Consciousness=charge.
Virtual charge= Virtual Consciousness
Virtual charges=negative curvature
Negative curvature=Causing power — Raymond

None of this makes sense. Flesh out what your words mean please.

If an infinite regress of prior causes leads to a contradiction, then there has to be a first cause. — Agent Smith

Suppose the infinite regress is a causation sequence that, going back toward an origin, is of the form 1/2^n. You never reach the origin, but the chain exists. Just babble :roll:

Read the OP. I would ask, "Why is the causation 1/2^n power? The answer is, "Something else" in which case you would need to provide that, or "There is no prior reason," In which case we have our first cause.

You have to prove that nothing causes consciousness. That's a very tall order. Proving that any one thing is self-explained has an incredibly high burden of proof, and arguably may be impossible. — Philosophim

If proving something like this seems impossible, then what makes you ask for a proof? :smile:

All I'm saying is that it's hard track the causality of the universe back to the point of singularity, since that's far removed from our times. Perhaps we would learn something about the first cause of the universe if we examine the first cause of the mind, because we can witness the lifespan of mind unlike the lifespan of the universe.

I would ask, "Why is the causation 1/2^n power? — Philosophim

OK. At the present time we have a result of causation from an event having taken place 1/2 a year ago. At that time a previous event caused that result, the previous event having taken place 1/4 of a year prior to that event. Keep going back in time in this manner and you never reach an origin for this causation sequence, although the causation sequence started no further back in time than one year ago.

Silly nonsense.

The end of our universe, at infinity, may cause a new bang at the singularity. At the singularity time is present in a sense that there is no begin point 0, which causes the difficulty. The paradox is that time was there but without direction.

OK. At the present time we have a result of causation from an event having taken place 1/2 a year ago. At that time a previous event caused that result, the previous event having taken place 1/4 of a year prior to that event. Keep going back in time in this manner and you never reach an origin for this causation sequence, although the causation sequence started no further back in time than one year ago. — jgill

That didn't really answer the question. What caused it to be that way?

The end of our universe, at infinity, may cause a new bang at the singularity. — Raymond

That's a prediction, not the question of prior causation.

At the singularity time is present in a sense that there is no begin point 0, which causes the difficulty. The paradox is that time was there but without direction. — Raymond

How does this apply to the OP?

How does this apply to the OP? — Philosophim

Got mixep up in threads! There was another one about the reality of time. A first cause for the big bang is the perfect clock, which the singularity constitutes. If the circumstances are right then entropic time comes to be. Entropic time has cause and effect. The perfect clock has no inherent cause or effect. It is time without direction. If all matter in our universe has accelerated away to infinity it causes the perfect clock, the perfect time, to become entropic, unidirectional. So, there is an infinite sequence of bangs. Each bang starts from the time symmetric singularity and is caused by the end of a previous one at infinity. Oops, wrong thread...

Consciousness=charge.
Virtual charge= Virtual Consciousness
Virtual charges=negative curvature
Negative curvature=Causing power
— Raymond

None of this makes sense. Flesh out what your words mean please. — Philosophim

Ah, you are the OP. Okay then. All of matter is charged. Charge is said to be the cause of force, acceleration, interaction, energy. It's my conviction that charge is the base for consciousness, even though the base charges, inside the base matter fields, of which I think two massless ones are present in the universe, are truly rudimentary. At the singularity, there was only virtual charge, electric and color. There were no cause and effect yet, though the virtual process constituted time with no visible direction. This process constituted a perfect clock without an entropic time, an entropic process, to measure. The charges had a "longing" to take off in entropic time, to become irreversible processes, with cause and effect. But. The circumstances were not right. This state helt hands with a negative curvature in space. Time was not curved as there was no direction in time yet. When the universe preceding it found it's end at infinity (in an extra dimension in space), the negative curvature reached max value, and the charges caused the birth of entropic time.

What first cause are you looking for?

