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

No, I really don't understand what you're trying to say or how this relates to the topic. Your writing is unclear and I am making a good faith effort to understand it. Please try again to make what you are saying more clear. Otherwise, no, I am not going to keep going.

If you introduce a new idea and people have questions about it, it is your job to do whatever you can to make it clear when reasonable inquiry is made. Just like I have done for you when you have had questions about my work. The person who is introducing an idea, you in this case, is doing so with the intent to impart value and possibly persuade someone else. It is not the responsibility of someone who reads it and engages with you to solve your riddles when they are simply trying to understand your initial points. I am currently unable to understand your ideas, and I am respectfully asking you to clarify them if you want me to remain engaged.

Contrary to my interpretation, you're saying that "there can be something outside of spacetime?" Yes or No? — Gnomon

I'm not saying that. Again, I'm saying this:

there is no "outside of space-time" (or "beyond" with "possibilities") ... — 180 Proof

for the reasons given in that post.

If I mis-interpreted your  Immanentism position on the all-inclusive, no exceptions, expanse of space-time, I will apologize in this thread.

No apology needed.

But you would have to either reject the Big Bang theory outright, or ...

I don't think so. BBT explains only the development of the current structure of spacetime (see R. Penrose's CCC¹) and not its "origin". Btw, in reference to quantum cosmology, I prefer the Hartle-Hawking No Boundary Conjecture² instead.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology ¹

https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Astronomy__Cosmology/Supplemental_Modules_(Astronomy_and_Cosmology)/Cosmology/Carlip/The_Hartle-Hawking_%22no_boundary%22_proposal ²

My question to you is: "What caused space-time?" — Philosophim

On what grounds do you assume "space-time" was "caused"? It seems to me, Philosophim, you're asking, in effect, "what caused causality?" :roll:

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.

No, not "first" but only: existence, being sui generis, is the only cause of everything – causality itself – which in Relativistic physics is often described as the "Block Universe" or in metaphysics, as Spinoza conceives of it sub specie aeternitatus, as "substance" (i.e. natura naturans³)⁴.

https://pursuingtraditions.wordpress.com/category/natura-naturans-vs-natura-naturata/ ³

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/#GodNatu ⁴

I am currently unable to understand your ideas, and I am respectfully asking you to clarify them if you want me to remain engaged. — Philosophim

Okay.

How much time does it take for two + two to equal four?

An attack on answering this question can be made through the lens of the Idealization versus Measurement comparison. This comparison scheme is, in turn, part of the Abstractionism procedure.

So, the abstractionism procedure examines multiple empirical experiences and abstracts them from blooming creation down to a thematic pattern:

Syllogism: All humans are mortal; Socrates is human; therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Pythagorean Theorem: For any right triangle, the square of the length of the hypotenuse equals the sum of the lengths of the legs of the right triangle.

The two above abstractions are measurements of multiple empirical experiences condensed into approximations of an open-ended volume of thematically linked possibilities. The process of abstractionism is thus an idealization of otherwise unmanageable, blooming creation.

Let’s now look at Idealization Versus Measurement:

Speaking intuitively, we don’t want to say that on the day Pythagoras discovered the Pythagorean Theorem, it became true. Doing so implies that on the day before his discovery, it wasn’t true. This distinction illuminates a parallel distinction: empirical measurement experiences have time locally attached to them; abstract idealizations have time absentially attached to them.

Now we have an argument for opposing the maxim: “The map is not the terrain.” By force of the Idealization Versus Measurement distinction, we can say, “Yes, it is.”

In point of fact, the brain depends upon the condensation to idealization of abstractionism for manageable navigation of blooming creation, i.e., the real world of empirical experiences at every moment leads to sensory overload if it isn’t filtered through the condensation of abstractionism.

QM backwards engineers abstractionism by showing us that the seemingly discrete material physicality of things in the phenomenal world is in reality a sensorially overwhelming networked convolution of non-local events. The Heisenberg Equations help us navigate this experiential plethora by means of statistical analysis of probabilities.

The Heisenberg Equations, being an increase of measurement precision for otherwise undetectable non-locality effects at the scale of human experience, through their advanced circuitry-logic, instruct us against concluding QM is just academic pettyfogging.

QM bolsters fantastically the not-now-but-future-spacetime-distribution design of absential materialism.

Logic embodies the diva Faubourg Saint-Germain elan of highest-form abstractionism.

