— Philosophim

Well Antony, the original conclusion is infinite to one. And of course, its wrong. =) I haven't visited this in a while, and its interesting to see some of the replies. Most aren't actually examining the puzzle, but that's fine. The puzzle is difficult and that is not easily digested on a forum.

To attempt a serious reply, take a look at how the pre-chosen criteria for an answer (allowable with unexamined terms) dictates what is acceptable to consider, i.e., the game is rigged.

Either all things have a prior cause for their existence, or there is at least one first cause of existence from which all others follow. — Philosophim

Here, have we thought about the possibility that both are the case? And what would it take for that to be a possibility? First, the term "existence" is murky. Can you point to some thing's existence? the existence of a concept? Or, more importantly, what is it to say that something exists? that it is differentiated from another? that it is here rather than not here (and when would we say that)? that, for me, something has value and importance to affect my life? All of these things?

And so what sense of "existence" are we using here? Well, it appears to be (necessarily?) tied to the idea of a cause--maybe what something is made of, how it turns out, or its purpose. Now, it seems possible that we want some control over how things exist (turn out, continue on, are driven, etc.), so we necessitate a "cause" (The proximity of Descartes meditations can not, I would think, be ignored, and his attempt to find/create something fixed in order to try to solve the problem of skepticism.)

Any deviation in particulates makes it a different universe. — Philosophim

I won't argue whether there is a cause or what started the cause, only ask it be considered whether the idea of "causality" taken back to an initial point starts to thin out. Say I grant that one cause/thing is caused by something prior, etc. When we get back to the First Cause and turn to look forward, yes, we can see possible ripple effects through time (materially, biologically, evolutionarily, etc.); but is every outcome dictated? Morally? Creatively? Aesthetically? Or, in other words, does "everything" have a cause? The 'choice" of the same lunch I have every day? and, even more, a determined one? And where are we drawing the line? Again, what is important about "existence" and "causality" for us in this context? I'm not sure this is exactly an argument against your conclusion (or failed conclusion), so I'm not sure we can call these "flaws" rather than maybe the pitfalls of pre-constructed logic.

Here, have we thought about the possibility that both are the case? — Antony Nickles

Yes. There can be multiple first causes. But what is necessarily concluded is that all causality reduces down to a first cause. There may be separate causality chains that reduce down to separate first causes. This may be a step in countering the conclusion I made, but it alone is not enough to counter the conclusion I made. Can you flesh it out and show why this counters the claim?

If you are going to question the idea of causality, a definition here should clear up what is intended.
Causality - a necessary prior state in time for the existence of the current state in time. If there is no necessary prior state that entails the current state, then the current state is a "first cause" without any prior causality. Does that make sense?

Yes. There can be multiple first causes. But what is necessarily concluded is that all causality reduces down to a first cause. There may be separate causality chains that reduce down to separate first causes. This may be a step in countering the conclusion I made, but it alone is not enough to counter the conclusion I made. Can you flesh it out and show why this counters the claim? — Philosophim

Well, if we are allowing for "multiple first causes", then it opens the field to say that there are infinite chains. We can say the movement to pick up your cup has at least a biological/physical cause, and that stepping in front of a bullet also has the same cause yet also other causes (sacrifice, love, moral duty). Let's say we grant that there is a First Cause to every chain,and that these two causes are simply separate chains, each with a First Cause, then the question is, for each different chain, what do those First Causes consist of/in? You've give us two answers.

In a sense we are sliding into the question of whether every thought is "intended" or whether every movement is an "action"--is God behind movement or just actions (specific movements recognized as an act)? Or both as different causes? And what is it to say the Devil is the cause? Emerson is asked " 'But these impulses may be from below, not from above.' I replied, 'They do not seem to me to be such; but if I am the Devil’s child, I will live then from the Devil.' No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it." Are we always acting from the "God" within us? If so, why is Emerson imploring us to rely on that instinct.

Again, is this to refute your claim? I don't think so. But, as I said, perhaps the premises have their own motivations which dictate the form of the answer.

