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? — Philosophim

I’m saying that our understanding of cause is not as clear as we assume. When we talk about events that cause events, we’re referring to agents. When we talk about the cause for an event, we’re referring to a principle, on whose behalf an agent acts. The primary principle is potential, which is not a ‘first cause’ in a temporal sense, but in a value sense. The qualitative and structural distinction is important.

Now, when you ask why potential exists from which events can manifest, you’re asking about the possibility of meaning.

I get that all of this seems pedantic in terms of language, but logical assertions reduce a reality of quality, energy and logic to just logic, and then present this as a one-dimensional structure of symbolic values: A first cause must exist. We then reduce this to our basic understanding of interacting events in time, and assume that ‘first’, ‘cause’ and ‘exist’ are temporal structures, ‘A’ is singular, and ‘must’ is a necessary relation.

But ‘a’ could also mean ‘one of’, suggesting a plurality. ‘First’ could mean greatest significance, suggesting attention based on perceived value. ‘Cause’ could mean principle or purpose. And ‘exist’ could be actually, potentially or possibly.

Why do people try to prove there is a God unless they are trying to convince themselves or can't handle people having different beliefs? "We can not think our way to God. He can be loved but not thought." The Cloud of Uknowing

If you think you have prove there is a God than this God of yours is not the true God (or at least this seems probable)

m saying that our understanding of cause is not as clear as we assume. When we talk about events that cause events, we’re referring to agents. When we talk about the cause for an event, we’re referring to a principle, on whose behalf an agent acts. The primary principle is potential, which is not a ‘first cause’ in a temporal sense, but in a value sense. The qualitative and structural distinction is important. — Possibility

I think you do not understand what I mean by cause, and that is fair. It is very simple. A state exists in moment B. Now it exists in moment C. Now, if the forces etc. of B lead to the moment of C, then B caused C. If C does not have any prior cause, or reason for its being, then it is a first cause.

I simply take it to the extreme and get a result. Even in the case of an infinitely regressive system, versus a system that could have starts and stops along the way, there is always the question, "What caused the system?" There eventually comes the answer, "It just is, it has no prior explanation".

Your post misses the understanding of the OP, which is fine. The definition of causality I put forth should be easy to understand. If not, please ask me where there is confusion.

Why do people try to prove there is a God unless they are trying to convince themselves or can't handle people having different beliefs? — Gregory

Why do people not read an OP, and assume the writer is trying to argue for something they are clearly not? Please actually read the OP before commenting on it, as you are out in space while I am planet Earth.

Keep in mind that I'm not one of those guys that says "this view is the way it is, and if you take some other view, you're wrong". I'm about exploring all avenues rationally, and identifying biases that I didn't even know I held, and perhaps coming up with a logically self-consistent view in the process.

I admittedly usually presume that my sensory input is not a set of lies. If I assumed otherwise, there's nothing to trust about the nature of anything.

That's like if I said 1+1 = 2, and you came back with, "You assume 1 exists". — Philosophim

That's funny. I had pretty much had that line thrown at me (by an actual physicist) and I was arguing the opposite, that the numbers need not exist for the sum of 1 and 1 to be 2.

Anyone with basic education knows what "current" and "1" mean.

I know what the word means. Not everybody assumes the existence of a preferred moment in time, and the alternate view (that all events in spacetime share equal ontology) is used by most physicists, albeit not the average guy on the street who has little use for framing things that way.

Its up to you to demonstrate why the regular and assumed use is broken.

I didn't say anything was broken. I said it had implication for the idea of an alpha cause.'

We clearly exist currently don't we?

My name implies that I assume nothing. So I'd say that it depends on the definitions of those words. I often take the relational view where the phrase "X exists' is meaningless since it is not expressed as relation.
So no, since I cannot think of a test for the property of existence that doesn't beg its conclusion, it isn't clear to me.

Of course, you can take the intuitive view and not explore the alternate ideas, but then you're just rationalizing answers that you've already decided on. In other words, feel free to bid me a good day if I'm not helping. I make a point of ignoring my intuitions, which just get in the way of actual objective analysis.

Let me help you out. If you don't exist, you won't type a reply.

No, I don't buy that. It begs its conclusion. Thought experiments would be impossible if they only worked for things with the additional property of 'existence' tacked onto them.
The unicorn has a horn, which by the above logic it cannot because the horn doesn't exist. I told you the unicorn would come into play. I just saying there are valid alternative views (non-realist ones) that don't presume objective existence. The relational view of which I spoke defines existence only as a relation. I exist in relation to you because you read my posts, so you've measured me.

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

If one assumes a view where that statement is meaningful, then yes. If one doesn't, then the statement is simply not meaningful. The alternate view might say that on Feb 5, 2022 we all observe the state of the world of Feb 5, 2022 (at least the nearby stuff), and not some other state. That date is no more or less 'the past', 'the present', or 'the future' than any other date. They all have equal ontology.

This is suggested by relativity of simultaneity. The presentist view (the one you're taking) says that there is a current moment here, there is also a current moment elsewhere, but there is no way to determine it. Suppose there's a clock we can see in Andromeda. OK, what we see was emitted before the time it gets observed, but if the distance and velocity of the clock is known, one can compute what the clock says at the same time as when we observe it, except the distance and velocity of it is frame dependent, leaving no way at all to empirically determine what the remote clock says at the same time as when our local clock says time T.
Look up the Andromeda paradox on wiki. It's all about this. Understand it before just dismissing it by your incredulity.

So you're assuming an unproven suggestion.

I assume nothing as any kind of asserted truth. Physics is not in the business of proving things, but I do definitely work with the view preferentially for the ease of understanding. There is no working theory of the universe that assumes a current moment. The mathematics is orders of magnitude more complicated. It's much easier to do assuming spacetime.
There is no device that measures the rate of advancement of the current time. Clocks measure proper time along a worldline through spacetime. If they measured the advancement of the present, they'd not get out of sync when they move (twins paradox) or change potential.

