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
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
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
We can attribute a starting point anywhere in a chain of causality.
— Philosophim
That's why I call it contextual. — Ludwig V
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
You need to clearly distinguish spatio-temporal causality from your murkier concept of meta-causality. — sime
Another possibility you are overlooking, is the possibility that the very existence of the past and its historical content might not transcend the ever-changing state of the present.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
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.Do you accept a free will act as a true first cause? — Metaphysician Undercover
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.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
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.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
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.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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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. — jgill
I can see that your definition is constant. But it's empty. People will look for something.No, I think the definition of a first cause is a constant. Causality also does not change. — Philosophim
I think you are understating the case.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
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.Can they prove that there is nothing prior that caused it? — Philosophim
In thinking on causality, I have concluded that the nature of existence necessitates a "first cause". — Philosophim
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
Then you agree 100% with my OP. There's nothing else to discuss if you state this. — Philosophim
Just try to go into future threads with the intent to understand first before you critique. — Philosophim
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"? — Philosophim
I've listed an argument. If you say, "I don't have to understand it, I'm going to attack this thing instead," — Philosophim
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
ou use an argument about people not understanding you as your go-to defense against other's critique. — Christoffer
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
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
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 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
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
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
I would suggest that your 'Baffle Them....' assertion is likely unconscious projection. — AmadeusD
I have had to accept (with Banno, particularly) that I just dont get it — AmadeusD
I think the humility to accept that someone in that kind of position is probably on to something is reasonably helpful. — AmadeusD
I am only speaking about your conduct, not your arguments. I simply do not see you addressing hte objections — AmadeusD
Having success in one area does not mean you'll be successful in another. — Philosophim
If he's honest, he'll give it a shot. — 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.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
Have you ever heard of a logical fallacy called a "Straw man argument"? — Philosophim
Thus in either case, we have something which has no prior reason for its existence, thus a first cause is logically necessary. — Philosophim
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
In a metaphysical sense, of course.the only only conclusion is that a causal chain will always lead to an Alpha, or first cause. — Philosophim
The vagueness of first cause is troubling for me. It seems like category confusion — jgill
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
So a first cause is a metaphysical notion, not something specific to the chain or regression. — jgill
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.