The entirety of our universe may very well be explained by several first causes over time culminating in today. — Philosophim
A first cause does not necessitate that it be able to do anything. — Philosophim
I just noted that there is no limitation on what could incept as a first cause. — Philosophim
But once its incepted, it is what it is, which is possibly limited. — Philosophim
...it is that identities are imposed limitations — Philosophim
I just noted that there is no limitation on what could incept as a first cause. But once its incepted, it is what it is, which is possibly limited. — Philosophim
I just noted that there is no limitation on what could incept as a first cause. — Philosophim
...we do not identify a hydrogen atom as being able to create ex nihilo. — Philosophim
"That is really similar to a hydrogen atom and it creates other existences besides itself". Sure. But its not a hydrogen atom as we currently define it, because hydrogen atoms cannot do that. — Philosophim
...because all things are possible as first causes, its equally possible a hydrogen atom, as we identify it, just forms and exists as normal. There is not the need for anything out there... — Philosophim
...While anything could have been possible, (and would still be as a first cause could happen at any time)... — Philosophim
a first cause must act causally — Philosophim
A first cause does not necessitate that it be able to do anything. — Philosophim
...because all things are possible as first causes, its equally possible a hydrogen atom, as we identify it, just forms and exists as normal. There is not the need for anything out there... — Philosophim
I think there's a difference between saying, "There's a reason for everything" and then spelling out what that reason is or how it must unfold. — Philosophim
I do not believe in self-evident truth. Truth is what is. — Philosophim
I believe some of the things about first causes are beyond experimentation or observation — Philosophim
So, the universe is still growing? — ucarr
So, a first cause may not trigger a causal chain? Should it instead be called a birth? — ucarr
do you acknowledge you also imply anything is possible? — ucarr
Do you acknowledge all possible inceptions implies contradictory inceptions can coexist, and thus the universe allows existence of paradoxes? — ucarr
These two claims, taken to together, suggest first causes, if self-actualized, impose identities upon themselves. Do you agree this implies the universe comes into being as self-will unlimited? — ucarr
"That is really similar to a hydrogen atom and it creates other existences besides itself". Sure. But its not a hydrogen atom as we currently define it, because hydrogen atoms cannot do that.
— Philosophim
Explain how the above is not weakened by the existence of water, as well as the other organic compounds containing hydrogen? — ucarr
I just noted that there is no limitation on what could incept as a first cause.
— Philosophim
...we do not identify a hydrogen atom as being able to create ex nihilo.
— Philosophim
How do you explain the above two quotes as non-contradictory? — ucarr
Even if you're not talking about cosmic first cause and instead are talking about one of the subsequent first causes, why must cosmic cause acting without limitation incept a subsequent causality that resembles human logical thinking.
— ucarr
To detail into this, lets say a hydrogen atom appears as a first cause and causes another hydrogen atom. Whether we observe this or not is irrelevant, it is the reality of the situation. To cause something means there is some rule that indicates why the thing caused happened. Meaning, causal logic will always be in play.
If a hydrogen atom appears as a first cause then a helium atom appears as a first cause, the hydrogen atom did not cause the helium atom to appear. So you see, it is impossible for something which causes another to be free of causal logic. The first cause is not free of causal logic either, it is the start. — Philosophim
a first cause must act causally
— Philosophim
Do you agree the above contradicts:
A first cause does not necessitate that it be able to do anything.
— Philosophim
I think there's a difference between saying, "There's a reason for everything" and then spelling out what that reason is or how it must unfold.
— Philosophim — ucarr
Do you agree that:
...because all things are possible as first causes, its equally possible a hydrogen atom, as we identify it, just forms and exists as normal. There is not the need for anything out there...
— Philosophim
does not spell out what the reason is or how first causes unfold? Do you see that, instead, it's presented as a axiom from which your thesis proceeds. As such, it says in effect, eventually everything will be everything because things, like hydrogen, simply are. — ucarr
Do you see that this -- the core of your thesis -- precludes scientific investigation? — ucarr
I do not believe in self-evident truth. Truth is what is.