We want to declare logical truth immaterial and immortal, but, alas, it is an idealization of empirical measurement within the phenomenal world of material physicality.

that's poetry, not anything based in actual fact. — Philosophim

"sub specie aeternitatis" is not poetry, it's an approach that is logically deduced from the fact of necessary causality. For Spinoza, time is something closer to "poetry" than eternity. As for my own position, it differs from Spinoza's, because I think that causality logically turns into its opposite in a dialectical way. (Brief Solutions to Philosophical Problems, solution 10)

I agree with you when saying that "Science often thinks in terms of causality as well."

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 think you missed the point of my philosophical distinction between inferred Belief (certitude) in a Cause, and a scientifically-proven Fact of the Agent (bacteria) of an Effect (meningitis). The footnote gave the context*1. David Hume defined the concept of Causation as an inferred mental relationship, not a physical thing*2. Correlation does not prove Causation. If you don't agree, you can argue with Hume. From that philosophical perspective, the First Cause is an abstract concept, not a white-haired old Deity with a magic touch. :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. Causation is a relation between objects that we employ in our reasoning in order to yield less than demonstrative knowledge of the world beyond our immediate impressions.
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-causation/

I prefer the Hartle-Hawking No Boundary Conjecture² instead. — 180 Proof

I can see why Hawking's spherical universe "conjecture" fits your Immanent belief system better than the Big Bang theory's exploding pin-point (Singularity) imagery. To each his own.

I suspect Hawking was merely echoing Einstein's god-like description of the universe --- as seen from outside --- imagined as a four-dimensional sphere : "finite" in volume, but "unbounded" in topology. That imagery suited his mathematical purposes, just as the counter-intuitive Block Time (eternalism) model illustrated his concept that our perception of dualistic Space (matter) & Time (energy) is merely a common-sense interpretation of monistic Space-Time. But, my layman's philosophical purpose & preference is different from Einstein's genius mathematical intention. :smile:

GOD'S {and Einstein's} VIEW OF HIS FINITE BUT UNBOUNDED CREATION


COSMOLOGIST'S MODEL OF BIG BANG

On what grounds do you assume "space-time" was "caused"? It seems to me, Philosophim, you're asking, in effect, "what caused causality?" :roll: — 180 Proof

I'm actually not. To break down the entire conversation into a better summary than the OP, what I'm claiming is that there must be at least one thing that is uncaused, which then causes other things to happen. The case of an 'infinitely eternally existing space-time' is in your mind, is uncaused. The OP notes that such a thing must necessarily exist, so your belief in this existence is in alignment with the OP, not against it.

No, not "first" but only: existence, being sui generis, is the only cause of everything – causality itself – which in Relativistic physics is often described as the "Block Universe" or in metaphysics, as Spinoza conceives of it sub specie aeternitatus, as "substance" (i.e. natura naturans³)⁴. — 180 Proof

My first thought when you explained this was, "That's basically God," I then read your links and saw that was what Spinoza was doing. Not in the Christian or deist sense of course, but describing a Godlike existence without the need for consciousness.

None of this contrasts with the point I'm making here. If you believe that a Spinozan type universe is possible, my points agree with this. The only difference is that any claim one makes to an 'uncaused substance' must offer proof that it is indeed uncaused. Otherwise, its an act of faith and just as possible as any other idea a person can come up with.

All I got from this is the idea that our minds cannot perfectly be the world, but are abstract representations. That's fine. Causality doesn't care whether you observe it or not. When a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, it still vibrates air. This theory does not care about whether we are accurate in any particular causality, it is about causality as a necessary reality. Human minds are not required.

If you say so.

To each his own. — Gnomon

Yeah, that's what the astrologer (or witch doctor) said to the astrophysicist (or medical doctor).

I think you missed the point of my philosophical distinction between inferred Belief (certitude) in a Cause, and a scientifically-proven Fact of the Agent (bacteria) of an Effect (meningitis). The footnote gave the context*1. David Hume defined the concept of Causation as an inferred mental relationship, not a physical thing*2. — Gnomon

You and Hume characterize causation as deduction?

Causality doesn't care whether you observe it or not. — Philosophim

This theory does not care about whether we are accurate in any particular causality, it is about causality as a necessary reality. Human minds are not required. — Philosophim

Describe a situation in nature wherein necessity is important apart from sentients.