Suppose the infinite regress is a causation sequence that, going back toward an origin, is of the form 1/2^n. You never reach the origin, but the chain exists. Just babble — jgill

It's not babble unless some reputable thinkers are also doing it. I recall reading a Wikipedia article that says the same thing. It's essentially Zeno's famous paradox but what's the $\frac{1}{2^n}$ doing? Is it marking off durations for causes to take effect?

I see. That's just an invention of your mind though. Regardless, that doesn't negate the OP. What caused the charge? What caused the singularity? If you say, "Nothing" then it is self-explained as I conclude in the OP.

What first cause are you looking for? — Raymond

None, that's not the focus. Its just noting it is logical that a first cause must exist. See Bob's discussion for details.

see. That's just an invention of your mind though. Regardless, that doesn't negate the OP. What caused the charge? What caused the singularity? If you say, "Nothing" then it is self-explained as I conclude in the OP — Philosophim

God(s) aused the universe. Who else? But in the realm of causal relations, the first cause of each new big bang is a causeless state, which is not the state at t=0 because that doesn’t exist. That's what I mean by the perfect clock state. That's not my invention but a state that truly existed. There wasn't cause and effect as this process had no direction in time. It doesn’t make sense to speak of time in the entropic sense. There was the perfect clock state only, which turned into the imaginary time coordinate. During the perfect clock state there were no irreversible it could quantify. Time was empty so to speak. So the state of the universe that came from the singularity was the inverse state of the singularity itself. During the singularity the was only the perfect clocktime with no entropic time yet. In the universe there is entropic time only with only imaginary clock time (coordinate time, it).

So time doesn’t go back to 0 but to Panck time, as this was the time period of the perfect clock.

God(s) aused the universe. Who else? — Raymond

Can we prove this? Why couldn't the big bang just happen? After all, if God is the first cause, why couldn't something else be?

But in the realm of causal relations, the first cause of each new big bang is a causeless state — Raymond

That would be the definition of a first cause, which would not negate the OP. I'm not stating whether that is, or is not the first cause, but I am saying there must be one.

Can we prove this? Why couldn't the big bang just happen? After all, if God is the first cause, why couldn't something else be? — Philosophim

If you go back in time you can't go back to t=0. What caused time to begin? God is the easy answer. That's no physical answer. If he created a singularity, how could time start from t=0. How could processes get a first kick if there wasn't any prior time? The first mover problem. Even God couldn't for then he would be a part of the universe. And because time stands still in a classical singularity, he could not give a first kick.

That would be the definition of a first cause, which would not negate the OP. I'm not stating whether that is, or is not the first cause, but I am saying there must be one. — Philosophim

If a big bang is happening time after time, every time from s fresh state behind the bang preceding it, how can there be a first cause?

Can we prove this? Why couldn't the big bang just happen? After all, if God is the first cause, why couldn't something else be? — Philosophim

Ah,yes. I misunderstood. Even if infinite spatiotemporally, it has to come from somewhere? It all just is there?

Ah,yes. I misunderstood. Even if infinite spatiotemporally, it has to come from somewhere? It all just is there? — Raymond

Yes. The end result to all causality, according to the OP, is there must come a time when there is no prior explanation or cause. It exists, simply because it does.

If a big bang is happening time after time, every time from s fresh state behind the bang preceding it, how can there be a first cause? — Raymond

Why caused the big bang to happen infinitely, and not just once, twice, or any other number? And if you have an answer, what caused that? And if you have an infinite number of answers, why caused there to be an infinite number of answers, instead of just one, two, or any other number? Eventually, "It just is."

