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

You need to clearly distinguish spatio-temporal causality from your murkier concept of meta-causality.

In a similar fashion, Stephen Hawking once proposed a causally closed cosmological model of the universe , in which the universe was hypothesized to be finite but without a spatio-temporal boundary. Nevertheless, he famously asked "what breathes fire into the equations?". But this philosophical question as it stands cannot be translated into the spatio-temporal language of physics. Furthermore, there isn't a consensus that Hawkings philosophical question is even meaningful, let alone how it should be solved or dissolved if it is.

Another possibility you are overlooking, is the possibility that the very existence of the past and its historical content might not transcend the ever-changing state of the present. In which case, the past is open and indeterminate like the future and there isn't a universal causal order.

Do you accept a free will act as a true first cause? Take your ball example. Imagine that you are holding the ball intent on letting it drop at some point. After a duration of time you drop it. There is no determinable "cause" for the drop at the moment it was dropped because the time was randomly selected in your mind. Therefore this freely willed action appears to be a first cause, no apparent cause of the dropping. — Metaphysician Undercover

First, lets address randomness vs true randomness. First, randomness. 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 'randomness'? Randomness 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.

Randomness has clear limits. And when there are limits, there are reasons for those limits. You say it was random when you dropped the ball, but was it random like a die, or true randomness which I'll go into now.

True randomness has zero constraints or rules as to what can be. Limited randomness always has a constraint of some sort. "What causes that constraint?" means that we haven't gotten to a first cause cause. The appearance of a first cause is true randomness. Why? Because if it wasn't, there would be some thing causing one possible outcome to be more or less likely than the other. So is 'free will' truly random? I don't believe so. Humans are physical creatures with physical brains. Brains have rules they have to follow. Now are those rules so complex that measuring and predicting what a brain will do next with 100% certainty a current impossibility? Yes. So free will is not a first cause.

As for ruling out infinite causality, its irrelevant. Instead of trying to prove that infinite regressive causality was possible/impossible, I just asked what the logical consequence was if they existed. And it turns out, there's still a first cause.

The catch is that whatever caused the Big Bang (or whatever else you identify as a first cause) requires that you think differently. — Ludwig V

I just want to clarify A first cause is not caused. If the big bang is a first cause, nothing caused it. It exists simply because it does with no prior explanation. If a first cause is a logical necessity, then the line of questioning should be, "What does that entail for the cosmology of our universe?" For example, if a first cause is possible, can it not happen any time? Is it not unlimited in to what it could be? Could a quark simply appear somewhere in the universe than vanish out five seconds later, all without a prior cause?

We can attribute a starting point anywhere in a chain of causality.
— Philosophim
That's why I call it contextual. — Ludwig V

We limit sections of the chain as a mathematical origin to think about things, but that doesn't mean we're at the start of the chain. The start of the chain is the start of the chain. That's the only first cause. Everything else is caused by something else.

BTW. Don't you think that the idea of the chain of causality is a bit misleading? We can identify many chains of causality, depending on what questions we are asking, and we see those chains intersecting and overlapping. Wouldn't it be better to think of causality as a web, from which we can select specific chains depending on our needs at the time? — Ludwig V

Because even using the simple example of a chain, many people are having a very difficult time grasping the concept. I'm starting very simple then when someone like you who seems to understand asks a question like this I can say, "Yes, you can view it that way." :)

The only part of confusion I might see here is that you seem to think where we pick as a starting point on this web is a first cause. Its not. When you reach the end of one of the threads, that's a first cause. And there is no spider that made it.

You need to clearly distinguish spatio-temporal causality from your murkier concept of meta-causality. — sime

This has been noted before and I don't agree. Let me sum it up like this.

A universe has finite causality. What caused this universe to have finite causality over infinite causality? It just is, there's no prior explanation.
A universe has infinite causality. What caused this universe to have infinite causality over finite causality? It just is, there's no prior explanation.

Another possibility you are overlooking, is the possibility that the very existence of the past and its historical content might not transcend the ever-changing state of the present. In which case, the past is open and indeterminate like the future and there isn't a universal causal order. — sime

If you think about what you're saying, then you also agree with me. If something appears or happens that has no prior reason for its existence, its a first cause. Notice the title says 'a' not 'the' first cause. There is no reason preventing our universe from having multiple first causes in the past, the present, or the future. A first cause has no reason why it should or should not happen. It simply does.

Do you accept a free will act as a true first cause? — Metaphysician Undercover

It depends what you mean by "true first cause". In certain traditions of philosophy, free will is the traditional cause of actions (as distinct from events); it is traditionally regarded as special - either as an uncaused cause or causa sui. Neither concept makes much sense. But then, since explanations of actions qua actions are different in kind from causal explanations, they are regarded as belonging to a category different from causal explanations. In which case free will is not a cause at all.