Describe a situation in nature wherein necessity is important apart from sentients. — ucarr

Necessity is not important, its what is. I'll repeat the example I already gave: If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around, it still vibrates the air molecules.

Necessity is not important... — Philosophim

That's why you've been working your ass off with this conversation for months running? And by the way, who says "What is is not important?" Just because humans aren't necessary, that doesn't have to mean they aren't important.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around, it still vibrates the air molecules. — Philosophim

So, you've been relaxing under island breezes.

Seems fitting after slaving in the trenches for a just cause.

Necessity is not important...
— Philosophim

That's why you've been working your ass off with this conversation for months running? And by the way, who says "What is is not important?" Just because humans aren't necessary, that doesn't have to mean they aren't important. — ucarr

I think we're having a language issue again. Also, I've enjoyed the conversation. This is a hobby, not work. If I could make a living doing this, I would.

Describe a situation in nature wherein necessity is important apart from sentients — ucarr

Lets go over this again so you can better understand my answer. The word 'important', I read as 'important to some sentient'. Its important for a purpose. My answer, "Necessity is not important, its what is," means that necessity is a fact. Whether its important to someone or thing is irrelevant. 1+1 = 2 isn't important, its a fact. Do you understand the answer now?

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around, it still vibrates the air molecules.
— Philosophim

So, you've been relaxing under island breezes.

Seems fitting after slaving in the trenches for a just cause. — ucarr

I don't understand your answer. Again, what exists does not need to be observed to exist. Causality does not need to be observed to be a fact of reality.

I think you missed the point of my philosophical distinction between inferred Belief (certitude) in a Cause, and a scientifically-proven Fact of the Agent (bacteria) of an Effect (meningitis). The footnote gave the context*1. David Hume defined the concept of Causation as an inferred mental relationship, not a physical thing*2. — Gnomon


You and Hume characterize causation as deduction? — ucarr

Well, technically, Deduction from data*1 is just one way to understand Change in the world. It begins with observation of a general principle ((transformation ; metamorphosis) and subtracts (abstracts) everything that is not consistently associated with observed Effects. When Induction and Abduction also agree on the Deduction, we can be pretty sure that the Cause and Effect are correlated by some transformational Principle, that we call "Causation" --- or in some cases "Agency". And yet, due to the limitations of data and reasoning, mere Correlation of variables does not prove Causation. We could be missing something.

Aristotle called that agent of change "Morphe" (form). Other ancient thinkers used the term "Spirit" to label that invisible causal Agency, but moderns tend to use the term "Energy" or "Power". Now, in the 21st century, another term has been applied to describe physical Transformation : Information*2 --- or as I call it in my thesis : EnFormAction*3 (the power to transform). The bottom line here, is that Causation is not something we can see or touch or dissect physically. But we can analyze it by means of Reason. Hence, the agency of transformation must be rationally inferred or deduced. :smile:

*1. Deduction of Causation :
There are three types of causal reasoning: deduction, induction, and abduction. Deduction is the use of data and arguments to come to a guaranteed conclusion. Induction is when conclusions are drawn based on a limited set of data.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/causal-reasoning-definition-examples.html

*2. Energy :
Scientists define “energy” as the ability to do work, but don't know what energy is. They assume it's an eternal causative force that existed prior to the Big Bang, along with mathematical laws. Energy is a positive or negative relationship between things, and physical Laws are limitations on the push & pull of those forces. So, all they know is what Energy does, which is to transform material objects in various ways. Energy itself is amorphous & immaterial. So if you reduce energy to its essence of information, it seems more akin to mind than matter.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*3. EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

When Induction and Abduction also agree on the Deduction, we can be pretty sure that the Cause and Effect are correlated by some transformational Principle, that we call "Causation" --- or in some cases "Agency". And yet, due to the limitations of data and reasoning, mere Correlation of variables does not prove Causation. We could be missing something. — Gnomon

Do you assess this lack of proof as a metaphysical issue?

Do you assess this lack of proof as a metaphysical issue? — ucarr

Only if it leads to false beliefs. Most of the time, correlation is "close enough for government work". But technically, in logic and statistics, conflation of correlation with causation is a fallacy. In complex situations, other factors may disguise the "true" cause {see stork/baby image}. :smile:

Gnomon Reply to LFranc in this thread :
"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."