Why caused the big bang to happen infinitely, and not just once, twice, or any other number? And if you have an answer, what caused that? And if you have an infinite number of answers, why caused there to be an infinite number of answers, instead of just one, two, or any other number? Eventually, "It just is." — Philosophim

I think there are two kinds of causes. Well, three actually. The first cause is what caused the whole shebang to exist in the first place. You can say it simply all is, but that's not satisfying somehow. You can invent whatever physical mechanism but still the question remains, "why this mechanism?". I think I know the mechanism of the universe, but I have no clue where all of it actually came from. God seems the only option. How else can it just be, even if eternal? You could ask the same of gods but at least they give it some...eeehh...well...sense?

In my cosmic succession model, every new big bang is caused by the right circumstances around a state without entropic time but with a literal clock time. This perfect clock state contained the seed for entropic time and as such cannot cause entropic time by temporal cause and effect.as contained in that time (cause and effect asymmetrical in time. Directed entropic time was caused, in a big bang, by a preceding universe that accelerated away to infinity. Like our universe will cause a new big bang behind us. So a timeless state (entropic time, that is), can give birth to one with time. But only if particles are not point-like, and if some other conditions are fulfilled.

OK. Having been invited, I can take a crack at this. I haven't read most of the posts, just some of the early ones.

1. Either all things have a prior cause for their existence, or there is at least one first cause of existence from which a chain of events follows. — Philosophim

Causality is the idea that a snapshot of existence is in the state that it is because of some prior state. — Philosophim

You seem to be using a two different definitions of 'existence', one that applies to objects (things that are contained by space and time), and the other 'everything that is real'.

For example of the first one, suppose I have 7 small coins and a couple larger ones, and I arrange the little ones into an arc and put the bigger ones above. The coins now form a crude smiley pattern.
I have, in a way, 'caused' the existence of the smiley despite the fact that all I did was change the arrangement of the already-existing coins, and designate the latter arrangement as meeting the requirements of 'a smiley' whereas the prior arrangement did not.
But that definition of 'existence' is applicable only to objects, that is, some state of affairs contained by space and time (and is thus a relation with that space and time), which is a state that is in a certain required condition at such and such location for such and such duration. It is a category error to apply that sort of definition to 'all of reality' which isn't contained, but rather is the container.

To say that there is a first cause is probably no more than to say time (a dimension of the structure that is the universe) is bounded. Bounded time is not new. It occurs in white holes, and black holes, all without contradiction. It does imply a sort of 'initial state' at the boundary if it is bounded like that, but only if the boundary in that edge is considered 'before' the others, which isn't necessarily true. There are unbounded cyclic models, but these for the most part predict different observations than those we measure, and have been effectively falsified.

a. There is always a X for every Y.

True only in classical physics. An easy example is the decay of an atom, which occurs uncaused. That Y has no X, and as such there is precedent for an 'alpha' as you call it.

4. Alpha logic: ... Plainly put, the rules concluded within a universe of causality cannot explain why an Alpha exists.

No, they don't, but no rules are violated either. The usual rules don't apply where the rules are singular, which they are say at the big bang.

There can be no underlying reason for why the universe is. — Philosophim

This is the second category, not the same thing as 'why the smiley is'.

First integer? Sure, that would be one. — Philosophim

That's like saying the first moment in time is now, or that space begins here on Earth. OK, I don't buy that time isn't bounded in the past direction. It certainly seems meaningless beyond the big bang singularity, even though there are hypothesis that discuss the physics beyond it. Whatever's beyond it, it isn't measured in 3 spatial dimensions of meters and a single dimension of time measured in seconds and such.

As an aside, can you answer a question: What is a distinguishing characteristic of a unicorn? I mean, one legend has it that it blows rainbows out of its butt, but I don't think that one is universally agreed upon.

You seem to be using a two different definitions of 'existence', one that applies to objects (things that are contained by space and time), and the other 'everything that is real'. — noAxioms

If something applies to "everything that is real," then it also applies to any of its subsets like objects. So I don't think I'm using two definitions here.

