Which reminds me of Russell's joke that while every individual human being has a mother, it is a fallacy to supose that therefore the human species has a mother...
The mother of the race is a limit, not an item in the sequence...
But Mitochondrial Eve ruined the joke. — Banno
"It simply is, there's no prior explanation for its being" Yes. — jgill
Fixed-point iteration, i.e. F(z) = z, is the mathematical description of circular causation, which can be considered a non-finite conception of causality that is symmetrical and has no initial-cause, thus also eliminating the causal arrow. — sime
And what exactly does this mean? At limits for limits, nothing. Consider it proved that either there is an infinite supply of mothers, or there must be a first motherless mother. The matter settled; we just don't know which. But now do a fast rewind of the history of life on earth. Clearly it's not infinite. Equally clearly there is no first mother. The lesson - the moral of the story - being that when thinking about limits you have to take care with your conclusions. Truth and demonstration are only truth and demonstration within the contexts that make them so, and that can break down at limits.the truth of what an argument demonstrates — Metaphysician Undercover
. Consider it proved that either there is an infinite supply of mothers, or there must be a first motherless mother. The matter settled; we just don't know which. — tim wood
It's true that the colour changes over distance, whether you discern it or not. — Banno
And here we are off into realism against antirealism, and the thread goes on... — Banno
May I ask, Javra, where the insistence that change requires time comes from? Why is it important to preserve this idea? this by way of trying to understand why folk seem so adamant about something that to me seems obviously wrong. Thanks. — Banno
I think I've presented enough stuff on truth over the years not to need to do so again here. T-sentences and deflation.For instance, in what theory or truth that you wish to uphold is truth not partly dependent on one or more observer’s discernment of what is real (i.e., actual or else ontically occurrent). — javra
No. But if you insist that in order to be true a statement must be believed (or some other intentional attitude) then you appear to be committing yourself to rejecting bivalent logic in this context and hence to antirealism.Are you now labeling yourself an “antirealist”? — javra
So the mother both of and prior to all human mothers is not human, or not material? — tim wood
Um, science has determined that there is not an infinite regress of material things? — tim wood
I'll take your insistence that change requires time as axiomatic, then. — Banno
There is a difference between the two, the former being mere stipulation, and the latter being supported by empirical evidence. — Metaphysician Undercover
Such folk are introducing ad hoc excuses not to see that their metaphysical view is false.
But anyway, may I ask again, if there is no change apart from time, how do you understand δxδy? You must, I presume, claim that it is not a change? — Banno
Yes, the sign does not change. But the value of y may well change with a change in x, yet without t.
I don't think you have followed this, but perhaps we'd best leave it there. — Banno
In what way can "y may well change with a change in x" in which there does not occur a before and after the addressed change? — javra
The example I gave was the height of a hill with regard to distance from the peak. The height changes over distance, not over time.
I don't know how to make this any clearer. — Banno
The example I gave was the height of a hill with regard to distance from the peak. The height changes over distance, not over time. — Banno
An example might be the change in height of a hill with regard to distance from the peak. — Banno
The distance from the hill as one walks towards it grows smaller, and the line of sight distance to the peak also diminishes, but the height of the hill remains constant. The angle of line of sight grows also. — jgill
No, that actually proves a first cause. "What caused a circular causation to exist instead of another type of causation?" As you noted it "Has no initial-cause", thus there is no prior explanation for its existence. Meaning, its a first cause as defined in the OP. — Philosophim
The measures simply are. — jgill
Oh, I was thinking of the height, say above sea level, decreasing as one moves away from the peak - not the apparent height of the hill. Interesting take. — Banno
One can interpret circular causality as saying that there is no initial cause, or as saying that what is considered "initial" is subjective or relative to the observer. — sime
The important thing, is that causal circularity implies that every causal relation is symmetric and of the form A <--> B. or equivalently, that the causal order A --> B --> C comes equipped with a dual order in the opposite direction, C --> B --> A. — sime
Also, a presentist might interpret the present as being the perpetual "first" cause , in spite of also admitting that present events are caused by "past" events when speaking in the vulgar. — sime
A formatting question - sometimes I get a line feed before the math expression, other times, not - I don't see any obvious reason why. Any suggestion? — Banno
The measures simply are. — jgill
That's a mistaken idea. Measurements need to be made, and measurement is an act which requires time. — Metaphysician Undercover
the causal order A --> B --> C comes equipped with a dual order in the opposite direction, C --> B --> A. — sime
It is really this phrase, "It simply is, there is no prior explanation for its being." that is ultimately true in any causal relationship. Do we call that a first cause? An uncaused cause? What do you think? — Philosophim
As n increases without bound one can look at the entire structure as a mathematical entity that has the value α=limn→∞Fn(z),z∈S — jgill
Then the causation chain exists as a mathematical enterprise but cannot be associated with a particular value. It simply is. (My attempt at philosophy) :cool: — jgill
Thanks. I don't use math often enough to have an app for it, so I type it manually or steal it from somewhere else - which is why I had a where a would have been preferred.I use MathType, set to Wikipedia format, then change < to [ and > to ] at either end. It usually works but sometimes not, and I have no idea why. — jgill
Long ago, one of the regulars here insisted that Mount Everest did not have a height until it was measured. The prognosis was advanced pragmatism, unfortunately incurable.Does an inch exist on a ruler without someone looking at it? — jgill
Then the causation chain exists as a mathematical enterprise but cannot be associated with a particular value. It simply is. (My attempt at philosophy) :cool: — jgill
Does an inch exist on a ruler without someone looking at it? — jgill
Long ago, one of the regulars here insisted that Mount Everest did not have a height until it was measured. — Banno
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.