The following points come to mind (in addition to a possible critique of causality itself):
1) It seems to me that if there can be such a thing as an uncaused cause, then there could be several such tings. There is no apparent reason to limit the number of "uncaused causes" to 1, so there could be a large number of "first causes", if those are defined as "uncaused causes".
2) If the law of reaction is true, then whenever object A has an effect on object B, B also has an effect on A. Therefore, a "cause" is a two-way street, an interaction, so there can be no such thing as an uncaused cause (at least if the law of reaction is universally true). — Olivier5
Check me on my reduction: the only necessary existence is something that exists, because it exists? If that’s correct, it’s merely Aristotle revisited: that which exists, exists necessarily. That doesn’t say that which exists necessarily doesn’t have a cause. — Mww
I've heard things like this before, and I consider it wrong. If I can logically conclude that it must exist, then it must. At that point, I can start thinking about the logical consequences of such an existence. Knowing that such things must exist in the universe we inhabit may allow us to consider threads of thought we may have dismissed. Man has always tried to grasp the incomprehensible. At one time, the idea of space was outside of man's intellectual and physical capabilities. Theories spring to ideas which can then be tested. To me, this is an essence of philosophy. To reach for the things just out of our grasp, and see if we can actually reach it.The best one can say is, that which exists without at least a logical reason is utterly incomprehensible to us as humans, whose intellect is entirely predicated a priorion the principle of cause and effect. — Mww
If there is something said to exist within the universe necessarily given from the fact of its reality, why not the universe itself? If that something’s cause isn’t infinitely regressive, why should the universe’s? The cause of the cause is not at issue; the subject here is a given real existence, whether a something, or a something known as “universe”. — Mww
so there can be no such thing as an uncaused cause
— Olivier5
Of course there is not such thing as "uncaused cause", — SpaceDweller
Agree, scientists have already overcome and shown that cause-effect is a naïf-intuition that works well in our daily life but it breaks as you go macro or micro...
Can we common-mortals understand and comprehend this? NO. It requires strong and strict study on physics as well as "playing" a lot with new technologies that allow you to interact and exercise with the counter-intuitive micro quantum world.
This reality is only accessible to few people in the world. It is ineffable using current language and is only represented by formulas and mathematical language that "represent" those counter-intuitive laws.
And this ineffable reality is as real as it is the mobile phone and the TVs you have today in your homes. They work thanks to scientists understanding this counter intuitive reality. — Raul
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?
The idea is that the idea of cause is neither simple nor adequate for exact purposes. It's just a useful adoption of language to the world. But nothing of the world itself. And if you think it is, then show us on — tim wood
It is trivial to conclude that none of these alternatives admits of a prior state, since that would require an additional, unaccounted state. Nothing interesting follows from this, nor is the first cause hypothesis any different from the other two in this regard. — SophistiCat
I think the idea that you are reaching for is not first cause but brute fact. Each of the alternatives is a brute fact in this presentation, since there is no reason/explanation/justification for whichever one of them actually obtains (at least not in this context). — SophistiCat
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 you're misreading the game. I can be unfair, but I can't change the game being played. All I can do is be maximally unfair but follow all of the rules.That's because probability requires a certainty of certain facts for formulation. As soon as you said, "I might not be necessarily being fair," you remove the ability to make an accurate assessment of odds. — Philosophim
You're trying too hard. We're not talking about "in a given run". We're talking about, I set up a casino, you come play, and I have a viable business model where your funds slowly drain into my casino.With this, we can calculate the likelihood of standard deviation. — Philosophim
And we're not talking about a puzzle you have to guess right at either. This is open ended. You can look up the answer. You can have other people do the work. I'll work it out myself, and you can use my workbook.I read the discussion between you and the others after posting this, so you can be sure this was my personal and honest view, and not influenced by the other conversations. — Philosophim
...the puzzle stays open. Quantum mechanics would tell us the probabilities of this sort of match are 1/4. But classical probability can only bring us down to 1/3. Experiment appears to confirm quantum mechanics; that is, that Bell Inequalities are violated as per Bell's Theorem.Lets use an easier model to digest, as odds work the same no matter the complexity. — Philosophim
Are you sure?Yes, I am a super determinist. — Philosophim
That's not what superdeterminism means.Yes, I am a super determinist. Once some type of existence is in play, it will act and react the same way identically each time. — Philosophim
No:All right, then, the game is not fair. QED. Is that the point? — tim wood
What I can possibly do to rig the game is analogous to a Hidden Variable Theory. The "real" goal here is to explain the 1/4 probability (the "win" thing is just to encourage working the classical probabilities).The point of this game is that it is Bell's Theorem in disguise — InPitzotl
Question: what exactly, causes the dynamite to explode? Informally, lots of things. But formally? Exactly? Care to take swing at it?