In a similar fashion, Stephen Hawking once proposed a causally closed cosmological model of the universe , in which the universe was hypothesized to be finite but without a spatio-temporal boundary. Nevertheless, he famously asked "what breathes fire into the equations?". But this philosophical question as it stands cannot be translated into the spatio-temporal language of physics. Furthermore, there isn't a consensus that Hawkings philosophical question is even meaningful, let alone how it should be solved or dissolved if it is. — sime

Well, setting fire to equations is clearly a metaphor, standing in place for a question we do not know how to ask yet. In my opinion. Poetry standing in at the limits of physics. I love it.

A universe has finite causality. What caused this universe to have finite causality over infinite causality? It just is, there's no prior explanation.
A universe has infinite causality. What caused this universe to have infinite causality over finite causality? It just is, there's no prior explanation. — Philosophim

Indeed. Just as there must be a first cause, even if we don't know what it is yet (although the Big Bang occupied that space for a while), so there must be some brute facts. But that may only mean that we haven't formulated the question yet.

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

Yes, you're right. I've stumbled in to two different uses of "first cause". One is the everday contextual use of first cause, where we pick a starting-point pragmatically, to suit the needs and interests of the situation we are in. The other is mathematical, or conceptual, and identifies the foundations of the system we are applying. We reach a point, where the explanations run out, but that does not hold us up for ever.

So we formulate a different, and incommensurable, theory which reaches past that point. But the concept of causality is changed in the process. Newton and others, redefined the subject matter of physics in order to mathematize it and introduced the concept of gravity because it was needed (a brute fact, if you like). That concept of time and space was undermined by relativity and quantum physics. Now, physicist/mathematicians are reaching past the Big Bang. But any explanation will involve changing the rules, since "before" the Big Bang, neither time nor space existed. "First cause" will change its meaning.

It depends what you mean by "true first cause". In certain traditions of philosophy, free will is the traditional cause of actions (as distinct from events); it is traditionally regarded as special - either as an uncaused cause or causa sui. — Ludwig V

A first cause is as simple as you can imagine. It has no prior explanation for its existence. You can claim free will is a first cause, but now you have to prove it. If people cannot prove free will is a first cause, then they cannot claim it to be. This applies to any first cause. Big bang, God, etc.

Indeed. Just as there must be a first cause, even if we don't know what it is yet (although the Big Bang occupied that space for a while), so there must be some brute facts. But that may only mean that we haven't formulated the question yet. — Ludwig V

Very true!

So we formulate a different, and incommensurable, theory which reaches past that point. But the concept of causality is changed in the process. Newton and others, redefined the subject matter of physics in order to mathematize it and introduced the concept of gravity because it was needed (a brute fact, if you like). That concept of time and space was undermined by relativity and quantum physics. Now, physicist/mathematicians are reaching past the Big Bang. But any explanation will involve changing the rules, since "before" the Big Bang, neither time nor space existed. "First cause" will change its meaning. — Ludwig V

No, I think the definition of a first cause is a constant. Causality also does not change. The difference is whether someone has proved that their claim of a first cause is actually a 'first cause'. Can they prove that there is nothing prior that caused it? If they cannot, then they have no proper claim to say that its a first cause. The Big Bang cannot be proven as a first cause, as we do not know if there was something prior that caused it. Even if we discovered a God, it must be proven as a first cause, as there's a question of whether something prior happened to form a God.

In other words Ludwig, no one has ever proven anything as a first cause. While logically necessary that at least one exist, it is extremely difficulty to prove that any particular existence is one.

If you think about what you're saying, then you also agree with me. If something appears or happens that has no prior reason for its existence, its a first cause. Notice the title says 'a' not 'the' first cause. There is no reason preventing our universe from having multiple first causes in the past, the present, or the future. A first cause has no reason why it should or should not happen. It simply does. — Philosophim

But that's stretching the meaning of "first" to the point of vacuity, for the concept of "first" is only meaningful in relation to a recognizable order with a distinguished bottom element. In the absence of a well-defined order, the concept makes little sense, especially considering that a rejection of the causal order doesn't entail that postulated "first" causes can't have explanations in terms of other causes, but only that such explanations are incomplete, vague, relative, ever changing, etc.

No. I'm just trying to communicate to you in a way that you understand as you like math. The line represents a chain of causality. Each link represents the step in the chain. Can we have multiple chains that link together? Of course. But the first link is the start.

Now put the chain somewhere on a graph. The 'line''s many points are simply the links in the chain — Philosophim

Now we are considering a causal chain having an uncountable number of links. Even between two points close together on the line, an uncountable number of links. With quarks you strayed into quantum theory, now you have strayed into mathematics.

Fortunately I have actually investigated an approximation to a causal chain continuum:

${{G}_{n}}(z)={{g}_{n/n}}\circ {{g}_{n-1/n}}\circ \cdots \circ {{g}_{2/n}}\circ {{g}_{1/n}}(z)$

$G(z)=\underset{n\to \infty }{\mathop{\lim }}\,{{G}_{n}}(z)$

A dynamical system in which each "link" shrinks to a point. However, the measure of the set of points missed by this process is the length of the line. This is an aside having little to do with your thesis.

Its a shame philosophy is so riddled with sloppiness of language that sometimes arguments are sabotaged by examples to clarify. But that's life.