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.

I never claimed any of those things are refuted. I'm just pointing out that there's a different view out there, and one used preferentially by physicists. The B-view does not deny time, it just defines it differently. In the B view, time is what clocks measure, which is the temporal length of a worldline. Two different worldlines connecting events X and Y might have different temporal lengths (as they do in the twins 'paradox'), so the clocks don't match when reunited. That's impossible if they accurately measured the sort of time you're talking about.
And no, that doesn't in any way prove the presentist view wrong. I've put a couple proofs out there against it myself, and I've also done a topic defending it against what I saw as fallacious arguments against.

And even beyond that, I just have one question. Why is reality 4D spacetime?

We don't know that it is for one. Physics doesn't answer 'why' questions too well. Philosophy does sometimes.
If you're asking the purpose of the universe being the way it is, it doesn't seem to have a purpose.

The fine-tuning argument has a clue. There is a suggestion that there are a lot of universes with all sorts of random different values for constants, different dimensions (like two space and three time dimensions) in which all sorts of crazy things go on, but rarely can complexity form from simple beginning. This universe has one of the rare set of variables that allow the formation of complex structures from simple primitives. By the weak anthropic principle, given this insanely large set of possible configurations, only in one like ours can observers evolve to note the universe and the rules that govern it. So it's simply not possible to see the other ones because those are not observed in the way that people observe.

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

Clearly not all things can have a prior cause as that would mean having to posit an actual infinity of prior causes.

So we can conclude that there must exist some things that exist with aseity - that is, exist but have not been caused to exist.

But that does not establish 'a' first cause. Why would you posit just one? Indeed, that seems quite unreasonable. Given how many things exist, it would surely be far more reasonable to posit lots of uncaused causers, not one?

That's like if I said 1+1 = 2, and you came back with, "You assume 1 exists".
— Philosophim
That's funny. I had pretty much had that line thrown at me (by an actual physicist) and I was arguing the opposite, that the numbers need not exist for the sum of 1 and 1 to be 2. — noAxioms

Ha ha! Well done! I mean this genuinely and not sarcastically. Always question and poke at "generally accepted knowledge". My point was that we can't take the standpoint that they're merely assuming what is generally known. We can give credit that theirs is the societally reasonable stance, and if we are to challenge it, we must given evidence that it is wrong.

My name implies that I assume nothing. So I'd say that it depends on the definitions of those words. I often take the relational view where the phrase "X exists' is meaningless since it is not expressed as relation. — noAxioms

Also very reasonable. In my experience unclear definitions in discussions are one of the biggest problems in philosophical discussion. And I include myself in those who give unclear definitions. Feel free to always ask what I mean, or point out inconsistencies.

Of course, you can take the intuitive view and not explore the alternate ideas, but then you're just rationalizing answers that you've already decided on. In other words, feel free to bid me a good day if I'm not helping. — noAxioms

I am more than willing to explore alternative ideas. Its just that you need to demonstrate why they have merit, and why the show the OP to be wrong. If I've constructed an OP about a specific set of rules and conclusions, if you want me to consider I'm wrong, you need to demonstrate why those set of rules and conclusions fail. I'm not rationalizing my assumptions here, I'm using common vocabulary to communicate ideas that most people understand to exist.

Let me help you out. If you don't exist, you won't type a reply.
No, I don't buy that. It begs its conclusion. — noAxioms

It really doesn't. Begging the question is often misapplied. Its most associated with circular reasoning. "God states that God is good, therefore God is good" is begging the question. The statement itself has the assumption that the conclusion is right. We can trust God if God is good, therefore if God says God is good, well, God must be good right?

Let me rephrase what I noted.

Something must exist to type a reply.
If something types a reply, it exists.

Can it be falsified? Yes. If something does not exist, then it cannot type a reply. Since you typed a reply, we've concluded you exist. Now, I'm quite sure you're mind might be racing to think, "Well what if I'm a bot, etc." I don't care. Your existence is based on whether there is a reply given. Something had to type a reply. I don't care what it is. But based on the falsifiable premises, it exists.

Also, one more thing, when you accuse a person of a logical fallacy, it is best to show them why in an honest conversation. Fallacies are a placeholder to summarize an issue, but they shouldn't take the place of good arguments.

The unicorn has a horn, which by the above logic it cannot because the horn doesn't exist. I told you the unicorn would come into play. — noAxioms

It is how you define it. If you mean exist objectively as an animal independent of our creativity? No. Does a unicorn exist in our minds, and can I draw one on a piece of paper and tell a fantasy story about it? Yes.

The alternate view might say that on Feb 5, 2022 we all observe the state of the world of Feb 5, 2022 (at least the nearby stuff), and not some other state. That date is no more or less 'the past', 'the present', or 'the future' than any other date. They all have equal ontology. — noAxioms

No, that's incorrect. By using dates, you are stating that there are states that are not "current", and states that are "prior to the current state". Can I experience the date of Feb 5, 2022 currently? No, because that's not today's date. I also cannot experience the prediction of tomorrow's date. These are pretty clear and undebatable notions of time. Stating, "The past present and future all all the same" doesn't hold up in any meaningful sense. I mean, you typed your previous reply earlier right? That's not now. How do you get around that?

Also, I am not stating there is a current moment "elsewhere". I'm talking about right here. Basic stuff, don't overcomplicate it or add things in that I'm not claiming.

So you're assuming an unproven suggestion.
I assume nothing as any kind of asserted truth. — noAxioms

If you're just throwing out "Maybe its this," without any type of assertion to its validity, then its worthless. Maybe cookie monster is behind the government machinations of China. Can't assume he isn't after all. Don't make the mistake that just because you can come up with an idea it means it has any worth in application to reality. An active imagination is not what is clever, its proving what we imagine exists.