To say that there is a first cause is probably no more than to say — noAxioms

I'm not trying to assert any one specific first cause. All I'm asserting is that if you follow the logic of causality, it necessarily results that there must be a first cause.

a. There is always a X for every Y.
True only in classical physics. An easy example is the decay of an atom, which occurs uncaused. That Y has no X, and as such there is precedent for an 'alpha' as you call it. — noAxioms

I think you misunderstand, if there is no cause for the decay of an atom, than that decay is the "alpha", or the first cause. It has no prior explanation for why it decays, it simply is. This is not a deistic argument. If that is getting in the way of you understanding the argument, please be rid of that notion. I am only using "alpha" in the sense of "first letter".

That being the case, there are explanations for why atoms decay. Not that that is particularly important either. The question is whether I've shown that it necessarily must be the case that there is at least one first cause in the chain of causality.

First integer? Sure, that would be one.
— Philosophim
That's like saying the first moment in time is now, or that space begins here on Earth. — noAxioms

No, it literally means the fact that the first integer is 1. :) Don't read too much into it.

OK, I don't buy that time isn't bounded in the past direction. — noAxioms

That's fine, but that's not what the OP is addressing. I'm not addressing what you believe is a first cause. I'm addressing that logically, there must be a first cause.

As an aside, can you answer a question: What is a distinguishing characteristic of a unicorn? I mean, one legend has it that it blows rainbows out of its butt, but I don't think that one is universally agreed upon. — noAxioms

Big question that's more about epistemology. I have an entire other thread where I cover that. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9015/a-methodology-of-knowledge

In short, if we're talking my personal definition of a unicorn, it can be anything. If we're talking about a societally agreed upon term for a unicorn, I would say the essential property that most people agree on is that its a horse with a horn on its head, and followed slightly less with "magical".

If something applies to "everything that is real," then it also applies to any of its subsets like objects. — Philosophim

Probably poorly worded on my part. I'm speaking not of 'all things' (despite saying that), but reality itself, the container of the objects, which in this case is spacetime.

I think you misunderstand, if there is no cause for the decay of an atom, than that decay is the "alpha", or the first cause.

Right. So the existence of an alpha isn't a problem. There is a time before the decay event, but there isn't a time before say the emission of material from a white hole, so time can be bounded.
I'm agreeing with you about the alpha thing, just not about the universe (the container) having been caused or created. I'm not sure where your opinion lies on that account.

No, it literally means the fact that the first integer is 1. :)

But there is an integer before it, by any standard (not just counting) ordering of the integers. It's still only a semi-applicable example (180 came up with it I think) since the set of integers is unbounded and time isn't necessarily unbounded.

I'm not addressing what you believe is a first cause. I'm addressing that logically, there must be a first cause.

A lot of them apparently, since there are plenty of sets of events, none of which share a common cause, at least not one in our spacetime.

Big question that's more about epistemology. I have an entire other thread where I cover that. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9015/a-methodology-of-knowledge

It wasn't really a question about your knowledge of the subject. It was a question about the unicorns.

In short, if we're talking my personal definition of a unicorn, it can be anything. If we're talking about a societally agreed upon term for a unicorn, I would say the essential property that most people agree on is that its a horse with a horn on its head, and followed slightly less with "magical".

Close enough. I mostly agree: Horse-like, but not actually a horse. The horn was what I was after.

Perhaps we'll come back to that, but for the time, it appears that pursuit of the unicorn thing goes in a different direction than where you're obviously trying to confine this topic. It's your topic, so I don't want to derail it with ontological illustrations.

I'm not trying to assert any one specific first cause. All I'm asserting is that if you follow the logic of causality, it necessarily results that there must be a first cause. — Philosophim

I get that four-dimensional existence can only manifest from existing causality, but there’s nothing to suggest that causality has a temporal location - ie. that there MUST BE a ‘first cause’.

If you follow the logic of qualitative geometry, a two-dimensional shape can only manifest in relation to a three-dimensional aspect. Therefore, a four-dimensional existence can only manifest in relation to a five-dimensional aspect.