Correlation often, but not always, implies Causation :
It is certain, that not only in philosophy, but even in common life,we may attain the knowledge of a particular cause merely by one experiment, provided it be made with judgment, and after a careful removal of all foreign and superfluous circumstances. Now as after one experiment of this kind, the mind, upon the appearance either of the cause or the effect, can draw an inference concerning the existence of its correlative; and as a habit can never be acquired merely by one instance; it may be thought, that belief cannot in this case be esteemed the effect of custom. ___David Hume
https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/551312/who-first-coined-the-phrase-correlation-does-not-imply-causation

Do you assess this lack of proof as a metaphysical issue? — ucarr

Only if it leads to false beliefs. — Gnomon

I'm asking if work towards finding a proof is more appropriate for the philosopher than for the scientist.

Infinites can be counter-intuitive but are not themselves logically contradictory, e.g. Hilbert's Hotel and Shandy's Diary.

Here's an old attempt to derive a contradiction from infinite time:

• An argument that an infinite past is impossible (Nov 2, 2016)

And another:

Assumption (towards reductio ad absurdum): infinite temporal past.

Let's enumerate past days up to and including last Wednesday as: {..., -1, 0}. That is, there exists a bijection among those past days (including Wednesday) and the non-positive integers.

Now come Thursday.

We find that {..., -1, 0} cannot accommodate Thursday.

Let's (re)enumerate the same past days but including Thursday as: {..., -1, 0}. That is, there exists a bijection among those past days (including Thursday) and the non-positive integers.

We find that {..., -1, 0} can accommodate Thursday.

The two findings are contradictory: {..., -1, 0} both cannot and can accommodate Thursday.

Therefore the assumption is wrong, an infinite past is impossible.

This proof is also invalid (left as an exercise for the reader), so I failed once again in my attempt to necessitate a finite past.

Here's a story, not a proof, demonstrating counter-intuitive infinites:

Wittgenstein overhears someone saying "5, 1, 4, 1, 3. Done."
He asks what that was about, and they respond that they just finished reciting π backward.
"But, how old are you?"
"Infinitely old. I never started, but have been at it forever and finally finished."

Say, why finish right at that time, and not some other time, any other time in fact? No sufficient reason (which is metaphysics, not logic). Our intuitions violated.

I keep coming up short, suggesting that an infinite past (duration) is not logically contradictory/impossible. Maybe "seemingly absurd" is more fitting?

I keep coming up short, suggesting that an infinite past (duration) is not logically contradictory/impossible. Maybe "seemingly absurd" is more fitting? — jorndoe

The OP does not care if an infinite past is possible or not. The conclusion is the same.

I'm asking if work towards finding a proof is more appropriate for the philosopher than for the scientist. — ucarr

What kind of "proof" --- for a "metaphysical issue" --- would you expect to find, as a philosopher? Can we send a philosophical space-probe back in time to find the empirical First Cause of the Cosmos? Can a valid logical argument prove the truth (existence/reality) of a metaphysical belief?

Mathematical "proof" is simply logical consistency (derived from true premises), and Empirical "proof" is based on abundance of non-contradictory physical evidence. Philosophical "proof", though, is a logical argument that is accepted as true in a convinced mind. But when two philosophers argue, the discussion can go-on indefinitely, without reaching a mutually satisfactory conclusion. So, I would say that finding slam-dunk proof --- for a Prime Mover --- is in-appropriate for mathematicians & scientists & philosophers.

For example, in Science Ideated, Bernardo Kastrup argues with two philosophers on the metaphysical existence of Consciousness : a process or qualia, not a physical thing. One argues that "consciousness doesn't happen, it's a mistaken construct", And the other says, "our introspective systems monitor these neural processes but misrepresent them as a simple quality". Have any of these thinkers proven anything? Is your belief or disbelief in your own personal Awareness based on objective evidence, or on personal experience --- the very non-thing in question? :smile:

PS___ First Cause arguments are mathematical/logical in that they are true only if the premises are true. Unfortunately, in this special case of reasoning, the First Cause is also the Premise in question.


