A Y is merely a state that has the question of whether there is an X or not. — Philosophim

Not what you said. Y has a cause, even if the cause is unknown.

That which has an unknown cause is a Y. That which has no prior cause, is an alpha. — Philosophim

Therefore no alpha can be a Y, but you also said an alpha is a Y but a Y with no cause. But a Y has an cause. You’re making a valiant effort in having your cake and eat it too, and THAT’S what I ain’t buyin’.
—————

you haven't accurately ascribed what a priori knowledge is. — Philosophim

It is true left out the pure/impure subdivisions, but I didn’t need such accuracy to know what he meant, because the topic ultimately reduces to the principle of cause and effect, which in and of itself, because it is a only a mode of human cognition, has nothing to do with experience. Experience is certainly required for its objective validity, but not for its constructions a priori, re: Hume’s mistake.

Anyway....in passing.

Not what you said. Y has a cause, even if the cause is unknown.

That which has an unknown cause is a Y. That which has no prior cause, is an alpha.
— Philosophim — Mww

As I stated before, you were the second person to interpret that the wrong way. That tells me I need to revise this section to be more clear. The way I clarified it in my last post was the way it was always originally intended. Of course it would be silly for me to say something has no cause, but also has a cause. The "unknown" cause was meant to mean, "You do not know whether Y has a cause."

Which is fully on me for not thinking the sentence through. I can see how you would think "unknown cause" means there is definitely a prior cause that we don't yet know about, so no worry. Now that you understand the way its intended to be read, you can see the contradiction never existed.

because the topic ultimately reduces to the principle of cause and effect, which in and of itself, because it is a only a mode of human cognition, has nothing to do with experience. Experience is certainly required for its objective validity, but not for its constructions a priori, re: Hume’s mistake. — Mww

I am also under no obligation to follow Kant's definitions of knowledge. I do not agree that you can know about cause and effect apart from experience. The idea boils down to whether there is a state prior to another that caused that secondary state to be. This is something that exists in reality, external to our construction of it. All you have to do is type a reply on your keyboard, press "Post Comment" and you will have caused the effect of responding to my message. Our language that we use to describe cause and effect can only exist because the world exists with cause and effect independent of our realization of it.

What is the nature of the First Cause, given that it has no input?

I am not concerned with preserving causality, when I have yet to have anyone show me its broken — Philosophim

It has been demonstrated that causality does not happen at the atomic & sub-atomic level. What is the prior event that causes a radioactive atom to decay? What is the prior event that causes a particle anti-particle pair to materialize out of nowhere? To the best of everyone's knowledge there are no prior events that cause these things to happen.

Perhaps it is self-explained, but perhaps it isn't. — Philosophim

Can we absolutely rule out with absolute 100% confidence that there is some unknown / unobservable hidden cause behind quantum mechanics, behind the uncertainty principle? No one is saying that. But you are the one making the assertion that that there must be a cause for everything - therefore the burden of proof is on you. If you could develop a theoretical framework to account for this observed lack of prior causes - and develop an experiment that would demonstrate this? Your name would go down in history! I encourage you to do this. Go Philosophim!

But even beyond that - and here is a question I'm really curious about. I'm fascinated by this behavior. Why is this so important to you that there must be a first cause?

What is the nature of the First Cause, given that it has no input? — PoeticUniverse

That is an interesting topic! And perhaps one I'll make after this dies down. There are a few claims that could be made that I think are interesting.

1. There is no reason for an alpha to to last any period of time. It could exist from X to infinite seconds before not existing anymore.
2. There is no reason to believe there is only one alpha.
3. Alphas would seem to be incredibly small. Anything that can be divided or seen as parts is not an alpha, but a complex object. Now it is possible that two alphas could form or collide at the exact combination needed to make a new object. Considering the odds, it would seem like a ridiculously low chance that anything complex would form.

I think these are the most interesting. Do you think I'm off in my musings here?

It has been demonstrated that causality does not happen at the atomic & sub-atomic level. — EricH

I think you misunderstood the OP. The OP concludes that there must exist things which have no prior explanation for their existence. If there is nothing prior to the sub-atomic level, then it is an alpha that I've been showing must exist. Do one more review on the OP and you'll see you are agreeing with me if you claim this to be true.