— Philosophim
Do you see that in the above quote, immediately following your claim to dis-believe self-evident truths, you support this claim with a self-evident truth: "truth is what it is"? — ucarr
Do you accept that some major implications of your thesis include:
a) the universe allows paradoxes — ucarr
b) the conservation law re: matter-mass-energy, instead of actually being a law, is merely a plank within a working hypothesis still liable to refutation — ucarr
c) the universe, because it continues to incept new matter-mass-energy into itself, exists as an open system. — ucarr
At any moment in time, there is something prior that exists within the causal chain of the first cause up to the first cause itself. — Philosophim
To specifically state, "This first cause must have happened" requires us to prove it exists/existed. — Philosophim
Lets carefully define what we mean by a contradiction. A contradiction is often defined as "Two things that cannot coexist". So can two things that cannot coexist co-exist? No. Because that's what they are. Would there be things that might seem contrary to us? Yes. But if they both co-exist, they are not contradictions. — Philosophim
A first cause does not need to have any imposition, consciousness, or awareness of itself. It simply is. — Philosophim
...its not a hydrogen atom as we currently define it, because hydrogen atoms cannot do that. — ucarr
.we do not identify a hydrogen atom as being able to create ex nihilo. — ucarr
The first cause is not free of causal logic either, it is the start. — Philosophim
...a first cause must act causally — Philosophim
Do you agree the above contradicts:
A first cause does not necessitate that it be able to do anything. — Philosophim
No, can you add a little more to what you mean here? — Philosophim
I think there's a difference between saying, "There's a reason for everything" and then spelling out what that reason is or how it must unfold. — Philosophim
Do you agree that:
...because all things are possible as first causes, its equally possible a hydrogen atom, as we identify it, just forms and exists as normal. There is not the need for anything out there... — ucarr
None of what I'm stating invalidates the scientific method. — Philosophim
I believe it may be possible in some instances for us to find a first cause scientifically. — Philosophim
"Self-evident" means "human's can grasp them without needing to prove them". I do not believe in that. — Philosophim
truth is what it is — Philosophim
As for axioms, I believe axioms must be proven, not 'given'. — Philosophim
c) the universe, because it continues to incept new matter-mass-energy into itself, exists as an open system. — ucarr
No. I've said this several times now and its very important that you understand this. I am not saying, "X first cause happened, will happen, or has happened". Its possible, but it must be proven. It is equally as possible that no other first causes have happened, or will happen. You cannot predict if a first cause will happen. You must conclusively prove that a specific first cause has happened to say it has. — Philosophim
I make no claims that any one particular first cause happened, only that its logically necessary that there must have been at least one. — Philosophim
I'm not sure it makes any difference, but I think you have left out two options. I think the options are:-
1. A beginning, but no end (your ray).
2. An end, but no beginning.
3. No beginning and no end (your line).
etc. — Ludwig V
At any moment in time, there is something prior that exists within the causal chain of the first cause up to the first cause itself.
— Philosophim
With this claim how are you not deconstructing the central premise of your thesis? — ucarr
To specifically state, "This first cause must have happened" requires us to prove it exists/existed.
— Philosophim
Are you saying knowledge of a first cause can only be empirical, not a priori? So, this gives your claim the status of a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of truth? — ucarr
This is correct reasoning, but it suggests your claim needs to be altered to: Any logical first cause is possible — ucarr
A first cause does not need to have any imposition, consciousness, or awareness of itself. It simply is.
— Philosophim
Again, this is either self-causation or eternal existence without creation. — ucarr
.we do not identify a hydrogen atom as being able to create ex nihilo.
— ucarr
You're not talking about causation of something within an established causal chain, such as our sun assembling hydrogen atoms within its elements-generating furnace. If you were, you wouldn't have used the verb: create. — ucarr
The first cause is not free of causal logic either, it is the start.
— Philosophim
This is more evidence you imply first causes are self-caused. — ucarr
A first cause does not necessitate that it be able to do anything.
— Philosophim
No, can you add a little more to what you mean here?
— Philosophim
You've saying a cause, first or otherwise, must act causally. So why do you also say (per the above quote) that it isn't necessary that a cause be able to to anything, which is a way of saying it's not compelled to act causally. — ucarr
When describing these phenomena, you say vague things such as: a hydrogen atom forms ex nihilo, or you say even vaguer things such as: a hydrogen atom as first cause simply is, or There is no prior imposition. — ucarr
Does an atom will itself to exist? It is by the forces outside of its control. — ucarr
This is axiomatic jargon, not science. — ucarr
I believe it may be possible in some instances for us to find a first cause scientifically.
