The Cosmos exists as the constraint on possibility. It emerges not from fundamental intentionality nor from fundamental mechanistic cause but from the fundamental vagueness of unorganised free potential. An essential state of everythingness that then must start to self-cancel until it becomes reduced to some coherently organised somethingness. A realm of inevitable structure. — apokrisis

Great! 'Everything' is a necessity since there is no design point for anything specific.

Note --- I interpret First Cause to be logically & necessarily eternal & intentional Essence instead of temporal & accidental Substance. — Gnomon

I am arguing against any strong notion of first cause.

Take the example of spontaneous symmetry breaking. A pencil balanced on its point. A ball resting perfectly still on the peak of a dome.

These are states of perfect potentiality that are also critically unstable. Poised and inevitably about to be broken. The pencil will fall. The ball will roll down. The direction is random, but the outcome is certain.

And what is the cause of the fall or the roll? Absolutely anything. The smallest vibration or the least random knock from some air molecule. The first cause must exist. But also it could have been anything. So nothing was very special about it.

That would be the standard physical example of the kind causal situation I am talking about. What comes first is just the poised tension of a potential so general that absolutely any fluctuation could send it down the hill towards its inevitable destiny.

Note --- I interpret First Cause to be logically & necessarily eternal & intentional Essence instead of temporal & accidental Substance. — Gnomon
I am arguing against any strong notion of first cause. — apokrisis

That's OK with me. I don't have any "strong" scientific notion of First Cause. In fact, most practical scientists seem to avoid such metaphysical speculations in their work*1. For me, the notion of a First Cause is merely a philosophical conjecture to put a period on all, otherwise open-ended, causal sequences.

20th century Cosmology traced the path of measurable finite causes, energy exchanges, back to a mathematical Singularity. That hypothetical origin of space-time was inherently un-defined, because all converging mathematical paths went off the charts and disappeared into Infinity (literally un-measurable). So the Singularity itself could not be the actual First Cause, because its an Idea, not a Real thing. Hence, nobody has a strong, evidence-based, notion of First Cause.

But flakey philosophers are not bound to mundane Reality, and they can freely imagine sublime Ideality. Which is what Aristotle postulated, 13 centuries ago, as the First & Final Causes . . . . for philosophical (not scientific) & theoretical (not empirical) purposes. Those bookend Causes are as real, and useful, as the number PI. :smile:


*1. Science of First Cause : refers to the philosophical concept of a first cause—the initial, uncaused entity that initiated all subsequent causal chains and ultimately brought about existence itself. While science describes the causes of events within the universe, the first cause addresses the ultimate origin of reality, a concept explored in metaphysics and ontology rather than empirical science.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=science+of+the+first+causes

DO YOU BELIEVE IN THE SINGULARITY?

I guess newton's "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" makes more sense than cause, i tend to think of everything as reactions.

20th century Cosmology traced the path of measurable finite causes, energy exchanges, back to a mathematical Singularity. — Gnomon

In fact what Penrose showed was that all the useful structure of fundamental of physics would break down if you pushed it to an actual zero point. And what instead saves it is that all of that physics rather neatly converges on the unit 1 that is the Planck point. The point at which the three fundamental constants of nature - c, G and h - become unified and have the one absolute value.

So extrapolating linearly to zero fails. But extrapolating non-linearly to 1 gives you a “first cause” that is an irreducible triadic relation. The dichotomy of h and G, scaled by c as its inverting connection.

The general mistake that is being made is thinking that h and G need to be reduced even further. That two must be made one. Relativity has to be expressed as a quantum field theory where gravitons exist as themselves free fluctuations of the quantum foam.

If you have two fundamental theories, then one has to be made the more fundamental and so allow the other to be derived from it.

But that is not how dichotomies work. They come as reciprocating pairs. They are unit 1 composites and not unit 0 fundamentality. Existence begins at a level that is already a relation in action, not when nothing becomes a first something.

These are states of perfect potentiality that are also critically unstable. — apokrisis

Good! The perfect instability.