All I am saying is that you do not know if what you are describing is actually an alpha, or if we have not simply discovered what the prior cause is yet.

But even beyond that - and here is a question I'm really curious about. I'm fascinated by this behavior. Why is this so important to you that there must be a first cause? — EricH

To answer a simple philosophical question. Is there infinite regression or finite regression. It turns out its a false dichotomy. I find solving puzzles like this fascinating! I have some follow up thoughts on what it means if there alpha's are logically necessary in the post above. Feel free to chime in your thoughts.

I do not agree that you can know about cause and effect apart from experience. The idea boils down to whether there is a state prior to another that caused that secondary state to be. — Philosophim

It is true the cause of an effect cannot be known absent experience. Still, it remains that no singular object of perception, in and of itself, can inform as to its cause, nor that it even had one. That relation is what we think as appended to objects, which makes explicit the relation itself resides in reason, not in experience.

Our language that we use to describe cause and effect can only exist because the world exists with cause and effect independent of our realization of it. — Philosophim

If that is the case, you’ve created a false dichotomy. In its fullest extent, if independent of our realization, we wouldn’t have the language at all, and, in its simplest extent, if we merely realize it, whether it exists in the world becomes irrelevant.

Food for thought.....all respectful and friendly like.....of suspicious standing is he who brings billiard balls and acorns to a metaphysics arena.

Immediate edit:

HA!!! We both used false dichotomy almost at the same time. Scary!!!

Still, it remains that no singular object of perception, in and of itself, can inform as to its cause, nor that it even had one. — Mww

Perception combined with proper science can however. What caused the words that you wanted to type appear on your screen? Are you saying there was no cause? Computer science would say otherwise, that there are clear inputs that cause that output to appear on your screen. It can be easy for us to get lost in the abstract, and forget the very things we use daily. Open a door. Now shut the door. What caused the door to open? What caused the door to close? Can you honestly say there was no cause? Of course not.

To clarify once again, we can look for cause and effect, and not find any, be inaccurate in our assessment, but also be accurate in our assessment. Accurate cause and effect is testable and repeatable, because it accurately describes reality. That is why it is not a false dichotomy. Though fist bump for jinx on using false dichotomy!

What caused the words — Philosophim

Yeah....about that. What caused the words? And PLLL—EEEEEZZZEEE...don’t say my fingers caused the words. Finite causal regression writ large.

And a logical iteration for your sacred alpha.

Thank me later.

Is this what you were talking about? Yes, this is part of cause and effect. Cause and effect are ways to measure the reason why a state changes from one to another over time. — Philosophim

I think you would benefit from doing some reading about causation (and disabusing yourself of the notion that there is only one kind and everyone agrees on what it is), explanation, grounding. When you have all these mixed up as you do, you end up with the kind of muddle that you have in your OP.

Yeah....about that. What caused the words? And PLLL—EEEEEZZZEEE...don’t say my fingers caused the words. Finite causal regression writ large. — Mww

Your fingers. :D

Am I wrong? Simple things are often all that are needed to prove a point. Demonstrate to me that your fingers were not one X in the chain that caused those words to appear on the screen, and then you'll have something to stand on. For the purposes of my OP, I merely need an X, or a prior existence that causes the Y we're analyzing. To show that the OP is wrong, you have to show that X doesn't exist for anything. If I can show even one X, then the point stands.

Also, alphas are not sacred. If you think this is about religion, it is not. If anything, this argument is likely an incredibly harsh counter against religion. But I find when people start worrying about where the argument is going, versus worrying about the argument itself, they make lot of mistakes in reasoning.

3. Alphas would seem to be incredibly small. — Philosophim

Yes, as close to zero as the simplest that is possible.

It has energy and so it can't be still, else naught would have further come forth.

It has only itself, so it can only rearrange to make forms.

Random action, since no design could have been imparted? Or some default for the simplest?

How much of it would there be?

It is continuous if there is a lot of it, again due to no spacers of 'Nothing' unable to be in it.

It is ever there because 'Nothing' cannot be and so there is no alternative to its being?