There is no working theory of the universe that assumes a current moment — noAxioms

If there was no current moment, we wouldn't be able to think of any theories. That's just silly. If everything was stuck in the past, there would be no now or progress. If there was no potential for the future, there would be no past, and no progress. The current time is the transition from the potential future to the factual past. All of this you can experience right now in your brain. If you can experience it, its real.

There is no device that measures the rate of advancement of the current time. Clocks measure proper time along a worldline through spacetime. — noAxioms

No, they just measure the rate of time from future potential to relative past. A second for example is X number of electronic cycles, quatz vibrations or what have you. Just like an inch measures the start and end of distance. If it bothers you so much that we can't get a number to represent an infintismal point called "current awareness", fine. It doesn't matter to the argument. Take a state Y, then note a prior state X. We don't even need the definition of "current" to understand this. All you need to understand is "prior state".

And even beyond that, I just have one question. Why is reality 4D spacetime?
We don't know that it is for one. Physics doesn't answer 'why' questions too well. Philosophy does sometimes.
If you're asking the purpose of the universe being the way it is, it doesn't seem to have a purpose. — noAxioms

Well my point is, there either is a reason for why it exists, or not a reason. What state caused the universe to be 4D instead of just 3D? There is either a reason for this, or there is not. Time or purpose really has nothing to do with it.

But that does not establish 'a' first cause. Why would you posit just one? — Bartricks

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

"at least one". Where am I claiming I'm only positing one?

Your OP, which I read months ago, says nothing about Hawking's or Krauss's argument, but just rehearsed Aristotle's argument about an infinite past

Well, it's an odd way to put it as it suggests the most modest proposal would be one cause, whereas that's actually quite immodest and it would be more reasonable to posit loads. But fair enough, you did not assert that there was just one. I agree that there are uncreated first causes.
The title of the thread is incorrect though. It is not 'a' first cause that is needed, but simply uncaused causes.
You agree, do you, that there are multiple first causes? Or do you think that, in fact, there is just one?

Your OP, which I read months ago — Gregory

You should probably read it again before commenting on it. I believe you've misremembered what it says.

I do not know Hawking's, Krauss's or Aristotle's argument. Mind pointing out where my argument coincides with Aristotle's? Mind pointing out where Hawking's or Krauss's theory would have a problem with my model?

I did reread it, sheesh. Aristotle argues that infinities on their own are unstable and a past infinity needs a root in a first cause, just as you say a first member as a cause is needed

Hawking proposes his No Boundry Hypothesis in response (using imaginary time) and Lawrence Krauss wrote a whole book about reality and anti-reality canceling each other to form Zero (hence nothing straight from nothing)

Aristotle argues that infinities on their own are unstable and a past infinity needs a root in a first cause, just as you say a first member as a cause is needed — Gregory

But I don't say what Aristotle is saying at all. Mine deals with sets, not the instability of infinities.

It's the same argument. You can't imagine an infinite series going into the past without a God? Some can. For me it always comes to paradoxes, but there are other options than non'physical reality

It's the same argument. You can't imagine an infinite series going into the past without a God? — Gregory

Ok, if you did actually read it, you need to work on your reading comprehension. Again, as I posted last time, I am not following Aristotle's argument. If you comprehend this, and think I'm wrong, then go to the argument and point out where I do that.

Instead, what you're doing is called a "straw man" fallacy. Its where you prop something I'm not saying, then beat that while saying my argument is wrong.

It also has NOTHING to do with a God. I've also stated that once before, so it appears you can't comprehend my responses either. Go ahead, find the part of my OP where I talk about God. Or continue to construct and beat your little straw man in the corner while I look on in amusement at your lack of comprehension.

I don't know your background very well, so I'm having patience. Please read the argument, and cite parts of the argument where you believe it to be wrong.

If the first cause is material than we are on the same page. If it is spiritual than we are not

"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."

So there is either 1,2,3,4 or infinite,1,2,3,3

"2. We can represent with the following labels.

Y: represents an existence that may or may not have prior causality."

So everything

"X: represents an existent prior causality to Y."

First cause

"Z: Represent an existence caused by Y."

World

"Alpha: A Y existence that is identified as having no prior causality."

Alpha is X

"3. This leads us to 3 plausibilities.

a. There is always a X for every Y. (infinite prior causality)."

So a first cause for every series

"b. The X/Y causal chain eventually wraps back to Y/X (infinitely looped causality)"

Making the loop based on the first cause

"c. There comes a time within a causal chain when there is only Y, and nothing prior to Y. This Y is Alpha. (first cause)"

There can still be a world. Begging the question

If the first cause is material than we are on the same page. If it is spiritual than we are not — Gregory

You shouldn't have to ask if you read and comprehended the OP.

Lets get to your argument.

"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."

So there is either 1,2,3,4 or infinite,1,2,3,3 — Gregory

Sure, just don't forget that its causality. 1 causes 2, causes 3 etc. Its not just counting.

Y: represents an existence that may or may not have prior causality."

So everything — Gregory

No, its a representation of any identity. One of which, may be everything. Think in terms of sets.

"X: represents an existent prior causality to Y."

First cause — Gregory

No, that's just a prior cause for any Y.
A ball is falling = Y
It is at its velocity now because of one second of gravities application = X.

Z: Represent an existence caused by Y."

World — Gregory

You lost me here. Y (the falling ball) hits the ground 1 second later. = Z Why is Z on the ground one second later? Because gravity acted on the ball for one second at Y. X -> Y -> Z.

"Alpha: A Y existence that is identified as having no prior causality."