Existence begins at a level that is already a relation in action, not when nothing becomes a first something. — apokrisis

'Nothing' is not an alternative to the Something of Existence', for Existence has no opposite, so, the base Existence is Eternal. The Permanent rearranges to form the temporaries.

for Existence has no opposite — PoeticUniverse

What about persistence?

I prefer persistence to existence as it speaks to reality as a process of coming into formed being rather than some existence that just has a stolid and unexplained material presence.

I am arguing against any strong notion of first cause. — apokrisis

Again, for scientific purposes, the weak notion of this-to-that causation is usually sufficient. Except perhaps, in Quantum physics, where Non-locality and "spooky action at a distance" remains a cause-effect mystery, yet it is accepted as a real phenomenon.

For philosophical purposes though, our explanations must "move" our understanding "from known to unknown"*1, from phenomenon to noumenon. Hence, we attempt to explain all local intermediate causes & effects in terms of a hypothetical ultimate First Cause (causal origin), which is not a real testable phenomenon. It's an inferred General Principle ; an idea not a thing. Whether it's labeled mundane Magic or mystical Magick, may depend on the context. :smile:


*1. Wayfarer reply, Excerpt from the No Magic thread (6 mo. ago) :
It's not a matter of detail alone. In Greek philosophy, the issue is phrased in terms of explanans and explanandum. In the Phaedo, for example, Socrates argues that knowledge requires a method of inquiry that moves from the known to the unknown. He suggests that in order to explain a particular phenomenon, one must have knowledge of a more general principle or cause that underlies it. Socrates refers to this more general principle as the "cause" or "explanans," and the particular phenomenon as the "effect" or "explanandum."

And besides, saith Feynman, 'I can safely say that nobody understands quantum physics'. It works - as if by magic!
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15869/the-proof-that-there-is-no-magic/p1

But as I have laboriously set out, I move from the metaphysics of cause to the physics of cause. Or at least each informs the other, as it did with Aristotle. So that would be why the facts of quantum physics and relativity would inform any systems view of causality in the modern world. To fail to take account of them would be odd if one is serious about metaphysics and actually knowing things.

I move from the metaphysics of cause to the physics of cause. — apokrisis

Of course, physics & metaphysics should be harmonious, if possible. But as the Quantum action-at-a-distance paradox indicates, sometimes we are forced to reinterpret the physics in order to derive a corrected metaphysical interpretation.

The article below*1 reminds us, Einstein mis-interpreted quantum entanglement as supraluminal communication of information, and argued strenuously against it. Years later, experiments forced scientists to change their definition of Entanglement from physical inter-action to metaphysical correlation.

The new viewpoint is Holistic instead of Reductive. Likewise, the Causation dissension may simply hinge on context (empirical vs theoretical) and definition (token vs type)*2. The technical stuff of both physics and metaphysics is over my amateur head. And the Holistic stuff may be what you are arguing against*3. :smile:


*1. Spooky Correlation :
it has since been confirmed by experimental observation that the ‘spooky action’ does indeed happen, exactly as quantum physics predicted (although it should be noted that there is no action or interaction as such, more a relationship of correlation).
https://www.texterity.com.au/spooky-action/

*2. The Metaphysics of Causation :
Although both 1 and 2 are broadly causal claims, some think that they are not claims about the same kind of causal relation. These causal relations may be differentiated by their relata.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-metaphysics/

*3. "Holistic entanglement" refers to quantum entanglement, where multiple quantum particles are linked and become a single, inseparable system, their individual identities replaced by a shared, interconnected whole, a concept that aligns with holistic philosophies about universal interconnectedness.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=holistic+entanglement

In fact what Penrose showed was that all the useful structure of fundamental of physics would break down if you pushed it to an actual zero point. And what instead saves it is that all of that physics rather neatly converges on the unit 1 that is the Planck point. The point at which the three fundamental constants of nature - c, G and h - become unified and have the one absolute value. — apokrisis

Again, you are talking about practical (useful) Science, instead of theoretical (reasonable) Philosophy. Except that the notion of "constants" is a generalization & abstraction from specific & concrete instances of physical changes. Likewise, the notions of Unity and Absolute are never observed in the real world, but inferred from multiple instances.

