Ahhh, yes blame it on my old age. I was breaking up one premise into 2 premises. I'm too used to old college days of at least 2 premises followed by a conclusion. — chiknsld

Not a worry! I have misread others arguments before as well. We're all human visiting a forum for some casual philosophy, not PhD professors. :)

2. A first cause has to be self-caused unless you reject the principle of sufficient reason (PSR). The catch is: in all cases observed so far, the cause exists before the effect. If so, how can something be self-caused? It must exist before it exists!? :chin: — Agent Smith

Well, its not a rejection of the PSR, but an amendment. You see, the argument concludes that the principle of sufficient reason fails if not worded correctly. Inevitably, there will be something that does not have a "prior" reason. A self-explained entity has no rules or limitations at to what it can be. The reason for its being is merely its existence. There is nothing more than that.

Now, does that break the PSR? Perhaps not. We've logically concluded that the reason, principle, or ground of a self-explained entity, is the logical conclusion that at least one must exist. The reason a self-explained entity exists, is because it does. In other words, we've concluded such entities must be. Is that a reason that would fit the PSR? I leave that for you to judge.

The PSR entails cause and that includes self-cause.

Ahh, that is very interesting :)

2. A first cause has to be self-caused unless you reject the prinicple of sufficient reason (PSR). — Agent Smith

Well, its not a rejection of the PSR, but an amendment. — Philosophim

Self-cause is a rejection of PSR, not an amendment to it. If self-cause is allowed, then the PSR reduces to a non-principle: Nothing requires an reason or cause since it can always be self-caused.

Adding this loophole is admission of failure. It means try harder. It certainly is causing me to think in different ways, but my reply probably deserves a new post rather than a mere reply to this narrowly confined and aging topic.

Self-cause is a rejection of PSR — noAxioms

Well, well, well!

The PSR: Everything has a cause.

1. Uncaused

2. Self-caused

2 seems to square with the PSR, 1 is contradictory. 2 doesn't imply all things are self-caused, only the conveniently self-caused ones.

Self-cause is a rejection of PSR, not an amendment to it. If self-cause is allowed, then the PSR reduces to a non-principle: Nothing requires an reason or cause since it can always be self-caused. — noAxioms

You may be correct. If you read the rest of the reply I stated, "I leave it up to you." The part you quoted was a "maybe" statement of consideration. If you understand the OP by now, then we can conclude there must be self-explained existence, and that there is a reason, principle, and ground for determining that it must exist. In short, we have a logical reason why it must exist. The only thing the PSR cannot conclude anymore (if it ever did), is that there is a prior causality for everything's state of existence.

I don't think that is a narrowly confined or aging topic. I think its something new to think on, without an easily available answer. Have we not sufficiently reasoned that a self-explained existence must exist? Feel free to create a new topic if you wish, however. Maybe this question about the PSR should be a fresh post if the conclusion of the OP has been tentatively accepted. I do not have an answer yet myself, and would enjoy the discussion.

The PSR: Everything has a cause.

1. Uncaused

2. Self-caused — Agent Smith

Which is which? There very much is precedent for events without prior cause, so the principle seems already on shaky ground. Perhaps we simply need to reject it.

Stack two perfect spheres, an unstable equilibrium. The top ball will eventually roll off after a predictable half-life of time, even in classic physics (*). But it isn't self-caused. There's already a ball there. There's already some atom waiting to decay, even if the decay event itself doesn't have a prior cause. There's no carbon-12 atom popping into existence ex-nihilo.

* Classically, it doesn't actually work for spheres, but rather special shapes designed among other criteria to eliminate the need for bouncing.

Wouldn't hurt in this regard to read Arthur Schopenhauer's "On the Four-Fold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason."

A kind suggestion Charles, but is there something I'm missing from the POSR in the argument? The POSR has been examined in depth in the 200 years since that book was written.

I don't follow the logic of your discussion, but that doesn't matter, since I don't see why this is true. — T Clark

There's only 2 options: either all objects are contingent/caused from the outside or at least 1 isn't.

OP is valid. All I can do is nitpick at semantics like this:

4. Alpha logic: An alpha cannot have any prior reasoning that explains why it came into existence. An Alpha's reason for its existence can never be defined by the Z's that follow it. If an Alpha exists, its own justification for existence, is itself. We could say, "The reversal of Z's causality logically lead up to this Alpha," But we cannot say "Z is the cause of why Alpha could, or could not exist." Plainly put, the rules concluded within a universe of causality cannot explain why an Alpha exists. — Philosophim

Of course the Alpha does have prior reasoning why it came into existence: itself. Inference to the Alpha allows its interior universe to have logical basis on which to explain its own existence and that of the Alpha.

If there exists an X which explains the reason why any infinite causality exists, then its not truly infinite causality — Philosophim

Causality isn't infinite but there has to be reasonable grounds on which we include infinity in a model or not. That means that infinity does have a criteria for being explained within a certain structure. Well, we conceptualize infinity and we have minds, so it seems that the infinite has a mind.

Of course the Alpha does have prior reasoning why it came into existence: itself. — Hallucinogen

I appreciate the read and hope it was enjoyable. We're stating practically the same thing. In the most technical sense, there is nothing prior to the alpha existence's self, so that is why I do not say "prior reason". But this statement : "Inference to the Alpha allows its interior universe to have logical basis on which to explain its own existence and that of the Alpha." is spot on.

Causality isn't infinite but there has to be reasonable grounds on which we include infinity in a model or not. That means that infinity does have a criteria for being explained within a certain structure. Well, we conceptualize infinity and we have minds, so it seems that the infinite has a mind. — Hallucinogen

Did you mean that the concept of infinity comes from a mind? I can agree with that. There is nothing within the infinite itself that indicates it is a 'thing' with a mind. As the infinite is unprovable, as any actual test for the infinite would always reveal more to test, it is a plausible concept, but not a provable reality.

