Time doesnt ezist but if it did it would show an encased series of causes. No need for "Pure Actuality"

Time doesnt ezist — Gregory

Of course time exists, if it weren't so the whole physics wouldn't be possible. What you said was very dumb, so please, go back to elementary school.

I sometimes consider poetry to be a form of philosophy. — Gregory

Poetry unveils unapprehended hidden truths often in a logical precise, concise way that helps one maintain a focus on the question or answer, or something like that, but, as always, the content is the pearl.

can't generate itself — smartguy

That's really the point, that not anything can generate itself, so, we are left with 'what ever is' as a truth and a proof that 'something' has no alternative, no opposite. I can add, though, that a curious zero-sum balance of opposites is found, too, and so is appealing—why is this so is an interesting question, too.

Time doesnt ezist — Gregory

It does appear that eternalism is so, given that 'what is' is all there is; however, there is no doubt that we experience time, which makes it to be emergent, as the poem's facts denies us any other kind of absoluteness.

Time in Bergsonian sense is real. I agree with Aristotle, Augustine, Aquimas, and Leibniz that time is a mental thing, something not outside us. Smartguy has 6 posts and is already being dogmatic

Modern physics is open to interpretation. Relational theory of time seems correct, although I reject relational theory of space

We can then go on to say that 'what is' is eternal in the sense that it cannot have a beginning or an end, making it to be unbreakable and unmakeable, deathless and ungenerated, etc. — PoeticUniverse

I'll politely disagree. A self-explained cause has no underlying necessity as to what it is. It cannot have any, "must be", because that implies some rule beyond itself. It can be anything. Anything! It could appear for five seconds, then blink out of existence. A self-explained causality could even appear within a causal universe and disrupt it. While a self-explained entity could also be eternal and be the "first" thing (thus the start of time if time can only exist with "things"), that is only one option out of an infinite other.

I'll politely disagree. A self-explained cause has no underlying necessity as to what it is. It cannot have any, "must be", because that implies some rule beyond itself. It can be anything. Anything! It could appear for five seconds, then blink out of existence. A self-explained causality could even appear within a causal universe and disrupt it. While a self-explained entity could also be eternal and be the "first" thing (thus the start of time if time can only exist with "things"), that is only one option out of an infinite other. — Philosophim

Anything you apply to "God" can be applied to matter because there is no proof these things do not apply to matter but do to something non-composite

God is simply one out of an infinite options. A first cause not being a God is simply one other out of an infinite options. This is not a discussion of God. This is simply a discussion of what being a first cause entails, and that we cannot say with certainty what that first cause must necessarily be.

Still, the God issue may explain the anomaly situation just as much as the soul may explain the anomaly situation of Free Will (vs. Determinism). Just my 2 cents. I guess you can still call it "Causal Loop" however.

If time is a loop, what about space?

With time as a loop, the distinction between cause and effect becomes irrelevant as every cause is also an effect, even the "first" cause, and asserting a first or last effect would be incoherent. If time is a loop then declaring one cause or another as the first cause would be arbitrary.

This would apply to space as well, as there would be no real "fundamental" aspect to space. This means that the macro world is just as "fundamental" as the quantum world.

This means that the distinction between top down versus bottom up processing would be arbitrary. They would be part of the same loop and designating part of the loop as top or bottom would be based on one's view In the process.

Still, the God issue may explain the anomaly situation just as much as the soul may explain the anomaly situation of Free Will (vs. Determinism). — DrOlsnesLea

And the non-God issue may explain the anomaly situation just as much as the non-soul may explain the anomaly situation of Free Will (vs. Determinism).

The only conclusion is that anything could have been the first cause. As such, we cannot use what we know post origin, to explain the origin. Post origin does not need a God, and it does not need a universe without a God either. Either are viable options, but cannot be precluded from the post origin results we currently understand.

In short, there is nothing necessary to explain anything, except what actually exists.