It's nice to agree on something, isn't it? I wasn't sure whether you would welcome the agreement or criticize the way I undermined it.Exactly, well said Ludwig! — Philosophim
I'm not sure I have any clear grasp of what either statement means. Is 1) a version of the idea that the essence of humanity is rationality? If so, it depends what you mean by "rationality" and "essence", but is far from obviously true.1) the order inherent in thinking is foundational to the human identity; 2) the essence of thinking is its natural orderliness — ucarr
I'm not sure the world does appear to us as orderly, though it is true that there is some order in it. But a lot depends on what you think of as order.Following this line, I want to say the world appears to us orderly because it's rendered to our awareness through our thinking. — ucarr
Not really.Is it (sc. "Origin boundary ontology is a gnarly puzzle") sufficiently suggestive to give you a clear impression of what it's trying to communicate? — ucarr
It depends what kind of origin you have in mind - I mean what the origin in question is the origin of. In terms of this discussion, it does seem that the origin of a causal chain cannot be a cause, though if you change your definition of cause (or of what counts as an explanation) at that point, it may be possible to provide some sort of account.Are you inclined to believe origin stories must discard causation at the start point? — ucarr
Maybe. Though I have seen people trying to discuss that statement.Maybe a practical application of the language of silence consists of the axiomatic supposition supporting analysis: things exist. — ucarr
No. It wouldn't be what it is if it didn't. I might have something to say about a scientist who kept strictly within the boundaries of physicalism, even within working hours and we might decide to set different boundaries if circumstances changed.Is today's establishment science wrong in its pragmatic decision to keep within its analytical physicalism, with the axiomatic established as the boundary? — ucarr
Exactly, well said Ludwig!
— Philosophim
It's nice to agree on something, isn't it? I wasn't sure whether you would welcome the agreement or criticize the way I undermined it. — Ludwig V
The wording about physics is a little to vague for me — Philosophim
Again, lets change this to be a little more to the point. "However, if it is found logically that all instantiations of causation entail externals, logical antecedents and contemporaries, then its a correct inference there are no first causes."
This is a logical argument, so of course is there is a logical counter it fails. — Philosophim
Is this interpretation correct: The above claim ignores mereological issues associated with the work of defining a first cause. — ucarr
Too vague. What do you specifically mean by mereological. — Philosophim
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
Add, "It is possible" to the start of the above sentence and its good. — Philosophim
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
A logical boundary of scientific investigation. In no way should we stop science or philosophy. — Philosophim
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
No dualism. Dualism implies the presence of two separate things. There is not a separate thing. There is simply a first cause's inception. Let me give you an example of total randomness that you may not be realizing. It can be completely random that the universe has one first cause, the big bang, and never has one again. There are an infinite number of possible universes where there is only one first cause. There are an infinite number of universes with 2 first causes. And so on. — Philosophim
Something-from-spontaneously-occurring-self-organization preserves the laws of physics; something from nothing seems to violate physical laws — ucarr
If a first cause can be anything, and it is found to be true, that would not violate physical laws, that would simply become part of them. — Philosophim
You think it reasonable to characterize something-from-nothing as "... a small adjustment to physics..."? — ucarr
Yes because like Newton's laws to Einstein's relativity, most of the time Newton's laws is good enough. Most of the time in physics a first cause would never be considered as a case would have to factually present a case in which there could be no prior causality. That's a ridiculously high bar to clear. — Philosophim
...the impact to physics is irrelevant to the logical argument itself. — Philosophim
It's your job to explain logically how something-from-nothing happens. — ucarr
You think there's a cause that explains how it happens. There IS NO CAUSE ucarr. =D Do I need to type this 50 more times? I do say this with a smile on my face, but please, understand this basic point. — Philosophim
...there is nothing prior that is 'making' something. Its nothing, then something. Inception works much better. "nothing to something' will make me have to write 50 more responses to people explaining that no, nothing is not some thing that causes something. — Philosophim
Its nothing, then something. — Philosophim
Ha! But no. The logical argument has always been there ucarr. Try to show it to be wrong anytime. — Philosophim
Please try to address the argument as I do specifically and counter what it and I have been saying, not what you believe I'm implying. — Philosophim
True randomness is merely a description to grasp potential. — Philosophim
Please take the argument I've presented for why a first cause is logically necessary and point out where it falls into ad absurdum reductio. — Philosophim
"Are you saying that a first cause is self-evident?" Because my answer is "No". — Philosophim
As to reality, if reality refers to everything, there isn't something that exists outside of that set. That's logical. — Philosophim
And thank you for being very discerning and thinking about this at length. I don't want to come across as if I think you're not doing a fantastic job. You are. I'm enjoying the discussion. — Philosophim
The wording about physics is a little to vague for me
— Philosophim
You've been saying a principal first cause, although it can incept as anything, cannot violate the physical laws of the thing it incepts as, right? If I'm correct in thinking this, it seems to me also correct a principal first cause is constrained by the definition of the particular things it incepts as. — ucarr
Again, lets change this to be a little more to the point. "However, if it is found logically that all instantiations of causation entail externals, logical antecedents and contemporaries, then its a correct inference there are no first causes."
