I just got back to looking at this. It just relates to something I came across... retrocausality.

The brain model applies to brains as emergent and affecting matter in the present.

The signal back propagation idea is speculative but if it exists could be relavent to a first cause.

For me it's something to keep in mind.

Doesn't the {belief that eliminating immaterial data decreases a model's error} imply that immaterial things have no causal relationship with material things? — Lionino

No. The "belief" implies that "immaterial data" is indefinite or without sufficiently definite parameters with respect to material data, thereby, in effect, comparing apples & oranges (or facts & dreams). I think both conservation laws and the principle of causal closure, however, imply that only material entities can have causal relationships with material entities. Btw, isn't "immaterial thing" an oxymoron? :smirk:

First, we should point out that, not only the first cause but any cause is supposed to be necessary.
But this necessity kills causality itself: it's actually a problem in Spinoza's works that you probably already heard of. Since the cause cannot not produce the effect, it means the effect already lies in the cause somehow (and it means that time is a kind of illusion for Spinoza but that's another matter).
But then: how can the cause produce an effect, since the effect already exists?
Therefore, nothing can really be produced, and this kills causality. Or rather, it shows that causality is contradictory: causality can exist thanks to the absence of causality, and vice versa. That, of course, is a very short presentation of this subject (source: Brief Solutions to Philosophical Problems Using a Hegelian Method, Solution 10)

it means the effect already lies in the cause — LFranc

What does this even mean?

It might make sense. Absent any physical theory, logic says non-existent and non-physical things don't have any cause and effect relation.

The only option in which logic applies is two physical entities interacting.

If that's a wrong interpretation LFranc can correct us.

I'm still kicking around the idea of what brains can do and if brains should be considered in our cosmological models as they have some ability to control energy and matter in a way lesser forms of matter do not.

You point to time perseption being a problem.
I agree.

If you think of a timeline you have nothing and then physical matter bursting into existence.

Something is wrong with the time model.

Since we have matter now, maybe the best approach is to look at what we can learn from astronomy and particle accelerators. A universal principle of 'then' and 'now' is likely.

Absent any physical theory, logic says non-existent and non-physical things don't have any cause and effect relation. — Mark Nyquist

Is mathematics non-existent? Some might say yes. It's certainly non-physical. But cause and effect run thorough it like an intellectual river. In a typical theorem there is an hypothesis which gives rise to a conclusion.

My version,

Brain; (hypothesis... conclusion)

Yes, it's physically based.
We have the ability to physically hold non-physicals. So mathematics does exist in this physical form.

↪jgill

My version — Mark Nyquist

That's OK. We all have our versions.

↪180 Proof indicates his prejudicial opinion that there can be nothing outside of space-time. {how do he know?} — Gnomon

I did not claim or imply this.

As I've stated in several of our exchanges, Gnomon, my metaphysical position more or less agrees with Spinoza's: there is no "outside of space-time" (or "beyond" with "possibilities") insofar as nature is unbounded in all directions (i.e. natura naturans is eternal and infinite) ... just as there is no edge of the Earth off of which one can fall, no north of the North Pole, etc.

Stop making up sh*t. :sweat: — 180 Proof

OK. I'll let you speak for yourself. Contrary to my interpretation, you're saying that "there can be something outside of spacetime?" Yes or No? After you have corrected my understanding of your metaphysical position on space-time vs eternity question, please answer the questions below.

If I mis-interpreted your Immanentism position on the all-inclusive, no exceptions, expanse of space-time, I will apologize in this thread. But you would have to either reject the Big Bang theory outright, or explain the obvious implication of a time before space-time --- i.e. beyond the scope of scientific evidence. Unfortunately, unless you have slam-dunk & drop the mike evidence or argument, that discussion might require a new thread of its own. In any case, your earthbound "north of north pole" argument*1 is irrelevant to modern philosophical & cosmological conceptions of Space-Time.

Do you think Stephen Hawking was "making up sh*t" when he said that "Time . . . had a beginning"*2? Do you accept that a sequence with a beginning must have an end --- not to mention a First Cause? Do you agree that beginnings & endings are set boundaries, that logically imply possibilities beyond the boundaries*3? Was Hawking spreading "woo-woo"?

