don't follow your line of questioning, ucarr. What's your point? — 180 Proof
Yes, which is to say that the base and the peak do not occupy the same position in space. The space between them is called distance. — Michael
That there is distance between the base and the peak is measurement-independent. It's certainly not the case that the base and the peak are touching until we look at the mountain.
That this distance is described as being "8,000m" or as being "26,246.72 feet" is measurement- and language-dependent.
I'm not sure why you felt the need to explain the latter fact. I'm not sure how it's exactly relevant. — Michael
As a counterexample see my mathematical example. — jgill
Where?
But note that I specifically said that "an infinite sequence of events has no end". I didn't say that "an infinite series has no end". — Michael
There are "things" which do not have a specific prior cause for their existence. When an atom decays radioactively from one element to another there is no prior event or cause for this to happen - it is completely random.Either all things have a prior cause for their existence — Philosophim
When an atom decays radioactively from one element to another there is no prior event or cause for this to happen - it is completely random. — EricH
Well yes, that was my point. But just to be clear, the statistics only work in the aggregate level. Each individual atom that decays does so in the absence of any prior event.No, it is random by statistics. It is not actually violating the laws of physics. — Philosophim
Something without prior cause exists, simply because it does. There is no prior reason. — Philosophim
Either all things have a prior cause for their existence, or there is at least one first cause of existence from which a chain of events follows. — Philosophim
1. Either all things have a prior cause for their existence, or there is at least one first cause of existence from which a chain of events follows. — Philosophim
I don't know if this has been said because I am lazy and have not read comments, but..3. This leads us to 3 plausibilities. — Philosophim
Pardon me for my audacious assumption. For clarity, I replaced your second "only" with "logical". Although the assertion would work as written, with "only-only" as an emphatic way of saying "no alternatives".. Because there are no other plausibilties to how causality functions, the only {logical} conclusion is that a causal chain will always lead to an Alpha, or first cause. — Philosophim
Don't get me started . . . . . . . . . . . . :joke:↪180 Proof
Is this a correct paraphrase of your response to Philosophim’s thesis: spacetime, an unbounded, finite, beginning-less phenomenon, requires an arbitrary starting point re: sequential processes. It can be considered a “working” starting point, but there’s no logical necessity guiding the choice of a particular starting point. — ucarr
Not if one is considering the total universe at points of time. Where Ui is the universe at time i, it is true that Ui causes Ui+1When one forms a causal chain mathematically, one can assume that at each step a single causal function exists. But in the real world a host of causal "forces" may be in play at each step, and somehow they must average out to prolong the expansion. — jgill
Where Ui is the universe at time i, it is true that Ui causes Ui+1 — Relativist
I'm clearly missing something. The conclusion that I get from reading these two statements is that there exists in the physical universe multiple "first causes". I.e., all those atoms that come into existence via radioactive decay have no prior cause for their creation, therefore they are all "first causes"? — EricH
I think a 4th option would be that you follow the chain of causation as far back as you can and then find out that the next causation source exists in a universe a layer above ours. Such a universe would not necessarily follow our laws of causation and could be rather unknowable. — mentos987
First Cause arguments open the door to inferences of Creator Gods, that 180's belief system explicitly excludes. Therefore, Atheistic worldviews must assume, as an implicit axiom, that the universe itself is eternal, without beginning or end. In which case, there is no need for a First Cause. — Gnomon
But in the real world a host of causal "forces" may be in play at each step, and somehow they must average out to prolong the expansion. Here is an attempt to corral those forces in the simplest mathematical structures. — jgill
Once we introduce a fourth universe, there's still the question of, "What caused that fourth universe?" — Philosophim
Causation need not be a rule for the universe that is on a layer on top of ours. Time, gravity, individuals, energy and causation could all be concepts exclusive to our universe. — mentos987
If there truly was no prior cause, then yes. I'm fairly certain that radioactive decay has pretty clear causes though. — Philosophim
It behaves randomly in relation to us* Same with a coin toss or a dice roll.but each event is completely random and uncaused. — EricH
Einstein got it wrong. EPR supposedly showed flaws in quantum mechanics. But . . .“God does not play dice with the universe” --Albert Einstein — mentos987
It's the opposite. Bell's theorem showed that there are no hidden local variables.The more we learn, the less random the universe appears. — mentos987
The lack of data/knowledge is a key feature of quantum mechanics. That's how the universe works.the reason we can't do the same with decay is likely that we lack the data/knowledge to do so. — mentos987
Bell's theorem assumes that free will already exist, it used that to prove that true randomness exist. I'm with Einstein on this one. — mentos987
Agree.You may be right that OPs version of causality requires determinism. — mentos987
Over time radioactive decay behaves in a statistically predictable manner, but each event is completely random and uncaused. — EricH
You may be right that OPs version of causality requires determinism.
— mentos987
Agree. — EricH
This was random enough to make me smile.True randomness would be me rolling some dice and them turning into Santa Clause. — Philosophim
There is no limitation as to what a first cause could be — Philosophim
True randomness would be me rolling some dice and them turning into Santa Clause.
— Philosophim
This was random enough to make me smile. — mentos987
If true randomness exist and we are subjected to it constantly, would there not be new "first causes" being created all the time? — mentos987
If we can trace back different happenings back to a true randomness, and there are an infinite amount of true randomness. Would that not mean that there is an infinite amount of "first causes"? — mentos987
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.