This is a logical argument, so of course is there is a logical counter it fails.
— Philosophim
Do you agree making this determination is the heart and soul of our work in this discussion? — ucarr
According to mereological essentialism, objects have their parts necessarily. If an object were to lose or gain a part, it would cease to exist; it would no longer be the original object but a new and different one.
Wikipedia - Mereological essentialism
The last two sentences of the definition are especially important. If a first cause is a system, as is the case in your example of a first-cause hydrogen atom, then, as you've been saying, it cannot be a hydrogen atom if one of its necessary parts is missing. — ucarr
So, if an electron is a thing-in-itself and its a necessary part of a hydrogen atom, then a hydrogen atom, even the first one, in order to exist, must contain an electron, another thing-in-itself like the hydrogen atom. Therefore, logically, we must conclude the electron is a contemporary of the hydrogen atom it inhabits, and thus the hydrogen atom cannot be itself and at the same time be a first cause. — ucarr
Maybe the question remains: Does a postulated realm of reality without physics and its laws violate the laws of physics? — ucarr
You seem to be saying discovery of a first cause is unlikely. The unlikeliness of its discovery has no bearing on the radical impact of such a discovery. — ucarr
Some might think I'm playing a language game when I reflect on a first cause that has no cause being illogical. I defend raising this question because the gist of your argument is that first causation is logically necessary. — ucarr
It's perhaps a weird argument, but I'm driving towards saying inception of first cause cancels definition of first cause as causeless. This in part is a denial that inception as a starting point can be causeless. — ucarr
Trying to partition an interval of time to a nearly infinitesimally small duration such that there's a moment after inception wherein cause is first established doesn't work because in that short interval of time you're implying first cause is not really itself, a paradox. If that's not the case, then there can be no positive time interval during which incepted first cause isn't itself establishing causation. So, no temporal creation without causation. — ucarr
Ha! But no. The logical argument has always been there ucarr. Try to show it to be wrong anytime.
— Philosophim
You're referring to your alpha logic in your OP? — ucarr
Please try to address the argument as I do specifically and counter what it and I have been saying, not what you believe I'm implying.
— Philosophim
You're saying I should only draw inferences strictly adherent to the precise sense in which you word your statements? — ucarr
True randomness is merely a description to grasp potential.
— Philosophim
Must you exclude potential from the neighborhood of first cause? — ucarr
Please take the argument I've presented for why a first cause is logically necessary and point out where it falls into ad absurdum reductio.
— Philosophim
You're saying you have reason to doubt your alpha logic can be reduced to ad absurdum reductio and, given this doubt, you want me to demonstrate such a reduction? — ucarr
"Are you saying that a first cause is self-evident?" Because my answer is "No".
— Philosophim
You're saying "First causes simply are." is not a self-evident truth? — ucarr
As to reality, if reality refers to everything, there isn't something that exists outside of that set. That's logical.