But that's stretching the meaning of "first" to the point of vacuity, for the concept of "first" is only meaningful in relation to a recognizable order with a distinguished bottom element. — sime

No, its simply pointing out that its a very exact and simple premise. "That which has no prior cause for its being." That's not vacuous or unclear.

In the absence of a well-defined order, the concept makes little sense, especially considering that a rejection of the causal order doesn't entail that postulated "first" causes can't have explanations in terms of other causes, but only that such explanations are incomplete, vague, ever changing, etc. — sime

There is no absence of a well defined order. There comes a point where we find something that has no prior explanation for its existence.

I'm a little confused by what you mean by including both a rejection of the causal order, and an inclusion of other causes. Can you clarify?

I am not rejecting a causal order. I'm just noting that logically, there must be at least one thing which has no prior causality for its existence. It exists purely because it does, not because of something else prior.

If we don't know whether our universe has finite or infinite chains of causality A -> B -> C etc...
What caused a finite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason.
What caused an infinite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason. — Philosophim

Now we are considering a causal chain having an uncountable number of links. Even between two points close together on the line, an uncountable number of links. — jgill

And I have addressed this multiple times.

If we don't know whether our universe has finite or infinite chains of causality A -> B -> C etc...
What caused a finite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason.
What caused an infinite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason.

You have ignored this point, the point of the OP many times. Address this. Why is this wrong?

Its a shame philosophy is so riddled with sloppiness of language that sometimes arguments are sabotaged by examples to clarify. But that's life. — jgill

Its a shame you sloppily use math examples that don't properly address the philosophy. Seriously, knock yourself down a peg. We're all tempted to state how glorious our intellect is and how others are inferior to us. Don't fall into that poison trap that we're all tempted to.

Use math, but use it to address the points being made, not a straw man as you've done several times so far.

Use math, but use it to address the points being made, not a straw man as you've done several times so fa — Philosophim

It's your "line", not mine. I am happy to say causal chains have a first cause. But more on intuition than logic.

It's your "line", not mine. I am happy to say causal chains have a first cause. But more on intuition than logic. — jgill

At this point you've made your own decision independent to countering the OP. That's your call. Good discussion.

No, I think the definition of a first cause is a constant. Causality also does not change. — Philosophim

I can see that your definition is constant. But it's empty. People will look for something.

In other words Ludwig, no one has ever proven anything as a first cause. While logically necessary that at least one exist, it is extremely difficulty to prove that any particular existence is one. — Philosophim

I think you are understating the case.

Can they prove that there is nothing prior that caused it? — Philosophim

Proving a negative like that is indeed difficult to impossible. So it looks as if your concept of the first cause is empty. There's not much fun in that.

In thinking on causality, I have concluded that the nature of existence necessitates a "first cause". — Philosophim

OK. If the chain goes back to an origin lying outside of spacetime, that may be its first cause. If it continues back unbounded, possibly going outside spacetime, then the existence of the chain is its first cause. It looks like you cannot lose here.

Proving a negative like that is indeed difficult to impossible. So it looks as if your concept of the first cause is empty. It seems that it must take care of itself, without any assistance from us. There's not much fun in that. — Ludwig V

I wouldn't call it empty. Having a clear definition and distinction allows us to pull a first cause from a hypothetical into a testable distinction. Its something we can scientifically do, so is now outside the realm of faith.

What I find fun is thinking about not only what is, but what could have been. This leads validity to the idea of multiverse theory. This also lends one to think that anything is possible. If something is not possible, there must be a reason why its not possible. But if a think has no prior reason for its existence, it means it also has no limitations for its existence.

Impossible becomes "X as a first cause does not exist, simply because it did not form". But does that mean it can't in the future? I can't see why not. Are there several things that form self-explained that happen daily, we just don't notice them or they're too small to matter?

As a thought experiment I hypothetically concluded that if things form self-explained, they are likely smaller than larger. Its not because something large cannot form, its just that if all things are possible, and all things are equally likely to happen. Taken in a cube area of matter, its just there are a lot more possibilities per cube of matter that are extremely small vs large. By orders of magnitude per square space of existence, its more likely that something self explained would be extremely small. Within the infinite possibilities we can calculate what is more possible within a limited cube of space.

Thus an event like a big bang (if its actually a first cause) would be extremely rare by orders of magnitude. Its also why we don't see things like fully formed chairs appearing. Given the fact that anything could appear, the idea that it would appear in that cube instead of spread out among all space in the universe is very small. I can go into more details if you like, but I'm trying to summarize some fun ideas I've had.

OK. If the chain goes back to an origin lying outside of spacetime, that may be its first cause. If it continues back unbounded, possibly going outside spacetime, then the existence of the chain is its first cause. It looks like you cannot lose here. — jgill

Its not me. I'm irrelevant. Its something we can all rationally discover and use going forward.

Human minds invented math with our ability to create discrete identities or 'ones'. Just like the reason we have a Plank scale is because it is the limit of our current measurements. — Philosophim

Math is an invention of interpretation, it does not change the fact of 2 + 2 = 4, which is a function of reality only interpreted through math. Same as with the Planck scale, it's not bound to measurement, it is bound to fundamental quantum randomness, it is the scale edge-point at which our reality stops acting properly. It is not an invention.

