I forgot to add a fourth possibility that cause does not create effect. Oops!

"Since the Essays of Locke and Leibniz, or rather since the rise of metaphysics as far as the history of it reaches, no event has occurred that could have been more decisive with respect to the fate of this science than the attack made upon it by David Hume. He brought no light to this kind of knowledge, but he certainly struck a spark from which a light could well have been kindled, if it had hit some welcoming tinder whose glow was carefully kept going and made to grow. Hume started mainly from a single but important concept in metaphysics, namely, that of the connection of cause and effect (and also its
derivative concepts, of force and action, etc.), and called upon reason, which pretends to have generated this concept in her womb, to give him an account of by what right she thinks: that something could be so constituted that, if it is posited, something else necessarily must thereby also be posited; for that is what the concept of cause says. He indisputably proved that it is wholly impossible for reason to think such a connection a priori and from concepts, because this connection contains necessity; and it is simply not to be seen how it could be, that because something is, something else necessarily must also be, and therefore how the concept of such a connection could be introduced a priori. From this he concluded that reason completely and fully deceives herself with this concept, falsely taking it for her own child, when it is really nothing but a bastard of the imagination, which, impregnated by experience, and having brought certain representations under the law of association, passes off the resulting subjective necessity (i.e., habit) for an objective necessity (from insight). From which he concluded that reason has no power at all to think such connections, not even merely in general, because its concepts would the be bare fictions, and all of its cognitions allegedly established a priori would be nothing but falsely marked ordinary experiences; which is so much as to say that there is no metaphysics at all, and cannot be any.

"As premature and erroneous as his conclusion was, nevertheless it was at least founded on inquiry, and this inquiry was of sufficient value, that the best minds of his time might have come together to solve (more happily if possible) the problem in the sense in which he presented it, from which a complete reform of the science must soon have arisen

"But fate, ever ill-disposed toward metaphysics, would have it that Hume was understood by no one. One cannot, without feeling a certain pain, behold how utterly and completely his opponents, Reid, Oswald, Beattie, and finally Priestley, missed the point of his problem, and misjudged his hints for improvement – constantly taking for granted just what he doubted, and, conversely, proving with vehemence and, more often than not, with great insolence exactly what it had never entered his mind to doubt – so that everything remained in its old condition, as if nothing had happened. The question was not, whether the concept of cause is right, useful, and, with respect to all cognition of nature, indispensable, for this Hume had never put in doubt; it was rather whether it is thought through reason a priori, and in this way has an inner truth independent of all experience, and hence also a much more widely extended use that is not limited merely to objects of experience: regarding this Hume awaited enlightenment. The discussion was only about the origin of this concept, not about its indispensability in use; if the former were only discovered, the conditions of its use and the sphere in which it can be valid would already be given." (Kant, Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, 6 (4; 257, next para. ff.))

Or in short, you can have cause-and-effect as a very useful fiction.

Or in short, you can have cause-and-effect as a very useful fiction. — tim wood

Huh. Just to make sure I understand, Humes attack on cause and effect was that it is impossible for theoretical reason to generate theoretical reason from necessity? And since cause and effect creates necessity from the fact that cause must form an effect, it is therefore not a principle of reason but our own false experience?

Sorry, Im pretty new to philosophy so I probably didn't get all of it. Thanks for replying to my discussion though!

Now in practicality, this would assume that in order for zero to exist in our world, we would need to exile a substance from reality in order to create null. But according to particle theory, we cannot destroy a substance, only replace/displace its form. — john27

Antimatter

I have a forum post here that goes over your subject matter. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12098/a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary

I agree with you that there must be a primary cause in any chain of causality, I think you might like to read it because it is similar to what you are doing here. The argument also clearly shows that what that primary cause, has no prior cause for its existence.

If that is the case, then a primary cause could be anything. Let me explain. When we say something "must" be a certain way, it is because there are causes/reasons why it must be constrained. If something has no prior reason for its existence, then there is no reason why it should, or should not exist. If we said, "It should be God," we have to ask, "Why?" We can't use prior causality to explain it, so we just say, "Because God does."

Now that's not entirely wrong. If God existed, and it was a primary cause, this reasoning would be true. What is wrong is to assume that what cannot have prior causality, is only God. If it is the case that there must be something without prior causality, it could be anything. A big bang. A quantum field. A random alignment of several particles appearing over billions of years. You can't say, "God is the only thing that could," because then I would ask, "Why?" There would need to be prior causality involved that necessitated God be the Primary cause. Because we cannot constrain a primary cause with prior reasonings, we can only conclude there is no constraints on what could be a primary cause.
In short, while God is not implausible, God is also not necessary or even necessarily probable.

I have another post where I explore this idea in depth, in which I attempt to deduce a probability of God if it is the case that anything could have been the primary cause. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8924/a-fun-puzzle-for-the-forums-the-probability-of-god

As you can tell, I love thinking about the puzzle of the "First cause". Ultimately while I do agree with your outcome that a first cause is likely the way the universe works, even if there is a first cause, in no way can we conclude that it must be a God. Also, do not take this as an attack on your attempt to think! In philosophy we should not be theists or anti-theists, but thinkers. That involves taking any subject matter, and trying to see if we can come to logical conclusions. You have done a fine job here in proposing some thoughts. I will let others critique your specifics, as I do agree with your logic of a primary cause being the most logical conclusion. Don't stop thinking!

