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 — 180 Proof
Thus, beginnings, or "first causes", are demonstrably not "logically necessary" in ontology (topology or cosmology) though, of course, they are possible. — 180 Proof
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
I'm not sure you're even reading what I'm writing. — Michael
My apologies if I'm not understanding your point. What did I miss? — Philosophim
c. There comes a time within a causal chain when there is only Y, and nothing prior to Y. This Y is Alpha. (first cause)
You then ask:
"Why would it be that there exists an infinite prior or infinitely looped causality in existence?"
I am suggesting that perhaps there is no answer. — Michael
That is exactly what I'm agreeing with. And if there is no prior cause for its existence, point c notes that this is the first cause. It exists without prior explanation for its being. — Philosophim
You're saying that id either a) or b) is true then c) is true. This makes no sense. If either a) or b) is true then c) is false. — Michael
Take the set of all regressive causality, A.
What prior existence caused A to be?
There is nothing, A is A because it exists. Thus it exists without a prior explanation for its being, and is thus a first cause. — Philosophim
You're saying that the set of all causes is itself a cause. This is a category error. The set itself doesn't cause anything and so isn't a cause. The term "cause" refers to the members of the set, not the set itself. — Michael
No, I'm saying when you examine the entire set of regressive causality and ask, "What caused everything to be infinitely regressive?" there is no prior cause. It exactly the same as taking a set of finite regressive causality and asking, "What caused everything to be finitely regressive?"
The answer is the same. There is no prior reason for its being, therefore, it just is. This is the first cause for all chains of causality. — Philosophim
So you're saying that there is both an infinite regress of causes and that there is a first cause. Do you not see the contradiction? — Michael
This is very ambiguous.
There is a distance between the base of a mountain and its peak even if we never measure it. — Michael
Unless you want to argue that space itself is some sort of "mental fabrication"? An idealist might agree with you. A materialist (or dualist) won't. — Michael
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. — 180 Proof
This sloppy misquotation, MU, shows why you (willfully) misunderstand my position.You say first, a beginning is necessary, it is logically necessary to begin somewhere, but then you proceed to say that beginnings are not logically necessary, they are possible. — Metaphysician Undercover
It is "logically necessary" to "begin counting" somewhere...
Thus, beginnings, or "first causes", are demonstrably not "logically necessary".... — 180 Proof
It is you who is being ambiguous, with your use of "distance". If the word is meant to signify that there is a separation between the base of the mountain and the peak, that is self-evident. But if the word is meant to signify that this separation has a specific value, number of feet, meters, or whatever, without being measured, then this cannot be true. How do you think it is possible that there is a specific value attached to this separation if no one has actually done the work of assigning that value? — Metaphysician Undercover
Obviously, "space" is a "mental fabrication". — Metaphysician Undercover
Also, a materialist would have to say the same, because "space" could not refer to any type of material. — Metaphysician Undercover
No. But maybe I'm wrong. Can you answer this question: "What caused there to be infinite regressive causality?" Remember the answer that I gave to finite causality. "It just is, there is no prior explanation for its being." Is your answer different? — Philosophim
As a counterexample see my mathematical example. — jgill
Did you read the next part of my comment where I said "that the distance of one mountain is given the label '8,849 m' is a consequence of our measurement"? — Michael
It's certainly not "obvious". Space is often thought of as being mind-independent, notably by scientific realists, and I suspect also most laymen. Idealists, scientific instrumentalists, and Kantians may think differently, but such positions are not self-evident. — Michael
I should note that I use "materialism" and "physicalism" interchangeably, and that physicalism "encompasses matter, but also energy, physical laws, space, time, structure, physical processes, information, state, and forces, among other things." — Michael
Yes I read that, and it is why I accused you of being ambiguous with "distance". In the first sentence you said there is a distance "even if we never measure it". — Metaphysician Undercover
The answer is the same: "it just is; there is no prior explanation for why causation is an infinite regress". — Michael
What I take issue with is your claim that this then entails that there is a first cause. That is clearly a contradiction, as it cannot be both that causation is an infinite regress and that there is a first cause. — Michael
You appear to conflate "brute fact" and "first cause". As I mentioned in my first comment, that explanations end isn't that causation starts. — Michael
I'll tell you a secret. I wrote this over two years with an intended purpose: to get the atheists and theists in here to think. — Philosophim
Of course, it's a non sequitur to go from "there is a first cause" to "this first cause is an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, intelligent designer who gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life". — Michael
Any supposed "first cause" might simply be an initial singularity of infinite temperature and density that then expanded. — Michael
Okay, more or less. Dynamic models "require" initial conditions but what they model (e.g. the univerde) does not. In other words, wouldn't you agree we ought not mistake the maps we make for the territory itself?Is this a correct paraphrase of your response to Philosophim’s thesis: spacetime, an unbounded, finite, beginning-less phenomenon, requiresan arbitrary starting point re: sequential processes. It can be considereda “working” starting point, but there’s no logical necessity guiding the choice of a particular starting point. — ucarr
…requiresan arbitrary starting point re: sequential processes. It can be considereda “working” starting point, but there’s no logical — 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.