— Philosophim
Can you elaborate some specific details pertaining to how cosmologists can go about finding a first cause? — ucarr
Can you provide a proof for:
truth is what it is
— Philosophim — ucarr
As for axioms, I believe axioms must be proven, not 'given'.
— Philosophim
You should consult your dictionary, unless you want to start a conversation explaining how you're redefining "axiom." — ucarr
Since you think first causes are logically necessary, why do you say they're possible instead of saying they're necessary? — ucarr
I could easily deal with 3. as well, but that takes the thread away from the spectacular leap from a first cause being something imaginable to an existential realm. — jgill
I tried dealing with 1. and 2. earlier, in mathematical analogues, but there was no interest. I could easily deal with 3. as well, but that takes the thread away from the spectacular leap from a first cause being something imaginable to an existential realm. — jgill
...there is something prior that exists within the causal chain of the first cause up to the first cause itself. — ucarr
A causes B causes C is a causal chain. Every point within that chain has a prior point except the first cause. — Philosophim
The logical conclusion is that there must be at least one first cause. — Philosophim
I don't use the term self-causation because that can convey the intent that the first cause actively caused itself. That's not what I'm saying here. — Philosophim
...we do not identify a hydrogen atom as being able to create ex nihilo. — Philosophim
Again, this is not what is intended. A first cause does not cause itself. A first cause is not caused by anything. Its just there. Its extremely simple, don't overcomplicate it by adding in the term 'self'. :) — Philosophim
No will. No self. No other. Nothing then something. That's it. — Philosophim
There is nothing prior. — Philosophim
anything goes randomness — Philosophim
True randomness has nothing to measure. There are no prior constraints. There's no set up. There's nothing, then something. That's a first cause. Completely unpredictable and unlimited as what it could be before it happens. — Philosophim
...there is something prior that exists within the causal chain of the first cause up to the first cause itself.
— ucarr
Okay, for the record, this isn't you intending to say something exists prior to the first cause? Can you restate your intended meaning; I don't know how to read your above quote except as you saying something exists prior to the first cause. — ucarr
A causes B causes C is a causal chain. Every point within that chain has a prior point except the first cause.
— Philosophim
I don't know how to read this except as a contradiction to the statement I addressed directly above. — ucarr
The logical conclusion is that there must be at least one first cause.
— Philosophim
How can you justify logically the existence of a first cause that simply is? — ucarr
I think you imply self-causation in the case of a first cause. Since, by definition, nothing causal leads to a first cause, it follows implicitly that a first cause, if not eternal and uncaused, causes the inception of itself. — ucarr
What about a first-cause hydrogen atom? Doesn't it have to incept ex nihilo? — ucarr
Let me repeat my earlier question in a different way: Doesn't every first-cause entity have to self-incept ex nihilo? — ucarr
a) not self-caused; b) not caused by anything else; c) possibly extant, it follows logically that your first-cause entities, if they exist, have always existed. — ucarr
Given your limitations, can you name any other possibilities? — ucarr
Let's look at your first-cause entities from a slightly different angle: with your description, they're not eternal, and thus they must begin. — ucarr
If there's a point where something doesn't exist, and then a later point when it does exist, its logically necessary that this something began to exist by some means. How else can we understand the transition from nothing to something? — ucarr
If you say first-cause entities have no causation whatsoever, and yet are not eternal, then you're positing a universe wherein science is not possible. — ucarr
We both know that's not our universe. — ucarr
Finally, by the two previous arguments, first cause as you define it is self-contradictory: not caused means no beginning; no beginning but not always existing means not beginning to exist, so existing means not not beginning to exist, which means not not caused... — ucarr
Why is true randomness -- completely unpredictable and unlimited, but active -- not the cause of what you call first cause? — ucarr
How can you perceive nothing then something with nothing temporal or existential or directional? If time is not essential then: Nothing then something is the cheating liar homunculus in the randomness. — ucarr
Since every link in a causal chain is sourced in nothing, there's ultimately no distinction between first cause and links in a causal chain. — ucarr
There are no constraints in nothing, so constraint and causality cannot erase the signature of nothing stamped upon them.
