm not talking about the negation of un-caused. Since I'm defending the viability of uncaused, it should be clear I'm talking about the negation of caused, viz., uncaused.

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. — Philosophim

Your argument is impertinent to the example of a chain of reasoning. Consider: A=addition; S=subtraction: ¬(A ∧ S) → ¬A ∧ ¬S. The negation (¬) is distributive with respect to (A ∧ S). We show this by placing it outside of the parentheses. We see that ¬ causes both un-addition and un-subtraction. Therefore, saying "...if uncaused stands outside the causal universe, then likewise un-causation stands outside the causal universe." nonetheless keeps un-causation in application to both caused and uncaused.

"For example, we may not know exactly what causes a quark to exist, let alone 'this' specific quark in the nylon string. But that doesn't mean that there isn't something that makes up that quark. The limits of knowledge are not the limits of reality." — Philosophim

This is an essential acknowledgment. :up:

"I like to describe this as a chain as there is a start and end with various possible points of scoped time and composition along this line that link the two together." — Philosophim

I like to think of it in terms of cycles, with smaller (shorter) harmonic cycles of cause and effect nested within. The resonant cycle for a given layer of emergence determines its time unit and rate of process or progression. Things happen faster at smaller scales than they do at larger ones.

"Unlimited or Limited?
With this all in mind, there comes the ultimate question and scope: Is there an origin to existence itself? This is as expansive of a scope as you can get, both compositionally and through time. Can we handle such a question? I think we can construct a rational conclusion using logical limits." — Philosophim

This is another essential acknowledgment. :up:

"1. There is no limitation as to what 'could' have been, or can be." — Philosophim

This is my first contention from your OP. I would restate it like this:

"There is a logical limitation as to the form of that which could have been, or can be, but there is no limitation to the number of forms that can be via emergence."

I believe that there is an initial pattern or rule of maximal simplicity or minimal complexity that serves as the seed from which the universe extends. This initial primordial rule is the logic and reason for the form our universe takes. It determines what is true (real) and what is false (not real). Notice that you are using logic in your analysis to determine what does or doesn't happen in the universe. Why would the universe follow these logical rules if they were not there to begin with? What i am essentially saying is that reason (logic) is the basis for the universe in any form it takes. Reason and logic are held within the infinitesimal expanse (0 dimensional space, or latent space) of primordial time.

This primordial time had no cause, as it is the reason for cause. Time is the infinite energy by which logic acts upon the universe. Logic is a comparator function that takes what is and processes what will be. The initial comparison is upon itself. A vast infinite emptiness in all directions gives us the shape of a sphere, and this is why all fundamental particles are spherical in nature. There is no other information at this point from which to draw from to inform the shape of particles. To keep it simple, i won't get into how or why these particles have the energy they have, except to say that it comes from time itself.

"Imagine a universe which is composed only entire of rocks. If it formed, there would be no prior cause for why it formed, and no prior cause for what it should not have formed. Meaning it could form, or could not form. There is nothing to prevent nor necessitate that it does or does not form. Our U formed. But it didn't 'have' to form." — Philosophim

The universe must form because time does not stop and always acts. The nature of time or energy is that it must move, it must flow with no exceptions. Time (energy) is the unstoppable force, and if it finds it cannot move, it then spawns spatial dimensions to accommodate the necessary forced movement (progression, process). Each progressive spatial dimension does not form or come into existence until it is necessary, and they all extend from the temporal dimension, which is contained in the primordial 0-dimensional point throughout all of space. Time is not the 4th dimension; it is the 0th dimension.

A definition defines a restriction, viz., the meaning of the word it defines. — ucarr

Ok, and the word 'unrestricted' is defined as having no restrictions. This is a silly argument that I'm not going to spend any more time on. — Philosophim

Consider: You go to a park to play baseball. A big sign posted says "No Restrictions in This Park." You go to the office of the administrator with a request. You say to the administrator "Can we restrict baseball players from wearing metal cleats? They cause puncture wounds." In response, the administrator points to a sign in his office that says "No Restrictions in The Park." He then says, "Sorry, we can't implement your restriction because in this park the rule is no restrictions. Our rule of No restrictions restricts us from restricting shoes to ones without cleats."

Do you follow this chain of reasoning?

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

I can and did. — Philosophim

Is this an argument for someone claiming truthfully you're one thousand feet tall? — ucarr

I argued that description of a thing limits that thing to the specification of what it is. If someone describes you as being human, we know, without seeing you in person, that you're not one thousand feet tall because we know humans never attain to that height. This demonstrates that by describing you as being human, we apply limits to what your height can be. This, therefore, is a limit to what you are based upon the description of you.