Also, the notion of Causation is a generalization from a sampling of specific exchanges of energy. From such individual theoretical inferences, we can also generalize that Nature, as a finite-but-dynamic system, must have an Absolute & Unitary (Holistic) First Cause, of which all observed instances of influence are merely "Actual Occasions", as defined by A.N. Whitehead in Process and Reality.

I apologize for harping on the notion of Holism & Original Cause, but it's essential to my personal philosophical worldview. You may ask, "is it useful?", for any practical purposes. And the answer is no. Theories are only useful for the impractical work of Philosophy. :smile:


"The sole problem is, 'does it work?' But the aim of practice can only be defined by the use of theory ; so the question 'does it work?' is a reference to theory".
"The notion of 'understanding' requires some grasp of how the finitude of the entity in question requires infinity. This search for such understanding is the definition of philosophy."
___ Science and Philosophy, A.N. Whitehead
Note --- We reason about limitless Infinity (set of all possible sets) from experience with instances of finitude (isolated set within a more comprehensive set).

Again, you are talking about practical (useful) Science, instead of theoretical (reasonable) Philosophy. Except that the notion of "constants" is a generalization & abstraction from specific & concrete instances of physical changes. Likewise, the notions of Unity and Absolute are never observed in the real world, but inferred from multiple instances. — Gnomon

So it seems I am both not talking about philosophy yet talking about philosophy in your book?

Ought one consider where logic sits in all this at this point?

I apologize for harping on the notion of Holism & Original Cause, but it's essential to my personal philosophical worldview. — Gnomon

And so my reply was precisely about that. The holistic view of a first cause. The unit 1 story of the first symmetry-breaking. The unit 1 story of a unity of opposites.

And so my reply was precisely about that. The holistic view of a first cause. The unit 1 story of the first symmetry-breaking. The unit 1 story of a unity of opposites. — apokrisis

Again, I apologize for my ignorance of modern technical philosophical arguments. I'm just not familiar with the arcane jargon. My philosophical vocabulary is derived mostly from the ancient reasoning of Plato & Aristotle. Since I got into philosophy only after retirement from the practical world, I have skipped most of the post-Platonic academic argumentation.

One exception to the antique vocabulary is Whitehead's Process and Reality, and it took me a lot of re-reading to understand what he was talking about. I eventually came to the realization that his arguments & metaphors are drawn mainly from mathematical reasoning, for which I have no formal training, beyond a single Calculus course.

For more modern opinions, I can understand some of the philosophical conclusions of early Quantum scientists. For example : "Uncertainty Principle's Werner Heisenberg (1901 - 1976) declared himself a Platonist : 'I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favour of Plato . . . . . the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense, they are forms". {quoted from Philosophy Now magazine, August 2025}

Consequently, much of the modern philosophical argumentation is over my head. So, I have to Google terms that are not familiar. Regarding "symmetry breaking"*1 and "unity of opposites"*2, what do they have to say about the topic of this thread : arguing against general Causes? Do they support Aristotle's notion of a necessary First Cause? :smile:


*1. In philosophy, symmetry breaking explores how order, structure, and differentiation emerge from a state of uniformity, often raising questions about the relationship between scientific theories and reality, the limits of reductionism, and the fundamental nature of laws.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=symmetry+breaking+philosophy

*2. The "unity of opposites" is a philosophical concept suggesting that seemingly opposing ideas or forces are interdependent and define each other, existing in a state of tension that drives development or wholeness.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=unity+of+opposites

Since I got into philosophy only after retirement from the practical world, I have skipped most of the post-Platonic academic argumentation. — Gnomon

But the unity of opposites is preSocratic.

the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense, they are forms — Gnomon

And not any old forms but gauge symmetries. Special relativity zeroes the spacetime metric to a set of local points under the invariance of the Poincare group of symmetries. But then the "inside" of these zeroed spacetime points can contain the something further of their intrinsic spin symmetries. Gauge structures such as the trio of SU(3), SU(2) and U(1) that generate the Standard Model of particle physics once the vacuum cools sufficiently for such structure to crystallise out and become a thing. A flood of excitations of that form.