Randomness won't countenance links in a causal chain, so talk of links in causal chains is distraction which cannot distract from Wittegenstein's silence. — ucarr
Too right. From my point of view, this discussion suffers because it sets out to discuss metaphysics, which seems to be interpreted as discussing the issues unself-consciously, that it, without paying attention to the tools that are being used - the language. I am not dogmatic about linguistic philosophy, but that doesn't mean that attention to the language-game is not relevant.This may just be a language issue. There is no prior or external cause. Typically saying, "self-cause" implies that there is first a self, then a cause. That's not what I'm intending. There is no conscious or outside intent. It just is. That is the answer. Nothing more. — Philosophim
I'm afraid that the rules of the game can give you the start, but not the end of the questions. There is always scope for that.That's the start of causality and the end of our questions up the causal chain. — Philosophim
You mean that randomness that is not an unknown explanation is the only "true" randomness. What makes it true, as opposed to an illusion?Why is true randomness -- completely unpredictable and unlimited, but active -- not the cause of what you call first cause? But it is: something, then nothing. — ucarr
Wittgenstein's silence in the Tractatus is defined against a very limited concept of what can be said - that is, of what "saying" is. Fortunately, there are more expansive views available. How far he took advantage of them in the later philosophy to say something that that cannot be said is an interesting question. One does notice, however, that his use of language is no longer limited by that early account of language.Randomness won't countenance links in a causal chain, so talk of links in causal chains is distraction which cannot distract from Wittegenstein's silence. — ucarr
I'm not sure it is a question of interest or not, rather than a question of understanding or not.I dealt with the existential realm, but there was no interest in that either. So where does that leave us? — Metaphysician Undercover
That's the entire point of the post. :D I thought you assumed the logic leading to this conclusion was correct, then asking about the consequences of it. I'll summarize it again.
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.
It is impossible for there to not be at least one first cause. Therefore we know that first causes are possible, and have no reason for their existence besides the fact they exist. — Philosophim
There is no prior or external cause. Typically saying, "self-cause" implies that there is first a self, then a cause. That's not what I'm intending. There is no conscious or outside intent. — Philosophim
ts illogical to claim that something which has nothing prior that caused its existence, has nothing prior that caused its existence. Only the minds rebellion based on previous experience thinks otherwise. You understand the transition because it happened. That's it. That's the start of causality and the end of our questions up the causal chain. — Philosophim
Its illogical to claim that something which has nothing prior that caused its existence, has nothing prior that caused its existence. — Philosophim
If you say first-cause entities have no causation whatsoever, and yet are not eternal, then you're positing a universe wherein science is not possible. — ucarr
Incorrect — Philosophim
We just have to keep open that possibility that a first cause could happen. — Philosophim
We both know that's not our universe. — ucarr
No we don't. — Philosophim
Not caused doesn't mean a first cause doesn't have a beginning. — Philosophim
True randomness is a description to understand the possibilities of a first cause. It is not a thing that exists that causes first causes. — Philosophim
How can you perceive nothing then something with nothing temporal or existential or directional? — ucarr
I did not understand this question, could you clarify please? — Philosophim
I don't see how you conclude this. If a causal chain is A -> B -> C, B causes C, A causes B, but nothing causes A. That's a clear distinction. — Philosophim
Randomness won't countenance links in a causal chain, so talk of links in causal chains is distraction which cannot distract from Wittegenstein's silence. — ucarr
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here either, could you go into more detail ucarr? Thanks. — Philosophim
You mean that randomness that is not an unknown explanation is the only "true" randomness. What makes it true, as opposed to an illusion? — Ludwig V
Wittgenstein's silence in the Tractatus is defined against a very limited concept of what can be said - that is, of what "saying" is. — Ludwig V
You're saying the domain of this conversation is a logical examination of what follows within a causal chain in the wake of its first cause? — ucarr
There is no prior or external cause. Typically saying, "self-cause" implies that there is first a self, then a cause. That's not what I'm intending. There is no conscious or outside intent.
— Philosophim
I'm guessing you're excluding consideration of self-organizing, complex systems that are not conscious. — ucarr
I'm guessing you're saying first causes can only be interacted with as givens. There's no way to approach a first cause mentally. The only mental reaction possible to the existence of a first cause is acceptance of it as a given, as an unsearchable fact. — ucarr
Its illogical to claim that something which has nothing prior that caused its existence, has nothing prior that caused its existence.
