When something is a first cause, it is an uncaused thing which then enters into causality. There is no limitation as to what a first cause could be, as it has no prior explanation for its being. It is unlinked from determinism as to why it exists. However, once it exists, its interactions with other existences then involve causality, or determinism — Philosophim
Think of a large disc in the plane, full of points,z, and each individual function in the chain taking any such point and producing another point in that disc. Assume that each of these functions draw any two points in the disc slightly closer to one another. Then, when you start the chain you can use any point in the disc as a "first cause". — jgill
First, lets stretch a chain from left to right, each link is a prior cause to the next link. The first link in the left is the first cause. It has no prior link of causation — Philosophim
Now lets take a chain that's looped together to represent infinite causation. What caused there to be a looped chain? — Philosophim
7. Because there are no other plausibilties to how causality functions, the only conclusion is that a causal chain will always lead to an Alpha, or first cause. — Philosophim
Actually, should be "better than that", since he has a deep understanding of post-enlightenment philosophy. But he seems to dismiss any philosophy before the 17th century as religious (woo-woo) metaphysics. His self-professed worldview is Physicalism/Immanentism*1 {he'll correct me, if I'm wrong}. Which means that the notion of a First Cause, prior to the Big Bang scenario, is literally non-sense . . . from his truncated perspective.You're judging my post based on the title? Isn't that the same as reading the title of a news article, then commenting on it at the bottom of the forum? Come on, you're better than that. — Philosophim
You're judging my post based on the title? Isn't that the same as reading the title of a news article, then commenting on it at the bottom of the forum? Come on, you're better than that.
— Philosophim
Actually, ↪180 Proof should be "better than that", since he has a deep understanding of post-enlightenment philosophy. But he seems to dismiss any philosophy before the 17th century as religious (woo-woo) metaphysics. His self-professed worldview is Physicalism/Immanentism*1 {he'll correct me, if I'm wrong}. Which means that the notion of a First Cause, prior to the Big Bang scenario, is literally non-sense . . . from his truncated perspective. — Gnomon
That is clearly a contradiction, as it cannot be both that causation is an infinite regress and that there is a first cause. — Michael
Lets envision an a thought experiment of an actual chain as a visual. — Philosophim
↪Philosophim What is the distinction between determinism and causality? — EricH
What I have produced in mathematical terms is an actual chain - I can make it more specific with definitions of functions, etc. if you desire. Your actual chain is a complete abstraction. — jgill
What I have shown is that first cause is more complicated than what the ancients understood. In my example, n going to infinity, using the same z at each value of n produces an infinite causal chain having that z as a sort of ultimate first cause. I would think this example would stir original philosophical thought rather than a regurgitation of traditional ideas. :chin: — jgill
The question is really about what caused the set of causality to be. If the universe has a finite chain of causality, what caused that to be? If the universe has an infinitely regressive chain of causality, what caused that to be? There is no prior cause in either case. It would be that set without prior explanation; it simply would be — Philosophim
Well, this is certainly a deep issue. Good luck. Nice chatting with you. :smile: — jgill
↪jgill One can maintain some respect for this thread if one sees it as ↪Philosophim attempting to phrase Fundamentality, in causal terms. — Banno
Tempral causality simply means that a prior event is the reason why a current event is happening. — Philosophim
What is the specific prior event that caused the decay of that atom at that time? — EricH
The key point is this: we can conceive of an object being non-existent at one moment and existent the next – we do not need to even introduce the notion of “cause” into this thought experiment. — expos4ever
To begin, the claim that everything that comes into existence has a cause is equivalent to the claim that it is impossible for anything to come into existence without a cause. If the second of these claims cannot be sustained, the former cannot either. — expos4ever
Then you agree with the OP. A first cause is an 'uncaused cause'. Or something unexplained that is justified by its own existence, that then can enter into causality chains with others. — Philosophim
I was not aware of the philosophical notion of Fundamentality*1. But that is exactly what my un-orthodox personal worldview is based on. For philosophical, not scientific, purposes, I view Generic Information*2 as the fundamental essence of Reality. As Wheeler implied, the causal power to enform (Aristotelian Potential) is the logical precursor of actual Energy, Matter, and Mind.One can maintain some respect for this thread if one sees it as ↪Philosophim
attempting to phrase Fundamentality, in causal terms.
One might better understand what is being said if it is understood in terms of dependence rather than causation. The topic remains an opposition between infinitism and foundationalism, with Philosophim taking a foundationalist position. The alternative is an acceptance of infinite complexity, something that mathematicians may be more comfortable with than physicist — Banno
The topic remains an opposition between infinitism and foundationalism, with Philosophim taking a foundationalist position. The alternative is an acceptance of infinite complexity, — Banno
There is no limitation as to what a first cause could be — Philosophim
Interestingly, your many mathematical expressions contain only a finite number of elements, yet set out infinite sequences. A simple expression such as includes infinity - the dot says we "carry on in the same fashion", writing more 9's...An infinite chain of reasons or causation chain may be finite in the sense that as one moves further and further back in time the passage or rate at which time moves (I know, sloppy) possibly changes all the way down to zero. — jgill
As you noted, 's numerical chain is an abstract concept, not a perceptible "actual" thing. But he also doesn't seem to realize that the "First Cause" of his mathematical chain of abstractions was not "1" or "0" but his own imaginative mind. His chain would not exist in any sense, if he had not mentally pictured it in the first place.What I have produced in mathematical terms is an actual chain - I can make it more specific with definitions of functions, etc. if you desire. Your actual chain is a complete abstraction. — jgill
They are both abstractions. While the math proof is nice, I'm still failing to see how it address the point. I still don't see anything in this other than talking about origins. For example, I could start my origin at 0, or start it at one when counting. But an origin is no the same as a full chain of causality that does not require an observer. — Philosophim
Interestingly, your many mathematical expressions contain only a finite number of elements, yet set out infinite sequences. A simple expression such as 0.9˙=1
0.
9
˙
=
1
includes infinity - the dot says we "carry on in the same fashion", writing more 9's...
We don't expect to be able to write all the 9's down. But we do, in a finite time, understand what is going on, and can follow subsequent arguments and discussions without getting trapped in our inability to actually write an infinite number of 9's...
Well, some of us can. — Banno
Do multiple causation chains spring into being with first causes or first cause? — jgill
There is no limitation as to what a first cause could be
— Philosophim
It is limited to things uncaused, surely. — AmadeusD
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.