OK. Demonstrate an uncaused cause, where you are certain some process begins. — jgill
A quark appears in the universe, then persists — Philosophim
Not a disturbance of quantum fields? Sometimes by lab machinery? Are quantum fields uncaused causes? If so, how can you be sure? — jgill
This is very simple. Either you believe there is a first cause or you do not believe there is a first cause. It's a matter of belief, not reasoning. Sounds like theology to me. — jgill
This has nothing to do with theological assertions jgill. Forget God. It floors me that I cannot get through to other atheists on this. Truly their fear of this being theological terrifies them to the point of being unable to think about it. I am an atheist. I wrote this. This is about base matter. Its very simple. Don't let fear prevent you from understanding it. — Philosophim
What makes you think that you can conceive of a first cause? — sime
In my experience of fellow atheists, they often harbor a peculiarly theological belief in "nothingness" — sime
But if we reject this ontological interpretation of nothingness as being nonsensical, then how else are we supposed to conceive of absolutely first (and last) events? — sime
A first cause isn't necessary within a probabilistic function. — Christoffer
So, through quantum physics, a first cause isn't a necessity. — Christoffer
Virtual particles, as understood right now, does not have a first cause, they are probabilistic random existences. — Christoffer
Yes it is. Let me explain what probability is. When you roll a six sided die, you know there are only six sides that can come up. Any side has a 1 out of 6 chance of occurring. What is chance? Chance is where we reach the limits of accountability in measurement or prediction. Its not actual randomness. The die will roll in a cup with a particular set of forces and will come out on its side in a perfectly predictable fashion if we could measure them perfectly. We can't. So we invented probability as a tool to compensate within a system that cannot be fully measured or known in other particular ways.
So yes, causality still exists in probability. The physics of the cup, the force of the shake, the bounce of the die off the table. All of this cause the outcome. Our inability to measure this ahead of time does not change this fact. — Philosophim
False. Quantum physics is not magic. It a series of very cleverly designed computations that handle outcomes where we do not have the tools or means to precisely manage or measure extremely tiny particles. That's it. — Philosophim
A first cause is something which exists which has no prior reason for its existence. It simply is. — Philosophim
You didn't read what I actually wrote. I'm talking about the idea of a first cause, as in the cause that kickstarted all we see of determinism. And how there's no need for one if the universe expanded from the Planck scale — Christoffer
You didn't read what I actually wrote. I'm talking about the idea of a first cause, as in the cause that kickstarted all we see of determinism. — Christoffer
False. Quantum physics is not magic. It a series of very cleverly designed computations that handle outcomes where we do not have the tools or means to precisely manage or measure extremely tiny particles. That's it.
— Philosophim
No it's not. Maybe you should read up more on quantum mechanics. — Christoffer
And how there's no need for one if the universe expanded from the Planck scale. That determinism is underlying our reality is not what I was talking about. — Christoffer
A first cause is merely the first causal event and as I described it can simply be the first causal event out of the quantum fluctuations before the big bang. — Christoffer
A dimensionless infinite probabilistic fluctuation would generate a something and still not be a first cause as it is a fundamental absolute probability. — Christoffer
And even if it weren't it can also be explained by a loop system, infinitely cyclic like Penrose's theory. — Christoffer
The logic is not about saying, "This is an uncaused cause." The logic of the OP is noting that logically, there must be an uncaused cause in our universe — Philosophim
Its an unnecessary concept to understand the logic — Philosophim
Logically, it must exist. — Philosophim
If there is one let's call it "God" for convenience. Then we can consider the nature of God or not. — jgill
So far, all my mathematical causation chains have first causes and origins. — jgill
The philosophy in this thread seems ethereal. — jgill
What caused the Planck scale to exist? — Philosophim
demonstrate why. — Philosophim
You have no idea how versed I am in quantum mechanics. If I'm wrong, show why, do not make it personal please. — Philosophim
What do you mean by need? A first cause doesn't care about our needs. Its not something we invent. It either exists, or it doesn't. Logically, it must exist. Until you can counter the logic I've put forward, you aren't making any headway. — Philosophim
No, it cannot. A first cause is by definition, uncaused. You are stating that a first cause is caused by the quantum fluctuations before the big bang. That's something prior. Meaning your claim of a first cause, is not a first cause. — Philosophim
What caused it to be a fundamental absolute probability? — Philosophim
Did you read the actual OP? I clearly go over this. Please note if my point about this in the OP is incorrect and why. — Philosophim
If there is one let's call it "God" for convenience. Then we can consider the nature of God or not. — jgill
No. The entire point of this thread is to think of about a first cause as part of the natural world, and think about how it would apply to our universe as it is today. While yes, a God could be a possible first cause, it is one of an infinite number of possibilities — Philosophim
What caused an infinite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason. Its pretty simple isn't it? — Philosophim
I only mentioned I was an atheist because jgill assumed this was a theistic argument and that was preventing him from thinking clearly about the argument. — Philosophim
Nothing caused it to exist, it's like asking why 2 + 2 = 4. — Christoffer
demonstrate why.
— Philosophim
What should I demonstrate? — Christoffer
No it's not. Maybe you should read up more on quantum mechanics.
