If we try to interpret "reason" in line with state causality, then the conclusion doesn't follow. The argument essentially says that since neither an infinite regress nor a causal loop admit a first cause, therefore a first cause must be the case. — SophistiCat
I'm still not sure you answered my question.I've been on a computer chips kick in my posts, so I suppose I'll continue with them. — Philosophim
So let's go the other way. There's no electricity flowing out of the transistor. Can we ask what caused no electricity to flow out of the circuit? Can the answer be, "The gate was off" and/or "the electricity was off"?A transistor can either be on, or off. If it is on, the electricity will travel through the gate. When it is off, the electricity is cut off. Imagine that we have power constantly running to the transistor. Now imagine that the circuit is complete. We have electricity traveling that circuit. What caused electricity to travel the entirety of the circuit? At a particular scale we can say, "The gate was on". Or we could be more detailed and say, "And the electricity was on." — Philosophim
Causality presupposes spacetime, therefore spacetime cannot be an effect of a cause; spacetime "allows for" causality. Einstein refers, more or less, to this as locality, no? — 180 Proof
So let's go the other way. There's no electricity flowing out of the transistor. Can we ask what caused no electricity to flow out of the circuit? Can the answer be, "The gate was off" and/or "the electricity was off"? — InPitzotl
Like causality, spacetime is a classical concept (macro) that has no physical meaning at or shorter than a planck length (c10^-35 meters) or a planck interval (c10^-44 seconds) (nano).How does plankspacedodge spacetime? Are you sayingittakes up no space? — Philosophim
What caused the first cause, though? — Olivier5
Spacetime is a classical concept (macro), like causality, that has no physical meaning at or shorter than a planck length (c10^-35 meters) or a planck interval (c10^-44 seconds) (nano). — 180 Proof
So to me, it sounds like your notion of causality is similar that of "reason" in the Principle of Sufficient Reason, with the exception that I've yet to hear a commitment to sufficiency. I'd now like to explore sufficiency.Yes, you've nailed it. — Philosophim
We have an atom that can, in a duration of time x, decay with 50% probability. Between times t0 and t1=t0+x, it did not decay. Between times t1 and t2=t1+x, it decayed. Let's call the time from t0 to t1 time span 1, and from t1 to t2 time span 2. Can we describe the cause of the decay in time span 2 as opposed to the lack of decay in time span 1? Can we say this cause in time span 2 is attributed to the properties contributing to 50% decay rate, and also that the cause of it not decaying in time span 1 is attributed to the 50% decay rate? — InPitzotl
A first cause has no prior cause. The point of the argument is that this is ultimately the universe will have a first cause origination. If you would like to show where the argument is incorrect, feel free. — Philosophim
See Kant, "Critique of Pure Reason"
— Artemis
I have read it before, and I have a good understanding of the subject matter. — Philosophim
The argument shows that the only thing which must necessarily be, is that something within our universe has no reason for its existence, besides the fact of its existence. It has no prior cause for being. I note that this is logically necessary, because the only alternative that I can think of, "infinite regression" does not in fact have a prior reason as to why the universe should be infinitely regressive. — Philosophim
Causality is the idea..... — Philosophim
A first cause would be if the 8 ball moved and there was no reason why it should have moved, internally, or externally.
Does that clarify causality? — Philosophim
so there can be no such thing as an uncaused cause — Olivier5
otherwise scientists would already long time ago sing their victory over God. — SpaceDweller
I'll try, an argument adapted from a book. The phenomenon is blowing an old tree stump out of the ground with some dynamite. Question: what exactly, causes the dynamite to explode? Informally, lots of things. But formally? Exactly? Care to take swing at it?"Phenomena" is a dangerous word that is often thrown around without any real definition. — Philosophim
I would reword it to this: "The argument essentially says that since neither an infinite regress nor a causal loop have a prior cause for existing, we can only conclude these are themselves first causes.
In other words, there is no prior state that necessitates there exist the state of an infinite regress, or a finite regress. If you try to, you simply introduce a prior cause, and we're in the same position again. As such, the only logical conclusion is that the universe must have a first cause. — Philosophim
Not... exactly.Lets use an easier model to digest, as odds work the same no matter the complexity. — Philosophim
You tell me. I'm still asking you what your concept of causality is. It appears to me that you are indeed committing to sufficiency here though.Does that mean the cards don't follow causality? — Philosophim
Hmmm... that might be interesting. Okay.If that did not explain what you were asking, please try to rephrase the question with a deck of cards example. — Philosophim
So here's the first question. Is this a fair game? Can you prove it? Can you work out the minimal probability that you'll win? — InPitzotl
I think the idea that you are reaching for is not first cause but brute fact. — SophistiCat
Hmm. Given three cards, each either R or B, there are eight possible arrangements of R and B. And there are three ways of choosing two of three cards. That is, 24 possibilities. Twelve of those are either RR or BB, the other twelve RB (or BR). Given the payout is not equal, it seems then not a fair game. It seems the odds of drawing a match v. drawing a mismatch are even, so the payouts ought to be even.So here's a quick cheat sheet. Somehow, you lose 75% — InPitzotl
That's correct. Eight isn't a large number, so let's list them. The possible arrangements are BBB, BBR, BRB, BRR, RBB, RBR, RRB, and RRR.Given three cards, each either R or B, there are eight possible arrangements of R and B. — tim wood
That's also correct. But I think you're missing this:And there are three ways of choosing two of three cards. That is, 24 possibilities. — tim wood
So there are 24 possibilities here, but that doesn't mean they're equally likely. I could be stacking the deck. So pretend you're me, maybe. How would you rig the odds? Well, in the BBB and RRR case, you're guaranteed to win... so maybe I just never give you those deals.I always shuffle the deck (incidentally, I am not necessarily being fair; take that into account). — InPitzotl
It's not really that kind of puzzle. The whole point of this puzzle is that it looks fishy. It's more relevant that it looks fishy than that you solve it (it's also not new; though it's slightly in disguise here).I await your revealing the error in this reasoning. — tim wood
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.