So here's a question for ya. Assume for the moment that everything you say is correct. Does this have any bearing or influence on how I should live my life? — EricH
I have presented another possibility (partially caused, partially uncaused). — InPitzotl
I don't know what "uncaused by some other event" means.It is partially caused by another event and partially uncaused by some other event still. — god must be atheist
2 and 3 refer to events that are... uncausing the event? An uncaused whole? Uncausing events?1. An event is caused.
2. It is partially caused by another event and partially uncaused by some other event still.
3. The other part of the causes of the event are other causes and other parts of the uncaused whole are other uncausing events. — god must be atheist
I can't reach this conclusion, because I cannot make sense of an event uncausing another event. It sounds like gibberish to me. What does it mean for an event to uncause another event? 1 makes sense. I have no idea what 2 and 3 are. Can you illustrate what you mean by an example?4. Therefore the event has been in its totality caused and uncaused (by distinct and discretely separate events or causes) and there is nothing in its post-caused behaviour therefore that is not caused and not uncaused. — god must be atheist
Can you illustrate what you mean by an example? — InPitzotl
And that's where the possibilities diverge. We can have an event partially have a cause and partially be uncaused. So there's your other possibility. — InPitzotl
I did no such thing. I mentioned a partially caused, partially uncaused event. I mentioned that causality isn't linear, but branches. But I didn't mention any "event uncausing another event" nonsense; that notion came entirely from you.I have no clue what an uncausing is in relation to causality. But you used it, and I thought YOU knew what you were saying. — god must be atheist
Yes. But let's break that conjunction apart. "Have a cause" is on the left; so there's an event that "has a cause"... that cause we could call an event, so this would be an event (the cause) causing an event (the effect). But on the right side of the conjunction, there's just "partially be uncaused". It's a "god must be atheist" invention that "be uncaused" means there's an event that is the uncauser, and that's kind of ridiculous. But that's the direction you took it.And that's where the possibilities diverge. We can have an event partially have a cause and partially be uncaused. So there's your other possibility. — InPitzotl
So let's go back to starting my car as an example. I put the key in the ignition and turn it, and the car starts up. Wonderful! But that's not the whole story. The car doesn't always start up when I turn the key. Turning the key is critical, but not sufficient. So we can say that turning the key causes it to start, but it's not the complete explanation. This is a partial cause. In this case, there are reasons why the car might not start if I turn the key... among those are: there's not enough gas to start, there isn't enough battery to crank it, and the spark plug is too gunked up to fire properly. For discussion purposes let's pretend this is complete. Then if we meet all of these prerequisites and the key is turned, the car will always start; collectively all of the causes are sufficient.I have no clue what an uncausing is in relation to causality. — god must be atheist
I have no clue what an uncausing is in relation to causality. But you used it, and I thought YOU knew what you were saying.
— god must be atheist
I did no such thing. — InPitzotl
I cry foul.But you need to clear up your text, please, I think, you are at best ambiguous at most times, and at others, incomprehensible. Not your fault, your thoughts are most likely clear, but it's a special skill to write philosophy. — god must be atheist
"Uncaused" means "not caused"; as in an event happens, and there isn't a cause for it. There is no such thing as "uncausing"... the act of not causing an event.Even after several explanations I can't comprehend what you mean by uncausing. — god must be atheist
Okay, but it's okay to not understand something. I gave you an example of what I was talking about, and there's no "uncausing" happening there. There is no event "uncausing" another event there. There's just a part that has no cause; since it has no cause, we call it "uncaused". So don't pin your "uncausing" on me.I am a lost cause as far as uncausation is concerned, so please don't take it on your self to explain it yet a third time. — god must be atheist
I cry foul. — InPitzotl
And that's where the possibilities diverge. We can have an event partially have a cause and partially be uncaused. So there's your other possibility. — InPitzotl
This above was supposed to explain your position on "uncausing". Yet it did not. You can't do that to your audience.So let's go back to starting my car as an example. I put the key in the ignition and turn it, and the car starts up. Wonderful! But that's not the whole story. The car doesn't always start up when I turn the key. Turning the key is critical, but not sufficient. So we can say that turning the key causes it to start, but it's not the complete explanation. This is a partial cause. In this case, there are reasons why the car might not start if I turn the key... among those are: there's not enough gas to start, there isn't enough battery to crank it, and the spark plug is too gunked up to fire properly. For discussion purposes let's pretend this is complete. Then if we meet all of these prerequisites and the key is turned, the car will always start; collectively all of the causes are sufficient.