— Christoffer
If its not, demonstrate why. — Philosophim
For one, your incorrect use of concepts like the Planck scale shows how versed you are. — Christoffer
I've given a run through of how causality can appear out of nothing at the point of Big Bang, something that's much closer to what scientists actually theorize. — Christoffer
Again, you don't understand what the Planck scale is. It is not an invention by us and I don't know why you keep implying that. — Christoffer
Regardless of how we view the Big Bang, all projections starts the universe at such a dense point that it fundamentally becomes zero dimensional and there can be no such thing as a first cause before this since there's no spacetime in this state. Without dimensions, there's no causality and no cause. — Christoffer
So if you're looking for a first cause, I've already pointed at it; the first event of time and causality at the point of the big bang. — Christoffer
No, you clearly misunderstand everything into your own logic and you have become so obsessed with that logic that you believe the Planck scale is an invention and disregard how general relativity breaks down at a singularity point. — Christoffer
If causality breaks down, then you can have no causes before this event as there's no spacetime there to produce it. — Christoffer
So then we have something which has no prior explanation for its existence? A first cause? Again, I appreciate your agreement. — Philosophim
You are then inserting FC (first cause) into the "natural world", but it is ineffable. — jgill
Infinite causal chains go forward in time, also. I can easily write one down, and then I am a FC. I can also write one down going back in time, specifying FC. — jgill
I admit. I can't think clearly about your argument. :roll: — jgill
But I see (removing the snark, hehe) what you're getting it. It necessarily follows that it would be the first thing to cause anything. I think they can both be right. — AmadeusD
You are then inserting FC (first cause) into the "natural world", but it is ineffable. — jgill
Not really. Something which has no prior reason for its being was either always there, or not there, then there. Why is that hard to understand? — Philosophim
You insist on thinking this is about origins when I've clearly told you several times that a first cause is not an origin. You are making an amateur mistake both in philosophy and math. You and I well know that you can make an origin any set of numbers you want. That is not the same as the beginning of a line. — Philosophim
You are making an amateur mistake ... in ... math.
So it is an effable feature of nature. Then tell us about it. Or don't bother.
I have no problem with you saying there is a first cause. What difference does it make? — jgill
So the beginning of a line is a first cause? So if I start my line at zero on the imaginary axis and have it extend up indefinitely I have violated your rule. I am confused. — jgill
A first cause is a logical necessity where causality exists — Philosophim
You have patiently spelled out your logic. You are the origin of this thread, but clearly not the first cause. — jgill
I seem to have happened on this thread at a moment of agreement. Congratulations to both of you. Can I just check that I've understood correctly?Correct! I hope that's cleared things up a bit jgill. I appreciate you sticking with me through it. — Philosophim
I interpret this as saying that causality is contextual. We can post any convenient starting-point for a causal system. I agree with that understanding.Now put the chain somewhere on a graph. The 'line''s many points are simply the links in the chain. The first link is the beginning of the line, the first point is the beginning of the line. It doesn't matter where the origin is right? — Philosophim
And since causality requires time and time and space are not absolute, but relative, then surely causality must be relative. Surely?A first cause is a logical necessity where causality exists. — Philosophim
On the face of it, that's not particularly re-assuring. There will be people who assign the name "God" to whatever the first cause is. That will be less attractive to them if we clearly identify causality as relative. In addition, of course, God as first cause would be a god of the philosophers, not a god of faith.While yes, a God is not impossible, neither is any other plausibility you can imagine. — Philosophim
You are right, of course. But you've just demonstrated that any first cause will generate new questions - especially the last one. That's not a problem.3. If the logic holds, this is a final debate on the matter. Its a solution, done, finished. Now instead of debating this tired subject, we can move onto new debates. What does the fact that there is a first cause entail? Can we work out probabilities of things forming? What does that tell us of the nature of the universe? Do we continue to look for explanations to things, or is it reasonable to reach a point where it doesn't matter anymore? — Philosophim
I interpret this as saying that causality is contextual. We can post any convenient starting-point for a causal system. I agree with that understanding. — Ludwig V
A first cause is a logical necessity where causality exists.
— Philosophim
And since causality requires time and time and space are not absolute, but relative, then surely causality must be relative. Surely? — Ludwig V
While yes, a God is not impossible, neither is any other plausibility you can imagine.
— Philosophim
On the face of it, that's not particularly re-assuring. There will be people who assign the name "God" to whatever the first cause is. — Ludwig V
You are right, of course. But you've just demonstrated that any first cause will generate new questions - especially the last one. That's not a problem. — Ludwig V
Quite so. That's why some of the thinking that's going on in the depths of physics, beginning to open up the inevitable and obvious questions around the Big Bang is so exciting - and puzzling and incomprehensible - to me, at least. And there's the paradox. Identify a first cause and you open up new questions. That's one reason why I classify a causal chain as contextual.I find new questions to be fun and exciting to think about! I'm glad you do as well. — Philosophim
That's why I call it contextual. To be sure, we explain why your ball falls from the point you let go of it. But then we can identify a new starting-point, before you let go of it, and find additional explanations which graft on to your original starting-point. Alternatively, if you ask "Why did you let go of the ball?" you may find yourself changing gear and answering in terms of actions, purposes and reasons - in a different categorial framework. But even if you stick to traditional physics, in the end, you find that you have to change gear and think about the nature of time and space, which requires new thinking, which opens up relativity and quantum physics.We can attribute a starting point anywhere in a chain of causality. — Philosophim
We can attribute a starting point anywhere in a chain of causality. For example, when explaining why a ball falls when I let go of it, I don't have to address quantum physics. Does that mean that quantum physics and a whole host of other things are not part of the causality of the ball falling? No. It just means we don't look at it creating a mathematical origin or starting point. — Philosophim
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.
6. If there exists an X which explains the reason why any infinite causality exists, then its not truly infinite causality, as it is something outside of the infinite causality chain. That X then becomes another Y with the same 3 plausibilities of prior causality. Therefore, the existence of a prior causality is actually an Alpha, or first cause. — Philosophim
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.