Don't insinuate someone doesn't know something, explain why they don't know something. Otherwise its a personal attack. Personal attacks are not about figuring out the solution to a discussion, they are ego for the self. You cannot reason with someone who cares only about their ego. — Philosophim

Don't posit to know something without demonstrating it. So far you haven't demonstrated understanding quantum mechanics, which produces a problem in that you use produce conclusions based on misunderstandings. Pointing out that you misunderstand something and use something wrong is not a personal attack, it is simply pointing at the flaw on reasoning. The irony here is that you lift up your logic and reasoning as rock solid and you dismiss criticism with the evidence of how well your logic is. But your argument mainly only point out that there must be a first cause, without it, there would be a cyclic loop. And maybe I misunderstand here, because that just sound like stating something obvious, axioms of logic that are already logical in themselves, without a need for overcomplicated reasoning.

You were claiming it came from the Planck scale, so I asked you what caused the Planck scale. This is not me asserting how the Planck scale works. But again, this is silly. — Philosophim

The Planck scale is a scale in which reality breaks down; there's no property to this that had a caus, it is a singularity point. It's like saying "what caused this centimeter" and not mean the invented measurement, but the centimeter in itself without relation. That is silly. Such a scale singularity point in which reality breaks down and dimensions stop to have any meaning is a state in which causality breaks down as well. Without causality there are no causes and all our reality in this scale means no prior cause. If a randomness of probabilities exist there they exist without prior causes, they exist there out of pure randomness, causeless spontaneous existence. But since such existence forms properties, they expand. - This is me explaining why calling for a cause to the Planck scale makes no sense.

And what caused the big bang? Did something prior to the big bang cause the big bang? Or is the big bang a first cause with no prior cause for its existence? You keep dodging around the basic point while trying to introduce quantum mechanics. Citing quantum mechanics alone does not address the major point. — Philosophim

I'm not dodging, I'm countering the points you make. I've already explained the different solutions to the Big Bang theory. Penrose cycles, inflationary universe, loops or the one I described, which points out a first event without a prior cause.

But the key point is that the density of the universe right at the event of Big Bang would mean dimensions having no meaning, therefor no causality can occur in that state. It is fundamentally random and therefor you cannot apply a deterministic causality logic to it. And since you can't do that, how can you ask any of the questions in the way you do? It's either cyclic in some form, or it is an event that has no causality as its state is without the dimensions required for causality to happen.

If you want an answer to a first cause, that's the answer I've been given many times now. The first cause in that scenario is the first causal event to form out of the state in which causality has no meaning, which is a state that has mathematical and theoretical support in physics. But if your point is that "aha! see there's a first cause!" then you are just stating the obvious here and I don't know what your point really is? Because you jump between pointing out the obvious, entangled in a web of unnecessary reasoning, and asking irrational questions about physics.

Yes, it is an invention by us. Its the limitation of our measuring tools before the observations using the tools begins affecting the outcome. "At the Planck scale, the predictions of the Standard Model, quantum field theory and general relativity are not expected to apply, and quantum effects of gravity are expected to dominate." — Philosophim

No, it is the theoretical scale supported by math in which general relativity and quantum physics breaks down. You even quoted exactly that part, and yet you don't seem to understand what it means.

At the Planck scale, the predictions of the Standard Model, quantum field theory and general relativity are not expected to apply, and quantum effects of gravity are expected to dominate.

You don't seem to understand the difference between an invention of interpretation and the thing that's being interpreted. You argue as if the number 2 is an invention. The invention is the interpretation of reality that correlates to the real thing of 2 something.

A Planck unit is a mathematical invention of interpretation. The Planck scale is not the invention.

And it's not "the place in which our tools begins affecting the outcome", read the bold line in that quote you posted and really think about what it actually really means.

So either way, you're proving my point, not going against it. You're seeking very hard to disprove what I'm saying, but perhaps you should make sure you understand what I'm saying first. I don't think you get it. — Philosophim

But it isn't conclusive. You still have the Penrose theories, and other cyclic interpretations that do not have a first cause as it's circular. There's no need for a first cause as the cycle, the loop causes itself. It's only paradoxical because we aren't equipped to understanding such things intuitively, because we are bound to thinking within the parameters of this reality. But the math supports such interpretations as well. And as I've pointed out, math is not an invention of reality, it is an invention of interpretation and our interpretations have yet to formulate a defined answer as to if our universe appeared out of nothing, or if it is a form of cyclic looping event causing itself.

What I have been saying is that your logic isn't enough to point out a first cause, since such conclusion is bound to the parameters of this reality. You can point out a first cause within our reality, beginning at the start of our dimensions; but you cannot conclude anything past that with it since there's no evidence for our reality functioning the same beyond the formation of it's foundation. Therefor, we can conclude there being a first cause at the point of the Big Bang, for this reality (as it operates on entropic causality) and it could be that it IS the first cause out of nothing, based on what I've been describing above. But a cyclic, and in our point of view, paradoxical looping universe is still a functioning hypothesis, and since such is beyond the logic of this reality, it breaks the logic in your argument.