My metaphysical position also generally agrees with Spinoza . . . but with one scientific objection : in the 17th century, he plausibly assumed that "deus sive natura" was eternal, hence unbounded. But 20th century science found evidence to contradict that presumption*4. Which concept of "space-time" is compatible with your "metaphysical position" : 17th or 20th century? Again, I ask {how do he know?} :smile:


*1. How valid is "What is North of North Pole?" argument? :
"It is not an argument. It is an (imperfect, as always) analogy." ___Victor Toth
https://www.quora.com/How-valid-is-What-is-North-of-North-Pole-argument

*2. The Beginning of Time :
The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. ___Stephen Hawking
https://www.hawking.org.uk/in-words/lectures/the-beginning-of-time

*3. Did spacetime start with the Big bang? :
In particular Roger Penrose has developed a view that the period since the Big Bang should be called an aeon, and that there were earlier aeons each infinitely long. This makes the Big Bang a kind of transition period between two aeons.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5150/did-spacetime-start-with-the-big-bang
Note --- This is not my view. Simply an expert's opinion/conjecture that the BB had a precursor. He may be "making up sh*t", but he has pristine math to back it up.

*4. Immanence in Space & Time :
As a prime example of a transcendent conception of space in this paper, Isaac Newton’s theories of space will be discussed as well as the mathematical framework within which Newton developed his physics: Euclidean space. On the other hand, as a role model for an immanent conception of space, Einstein’s general relativity will be analyzed as well as the geometry that lies behind this theory: Riemann’s differential geometry. . . .
Unlike transcendent conceptions of space, in which space provides a super-structure for the organization of bodies and events that change over time, immanent conceptions of space do not rely on the presumption that space exists prior to bodies.
https://www.performancephilosophy.org/journal/article/view/146/262

Since the cause cannot not produce the effect, it means the effect already lies in the cause somehow (and it means that time is a kind of illusion for Spinoza but that's another matter).
But then: how can the cause produce an effect, since the effect already exists?
Therefore, nothing can really be produced, and this kills causality. — LFranc

Everything doesn't exist all at once, but over time. It doesn't matter if there is perfect determinism, we have to watch it unfold. So no, causality is fine.

Or rather, it shows that causality is contradictory: causality can exist thanks to the absence of causality, and vice versa. That, of course, is a very short presentation of this subject (source: Brief Solutions to Philosophical Problems Using a Hegelian Method, Solution 10) — LFranc

I think we need the larger presentation because I'm not sure you're conveying the nuance needed here. Without the context of the paper, what you said makes no sense.

The brain model applies to brains as emergent and affecting matter in the present.

The signal back propagation idea is speculative but if it exists could be relavent to a first cause.

For me it's something to keep in mind. — Mark Nyquist

Another form of retrocausality is information based. Our brains hold concepts of past, present and future so an anticipated future event can affect the physical present. For example we do things based on future projections like storing food, preparing for storms, launching space probes and preparing for wars. All things not possible without brains so brains can affect matter. Would it be relavent to a first cause? I don't know but it's a mechanism that appears to operate differently than lesser forms of physical matter are capable of. — Mark Nyquist

This has no relevancy to a first cause that I can see. What caused your brain to remember X? What caused your brain to be created? And so we go down a chain of causality.

I'll try to rephrase it. The effect comes from the cause (by definition), so the effect includes the cause. For example, the plant includes its seed, because the plant is the-seed-that-grew. The plant is the continuation of the seed. (This continuation already blurs the border between cause and effect, by the way).
But we can also say that the cause includes its effect. Of course, we cannot perceive the effect while the cause is still here (we cannot see the plant when there's just a seed), but, if causality is necessary (like science and Spinoza say), then the cause has to produce this effect, in this specific way and at this specific moment. So, in a way the effect is already there in the cause, for nothing else can happen but this effect. As Philosophim says:

we have to watch it unfold — Philosophim

It is true, we cannot perceive the simultaneity of the cause and the effect, we can just think about it. To Spinoza, "watching it unfold" is indeed just something that "we" do, humans, through what Spinoza calls "imagination" (which doesn't mean hallucination). But humans can comprehend, with rationality, that, in a way, everything happens at once, which is what Spinoza calls "considering things sub specie aeternitatis", "under the aspect of eternity", as you probably know.