If a universe is varied by design, why is that not a restriction blocking it from being unvaried? — ucarr

1. There is no design.
2. I said there was unlimited potential in regards to the origin of the universe.
3. The potential of what could have been is not the same as what actually happens. IE, I draw an ace from a deck of cards it does not negate the probability that I had a 4/52 chance of drawing a jack. — Philosophim

It's possible for no-design to be a design if a person intentionally allows a thing to be configured randomly. It would be a case of design by no-design.

If there's unlimited potential, then that too can be construed as a design in the sense of an unlimited number of possible limits upon what universe emerges. If, say, a much-varied universe emerges, then that's a block of the emergence of a monotonous, unvaried universe. Since the enormous variation was a possible pre-condition that blocked monotony, then the pre-condition designed the much-varied universe in the sense of ultimately determining what universe emerged before-handedly.

Drawing an ace instead of a jack examples what happens based upon the total number of cards in the deck and the total number of each type of card.

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

No, its a logical possibility that is argued for that does not require my specific mind. This is not an argument Ucarr. — Philosophim

Someone's mind is required for the logical possibility to exist.

Possibility cannot be excluded [directly] from real things. — ucarr

I don't know what you mean by this. — ucarr

Can you cite some real things that are impossible? — ucarr

A question does not clarify your initial statement. Clarify your initial statement first and I will answer this question. — Philosophim

The answer to my question clarifies my initial statement. Do you believe there exist real things that are impossible? One conceivable example is a sign that shows a circular triangle. It expresses circular triangulation. Can you draw this sign and directly present it to me here?

You're saying the scope of causality is equal to the scope of existence? — ucarr

No. We've been over this. I don't use the term scope of existence. Use the vocabulary and ideas that I use or you're not addressing the argument. — Philosophim

Do you believe the scope of causality equals existence that encapsulates everything that is?

There is a logical limitation as to the form of that which could have been, or can be, but there is no limitation to the number of forms that can be via emergence." — punos

By saying "there is no limitation to the number of forms that can be via emergence." are you making reference to abstract thought?

I believe that there is an initial pattern or rule of maximal simplicity or minimal complexity that serves as the seed from which the universe extends. — punos

These are boundaries of a physical system in its initial state?

Why would the universe follow these logical rules if they were not there to begin with? — punos

These rules are prescriptive restrictions on what the universe can be?

Reason and logic are held within the infinitesimal expanse (0 dimensional space, or latent space) of primordial time. — punos

Reason and logic are mental abstractions tied to (and emergent from) physical antecedants?

This primordial time had no cause, as it is the reason for cause. Time is the infinite energy by which logic acts upon the universe. — punos

Passing time is the engine of causation? Is there a form of passing time both eternal and non-relative?

To keep it simple, i won't get into how or why these particles have the energy they have, except to say that it comes from time itself. — punos

Time-authored energy is subject to the symmetries and their conservation laws?

The universe must form because time does not stop and always acts. The nature of time or energy is that it must move, it must flow with no exceptions. Time (energy) is the unstoppable force, and if it finds it cannot move, it then spawns spatial dimensions to accommodate the necessary forced movement (progression, process). Each progressive spatial dimension does not form or come into existence until it is necessary, and they all extend from the temporal dimension, which is contained in the primordial 0-dimensional point throughout all of space. Time is not the 4th dimension; it is the 0th dimension. — punos

Time appears to be the centerpiece of your cosmology. The universe reduces to time passing eternally without interruption? If energy is the ability to move, then time supports a multiplex with mass-energy-motion-space as its components?

Time is fundamental and thus unapproachable by analysis?

Thank you for the conversation and your insights. :)

By saying "there is no limitation to the number of forms that can be via emergence." are you making reference to abstract thought? — ucarr

Yes, and no. If you take the human perspective then no it would appear as solid and real, but if one takes the perspective of the universe, to the universe it appears as abstractions of itself.

These are boundaries of a physical system in its initial state? — ucarr

No, i do not believe there are boundaries at the initial state except for logical boundaries.

These rules are prescriptive restrictions on what the universe can be? — ucarr

Yes. If it could have been anything, or can be anything at any time then we will have chaos, and no possibility of coherence.

Reason and logic are mental abstractions tied to (and emergent from) physical antecedants? — ucarr

I have a distinction between passive, and active logic. Passive logic is what we humans do, but the universe does active logic. It's a reversal of polarity in the process of logic. The universe processes logic forward onto itself (creating what is true and real), and people process logic from the universe onto themselves to ascertain the truth of the universe or what is real.

The antecedents are qualities or properties from which physicality emerges.

Passing time is the engine of causation? Is there a form of passing time both eternal and non-relative? — ucarr

Correct, passing time is the engine of causation.