Then you agree 100% with my OP. There's nothing else to discuss if you state this. — Philosophim

As said, it is one of the interpretations that exists, I don't adhere to the absolutism of any single interpretation just because the logic I find is sound, because there are too many possible interpretations that include mathematical projections beyond our reality. Regardless, your reasoning is a totally unnecessary confusing web when we already have the math that points towards this outcome. It's all already there in the physics, but you seem to just want to lift up your argument and reasoning as something beyond it, which it's not. So I question the reason for this argument as physics already provide one with more actual physics-based math behind it and I question the singular conclusion of first cause as it doesn't counter the other interpretations that exist.

Just try to go into future threads with the intent to understand first before you critique. — Philosophim

I don't have to, I understand the physics instead. The conflict is in that you try to re-invent the wheel and demand others to accept your wheel when they already have perfect ones mounted. I critique the need for your argument. And since you demonstrate a shallow understanding of the physics at play; it all just looks like you are with force trying to mount your wheel on top of our already functioning wheels, not understanding that those wheels already work.

Just try to go into future threads with the intent to understand first before you critique.
— Philosophim

I don't have to, I understand the physics instead. — Christoffer

Have you ever heard of a logical fallacy called a "Straw man argument"?

A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.
One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I've listed an argument. If you say, "I don't have to understand it, I'm going to attack this thing instead," you're committing a fallacy. You're off in your own world over there. I can help you come to understand the OP's point if you want. This isn't to say you can't disprove the OP, you may very well be able to do so. But if you don't understand it, what are you talking about?

I'm going to sum to OP up so its easier to understand. Ask questions and seek to understand it first, then criticize it.

A first cause is something which exists that has no prior cause for its existence.
If we don't know whether our universe has finite or infinite chains of causality A -> B -> C etc...
Lets say there's a finite chain of causality. What caused a finite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason, it simply is.
Lets say there's an infinite chain of causality. What caused an infinite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason, it simply is.

Feel free to ask questions about this, refer to the OP, etc. Try to understand it first. When you show understanding, then critique. As it is, you're just not addressing what I've written and its a waste of both of our times.

Have you ever heard of a logical fallacy called a "Straw man argument"? — Philosophim

Maybe understand in what context I wrote that in before calling it a straw man.

I've listed an argument. If you say, "I don't have to understand it, I'm going to attack this thing instead," — Philosophim

No, I argue against the conclusion you make as we already have physics telling us similar things that doesn't need you to re-invent the wheel, but also other interpretations that gets ignored by the absolutism of your conclusion.

You get so hung up on forcing people to understand you that you use others rejection of your argument as some evidence that you are right. But in doing so you ignore the objections being raised.

In order to maybe simplify things (as you seem to not really care about the counter argument you are answering to) I let an AI break down the flaws of your OP. Notice the highlighted parts in relation to what I've been writing. Also notice the irony in you calling out fallacies.

This argument, which aims to establish the necessity of a "first cause" in the context of causality, has several philosophical and logical flaws:

False Dichotomy: The argument begins by presenting a dichotomy: either everything has a prior cause, or there is a first cause. This framing may oversimplify the complex nature of causality and exclude other possibilities, such as causality not being applicable in all contexts (e.g., quantum mechanics), or the concept of causality itself being a limited human construct that may not apply universally.

Undefined Terms and Concepts: The argument uses terms like "Alpha" without adequately defining them or explaining how these concepts interact with established understandings of causality. The notion of an "Alpha" as an uncaused cause is a speculative philosophical concept, not an empirically established fact.

Assumption of Classical Causality: The argument assumes a classical, linear model of causality (A causes B, B causes C, etc.). However, in some areas of physics, especially quantum mechanics, the traditional concept of causality may not hold in the same way. This assumption limits the argument's applicability to all of existence.

Circular Reasoning in Alpha Logic: The argument about the "Alpha" is somewhat circular – it defines an Alpha as something that must exist because it cannot have a cause, and then uses this definition to argue for its existence. This is a form of begging the question, where the conclusion is assumed in the premise.

Overlooking Infinite Regression and Looped Causality: While the argument addresses infinite regression and looped causality, it dismisses these concepts without sufficient justification. It's a significant leap to conclude that because these concepts are difficult to comprehend or seem counterintuitive, they must lead to a first cause. Infinite or looped causality models are viable theoretical concepts in cosmology and philosophy and cannot be dismissed lightly.

Conflating Different Types of Causality: The argument does not distinguish between different types of causality (e.g., material, efficient, formal, final causes in Aristotelian terms). This lack of distinction can lead to confusion and misapplication of the concept of causality to different contexts.

Speculative Conclusion: The conclusion that a causal chain will always lead to a first cause (Alpha) is speculative and not empirically verifiable. It's a philosophical position that depends on the acceptance of certain premises and definitions, which are themselves debatable.

No Consideration of Alternative Models: The argument does not consider or address alternative models of the universe that do not require a first cause, such as certain models of an eternal or cyclic universe.

