self-destruction is possible — Agent Smith

:up:

Why would self creation be impossible then? What's the asymmetry?

He took some damned good deep breath of fresh oxygen!

Why would self creation be impossible then? What's the asymmetry? — Haglund

There's no causal paradox. Can I write an executable that deletes itself? Ask a coder. However, a program that writes itself, unheard of!

Things have to create themselves continuously in order to continue existing. If cause and effect are reversed is self destruction self creation then. Particles can flow back in time shortly to influence themselves.

No, that's quite wrong. You seem to think that our convictions determine how things are with reality. No. — Bartricks

That's clearly not what I said. I said conviction is our means of understanding. Without conviction we suspend judgement indefinitely, on everything, and have absolutely no understanding. I didn't say that our convictions determine the way things are in reality, I said that our conviction determine the way that we understand things.

Substance causation is causation by a substance rather than an event. But when a substance causes an event it does so directly. There is not some prior act on the part of the substance that causes the event. The substance causes the event. Thus the causation is simultaneous. If you think it isn't, then I think it must be because you are confusing substance causation with event causation. — Bartricks

Causation is always an act. Substance itself is passive, but acts might be attributed to it, such that an act of a substance could be a cause. That's why your claims are incoherent to me, substance causing something with out an act makes no sense.

It's not incoherent! Look - either time had a beginning or it did not. Or do you think there's some other option? — Bartricks

What's incoherent is your proposition that there was no time when the ball was not on the cushion. Both balls and cushions are temporal objects which are produced, and destroyed in time. It is incoherent to say that there was no time before the ball and the cushion.

Also, you are confused about contingency - a contingent thing is a thing that 'can' not exist. It doesn't have to have not existed at some point. It is sufficient that it is metaphysically possible for it not to exist. — Bartricks

A contingent thing is a thing whose existence is dependent on something else. It's existence is contingent on something else, as a cause of that contingent thing's existence. Both balls and cushions are contingent things. This means that there was necessarily time before their existences, because their existences require temporal things before them, as the causes of their existences. This renders your proposition as incoherent.

An event can be the cause as well as the effect. Events can cause themselves to be an effect or effect themselves to be a cause. It depends on the direction of time.

But is it the case that causes precede their effects? — Bartricks

In the fundamental realm of being no. In the larger context of unidirectional time, cause precedes effect. But it could have been the other way round. Why doesn't time go backwards? Heaven knows.

Well. If we accept cosmology's standard answer, i.e. the Big Bang, then, perhaps, something like this can happen, something out of nothing. It makes no sense of course, but, the universe has no obligation to make any sense to us, which is a bit of a shame, it could be more considerate.

If out cosmology turns out to be wrong, say, the Big Bang is a cyclical process that goes back forever. If this is true, then, there is no creation. That also makes no sense. So, regardless of what is true in cosmology, it doesn't make much sense.

As for the cause and effect existing simultaneously, it fails to fulfill a criterion for causality viz. that the cause must temporally precede the effect — Agent Smith

That's flagrantly question begging. I gave two examples (one from Kant) that appear to involve simultaneous causation. So, those examples constitute prima facie evidence that simultaneous causation is coherent.

In your ball & cushion example, the ball exists before the depression in the cushion. — Agent Smith

No it doesn't. Read the example again.

I made a case. You're not addressing it. You're just telling me your opinion.

perhaps, something like this can happen, something out of nothing. It makes no sense of course, — Manuel

Question begging. I provided examples of simultaneous causation. So, simultaneous causation makes sense.

And if simultaneous causation makes sense, then there seems no problem with the idea of something creating itself.

Hey, you asked me if cause and effect can coexist. Yes they can.

I said conviction is our means of understanding — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't know what you mean or why you're saying these things. This thread is about a particular issue, namely whether self-creation is coherent. It's not about wider issues in epistemology.

Causation is always an act. — Metaphysician Undercover

What? Nonsense.

Argue something. Don't pronounce.

Substance itself is passive — Metaphysician Undercover

No. Substance can cause events. If all events are caused by other events, you get an infinite regress of events. So, some events must be caused by non-events, that is by things. And that's called substance causation.

What's incoherent is your proposition that there was no time when the ball was not on the cushion. — Metaphysician Undercover

You're misusing the word 'incoherent'.
You clearly don't understand the example. The ball is always on the cushion. The ball is causing the depression in the cushion. Therefore, the causation is simultaneous.

Hey, you asked me if cause and effect can coexist. Yes they can. — Haglund

No I didn't. I asked you if causes must always precede their effects.

I had presented a case for thinking that they do not have to precede their effects. You need to address it.

No I didn't. I asked you if causes must always precede their effects.

I had presented a case for thinking that they do not have to precede their effects. You need to address it. — Bartricks

It depends on which way time goes. If it goes backwards, effect precedes cause.

No it doesn't. Again - look at the case I made!

I presented two examples of simultaneous causation. Those cases seem to demonstrate that causes do not have to precede their effects.

You're just ignoring the case i made and saying stuff.