Is this what you were talking about? Yes, this is part of cause and effect. Cause and effect are ways to measure the reason why a state changes from one to another over time.
— Philosophim

I think you would benefit from doing some reading about causation (and disabusing yourself of the notion that there is only one kind and everyone agrees on what it is), explanation, grounding. When you have all these mixed up as you do, you end up with the kind of muddle that you have in your OP. — SophistiCat

I am not going to go into the entire literary history of philosophy of causation for a forum post to a general audience. I am using the general understanding of cause and effect with precision given as needed. If people have asked for clarification on what cause and effect means for the OP, I have given it with clear examples and evidence. If they countered these, examples they could give me definitive evidence showing it is flawed.

If you have done all of that reading and can see the flaws in the examples, feel free to point them out. Confidence that the OP is wrong does not logically prove it. So far those challengers have abandoned the argument after I've made a counter point. Which is fine. Many people get frustrated when they realize they cannot counter a particular point, and revert to insults, talking down, and ignoring that counter point in their follow up posts. The good ones love the challenge, and make great conversation. Sometimes, they win, and I admit to it. Those are the real philosophers and thinkers that make my heart race, set my mind alight, and force me to things I've never thought of before.

Demonstrate to me that your fingers were not one X in the chain that caused those words to appear on the screen, and then you'll have something to stand on. — Philosophim

I already have something to stand on, and I don’t care about one X. I want to determine a possible alpha. That said, fingers cause the keys to be struck, but do not on that account alone, cause the words. A damn axe can strike keys, as can a feather.

How many clues do you need, to see where this inevitably leads?

It has energy and so it can't be still, else naught would have further come forth. — PoeticUniverse

Maybe. It might also just be inert floating amongst other things. I would assume that some came into existence with momentum however, as otherwise we wouldn't have our current universe.

Random action, since no design could have been imparted? Or some default for the simplest? — PoeticUniverse

Once a thing forms into existence, it could very well follow rules and patterns. In this, it might not be random. I think only true randomness can happen when there is no prior cause, or when an alpha appears. Once its appeared, we could try to figure out how it functions.

How much of it would there be? — PoeticUniverse

Great question. This is again, completely random. That means it means they could appear anywhere between just above 0% frequency, to just below 100% frequency. Calculating this would be difficult in the fact that you mentioned, which is what are comparing the frequency of this by? Space? Nothingness? Simply our universe? I don't think we can do that. So in the end I'm not sure we can calculate the frequency that something which is truly random could appear.

I already have something to stand on, and I don’t care about one X. — Mww

Well, the argument does. If you're trying to say causality doesn't really exist, but I can post even one instance that it does, then my point stands.

That said, fingers cause the keys to be struck, but do not on that account alone, cause the words. — Mww

Right. But they're part of the causal chain correct? Did you smash your keys with an ax, or a feather, or your fingers? It doesn't really matter. The proof is in the fact that those words would not have appeared on the screen without some cause. Isn't that a perfectly reasonable thing to logically grant?

How many clues do you need, to see where this inevitably leads? — Mww

I don't see where this inevitably leads at all. Please point out where this leads to, and also point out why this counters the OP.

It seems that an existent as a First Cause can’t come into being spontaneously, for the Possibility of this happening would be even more Fundamental, making for untold numbers of First Causes appearing.

It seems that an existent as a First Cause can’t come into being spontaneously, for the Possibility of this happening would be even more Fundamental, making for untold numbers of First Causes appearing. — PoeticUniverse

Just checking by what you mean by spontaneously. If you mean "By some numeric random chance", you are correct. We can't put numbers or predictions of a things appearance that has no prior cause.

spontaneously — Philosophim

I think I mean 'spontaneously' as instead of the First Cause having always been—as a true Fundamental that never gets made or appears, being unmakeable and unbreakable due to having no parts. I favor the latter case as mandatory because the alternate of 'Nothing' is not the case nor could 'Nothing' even have being or even be meant as an opposite option.

I think I mean 'spontaneously' as instead of the First Cause having always been—as a true Fundamental that never gets made or appears, being unmakeable and unbreakable due to having no parts. I favor the latter case as mandatory because the alternate of 'Nothing' is not the case nor could 'Nothing' even have being or even be meant as an opposite option. — PoeticUniverse

Logically, why could there not be "nothing"? Doesn't nothing exist now? The fact that something can appear while nothing remains around it is not far fetched at all, considering we have many things that exist with mostly nothing around it.