Can you prove anything in philosophy?
It's a common misconception that you can prove whatever you like in philosophy. In reality, it's hard to find completely convincing arguments which conclusively establish some conclusion.
https://www.quora.com/Can-you-prove-anything-in-philosophy

Is it ever possible to really prove anything in philosophy? :
Richard Rorty saw philosophy as a tool that you used to solve problems. He agreed that you couldn't definitively prove things in philosophy
https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/12rjpo9/is_it_ever_possible_to_really_prove_anything_in/

What is the best evidence or proof for metaphysics? :
Metaphysics means what is “after” or “beyond” physics. So almost by definition, is outside the domain of physical evidence.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-best-evidence-or-proof-for-the-existence-of-metaphysics

Ucarr, I know you don't like the conclusion here and are trying to demonstrate it is wrong. Lets go another route that might help more. Instead of trying to demonstrate why the conclusions here are false, try instead to prove that a first cause logically cannot exist. In other words, present to me a logical universe in which no first cause exists. If you can do that, then that's the same as countering the OP.

I'm not sure about the universe as a whole, but physics is giving up on causation in the physical sense - a lot now is more like logical causation. In general relativity, a big mass, like the Earth, curves space, and that gives the illusion of a force of gravity, but there is no such force in physics anymore. And there is no mechanism for how the mass manages to curve space. Similarly in quantum mechanics, the Schrodinger wave equation does not let the electrons in an atom collapse into the protons in the nucleus, even though no force is created to oppose the electrical attraction pulling them in. How does an equation accomplish that? Sounds more like logical causation to me.

I'm not sure about the universe as a whole, but physics is giving up on causation in the physical sense - a lot now is more like logical causation. In general relativity, a big mass, like the Earth, curves space, and that gives the illusion of a force of gravity, but there is no such force in physics anymore. And there is no mechanism for how the mass manages to curve space. Similarly in quantum mechanics, the Schrodinger wave equation does not let the electrons in an atom collapse into the protons in the nucleus, even though no force is created to oppose the electrical attraction pulling them in. How does an equation accomplish that? Sounds more like logical causation to me. — Gary Venter

Exactly! What we call "Causation" is not a physical or mechanical Force, but a logical inference from observation of sequential physical changes.

Your post metaphysically caused me to question how Matter can produce the sensed Effect we call "Gravity". Einstein's E=MC^2 formulation implies that the Energy constituting a physical object can be transformed (somehow) into intangible mathematical Mass, which we sensibly experience as Gravity. Similarly, the Brain (somehow) processes neural Energy into the metaphysical Experience we call "Mind". Chalmers was posing an equivalent question of Causation in asking how a lump of matter could produce the intangible-but-sensible*1 effect (feeling) we call "Mind". Is it magic, or physics, or metaphysics?

For the same reason, I conclude that the First Cause of the on-going changes in our world is not a physical force, but a metaphysical Potential with Actual physical effects. Aristotle provided a philosophical definition of the "Potential" principle*2. :smile:


*1. Sensible :
Sensible heat is literally the heat that can be felt.
https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Sensible_heat

*2. Aristotle's Potential Principle :
Matter is the potential factor, form the actualizing factor. (Aristotle further posited the existence of a prime mover, or unmoved mover, i.e., pure form separate from matter, eternal and immutable.)
https://www.britannica.com/topic/potentiality
Note --- Today we might call that "actualizing factor" of Causation the Power to Enform, i.e. Information. Matter is the substance acted upon, but EnFormAction is the cause of all changes.

A lot here but very interesting. It does remind of Hume's argument that we do not observe causation, just a sequence of events, but we impose it on to the experience, more or less conceptually.

Physics has no theory of how matter can warp space-time. But once it does that, the sense that something is pulling on us when we're walking up or down hill is actually caused by the surface of the Earth accelerating upward. Earth doesn't get any bigger when that happens because it has a property called "non-inertial" which I barely understand. All that now replaces the old force of gravity. But there are some ideas people are trying to work out saying that the quantum field is what is fundamental and that in itself actually creates space through informational effects. Maybe that will work out, maybe not.

Quantum theory changes everything. What seems to be a lump of matter is built up from something pretty non-material. There is no essential nature of matter because when you get close enough there are just probabilities of where things might be. That comes from waves in the quantum field that are not waves of force - but who knows what their nature is. The best theory now probably is the one that says they are waves of information. The probability of mass' position and momentum are just indicative measures of the waves and do not tell us everything about the waves. There is more going on in the quantum field than matter.