And yes, there is primordial time which is non-entropic time absent of space, and matter. Once extended space and matter come into the picture the arrow of time is formed through entropic (relative) processes. So relative time emerges from non-relative time i guess you can say.

Time-authored energy is subject to the symmetries and their conservation laws? — ucarr

Very much so, yes.

Time appears to be the centerpiece of your cosmology. The universe reduces to time passing eternally without interruption? — ucarr

Yes it must be so.

If energy is the ability to move, then time supports a multiplex with mass-energy-motion-space as its components? — ucarr

Not sure how to answer this one, can you restate the question?

Time is fundamental and thus unapproachable by analysis? — ucarr

Not necessarily. It can by analyzed by the pure logic of its own being. If it is its own reason, then by that reason we can know it, but we have to learn how to apply the logic correctly in the right order. This will be hard to accept by a pure materialist/empiricist.

Thank you for your questions. They were good questions. :smile:

Language, which posits things performing actions, cannot apply to non-existence because it allows no language and its concepts. — ucarr

Language can also capture concepts and negations. This is similar to people being against the idea of the number 0 when it was first introduced. Are you going to argue that the number 0 isn't a viable part of the language of math?

The not-doing of un-causation allows unlimited possibilities and therefore, we see logically that un-causation within non-existence devoid of causation is equivalent to no restrictions and unlimited possibility. Looking from the opposite direction, in symmetry with un-causation we see that where there is the doing of causation, there is restriction based upon the attributes of the things caused. For example, within our universe there is entropy such that operational systems go forward toward increasing disorder; things gradually fall apart over time. This is a restriction such that we don't see randomly increasing order. The dropped egg shatters into disordered parts; the shattered egg doesn't reverse direction and reassemble itself. Causation produces contingent things; in our world of contingent things with specific attributes, restrictions abound. — ucarr

Fantastic analysis, I agree.

What's pertinent to our debate is the fact that the unlimited possibilities of un-causation produces no actuation of those possibilities as real, operational things. Causation does that. The critical question posed to your theory is how causation enters the chain of events extending from non-existence to a causal universe filled with contingent things. — ucarr

Ok, I think I see more clearly what you're asking now. Once a an existence 'is' then it is defined by what it is and how it interacts with other things or 'itself' if such a thing is possible. What happens when there is a 'touch' between this and some other 'that' is the rule of that existence. If something has causality then during that 'touch' or interaction, the forces and reaction imparted by and to it make an outcome.

Once a thing is existent, it is therefore within the realm of causality. Does this answer your point?

Enclosing causation within the universe does nothing to solve the problem because un-causation logically prior to the universe has no power to actualize possibilities. — ucarr

What you're doing is the same mistake I keep pointing out. "Has not power to actualize..." You're viewing 'uncausation' as a cause again. It doesn't actualize anything Ucarr. "It" is not a 'thing'. Its a logical assertation that X cannot be caused by anything. That's it. It simply is, no cause for what it is. And Ucarr, you already believe this. Infinite universe? Uncaused. God? Uncaused. Its not like I'm putting forth a foreign concept. You cannot talk about any origin without eventually asking, "What caused that?" and having to mumble together some type of 'eternal outside universe' argument that is just an avoiding of saying what we all know: "Its uncaused".

Its avoided because implicitly that leads to there being no 'necessary' origin. And a few people really hate that, I get it. But our dislike of the concept alone is not enough to argue logically against it. We all comprehend it Ucarr. We all get it. Let not pretend we don't.

"Uncaused" universe is just a word game that paints over the truth of "Uncaused" universe, another something-from-nothing argument. — ucarr

Nope. And you know this. It it not, "Something from nothing." Its simply, "Logically, there has to be something that's uncaused". That's it. You know this is right.

Repeatedly pulling a card from a deck over a large number of times with the jack appearing at a frequency predicted by the mathematically calculated probability distribution is a confirmation of the logic and the accuracy of the calculation. — ucarr

But we don't have to confirm because its a thought experiment where we've set all the parameters ourself. We know the cards, and we know its truly random. Its an example, a tool to help pull us out of the abstract and into understanding the concept in a more concrete way.

Therefore, saying "...if uncaused stands outside the causal universe, then likewise un-causation stands outside the causal universe." nonetheless keeps un-causation in application to both caused and uncaused. — ucarr

I never said uncaused lies outside of the universe. You're doing it again. You're thinking "uncaused is something out there'. Its not. Its a logical consequence of the full scope of causality.