But to your point, I am also not denying such a fundamental could also be an existent alpha. That is perfectly possible, but so would an alpha appearing for five seconds, then disappearing without a trace.

Logically, why could there not be "nothing"? — Philosophim

Because 'it' has no properties. 'Nothing' is as nonexistence; 'it' isn't there; 'it' has no what, etc.

Doesn't nothing exist now? The fact that something can appear while nothing remains around it is not far fetched at all, considering we have many things that exist with mostly nothing around it. — Philosophim

No, it appears from the successful QFT that all is field. The quantum 'vacuum' is the best candidate for the First Cause, its energetic points having a value at every point, which is all that's meant by a field. Its behavior matches the math model based on harmonic oscillators. The elementaries come forth directly as the quanta of field excitations, as field arrangements, not as any new substance different from field. So, here we have something to go on to confirm the philosophy of the one First Cause that cannot not be.

There ain't no nothing no way nohow!

No, it appears from the successful QFT that all is field. The quantum 'vacuum' is the best candidate for the First Cause, its energetic points having a value at every point, which is all that's meant by a field. Its behavior matches the math model based on harmonic oscillators. The elementaries come forth directly as the quanta of field excitations, as field arrangements, not as any new substance different from field. So, here we have something to go on to confirm the philosophy of the one First Cause that cannot not be. — PoeticUniverse

It very well could be the alpha. But, there are a few things to understand about QFT. First, its tenants are not proven yet. It is very much theory, and a theory based on math. Second, a "field" is a mathmatical representation, much like a wave. But a wave in water is still composed of molecules, and emptyness between those molecules. For fields, we have electron fields. Yet they are still composed of individual electrons, and "nothingness" between them.

I have no doubt at a larger scale, it functions like a field. But, this does not mean its proven that there is nothing more granular if you examine that field at a closer level.

But a wave in water is still composed of molecules, and emptyness between those molecules. For fields, we have electron fields. Yet they are still composed of individual electrons, and "nothingness" between them. — Philosophim

Then they would be adjacent, without anything in-between, with 'Nothing' still not there as existent. Electron virtual particles are the fractional excitations that didn't reach a quantum of energy. They and the field at rest that yet ever moves still fill it all up completely as field, as ever. There's no existent of 'emptiness' as a nonexistent something; Parmenides came up with this shock.

I have no doubt at a larger scale, it functions like a field. But, this does not mean its proven that there is nothing more granular if you examine that field at a closer level. — Philosophim

I wouldn't think there's anything more basic than a field point. Fields are the ultimate lightweights from which the lightweight elementaries are the rather stable energy quanta. Yet, everything leaks and so our universe is temporary, although long lasting, but the Permanent ever remains.

QFT is the most successful and firm theory in the history of science, from which we build all kinds of devices. Good to follow up on the actual universe. Other supposed Absolutes from now ancient science have fallen by the wayside, such as Absolute Time and Absolute Space, along with the elementaries themselves being Fundamental and making fields. Quantum fields are all that's left to consider.

I still don't understand how 'Nothing' could be something. At any rate, a lack of anything isn't the case. There is, though, a curious near zero sum of the universe, but for the quantum fluctuations, and it could be that the potential energy of gravity matches and even feeds the kinetic energy of stuff but that is a physical process and not 'Nothing' doing anything either.

All interesting points. I don't see why anything you said isn't a possibility. Fantastic conversation, and I loved the poems!

Hello @Philosophim,
Before I address your most recent reply, I wanted to apologize for a such a late response! With that out of the way, I will now begin my remarks.

I much appreciate the discussion Bob

I must also confess that I am very much appreciated our conversation as well! I enjoy civil philosophical dialogue, whereas I find (too often than I would hope) most people simply insulting each other (typically in more complex diction and prose) and I am not too fond of it.

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!

That sounds like a splendid read! I will definitely read them and get back to you on my thoughts (if you would like, of course). For now, I will respond in light of my ignorance on your papers (and, therefore, forgive me if my ignorance shows).

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.

Although, again, I haven’t read your work, if it is as you describe, then it will, indeed, be an enjoyable read (to say the least).

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.