— Philosophim
Is this your description of circular reasoning? — ucarr
If just-ising is the dead-end of physics and its examinations, then, yes, the domain of causality post-first-cause suspports science. However, the fundamentals as first causes are beyond reach of science. This renders post-causality science permanently incomplete. — ucarr
Are you sure an unsearchable beginning doesn't dovetail with eternal existence? — ucarr
Something happening by just-ising from nothing seems to preclude energy, animation, forces and material, not to mention an environment of similar composition. — ucarr
When you exhort the reader to instantaneously accept the just-ising into being as a something divorced from everything save nothing, you're cryptically doing away with physics-yet-magically-assuming-it because you present without explanation some means of a human perceiving this change out of nothingness with his/her powers of perception intact, or is QM entanglement of observer/object not in effect with observation of a first cause aborning? — ucarr
You seem to be implying a priori knowledge permanently partitioned from empirical experience of ultimate causes and therefore uncorroborated independently are sufficient for belief in unsearchable first causes. — ucarr
It sounds like a hypothetical conjecture that excludes physics. If true randomness has no relationship with first causes, why do you even mention it? — ucarr
It seems likely your use of randomness facilitates circular reasoning within your head. — ucarr
Now, you're going to say first causes might govern our lives through the causal chains they author. — ucarr
Since first causes just-is their way into our world, there's no physics -- time, matter or vectors -- attached to their arrival. Sounds like a priori speculation without possibility of corroboration. — ucarr
Can you explain how first cause -- sourced in nothing -- and causing subsequent causal chain which cannot exist without its sourced-in-nothing first cause, can spawn anything other than nothingness? — ucarr
If the source of something is nothing, how can it cause anything other than what caused it, nothingness? — ucarr
To continue, if nothing becomes something and causes subsequent somethings, how can you claim causal supervenience across a causal chain? Don't you have to maintain that original nothingness in order to claim supervenience? If so, then causal chains are really nothing — ucarr
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here either, could you go into more detail ucarr? Thanks.
— Philosophim
Your first causes from nothing might be invoking Wittgenstein's silent vigil over what cannot be spoken of. — ucarr
On the contrary, I'm suggesting true randomness cannot be contemplated because it deranges the foundational order of thinking. — ucarr
Virtual particles pop out of a vacuum attached to a QM universe. Moreover, they have physical causes.
— ucarr
Have any of these mathematical conveniences ever been detected? — jgill
The typical example is of two uncharged conductive plates in a vacuum, placed a few nanometers apart. In a classical description, the lack of an external field means that there is no field between the plates, and no force would be measured between them.[13] When this field is instead studied using the quantum electrodynamic vacuum, it is seen that the plates do affect the virtual photons which constitute the field, and generate a net force[14] – either an attraction or a repulsion depending on the specific arrangement of the two plates. Although the Casimir effect can be expressed in terms of virtual particles interacting with the objects, it is best described and more easily calculated in terms of the zero-point energy of a quantized field in the intervening space between the objects. This force has been measured and is a striking example of an effect captured formally by second quantization.[15][16]
Although the Casimir effect can be expressed in terms of virtual particles interacting with the objects, it is best described and more easily calculated in terms of the zero-point energy of a quantized field in the intervening space between the objects.
On the contrary, I'm suggesting true randomness cannot be contemplated because it deranges the foundational order of thinking.