So quantum field theory gives you your Platonic structure. And that theory is now mathematically precise. And experimentally verified.

You can look to Aristotle and Plato for the basic metaphysics. They were trying to sum up what Greek philosophy had already spent three centuries discussing. The logic of the Unity of Opposites.

Aristotle and Plato were applying that basic dialectical approach to reasoning by trying to boil it down to the fundamental dichotomy of form and matter. Or what in modern terms we could call information and entropy. Global constraints and local degrees of freedom.

This provided the holistic paradigm of two complementary notions of being in interaction. Mathematic structure in interaction with material fluctuation. Or in quantum terms, a sea of fluctuation shaped by the emergence of constraining order. The kind of global order made precise by the maths of symmetry and symmetry-breaking.

The Universe as we now know it. A dimensionality that has the Poincare group structure of a 4D spacetime, and then which is filled with the energy of its gauge group local excitations. The bosons and fermions that are generated by SU(3), SU(2) and U(1) as the local spin resonances which an excited vacuum can't help but ring with.

If you fashion a bell, that makes a cavity that has to then ring with certain frequencies. And that is basically the Universe. A 4D spacetime cavity that echoes with its own violent shaking. SU(3), SU(2) and U(1) are the frequencies at which this global whole can resonate in terms of its mix of locally particular excitations. The Big Bang is the hard strike that starts as a shattering confusion of resonances and then subsides to the low fading hum that we can hear as the state of our 2.7 degree K Universe today.

SU(3) effectively disappears from sight when the quarks get rolled up into protons – a U(1) state of electric charge. SU(2) also gets broken into the weak force as a short range decay story and electromagnetism as the U(1) photon which is what is finally left as the final last weak, but all pervasive, hum of the void.

That is a considerable simplification of particle physics. But you get the basic idea.

There is no real matter involved. Just a cascade of echoing frequencies that lose their energy and become reduced to ever more simplified forms. Quantum excitations shaped by their spacetime container and winding up as simple as possible.

The Heat Death of the Big Bang arrives when all that remains is the eternalised low hum of "black body" photons with a wavelength that the scale of the visible universe. Or a frequency that has a temperature as close to absolute zero degrees K as it can get – given quantum uncertainty and the holographic principle.

Quantum excitations shaped by their spacetime container and winding up as simple as possible. — apokrisis

Great post and writing style!

Oh, how such a polar opposite is the simplex to the ultra-complex wished for by the religious…

iambic pentameter
— Moliere

Beneath, Below, and Further
(With da-DUM da-DUM da-DUM da-DUM da-DUM rhythm.)

Beneath, below, and further down we find

The large gives way to small by rule's design,

To tiny forms and minuscule decline,

To nothing much at all in absent line.

Yet from this bottom place the all began

Its upward call through time's eternal span,

And here the answer to our sprawl was planned,

Where nature wrote with her creating hand.

Upon the foam existence carved its mark,

A realm not like our thoughts in light or dark,

A lawless place that questions ever spark,

Where formless mysteries through ages hark.

Stability has fled our downward quest,

And melted in descent without arrest,

So perfect instability's our test—

A symmetry that cannot find its rest.

For everything must leak and flow away,

No controlling force can ever stay,

Of ruling factors we've run out today,

Left empty-handed at the end of play.

Here pulsate rhythms of the so-called void

That swings between the spaces unexplored,

From here to there, its patterns never cloyed,

In rise and fall, forever thus employed.

Here waits Eternity with ancient rhymes,

With Anything and Everything's long chimes,

Who have possessed through all the endless times

The perpetuity that ever climbs.