I think a proper response will require me to address this after I read your work(s), but I will still briefly address these two sentences. With respect to the first sentence, I would like to ask: what laws are you referring to? Newtonian laws? With respect to the second sentence, I now understand what you were meaning by deduction and, therefore, I was mistaken. You seem to be inducing a basic principle from which to deduce, which makes perfect sense (however I don’t quite agree with doing so, but that will have to wait until after I read your works).

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.

I genuinely would like to know to what theories are you referring? Are you simply referring to the idea that we assume any number will “behave”, so to speak, like any other (i.e. addition will operate the same on 1 as it will with any colossal number I can think of)? Or are you referring to imaginary numbers, which are speculative? Or are you referring to a particular theory you would wish to enlighten me on? Or, and this will be my last conjecture, are you referring to infinite series summations (and such)?

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.

I agree: it is important to work with what we have; however, I think that, in terms of causality and its dependency on time/space fabric, there are ways in which the faculties of reason can be stretched too thin--thereby causing one to be convinced it is intuitive or logical, but in reality it is what I would call lowercase “logic” being extended to what I call uppercase “Logic”. “logic” is that which our faculties of reason utilize all the time and, in many senses, is perfectly valid and useful. However, this “logic” (I think) has its limits and I would say (briefly) that the extension of causality beyond space/time fabric is “logic” being extended to “Logic” (upper case logic). “Logic” is simply defined in terms of what it is not: “logic”; Just like how true nothingness is defined as what it is not: something. Just like how I deem it impossible to truly conceive of true nothingness, I would also (for the same reasons) deem it impossible to truly know “Logic”. In other words, I find causality arguments (and I am not trying to overly generalize your argument) to be an extension stretched too thin. To sum this section up, I will would say that, although you are totally right in utilizing the knowledge that we do know, I would say your statement “causality must either continue indefinitely, or definitely” to be, as you admit in the following sentence, to be only a given certainty in terms of what is closest to our lives (metaphorically and literally speaking). For example, to say that something is a circle or is not a circle is typically considered a pretty exhaustive proposition (and reasonably so). And we could (and arguably would) extend this principle (that a thing is either a circle or not a circle) to all the depths of the universe (assuming we don’t find contrary evidence). However, I would say that our certainty on this principle, in this case the principle of non-contradiction, no matter how ingrained into our reasoning or closely intertwined within our lives, is inversely proportional to how far away a thing is, metaphorically as well as literally, to our lives. In all academic honesty, I am not very certain that I have any true justification for thinking that the law of non-contradiction persists in the farthest away concepts to me (such as the quantum realm, where superpositioning is technically possible). However, I would still advocate to use it (as you said) because it is the best thing that we’ve got for navigating our lives (but I would advocate its use within bounds, and that boundary is something I am still contemplating). Furthermore, and most importantly, the extension of this principle, which is already on fragile grounds when extended into the quantum realm, to that which is beyond our basic understand of all things (namely space/time fabric) greatly increases my skepticism and uncertainty on the issue at hand. So much, in fact, that I am hesitant to grant the idea that it is even useful to derive any concepts from any sort of greatly extended forms of induction (at least, ontologically speaking).

But among the two options of absurdity, we find that even an infinite regression end up having to be self-explained.

I think that I am now starting to grasp (slowly more and more) your argument: there must be an initial cause, or causes, for any given thing and that cause (or those causes) could be a combination of any type of thing that is self-explained (which, thereby, includes actual infinities). If that is the case (and, as always, correct me if I am wrong here), then I find that your argument is tailored more towards semantics: any term that is defined in a way that fundamentally has no cause is fair game. The problem I have with this (or confusion at the least) is that you seem to be advocating to the logical, via the principle of sufficient reason, derivation of causation back to a first cause (or causes) but yet then decide that it (or they—not necessarily in an agency sense of the term, but merely plurality) are outside of the scope of the principle of sufficient reason. In other words, it seems as you are using the principle of sufficient reason to derive a thing of which is excluded from that very principle. To say that it is self-explanatory, in my opinion, also, by your line of causal logic, invokes a particular infinite regression—namely that one would still be required to give a sufficient reason for why it is self-explained. This is why I think that it either becomes a semantic dead end or an infinite regression of “this is self-explained, what is the sufficient reason for its self-explanation, it is self-explained by its own self-explanation, what is the sufficient reason for that, etc”--which this leads our conversation back to your previous statement of how it boils down to indefinite or definite (which, in turn, leads us back to my previous remarks about certainty and the extension of “logic” past its limits). Now, this is exactly why I consider explanations to fundamentally collapse on themselves (which I call explanatory-collapsibility) and, therefore, I take a very different approach to epistemology (but I won’t get into that now, it will have to wait until after I read your works).