Alpha is X — Gregory

No, Alpha would describe a Y with no X. If Y existed, but one second prior there was no ball, no falling, and nothing to make that ball then that particular Y is an Alpha.

a. There is always a X for every Y. (infinite prior causality)."

So a first cause for every series — Gregory

No, this is describing the entire chain of causality is infinitely regressive.

"b. The X/Y causal chain eventually wraps back to Y/X (infinitely looped causality)"

Making the loop based on the first cause — Gregory

No, there would be no first cause within the set loop itself. This is an infinite causal loop.

"c. There comes a time within a causal chain when there is only Y, and nothing prior to Y. This Y is Alpha. (first cause)"

There can still be a world. Begging the question — Gregory

No, this is just explaining one of the 3 possibilities, not asserting anything. This is just that there is the possible consideration of an Alpha.

I hope that cleared up the first part. Take the premises here and go with the rest of the argument. Also, again, its not a proof for God argument. Relax.

A physical Alpha? There doesn't have to be a loop or an infinite past. The first motion is the first motion and there is nothing prior. In physics this is the big bang. There is no past for the big bang. But I think your correct that a first act is needed

A physical Alpha? — Gregory

Sure. I'm dealing in what exists. There's plenty of physical causality to go around, so that's what I work with.

There doesn't have to be a loop or an infinite past. The first motion is the first motion and there is nothing prior. In physics this is the big bang. There is no past for the big bang. But I think your correct that a first act is needed — Gregory

That's definitely an opinion many people hold. The OP is arguing that it is logically necessary that there is a first cause, that it is actually impossible for infinite regression to exist. What that first cause is could be anything, because a first cause doesn't have a reason for its existence, so there would be nothing to limit what it could be. Is the big bang the first cause? Very well could be. I argue a bit later that a problem with a first cause, is that its likely almost impossible to prove any one thing is a first cause, thought it is logically necessary there be one.

While someone could argue that a first cause "could be a God", what fails is the claim that a first cause, "must be a God". When something has no prior explanation for its being, it doesn't need any rules, such as conscious creation, for its existence. So while the argument doesn't rule out the potential of a God, it mostly certainly ends any arguments about the necessity of a God when considering any first cause arguments. In short, this defeats all current cosmological arguments for God for God's necessary existence.

Ok, but imagine if all that existed was an infinite spiral water slide going vertically down forever. The water that has always traveled on it has the slide as their alpha or reason for moving. But the slide is eternal so there is actually an alpha supporting an infinite series.

Ok, but imagine if all that existed was an infinite spiral water slide going vertically down forever. The water that has always traveled on it has the slide as their alpha or reason for moving. But the slide is eternal so there is actually an alpha supporting an infinite series. — Gregory

That's correct. If we ask, "What is the cause for the slide?" and there is no prior causality, it is an alpha.

I was arguing the opposite, that the numbers need not exist for the sum of 1 and 1 to be 2.
— noAxioms
Ha ha! Well done! I mean this genuinely and not sarcastically. — Philosophim

There was no sarcasm in any of the above conversation.

Always question and poke at "generally accepted knowledge". My point was that we can't take the standpoint that they're merely assuming what is generally known.

What is ‘generally accepted/known is a matter of mere opinion. If there are multiple valid interpretations, it cannot be knowledge. That’s just a basic rule of being open minded.

We can give credit that theirs is the societally reasonable stance

Absolutely. But the topic under discussion is not about social issues.

if we are to challenge it, we must given evidence that it is wrong.

That’s not the scientific way to go about it. If one is to assert the alternative view as wrong, that’s what needs the evidence. That’s the scientific method: falsification. I’m not asserting anything is wrong. I’m just saying it isn’t knowledge because there’s an equally valid (and likely more valid) alternative view.

Its just that you need to demonstrate why they have merit, and why the show the OP to be wrong.

But I didn’t assert that the OP was wrong. I just pointed out that it made various assumptions, and thus the conclusions might not follow if different assumptions are made.

It begs its conclusion.
— noAxioms
Can it be falsified? Yes. If something does not exist, then it cannot type a reply. Since you typed a reply, we've concluded you exist. — Philosophim

You honestly don’t see begging in that answer, do you? You’re invoking the premise “Something must exist to type a reply” to demonstrate the premise. The statement is a positive example, which falsifies nothing. To do the latter, one must posit the negation:
P1: Property of existence is not necessary for the interaction between entities.
P2: Two entities X and Y interact.

Now prove that X and Y necessarily have the property of existence without begging your premise. Then you’ve falsified it.

I drive at this point because there are valid interpretations of the world that don’t give any meaning to ‘property of existence’ since ‘exists’ is not defined as a property but rather as a relation. You’re asserting that such an interpretation is necessarily wrong, despite the growing support.


Concerning the alternate interpretation of time:

The alternate view might say that on Feb 5, 2022 we all observe the state of the world of Feb 5, 2022 (at least the nearby stuff), and not some other state. That date is no more or less 'the past', 'the present', or 'the future' than any other date. They all have equal ontology.
— noAxioms
No, that's incorrect. By using dates, you are stating that there are states that are not "current", and states that are "prior to the current state".

I didn’t make any mention of ‘current’, so I stated neither thing. The statement was carefully worded in B-series, which forbids implied references to the nonexistent present since any such statements would be begging a different view. Please read up on this and actually understand it before asserting that it is wrong. If you can’t understand it, then don’t argue against it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_series_and_B_series
The B theory (term coined last century by McTaggart) (or eternalism) is at least as old as the 11th century where it was first called '4 dimensionalism'.

If you're just throwing out "Maybe its this," without any type of assertion to its validity

Oh I assert its validity. But asserting the necessary truth of any interpretation of something kind of goes against an open minded attitude.
The B-view on time pairs very well with the relational view on ontology since it doesn’t have the problems inherent in any view that defines existence as a property.