— Philosophim
You're speculating about reality having no boundary? — ucarr
As for my getting stuck at the outer boundary of causation and thereafter being unable to enter into examination of causeless things, I put my best spin on what I've been doing by thinking I've been running through my inventory of commitments to causation en route to deepening my understanding of what you're trying to communicate with respect to your posited causeless realm of first cause. I don't want to further aggravate your annoyance with fruitless repetitions. With that goal in mind, I'm ready to withdraw from our dialog in favor of study suggested by what I've been learning from it. — ucarr
True randomness is merely a description to grasp potential. — ucarr
Must you exclude potential from the neighborhood of first cause? — ucarr
I'm not sure what you meant by this, could you clarify please ucarr? — Philosophim
Let me give you an example of total randomness that you may not be realizing. It can be completely random that the universe has one first cause, the big bang, and never has one again. — Philosophim
You're saying "First causes simply are." is not a self-evident truth? — ucarr
No, they are a conclusion reasoned through by logic — Philosophim
You're speculating about reality having no boundary? — ucarr
I'm just saying that the word 'reality' is really a word that represents all of 'what is'. — Philosophim
Ask as long as you have questions that need answering, its not a problem. — Philosophim
I agree with this. The reason why this is so is simple. "Randomness" is being used unself-consciously, without an articulate understanding of how "random" (as opposed to "randomness" which is a misleading application of the grammatical rule that allows us to generate a noun corresponding to an adjective) is used in those applications where it is perfectly comprehensible and meaningful. If you want to extend the meaning of "random" beyond the Big Bang, it has to be done carefully and explicitly.Your underlined fragment suggests randomness in the role of the trigger of the singularity's rapid expansion. If that's not assignment of causal agency to randomness, its a talking point that flirts with such — ucarr
Exactly. But the need to do that is inherent in the positing of the Big Bang (and another extension beyond the Last Cause is equally inevitable). That's the power of the argument for infinite causal chains. But trying to apply concepts that were developed to apply to what exists after the Big Bang to what (if anything) exists before/behind the Big Bang is extremely problematic and liable to lead nowhere. Whether the mathematicians are doing any better, I can't possibly judge. But I would have thought that their approach stands a better chance than anything that can be made from ordinary language.However, your mentions of nothingness, randomness and now potential vaguely suggest they're subject to the gravitational pull of causal status due to our reasoning minds needing talking points to grasp nothing-then-something inception. — ucarr
So, nothingness, and randomness join the list of excluded causal prior states. — ucarr
I'm seeking clarification whether potential inhabits the list of the excluded. The simple answer is yes. However, your mentions of nothingness, randomness and now potential vaguely suggest they're subject to the gravitational pull of causal status due to our reasoning minds needing talking points to grasp nothing-then-something inception. — ucarr
Your underlined fragment suggests randomness in the role of the trigger of the singularity's rapid expansion. — ucarr
Another thought -- I know you've already addressed it -- is that the pre-big bang of no physics is an utterly different state not only from our world today, but utterly different from the start of the shortest time interval possible post-big bang. — ucarr
I'm still in arrears of understanding how randomness-into-big band is not a partitioning of reality into two utterly distinct states populating a dual reality. — ucarr
You're speculating about reality having no boundary?
— ucarr
I'm just saying that the word 'reality' is really a word that represents all of 'what is'.
— Philosophim
You're not answering my question, please do so. I'm pressing this point because saying all of what exists equals reality allows for the logical inference reality so defined has no boundary. — ucarr
Well, a reality with no boundary means the no-physics realm of nothing-then-something inhabits the same continuum inhabited by our everyday reality. — ucarr
No real meaning has ever been attached to possibilities. If what you are thinking is meaningful, you mean "Let's say, if anything is probable, that there is a 40% chance of a universe forming from a big bang, and a 60% chance of a universe forming from a little whisper." But to assign probabilities, you need to include all possible outcomes, and the total of your assignments must add up to 1.0 and no more. You need to assign a probability to all the "anythings" that you refer to in "if anything is possible". Unless you have a reason to assign different probabilities to different outcomes, you must assign the same probability to all outcomes. (Knowing the outcome doesn't count)Lets say, if anything is possible, that there is a 40% chance of a universe forming from a big bang, and a 60% chance of a universe forming from a little whisper. — Philosophim
You need to assign a probability to all the "anythings" that you refer to in "if anything is possible". Unless you have a reason to assign different probabilities to different outcomes, you must assign the same probability to all outcomes. — Ludwig V
The actual causal chains that we formulate are constructed either in a practical context or in the context of a theory. They are limited in the first case by pragmatic considerations and in the second by the theories we have. So when we construct actual causal chains, there will always be a first cause and a last cause, and these will present themselves as brute facts - we discussed those a while ago. — Ludwig V
That's a complicated statement. I'm not at all sure that I understand it.I did want to note that the conclusion applies to reality, not our knowledge or understanding of reality. — Philosophim
Sometimes it means exactly that. When it doesn't, it means "the first cause so far as we can tell"."First cause" does not mean, "The start of where we decide to look at the causal chain." — Philosophim
How can there not be a human context when we are discussing it?There is no human context. — Philosophim
Well, there's a scientific argument about that, so now the burden of proof is on you to prove that it isn't and to explain what would count as a proof.To know it is a first cause, we must prove that it is. — Philosophim
I haven't walked through my initial through process... so let me do so
now. — Philosophim
If anything is possible, then could some things be more possible than another? — Philosophim
I realized I could imagine any situation with odds, and realize that all odds had the same chance of happening when anything can happen. — Philosophim
True randomness' is uncaused. — Philosophim
I think that there are infinitely many possibilities (including the possibility of a Big Bang and a Small Whimper). You cannot assign any special probabilities to either the Big Bang or the Small Whimper. However small a number you assign to each probability, either it will be infinitely small or the total will be infinity. This makes your assignments meaningless. — Ludwig V
I did want to note that the conclusion applies to reality, not our knowledge or understanding of reality.