By contrast, we can have things such as the 217Pb atom I keep mentioning here, that during a particular 20 second period (span 1) does not decay, but during another (span 2) decays into a 217Bi atom. If we explore the cause of the existence of the 217Bi atom, that has an explanation; there's a prior 217Pb atom... and 217Pb's are known to decay into 217Bi's with a half life of about 20 seconds. So we can call this a cause. But it is not a sufficient cause, as proven by span 1. Not all 217Pb's decay into 217Bi's in a 20 second time span; about 50% of them do. But there need be no set of causes that collectively are sufficient to explain this decay; there need be no answer to the question of why the atom decayed in span 2 as opposed to not decaying in span 1.
This isn't a situation of some other "event" "uncausing" the decay, whatever (if anything) that might mean. It's a situation of there being no other event that causally explains it. It's a situation where there are causal priors, but collectively they are insufficient to explain the event (i.e., were all causes present, the event would not always happen). — InPitzotl
In the minds of many religious folks, the notion of a first cause is tied in with their religious beliefs. — EricH
This fails as a gotcha. I'm not denying I wrote that. What I'm denying is that it contains your unique brand of confusion about this:So do I. You can't deny you wrote this: — god must be atheist
You are the first person I have ever heard of to suggest that "uncaused" requires an "uncauser" that is "uncausing" the events. To the rest of us, all "uncaused" means is that there isn't an antecedent cause.2. It is partially caused by another event and partially uncaused by some other event still.
3. The other part of the causes of the event are other causes and other parts of the uncaused whole are other uncausing events. — god must be atheist
Wrong. I have used "uncaused" before the discussion between you and me, but I've never used "uncausing". I've searched all 15 pages of this thread, and the first usage of the term "uncausing" (by anyone) was in this post. This uncausing idea is unique to you.You have used "uncausing" and "uncaused" prolifically before the discussion between you and me. You now deny that it means anything. — god must be atheist
Apparently not. You're chasing windmills, Don Quixote.I will not bend or break. Only under the weight of reason do I bend or break. — god must be atheist
s/be uncaused/partially be uncaused/:So explain what you mean by that, with special emphasis on the "be uncaused". — god must be atheist
In the normal English speaking world, "uncaused" means "have no antecedent cause". A partial cause is something that brings about an effect, but is not sufficient to bring about an effect; that is, sometimes the effect occurs given the partial cause, and sometimes it doesn't. The insufficiency could be accounted for by other causes, such as in the car example. But it's not necessary that there be other causes; in the case that there are no other causes sufficient to explain the event (i.e., if given any set of causes, sometimes the event occurs, and sometimes it doesn't), then the event is partially uncaused (i.e., there's some aspect which cannot be explained by an antecedent cause).And that's where the possibilities diverge. We can have an event partially have a cause and partially be uncaused. So there's your other possibility. — InPitzotl
Nope. There's no such thing as uncausing; that thing you introduced in this post. What I explained there was what I meant by partially being uncaused; that thing I actually did talk about here:This above was supposed to explain your position on "uncausing". — god must be atheist
And that's where the possibilities diverge. We can have an event partially have a cause and partially be uncaused. So there's your other possibility. — InPitzotl
There has never been a change in my position. I have never discussed uncausing. I never mentioned an event uncausing another event.You now deny that it means anything. — god must be atheist
Building straw men and playing gotcha is not reasoning. If we were having a real meaningful discussion, you would address what I actually did talk about. Let's try that. Tell me why, in the picture, C isn't the correct answer; or why there has to be something that tells you whether A is going to happen in 20 seconds or B is going to happen in 20 seconds. If you can do that, you've addressed what I actually talked about. Barring that, you're just chasing windmills.That's another thing you can't do in normal discussion, let alone in a discussion where reason is trump. — god must be atheist