In summary, while the argument is an interesting philosophical exercise, it is not conclusive. It relies on certain assumptions about causality, does not adequately address alternative theories, and contains logical flaws such as false dichotomy and circular reasoning. — ChatGPT

Try to understand it first. When you show understanding, then critique. — Philosophim

I have critiqued, but you don't understand the critique you get, and instead you use an argument about people not understanding you as your go-to defense against other's critique.

@ChatGPT

:up:

(Sorry @Philosophim, but he sounds so authoritative I succumb to his reasoning.)

ou use an argument about people not understanding you as your go-to defense against other's critique. — Christoffer

If you ever see me doing this, please be hard on me. Thanks

This is a lot of effort to avoid addressing the summary I put forth. Also a refusal to explain to me in your own words what I'm saying to show that you understand it.

You get so hung up on forcing people to understand you that you use others rejection of your argument as some evidence that you are right. But in doing so you ignore the objections being raised. — Christoffer

When the writer of the idea tells you that you're off, and tries to clarify it for you, listen. A straw man accusation is serious. And your statement is exactly what a person who uses a straw man does to keep using that logical fallacy. I posted the summary to indicate to you the point of the OP. That was your time to look at the summary and indicate how your point addresses that summary and my accusation was wrong. You did not do this. Meaning my accusation stands. It is not a flaw on my part to accuse you of this. It is a flaw on your part not to adequately answer this.

Nothing you are showing demonstrates that a first cause is not logically necessary by the OP's points and summary, and in many cases, you indicate you think its a very real possibility that first causes can exist. Trolling by going to chat GPT at this point is just silly.

Look, if you don't want to engage with me anymore, that's fine. I'm looking for arguments against the OP and that's all I care about. If you can't bother to address the point of the OP or clearly demonstrate that you are by referencing the OP or the summary, then the straw man accusation stands.

Fwiw, I agree entirely with Christoffer. Do what you will with the information, but it seems patently clear you are not engaging with the objections and instead just rejecting that the person objecting understands you.

I think it would be entirely appropriate for Christoffer to stop engaging.

Fwiw, I agree entirely with Christoffer. Do what you will with the information, but it seems patently clear you are not engaging with the objections and instead just rejecting that the person objecting understands you. — AmadeusD

Incorrect. I'm declaring a very real critique of his point. Look, throwing out a bunch of quantum physics references and going off on his own theories with a ton of paragraphs is not a good argument. That's just a "Baffle them with Bull!&*#" strategy. I'm not going to spend my time when I've already directed him to address particular points that he's ignoring, or he still demonstrates he doesn't understand the OP. Look at this here:

But the key point is that the density of the universe right at the event of Big Bang would mean dimensions having no meaning, therefor no causality can occur in that state. It is fundamentally random and therefor you cannot apply a deterministic causality logic to it. — Christoffer

You understand the OP, so you understand that this is the exact description of a first cause. A first cause is uncaused. And yes, something uncaused has no prior cause for its existence. That's the entire point.
This guy isn't getting that despite me trying to tell him a couple of times now. So he agrees with my point, as I've already told him, then he doubles down like he thinks he's saying something against my points. He doesn't understand. He's in his own world.

You still have the Penrose theories, and other cyclic interpretations that do not have a first cause as it's circular. There's no need for a first cause as the cycle, the loop causes itself. — Christoffer

I answer this directly with the summary I gave. He ignores this completely. He doesn't understand that the OP is addressing both finite regressive, as well as infinitely regressive and circular chains of causality and noting that at the end, there is no prior cause for their existence besides the fact of their being. What else can I say to him? You already mentioned in an earlier post that "We're both right". I get it, he can't seem to. :)

Look, throwing out a bunch of quantum physics references and going off on his own theories with a ton of paragraphs is not a good argument. — Philosophim

This is exactly the type of non-engagement I am seeing throughout the exchange. I don't know nearly enough to know whcih side is closer to 'correct' or whatever the actual case is - I'm just saying how it appears to someone in that position. I would suggest that your 'Baffle Them....' assertion is likely unconscious projection.

I have had to accept (with Banno, particularly) that I just dont get it, despite being convinced at every stage that Banno is not reading or paying attention, at least. I think the humility to accept that someone in that kind of position is probably on to something is reasonably helpful. I am merely trying to let you know it appears the same is happening here. The actual arguments aren't - that - relevant. I don't see you addressing them.

I did say that. But that wasn't addressing the bulk of what he's talking about because I wouldn't know whether you were both right. It was a very specific point I addressed there. I am only speaking about your conduct, not your arguments. I simply do not see you addressing hte objections. You might be 100% on the right side of hte issue.

I don't know nearly enough to know whcih side is closer to 'correct' or whatever the actual case is - I'm just saying how it appears to someone in that position. — AmadeusD

In that case, the normal default is you side with the OP's accusation and expect the accused to answer it. If the OP is of course lying or unfairly accusing, feel free to point out where the OP's accusations fail. But it should be specifics, not general.

