They still lurk, but haven't posted in months. — Banno
It might be better to think of inches and dollars as something we do rather than something we contemplate. — Banno
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. The prognosis was advanced pragmatism, unfortunately incurable. — Banno
Does an inch exist on a ruler without someone looking at it? — jgill
An inch no more exists without anyone contemplating it than does any word (such as the word “money”) exist without anyone contemplating it. — javra
You know, Einstein and the moon. — jgill
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.
5. Infinitely prior, and infinitely looped causality, all have one final question of causality that needs answering. "Why would it be that there exists an infinite prior or infinitely looped causality in existence? These two terms will be combined into one, "Infinite causality. — Philosophim
I think a more appropriate consideration is a first counted number. Counting has to start somewhere, and each second of passed time is a type of counting. — Michael
In (4) you say that if (1) is true then A has no cause.
In (5) you ask "why is either (2) or (3) the case?".
Notice that these address different considerations. It is equally appropriate to ask "why is (1) the case?". — Michael
I ask the same question about 1. Why is there a finite limit to causality? The answer cannot be found by looking to something prior. So the answer is that 'It simply is.' Its the same answer in each case. Essentially the question is, "What caused existence?" And in all cases, there is no prior explanation. The first cause is, "It simply is." — Philosophim
It may simply be a brute fact that there is no first cause. That explanations end somewhere isn't that causation starts somewhere. — Michael
This is why, in metaphysics, it is important to understand that a thing must have actually been measured in order to have a measurement. As in the examples above, the mountain is commonly assumed to have a "height" prior to being measured, and the jar full of marbles is commonly assumed to have a "quantity" prior to being counted. — Metaphysician Undercover
It may simply be a brute fact that there is no first cause. That explanations end somewhere isn't that causation starts somewhere.
— Michael
In other words, it could be that "it simply is" the case that causality is infinite. — Michael
We are actually talking about the same thing. :) Where explanations end is the start of causation. A first cause has no prior explanation for its existence, "it simply is". That base, "X simply is" is a first cause from which other causes can happen. My point is that whether the universe has an finite or infinitely regressive causality, the reason why it is one way over the reason that it isn't another way is, "It simply is." There is no prior explanation or reason for its existence. — Philosophim
Where explanations end is the start of causation. — Philosophim
I'm suggesting that "it simply is" the case that (2) is correct or that "it simply is" the case that (3) is the case.
So, "it simply is" the case that there is no first cause. — Michael
It makes no sense to say that "there is no first cause" is the first cause. — Michael
Correct. Which is why when we reach a point in any chain of causality where there is no prior causality for its existence, 'it simply is', that we've reached the first cause from which the rest of the chain or set follows — Philosophim
If (post-Newtonian) spacetime describes an unbounded, finite magnitude like the surface of the Earth (or torus, Klein bottle, Möbius loop, etc) – does not have edges or end-points – then the tenses of events (i.e. inertial reference-frames) are relative and not absolute (e.g. "the past" "the present"). It is "logically necessary" to "begin counting" somewhere in a beginning-less sequence just as it is to be standing somewhere on the Earth's surface. Thus, beginnings, or "first causes", are demonstrably not "logically necessary" in ontology (topology or cosmology) though, of course, they are possible.If the past is infinite then the present is the end of an infinite sequence of events. An infinite sequence of events has no end. Therefore, the past is not infinite. — Michael
:roll:"It simply is" is the first cause. — Philosophim
If (post-Newtonian) spacetime describes an unbounded, finite magnitude like the surface of the Earth (or torus, Klein bottle, Möbius loop, etc) – does not have edges or end-points – then the tenses of events (i.e. inertial reference-frames) are relative and not absolute (e.g. "the past" "the present"). — 180 Proof
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.