You're on the right train of thought with the first paragraph. You're overthinking it with the second paragraph. This is a philosophical God very strictly defined as "Having the knowledge and power requirements to create a specific universe". There is no mention of anything else. So dismiss all else. Morality? Not important. Immortality? Not important. Old man with beard or Spaghetti Monster? Unimportant. =)

Everything you need to consider to solve the issue is within the strictly defined definitions and words. Anything outside of these terms is irrelevant. So that being the case, consider how I conclude the probability of a God being a first cause is infinite to one. Does having multiple possible first causes negate my reasoning for claiming this?

This is a philosophical God very strictly defined as "Having the knowledge and power requirements to create a specific universe". There is no mention of anything else. So dismiss all else. Morality... * * *

Everything you need to consider to solve the issue is within the strictly defined definitions and words. Anything outside of these terms is irrelevant. So that being the case, consider how I conclude the probability of a God being a first cause is infinite to one. Does having multiple possible first causes negate my reasoning for claiming this? — Philosophim

Well here I partly beg off. I don't believe philosophy is served by the modern vogue of creating contextless, pre-defined situations (trains and people in trouble as showing us anything about our moral realm)--but I walked into it, so that's on me. I'm trained in Ordinary Language Philosophy, which attempts to flesh out the contexts in which/when we would be talking about, say, causes, in order to see what we want in "strictly defining" the criteria beforehand, say, limiting "[e]verything [ I ] need to consider". If we are not considering "chains of multiple first causes" (moral chains, chains of actions, of identity, etc.) other than the creation of the "universe", then I'm not sure I can help. If the "universe" is just the first thing created, than the question thins out so much as to not hold anything; if you mean the universe to include everything without exception (the "universe" of possible/inevitable things), then everything is caused initially together. Which is to say, this is teetering into a discussion of solipsism/behavioralism and/or determinism/free-will, or devolving due to terms that can mean multiple things without any investigation into what necessitates them here other than adherence to a certain logic. The cart is before the horse I'm afraid, which, again, rigs the game.

Causality - a necessary prior state in time for the existence of the current state in time. If there is no necessary prior state that entails the current state, then the current state is a "first cause" without any prior causality. Does that make sense? — Philosophim

No, this won't work. Suppose A was caused by B, but it could alternatively have been caused by C. Neither B nor C are necessary for A to occur.

This is a well-known objection, by the way. I don't know why, but philosophers of the previous century loved thought experiments involving murder. So a counterexample might have run like this: Black arranged to kill Smith by dropping a chandelier on him. Instead, it so happened that the chandelier dropped and killed Smith on its own. So Smith was killed by a chandelier, but neither an accident nor a murder were individually necessary for this to occur.

I started reading your "puzzle," but like @Antony Nickles I immediately got bogged down in questions and objections and didn't even get to the "fun" part. I frankly find topics like causality to be more fun puzzles.

Well here I partly beg off. — Antony Nickles

All good, I give you full credit for attempting it! This is actually a classic twist on the cosmological argument for God. Its essentially a logic problem that tries to answer the question, "Is a God necessary or possible?"

If we are not considering "chains of multiple first causes" (moral chains, chains of actions, of identity, etc.) other than the creation of the "universe", then I'm not sure I can help. — Antony Nickles

I think you still can. The point of the puzzle is this is something original. No one has been trained in it. Its a challenge to tackle that just requires some logical thinking. And no, its not easy. It is no reflection on your capability whether you can, or cannot solve it. It is merely for fun to get you thinking. I will reveal the solution any time you feel like you're finished.

"If the "universe" is just the first thing created, than the question thins out so much as to not hold anything; if you mean the universe to include everything without exception (the "universe" of possible/inevitable things), then everything is caused initially together."

I'll requote where I introduce what a universe is.

8. What is a specific universe? It is a universe down to its exact positioning of the smallest molecule. Any deviation in particulates makes it a different universe. For our purposes, let us imagine that the prime cause in our universe is the big bang. — Philosophim

So a good eye on the fact that this does not clarify your concern. That is an excellent criticism. To clarify, no, the universe is not order of things created, it is the sum total of its causal parts. The prime cause of a universe is a first cause. But earlier we noted that there is nothing to prevent more than one first cause. So a universe could have started with two or more first causes. Or a universe could have began, and then first causes happened within that universe with no initial connective causality to anything within the first causal chain.

