I am not seeing any contradiction. You'll need to be a bit more specific.

BTW, and to the OP, doesn't logic itself require a cause, or a story of origin?

. 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.

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

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.

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

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.

↪Artemis I am not seeing any contradiction. You'll need to be a bit more specific — EricH

Sure:

You said:

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

So, events at the quantum level work in ways that we really don't understand or know how to explain, and the "solution" is to throw out literally everything we do know and can explain about everything else in our personal and scientific experience, namely cause and effect.

...and you say this is "factual knowledge."

But then you also say that we're barely scraping the surface of what we could know about the universe and how it works and we need to "be humble and acknowledge that we really don't know what's going on."

Seems to me that humility would apply to scientists too, and that instead of claiming some "factual knowledge" about something we don't actually have an explanation for and which defies everything else we do know how to explain... we could and should very simply say "as far as we can tell at this moment in time."

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?

The contradiction is well and alive! :smile:

I am sure you have something else in mind but maybe you have not described it clearly or correctly ...
Whatever is the case, I believe that the issue, as it is described, is too complicated and does not offer
for a comfortable analysis or discussion. It cannot be followed easily or walked through with confident steps (sound arguments). Moreover, the object of the topic, that is, what is to be proven, namely that "A first cause is logically necessary", is lost in the road, i.e. it cannot .

If I were to describe such a subject , would try to do is as simple as possible, with every premise (step) as clear and definite as possible, i.e. leaving as much less room for ambiguity as possible, and it would follow something like the following scheme. (This is a "classical" style. There are also other ones.)

1. I will try to prove that {object}
2. Assumptions
2a. Assumption #1
2b. Assumption #2
...
3. Logic/arguments
3a. If both #1 and #2 are true, then {conclusion #1)
3b. If #1 is true but not #2, then {conclusion #2)
...
4. Final conclusion that proves the object

Then the whole thesis could be evaluated by someone else, who can agree or disagree at any point. If he disagrees at any point, then of course he should not continue. If, on the other hand, one reaches at the final point (4) and agrees also with that, that will mean that he complete agrees with the thesis.

There are certain theories (...) showing certain things are impossible....
— Philosophim

If the bridge is washed out, my path across it is impossible — Mww

Yeah, well, you know. I want to know stuff. That first causes are logically necessary tells me not a damn thing about stuff. I’m aware of some theories that prove impossibilities, but whatever isn’t, doesn’t tell me what is. The bridge...an empirical circumstance the complete knowledge of which is immediately available to me....attempts to falsify your claim that demonstrations of impossibilities necessarily gives alternative knowledge, which the bridge-path impossibility apparently does not provide.

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

No, it isn’t, you’re correct. The OP uses universals, re: X,Y,Z, Alpha....forms of things. Could be any damn thing. And if any thing, then all things. If there is one exception to the rule conditioned by universals, that rule fails. It follows that if there is no alternative knowledge given from a particular bridge wash-out, the demonstration of alternative knowledge from impossibilities in general, fails.

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.

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

And I say it isn’t. Well...ok, it is a pretty big thing to say, but it is just as empty as it is big. Be nice to prove the assertion, with the same justice as the bridge disproves alternative knowledge given from impossibilities.

“...Because, however, the mere form of a cognition, accurately as it may accord with logical laws, is insufficient to supply us with material (objective) truth, no one, by means of logic alone, can venture to predicate anything of or decide concerning objects, unless he has obtained, independently of logic, well-grounded information about them, in order afterwards to examine, according to logical laws, into the use and connection, in a cohering whole, of that information, or, what is still better, merely to test it by them. Notwithstanding, there lies so seductive a charm in the possession of a specious art like this (...) that general logic, which is merely a canon of judgement, has been employed as an organon for the actual production, or rather for the semblance of production, of objective assertions, and has thus been grossly misapplied....”

Hence, the bridge. Well-grounded information obtained independent of logic.
——————

If it turns out that all of causality is infinitely regressive, what caused it to be that way? — Philosophim

We do, of course. Turns out, we as the cause of this, is as big a thing to point out, as pointing out that our universe must have something that does not have a prior explanation. And just as empty.

“...Now it may be taken as a safe and useful warning, that general logic, considered as an organon, must always be a logic of illusion, that is, be dialectical, for, as it teaches us nothing whatever respecting the content of our cognitions, but merely the formal conditions of their accordance with the understanding, which do not relate to and are quite indifferent in respect of objects, any attempt to employ it as an instrument in order to extend and enlarge the range of our knowledge must end in mere prating; any one being able to maintain or oppose, with some appearance of truth, any single assertion whatever....”

With respect to this topic, formal conditions of the understanding means only that for any thing in existence, a cause of it is logically necessary, and in the continuation of that, we understand the logic of a first cause of that thing, and by association, all things.

With respect to logic itself, its illusion means only that whatever truth is taken from logic alone cannot be taken as proofs in the world of things.