— tim wood
Sure, good example. What you're talking about is measurement of scale. — Philosophim
Nope. What I'm asking is for you to say what you think makes - causes - the dynamite explode? — tim wood
I'm waiting for you to give me an example of how a computer works without causality. — Philosophim
You should be able to explain your concept without using the word, and I will understand what you are intending to argue. — Philosophim
. In light of the two aforementioned concepts (eternal existence and self-manifestation), I am not entirely certain as to if you are arguing for a “first cause” that created itself (which would constitute it being its own justification) or if it just is (which, I would argue, isn’t its own justification: it has no justification because, one method of argument would be that, it isn’t within the scope of the principle of sufficient reason). Secondly, I would like to point out that both forms of indefiniteness, as far as I could tell, in your 3 options (namely a and b) were references to actual infinities—contrary to potential infinities. A potential infinite is that which is infinite constrained within the boundaries of a finite (think of theoretically continually walking halfway towards a door, or getting smaller and smaller measurements within one meter on a ruler), which have been both mathematically and in practicality proven to be not only possible but true (as far as my knowledge goes). On the contrary, an actual infinite is that which is infinite and is not constrained within a finite, which (as far as I know) has not been proven to exist. The reason I am bringing this up is because of what you said here:If an Alpha exists, its own justification for existence, is itself.
Although I would concede that actual infinities have not been proven to exist, if they do exist, then they would not be subject to your criticism here: they would be just as out of bounds of the principle of sufficient reason as anyone could (at least) argue for any type of “first cause”. Furthermore, I would argue that your critique actually pertains to potential infinities: that a infinite within a finite must have, well, a finite cause—which makes sense. Again, I merely trying to point out that there may be a completely different “infinite” of which I don’t think you addressed (at least, at a minimum, adequately) in your initial post.Infinitely prior, and infinitely looped causality, all have one final question of causality that needs answering. "Why would it be that there exists an infinite prior or infinitely looped causality in existence? These two terms will be combined into one, "Infinite causality.”
I honestly don’t see how this follows. At best, I would say that your argument (as portrayed thus far) gets you to disproving a and b, but that doesn’t logically mean that c is automatically true. Now, I have heard counter arguments that it isn’t an appeal to ignorance fallacy if one has definitively proven that the options at hand are the only ones and, thereby, proving that process of elimination is a perfectly valid argument; however, with the consideration of what I have said henceforth, I do not see how one could possibly prove that a-c (or even if you were to accept my previously mentioned five possibilities) are literally the only options: I don’t think this situation is analogous to stating “the cat is either in the kitchen or it isn’t” which upon disproving one or the other would necessarily prove the contrary. Moreover, I think that scenarios like the previous cat statement are the only true scenarios where I would agree with proving one thing by disproving another. Another way I think about it is, to state that all options are truly exhaustive, one must necessarily know all the possibilites about the given subject: I certainly don’t think I could possibly ever reasonably determine that I know all the actual possibilities of how this world, as I know it, came about (in terms of derivation, however I could say it came about in terms of the big bang or evolution, but those aren’t absolute stopping points like a first cause).Because there are no other plausibilties to how causality functions, the only only conclusion is that a causal chain will always lead to an Alpha, or first cause.
What I deny is that cause is anything more than a convenient fiction that should not be carelessly reified. No doubt it is of the greatest use to aver that flipping the switch causes the light to go on, but it doesn't.
As to the explosion, that itself is a function of perceived time. Over the right time scale, there is no explosion. And if no explosion, it would seem no cause of explosion. And likely that a clue as to why fields have replaced causes. Also, if there are causes, just how exactly can they be separated from their effects? And if unseparated, then just what exactly is a cause? None of this against a useful descriptor, but solid evidence against any thing that corresponds to it.