Even so, the entirety of those chains together would be the "universe". This does force me to tweak my claim I made earlier though. Instead of a universe being formed infinite to one by a God, its more like a first cause is formed with the infinite to one probability of being a God.

So, read over again my logic in how I conclude the infinite to one numbers. Instead of there being a certain power and knowledge requirement to create a specific universe, lets call it a power and knowledge requirement to make a specific causal chain from a first cause. This is a new avenue for me, and could be quite confusing. So if you are willing to explore this, feel free. If not, just request the original answer from me, and I'll gladly give it.

Its essentially a logic problem that tries to answer the question, "Is a God necessary or possible?" — Philosophim

It's essentially an illogical methodology which stubbornly refuses to examine the assumptions it is entirely dependent on, a process it calls "philosophy".

Just thought you might want to be reminded of this one more time.

You're welcome. :-)

Causality - a necessary prior state in time for the existence of the current state in time. If there is no necessary prior state that entails the current state, then the current state is a "first cause" without any prior causality. Does that make sense? — Philosophim

No, this won't work. Suppose A was caused by B, but it could alternatively have been caused by C. Neither B nor C are necessary for A to occur. — SophistiCat

Let me clarify for you, as I worried people will interpret it that way. I did not mean to imply potential prior states by "necessary". I mean actual prior states. Sure, A could be caused by B or C potentially. But in this case, A is caused by B. Therefore B is necessarily the prior cause of the A. Perhaps a better set of terms would be B is the actual cause of the actual A?

Thus for a first cause, there is no actual prior causality involved for its actual existence. Does this make sense?

I frankly find topics like causality to be more fun puzzles. — SophistiCat

Well, the entire thing is a puzzle of causality, so keep at it!

Just thought you might want to be reminded of this one more time. — Hippyhead

I'm surprised to see you back Hippy. The only thing I'm reminded of is that you were soundly and utterly refuted when you could not answer the points I gave you. =) A good memory for sure on my end. But unless you have anything substantial to add to the forum, I'm going to spend my time chatting with people who are willing to have a good discussion.

I'm going to spend my time chatting with people who are willing to have a good discussion. — Philosophim

To you, a good discussion is one where arbitrary boundary lines are carefully drawn so that you don't suffer inconvenience. You want to draw a little circle and then insist that everyone must play within that circle.

What I'm attempting to do here is called philosophy. That is, I'm attempting toinspect and challenge the assumption that your puzzle is built upon, the common notion that human logic is relevant to the subject of gods. If logic were shown to not be relevant, then your little game is spoiled and you don't get to play the role of teacher who will reveal the correct answer when the student is ready.

Sorry, but not really my fault, as philosophy does have the nasty habit of often being quite inconvenient.

What I'm attempting to do here is called philosophy. — Hippyhead

No Hippy, what you're attempting to do is a one-sided point of your own ego which has devolved into trolling. I have tried discussing with you at length, but am now done. If you continue to post in this thread, I will report you for trolling. The mods have plenty of our posts to look through here.

I have tried discussing with you at length, but am now done. — Philosophim

You haven't discussed the underlying assumptions of your puzzle at all, you've simply repeatedly insisted that we accept them without question, a process of obedience which you have confused with philosophy.

Gentle reminder, members who start threads don't then own that thread. You have to report me to a mod because, um, you are not one. Neither of us have any ownership rights here at all, not even over our own posts, which a mod can delete at any time without warning.

It appears - I could be wrong and I have not read the whole thread - that there is confusion between and about man-made deities and actual deities. It seems to me much care is needed in keeping clear which one is being spoken of, for at least the reasons that they're of different domains and thereby cannot usefully be subject to the same thinking.

It appears - I could be wrong and I have not read the whole thread - that there is confusion between and about man-made deities and actual deities. — tim wood

I think that is people placing their own outlooks into the argument, which sometimes happens in these discussions. This is a new take on the cosmological argument, which uses a philosophical God, and one that I have defined very specifically in the points. Your posts are always appreciated Tim Wood!