Because the nature of this field is still open for study, there is a real possibility that the best model will be that it is consciousness, or at least holds conscious potential in the same way it holds physical potential. And there are ways to quantify that mathematically in a way similar to how material potential is quantified. Bertrand Russell said that for all we know, the essential nature of matter and consciousness are the same. Now scientifically that might sort of hold, but it is more like they both arise from the same thing which in itself is neither. And there is a growing body of literature in physics that argues that quantum effects are necessary to explain brain processing, without even getting into the consciousness question.

The quantum field could be the prime mover!

Instead of trying to demonstrate why the conclusions here are false, try instead to prove that a first cause logically cannot exist. In other words, present to me a logical universe in which no first cause exists. — Philosophim

Along one line of reasoning -- eternal existence -- there seems to be a conditional logical preclusion of a first cause:

If we imagine a structure of existence with only one universe, then I speculate that universe, if eternal (and thus uncaused), logically precludes a universal first cause for the totality of existence. However, on the question of local first causes -- meaning no first cause of all first causes, but only independent first causes -- then it seems to me an eternal universe does logically preclude a universal first cause, but not local independent first causes.

If we imagine a structure of existence featuring multi-verses, then I speculate that multi-verse, in parallel with the single universe structure, logically precludes a universal first cause for the totality of multi-verses, but not for independent universes with local first causes.

Question - Can you accept a paraphrase of: "A logical first cause is necessary" as follows: "Everything must have a beginning"? This is another way of examining logical necessity of first cause through the lens of an eternal existence.

When we substitute: "A logical first cause is necessary" with "Everything must have a beginning," we can ask the obverse of: "prove that a first cause logically cannot exist," which is: prove an eternal universe logically cannot exit."

Can you show that an eternal universe is logically impossible?

Do "A first cause is logically necessary," and "eternal universe" contradict each other?

If they do contradict each other, then what's at stake is whether one or the other question is answerable.

If it's not possible to logically examine an eternal universe -- it can only be assumed -- then the status of its existence -- viewed through the lens of logic -- is undecidable.

At this point in my rumination, I speculate that the critique of "First cause is logically necessary" along the axis of incoherence* leads to the same statement about its status: it can only be assumed; viewed through the lens of logic, its status is undecidable.

If "A logical first cause is necessary," and "eternal universe" do not contradict each other, then they are both axiomatic presuppositions undecidable with respect to logical necessity.

*The incoherence of "A first cause is logically necessary" -- per your "argument" -- is the unexplained leap from nothing to something. This leap unexplained -- foundational to your narrative -- provides evidence your narrative is an axiomatic presupposition; its central function: leaping from nothing to something, has no logical, process-based agency. Well, that absence contradicts your stated purpose: "A first cause is logically necessary."

Can you accept a paraphrase of: "A logical first cause is necessary" as follows: "Everything must have a beginning"? This is another way of examining logical necessity of first cause through the lens of an eternal existence. — ucarr

No, they're not the same thing. The point of the theory was to show that even in an infinitely regressive universe, a first cause is still logically necessary.

Let me give you an example. Lets say that space has always existed. What caused space to always exist? Nothing. Therefore space is a first cause. It is something within causality that itself was not caused. So no, an eternal universe does not preclude a first cause. Why is the universe eternal opposed to not? What caused it to be that way? Nothing.

*The incoherence of "A first cause is logically necessary" -- per your "argument" -- is the unexplained leap from nothing to something. — ucarr

There is nothing incoherent about it. Its simply the rational conclusion when thinking through the question of eternal versus finite regression. An eternal universe actually makes it even more obvious. In a finite universe there is at least still at least the question, "But maybe there was something prior?" An eternal universe has nothing prior. It has no prior cause for its existence.

Let me give you more examples. Lets imagine an eternal universe where water exists everywhere. It has always been, and will always be. Why? What caused the universe to exist in that way? Nothing. Now imagine its an eternal universe of just air. Same conclusion. Now an eternal universe of just space and matter. Same conclusion. Why did one type of eternal universe exist, whereas another universe does not? There is no answer besides the fact one type of universe, space and matter, exists.

It is not a presupposition, its a conclusion that we arrive at time and time again no matter how we tackle the problem. Assume "Finite universe exists" is false or true and we arrive at the same conclusion.