No, they just measure the rate of time from future potential to relative past. A second for example is X number of electronic cycles

I’ve not heard of counting electron cycles, but fine. Since one electron might cycle thrice as many times between events A and B (events where both electrons are in each other’s presence), it isn’t measuring ‘the rate of time’ between those two events, it is measuring something specific only to each electron.

Its just that you need to demonstrate why they have merit, and why the show the OP to be wrong.
But I didn’t assert that the OP was wrong. I just pointed out that it made various assumptions, and thus the conclusions might not follow if different assumptions are made. — noAxioms

NoAxioms, isn't that true about anything? I mean, I can just come back and state if you had made different assumptions and conclusions, then you could be wrong as well. Well, yeah. There's nothing meaningful or useful in such a statement.

It is appealing to define the world in such a way that all definitions and assumptions are valid, because then you feel like you can never be wrong. The problem is, it breaks down because you arrive at a glaring contradiction. I can claim, "No, some definitions/assumpsions are more valid than others," which is a direct challenge to your viewpoint. If you persist in your viewpoint as more valid than mine, I win, because I've shown you hold a contradiction. But if you say my viewpoint is just as valid as yours, then I've claimed your viewpoint is invalidand you accept this. So again, you run into a contradiction.

So logically, if we are to think in a process that does not result in a contradiction, we must hold that some definitions are more valid than others. And that means, just because you can propose an alternative definition or assumption, it in no way means its existence challenges or defeats another definition or assumption. You must, to have a logical argument, demonstrate why the assumption I'm claiming is inferior to an alternative assumption that would break the argument.

You’re invoking the premise “Something must exist to type a reply” to demonstrate the premise. The statement is a positive example, which falsifies nothing. To do the latter, one must posit the negation:
P1: Property of existence is not necessary for the interaction between entities.
P2: Two entities X and Y interact.

Now prove that X and Y necessarily have the property of existence without begging your premise. Then you’ve falsified it. — noAxioms

That did not show how my two sentences begged the question. Stating what a definition entails is not begging the question. To do anything, you must exist. That's part of the definition. If you do something, then you exist. We're not proving the definition of existence. We're proving you exist. Did I beg the question that you existed? No.

According to your logic, you proposed a definition for existence which does not follow English. To exist, is to have the property of interacting between other existences/entities. To be an entity, is to exist. You essentially stated, A = ~A then in premise two you stated nothing that had anything to do with A. The example is nonsense, because whether or not X and Y interact has nothing to do with the definition of existence you've proposed.

I drive at this point because there are valid interpretations of the world that don’t give any meaning to ‘property of existence’ since ‘exists’ is not defined as a property but rather as a relation. You’re asserting that such an interpretation is necessarily wrong, despite the growing support. — noAxioms

You need to re-read the OP. The entire OP is about relational existence.

I didn’t make any mention of ‘current’, so I stated neither thing. — noAxioms

Yes, you mentioned that I was assuming "current" was real. Its been a focal point of the discussion. If you assume that "current" is not anything more than an assumption, then you'll need to demonstrate why your assumption that this is the case, is real.

I took a look at your A and B series, and it doesn't revoke what I'm stating at all. If you're going to present a different series of time against an argument, it must be used to show where the argument falters. If I don't understand how the B series revokes the OP, that's because you didn't demonstrate that clear. I've been addressing your argument in relation to the OP, and what "current" means. So far, I'm not seeing how it revokes this. If you think it does, please try again, and I will see if I missed something in your explanation.

It is appealing to define the world in such a way that all definitions and assumptions are valid, because then you feel like you can never be wrong. — Philosophim

Assumptions are not right just because they’re valid.

The problem is, it breaks down because you arrive at a glaring contradiction. I can claim, "No, some definitions/assumpsions are more valid than others," which is a direct challenge to your viewpoint.

That sounds hokey. Assumptions are valid or they are not. There’s not much more-or-less to it. You might make an argument about more or less likely to be true. Apparently the flying spaghetti monster is a valid argument, but not likely a true one.

I've shown you hold a contradiction …
I've claimed your viewpoint is invalid

Where’s this supposed contradiction in ‘my view’? I mean, I haven’t really expressed ‘my’ view, just a different and very valid one.

just because you can propose an alternative definition or assumption, it in no way means its existence challenges or defeats another definition or assumption.

I would say that the existence of a valid alternate view very much poses a challenge to what might otherwise be an unchallenged view.

That did not show how my two sentences begged the question.

Sorry, but I only remember one sentence, which was:

If you don't exist, you won't type a reply.

That doesn’t follow (non-sequitur). In order for it to follow, one must posit that “Something must exist to type a reply”, my words, but begging exactly what you’re trying to show. So I illustrated how to go about demonstrating that premise, which is by presuming the negation, and driving that negated premise to self contradiction. But instead, all you wrote way this:

If something does not exist, then it cannot type a reply. Since you typed a reply, we've concluded you exist

which is just a mild rewording of the original non-sequitur, not any kind of logical demonstration of the correctness of the assertion.

Stating what a definition entails is not begging the question.

That’s an assertion, not a definition. A definition would be more along the lines of what you mean by ‘exists’ or ‘reply’ or some such.
Perhaps a real definition would help. All I see so far is a property that something has and something else doesn’t have, and sans any meaning to the word.

I tried to consider the assertion as a definition instead of an assertion, but it leads to silliness like Bob was extremely ill such that it rendered him nonexistent for a week.

According to your logic, you proposed a definition for existence which does not follow English.

Yea, duh. English language gets in the way of an awful lot of physics and philosophical definition. For instance, in English, velocity is a property synonymous with speed. But in physics, it is defined as a vector change in position relative to an explicitly defined frame.
We’re going for the philosophical definition of ‘exists’ here (of which there’s more than one), not the street definition.
The English language is built around a great number of biases, many of which are questionable. Those biases were put there for good reason, but truth seem not to be one of those reasons.