Our rule of No restrictions restricts us from restricting shoes to ones without cleats." — ucarr

First, I'm talking about probability, not an entity. There is no thing that can decide to restrict or not restrict. You're talking about the noun restriction, then the verb restriction as applied from an entity. There is no entity in an uncaused situation. There is simply no restrictions. Yes, if an entity gets involved, then language can create situations that are impossible. As I already mentioned, while we can create the verbiage of a thing both existing in X coordinate in space and not existing in X coordinate in space at the same time, this is a contradiction. For something to not exist, it cannot exist. Therefore we can't say, "A thing that exists does not exist".

I argued that description of a thing limits that thing to the specification of what it is. If someone describes you as being human, we know, without seeing you in person, that you're not one thousand feet tall because we know humans never attain to that height. This demonstrates that by describing you as being human, we apply limits to what your height can be. This, therefore, is a limit to what you are based upon the description of you. — ucarr

Yes, I agree! I did not understand this the first time you were trying to communicate this, but I've also mentioned this type of concept before.

It's possible for no-design to be a design if a person intentionally allows a thing to be configured randomly. — ucarr

A design is a crafted intent from a being. You can have a design that looks like it wasn't designed, but the reality is that it would be designed and thus caused by something else. Uncaused reality has no design, only caused reality.

If there's unlimited potential, then that too can be construed as a design in the sense of an unlimited number of possible limits upon what universe emerges. — ucarr

No, you cannot. A design is caused. We can look at the logical consequence of something existent. We can look at the logical consequences if the universe is uncaused, ie, all possible origins had equal chance of being. But the word 'design' is stricken from use because it implicitly admits a 'designer'. No designer, no design.

Drawing an ace instead of a jack examples what happens based upon the total number of cards in the deck and the total number of each type of card. — ucarr

Except in this case there are infinite numbers of cards of infinite varieties. Again, the example is to help you understand the idea of equal probability when there is nothing which would sway anything towards or against any one specific card being pulled.

Someone's mind is required for the logical possibility to exist. — ucarr

So a mind is required for it to be possible for a volcano to erupt when the core temperature and pressure rises? If a tree falls in the forest Ucarr, it still vibrates the air. There's no being around to sense that vibration and interpret it, but that being isn't needed for the vibration of the air's existence. Logical possibilities are simply observations and necessary conclusions given a set of premises in reality. We are necessary to interpret them into the language we use, but not necessary for what we base this on to exist.

Do you believe there exist real things that are impossible? One conceivable example is a sign that shows a circular triangle. It expresses circular triangulation. Can you draw this sign and directly present it to me here? — ucarr

I hopefully answered this with my example of 'something cannot both exist and not exist at the same time". We can create impossible blends of concepts through language. I can create a rounded triangle and some people would accept that as a circular triangle through language. If you restrict the language enough to for example say, "Can you create a 2D image viewed by a sane 3D being from one particular angle and it be observed as both a legitimate definition of a triangle and a legitimate definition of a circle at the same time?" No, that's impossible. The definition of a triangle excludes the definition of a circle in the language. If your language specifically excludes some type of existence for it be identified, then that existence cannot have what the word has excluded to be that word.

Do you believe the scope of causality equals existence that encapsulates everything that is? — ucarr

No.

First, a fantastic post and analysis! I rarely get this deep of an analysis, I'll hopefully rise to the occasion.

"There is a logical limitation as to the form of that which could have been, or can be, but there is no limitation to the number of forms that can be via emergence." — punos

Correct. What is 'impossible' cannot form for example. Impossible being a the existence of both a state, and at the same time the complete negation of that state.

What i am essentially saying is that reason (logic) is the basis for the universe in any form it takes. — punos

Correct, though I would slightly recast that into, "Logic is an essential principle in any existence."

This primordial time had no cause, as it is the reason for cause. — punos

Your idea of time is interesting, though for my purposes I'm not trying to assert any one thing which has to be uncaused. Still, great read and neat idea. :)

First, a fantastic post and analysis! I rarely get this deep of an analysis, I'll hopefully rise to the occasion. — Philosophim

That is very kind of you, thank you. :smile:

Correct, though I would slightly recast that into, "Logic is an essential principle in any existence." — Philosophim

Yes, that's good. I concur.

Your idea of time is interesting, though for my purposes I'm not trying to assert any one thing which has to be uncaused. Still, great read and neat idea. — Philosophim

:smile: :up:

time does not stop and always acts — punos

Proof of Eternal Time:

Time is movement/change; if there were Stillness, naught could go on.

Stillness is impossible; Time has to ever be.

By saying "there is no limitation to the number of forms that can be via emergence." are you making reference to abstract thought? — ucarr

Yes, and no. If you take the human perspective then no it would appear as solid and real, but if one takes the perspective of the universe, to the universe it appears as abstractions of itself. — punos

Your use of "emergence" in your context here refers to the existence of material things as distinguished from the sense of "emergence" that describes attributes of a system emergent from the parts of the system acting collectively? An example of the latter sense is water emergent from the bonding of hydrogen and oxygen atoms.