— Philosophim
That's a complicated statement. I'm not at all sure that I understand it. — Ludwig V
"First cause" does not mean, "The start of where we decide to look at the causal chain."
— Philosophim
Sometimes it means exactly that. When it doesn't, it means "the first cause so far as we can tell". — Ludwig V
To know it is a first cause, we must prove that it is.
— Philosophim
Well, there's a scientific argument about that, so now the burden of proof is on you to prove that it isn't and to explain what would count as a proof. — Ludwig V
If anything is possible, then could some things be more possible than another?
— Philosophim
Yes. You're invoking probability. — ucarr
I realized I could imagine any situation with odds, and realize that all odds had the same chance of happening when anything can happen.
— Philosophim
I'll sound a note of doubt about this on the premise all odds on all things having equal chance of occurrence assumes unlimited time. — ucarr
True randomness' is uncaused.
— Philosophim
This implies randomness can be contemporary with the first of all first causes, and thus prior to all first causes subsequent to the first of all first causes. The effect of randomness being uncaused is that there are no first causes. — ucarr
Also, if true randomness uncaused, as you claim, supports the prediction of certain outcomes, then it is -- your denials notwithstanding -- logical. — ucarr
Firstly, when you're propounding your conclusion -- that first cause is possible and logically necessary -- you demand it be understood: unexplainable nothing must be accepted prima facie. — ucarr
So far, your arguments beg the question: How is there not a chain of causation from nothing to something? — ucarr
The point of disjunction happens when the causal chain reaches its last position prior to the location of first cause and the location of first cause. — ucarr
The gap stands between first cause on one side of the disjunction and second cause on the other side of the disjunction. First cause is not connected to the causal chain you claim it causes. The gap separating the leader from its followers is the gap between no-physics and physics. — ucarr
Since you're talking about first cause causing a causal chain following after it, you have to bridge across first cause to second cause that bridges across to third cause, etc. — ucarr
For this reason, whenever you attempt to talk logically about first cause causing second cause and so on, you have to covertly bring in logical connectors linking first cause to second cause. — ucarr
In your attempt to assert a no-logic realm as the start of a logical realm, you encounter the gnarly problem of explaining logically the non-logical inception of logic. Its easy to claim a no-logic realm causes a logic realm if you keep the two realms separated in a dualistic reality. — ucarr
That's a very good example. "A cloud of philosophy condensed in a drop of grammar", as Wittgenstein would say. In this case, condensed in the definitions of two words - "sound" and "vibration".If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, the air still vibrates with the fall. We don't need someone to hear the vibration of the air for the air to vibrate. — Philosophim
I didn't know about that. I'm not surprised. I have never believed that the Big Bang was the end of the story. It doesn't make any difference to our problem, does it? But it does confirm my view that the first cause is a moving target, not a fixed point.One theory about the big bang is that prior to it, there existed the big crunch. — Philosophim
Well, of course it is a truth. By definition. But you have also specified conditions for its discovery that seem to exclude the possibility of ever discovering it, except as a temporary phenomenon of whatever theory we devise.No, a first cause is not an opinion. It is a truth. A first cause can have no prior cause for its existence. This is independent of whether we discover its existence or not. — Philosophim
So, you see, the conceptual framework that we apply to reality makes a difference to what reality we grasp. (I don't say it makes a difference to what is real. By definition, it doesn't.) — Ludwig V
I didn't know about that. I'm not surprised. I have never believed that the Big Bang was the end of the story. It doesn't make any difference to our problem, does it? But it does confirm my view that the first cause is a moving target, not a fixed point. — Ludwig V
Well, of course it is a truth. By definition. But you have also specified conditions for its discovery that seem to exclude the possibility of ever discovering it, except as a temporary phenomenon of whatever theory we devise. — Ludwig V
I've skimmed the thread, and most of it is over my little pointy head. But one sticking point seems to be confusing a logical First Cause (of some resulting chain of events) with an objective Thing or God operating in space-time. But your responses sound like what you have in mind is much more abstract & subjective, and more like a First Principle*1. That's simply a philosophical/mathematical concept, as contrasted with a physical/material object. And a mereological distinction is that the hypothetical Cause is not a part of the system of secondary causes & effects. The analogy I like to use is a pool-shooter, who stands outside the table and bouncing balls. :smile:In thinking on causality, I have concluded that the nature of existence necessitates a "first cause". The definition and justification of this conclusion are written below. This may be a little abstract for some at first, so please ask questions if certain portions need some clarity. I welcome all criticism! — Philosophim