If I lay a ball on a cushion to dip it, then the dip precedes the ball.

That's not the example. In the example - Kant's example - the ball has always been on the cushion.

And I gave another example - substance causation.

But how it got there? It must have fallen on it, cause-> effect, it will leave it if time is reversed, effect->cause, it is laid on it by me for the dip, effect->cause, or it will be taken away by me intentionally, cause->effect. If eternally on the cushion, cause and effect coincide. Time has stopped. It's an event in spacetime.

It didn't 'get there'. It has always been on the cushion.

I gave another example too. Substances - things - can cause events. Anyone denying this is going to have to posit an actual infinity of past events to explain current events - yet reality contains no actual infinities.

So, things can cause events. But when? That is, when a substance causes an event, when does the causation occur? Well, at the same time as the event.

Simultaneous causation therefore seems coherent. In which case self-creation is coherent, or at least the main reason for thinking it incoherent has now been undercut.

No. Substance can cause events. If all events are caused by other events, you get an infinite regress of events. So, some events must be caused by non-events, that is by things. And that's called substance causation. — Bartricks

I didn't say "event", I said "act". Some acts are not events, but cause events, like an act of will, it causes an event but is not itself an event. That's how the infinite regress is broken, the first cause is an act of will (God's will), and the will is free, uncaused in its acts.

You still haven't given any indication as to what you mean by "substance causation". "Substance" is passive, like matter. Matter doesn't cause anything, neither does substance. You've only provided an incoherent example, a ball is on a cushion, and you propose that there is no time when the ball was not on the cushion. It's incoherent because balls and cushions are known to come into existence in time, so there is necessarily time before the ball and before the cushion. This means that something caused the ball to be on the cushion.

The ball is always on the cushion. — Bartricks

This is the premise which is incoherent.

Some acts are not events, but cause events, like an act of will, it causes an event but is not itself an event. — Metaphysician Undercover

Substance causation is causation by a substance. When the substance is an agent it is called 'agent causation'. You are simply referring to agent causation when you maintain that an act of will is not an event but causes an event.

That's actually confused, incidentally. An 'act' of will would be the event, and it would be caused by the mind directly. That causation is not an event, but what it causes - the willing - is.

But anyway, as you clearly accept the coherence of substance causation, then you should also accept that there can be simultaneous causation, for that's what one has with substance causation. When a substance causes an event, the causation and the event are simultaneous. To maintain otherwise would be to have to posit some earlier 'event' that caused the later event - but then that's event causation, not substance causation.

It didn't 'get there'. It has always been on the cushion — Bartricks

Like I said, then time stands still. A ball eternally on a cushion is equivalent to time standing still. Nothing happening.

So, things can cause events. But when? That is, when a substance causes an event, when does the causation occur? Well, at the same time as the event. — Bartricks

Not true. The causating event lies infinite close to the event caused. It time goes forward. If time goes backwards, it's the effect coming prior to the cause event. Infinitely close but prior.

You suffer from the Zeno-syndrome. Spacetime can't be broken up into parts. Unless matter is confined to a subspace only.

Like I said, then time stands still. A ball eternally on a cushion is equivalent to time standing still. Nothing happening. — Haglund

You're not really getting this: the ball would be causing the dent. That's simultaneous causation. Just describing other features of the case in no way challenges that conclusion. You might as well start talking about cushions and how cushions are made of material and have some sort of stuffing. Yes, maybe, maybe not - this is not the place to clarify the concept of a cushion. THe point is that we have simultaneous causation in the scenario described. Thus, simultaneous causation seems coherent. Thus, self-creation seems coherent as the only reason to think it might not be was the dogma that a cause must precede its effect.

A cause doesn't need to be prior to the effect. That's onnly the case if time goes forward. In your cushion case, we can't tell which direction time goes. It can be both forward or backward. So the cushing with the ball on it can be both a cause or an effect.

An example of self creation would be an eternal universe. This caused by that caused by that, going backwards like a god dependent on a god dependent on a god dependent dependent on a god ect. It's elephants and turtles all the way down as the parable goes but it is the process as a whole that holds it together, the reality of reality. So that is self creation

It has nothing to do with time's direction. It has everything to do with simultaneous causation.

If simultaneous causation is coherent, then there is no reason to think that self-creation is incoherent.

Confused gibberish.

An eternal universe would not be an example of self-creation, but of self-existence.

This thread is about self-creation: that is, something creating itself. If self-creation is coherent, then there could be nothing and then something due to the something creating itself.
It's not that something comes out of nothing. It's that there is nothing and then there is something and the cause of the something was the something itself.

This thread is about self-creation — Bartricks

The cushion with the ball on it has to be its own cause as well as effect than. We can't tell. Is time going forward?

You've described an eternal universe, although not necessarily just that. When Aristotle argued against an eternal universe unless there was a God and when he argued there cannot be an infinite hierarchy of gods, he was missing the point about self-creation. The eternal universe is "from nothing" because all that supports it is previous causes from the (eternal) past