I believe that there is an initial pattern or rule of maximal simplicity or minimal complexity that serves as the seed from which the universe extends. — punos

These are boundaries of a physical system in its initial state? — ucarr

No, i do not believe there are boundaries at the initial state except for logical boundaries. — punos

How is the simplicity of a physical thing logical? As a clarification of what I'm asking: when an oxygen atom bonds with a hydrogen atom, any logic pertinent to the sharing of electrons between the two atoms is an abstract thought within the mind of the observer. These are physical boundaries established by the covalent bonding in water. If we picture an initial state of matter without the physical boundaries of chemistry, how does logic go about holding atoms and molecules together?

These rules are prescriptive restrictions on what the universe can be? — ucarr

Yes. If it could have been anything, or can be anything at any time then we will have chaos, and no possibility of coherence. — punos

:up:

I have a distinction between passive, and active logic. Passive logic is what we humans do, but the universe does active logic. It's a reversal of polarity in the process of logic. The universe processes logic forward onto itself (creating what is true and real), and people process logic from the universe onto themselves to ascertain the truth of the universe or what is real. — punos

The arrow of time is future to present? Passive logic is reactive whereas active logic is creative?

The antecedents are qualities or properties from which physicality emerges. — punos

I see you think non-physical things antecedent to physical things.

Passing time is the engine of causation? Is there a form of passing time both eternal and non-relative? — ucarr

Correct, passing time is the engine of causation. — punos

Cause and effect form a temporal relation?

And yes, there is primordial time which is non-entropic time absent of space, and matter. Once extended space and matter come into the picture the arrow of time is formed through entropic (relative) processes. So relative time emerges from non-relative time i guess you can say. — punos

Non-entropic time absent of space and matter holds tucked within itself entropic time?

Non-entropic time passes independent of activity and events?

Non-entropic time is non-physical?

Humans know of non-entropic time only indirectly through inference?

Since non-entropic time never stops, can we infer to no absolute zero temperature and no cessation of motion?

Is motion an effect of causation?

Is the logical ordinality of the universe: time, causation, and space-motion-energy-mass?

Time is fundamental and thus unapproachable by analysis? — ucarr

Not necessarily. It can by analyzed by the pure logic of its own being. If it is its own reason, then by that reason we can know it, but we have to learn how to apply the logic correctly in the right order. This will be hard to accept by a pure materialist/empiricist. — punos

Help me examine whether your first two sentences directly above are incompatible with each other. First you say "time can be analyzed..." thereby suggesting time can be broken down into more fundamental parts.

Next you say "If it is its own reason, then by that reason we can know it..." thereby declaring time is fundamental and cannot be broken down into more fundamental parts.

Scope of existence" equals "existence encapsulates everything that is — ucarr

Then just use the meaning and don't introduce new terms. "Scope" as you defined there is not the same as 'scope' as I defined it with causality... — Philosophim

Please explain how "scope" attached to "existence" differs from "scope" attached to "causality."

In terms of composition, the universes cause would simply be what it is, and nothing more. — Philosophim

Thus the solution can only be the conclusion that 'the entire universe is uncaused by anything else'. — Philosophim

With these two statements you say the universe is caused by what it is and nothing else. Is your premise that the universe has no cause outside of itself? Do you think this statement is equivalent to saying the universe is uncaused? — ucarr

No, it is not caused. It is uncaused. Which is what I stated in the quote.
You keep insisting on putting 'cause' in where I say 'uncaused'. Anytime you do this its going to be immediately dismissed going forward as I have pointed this out patiently enough. — Philosophim

We see clearly from your first quote (bold text) that you say "the universes [sic] cause would simply be what it is, and nothing more." I then say as an interpretation of your quote "you say the universe is caused by what it is and nothing else." This is almost a verbatim quotation of your words. When I introduce "uncaused" in the next sentence, I don't put the word into your mouth. I ask you a question about whether self-caused and uncaused are the same thing. By the way, this question is tied to the important question whether or not causation is temporal. If causation is temporal, then self-causation might have a logical problem.

1. There is no limitation as to what 'could' have been, or can be. — Philosophim

Since non-existence precludes all that exists, how can there be possibilities within the mind of a thinker? — ucarr

What does non-existence have to do with the possibilities a mind can think of? — Philosophim

I believe possibilities exist only as abstract thoughts within the mind of a thinker. I therefore think that with non-existence there are no thinkers and thus no possibilities.