I would suggest that your 'Baffle Them....' assertion is likely unconscious projection. — AmadeusD

I would take that suggestion if you presented some evidence. I am very keen that there are people who want me to just be wrong. That colors a lot of the argumentation. Which is fine. And I'm also aware I'm human and can make the mistake that I'm accusing other of. But I would like a concrete example to be sure.

I have had to accept (with Banno, particularly) that I just dont get it — AmadeusD

This is fair and honest. If I'm not being clear enough, that's fine. I've already mentioned this was written two years ago, and if I were to rewrite it today it would be much clearer. Somehow the thread got kicked up again and here we are though. :D

Its really pretty simple:

If we don't know whether our universe has finite or infinite chains of causality A -> B -> C etc...
Lets say there's a finite chain of causality. What caused a finite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason, it simply is.
Lets say there's an infinite chain of causality. What caused an infinite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason, it simply is.

Thus in either case, we have something which has no prior reason for its existence, thus a first cause is logically necessary.

I think the humility to accept that someone in that kind of position is probably on to something is reasonably helpful. — AmadeusD

We shouldn't be concerned about the person, but the arguments. Having success in one area does not mean you'll be successful in another. If there is a particular point that was pointed out that you want me to address, I'll do so.

I am only speaking about your conduct, not your arguments. I simply do not see you addressing hte objections — AmadeusD

If my conduct is flawed or overly hostile, I'll try to do better. I try to keep neutral in the discussion, but I'm human and can fail. My point is that many of his objections are not objections, and he doesn't understand the OP. I could go through paragraph by paragraph and show why, but I did that on his previous post and he's still not getting it. At that point I've found a good way to move forward with honest debaters is to recenter and ask the person critiquing to demonstrate that they understand the OP. Otherwise it can become pages and pages of points and counter points over things that don't even matter to the idea. If he's honest, he'll give it a shot. If he just want to 'be right' and he's doing this for ego, he won't.

I appreciate the feedback btw.

Having success in one area does not mean you'll be successful in another. — Philosophim

I agree, but that wasn't what i was suggesting.

If he's honest, he'll give it a shot. — Philosophim

That's a fair call, but if, to his eyes, you're not giving good-faith responses, you can see why he wouldn't bother, regardless of honesty. If someone repeatedly speaks past you, ignoring what you're saying, you wouldn't be partial to spending more time nutting out their problem for them.

not objections, and he doesn't understand the OP. I could go through paragraph by paragraph and show why, but I did that on his previous post and he's still not getting it. — Philosophim

I'm unsure that has occurred. I went back the last few longer posts between the two of you. I don't think those responses are dealing with his objections. But you are convinced that he 'doesn't get it'. This is, again, the exact attitude I am trying to highlight. You are not engaging with his objections with replies like this. You are claiming he doesn't understand - which is also what he is saying to you. Surely, you can understand that if he has the same notion you do, there might be something in it (might be on your side too!!) Maybe a better approach would be to zoom in on a single issue he's taken, and really nut out that one issue. I would suggest the best point would be the Planck scale issue between you. This should be understood between you before anything else gets off the ground as its a totally empirical consideration - you could find out its merely a misuse of 'scale' instead of 'unit'. Or C could find that out, and with that, your explications are sensible to him.

Have you ever heard of a logical fallacy called a "Straw man argument"? — Philosophim

This post is an example of where I think you've failed to address much at all. You've (imo, very condescendingly) asserted that he's using a Straw man (I can't see where) and then not dealt with his clear, precise objections. Again, this doesn't even mean you're wrong. It just means there's no chance for a decent discussion, anyway. The quote and reply immediately after this line is meant to convey somewhere C may be fed up with going back to restate his issue.

Thus in either case, we have something which has no prior reason for its existence, thus a first cause is logically necessary. — Philosophim

I do not see how that follows. Perhaps C doesn't either, and so you're not past the first hurdle in his eyes. But I haven't seen either of you zoom in on that, if that's the case it follows that everything beyond that would be problematic, between you. Could that he wants you to address this specifically and ensure you're not walking on stilts.

I've listed an argument. If you say, "I don't have to understand it, I'm going to attack this thing instead," you're committing a fallacy. — Philosophim

That's not at all what he did. If your argument fails the first hurdle of its premises being legitimate, how would understanding the actual argument matter? If someone gives me an argument that rests on a P1 of "All white men are racist" as gets bandied about, their actual argument isn't relevant. That is an empirically wrong premise. That may be happening here, it may not. I'm saying it needs to be addressed before the rest of your argument could be worthy of discussion.

In terms of concrete examples, I have given a couple by way of quotes (and now the above). But your responses seem to amount to "No, he doesn't get it" without ever addressing his actual material objections (Planck scale, that your logic is dimensionally-restricted etc..). Its very hard to know how to respond to that without repeating that i think it might be the other way around. I also would call your assertion of his ChatGPT posting as a 'troll' to be extremely weird, and clearly a dodge. The post goes through, in detail, the logical inconsistencies of your OP. Im unsure you can beat that by just saying C was doing something wrong in seeking it.

