The circle drew itself, this is the conclusion I draw from it, meaning it was self caused. — invicta
But hang on a second, if it was self caused then there can’t be an infinite regression of causes. — invicta
Yet this never satisfied the philosopher, namely Aristotle. Hence the proposal of first cause or the uncaused cause. — invicta
At the same time, however, it is also impossible that the first [cause], since it is eternal, should pass away. For since coming to be is not without a limit in the upward direction, [a] the first thing from (ek) whose passing away something came to be must be non-eternal. And since the for-the-sake-of-which is an end, and the sort of end that is not for the sake of other things but rather other things are for its sake, it follows that if there is to be a last thing of this sort, the series will not be without a limit, but if there is no such thing, there will be no for-the-sake-of-which. Those who make it unlimited are unwittingly getting rid of the nature of the good (and yet no one would try to do anything if he were not going to come to a limit). Nor would there be any understanding present in beings. For someone who has understanding, at any rate, always does the actions he does for the sake of something, and this is a limit, since the end is a limit. — Aristotle. Metaphysics, 994b5, translated by C.D.C. Reeve
At the same time, however, it is also impossible that the first [cause], since it is eternal, should pass away — Aristotle. Metaphysics, 994b5, translated by C.D.C. Reeve
I find his dissatisfaction with infinite regression unsatisfactory for if infinite causes are the chain of sequences ad infinitum does such a chain not imply a closed loop, like that primordial snake ouroboros eating it’s own tail. — invicta
Russell (1912: 1) famously denied that there are any causal relations at all, quipping that causation is “a relic of a bygone age, surviving, like the monarchy, only because it is erroneously supposed to do no harm” — SEP: The Metaphysics of Causation
I applaud your perspicacity. — jgill
Here, though, you seem to be claiming that a "sequences ad infinitum" implies a closed loop. It doesn't. — Banno
If you only knew Pi, which you obviously can’t as it’s irrational and infinite — invicta
No. A closed loop does not answer Aristotle's quest for an explanation of Causation itself. Note that in the Ouroboros symbol, the snake that seems to be recreating itself, actually has a head and tail, a beginning and end. A true infinite loop would have no head or tail. :smile:I find his dissatisfaction with infinite regression unsatisfactory for if infinite causes are the chain of sequences ad infinitum does such a chain not imply a closed loop, like that primordial snake ouroboros eating it’s own tail. — invicta
A closed loop does not answer Aristotle's quest for an explanation of Causation itself. Note that in the Ouroboros symbol, the snake that seems to be recreating itself, actually has a head and tail, a beginning and end. A true infinite loop would have no head or tail. — Gnomon
Thus, infinity, taking Pi as a currently known example is non-repeating and unpredictable — invicta
At the very least, causation causes more philosophical problems than it solves — Banno
if it’s not infinity why haven’t we been able to calculate it’s finite value. — invicta
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.