— @ucarr
It simply causes us to consider something we have not considered before. This does not disrupt thinking or logic. Its merely a continuation and updating of what we can consider. — Philosophim
I'm afraid you have me there. I don't know whether you mean the actor or the civil rights activist. But I don't think Wittgenstein meant that. He didn't say there was any problem about asserting well-formed propositions, did he? Certainly, he didn't succeed in stopping his own internal dialogue - I'm not even sure that he tried. Maybe a Zen monk?Suppose I succeed in stopping my internal dialogue, have I earned a nod from Walter White? — ucarr
In the case of first causes, the evidential bar is so high, that it is more plausible by far to believe that it will never be met, except in the context of a specific theory, which is far from conclusive. — Ludwig V
I'm saying at least one first cause is logically necessary, and the consequences of that being so. — Philosophim
There is no prior or external cause. Typically saying, "self-cause" implies that there is first a self, then a cause. That's not what I'm intending. There is no conscious or outside intent. — Philosophim
I'm guessing you're excluding consideration of self-organizing, complex systems that are not conscious. — ucarr
I'm not including or excluding anything but defining what a first cause is, and what that means for us. — Philosophim
If there is a first X in a causal chain, there cannot be something prior which causes that first X. A -> B -> C A is the first. You can't then say 1 -> A because then A was never the first, 1 was. This is about discovery, this is about what actually is first, whether we know that its first or not. — Philosophim
You can't... say 1 -> A because then A was never the first, 1 was. — Philosophim
Finding limits is part of completeness. — Philosophim
Are you sure an unsearchable beginning doesn't dovetail with eternal existence? — ucarr
Positive. Our ability to know it is irrelevant to what it is. Its entirely possible a first cause could start to exist at any time. That would be its beginning. If one does, has, or will, whether we discover it or not does not deny its logical possibility and then existent reality. — Philosophim
Our ability to know it is irrelevant to what it is. — Philosophim
Something happening by just-ising from nothing seems to preclude energy, animation, forces and material, not to mention an environment of similar composition. — ucarr
Its not that all of these things can't incept, its just that nothing else causes them to incept. — Philosophim
...a small adjustment to physics is not a reason to deny a logical conclusion — Philosophim
The possibility of first causes does not destroy what physics is. — Philosophim
You seem to be implying a priori knowledge permanently partitioned from empirical experience of ultimate causes and therefore uncorroborated independently is sufficient for belief in unsearchable first causes. — ucarr
It sounds like a hypothetical conjecture that excludes physics. If true randomness has no relationship with first causes, why do you even mention it? — ucarr
Because its the logical consequence of nothing coming from something. — Philosophim
Why does reality exist at all? Was there anything outside of reality which caused reality? Of course not. Meaning there was nothing that ruled that it had to be this way. — Philosophim
It seems likely your use of randomness facilitates circular reasoning within your head. — ucarr
I don't see how this is circular. Please explain. — Philosophim
Ucarr, something I've noticed is you say I'm implying or asserting things that I have not implied or asserted. — Philosophim
Can you explain how first cause -- sourced in nothing -- and causing subsequent causal chain which cannot exist without its sourced-in-nothing first cause, can spawn anything other than nothingness? — ucarr
Sure. Because there is no constraint as to what a first cause can be. — Philosophim
If the source of something is nothing, how can it cause anything other than what caused it, nothingness? — ucarr
Because that's what it is. — Philosophim
A first cause is simply the start of all other causation in that chain. You're over complicating it again. A -> B -> C Nothing caused A. Keep it simple Ucarr. — Philosophim
Your first causes from nothing might be invoking Wittgenstein's silent vigil over what cannot be spoken of. — ucarr
This again doesn't explain anything to me. What specifically in Wittgenstein's silent vigil is being evoked as you see it? Lots of people have very different opinions on what Wittgenstein was referring to. So I'll need your particular take to understand what you mean. — Philosophim
On the contrary, I'm suggesting true randomness cannot be contemplated because it deranges the foundational order of thinking. — ucarr
It simply causes us to consider something we have not considered before. This does not disrupt thinking or logic. Its merely a continuation and updating of what we can consider. — Philosophim
I'm not sure what the foundational order of thinking is or even whether there is one. — Ludwig V
But it is true that we are so reluctant to accept "no cause" that we try to corral it by speaking of probability, which at least establishes a sort of order in the phenomena. — Ludwig V
Suppose I succeed in stopping my internal dialogue, have I earned a nod from Walter White? — ucarr
I don't know whether you mean the actor or the civil rights activist. — Ludwig V
He didn't say there was any problem about asserting well-formed propositions, did he? — Ludwig V
Is the following rephrasing acceptable: At least one cause and its causal chain are necessary. — ucarr
Is this interpretation correct: The definition of a first cause and whatever that entails is an acceptable object of examination within this conversation. — ucarr