To exist, is to have the property of interacting between other existences/entities.

Ooh, that sounds so much closer to my definition, where existence is only meaningful in relation to other entities.

To be an entity, is to exist.

That sounds more like the standard definition of existence as a property, but the requirement of this property in order for a pair of entities to interact does not follow from this definition.

You need to re-read the OP. The entire OP is about relational existence.

Funny, because the word ‘relation’ or ‘relative’ does not appear anywhere in the OP. It seems instead to be about first cause.

Its been a focal point of the discussion. If you assume that "current" is not anything more than an assumption, then you'll need to demonstrate why your assumption that this is the case, is real.

No, since I made no claim of its correctness, only a claim for the validity of the interpretation that denies a current moment. So you need to demonstrate the self-contradiction that invalidates it.

… I don't understand how the B series revokes the OP

It wasn’t a comment about the OP, something to which I agreed if you remember.
It was a reply to your “Causality is also an explanation for why there is a current state”, about 472 posts into this topic. I wish the site would number the posts.

It is appealing to define the world in such a way that all definitions and assumptions are valid, because then you feel like you can never be wrong.
— Philosophim
Assumptions are not right just because they’re valid. — noAxioms

No, my point is that just because you make an assumption, it doesn't make them valid or right. If you target the OP by saying, "Well I could have made other assumptions and the argument wouldn't stand", then you are implying that my assumptions are not good enough, and that these others might be better. These are not claims in a vacuum, they are claims that are a counter to my claims. If you think other assumptions are better than the OP's, then you need to show why. If you think that all assumptions are equally valid and logically and factually correct, then I already mentioned that leaves my viewpoint standing.

That sounds hokey. Assumptions are valid or they are not. There’s not much more-or-less to it. You might make an argument about more or less likely to be true. Apparently the flying spaghetti monster is a valid argument, but not likely a true one. — noAxioms

If one assumes that X is true, and one assumes that X is false, only one can hold. If you are holding assumptions contrary to the OP's, then only one of us can be right. Again, if you believe it is perfectly fine for a person to hold X as true and X as false can coexist without a contradiction, that's fine by me.
Also, you did note here,

I’m just saying it isn’t knowledge because there’s an equally valid (and likely more valid) alternative view. — noAxioms

so you have the concept in your head about something "likely more valid".

just because you can propose an alternative definition or assumption, it in no way means its existence challenges or defeats another definition or assumption.
I would say that the existence of a valid alternate view very much poses a challenge to what might otherwise be an unchallenged view. — noAxioms

And here you agree with me. To challenge, it must contradict the other. My point has been that my "assumptions" are solid, well known, and generally accepted. Your assumptions are currently not. Meaning you need to raise the bar by showing why your claims, which challenge mine, are superior. You assume they are valid and right, but you must demonstrate they are valid and right.

If not, mine stand. If you're ok with mine standing, then there is no issue.

You need to re-read the OP. The entire OP is about relational existence.
Funny, because the word ‘relation’ or ‘relative’ does not appear anywhere in the OP. It seems instead to be about first cause. — noAxioms

We have a different view of definitions here. To me, the entire abstract is about selecting a state, and noting that a prior state could exist for the current state to be. In my view, this is a relative state comparison of causality. Why does state Y exist? Because of a prior state X, or Y has no prior state X and exists without any prior explanation. A state, relative to others in a chain of causality, which has no X to explain it, is labeled a "first cause".

If this does not fit relational to you, please clarify

Sorry, but I only remember one sentence, which was:
If you don't exist, you won't type a reply. — noAxioms

True, my mistake, that was one sentence, not two. Despite this, I made no logical fallacies in concluding you, who has typed a reply, exist. I'm of course using the "street term" as it is assumed so until someone specifically wants to redefine it in a special way. If you are going to type, "I don't exist", that's a contradiction because a non-existent being cannot type, "I don't exist".

If we're to discuss and have a good conversation, its important that you just say, "Ok", on something very basic like this that honestly has little to do with the OP, which is the focus on the discussion. It shows me our debate isn't an ego thing, and isn't going to stray too far from the topic. I won't think any less of you for just conceding this basic point.

… I don't understand how the B series revokes the OP
It wasn’t a comment about the OP, something to which I agreed if you remember. — noAxioms

If you agree with the OP, great. If you don't agree with the OP, please only introduce criticisms that directly deal with the OP. When I am trying to understand your meaning and intentions, I am going to assume your points are to the OP, and not extra asides. Lets minimize what is extra, and only focus on what is necessary for the discussion please.

No, my point is that just because you make an assumption, it doesn't make them valid or right. — Philosophim

No argument there, so point taken.

These are not claims in a vacuum, they are claims that are a counter to my claims.

Are you claiming that your premises are in fact correct or at least better?

If you think other assumptions are better than the OP's, then you need to show why.

OK, since you asked:
I’ve done that with some examples, the Andromeda scenario being one of them. I greet Bob as we walk past each other. Relative to me, the Andromeda generals have currently (as of the present) not yet decided to launch a war fleet. Relative to Bob, the war fleet is currently in flight, having already been launched. If there is a current moment over there at Andromeda, then the fleet cannot be in a current state of having been launched and not launched. That’s the contradiction that suggests a different view (that of relativity and spacetime, instead of Newton’s notions of absolute space and time.

That’s not a disproof by any means, but perhaps a good reason why the 4D model is more descriptive of the situation. Nobody does the mathematics using the 3D model since to do it, the identity of the correct foliation of space and time must be known, and it cannot be known. There are other factors that also prevent a coherent model such as lack of reliable tools to take measurments.