In the following excerpt you set out to explain uncausing. — god must be atheist
You have used "uncausing" and "uncaused" prolifically — god must be atheist
We can have an event partially have a cause and partially be uncaused. — InPitzotl
...two posts later:I am yanking your chain, of course, I am only joking. But you need to clear up your text, please, I think, you are at best ambiguous at most times, and at others, incomprehensible. Not your fault, your thoughts are most likely clear, but it's a special skill to write philosophy. You can't lead your audience astray, because then they will turn on you and bite you. — god must be atheist
I don't know why people stoop so low on this site and resort to insult others here by pre-judging the others' abilities and ranking them low in a type of skill in which they certainly do not lack. — god must be atheist
When I used "uncausing" I used it in the form of present continuous indicative performed by the subject of the sentence, — god must be atheist
My interpretation of the use in the example was ACTIVELY NOT DOING ANY CAUSING; your friend Potzli used it as a "partly uncaused", that is, partly not doing any causing. You are either not causing, or causing. — god must be atheist
And the reason for this is that by attaching the prefix "un" to the verb "caused" you're creating an oxymorom. It makes no sense based on the clear standard usage of the prefix "un" with verbs - for which I gave you more than ample documentation - namely that it involves a reversal of the verb - not simply a passive "not doing that verb". Are you un-urinating right now?Your argument ought to have been that uncausing is not accepted by the English language. It is not found in any dictionary. (I've checked them all.) — god must be atheist
Are you saying that every event in U "un-caused" event A? If yes, then, umm, OK - but that is a very strange way of putting it and you will have to cut the rest of us some slack that we didn't get your creative definition. But it would be so much more understandable to simply say that no event in U caused event A.It is a neologism by me. — god must be atheist
You're still on that? I apologized in advance of making that statement - and by your own admission you invented a new word.What I really resented was your insinuation of my not speaking, — god must be atheist
if you explained that how a causation can be undone (uncaused) partially. — god must be atheist
Okay. You're the immigrant.The simpler the explanation, the better. — god must be atheist
Wrong... those are completely different... let's talk about the immigrant:your friend Potzli used it as a "partly uncaused", that is, partly not doing any causing. — god must be atheist
You were probably vaguely thinking of "I am interesting in buying this car" in which sentence used by many immigrants they mix up the past participle with the present participle. — god must be atheist
The "gmba's the immigrant" theory works much better than the "everyone's fault but gmba" theory here:Because what InPotzl said is nonsense. — god must be atheist
Partly uncaused is talking about Y's that have some aspect that cannot be explained by an X that makes them exist (cf the OP). That's what I said, that's what EricH said, and that's even what you said (at least, it's what you said when you were talking about cars interesting immigrants). So that explains why all three of us are correct. Your misphrasing of this as if it had to do with partly not causing had to do with your poor mastery of English; and there is exactly the -ing versus the -ed forms that you whined about regarding the immigrant showing up right there in your confusion.your friend Potzli used it as a "partly uncaused", that is, partly not doing any causing. — god must be atheist
All subjective experience is caused by consciousness, but consciousness does not give birth to itself (not an illusion). Does this make consciousness the first cause? — pfirefry
The real perfect reversible clock at the singularity (when the irreversible didn't exist yet) doesn’t need a first cause. Causes are radiating from it, thereby causing it to turn into the irreversible where the real clock has turned imaginary. The effect causes the cause. — Raymond
All subjective experience is caused by consciousness, but consciousness does not give birth to itself (not an illusion). Does this make consciousness the first cause? — pfirefry
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.