But never fear: I am “prating” as much as the next guy, insofar as attempts at refutation of a claim is just as much an attempt to extend the range of knowledge, as the affirmation of it.
————

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

Right.

The nonsense of “an infinity of infinities” aside, if we continue the series of causes without concluding to a first cause, whether infinitely or merely indefinitely, all we’ve done is determined a series of causes. 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. Remember the logic of illusion? There it is, right there. Eliminate the illusion by saying that is how we are, rather than that is how reality is.

Actually, parsimony suggests, and experience makes explicit, the indefinite extension of causes a posteriori is highly unlikely, and the infinite extension of causes a posteriori is impossible, which makes affirmative empirical judgements with respect to things contained by such causal extensions, categorically false.
————

I'm just trying to steer it back tot he original point. — Philosophim

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.

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

There you go again making the same basic mistake. You just can't seem to get over the cause/explanation equivocation. Assuming that the world regresses infinitely into the past, if there is an explanation for that, that explanation doesn't in any way negate the premise. Nor does the absence of an explanation.

Time is logically prior to causation.

Causation is a time-bound concept such that causes always precede their effect in time. Thus there can be no cause of time. It follows that there can be no cause of the universe; it is equivalent to asking for the cause of causation.

Asking for the cause of the universe is asking why inflation happened or why there was an initial singularity of infinite density and temperature at all. They seem like reasonable questions that ought have answers.

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.

Asking for the cause of the universe is asking why inflation happened — Michael

Is it? Do you agree that a cause must precede its effect? If so, what meaning do you give to a cause of time? Something preceding time seems to make no sense to me. One speaks of 'outside' or 'beyond' time and space in a hand-waving loose way, but I think cause is rather too definite for your 'why' to substitute without scientific complaints. A cause of time and space, necessarily outside time and space, is not the same kind of cause that science wots of.

An infinite past of sequential events is illogical — Michael

Let's not multiply conceptual muddles without necessity. This is an old trope, on par with 0.9... =/= 1, but has nothing to do with the OP.

"Cause" is sometimes used in a loose sense, synonymous with explanation, reason, grounding. In that sense, one can ask about the "cause" of time - meaning a reductive scientific account or a metaphysical ground, for example.

Asking for the cause of the universe is asking why inflation happened or why there was an initial singularity of infinite density and temperature at all. — Michael

Your physics is a little out of date. You need more PBS Spacetime.

In that sense, one can ask about the "cause" of time - meaning a reductive scientific account or a metaphysical ground, for example. — SophistiCat

One can do lots of things by way of speculative talk especially if one can retreat when pressed to 'loose' or 'metaphorical' or 'metaphysical'. Nevertheless, an 'account' has to add up, and the time before time does not compute.

Yep. Russell compared this to motherhood. Each and every human has a mother. One. can intelligibly ask who is SophistiCat's mother, who is Philosophim's mother, and be confident that there is an answer.

So does humanity as a whole have a mother?

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

I wouldn't say illogical, at least doesn't derive a contradiction.
Counterintuitive perhaps?
There'd be no sufficient reason that 0 was reached at one particular moment, and not some other moment, any other moment.
Yet, with a definite earliest time, we similarly appear to run into such a violation, in that there'd be no sufficient reason for the universe being 14 billion years old, and not some other age, any other age.
Maybe the counterintuitive "edge-free", not infinite universe is the more intuitive after all?
Weird. :meh:
At least we might admit that we don't know, and will just have to let the universe tell its own story (evidence).

_{• Surprise: the Big Bang isn’t the beginning of the universe anymore by Ethan Siegel (Oct 20, 2021)
• The problem with the Big Bang theory by Don Lincoln (Nov 4, 2021)}

There is no logic to that which is unknown.

I wouldn't say illogical, at least doesn't derive a contradiction. — jorndoe

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.

I much appreciate the discussion Bob. Do not worry about being concise!

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 understand. I wrote another paper here which examines knowledge using basic principles. I've used that basis of knowledge for years now in my own life and philosophy, but of course you would not know that! It is here https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9015/a-methodology-of-knowledge if you are interested in reading it after this conversation is over. I can't seem to get anyone to have a good discussion with over it, and it bothers me that I haven't had anyone to properly discuss a theory which is a potential solution to the problem of induction.

But back to the topic, to your definition of induction, I will agree that that the argument is inductive. I am assuming a consistency in laws, and assuming things that may or may not exist. Where I think the deduction comes from is if these inductions were to be true, what would logically have to follow. But you are 100% correct in the fact this is is something we cannot actively prove or confirm through evidence. There are a few theories in math that also work this way. They make claims about number patterns that in theory should be logically true, but cannot be confirmed due to the fact there are infinite numbers. I think this is a fundamental of philosophy. Science seeks to put our theories to the test, while philosophy tries to narrow the field of ideas to those that have the most logical reasons to test, or try to answer logically situations that, at that moment of human history, cannot be tested by science.

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

You are correct. Both are outside of the ability to confirm though experience. They are the conclusions of what we know today. Causality exists. So causality must either continue indefinitely, or definitely. Of course, maybe there's a third option we haven't thought of. But among the two options of absurdity, we find that even an infinite regression end up having to be self-explained.

