Either an infinite number of events has occurred or there's a first cause.
An infinite number of events hasn't occured (proof?) — Agent Smith
That sounds pretty contradictory to me, despite the lack of an empirical test to directly falsify either. — noAxioms
There’s no time dilation in the Andromda example. It is an example of relativity of simultaneity. — noAxioms
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? — noAxioms
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. — noAxioms
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 — noAxioms
They might both describe causality to your satisfaction, but that isn’t sufficient for the two interpretations to not be mutually exclusive. If one says ‘M’ and the other says ‘~M’, they can’t both be right.That sounds pretty contradictory to me
— noAxioms
It doesn't to me. Neither eliminates causality, which is all I care about. — Philosophim
B theory indeed does not eliminate time, since it is essentially a dimension in that view. It does explicitly deny past, present and future state, so that assertion about it is wrong. Really, read up on it if you want to digress from your OP and actually present a valid objection to the view.B theory also does not eliminate time. There is still clearly a past state, present state, and future state. — Philosophim
Causality would say that any given state (Y say) is caused by some prior state (X, per your example), and causes Z, all without any of those states being past, present, or future. There is only the relation of one event being prior to another, or ambiguously ordered. If two events are ambiguously ordered (frame dependent ordering), then the principle of locality says that neither event can be the cause of the other. There are interpretations of QM that deny that principle and allow situations where effect is in the past of the cause.The past state causes the present state, and the present state causes the future state. To counter the argument you have to eliminate causality, and I don't see B theory doing that. If you think it does, please point out how. — Philosophim
The scenario shows how two events, say months apart but in the same approximate location, are nevertheless both simultaneous to this one event on Earth (the event of my greeting my friend in passing). There cannot be two present moments a month apart in Andromeda, so it is contradictory if both my friend and I are correct about what’s going on over there currently. That’s where the original major suggestion supporting B theory originated. All of relativity theory is based on B premises.There’s no time dilation in the Andromda example. It is an example of relativity of simultaneity.
— noAxioms
Sorry, its been a while since I've read the specific vocabulary of relativity. I generally remember relativity from years ago and many of the consequences of it. But I did not see how it countered the OP's points. — Philosophim
and yet most of these posts are about this topic, and not causality. I tried to clarify the point in the paragraph above.Do you understand what is being illustrated by the example?
— noAxioms
No. If it doesn't have anything to do with the OP, I'm not concerned. — Philosophim
It was brought up to a different post of yours in this topic. It is relevant to the OP, because according to A theory, the universe itself, or at least the initial state, needs to be caused, which is the something-from-nothing connundrum. What caused the rules by which uncaused events are legal in the first place?That's been my point. I don't see how it counters the arguments of the OP. — Philosophim
It doesn’t. It’s A theory that cannot handle this problem. That’s why I posted it when you asked me why B is better.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.
— noAxioms
Reading up on B theory again, I did not see how B theory ignored parts of spacetime. — Philosophim
I’d have said change over time, but that’s not the point. If you read the comment, it was non-existence to existence that I was discussing. Then again, it very much depends on one’s definition of ‘exists’, which in turn is dependent on ones interpretation of time. So the time discussion really turns out to be relevant.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
— noAxioms
I do. That is a change in spatial location. When one state is different from the next, that is change. — Philosophim
They might both describe causality to your satisfaction, but that isn’t sufficient for the two interpretations to not be mutually exclusive. — noAxioms
B theory indeed does not eliminate time, since it is essentially a dimension in that view. It does explicitly deny past, present and future state, so that assertion about it is wrong. — noAxioms
There is only the relation of one event being prior to another, or ambiguously ordered. If two events are ambiguously ordered (frame dependent ordering), then the principle of locality says that neither event can be the cause of the other. — noAxioms
The scenario shows how two events, say months apart but in the same approximate location, are nevertheless both simultaneous to this one event on Earth (the event of my greeting my friend in passing). There cannot be two present moments a month apart in Andromeda, so it is contradictory if both my friend and I are correct about what’s going on over there currently. — noAxioms
It was brought up to a different post of yours in this topic. It is relevant to the OP, because according to A theory, the universe itself, or at least the initial state, needs to be caused, which is the something-from-nothing connundrum. What caused the rules by which uncaused events are legal in the first place? — noAxioms
It doesn’t. It’s A theory that cannot handle this problem. That’s why I posted it when you asked me why B is better. — noAxioms
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
— noAxioms
I do. That is a change in spatial location. When one state is different from the next, that is change.
— Philosophim
I’d have said change over time, but that’s not the point. — noAxioms
If you read the comment, it was non-existence to existence that I was discussing. Then again, it very much depends on one’s definition of ‘exists’, which in turn is dependent on ones interpretation of time. So the time discussion really turns out to be relevant.
B-theory says the coin-smiley exists. The rearrangement of the coins over time doesn’t affect that at all since all events (coins in smiley pattern, coins in different pattern) all exist equally. So the change over time was caused, but the existence wasn’t affected. And that’s not even using my relational definition of ‘exists’. — noAxioms
Non-sequitur.If you have time, you have a prior state, a current state, and a potential future state, which is in line with the OP. — Philosophim
It’s actually quite easy to word your OP concept using B-series language, without obscuring its meaning.If I posted a B series interpretation, this topic wouldn't have reached many people. That's not the goal here.
I didn’t say there was, but had I not put that clause in there, my statement would have been wrong, and I don’t like making wrong statements.There is no claim that everything interacts with everything and everything is the cause of everything else.
From your OP then”You need to directly show how your argument applies to the OP.