Now, back to what I was saying in the previous comment: as you can probably feel, this reasoning leads to a cause that is hardly distinguishable from the effect, and vice versa, which kills causality (how could we think of causality without distinguishing a cause from an effect?). This applies to both concrete and abstract causal things.
Now, it is true that :

The only option in which logic applies is two physical entities interacting. — Mark Nyquist

Science often thinks in terms of laws and not causes indeed. For example, law of gravitation: is it the Earth that attracts the moon or the other way around? The answer is: both, it's a law, a relationship, not a causality.
("Causality can exist thanks to the absence of causality": I agree it's not easy to understand without a larger context. That is the very conclusion of what I wrote beforehand, it's just a weird and a bit striking way to put it.)

my metaphysical position more or less agrees with Spinoza's: there is no "outside of space-time" (or "beyond" with "possibilities") insofar as nature is unbounded in all directions (i.e. natura naturans is eternal and infinite) — 180 Proof

I wanted to note that I have had no issue with this. My question to you is: "What caused space-time?" And to clarify how to think about this, take the idea that spacetime has always existed, and put it in a set. From spacetime is our ultimate cause for the existence of all other matter and phenomenon. This is still fine. So this set captures all of causality through infinite time.

Now the question: What caused this set? Was there anything necessary that lead to space-time existing, or does it just exist because it does? If there is nothing prior which explains why space-time had to have existed forever or exists as it does, then we have reached a first cause. It is the cause of all other things, yet has no cause for its own being besides its own existence.

I'll try to rephrase it. The effect comes from the cause (by definition), so the effect includes the cause. For example, the plant includes its seed, because the plant is the-seed-that-grew. The plant is the continuation of the seed. (This continuation already blurs the border between cause and effect, by the way). — LFranc

What you might be implying here can be easily captured by determinism. If A causes B, then necessarily along a timeline it was A which caused B to happen. Causality is capturing all of the aspects that are necessary for A or B to exist. If something could exist without something necessary besides itself, in other words, A simply existed because of its own undeniable existence, and nothing else, we would call A a 'first cause'. A 'first cause' is the only aspect of existence free from the determinism of its inception, or eternal existence (if that is how it exists).

if causality is necessary (like science and Spinoza say), then the cause has to produce this effect, in this specific way and at this specific moment. So, in a way the effect is already there in the cause, for nothing else can happen but this effect. — LFranc

Saying the effect is 'already there in the cause' is just a misuse of language. If the effect hasn't happened yet, its not there. We can say, "This cause will result in X effect in five seconds if nothing else enters the picture". That's fine. But that doesn't mean the cause and effect exist simultaneously. Determinism still requires time to unfold.

But humans can comprehend, with rationality, that, in a way, everything happens at once, which is what Spinoza calls "considering things sub specie aeternitatis", "under the aspect of eternity", as you probably know. — LFranc

Yeah, that's poetry, not anything based in actual fact. We can imagine a world without time, but we live in a world of time. You and I haven't already died right? So the notion that everything has happened all at once beyond flowery language and the imagination, is absurd in reality.

Science often thinks in terms of laws and not causes indeed. For example, law of gravitation: is it the Earth that attracts the moon or the other way around? The answer is: both, it's a law, a relationship, not a causality. — LFranc

Science often thinks in terms of causality as well. I've heard this claim that 'science doesn't like causality' and it turns out its only philosophers. Scientists use causality every single day as its core to science. "What causes gravity to exist?" is a great mystery scientists would love to solve.

The effect comes from the cause (by definition), so the effect includes the cause — LFranc

This has been my take on mathematics. Once certain definitions and processes are settled, all that logically flows from them does, in a sense, exist. It's a matter of discovery.

It means the effect already lies in the cause — LFranc

What does this even mean? — Michael

The existence of the cause implies the contemporaneous existence of the effect.

Example: Clouds saturated with water cause rain.

...non-existent... — Mark Nyquist

Non-existence is an abstract concept which has an empty content.