Thus for a first cause, there is no actual prior causality involved for its actual existence. Does this make sense? — Philosophim

This not too far back. And slap me aside if I'm just nipping at the heels of the discussion, for as I do not like being annoyed, so I would not be annoying. Anyway. It seems to me that logic has always claim to being a comprehensive and effective tool for explicating anything at all. Eh, or does it? Let's first allow (tentatively?) that it holds sway over its own domain, which includes everything that falls within it. In this respect thinking is like a dog to leash that can be led around, disciplined, and even made to do tricks.

But not all dogs can be led, and not all animals are dogs or even domesticated - there are lions and dragons and fish. I draw then the inference that while logic rules its own deme, just maybe that is not everywhere that is. Illustrative is the wild animal that is nature herself. The Greek idea was that nature was unruly mind, off of which Plato bounced to his ideals of order and orderliness that nature itself did not possess. Pythagoreans attempted to understand nature as number. And Aristotle, finding no direct commentaries on nature, provided his own as observation of qualities about which he tried to make what sense he could, to give an account. Fast forward to Galileo and there, more or less, is where we are today, back with numbers and, it follows, logic - as descriptors of what they themselves are not.

To be brief, though, logic stumbles over its own contradictions. But "stumbles" is not the right idea. Logic crashes and burns in its own accidents. But what do people do? They "make sense of it." Which is to say they give an account that seems to resurrect the logic. Have a problem with causality? No problem, just keep on driving, even as the car itself has ben destroyed - in some circles a definition of a foolish madness. Just invent something uncaused. Hmm. Good! Let's call it God and not only consider the matter closed, but abuse any subsequent question until it or the one asking goes away.

Mine is not a whackdoodle complaint or resort to QM nonsense or any sort of God-in-the-gaps. It is instead a respect for the boundaries of the descriptive abilities of both logic and mathematics. A man-made God, then, is an uncaused prime mover, or whatever. Or a that than which nothing greater can be conceived - except how easy is it to conceive and continually conceive a greater than? And the confusion lies in supposing these creations and creatures of logic have anything at all to do with any reality.

And to be sure, for a lot of conjectures eventually a counterpart in nature/reality is found. But a man-made God has certain peculiar qualities, mainly of mystery, ineffability, incomprehensibility. He will neither tolerate nor survive being made ordinary. Point?

Let me clarify for you, as I worried people will interpret it that way. I did not mean to imply potential prior states by "necessary". I mean actual prior states. Sure, A could be caused by B or C potentially. But in this case, A is caused by B. Therefore B is necessarily the prior cause of the A. Perhaps a better set of terms would be B is the actual cause of the actual A?

Thus for a first cause, there is no actual prior causality involved for its actual existence. Does this make sense? — Philosophim

No, I am afraid you've lost the thread. Remember, you were trying to define causality:

Causality - a necessary prior state in time for the existence of the current state in time. — Philosophim

Perhaps you should read the points of the OP Tim Wood. A first cause does not necessarily need to be anything, as it is a first cause. First I demonstrate why it is logically necessary that there must exist a first cause. But, this first cause does not have to be a God, I only introduce that after the fact. In looking to my conclusions that there must be a first cause within the line of causality, do you see an error? After that, check out how I define the philosophical God. Is there a problem with that? This is one issue in which the OP itself must be taken into consideration, and not other people's responses.

No, I am afraid you've lost the thread. — SophistiCat

You'll have to explain where your confusion is a little more carefully. I responded clarifying this.

Causality - a necessary prior state in time for the existence of the current state in time. — Philosophim

Do you understand that by "necessity", I mean actual, and not potential state? For example, for myself to exist now, I had to exist in the the state prior to now, because that state prior to now existed. We are not talking about possibilities, but actuals in this case. For example, I could have 3 possibilities that could cause X to occur, but when X occurs, then one of those causal possibilities is an actuality, and no longer a possible potential.

Does that clarify? And if you're still confused, try to point out in the explanation where I've lost you.

I demonstrate why it is logically necessary that there must exist a first cause.... In looking to my conclusions that there must be a first cause within the line of causality, — Philosophim

And for things outside logic or the "line of causality"? Or if there is no such line or logic? Given causality, the problem of a first cause does indeed seem a problem. But given it arises from a contradiction, how do you resolve that?