And if one waits through Forever's night,

Which is but instant in his endless sight,

Through months of Sundays till the years take flight,

Then rarest events shall come to light.

At last all things that possibly can be

Will manifest in time's vast symphony,

For in the realm of possibility,

All potentials claim their destiny.

That’s pretty impressive if you just whipped it up. :grin:

That’s pretty impressive if you just whipped it up. — apokrisis

It ended up and kind of an extra in the June writing challenge:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15983/tpf-essaypart-1-part-2

:up:

And not any old forms but gauge symmetries. — apokrisis

I'm making a musical, which is what I mostly do lately, of your great post. Sjinn is creating the video visuals now, which will take quite a while, and then it has to go through Topaz for hours to become 4K, and then in FinalCutPro I'll slow down the video with optical flow since the vocals I made through Suno are longer than the Sjinn narration and replace the Sjinn boring type narration with the Suno vocals…

This is a new service I'm trying out for posters if the mods let it be.

Meanwhile, here is my YouTube channel (My 'Outlander' vid is a good recent example of the state of the art):

https://www.youtube.com/@AustinPatrickTorney

Any choice of the music genre? Does AI do psych rock?

Does AI do psych rock? — apokrisis

I think it can do anything if it's a known music genre.

Is this psych rock?:

Is this psych rock?: — PoeticUniverse

It's pretty shit. :razz:

I was thinking more a pastiche of the Death Valley Girls. But only as this immediately sprang to mind. I kind of dread the AI take on any decent music.

However you go at it your way. An interesting project.

We we surely in future not have photo albums but instead instantly generated rock operas to tell the tale of our lives. Chatbots will supplant PF in another year. Just so much to look forward to.

Death Valley Girls — apokrisis

Brilliant! Hysterical!

Not Death Valley Girls, but perhaps valley girls. And the bombastic rap treatment works

I’m now seeing Britney Spears in front of a chalk board of equations. An audience of enthusiastic wizened professors thumping the benches.

Or is that too literal?

Or is that too literal? — apokrisis

OK, we'll have Britney make an appearance.

But the unity of opposites is preSocratic. — apokrisis

I'm more familiar with the ancient Taoist Yin-Yang version, as an illustration of the concept of Complementarity. But my understanding of those general concepts is superficial and non-technical. :nerd:

And not any old forms but gauge symmetries. Special relativity zeroes the spacetime metric to a set of local points under the invariance of the Poincare group of symmetries. — apokrisis

Again, this stuff*1*2 is way over my little pointy (not Poincare) head. And I can't see what it has to do with the topic of this thread : local cause/effect vs First Cause. :joke:


*1. The philosophy of gauge symmetries explores their role as formal mathematical redundancies that nonetheless provide a powerful, albeit non-direct, framework for understanding fundamental physical reality, rather than a direct representation of nature's features. While gauge symmetries are central to modern physics, their philosophical status is debated: are they merely descriptive tools, or do they reveal deeper truths about the structure of spacetime and the emergence of physical properties?
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=gauge+symmetries+philosophy
Note --- This is not talking about Symmetry in the traditional mirror-image sense. I suppose it has some relation to whole systems underlying local particulars, such that superficial form-changes don't affect the fundamental unity of the system being observed. But how does this "fundamental" feature of Nature reflect the Ultimate Whole : the First Cause?

*2. In philosophy, symmetry breaking explores how order, structure, and differentiation emerge from a state of uniformity, often raising questions about the relationship between scientific theories and reality, the limits of reductionism, and the fundamental nature of laws.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=symmetry+breaking+philosophy

And not any old forms but gauge symmetries. — apokrisis

Here is the serious version (next time, the fun version):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZrtt4o5LNU

And I can't see what it has to do with the topic of this thread : local cause/effect vs First Cause — Gnomon

This is related to this:

differentiation emerge from a state of uniformity — Gnomon

It is against to the thesis that matter is a passive receptacle for external and transcendent forms (first cause), while symmetry breaks give matter (to which they are immanent) the ability to generate forms without external intervention.

Is that right ?