This seem to allow only infinite regress, causal-turtles all the way down. There cannot be a first cause of existence (your definition) since existence would be the effect, meaning that which caused it was something that didn’t exist, being prior to existence. And the eternal (cyclic say) models of the universe make different empirical predictions than those we see.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.
But that’s how I read the above quote. Either the universe has a prior cause for its existence, or there is one first cause of existence, which sounds like the same thing: existence being caused, but perhaps that cause is not ‘prior’.I do not state the universe needs to be caused.
You explicitly asked my to give reasons why B seemed better to me, and I answered. Conversation would be impossible if nobody could address any subsequent post of yours because it wasn’t posted in the OP.Again, where in my OP am I explicitly demanding A theory?
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.
This seem to allow only infinite regress, causal-turtles all the way down. There cannot be a first cause of existence (your definition) since existence would be the effect, meaning that which caused it was something that didn’t exist, being prior to existence. And the eternal (cyclic say) models of the universe make different empirical predictions than those we see. — noAxioms
I do not state the universe needs to be caused.
But that’s how I read the above quote. Either the universe has a prior cause for its existence, or there is one first cause of existence, which sounds like the same thing: existence being caused, but perhaps that cause is not ‘prior’. — noAxioms
You need to clarify your terminology. You defined ‘exists’ as something an object does, or rather something that is done to it. A smiley exists because something caused the coins to be arranged in a recognizable pattern, and it ceases to exist later when the coins are returned to a purse.I think you misunderstand. A first cause means there is an existence which can cause others, but has no cause itself. — Philosophim
A bunch happen at the same time, or a bunch of them happen after a while, but with only one earliest one? You seem to define ‘first cause’ as any event lacking a direct cause, and not ‘comes earlier than the others’.Also, don't forget the very important part, "at least one".
There are circular solutions, so this logic doesn’t follow. The infinite regress is also a valid solution, but you conclude otherwise. Hence 180’s trivial retort (first reply) about the first integer. Yes, they can be counted, but they can’t be counted in order.Further, this is not an argument about "the formation of the universe". The argument is that in any chain of causality, a first cause is logically necessary.
Existence on the other hand typically refers to ‘all of reality’. I’m not sure how you distinguish ‘existence’ and ‘universe’ from each other. Maybe you have totally different definitions of these things than what I’m guessing. — noAxioms
Y: represents an existence that may or may not have prior causality. — Philosophim
Your statement above (coupled with others) seems to imply that ‘existence’, reality, or something at least, suddenly was, uncaused, when before that there wasn’t existence, reality, or anything. — noAxioms
You say ‘there is an existence’, like this first cause thing still is around, and didn’t disappear like all the other causes. — noAxioms
You seem to define ‘first cause’ as any event lacking a direct cause, and not ‘comes earlier than the others’. — noAxioms
Also, don't forget the very important part, "at least one".
A bunch happen at the same time, or a bunch of them happen after a while, but with only one earliest one? — noAxioms
Further, this is not an argument about "the formation of the universe". The argument is that in any chain of causality, a first cause is logically necessary.
There are circular solutions, so this logic doesn’t follow. The infinite regress is also a valid solution, but you conclude otherwise. — noAxioms
Hence 180’s trivial retort (first reply) about the first integer. Yes, they can be counted, but they can’t be counted in order. — noAxioms
"It just is." — Philosophim
"It just is."
— Philosophim
That's what a certain subgroup of scientists would say. Those who're in the business of description of nature. However, I believe there are some who aren't happy just reporting on how nature behaves. They wanna explain, answer why questions and for them the statement "It just is" is a beginning, not the end of science. — Agent Smith
That is literally saying the same thing twice. :snicker: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
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
You're saying that...The "or" logical connective is meant to make sure that only one condition has to be met for anything. It's to prevent infinite regression. Whether it's justified or not is different but it has to be one statement for validity. — Shwah
Let's take out the fluff...
1. All things have...prior cause.
2. There is...first cause of existence. — chiknsld
The "or" logical connective is meant to make sure that only one condition has to be met for anything. It's to prevent infinite regression. — Shwah
The creation of eternal space and time requires a different kicker which must be divine in nature. An unknowable causal power. — EugeneW
I missed the universal quantifier at the beginning. I think it's better written with an existential quantifier to be an actual "or".
Edit: you postulate variables it looks like but you can't check them with "1." because it uses a universal quantifier. To be able to check them with "1." you need it to be able to take in "X", "Y", "Z". — Shwah
No, the OP makes no claims to this. If anything is definitely negates the necessity of a divine being — Philosophim
Okay, so the universe has a beginning (there is no infinite regression of cause and effect)? — chiknsld
So, you are saying that (don't mind my rewording of the 2 premises)...
1. All things have a prior cause.
2. There is one or more first causes from which a chain of events follows.
Or more precisely...
1. All things have a prior cause.
2. There is a first cause from which a chain of events follows. — chiknsld
Sorry it's just a very strange way of saying that there simply is no beginning :snicker: (please correct me if I am wrong). — chiknsld
In any case, because your work is written that way, you cover a lot of ground twice and inefficiently work with what you've been given. You can really write that all in one line (∃x(Px OR !Px & Fx) - there exists x such that it has a prior cause and if not then it is the first cause). — Shwah
There is at least one existence that has no prior causality for its existence, it simply is — Philosophim
Guess that "depends on the definition of is." :smirk: — jgill
self-explained existences are logically necessary. There may come a time in exploration where there is no prior causality. And that's ok. There's no need to continue to invent something that caused what appears to be the limits of our understanding within causality. — Philosophim
The Big Bang is not the beginning of the universe. It is the end of our understanding. — Sean Carroll
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.