Further, if there is a first cause, then at some point there is first thing, or everything is created "all at once." Or if a first thing alone, then whence everything else? Or if a first cause, where did that come from? Oh, wait, an uncaused cause! And the logic is then satisfied!

Now you're a smart fellow, and wondering about the world you build an account the best way you can, with logic. Cause, on the other hand, well I think we're two or three generations from that. For Kant everything was caused, but I think it's all fields now, since about the 1920s. In any case, "cause" is a tricky word and even where accepted still needs a lot of clarification.

But even that no matter because it's all descriptive - nature from time to time making clear that final accounts are not yet final, and even may never be final. And to be sure there is nothing wrong with description. Modern description seems to do a pretty good job with most things. But it doesn't at the edges, at the borders and boundaries, or beyond them.

Of course the defense to this is that this is philosophy. To which the reply must be that it is not philosophy but a variety of theology, which on that side of the border only values internal consistency, and not even that. But whatever the theology or how it works, or description even up to its limits and beyond, none of it is reality, none of it is nature. And cross-fertilization never works, because the progeny always dies.

Or in short, you can show - or at least I do not question - that in a system that requires causes and first causes, that then they in that system must exist - never mind the problems then created. But if they're not required, how do you then establish them?

Why don't we start with "cause." What do you say a cause is? Answers of the form, "That which causes," not acceptable.

Do you understand that by "necessity", I mean actual, and not potential state? — Philosophim

I don't understand why you use modal language if you don't mean it. And if you eschew modality, then what is left of your definition? If we plug 'actual' in place of 'necessary,' we get something like this:

Causality - an actual prior state in time before the current state in time.

???

Before you had a counterfactual definition of causality, which has its problems (one of which I pointed out), but I think that in this basic form it captures a lot of the common-sense, "ordinary language" meaning of causality. With some work it can perhaps be made into something more robust.

But now I just don't have any idea of what you are trying to get at.

Tim Wood, thanks again for a good analysis. It makes me happy to see people seriously thinking about the issue. Your main issue is with the idea of cause, and first cause. Fantastic. I have not had a good discussion on this. SophistiCat, I hope my analysis below will always clarify what I mean, so feel free to contribute your own thoughts on this.

Let us think of slices of time as "states". At its most simple, we would have a snapshot. But we could also have states that are seconds, hours, days, years, etc. We determine the scale. Within a state, we analyze the existence that has occurred. Causality is the actual prior state, not potential prior state, that existed which actually lead to the current state we are evaluating.

If a state is of a larger scale than a snapshot, then we can subdivide this state. So let us say that I have a state that is two seconds long. I subdivide it into seconds. The first second is the cause of the second. It is not that the second "second" could have have existed without the full first second of time. We might state that in reality, only the last millisecond of existence within the first second, was needed to get the second second of existence. We then might say there were potential states of existence prior to that millisecond, that could have lead to that millisecond, that then lead to that second second.

But in the end, potential is not actual. The actual is what actually happened prior to that millisecond. Despite our idea that we only needed the last millisecond of the first second to have the existence of the second second come into being, the full actual chain of causality in milliseconds is the full first second.

So then what is a first cause? A first cause is when we reach on our scaled state, a state which has no actual prior state. If our scale is in seconds, there is no prior second. If a snapshot, there is no prior snapshot. We can imagine there are prior states. We can float possibilities. But as an actual existence, there is no prior state.

If there is no prior state, then there is no reason for the first state that is, to have existed. For the reason of a current state, is explained by the actual prior state. All we can say as to why a first state existed, is that it did.

So what I do here in determining the logical necessity of a first cause, is examine the entire state of the universe. We know what a finite state universe looks like now, but what about an infinitely regressive stated universe? At this point we are not positing actuals, but potentials. We are trying to see if a first cause is a potential, a contradiction, or a necessity.

When examining the potential of an infinitely regressive universe, if we subdivide it into its finite parts, there of course is no end. Just like I can divide seconds into milliseconds and so on, so can we divide the infinite into whatever scale we want. But we can also do the reverse. Just like I can make a snapshot as the state, I can make the state the sum total of the time of the universe's existence. I can look at the two second universe in the scale of "A universe", That is universe A. I can look at the infinitely regressive state universe and make the scale of "A universe", and call it universe B.