Regardless, your reasoning is a totally unnecessary confusing web when we already have the math that points towards this outcome. It's all already there in the physics, but you seem to just want to lift up your argument and reasoning as something beyond it, which it's not — Christoffer

This seems a really clear, concise summing up of why he is flustered by your long-winded replies. They don't actually seem to get past the objection here. That's why I suggest zooming in. Don't try to address fifty things in a post. Pick one thing and press him on it, if that's the issue. If you're willing to engage ad infinitum, respect. But be reasonable about what you're engaging - particularly if you see his responses as scatter-shot straw men :)

You are not engaging with his objections with replies like this. You are claiming he doesn't understand - which is also what he is saying to you. Surely, you can understand that if he has the same notion you do, there might be something in it (might be on your side too!!) — AmadeusD

There's one major difference. We're discussing the OP, not his theory. If he wants to post his own theory, feel free. If he's not understanding or addressing the OP after I try to point to it, then I have no responsibility to further engage with him. If I went into another thread, ignored or misunderstood the OP, then started going on my theory, I would be the one off base. It is not my responsibility in my own thread to go down some rabbit hole away from the OP. I've done that plenty of times in the past, and it ends up nowhere.

If someone repeatedly speaks past you, ignoring what you're saying, you wouldn't be partial to spending more time nutting out their problem for them. — AmadeusD

And this is exactly why I'm telling him to demonstrate he understands the OP at this point. I'm very tired of talking past him. His responsibility is to point to the OP with his problems and critiques. I'm not interested in talking to a guy who after I've already pointed out he agrees with me on issues of the OP, he continues to rant onward. I'm also not going to continue to engage in his personal quibble of whether I understand quantum physics or not. That's just ego talking, not an addressing of the points.

You've (imo, very condescendingly) asserted that he's using a Straw man (I can't see where) and then not dealt with his clear, precise objections. — AmadeusD

You bet I did. Let me point out why I did.

Just try to go into future threads with the intent to understand first before you critique.
— Philosophim

I don't have to, I understand the physics instead. — Christoffer

THIS is condescending. I will treat people respectfully until they start this, then I will respond in kind.
This tells me this person is not interested in discussing the OP, but their own ideas. The OP has nothing to do with physics. I don't care about his own ideas. I care about how is own ideas add or critique the argument I'm giving. His ideas are not. He's not even trying to.

He can make his own thread if he wants to talk about his own ideas. You cannot discuss with someone who does not want to, or care to, understand the point the OP is making.

And this is why I didn't bother with the rest of his post. Its not that he doesn't understand. I can work with that. He doesn't want to understand. Why am I discussing with him then? A waste of my time. I've debated a lot over the years, and this is the reddest of red flags that the person is not going to listen to you.

Don't try to address fifty things in a post. Pick one thing and press him on it, if that's the issue. If you're willing to engage ad infinitum, respect. But be reasonable about what you're engaging - particularly if you see his responses as scatter-shot straw men :) — AmadeusD

Good advice. I did try to rope it back to the most important point, his admittance that he did not care to understand what the OP was saying, but use his own argument. The admittance of a straw man that needed to be dealt with before anything else.

I appreciate the discussion, but lets let him weigh in now if he chooses. I don't want to derail the thread further.

The vagueness of first cause is troubling for me. It seems like category confusion. Suppose we have a finite or infinite regression. I know from my studies that certain infinite regressions have the same origin at each step back, but such an origin doesn't get counted as a first cause even if the regression is finite. Instead, a first cause is the existence of the regression or causal chain. In fact, no matter which kind of causal chain we consider, its first cause is always its existence. So a first cause is a metaphysical notion, not something specific to the chain or regression.

the only only conclusion is that a causal chain will always lead to an Alpha, or first cause. — Philosophim

In a metaphysical sense, of course.

The vagueness of first cause is troubling for me. It seems like category confusion — jgill

Its a fair point that a few have addressed. I'll note again that I wrote this two years ago, and I would rewrite it to be much clearer now. Not my fault someone dug it up again. :D

The clearest way I believe I can communicate a first cause is when we reach a point in causality where there is nothing prior which leads to its existence. It is not caused, but it enters into causation. Such a cause does not necessarily 'create' other things either. Its equally possible for a first cause to enter into an area where other existences have been prior. It then becomes part of the causality chains in what it interacts with.

I don't know if that clears it up any. If you can find a category error, feel free to point it out.

Instead, a first cause is the existence of the regression or causal chain. In fact, no matter which kind of causal chain we consider, its first cause is always its existence. — jgill

Correct. Why does one chain exist instead of something else?

So a first cause is a metaphysical notion, not something specific to the chain or regression. — jgill

What do you in particular mean by metaphysical? I only ask this because in my experience plenty of people have their own unique take. If I understand correctly, you're noting that the first cause is that the chain exists, not a first cause necessarily causing the chain to exist. Its the logical conclusion that at the end of the day, we're going to reach a point in causality where there is nothing prior. There is nothing that caused existence to be. It simply happened.

The understanding of this, that there is at least something that exists without prior explanation, lets us see a truth to the universe. There is no underlying grand plan. There simply is. Lets make the most of it.