Except this doesn't follow — Vaskane

It doesn't follow it because I didn't put the two into a syllogism. If you meant though, that the two contradict, then give a reason. Bear in mind the conclusion of the DPA is that space emerges within a mind.

there is nothing prior to the alpha existence's self, so that is why I do not say "prior reason". — Philosophim

Gotcha.

Did you mean that the concept of infinity comes from a mind? — Philosophim

I mean both -- I don't believe anything has a non-mental origination.

As the infinite is unprovable — Philosophim

Would you say that you can decide whatever it is you mean?

Did you mean that the concept of infinity comes from a mind?
— Philosophim
I mean both -- I don't believe anything has a non-mental origination. — Hallucinogen

Interesting, do you mean how we interpret the world is all mental? I don't think anyone would disagree with that. But the world beyond our interpretation doesn't seem mental. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, something still happens as a thing in itself. The mental tries to define and create identity in the sea of existence, but the sea of existence is still there whether we are or not.

As the infinite is unprovable
— Philosophim

Would you say that you can decide whatever it is you mean? — Hallucinogen

Let me clarify. There are two things. Definitions, and their application.

I can define a unicorn, but in applying it, I cannot confirm a unicorn exists beyond an idea. We can invent whatever definitions and concepts we want inside of our head. It is their ability to be applied to reality, or their lack, that determine what I meant by 'provability'. So, I can create whatever definition and meaning for that definition I want. But if I cannot apply it to reality, then it is merely an idea and not anything that is provable within reality.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, something still happens as a thing in itself. — Philosophim

But this assumes its own conclusion. If it's true, it's true. The question is if it's true in reality. The observer effect seems to imply otherwise -- interactions don't take place in the absence of conscious observation.

The mental tries to define and create identity in the sea of existence, but the sea of existence is still there whether we are or not. — Philosophim

But this just presupposes that there isn't a mind containing and observing the whole sea of existence.

We can invent whatever definitions and concepts we want inside of our head. — Philosophim

This is what I wanted you to say. So, since we can imagine or define whatever we want, does that mean there's an any-to-any relationship between the thing defined and the symbol we attach to it (e.g., the meaning, the concept)?

This is what I wanted you to say. So, since we can imagine or define whatever we want, does that mean there's an any-to-any relationship between the thing defined and the symbol we attach to it (e.g., the meaning, the concept)? — Hallucinogen

It appears we're veering into a discussion of knowledge opposed to the OP about a logically necessary first cause. I've written an extensive knowledge theory here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1

If you want a summary, Caerulea-Lawrence in the first reply wrote a near perfect grasp of the theory. So you can read that first before to see if it sparks your interest to wade in.

Then you're really only arguing Spinoza's position.. — Vaskane

The conclusion of Cosmological or DPA arguments doesn't specifically identify Spinoza's God. Neither entail that God has infinite properties, for example.

The rest of what you said is right.

If the universe is a manifestation within the mind of God that's more of a pantheistic view of God. — Vaskane

Panentheistic. Pantheism would mean the universe is all God is, instead of a program-output relationship.

to say that "logic" necessitates a first cause is not the same as saying the "nature of existence" (whatever that means) necessitates a first cause. Being is not required to conform to our understanding of either logic or the nature of existence. Only we are.

to say that "logic" necessitates a first cause is not the same as saying the "nature of existence" (whatever that means) necessitates a first cause. Being is not required to conform to our understanding of either logic or the nature of existence. Only we are. — Arne

True. But logic in general is our best tool to analyze whether ideas fit in with the nature of existence as we know it. In this particular case however, logic is all we need. Its a binary question. Infinite regress, or finite regress. The reasoning demonstrates that even an infinite regress falls into a finite regress of causality. Considering I can think of no option besides this binary, its the most reasonable conclusion we can reach with what we know.

The reasoning demonstrates that even an infinite regress falls into a finite regress of causality. — Philosophim

Why is that? I'm a little slow today. :chin:

,

Meh. Causality is not found in formal logic.

Certainly not in modal logic.

A first cause is not logically necessary.

Interesting. And I don’t think we know enough about the entire universe to know if ‘everything’ has a cause.

We know some things don't. That ought be enough to put this to rest.

But then threads such as this are not about causation.

:up: The argument from contingency remains a firm favourite, even with the more refined apologists.

We know some things don't. — Banno

Huh. Please elucidate.

Various quantum effects, for a start.

But see also https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8713/causality-determination-and-such-stuff/p1

in all cases observed so far, the cause exists before the effect. — Agent Smith

If I'm jumping into the middle inappropriately, say so and I'll jump out. If the cause is before the effect, then there is cause and then there is effect. The distinction being that either the cause is in some sense at the same time as the effect, or it is at a different time than the effect. If at the same time, then not before, and if before, then what connects the cause and effect.

An illustration of sorts is to consider what causes the dynamite to explode. Lighting the fuse? The fuse burning down, or at some point the burning fuse and the explosion occurring at the same time. It seems to me it must be the same time. To be sure, the fuse is also burning before, but that burning is not causing the explosion. And also the explosion takes a while - not a long while of course - but it was started by the fuse.

And all of this illustrates just how tricky and ambiguous the notion of cause is - a lawyer's delight. And I am under the impression that scientists do not concern themselves much with cause-and-effect except either informally or when they know exactly what they mean

Various quantum effects, for a start — Banno

Probability and statistics can weave a tale as the story of quantum physics unfolds.