Once this is done I can ask a question. Is there an actual prior state that happened which caused universe A? No. So there is no causality for its existence. I ask the same question about universe B. Is there an actual prior state that happened which caused universe B? No. So there is no causality for its existence. The only thing I can logically conclude from the above premises, is that there is no cause for the existence of any potential universe. Whatever universe exists, exists without prior explanation.

Lets examine this thought process before I move on. Does this clarify my position? Any holes, any questions? It is nice to dive deep like this.

Does this clarify my position? — Philosophim

I think so, now mine. I have zero argument with yours. Instead I step outside of it to see how it looks from without, as opposed to from within. In one move that suspends all of what appear to be your presuppositions, and it also lays bare the functionality of some of what you take for granted. Nor is this an attack; I merely invite you to look from my vantage point. And it appears to me that, e.g., the concept of cause is a structural piece of how you're looking. And outside of that, I simply don't see it. By no means do I deny its utility and efficacy where it's useful and efficacious.

The "problem" then - quotes because it really isn't a problem - is to find "cause" primordially. And at best I can't. The view I invite you to share is of something like William James's "blooming, buzzing confusion" - the world as. In such a view cause is manifestly one of many different kinds of templates we in our reason overlay the world with, to create our own sense of it - which makes it not any part of the world primordially. Perhaps most critically expressed, cause is a necessary part of a model, but not part of reality. Whatever depends on cause, then, is in at least that respect, not in reality. Hence theology, which does not care a whit about reality, and understands itself very well indeed; and the confused, who do not make that distinction in their understanding, thus not comprehending their own theology - or reality.

Let us think of slices of time as "states". — Philosophim

You would have to assume an absolute time for that, that is, something like a Newtonian universe. In a relativistic universe there is no fact of the matter about how the space-time is to be sliced along the time dimension (the technical term for this is foliation). Now, we don't have to commit ourselves to any particular physical framework, but in view of Relativity, neither can we take for granted the existence of an objective foliation.

Let us think of slices of time as "states". At its most simple, we would have a snapshot. But we could also have states that are seconds, hours, days, years, etc. We determine the scale. Within a state, we analyze the existence that has occurred. Causality is the actual prior state, not potential prior state, that existed which actually lead to the current state we are evaluating. — Philosophim

This won't do as a definition of causality. Rather, you could restate this to say that given a causal model, it is the case that every state is causally related to an earlier state, if there is an earlier state (but see my note above).

If there is no prior state, then there is no reason for the first state that is, to have existed. For the reason of a current state, is explained by the actual prior state. All we can say as to why a first state existed, is that it did. — Philosophim

You are conflating reasons with causes (you do that in the OP as well). They are not synonymous.

The only thing I can logically conclude from the above premises, is that there is no cause for the existence of any potential universe. Whatever universe exists, exists without prior explanation.

Lets examine this thought process before I move on. Does this clarify my position? — Philosophim

To the extent that this makes any sense, this was a very convoluted path to an uncontroversial conclusion: in a causal model with an initial state, the initial state is the cause of all subsequent states, and there is no cause for the initial state.

The "problem" then - quotes because it really isn't a problem - is to find "cause" primordially. And at best I can't. — tim wood

Not a problem. This puzzle however is within the causality model of reality. Knowing if causality is a truth of existence, or merely the posit of a human model, is a question of epistemology. That is too deep to go into here. So, I do understand where you are coming from, but to discuss the puzzle, one must at least entertain the idea that causality is a truth of reality that would exist even if human brains did not exist. No offense taken if this is something you are not willing to entertain.

You would have to assume an absolute time for that, that is, something like a Newtonian universe. In a relativistic universe there is no fact of the matter about how the space-time is to be sliced along the time dimension (the technical term for this is foliation). — SophistiCat

I think you misunderstand. I was using a Newtonian model as the relativistic state. A "second" is an agreed upon unit of existent change. We can apply a "second" in any relativistic model, by taking an outside relativistic stance. For example, a second in Earth time is the same as a second within a black hole, but only differs in comparison to the other. We can invent a third timeframe in which we compare the two time frames and state, this is a second when evaluating the time that passes in comparing the two. This is why we can say a second in Black hole time would be 500 years of Earth time. In comparing the two, we can create a consistent model. Time can be put into units in either case, from an outside perspective.