Once a self cause is existent, anything that it causes is now a secondary cause from the primary formation.

That is totally fair! However, I would then (and correct me if I am wrong) presume that you are semantically deriving this concept of a first cause—as this idea (in the above quote) is purely (I would argue) semantics (and I am not trying to undermine your position). Fundamentally, as I take it, you are defining this first cause to be, well, the first cause! Which means, as you said, that the term ‘self-cause’ doesn’t really make any sense anymore (but that’s only, I would say, if one already pre-defines it to be so!). If we weren’t to define it in a way where the term ‘self-caused first cause’, semantically speaking, is a contradictio in adjecto (i.e. a square circle), then I think we would be logically inclined, by the lines of your causal argument, to provide a sufficient justification, at the very least, for why the first cause was a first cause. In other words, why was first cause A a first cause and not the first cause B? Why were both B and A not secondary causes of first cause C? We could logically, but only in terms of semantics, conclude that B and A are not secondary causes of C because, by definition, first causes cannot be such. However, as hopefully I am demonstrating, there is still a level of explanation that I don’t think you are entirely addressing. But yet again I could just be misunderstanding you, so correct me if I am wrong!

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.

I believe I am following what you are saying, but I am still a tad bit confused: if complex objects are merely constructed of smaller objects, then wouldn’t that be their explanations? Why (and how) would the interaction explain the Complex objects? My hand, mereologically speaking, does not exist, but, rather, is a construction of smaller parts: I take it that this is what you are referring to by “complex objects” (but correct me if I am wrong). The explanation of my hand is (I would say) the smaller parts. But here’s where it gets complicated (really quickly): those smaller parts are actually made of smaller ones, so, in a sense, the smaller parts of my hand are actually complex objects compared to its smaller parts (and so on and so forth!). Hence, I would argue, we end up with explanatory-collapsibility. I would say that we arbitrarily, within a relative scope, defining my hand to exist with respect to its smaller parts (objects), but I can also shift the scope to be of my cells to its smaller parts (objects) and the cells would now become the complex object. As far as I can tell, if one zooms in or out (so to speak), the explanations begin to cave in on themselves (providing little explanatory power the closer or farther away one goes). But yet within a relative scope they can be powerful explanations!

That being the case, a self-explained entity would seem to be indivisible.

Not to reiterate, but, again, what is the sufficient reason for a self-explained entity (first cause) to be indivisible (other than the fact that semantically speaking it is pre-defined as such)? Again, I may simply be misunderstanding you, but I don’t see how that doesn’t require a reason.

This is all of my thoughts for now! I really appreciate your posts and I hope that this was at least somewhat useful. I will definitely take a look at your epistemological works!
Bob

I am using the general understanding of cause and effect with precision given as needed. If people have asked for clarification on what cause and effect means for the OP, I have given it with clear examples and evidence. If they countered these, examples they could give me definitive evidence showing it is flawed. — Philosophim

It is not so much flawed as inadequate. Your persistent examples of billiard balls are the sort one might use to explain what "cause" and "effect" mean to a four-year-old.

-"I have concluded that the nature of existence necessitates a "first cause"."
-First of all you should use abstract concepts to philosophize because you are making judgments irrelevant to the actual phenomenon in question.
Now you first need to define this nature of existence in order to argue about it.
Lastly I don't know if anyone can demonstrate non existence (nothingness). Based on our current epistemology we can not verify "nothing" as a possible......."state?". Nothing is the absence of all states.
From a scientific perspective our observations of quantum fluctuations point to a cosmic substrate(cosmos) that could easily always exist.
What we label "first cause" are just random fluctuations in this cosmic energetic field that force a local change of state resulting to the emergence of temporal and spatial properties. This change we call the existence of a universe.