...logic says non-existent and non-physical things don't have any cause and effect relation. — Mark Nyquist

Non-physical things abstract things have cause and effect relations via the support of the brain: the brain's memory functions allow sentients to recapitulate empirical experiences and then organize them sequentially and thematically ⟹ logic and sets.

Is mathematics non-existent? Some might say yes. It's certainly non-physical. — jgill

Show me how you will determine the calculation of input values and a binary operator after you die; show me how the universe will determine the calculation of input values and a binary operator after all sentients die.

Show me how you will determine the calculation of input values and a binary operator after you die; show me how the universe will determine the calculation of input values and a binary operator after all sentients die. — ucarr

Sorry. No idea what you are talking about.

Non-existent is a concept.

It does exist as brain state,

Brain; (a concept)
Brain; (a non-existent entity)

Also brains activate muscles so a concept can affect physical matter. Like the result of a math problem.

That's the only way an abstraction, concept, mathematical construct can affect physical reality.

Going back in the thread we might agree....
Not sure.

The effect comes from the cause (by definition), so the effect includes the cause. — LFranc

Premise: "If the effect hasn't happened yet, its not there." -- Philosophim ⟹ Effects only propagate in time.

Counter Premise: A priori deduction ≠ a posteriori deduction along the measurement axis of time.

• If A causes B, then necessarily along a timeline it was A which caused B to happen.

OR

• If A causes B, then necessarily along a timeline it was A which caused B to happen.

NOT

If A causes B, then necessarily along a timeline it was A which caused B to happen.

So,

Question A: Deduction can lead to knowledge only by empirical observation in time?

Question B: Deduction can lead to knowledge both by observation in time and by abstract reasoning?

Interpretation: A = F; B = T

So, by the conjunction logical operator: F & T = F and T & F = F. With this interpretation, the conjunction logical operator shows us that the two propositions cannot both be true.

The effect comes from the cause (by definition), so the effect includes the cause. — LFranc

Since the above statement is true by definition, we know that we can arrive at knowledge a priori (by reasoning alone) when we apply a definition to a body of information that fulfills the definition.

Conclusion:

Proposition A:

The effect comes from the cause (by definition), so the effect includes the cause. — LFranc

Proposition B:

If the effect hasn't happened yet, its not there. — Philosophim

Regarding the two above propositions: A = T and B = F .

Non-existent is a concept. — Mark Nyquist

Agree

It does exist as brain state, — Mark Nyquist

Agree

Brain; (a concept) — Mark Nyquist

Agree

Brain; (a non-existent entity) — Mark Nyquist

Disagree, unless I distort your intended meaning

Also brains activate muscles so and concept can take affect physical matter. Like the result of a math problem.

That's the only way an abstraction, concept, mathematical construct can affect physical reality. — Mark Nyquist

Agree

Show me how you will determine the calculation of input values and a binary operator after you die; show me how the universe will determine the calculation of input values and a binary operator after all sentients die. — ucarr

Sorry. No idea what you are talking about. — jgill

If you are physical, and your mind, being connected to your physical brain, is likewise physical, how do you connect with non-physical math?

Another question (implied by my questions up top): How does a non-physical thing (you dead) connect with another non-physical thing (math)?

Counter Premise: A priori deduction ≠ a posteriori deduction along the measurement axis of time. — ucarr

What does this mean Ucarr? Are you saying that all a priori deductions don't take any time to realize? And I'm further confused in how any of this addresses the issue of cause and effect.

Question A: Deduction can lead to knowledge only by empirical observation in time?

Deduction does not require empirical observation. But we need to think through it right? Are you saying time doesn't exist? I'm confused again.

Question B: Deduction can lead to knowledge both by observation in time and by abstract reasoning? — ucarr

Are you saying that abstract reasoning does not take time? Can we observe things outside of time? I'm not sure where you're going here.