In other words, the use of the word "second" is simply to convey, "Unit of time that a person wishes to place on the situation". The specifics of that second, whether it is black hole time or Earth time, are irrelevant. If one creates a time frame of a universe's existence, how the parse that up is fine as long as it is consistent. Thus we can take the frame of an entire universes causality, and create a model of division of time within that frame.

I only mention this, as relativity does not negate what I am saying about states. In fact, relativity is essential to my claim about states. Make the unit of time within whatever relative time frame you want. That doesn't negate the point. Regardless, lets not over complicate the issue and make this about relativity.

You are conflating reasons with causes — SophistiCat

Reasons are explanations as to why things happen a certain way. Reasons are determined by causes, causes do not come from reasons. We understand the reason why water freezes, after observing the cause of water freezing. A cause is the reason played out in history. The reason water freezes is the heat of the water molecules reach 0 degress celcius. If water than freezes, the cause is the actual fact of the water's temperature becoming 0 degrees celcius. A cause is an actualized reason, but a reason does not specify any particular cause. But a reason and a cause are tied together. One way to think of reason and cause, is like the abstract of a house cat, versus an actual house cat named Cloey.

Thus:

If there is no prior state, then there is no reason for the first state that is, to have existed. For the reason of a current state, is explained by the actual prior state. All we can say as to why a first state existed, is that it did. — Philosophim

Without any causality, or history of a things existence, then the reason for a things existence cannot be formed on a non-existent history. The reason for a causeless thing, is only the evidence of its existence, and nothing prior.

To the extent that this makes any sense, this was a very convoluted path to an uncontroversial conclusion: in a causal model with an initial state, the initial state is the cause of all subsequent states, and there is no cause for the initial state. — SophistiCat

Great! if we are in agreement on this point, then what do you think about my conclusion using the premises of the OP, that it is logically necessary that the universe's origin must have a first cause?

I only mention this, as relativity does not negate what I am saying about states. In fact, relativity is essential to my claim about states. Make the unit of time within whatever relative time frame you want. That doesn't negate the point. Regardless, lets not over complicate the issue and make this about relativity. — Philosophim

The relevance of relativity is not towards the relativity of duration, but towards the relativity of simultaneity. Your "snapshot" presumably includes all events that are simultaneous with each other. The problem is that in Relativity this designation is fairly arbitrary. Given a particular event in space-time, there are other events in space-time that are objectively earlier or objectively later than this event (events in its past and future light cones), while the rest are neither here nor there: they can be earlier, later or simultaneous, depending on the choice of reference.



There isn't a unique, objective way in which you can slice space-time into snapshots or slices. So "state" ill-defined.

Great! if we are in agreement on this point, then what do you think about my conclusion using the premises of the OP, that it is logically necessary that the universe's origin must have a first cause? — Philosophim

Some other time perhaps.

No offense taken if this is something you are not willing to entertain. — Philosophim

Let's try this way. Let's assume you have as claimed logically proven the universe must have had a first cause. Right away the "logical" leaps out: why exactly is it there? But more simply, given it's logically proven, how do you get from there to any assertion that it applies to the universe?

The relevance of relativity is not towards the relativity of duration, but towards the relativity of simultaneity. — SophistiCat

Yes, this is what I explained. But the fact of having relative observers does not negate that fact that you can assess time by one observer. Again, I can analyze all of time by Earth time if I wish. I just have to translate it into different observers time if that is important in my analysis. When examining the universe from now to its "beginning", we can easily set the relative time to Earth time, and evaluate the complete universe using that alone. Again, if the relative view point changes, we just math it up to continue to be in Earth time. So again, the state assessment I've noted fits in fine with relativity.

Great! if we are in agreement on this point, then what do you think about my conclusion using the premises of the OP, that it is logically necessary that the universe's origin must have a first cause?
— Philosophim

Some other time perhaps. — SophistiCat

Well, that's ultimately the point of the puzzle. If you don't want to engage anymore, no worry.