Second bit of evidence. There is no coordinate system that foliates all events in all of spacetime, which means that there are events that are not ordered (are neither past, present nor future) relative to any time say here on Earth. That seems a contradiction to me.

Thirdly, and most importantly, how did time get going, and if it was always going, how did the universe suddenly ‘happen’ when there wasn’t anything before it. How does one explain the reality of whatever one asserts to be real?

If you think that all assumptions are equally valid and logically and factually correct

Don’t be silly. Different interpretations of a thing usually contradict each other, so they obviously cannot all be factually correct.

If one assumes that X is true, and one assumes that X is false, only one can hold.

Presuming that ‘X is true and false’ in the same sense, that’s a self contradictory set of premises, trivially falsified. It is therefore not a valid set of premises, by definition.
Without that presumption, both can hold.
The fleet has launched relative to Bob (fleet-launched = true). The fleet has not yet launched relative to me (fleet-lauched = false). Both true and false, yet not contradictory since it’s not true and false in the same sense. For details, google ‘law of non-contradiction’.

If you are holding assumptions contrary to the OP's, then only one of us can be right.

But I’m not asserting the rightness of any particular interpretation. You seem to be, since you talk of being right or not. To me, an assumption is just that, a potential thing, not some truth to be believed with certainty. One should be open to alternatives.

so you have the concept in your head about something "likely more valid".

I suppose so. I find it more difficult to talk ones way out of some of the problems listed above than problems listed for the B view.
First issue is not really a problem. Bob and I are probably both wrong about which moment is actually current in another place, and Einstein’s simultaneity convention is simply wrong, as are both premises of his special relativity theory from which that convention (and pretty much all of modern cosmology) follows.
Second issue is a problem, but one that can be circumvented by asserting that events no foliated simply can never exist, meaning one cannot fall beyond the coordinate singularity of a black hole event horizon. This can be empirically demonstrated otherwise, but only to ones self, not to the outside observer.
Third issue is a problem I’ve not seem resolved by anybody.

To me, the entire abstract is about selecting a state, and noting that a prior state could exist for the current state to be. In my view, this is a relative state comparison of causality. Why does state Y exist? Because of a prior state X, or Y has no prior state X and exists without any prior explanation.

Sounds like Y is explained by an X or not, making X fairly irrelevant to explaining Y.
Yes, I would agree that if there are two causally ordered events X and Y, the ordering forms a relation (X before Y in this case). If there’s no X, then there’s no relation. If X and Y are not within each other’s light cones, then their ordering is ambiguous, and neither necessarily exists in direct relation to the other.
I might disagree that X is a prior state of Y. X might have contributed to the state at Y, but the wording makes it sound like X and Y share an identity, which is just an abstraction added by common language.

”If you don't exist, you won't type a reply.”

True, my mistake, that was one sentence, not two. Despite this, I made no logical fallacies in concluding you, who has typed a reply, exist. — Philosophim

Given the above quoted premise, I agree. I just don’t hold that premise to be necessarily true, or even meaningful for that matter. I also don’t assert the premise to be false. I’ve never said it was wrong.

I am going to assume your points are to the OP, and not extra asides.

Well, the replies are typically in response to the quoted comment, wherever the conversation seems to have gone.

Lets minimize what is extra, and only focus on what is necessary for the discussion please.

But you asked quite a few questions in your last post that are a response to my comments, and not directly related to the OP, such as why I suspect the A interpretation of time is questionably valid.

I said pretty early on that I have no problem with uncaused events. You speak of chains like a given occurrence has but a single linear set of causes before it, when in actuality there are probably countless factors that came together to cause the occurrence in question. Some of those prior states might be uncaused themselves, but that’s rare.

Good responses! Let me follow up.

These are not claims in a vacuum, they are claims that are a counter to my claims.
Are you claiming that your premises are in fact correct or at least better? — noAxioms

Lets say, "Yes". I believe they are correct. Better? Maybe not. If you're claiming your premises contradict mine, I don't think they do. Meaning, they might be able to co-exist without issue. When you first introduced it, I was trying to figure this out. Typically in a reply to the OP, an alternative is mentioned as a challenge, or direct conflict to the initial argument. If that was the intention, its why I've asked for clarification on why you believe this to be more valid than mine. Lets go over that.

I greet Bob as we walk past each other. Relative to me, the Andromeda generals have currently (as of the present) not yet decided to launch a war fleet. Relative to Bob, the war fleet is currently in flight, having already been launched. If there is a current moment over there at Andromeda, then the fleet cannot be in a current state of having been launched and not launched. — noAxioms

Basically Einstein's time dilation. No, I don't think this counters the OP. Y is simply the current state we are looking at. Perhaps current is a poor choice of words. Y is the state we are looking at relative to a prior and post state. Lets call it the 0,0 on an x, y axis, what is called the origin. Origins give us a baseline for measurements and comprehending concepts. A starting point helps us think about relations in a coherent manner.

So, relative to a Z, a Y is an X. Relative to an X, a Y is a Z. We are simply using a Y as what we are currently looking at, even if that was 1000 years in the past. Taking your time dilation example, we just have to examine the state properly. In isolation to each other, each state does not consider the other state. Which is perfectly fine if the other state is unimportant to what we are considering. If however, we took the state of both together in relation to each other, then the state must be described as such. Meaning we would say on Earth, the time is 2 hours behind the time on Andromeda. No contradiction there, just a measurement of state that notes the relative time difference.

That doesn't seem to contradict the OP. I could still ask, "What caused this current state to be?" Does it have an "X", a prior explanation, or is it a "first cause", or explained without an X, and simply exists because it does?

There is no coordinate system that foliates all events in all of spacetime, which means that there are events that are not ordered (are neither past, present nor future) relative to any time say here on Earth. — noAxioms

Fortunately, I'm not using a coordinate system. I'm using a state system in a set model. Describe the state however you want. The question still remains, "What caused the current state to be what it is?"