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

Yes, I am not denying that an infinite regression is possible, but the fact that there exists an infinite regression, is self caused.

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

Yes, there is nothing in the argument that implies only one first cause would exist, or can exist. If a first cause has no prior explanation for its existence, there is no rule constraining or pushing a first cause to exist. Meaning there is no reason multiple first causes could, or could not happen. Further, there is no reason a first cause has to continue to exist once it is formed. What does necessarily have to happen however, is if it forms among other existences in space and time, it must be part of space and time. Further, it can cause, and be effected by other matter that share the properties of space and time. So while a first cause has no prior cause for its inception, once it enters reality it can interact with, it can be acted upon and vice versa.

And this leads back to the issue I had with the technicality of "A self cause creating itself". Once a self cause is existent, anything that it causes is now a secondary cause from the primary formation. This has lead me to wonder at a few things. And here, this is recently considered territory for me, and I am curious what you think. If it is the case that more than one first cause can form, why would we not see more? But thinking about it, I believe first causes by their nature or the base constitute parts of existence. Complex objects are really a combination of smaller objects. A complex object cannot be self-explained, but is explained by its interaction with other objects.

That being the case, a self-explained entity would seem to be indivisible. Anything at the scale of our general observations is divisible. Now, that is not to say more than one self-explained entity could form in such away with another self-explained entity as to create a more complex object. But when you consider the odds of a self-explained entity appearing alone, versus the odds of it appearing in perfect tandom with another self-explained entity, it seems like it would be smaller and smaller odds that a self-explained entity appeared at once as an ever more complex object, like a person, or a planet. It doesn't mean that primary entities couldn't combine later once formed, but that may also take time and incredible luck and timing for them to be intertwined in such a way as to create a long term stable complex object.

But that's just some extra thought for now. Your grasp of the situation I think is rather tight, and you have a keen mind for this. Continue to ask questions as you see fit!

BTW, and to the OP, doesn't logic itself require a cause, or a story of origin? — Olivier5

Yes. I have a theory of that, but that will have to wait for another time.

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

Let me clarify the point. I am saying "if" there exists an X. If there does not, then the infinite regress's cause for existence, is the fact that it exists. There can be no prior reason for its existence, but itself. The only way this cannot be is if an X exists for that infinite regress. And if that is the case, we repeat the process ad nauseum, still arriving at the same conclusion of the OP.

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

Certainly Raul. Fantastic contribution here and discussion. Thank you.

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

Hm, I don't think those conclude the same thing that has been concluded here. But, I appreciate your input to the conversation.

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

No, I am saying that we don't know. Perhaps there is an X for a Y, or perhaps there is not. If there does not exist for a particular Y, then that Y is an alpha. Basically a Y without a X. I suppose I don't change Y to something else when we know there is an X for that Y, which I could see causing confusion. If I said a Y that we knew had an X was called a "why", would that help? :D

So then a Y may or may not have an X.
An Alpha is a Y that does not have an X.
A Why is a Y that does have an X. (Why? Because X. I can put a little levity here right?)

With that in mind, see if you can continue the rest of the argument. Part of asking for feedback from the forums is so it could be rewritten and amended better to be clearer. So your feedback is welcome!

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

No start, in this case.
But the argument is usually phrased as "cannot be completed", except it can, it just takes an infinity.
Of course, if you presuppose otherwise, then you won't get anywhere.
It's not a (purely) logical thing, unless you include things like the principle of sufficient reason.

_{• James Harrington
• Craig Skinner}

Yeah, well, you know. I want to know stuff. That first causes are logically necessary tells me not a damn thing about stuff. — Mww

Its not science, its philosophy. Philosophy helps us come to logical conclusions apart from application, so we can let our mind wander to possibilities that perhaps could one day be applied. For example, if it is the case that first causes are logically necessary, we can also conclude that there is no need for there to be only one, and that one could happen at any moment. This leads to questions about why the universe isn't loaded with them. Check the last paragraph of my reply to Bob Ross to see some of the things of consequence I've been thinking of.

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

Perhaps you think tautologies are useless, but they can help narrow questions of scope. The debate between infinite regression and finite regression has existed for quite some time. This give a definite answer to the idea of a first cause. The conclusion of a long debate in philosophy can be useful, and opens up further ideas as I've already mentioned.

...Because, however, the mere form of a cognition,... — 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?

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

No disagreement here. But we can only conclude logic with what we know today correct? Your assertion can be applied to every single bit of knowledge mankind has ever gleaned from the world. It doesn't mean I've done anything wrong here. :)

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

I have had fun thinking about it as well. Perhaps you may have fun thinking of the next stage that I started with Bob Ross. Its been a great conversation regardless.

There you go again making the same basic mistake. You just can't seem to get over the cause/explanation equivocation. — SophistiCat

Feel free to better explain how I am making this equivocation then. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just not seeing where you are coming from.