Is this a reasonable conclusion: A self-organizing, complex system is an acceptable object of examination within this conversation if it is not logically excluded from the definition of first cause. — ucarr
Is this interpretation correct: A principal first cause constrained by the laws of physics cannot imply anything external, antecedent or contemporary with itself. — ucarr
However, if the laws of physics logically necessitate all instantiations of causation entail externals, logical antecedents and contemporaries, then its a correct inference there are no first causes. — ucarr
Is this interpretation correct: The above claim ignores mereological issues associated with the work of defining a first cause. — ucarr
First causes inhabit the phenomenal universe and create consequential phenomena in the form of causal chains, and yet the examination of causation as a whole comes to a dead end at its phenomenal starting point. — ucarr
The implication is that either within or beyond the phenomenal universe lies something extant but unexplainable.* Is this a case of finding the boundary of scientific investigation, or is it a case of halting scientific investigation and philosophical rumination by decree. — ucarr
The notion of total randomness causing something-from-nothing-creations suggests a partitioned and dual reality. The attribution of dualism to this concept rests upon the premise that total randomness cannot share space with an ordered universe without fatally infecting it. — ucarr
Given QM entanglement, it may be the case that what can incept is limited by what exists. An everyday parallel is the fact that certain microbes don't spawn and proliferate in liquid solutions with a pH above a certain level. — ucarr
Something-from-spontaneously-occurring-self-organization preserves the laws of physics; something from nothing seems to violate physical laws — ucarr
...a small adjustment to physics is not a reason to deny a logical conclusion
— Philosophim
You think it reasonable to characterize something-from-nothing as "... a small adjustment to physics..."? — ucarr
I've been examining your definition of first cause as something-from-nothing within a closed system wherein matter-mass-energy are conserved. Again, I ask if you think it reasonable to characterize something-from-nothing as a small adjustment. — ucarr
It's your job to explain logically how something-from-nothing happens. — ucarr
Merely stating that inception of a first cause is a case of: "It is what it is." amounts to a case of you dodging behind axiomatic jargon amounts to a case of you dodging behind axiomatic jargon that's first cousin to street vernacular: "Hey, man. I don't know what else I can tell ya. It is what it is." — ucarr
Here's the dodge: You claim a priori knowledge of the reality of first causes, then evade the work of empirical investigation by claiming the just-ising of first causes into our phenomenal universe. — ucarr
You can't establish it as a logical consequence if you can't show and explain how randomness morphs into a dynamic organizer of something. You're hiding another homunculus. It's the homunculus that confers onto randomness organizational powers. — ucarr
Also, you need to argue why something-from-nothing as a logical consequence is not an ad absurdum reductio. If you can't defend against such a conclusion, then first cause is non-existent. — ucarr
Your conclusion is not a self-evident truth -- since you claim to disavow self-evident truths, why are you claiming one here? Also, don't jump to the conclusion something outside of reality is self-evidently absurd: √−1=i — ucarr
It seems likely your use of randomness facilitates circular reasoning within your head.
— ucarr
I don't see how this is circular. Please explain.
— Philosophim
There's no organized run-up to the just-ising of first causes, so they are because they are. Your tautology is your shield. — ucarr
Ucarr, something I've noticed is you say I'm implying or asserting things that I have not implied or asserted.
— Philosophim
It's your job to refute my interpretations of what you write with cogent arguments. — ucarr
Can you explain how first cause -- sourced in nothing -- and causing subsequent causal chain which cannot exist without its sourced-in-nothing first cause, can spawn anything other than nothingness?
— ucarr
Sure. Because there is no constraint as to what a first cause can be.
— Philosophim
So, first cause, like a deity, can create anything. Also, first cause, like a deity, cannot be explained causally. Instead, first causes and deities just are. — ucarr
If the source of something is nothing, how can it cause anything other than what caused it, nothingness?
— ucarr
Because that's what it is.
— Philosophim
You don't need an argument to support this because its nature is by definition, right? — ucarr
A first cause is simply the start of all other causation in that chain. You're over complicating it again. A -> B -> C Nothing caused A. Keep it simple Ucarr.
— Philosophim
You're the one suggesting randomness caused first cause. You're the one suggesting the questionable equation between randomness and nothingness. — ucarr
This again doesn't explain anything to me. What specifically in Wittgenstein's silent vigil is being evoked as you see it? Lots of people have very different opinions on what Wittgenstein was referring to. So I'll need your particular take to understand what you mean.
— Philosophim
I'm speculating about your first causes just-ising into being as examples of ineffable creation. — ucarr
This thread is like a causal chain. What would you say about its first cause(s)? — jgill
↪Philosophim This question cannot be solved without first defining what an existence would be — LFranc
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.