There is no limitation to what can be besides what is — Philosophim

Since non-existence precludes all that exists, how can there be anything that is? — ucarr

Yep, you're doing it again. You're linking nonexistence as somehow causally aligned with existence. Its not. This question doesn't make any sense. — Philosophim

We've agreed that non-existence and existence cannot connect. That means they have nothing in common and are thus parallel to each other. So, regarding what is, viz., A≡A, given non-existence, there can be no identity. This premise, being central to your OP, holds critical importance regarding what might be the ultimate question about the origin of the universe: How did non-existence connect with existence if they have nothing in common? An eternal universe concept avoids this question because under its auspices, there has never been non-existence, nor has there ever been an origin of existence.

If my questions are pertinent to your conclusion, then an eternal universe undecidable as to causation seems to me favored over a universe that began without an external cause. — ucarr

They are not pertinent, and while an eternal universe is possible, equally so a finite universe. In both cases Ucarr, they are uncaused. So if you agree that an eternal universe is possible, then you are holding onto an origin that is uncaused. — Philosophim

If a universe of total existence finite in time implies it possesses both a beginning and an end, and if we can suppose a state before its beginning and a state after its end, then there is the question: How did non-existence connect with existence if they have nothing in common? Likewise, there is the question: How did existence connect with non-existence if they have nothing in common? An eternal universe concept avoids this question because under its auspices, there has never been non-existence, nor has there ever been an origin of existence.

If my questions are pertinent to your conclusion, then an eternal universe undecidable as to causation seems to me favored over a universe that began without an external cause. An external eternal universe appears to avoid the problematical question of common ground between non-existence and existence. — ucarr

Incorrect. That's just a category to move the ball away from your discomfort. What caused that external universe? The same causality chain and answer still apply. — Philosophim

I inadvertently mislead you due to a typo. As shown above with the strikethrough of "external" and "eternal" beside it, I show that my intention was to say "eternal" not "external."

Is "It simply was not, then it was." a continuity? Given non-existence as the initial state, there was no time so there's no temporal continuity from non-existence to existence. — ucarr

Correct. If there is nothing, then something, there was no time, now there is time. Time is not a substance, it is a result of recognizing change. To recognize change, there must be a comparison to a previous state. If there is no previous state, that is essentially the zero position, or origin, in regards to time. — Philosophim

Time begins to exist when the universe begins to exist?

Time is non-physical in the sense of an emergent property of physical things in motion observed?

This observation is an inhabitant of the abstract thinking of the mind?

Given "It simply was not, then it was." how does the inception of universe reconcile itself with the symmetries of its physics and their conservation laws? This is a question asking how do mass, energy, motion, and space incept in the wake of non-existence. To further clarify, a physical thing needs energy to instantiate and behave. Since energy consumption is symmetrical with energy production, as an energetic universe expands, how does it consume and produce energy simultaneously toward expansion of its being? This simultaneity would be a stalemate of cancellation leaving expansion of the universe stuck at zero.

In our expanding universe, the symmetry of energy production/consumption alternates so that the total supply of energy of the universe stays balanced at zero. This means that the total supply of energy is conserved. The total volume of energy neither increases nor diminishes overall.

In the case of "It simply was not, then it was." we have energy consumption from no pre-existing supply of energy to draw from. Likewise, we have no pre-existing time passing for time to emerge from the changes of state of things.

At, say, $10^{-67}$ sec the big bang theory says no laws of physics exist. Does this mean there are no symmetries and conservation laws prohibiting expansion in the wake of non-existence?

At this early stage however, the super-heat of the big bang expansion tells us physics exists, even if not governed by the symmetries and their conservation laws. So the singularity is still a pre-existing physical entity, albeit one at the cusp of material information and math-inferred information.

Sometime later, when the behavior patterns of extant atoms begin to obey the laws of physics, the symmetries and their conservation laws are in effect. This tells us that whenever we have normal physics, we have the symmetries and their conservation laws.

There's no existence in the wake of non-existence.

Please explain how "scope" attached to "existence" differs from "scope" attached to "causality." — ucarr

That's for you to explain. I'm not using scope with existence and it doesn't make any sense to me.

When I introduce "uncaused" in the next sentence, I don't put the word into your mouth. I ask you a question about whether self-caused and uncaused are the same thing. — ucarr

Yes that is a fair point. My intention was to convey "We know a thing exists by the fact that it does. There is no other explanation." It cannot cause its own existence as it would have to exist before it existed otherwise.

I believe possibilities exist only as abstract thoughts within the mind of a thinker. I therefore think that with non-existence there are no thinkers and thus no possibilities. — ucarr

Lets clarify this. Possibilities are logical outcomes based on a state of reality at one point compared to another point. The logical outcomes of prediction would still stand even if no human was there to realize it. Non-existence itself has no possibility, as it is literal non-existence. So we agree there. But uncaused existences are once again, not caused by anything and are not tied to non-existence. So the point is moot.