First, we should point out that, not only the first cause but any cause is supposed to be necessary.
But this necessity kills causality itself: it's actually a problem in Spinoza's works that you probably already heard of. Since the cause cannot not produce the effect, it means the effect already lies in the cause somehow (and it means that time is a kind of illusion for Spinoza but that's another matter).
But then: how can the cause produce an effect, since the effect already exists?
Therefore, nothing can really be produced, and this kills causality. Or rather, it shows that causality is contradictory: causality can exist thanks to the absence of causality, and vice versa. That, of course, is a very short presentation of this subject (source: Brief Solutions to Philosophical Problems Using a Hegelian Method, Solution 10) — LFranc

David Hume addressed the philosophical Causation Problem by noting that, in Physics there is no Causation, only Change*1. Yet, the human mind attributes the Power of Causation (potential) to some unseen force. By the same reasoning, there are no Laws or Logic in the physical world. But the human mind seems to inherently "conceive" of consecutive Change as the effect of some prior physical input of Energy. It's a Belief, not a Fact.

Hence, for both Physicists and Philosophers, Causation is logically "supposed to be necessary" --- to explain an observed Difference --- even when the original impetus is not empirically observable : e.g. First Cause of all change in the world. Therefore, I suppose that "the Effect lies in the Cause" in the sense of Aristotle's Potential. Which again, is a metaphysical concept, not a physical force or object. Likewise, Einstein's "space warped by gravity" is a metaphysical concept, which some imagine to be an empirical observation. Consequently, philosophers need not expect to have their belief about Causation confirmed by empirical evidence. We can only argue about the plausibility of the logical inference from difference, n'est ce pas?

Therefore, in this thread, we are ultimately arguing about a metaphysical principle*2 to explain all changes in the world. So, if we track all physical changes back to the Big Bang, and stop, we have merely defined the First Effect, not the First Cause. :smile:


*1. What does Hume say about causality?
Hume argues that we cannot conceive of any other connection between cause and effect, because there simply is no other impression to which our idea may be traced. This certitude is all that remains. For Hume, the necessary connection invoked by causation is nothing more than this certainty.
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-causation/

*2. Metaphysical Primacy :
Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the fundamental nature of reality. This includes studies of the first principles of: being or existence, identity, change, consciousness, space and time, necessity, actuality, and possibility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

Are you saying that all a priori deductions don't take any time to realize? — Philosophim

Do a priori deductions take time to be true? How much time does it take for two + two to equal four?

Deduction does not require empirical observation. But we need to think through it right? — Philosophim

Are we thinking through something already there, or do you suppose thinking logically creates logical truth moment to moment?

Do you imply a something-from-nothing first cause becomes true only as we think about it?

Do you intentionally imply only thinking about first cause in time makes it real and thus pairs time as a contemporary with first cause?

Are you saying that abstract reasoning does not take time? — Philosophim

Are you supposing truth comes into existence in time during the time interval of our thinking about it?

Must two + two = four continually be recreated from non-existence across time by sentients thinking about it?

Can we observe things outside of time? — Philosophim

Are you asking if outside of time we can think through the experience of observing things?

With something from nothing, are you implying spacetime and matter_energy emerge as contemporaries?

Are you saying that all a priori deductions don't take any time to realize?
— Philosophim

Do a priori deductions take time to be true? How much time does it take for two + two to equal four? — ucarr

Ucarr, I'm asking a question to understand what you're trying to say. Returning my question with a another question is just more confusing. :) In fact, all of my questions you just answered with questions. My questions are not statements, I'm just trying to figure out what you're saying.

...the human mind seems to inherently "conceive" of consecutive Change as the effect of some prior physical input of Energy. It's a Belief, not a Fact. — Gnomon

After going to the doctor with mild symptoms, you're told your spinal column is infected with pneumococci bacteria. Since it's believed this infection causes spinal meningitis, you're advised to immediately undergo an aggressive program of antibiotics within the intensive care unit. Explain why you wouldn't dismiss this diagnosis as uncertain causal-belief-not-fact and go home untreated, or would you go home? Would you go home untreated, betting on fact-based-mind-over-uncertain causal-belief?

Ucarr, I'm asking a question to understand what you're trying to say. Returning my question with a another question is just more confusing. :) In fact, all of my questions you just answered with questions. My questions are not statements, I'm just trying to figure out what you're saying. — Philosophim

Perhaps now you can better appreciate my efforts towards independent inferential thinking in response to what you write.

You did okay in your exam of my previous post. Keep going.