Thirdly, and most importantly, how did time get going, and if it was always going, how did the universe suddenly ‘happen’ when there wasn’t anything before it. How does one explain the reality of whatever one asserts to be real? — noAxioms

That would be subsumed in the OP. Lets call the existence of time Y. If there was something that caused Y, that answer would be X. And of course we could examine that X, make it a Y, and repeat the question. An alternative to the original Y of time, is that it has no X. It is a first cause, or a self-explained entity by its own existence.

Why can self-explained states exist? There is no answer, because they have no reason to exist. If there is no reason why they should, or should not exist, then there is no explanation for why they should, or should not exist. They just do. The OP concludes that inevitably in any chain of state causality, there will come a time when you find a Y that has no X. This is the "first cause" within the chain of causality you are looking at.

Lets minimize what is extra, and only focus on what is necessary for the discussion please.
But you asked quite a few questions in your last post that are a response to my comments, and not directly related to the OP, such as why I suspect the A interpretation of time is questionably valid. — noAxioms

Understandable. I didn't fully understand the points you were trying to make. I assumed it was against the OP, and so I ask questions and make points to see if I understand, or to seek clarification in a counter response. Generally it is safe to assume that another person, even very intelligent and rational ones, are not going to fully understand your meaning and intentions on a complex reply. That applies to me as well. In my head, the OP is clear as day, but I understand that's because I've thought about it a long time, and I have implicit biases and knowledge that I may not have conveyed to another person accurately.

Every person reads and can interpret writing differently as well. But generally it is safe to assume that if there is writing that implies some contradiction to the OP, the OP is going to assume that route first when trying to understand a response. This doesn't mean the OP is correct of course, but when trying to understand and figure out where another person is coming from, guidelines like this are often followed.

I said pretty early on that I have no problem with uncaused events. You speak of chains like a given occurrence has but a single linear set of causes before it, when in actuality there are probably countless factors that came together to cause the occurrence in question. — noAxioms

Let me quote a line another poster missed the first time around as well.

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

Notice I say, "At least one". No, the OP in no way implies it is only one. I've followed up with a few people who have thought the same and pointed out that it would seem by odds to be much more likely that there are several "first causes" that might interact through causal chains. People I think have a bias that they bring to the argument as well. Several people have thought this was a "God" argument, which its clearly not. Its normal for things like this to happen, which is why we discuss, ask each other what we meant, and have follow ups.

I feel like I understood your points much more this time, and I hope I followed up adequately in my answers.

If you're claiming your premises contradict mine, I don't think they do. Meaning, they might be able to co-exist without issue. — Philosophim

’A’ claim: All events are objectively in one of three ontological states of past, present, and future. The A-theorist might or might not apply the property of existence to past and/or future states. The universe is 3D only if past and future states are nonexistent.
‘B’ claim: Events share equal ontology, with no moment that in any way is meaningfully objectively special relative to another moment.
That sounds pretty contradictory to me, despite the lack of an empirical test to directly falsify either.

. . . If there is a current moment over there at Andromeda, then the fleet cannot be in a current state of having been launched and not launched.
— noAxioms

Basically Einstein's time dilation.

There’s no time dilation in the Andromda example. It is an example of relativity of simultaneity. Dilation is better illustrated with the twins 'paradox' rather than the Andromeda 'paradox'. While we're at it, the barn-pole 'paradox' illustrates relative length contraction. These things are only paradoxical under A theory.

Dilation does illustrate that clocks do not measure the advancement of the present. If time is defined to be that advancement, then neither clocks nor any other device measure time.

Y is simply the current state we are looking at.

To put it in a non-interpretation-specific way, Y is simply the state at (or immediately prior actually) the time of the measurement.

The Andromeda argument has nothing to do with Y, or anything measured or caused for that matter. Do you understand what is being illustrated by the example?

Taking your time dilation example, we just have to examine the state properly.

Nobody is examining any state, and there’s no dilation example. What’s going on simultaneously with Bob and I greeting is outside both our light cones and is entirely unmeasurable by either of us. Measurements were not the point of that example.

In isolation to each other, each state does not consider the other state. Which is perfectly fine if the other state is unimportant to what we are considering. If however, we took the state of both together in relation to each other, then the state must be described as such. Meaning we would say on Earth, the time is 2 hours behind the time on Andromeda. No contradiction there, just a measurement of state that notes the relative time difference.

Fortunately, I'm not using a coordinate system.

Or you simply don’t know you’re doing it. OK, so you don’t understand the second argument either. The A theory demands one preferred coordinate system, and all the other ones are wrong. My argument against that is that there is no coordinate system that meets the requirements, forcing the interpretation to deny the existence of parts of spacetime.

Thirdly, and most importantly, how did time get going,
— noAxioms

That would be subsumed in the OP. Lets call the existence of time Y. If there was something that caused Y, that answer would be X.

That makes it sound like X occurs before Y, which is a contradiction if there’s not yet time until event Y.

Why can self-explained states exist? There is no answer, because they have no reason to exist.

Agree

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

I had responded directly to that one in an early post with the coin example. All the prior cause did was change the arrangement of the coins over time. I don’t consider that a change to anything’s existence, hence I think it a category error to speak of existence being something caused.

I feel like I understood your points much more this time, and I hope I followed up adequately in my answers.

Besides clarifications on my arguments about interpretations, I am actually trying to get the train back on the original track. Mostly with that last comment...

Either an infinite number of events has occurred or there's a first cause.

An infinite number of events hasn't occured (proof?)

Ergo,

There's a first cause

Universal principles, self-reference (you just killed yourself), infinity, all areas we're not good or we know very little about come together in this problem. It's as if all our enemies decided to team up against us.