How did non-existence connect with existence if they have nothing in common? — ucarr

Again, Ucarr stop using the word 'connect'. Or 'cause' or 'lead to' or 'movement' or anything else that links. There was nothing. Now there is something. There is no link. Nothing, has nothing to do with that something besides the fact it was a different state prior to that something being. I'm going to ask you very plainly this time and you answer Ucarr. What is it for something to be uncaused? Answer in your own words.

An eternal universe concept avoids this question because under its auspices, there has never been non-existence, nor has there ever been an origin of existence. — ucarr

And what caused there to always be existence? All you're doing is leading right back to my point. The only answer Ucarr is, "It just is". If you defend a universe that has always existed, then you agree 100% with me that it is uncaused by anything else. Meaning, I'm right. And if I'm right that an uncaused thing can exist...then that means something could also NOT have always existed because there is no cause why it could not have.

I inadvertently mislead you due to a typo. As shown above with the strikethrough of "external" and "eternal" beside it, I show that my intention was to say "eternal" not "external." — ucarr

No worry, thanks for clarifying.

Time begins to exist when the universe begins to exist?

Time is non-physical in the sense of an emergent property of physical things in motion observed? — ucarr

I would agree with this.

This observation is an inhabitant of the abstract thinking of the mind? — ucarr

The observation requires an observer. But time began whether we were there to observe it or not.

Given "It simply was not, then it was." how does the inception of universe reconcile itself with the symmetries of its physics and their conservation laws? This is a question asking how do mass, energy, motion, and space incept in the wake of non-existence. — ucarr

You're asking how, which means, "What causes this?" Something uncaused doesn't have a 'how' Ucarr. It just is. Are you going to answer how something could exist eternally? Of course not.

Do you realize you just wrote that you agreed with me?

In our expanding universe, the symmetry of energy production/consumption alternates so that the total supply of energy of the universe stays balanced at zero. This means that the total supply of energy is conserved. The total volume of energy neither increases nor diminishes overall. — ucarr

No debate. Also irrelevant to the point. That is the rule we've discovered from what currently exists. I'm not debating against the causality of what already exists. You again are saying, "Causality does this, so how does an uncaused thing do that?" Wrong question. You're applying 'how', 'cause', etc to something that has no cause. Every single question you ask me, ask yourself about your universe that's always existed.

At, X time
sec the big bang theory says no laws of physics exist. Does this mean there are no symmetries and conservation laws prohibiting expansion in the wake of non-existence? — ucarr

I don't care. The real question is, "What caused the Big Bang?" Was it caused, or uncaused?

Alright, we're starting to cover the same points again and again. Let me help focus this conversation to a point we can make progress on.

1. I want you to erase the word 'non-existence' from your vocabulary for now. "Caused and uncaused". Intentional or not, you keep writing sentences that imply non-existence has anything to do with uncaused existence. You do not need the term 'non-existence' in any way for now.

2. Stop saying 'scope of existence' as if I use it. I don't. Its not a thing. Its not ever going to be a thing. :) I will simply answer "No" if you ever reference it going forward because I've answered this enough.

3. I want you to take every criticism you make and first apply it to your idea of a universe that has always existed. Can a universe that has always existed be caused by something else Ucarr? Unless you surprise me, we both know the answer is "No". Then you can agree with me that uncaused things are possible.

You're going to have to inevitably agree with me that uncaused things are possible to hold our infinitely existing universe idea. Then we can debate the logic I've noted that if something uncaused can exist, then there would be no limits as to what could come into being uncaused, removing the idea that an eternal universe is necessarily true.

"Your use of "emergence" in your context here refers to the existence of material things as distinguished from the sense of "emergence" that describes attributes of a system emergent from the parts of the system acting collectively? An example of the latter sense is water emergent from the bonding of hydrogen and oxygen atoms." — ucarr

Yes, that is how i'm using the term "emergence". Emergence begins after the first physical particles appear or manifest. The first emergence is the result of fundamental particles interacting. All other consequent emergences are higher-order complex structures composed of lower emergent complex (yet simpler) structures.

The feeling of water being wet is an abstraction in our own minds about what our nervous system detects regarding the structure and ongoing interactions of water molecules or any liquid state of matter.

"How is the simplicity of a physical thing logical? As a clarification of what I'm asking: when an oxygen atom bonds with a hydrogen atom, any logic pertinent to the sharing of electrons between the two atoms is an abstract thought within the mind of the observer." — ucarr

Yes, that is a product of the passive form of logic that enables us to abstract in our minds what is happening in the outside world.

