. If there exists an X which explains the reason why any infinite causality exists — Philosophim
How? How am I using it in the wrong context? It seems clear to me. There must be more than a claim, you have to give me a reason that backs that claim. — Philosophim
I think pointing out that there must be something in our universe that does not have a prior explanation for its existence is a pretty big thing to say. If you're not interested, fair. But if you're not saying I'm wrong, I and others find that interesting. Since you seem to think there was a simpler way to prove this, feel free to show it. — Philosophim
↪Artemis I am not seeing any contradiction. You'll need to be a bit more specific — EricH
We factually know that this is not true. Events at the atomic and sub-atomic level have no prior "cause". Events do follow certain statistical patterns, but each event is totally random with no prior "cause". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam
In the last 100 years our knowledge of the physical universe has grown exponentially and new discoveries are being made - we are likely just scratching the surface here. To think we can draw any sort of grand philosophical conclusions about the nature of reality is an act of hubris. We must be humble and acknowledge that we really don't know what's going on. — EricH
But you have established that "X represents an existent prior causality to Y". So, if we know that X exists, how can we not know that Y has an X?Y is an object that we believe has an X, but we do not know if it does — Philosophim
There are certain theories (...) showing certain things are impossible....
— Philosophim
If the bridge is washed out, my path across it is impossible — Mww
If the bridge is washed out, my path across it is impossible.
— Mww
That's not really the same thing as the OP's points. — Philosophim
I think pointing out that there must be something in our universe that does not have a prior explanation for its existence is a pretty big thing to say. — Philosophim
If it turns out that all of causality is infinitely regressive, what caused it to be that way? — Philosophim
If you introduce an X, or a prior explanation, then its not really infinitely regressive right? If we continue for an infinity of infinities, we still can only come to the conclusion, "it simply is, because that is how reality exists". — Philosophim
I'm just trying to steer it back tot he original point. — Philosophim
If it turns out that all of causality is infinitely regressive, what caused it to be that way? If you introduce an X, or a prior explanation, then its not really infinitely regressive right? — Philosophim
Asking for the cause of the universe is asking why inflation happened — Michael
An infinite past of sequential events is illogical — Michael
In that sense, one can ask about the "cause" of time - meaning a reductive scientific account or a metaphysical ground, for example. — SophistiCat
An infinite past of sequential events is illogical, though. If we imagine each second of the universe as a person counting then the present is that person having counted every integer up to 0 which makes no sense at all. — Michael
This may be a fundamental difference between you and I: I think deduction is actually less reliable than induction (with respect to the topic at hand) because it requires the use of a basic principle (or principles) that then can be “explored”, so to speak, to logically determine its consequences. — Bob Ross
I do not see how a first cause, which would defy all laws and logic we have thus far (especially causality), is any less “absurd” than an actual infinite. To say something just infinitely regresses, or infinitely loops around, has just as little explanatory power (I would say) as saying it just is, or that it is its own cause in itself. — Bob Ross
I am saying this because I was under the impression that you were arguing against the idea of an infinite regression, but I would say that an actual infinite regression is just as valid, so to speak, on contrary to a potential infinite regression, as the idea of a first cause which is self-caused. — Bob Ross
I would like to, first and foremost, to agree with you that I also think that your argument (as presented hitherto) is open to the idea of multiple first causes — Bob Ross
BTW, and to the OP, doesn't logic itself require a cause, or a story of origin? — Olivier5
If there exists an X which explains the reason why any infinite causality exists
— Philosophim
This would only stand up if you proved that such an X actually exists. This is a condition you set up which is not shown or proven to be true. — god must be atheist
It all starts on a more precise understanding of the Self, how the Self comes to mind and how we create categories and concepts. Happy to talk this in a Tertulia if you join us to Discord's Philosophy Bookclub. — Raul
This is such an old and commonly discussed topic that I am at a loss as to what to recommend. See Agrippan (Munchhausen) trilemma, principle of sufficient reason, metaphysical grounding. — SophistiCat
Y is an object that we believe has an X, but we do not know if it does
— Philosophim
But you have established that "X represents an existent prior causality to Y". So, if we know that X exists, how can we not know that Y has an X? — Alkis Piskas
If the past is infinite then the present is the end of an infinite period of time, but an infinite period of time has no end. — Michael
Yeah, well, you know. I want to know stuff. That first causes are logically necessary tells me not a damn thing about stuff. — Mww
Thing is....there’s no possibility of demonstrating a failure in pure logic predicated on universals alone, all particulars in succession must be substituted to falsify the proposition/theory, which effectively reduces the logical necessity for first causes to a worthless tautology. — Mww
Of course. You have to take your idea and apply it to reality to determine its real. You can logically predict things about reality, test them, and find them to be true however no? Scientists predicted the big bang purely through logical consequences. Does that mean its proven? Of course not. Does that mean its interesting and makes us think on further possibilities? Absolutely. The quest for philosophy is to find the limits of logical consequences with ideas. If we can apply and test them, they become science. I am not doing science, but creating an idea that is logically sound. While I may fail at science, do I fail at philosophy here?...Because, however, the mere form of a cognition,... — Mww
We are not justified in saying “that is just how reality is” because there may very well be exceptions to the rule we have not reached, in which case, we really didn’t know just how reality is at all. — Mww
I never wandered from it. I support the logical necessity of first causes; followed by a great big fat gigantic....so what? Even if true, we can do nothing with it, it makes no difference in The Grand Scheme of Things, and as an intellectual exercise, ended as soon as it began. Anyone with a modicum of metaphysical prowess already knew all about it, and no one else cares.
Still fun to play with, though, so...thanks for that. — Mww
There you go again making the same basic mistake. You just can't seem to get over the cause/explanation equivocation. — SophistiCat
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.