Nor does this have anything to do with Kant, because his cause is categorical.
And I observe that you still have assayed no answer to the question. — tim wood
But, I think I can reduce and simplify the discussion further: what reason do you have to suggest that we perceive causality (and not just infer it, or apply it as a rule)? I think it will be easier to move forward with our discussion once we get past this point. — _db
Causality is not perceived, it is concluded. — Philosophim
If you are going to turn that into shaky ground, you need some real world examples like how I can live without air or food. — Philosophim
I view causal arguments for a first cause to be, simply put (and I am not trying to undermine your argument), the process of induction being utilized to infer something that is well beyond that which any given experience could reasonably supply to induction itself. — Bob Ross
You see, I am also not entirely convinced that those are the only three options. I would say there are five (if one is going to use logic and its metalogical principles, which I won’t elaborate here, but I would be skeptical of this too): eternal existence, self-manifestation (causa sui), infinite regression, infinite loop, and arbitrary stopping point. Firstly, I think you may have too hastily lumped all causes that are defined as “not having a prior cause” into your “first cause” (c), when, in fact, I think there are at least (at a minimum) two distinct sectors: eternal existence and self-manifestation (causa sui); I would be personally unwilling to say that these two concepts are synonymous or analogous to one another—although I would concede that they both fit under your “first cause” (c) definition. — Bob Ross
In light of the two aforementioned concepts (eternal existence and self-manifestation), I am not entirely certain as to if you are arguing for a “first cause” that created itself (which would constitute it being its own justification) or if it just is — Bob Ross
Although I would concede that actual infinities have not been proven to exist, if they do exist, then they would not be subject to your criticism here: they would be just as out of bounds of the principle of sufficient reason as anyone could (at least) argue for any type of “first cause” — Bob Ross
I apologize for how long my reply is, but I have an inkling that you would rather have a too long response than one that is way too short. — Bob Ross
I do not see how one could possibly prove that a-c (or even if you were to accept my previously mentioned five possibilities) are literally the only options — Bob Ross
Never said that.While you may not personally believe in cause and effect, — Philosophim
Clear enough, but not to the question.As to your explosion question, I felt I gave a pretty clear answer. — Philosophim
Then what is "in between"?A cause is separated by its effect — Philosophim
Exactly! And you can do that. And if I assume you owe me $100, can I expect a check in the next day or two?I'm assuming it exists. — Philosophim
I assume it! And that leaves us with your causality "proved" by your assumption, and disproved by mine. But I have all along acknowledged causality as a useful idea, a useful fiction. You apparently want it to be real in some sense. So, demonstrate it. It seems to me that the exploding dynamite is a very clear sample to work with.One way you could convince me that causality does not exist as more than a convenient fiction is explain how you posted online without causality. — Philosophim
Not a worry. I'm thinking at this point that I did not write a clear enough idea in my desire to keep it within a certain size. That is on me, and no one else.
About Hume, Hume was talking about causality as an induction of belief about the future. In other words, there was no reason to believe the rules of causality (or really, rules of anything) would be the same tomorrow. However, that doesn't mean we cannot test the rules of today, and come to the conclusion that causality exists. Hume noted that our belief that the rules would be stable tomorrow could be nothing more than a belief. So far, that belief has held true. So can we know the future? Never.
So in the same vein, we can examine the distant past. Perhaps it is the case that billions of years ago, the rules of the universe functioned differently. Perhaps objects existed that were pure chaos and had no explanation for their being. While we can trace up what the past "should" be if the rules are the same, its really a matter of faith. Still, I think its a matter of faith we can cling to. Further, I can see no alternative to chaos and causality. Chaos is essentially a first cause, while causality is the expected response to external forces.
So, with the inductive belief that causality still existed back then, and as I have no other belief in my mind, I try to come to a logical conclusion with causality, and with a first cause, what must necessarily exist without prior causality. — Philosophim
an excuse for being unable to explain an idea in a way that fits with reality — Philosophim
Does this mean multiverse for example, is no longer a plausible theory, but almost logical certainty? A self explained existence does not need to exist forever. If any lifespan has an equal chance of forming, then wouldn't the universe be full of entities popping in and out of existence? — Philosophim
Feel free to attempt to show why cause and effect break down then. — Philosophim
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.