"These are physical boundaries established by the covalent bonding in water. If we picture an initial state of matter without the physical boundaries of chemistry, how does logic go about holding atoms and molecules together?" — ucarr

By the time chemical organization emerges, there would already be many such boundaries. The first fundamental particles provide the kind of necessary boundaries i believe you're referring to. Fundamental particles have spherical boundaries, and they form atoms, atoms form molecules, and there you have chemistry.

"I have a distinction between passive, and active logic. Passive logic is what we humans do, but the universe does active logic. It's a reversal of polarity in the process of logic. The universe processes logic forward onto itself (creating what is true and real), and people process logic from the universe onto themselves to ascertain the truth of the universe or what is real. — punos


The arrow of time is future to present? Passive logic is reactive whereas active logic is creative?" — ucarr

The arrow of time is an effect of entropy; it is an emergence and is not fundamental. Consider a container that is packed maximally tight with marbles. The entropy of the box in this state is 0. Nothing can move inside this box. For these marbles to move, they need space to move into. If you begin to increase the size of the box, the marbles inside begin to move and take on different states or locations in relation to the other marbles. This is where entropy begins. It is a spreading out or diffusion of matter (energy and information) in space. The more space, the more possible states, and thus more entropy.

The arrow of time, therefore, is the direction of order (information) itself. Going from a state of 0 entropy to a state of maximum entropy is what the forward arrow of time means. For the arrow of time to be reversed, one must make the box smaller and smaller until all the marbles are packed tight again and unable to move. This does not reverse time itself, but it does reverse the arrow of time. The increase in size of the box is akin to the breaking of symmetry, and the tightly packed non-moving marbles are akin to a state of perfect symmetry. A 0 entropy state theoretically has time, but no arrow of time.

And yes, i believe you have it right about the passive and active forms of logic.

"Cause and effect form a temporal relation?" — ucarr

Well, yes, in the sense that cause comes before effect. Of course, after the initial effect, that effect then becomes the cause for the next event, and thus the chain of causality continues, governed by the logic of time.

"Non-entropic time absent of space and matter holds tucked within itself entropic time?" — ucarr

The potential for entropic time is, in a sense, latent in primordial or non-entropic time, but it cannot emerge until the first instance of space and matter, or energy in space.

"Non-entropic time passes independent of activity and events?" — ucarr

I would say that is correct according to my model.

"Non-entropic time is non-physical?" — ucarr

Yes, you could say that.

"Humans know of non-entropic time only indirectly through inference?" — ucarr

Yes.

"Since non-entropic time never stops, can we infer to no absolute zero temperature and no cessation of motion?" — ucarr

Fundamentally, non-entropic time has no temperature, as temperature is a measure of the average energy or movement of particles in an entropic state. You need space with free particles for there to be temperature.

"Is motion an effect of causation?" — ucarr

Everything except time is the effect of causation.

"Is the logical ordinality of the universe: time, causation, and space-motion-energy-mass?" — ucarr

1. primordial/non-entropic time (causation)
2. space
3. energy-mass-motion (energy in space is caused by primordial time)

"Help me examine whether your first two sentences directly above are incompatible with each other. First you say "time can be analyzed..." thereby suggesting time can be broken down into more fundamental parts.

Next you say "If it is its own reason, then by that reason we can know it..." thereby declaring time is fundamental and cannot be broken down into more fundamental parts. " — ucarr

Primordial time is active logic. The logical operation of negation, or more precisely inversion, is its main function. The temporal operation of inversion contains within it the operations of disjunction and conjunction. It's a bit tricky to explain correctly, but inversion implies two opposite states. If NOT 0, then 1; if NOT 1, then 0. This means that NOT includes within it 0 AND 1, but only 0 OR 1 at a time. This logic in time resembles a kind of trinity of NOT, AND, OR, and neither one can exist without the others thus they are one. These three operators can not be broken down any further without destroying logic itself, it is indivisible. It is the maximum simplicity, and minimal complexity needed for the universe to exist as it is.

The trinity of logic:

• NOT = (AND, OR)
• OR = (NOT AND)
• AND = (NOT OR)

The feeling of water being wet is an abstraction in our own minds about what our nervous system detects regarding the structure and ongoing interactions of water molecules or any liquid state of matter. — punos

Because the small hydrogen atom rolls around the much larger oxygen atom, plus the hydrogen ions are freely traded back and forth.

Because the small hydrogen atom rolls around the much larger oxygen atom, plus the hydrogen ions are freely traded back and forth. — PoeticUniverse

That's why water looks and feels the way it does to us. But notice, where is wetness when you only have one water molecule? What about two molecules, or three? When does wetness begin?

When does wetness begin? — punos

Right away, with one molecule, but this is too little for our senses to register; yet, two molecules is a better answer since it has the two ways, plus then we can say "More is different!" But, still, the feeling of wetness is aways off from there.