Whatever begins to exist has a cause (for its existence)...it is irrational to deny this principle. — Ghost Light
The question I have is, (1) Can this causal principle be rationally denied? and (2) What would the benefits/costs be of rejecting this principle? — Ghost Light
On the other hand, in systems with many components and many inputs and outputs, it is probably not useful to try to identify specific causes for specific states of the system.
In complex systems, assuming that all system behaviors require causes will probably not help understand future system behavior.
2. The universe is an arrangement of mereological simples into a specific structure. — Ghost Light
And surely, no matter how many examples of things having causes we find, this doesn't mean everything has a cause.
In the mereological version of the Kalam i wasn't trying to state it as true, — Ghost Light
My response is that the principle is more specific that everything has a cause; it says that whatever begins to exist has a cause — Ghost Light
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, and thus nothing in physical existence ever ‘began to exist’ in the sense we are interested in. — Tom Storm
Causation is a metaphysical concept. It can be really useful in some situations, especially simple physical ones like the typical cliche example of billiard balls. — T Clark
One Platonic theme I refect on, is the fact that numbers and logical laws don't begin to exist, or cease from existing. The law of identity, the furniture of basic arithmetic, and so on, are true in all possible worlds.
Both Craig and Loke (along with many other supporters of the Kalam Argument) argue that it is irrational to deny this principle. — Ghost Light
The metaphysical principle would still hold that if there is a state of this system that exists and has not existed forever (i.e. began to exist) then it seems reasonable to conclude that there is a cause for why the state began to exist as it does. — Ghost Light
It seems less reasonable to say that the state of the system could become that way with no cause. — Ghost Light
The principle could be true metaphysically even though it will not help us to understand the future system behaviour. — Ghost Light
Even here I would reject that it would not help us do this. If we accept that whatever begins to exist has a cause, then it gives us a good reason to understand that things in systems do what they do for a reason and when new things occur and states begin to exist, there will be a cause for them. It will help us to understand the causal nexus of the system better. — Ghost Light
Anyway, these are just my thoughts. — Ghost Light
CP = Whatever begins to exist has a cause (for its existence). — Ghost Light
big bang cosmology — Wayfarer
Aren't the natural sciences largely engaged in trying to identify causal relationships? — Wayfarer
Aren't the natural sciences largely engaged in trying to identify causal relationships? A trite example suddenly comes to mind, the 1960's television scientist, Julius Sumner Miller. His show was called 'Why is it so?' and typically used simple experiments to demonstrate cause-and-effect relationships. Pray tell, how was that show metaphysical? — Wayfarer
the furniture of basic arithmetic, — Wayfarer
So I think there's a valid disfinction between the compounded or made or phenomenal, and the uncompounded or unmade (which is the domain of necessary truths). I think that says something important which is nowadays mostly disputed or denied. — Wayfarer
As per the big bang model, we have a singularity (infinite mass & 0 volume) at time zero. There's no before this time as the infinite gravity of the singularity would mean that time would stop flowing which simply means there was no time; time, after all must flow to exist, right? ( :chin: ). Since there was no time before the big bang, causality breaks down since the standard definition of a cause includes that it temporally precede the effect, here the big bang singularity. The big bang singularity couldn't be caused for this reason.
It seems you adopt a view of pragmatism where if the principle does not help us in everyday life then it is meaningless? I don't think this answers the question on whether it is rational to accept or deny the metaphysical truth of the principle. — Ghost Light
As I've said many times before, people generally choose their metaphysical systems. The standard I apply is usefulness rather than truth. In my, and some other's, views metaphysical principles are not true or false. — T Clark
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, and thus nothing in physical existence ever ‘began to exist’ in the sense we are interested in.
— Tom Storm
Doesn't big bang cosmology and the ever-expanding universe somewhat undercut this? — Wayfarer
I don't think we can say there was ever nothing, assuming we can even define what nothing is. — Tom Storm
I would disagree here on the science of the big bang. Quantum gravity and emergent space time could easily mean that time can apply in a slightly different sense before the big bang and mean that the big bang initial state had a cause. I don't think any cosmologists today hold to a naive view of the big bang singularity anymore, most opt for emergent spacetime from quantum states at a more fundemantal levels, emergent universe models based on the asymptotic state models or cyclic universe. — Ghost Light
The law of identity, the furniture of basic arithmetic, and so on, are true in all possible worlds. — Wayfarer
Response to Question 2 - In complex systems, assuming that all system behaviors require causes will probably not help understand future system behavior. — T Clark
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.