-"5. 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."
- First of all causality doesn't exist. Its an abstract concept we as observers use to identify the order between interactions among entities and forces. Causality is a real phenomenon enabled by the EXISTENCE of those entities and forces.
Secondly "why" questions are useless when we deal with a fact of natural.There aren't any answers for "why" teleological questions about nature.
Why previously aroused electrons "create" new particles out of thin air?.....Becausssse....This is how nature works at its fundamental scale. This is what energy does.....produces work. Work causes things.

If you're trying to say causality doesn't really exist..... — Philosophim

I considered this on pg 4. Really exist? Not like billiard balls and acorns, no, the concept abstracted from principles does not really exist. The principles themselves don’t really exist either. But post-post moderns these days like to recklessly pretend the term stands for a real thing, so.....ehhhh, I understand what they mean by it even while it grates on my supersensitive metaphysical nerves.

With respect to this dialectic, no, I’m not trying to say causality doesn’t exist.
————-

I don’t care about one X.
— Mww

Well, the argument does. — Philosophim

As a premise or condition, sure. The argument cares more about its conclusion, “that a causal chain will always lead to an Alpha, or first cause”, which presupposes all the X’s. They are necessarily given as links in a causal chain, so not much reason to care about one of them.
————-

The proof is in the fact that those words would not have appeared on the screen without some cause. Isn't that a perfectly reasonable thing to logically grant? — Philosophim

I considered this on pg 8. It is reasonable to logically grant, but it is an empty proof, in that the proof of empirical conditions is not served by merely logical conclusions. Such proofs begin with them, not end. Of course there’s some cause. Big deal. What is it?
————-

How many clues do you need, to see where this inevitably leads?
— Mww

I don't see where this inevitably leads at all....... — Philosophim

You wouldn’t. Your inferences are inductive, starting at the bottom with an effect (a word on a screen) and ending at the top with the 3c plausible: some alpha such that there is a time when there is nothing prior to the cause of the word. Somewhere in that chain the empirical mechanisms....physical causality.... necessarily become exhausted. THAT’S what you haven’t yet seen, apparently.

.......Please point out where this leads to, and also point out why this counters the OP. — Philosophim

Not counter. Satisfy. By finite regressive causality. Like I said. You claim a time and place for an alpha but not the when or the what; I can show an alpha plus the when and the what. But we both know you’re bound to reject my argumentum ad verecundiam, hence the aforementioned dead horse.

Before I address your most recent reply, I wanted to apologize for a such a late response! — Bob Ross

Not a worry! It isn't as if we are typing a few paragraphs. A quality analysis is worth the wait!

With respect to the first sentence, I would like to ask: what laws are you referring to? Newtonian laws? — Bob Ross

By laws, I do not mean any specific law. I mean a consistency in the way existence works. One potential argument against cause and effect, is that we cannot prove that cause and effect will work tomorrow, or that they worked before recorded history. We can assume, but its not provable. That being said, if there is an argument against this, I have a counter point ready. Before getting into the messy details, I try to set things up in a way that gives a clear picture of where I'm going first. So feel free to dig further if you wish.

You seem to be inducing a basic principle from which to deduce, which makes perfect sense — Bob Ross

Yes, you have it. I believe it is a reasonable induction, but it is without question an induction. In short, I find it impossible to function without induction. The only thing we can do is figure out which inductions are more reasonable than others. The paper ends up declaring that. Regardless, if you do find it an unreasonable induction, I would ask a more reasonable alternative be provided. Doubt for its own sake doesn't lead anywhere.

I genuinely would like to know to what theories are you referring? Or, and this will be my last conjecture, are you referring to infinite series summations (and such)? — Bob Ross

I am referring to mathematical induction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_induction#:~:text=A%20proof%20by%20induction%20consists,case%20n%20%3D%20k%20%2B%201.

Basically think proving formulas. If A is true, and B is true, C will always be true. But we will never be able to actively prove C is true by experience, because we cannot possibly test all C's in existence. C is logically necessary, but is ultimately an induction based on the idea that the truth of A and B will always hold no matter the situation.

To sum this section up, I will would say that, although you are totally right in utilizing the knowledge that we do know, I would say your statement “causality must either continue indefinitely, or definitely” to be, as you admit in the following sentence, to be only a given certainty in terms of what is closest to our lives — Bob Ross

Absolutely correct. And I understand your point about taking logic too far. :) If you can point out where I do, please do. I am interested in getting to the truth of the matter, and only other people can point out my blind spots.