But one sticking point seems to be confusing a logical First Cause (of some resulting chain of events) with an objective Thing or God operating in space-time. — Gnomon
That's simply a philosophical/mathematical concept, as contrasted with a physical/material object. — Gnomon
And a mereological distinction is that the hypothetical Cause is not a part of the system of secondary causes & effects. The analogy I like to use is a pool-shooter, who stands outside the table and bouncing balls. :smile: — Gnomon
My Poolshooter analogy was intended to illustrate that the Initial Cause was a separate sub-System outside the sub-system affected. Not necessarily outside of the known universe. Unless, there are no other (isolated) physical sub-systems, in which case the causal effects would apply to the whole universe, without exception. And the First Cause would have to be Meta-Physical (i.e. not subject to physical laws).I'm only going to tweak this a bit for clarification. You may not be implying this, I just want to be clear that a first cause as proven here is not outside of our universe, but a necessary existent within our universe. The balls on the pool table are not separate from the pool shooter. The entirety of the interaction is part of the universe. — Philosophim
So, if we are assuming that the chain of causation applies everywhere in the interconnected universe, then your immanent Cause could be its own Effect. For example the Cue ball is on the table, and can be impacted by the 8 ball. That's why my unique First Cause, or Causal Principle, is assumed to be off the table, outside the system affected. — Gnomon
I prefer not to specify where the imaginary Poolshooter is standing, and just call him an abstract-but-necessary Principle. — Gnomon
But one sticking point seems to be confusing a logical First Cause (of some resulting chain of events) with an objective Thing or God operating in space-time. — Gnomon
Correct. People seem to think I'm using this to claim the existence of some specific first cause like the Big Bang, God, etc. I am not... — Philosophim
That's simply a philosophical/mathematical concept, as contrasted with a physical/material object. — Gnomon
Also correct! — Philosophim
I just want to be clear that a first cause as proven here is not outside of our universe, but a necessary existent within our universe. — Philosophim
Are you saying unique First Cause is necessary to chain of causation it's outside of and affecting?
Can you elaborate additional details about the unspecified whereness -- positionally speaking relative to the whole -- of abstract-but-necessary Principle? — ucarr
Yes. My understanding of a logically necessary First Cause is a philosophical conjecture, not a scientific observation. So there is no "whereness" to specify. You can call it simply a Philosophical Principle, or a god, as you wish ; but like all fundamental Principles, the Prime Cause is a theoretical Concept, an Idea with "no material physicality". However, the referent is not an anthro-morphic deity located in space-time, but more like the Abstract Rational Principle of the US founding fathers, and the European philosophers such as Leibniz and Thomas Paine*1.Are you saying: a) the logical first cause has no material physicality; b) the logical first cause that has no material physicality exists within our universe? — ucarr
I just want to be clear that a first cause as proven here is not outside of our universe, but a necessary existent within our universe.
— Philosophim
Are you saying: a) the logical first cause has no material physicality; b) the logical first cause that has no material physicality exists within our universe? — ucarr
First Cause is necessary to chain of causation it's outside of and affecting. — Gnomon
My understanding of a logically necessary First Cause is a philosophical conjecture, not a scientific observation. So there is no "whereness" to specify. — Gnomon
...but like all fundamental Principles, the Prime Cause is a theoretical Concept, an Idea with "no material physicality". However, the referent is not an anthro-morphic deity located in space-time, — Gnomon
Deism is known as the "God of the Philosophers". As I said in the previous post : "But one sticking point seems to be confusing a logical First Cause (of some resulting chain of events) with an objective Thing or God operating in space-time". — Gnomon
The scientific Big Bang theory understandably avoided the philosophical question of where the Energy & Laws of Nature came from. That's because those logical necessities for a Chain of Causation are presumably Eternal & Everywhere. — Gnomon
This is not a claim of any 'one thing' being a first cause. Its just a logical note that there must be a first cause, and that first cause has nothing prior that limits or influences what it should be. — Philosophim
Is immaterial existence even a thing? I don't know. If it exists, then its a thing. If not, then its not. — Philosophim
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.