Causality is potential. To refer to it as a ‘first cause’ and state that it ‘must be’ is logically inaccurate.

Causality is potential. To refer to it as a ‘first cause’ and state that it ‘must be’ is logically inaccurate. — Possibility

Causality is also an explanation for why there is a current state.

If you follow the logic of qualitative geometry, a two-dimensional shape can only manifest in relation to a three-dimensional aspect. Therefore, a four-dimensional existence can only manifest in relation to a five-dimensional aspect. — Possibility

And why is that? What is the cause for this?

Causality is also an explanation for why there is a current state. — Philosophim

This makes the presumption that there is a current state.

Causality is also an explanation for why there is a current state.
— Philosophim
This makes the presumption that there is a current state. — noAxioms

Please clarify. Are you implying there is no "now"? Do you not exist at this time? We clearly exist currently don't we? If we observe something currently, then that state is current as well correct?

Causality is also an explanation for why there is a current state. — Philosophim

Still potential.

And why is that? What is the cause for this? — Philosophim

Did you see how your language shifted? Now you’re referring to cause as a principle, which is structurally different to an agent.

Did you see how your language shifted? Now you’re referring to cause as a principle, which is structurally different to an agent. — Possibility

My language didn't shift. Are you saying there is no cause for why it is, thus an alpha, or are you stating there is a cause for why this is?

This makes the presumption that there is a current state.
— noAxioms

Please clarify. Are you implying there is no "now"? — Philosophim

No, I said that you're making the assumption that there is one. The assumption has implications to the topic at hand, which is why I'm dredging it up.

Do you not exist at this time?

That question also presumes it.

We clearly exist currently don't we?

I can think of no empirical test that falsifies the alternative, so no, it isn't clear.

If we observe something currently, then that state is current as well correct?

That statement also assumes (begs) it.

Why couldn't the big bang just happen? — Philosophim

There's where the implication comes in (bold above). The assumption has the 3D universe contained in time: The universe wasn't there at some time in the past, and at some point in time, the alpha event 'happened', and thereafter the universe was there. It makes for a larger container that contains the universe (itself a container of space, but not a container of time).

Physics suggests (doesn't prove) that the universe is 4D spacetime, and is not something contained in time, but rather something that contains it. In that view, time is a dimension and not a preferred moment that flows. The big bang isn't something that 'happened'. It's just part of the whole structure of all events, each of which are part of the structure equally.

Please clarify. Are you implying there is no "now"?
— Philosophim
No, I said that you're making the assumption that there is one. — noAxioms

No, I am not making an assumption, I am noting a basic given definition. That's like if I said 1+1 = 2, and you came back with, "You assume 1 exists". If you want to counter what is assumed, that's fine. But that's on you, not me. Anyone with basic education knows what "current" and "1" mean. Its up to you to demonstrate why the regular and assumed use is broken.

We clearly exist currently don't we?
I can think of no empirical test that falsifies the alternative, so no, it isn't clear. — noAxioms

Let me help you out. If you don't exist, you won't type a reply. Let see if you type a reply. If you don't, I'll assume you don't exist, and this was all a fever dream. :)

If we observe something currently, then that state is current as well correct?
That statement also assumes (begs) it. — noAxioms

No, that's just basic consequential logic.

Physics suggests (doesn't prove) that the universe is 4D spacetime, and is not something contained in time, but rather something that contains it. — noAxioms

So you're assuming an unproven suggestion. I thought you didn't want to use assumptions? Also, if 4D spacetime contains time, then we as as 3D objects would be able to measure it. And if we're able to measure it, we can say, "This moment now is current". Imagine an X Y graph. I can measure the X, the Y, etc. Just because that 2D plane is on my 3D desk, doesn't mean I can't use the X Y graph. Same with time.

So your assumption, which isn't a given, doesn't really refute the idea of "currently existing", causality, or time. And even beyond that, I just have one question. What caused 4D spacetime to exist?