Just like how I deem it impossible to truly conceive of true nothingness, I would also (for the same reasons) deem it impossible to truly know “Logic”. — Bob Ross

While it may be impossible to truly conceive of true nothingness, I find the opposite to also be true. I cannot truly conceive of an absence of nothingness. In every thing that we know of, there is space between things. Every time we drill down, we find a piece that makes up another piece, but there is clearly space between them. Is that space also filled with other smaller things? Is space truly all one thing that touches everything else with no room for anything else to fit?

I only mention this to bring back to the idea of doubting an induction, but replacing it with a more reasonable one. I do not deny that it may be impossible for true nothingness to exist, but I find it also impossible to deny that it might. The fact that we can doubt one, does not eliminate the possibility of the other. To this, I feel the OP holds up in both scenarios. In the case where nothingness can exist, we have the instance of a self-explained entity forming. But in the case where there is no space, we have the question, "What caused existence to be without any space between it?" It does not escape the chain of causality question, and ends in the same answer as the OP.

Furthermore, and most importantly, the extension of this principle, which is already on fragile grounds when extended into the quantum realm, to that which is beyond our basic understand of all things (namely space/time fabric) greatly increases my skepticism and uncertainty on the issue at hand. So much, in fact, that I am hesitant to grant the idea that it is even useful to derive any concepts from any sort of greatly extended forms of induction (at least, ontologically speaking). — Bob Ross

I have heard this from a few posters. How exactly does the quantum world not have cause and effect? If it does not have cause and effect, then is it not simply an alpha? In which case, it seems the OP still stands.

Which means, as you said, that the term ‘self-cause’ doesn’t really make any sense anymore — Bob Ross

Correct. Something cannot cause itself, because then we are left right back to the question, "What caused it to cause itself?" So I find ascribing self-cause results in a contradiction, so should not be used.

However, as hopefully I am demonstrating, there is still a level of explanation that I don’t think you are entirely addressing. — Bob Ross

I hope I addressed it. If not, please point it out!

if complex objects are merely constructed of smaller objects, then wouldn’t that be their explanations? — Bob Ross

Correct. That is why I believe complex objects cannot be defined as alphas. A complex object could be composed of alphas, but once a complex object exists, the cause of its existence is its constituent parts. So it could be that any mixture of alphas and Y's with X's could have mixed together to make a complex component. The key is that an alpha really is no different from any other existence (in our universe) beyond the fact that its inception had no prior cause. Now it could be the case that a bunch of alphas incept in such a way that they form a complex object. The reason for the objects formation is the combination of those alphas. But the reason those alphas incepted in the formation of a complex object, has no prior cause. The complex object is not an alpha itself. This is I think the only way that the proposal stays logical and consistent.

those smaller parts are actually made of smaller ones, so, in a sense, the smaller parts of my hand are actually complex objects compared to its smaller parts (and so on and so forth!). Hence, I would argue, we end up with explanatory-collapsibility. I would say that we arbitrarily, within a relative scope, defining my hand to exist with respect to its smaller parts (objects), but I can also shift the scope to be of my cells to its smaller parts (objects) and the cells would now become the complex object. As far as I can tell, if one zooms in or out (so to speak), the explanations begin to cave in on themselves (providing little explanatory power the closer or farther away one goes). — Bob Ross

Yes, you get it! The problem you are proposing is the exact problem of the OP. And according to the conclusion of the OP, there must be a point in which the chain of causality ends. What the OP cannot answer, is what that specifically is.

Not to reiterate, but, again, what is the sufficient reason for a self-explained entity (first cause) to be indivisible (other than the fact that semantically speaking it is pre-defined as such)? Again, I may simply be misunderstanding you, but I don’t see how that doesn’t require a reason. — Bob Ross

Your questions are all fair. It would be because if an self-explained entity was divisible, the reason for its existence would be the combination of those divisible parts. This is the complex object being addressed again. A complex object may be composed of many alphas, but a complex object itself cannot be an alpha, because its existence is caused by the alphas (and possibly non-alphas) that make it up.

Absolutely fantastic questions that have helped me shape the points on the edge of my mind into something more concrete. Thank you again, and continue to follow up as needed.