Hi Hermeticus, I just read a decent portion of wikipedia on antimatter...blew my mind lol. really cool. I think it might be better if I restate my point to that because a Primary cause is the cause of all things, it incorporates all things within itself. Therefore a complete eradication of the universe would be necessary to create a zero, which would then by necessity need an equal amount of antimatter to eradicate it completely, but because there is a fewer amount of antimatter(or so it is believed)than conventional matter, It cannot happen. Therefore, 0, in the complete sense cannot exist.

Of course, if we happen to make a discovery that antimatter is equivalent to matter, than my argument goes kaput. Thanks for showing me something cool!

Hi Philosophism,

↪john27 I have a forum post here that goes over your subject matter. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12098/a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary — Philosophim

Thanks for replying to my post! Actually, a few hours after I posted mine I found your post lol. I agree 100% that a first cause does not necessarily have to be God, I just chose him mostly because he's a good representation for a first cause.

To be completely honest, I'm still not one hundred percent sure that the beginning of the universe started off with a primary cause, but its really hard to imagine an alternative.

Ill definitely check out your other discussions.

Maybe you ought to take on Hume and Kant - and modern physics, before pronouncing for causes "out there." In fact, what is a cause?

I think it might be better if I restate my point to that because a Primary cause is the cause of all things, it incorporates all things within itself. Therefore a complete eradication of the universe would be necessary to create a zero, which would then by necessity need an equal amount of antimatter to eradicate it completely, but because there is a fewer amount of antimatter(or so it is believed)than conventional matter, It cannot happen. Therefore, 0, in the complete sense cannot exist. — john27

I think it's undeniable that we know too little about the universe to make any statement that we can be certain about. It's not just antimatter - there's dark matter, dark energy, dark fluids, etc.
We're pretty sure that those things do exist because our universe wouldn't work out without them - but we can not directly observe them and surely are far from knowing all about them.

I'd still like to offer a viewpoint that may fit your thoughts.

One way to look at 0 is "nothing". Null. Non-existence.
But if we look at the formula you provided, there's also another way we make look at this formula.

What does a-a=0 tell us?
If we formulate it just a tiny bit differently, say a+(-a)=0 we immediately recognize that we have two polar opposites here. Polarity brings balance, equilibrium. The forces cancel each other out. As is the case with matter and antimatter.

Now as you read about Antimatter, you probably noticed that even when matter and antimatter meet, there is some "residue". Some leftover generated by the very act of the two polarities meeting. Consider this in terms of energy conservation. When two forces of equal magnitude clash, they'll stop - but their energy gets transformed into friction, heat, different energy.

So, I think it's entirely possible that in the beginning, there were equal parts matter and antimatter. Our entire existence may well be generated of that type of energy conservation of two polarities cancelling each other out. It kind of makes sense I think. In the context of a first cause, our 0, it could not be a complete eradication as you put it. Otherwise we'd still be at nothing. We need something to carry on, something that kickstarts and continues our sequence.

Time is a measurement of movement. — john27

It is a measurement of Entropy.

To the best of my knowledge, I would say that a cause is an act that creates an effect.

This is entirely plausible. Really interesting take.

It is a measurement of Entropy. — I like sushi

Sorry, I only have a superficial understanding of what entropy is. My belief of entropy is that it is the fact that once once energy has been used or displaced, we cannot know where it started/which particle of energy displaced where. How would this relate to time?

Google it

To the best of my knowledge, I would say that a cause is an act that creates an effect. — john27

In my opinion an excellent definition. Short, clear, exact, precise. But the question remains if this is the way the world works, or is this the way we model or perceive the world? Is cause-and-effect out there, or in the mind? Hume says not out there; you can't find it. Kant that it's the sense the mind makes of the world-as-the-mind-perceives-it, and thus inaccessible in itself. And it is my understanding that modern science really uses the concept of fields while at work, and cause-and-effect as a convenient fiction for explanations of some phenomena for laymen.

A question I've asked before (got from a book) is, if you're blowing a tree-stump out of the ground with some dynamite, what exactly "causes" the dynamite to explode? Some folks here who claim expertise on these matters have refused to try to answer. What do you say?

The first cause couldn't have been something for that something would itself need a cause. Ergo, the first cause is nothing (0). Nothing can't cause anything. Ergo, since God is nothing (the first cause, 0), God is causally impotent. No wonder! All these claims of divine intervention (miracles) is complete bollocks.

As for Cronus, either we've traversed infinity OR time has a beginning OR time isn't real. I prefer the third option. McTaggart would approve.

To add, I don't quite get the rationale behind viewing time arithmetically i.e. as a sequence. Why not take a geometric stance - a cube has no beginning or end. This doesn't seem that bizarre an idea - "the time gap was just too long". What about time as the 4th dimension? Does this have anything to do with the fact that in quantum mechanics the phrase "smeared out" pops up every now and then - motion blur (block time).

Nobody raises an eyebrow when we talk of infinite space. How on earth did we get where we are? The spatial version of the temporal riddle. Space is infinite in all directions.

A question I've asked before (got from a book) is, if you're blowing a tree-stump out of the ground with some dynamite, what exactly "causes" the dynamite to explode? Some folks here who claim expertise on these matters have refused to try to answer. What do you say? — tim wood

I would say that the act of my existence, or perhaps the existence of the universe, caused the dynamite to explode.

So I have researched a little, and to the best of my understanding because entropy is a measurement of disorder, and because the second law of thermodynamics states that entropy moves towards a maximum, we correlate this with time because time as well only moves in one direction: forward. SO if we were to measure entropy, we were to measure time. Now In correlation to my definition, I would say that the definitions are very very similar, because they are both measuring a thing that tends towards an unattainable maximum, + the fact that the measurement of entropy could be linked to cause and effect.