If we imagine a structure of existence featuring multi-verses, then I speculate that multi-verse, in parallel with the single universe structure, logically precludes a universal first cause for the totality of multi-verses, but not for independent universes with local first causes. — ucarr

Alright, lets imagine the multiverse. First, lets imagine a multiverse in which there is one universe that has eternally existed. What caused it? Nothing. Now lets imagine a multiverse where there are two separate universes that have always existed. What caused it? Nothing. And so on for infinity. Imagine that our multiverse is actually a set of eternally existent five universes. Why did a five universe exist instead of a one? Nothing. It exists because it does.

You see Ucarr, the argument's conclusion is logically necessary. There's no way to escape it. No matter what scenario you invent, the same question of, "What caused that to exist?" will always happen, and it will inevitably result in, "Nothing caused it to exist, it exists simply because it does." The idea that there is a way to escape this is what is incoherent. Try it. Give me an example of a universe that escapes this line of questioning and answers, and you'll have countered the argument. At least one first cause is the only coherent conclusion that can be reached. Maybe you can crack it, but I've been unable to.

Let me give you an example. Lets say that space has always existed. What caused space to always exist? Nothing. Therefore space is a first cause. It is something within causality that itself was not caused. So no, an eternal universe does not preclude a first cause. Why is the universe eternal opposed to not? What caused it to be that way? Nothing. — Philosophim

seems to be reasoning from the assumption that the physical universe --- space-time, matter, energy --- could possibly be self-existent, hence no need for a First Cause or Creator. If so, the postulated Multiverse would be either infinite in parallel, in the sense of Many Worlds, or a serial re-incarnation of a single self-existent 'Verse.

On the other hand, ancient thinkers, such as Plato, Aristotle, Taoists, and Torah writers, seemed to assume that a perishable world (Death follows Life) of serial causation could not be self-existent*1. Even Plato's less-than-perfect workman --- demiurge --- follows a pre-existing plan. So, they reasoned that some non-perishable outside force or principle was necessary to jump-start the world of cycling causes & effects*2. Some postulations for The Eternal Creative Principle were : Forms, Logos, Tao, and the nameless eternal creator of Genesis*3. :smile:


*1. Craftsman vs Creator :
‘The nature of things’ examines Plato's understanding of the natural world. In the Timaeus, Plato describes the creation of the world as work done by a divine Craftsman, who does the job by reference to a model — a system of rational principles. The real world is not, as we uncritically take it to be, the world around us that our senses report to us; it is rather what we grasp in thought when exercising our minds in abstract philosophical argument, in particular arguments which lead to what Plato calls Forms — the Forms which function as patterns for the Craftsman as he makes our world. . . .
Plato's God is a workman who does the best he can with the materials he has to work with; he creates order from chaos, but he does not create the original materials from nothing.
https://academic.oup.com/book/391/chapter-abstract/135200895?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Note --- In this scenario the demiurge obtained his materials from the principle of Chaos, which was merely Generalized Potential (Causality), but not organized into Matter or Energy. So the Prime Cause must include both Potential (power, energy) and Plan (laws, designs). Neither of which correspond to the mundane energy & matter of the physical world.

*2. On the First Cause :
"Our Stoic philosophers, as you know, declare that there are two things in the universe which are the source of everything — namely, cause and matter. Matter lies sluggish, a substance ready for any use, but sure to remain unemployed if no one sets it in motion. Cause, however, by which we mean reason, moulds matter and turns it in whatever direction it will, producing thereby various concrete results. Accordingly, there must be, in the case of each thing, that from which it is made, and, next, an agent by which it is made. The former is its material, the latter its cause." ___Seneca, Stoic philosopher
https://monadnock.net/seneca/65.html

*3. Nameless First Cause :
The Tao [Way] that can be told of is not the eternal Tao; The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The Nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth; The Named is the mother of all things.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780191826719.001.0001/q-oro-ed4-00006490

↪ucarr seems to be reasoning from the assumption that the physical universe --- space-time, matter, energy --- could possibly be self-existent, hence no need for a First Cause or Creator. — Gnomon

A first cause is self-existent though. I think that's the problem he has. He doesn't like the idea that there was nothing, then something. What I'm trying to show him is that an eternally self-existent thing is no different. There is nothing which explains its being. No limitations on what could have been besides the fact of its existence.

A lot here but very interesting. It does remind of Hume's argument that we do not observe causation, just a sequence of events, but we impose it on to the experience, more or less conceptually. — Gary Venter

Gravity (pulling action without material connection) was a mystery to Newton, and a mathematical/logical concept to Einstein. His immaterial notion of causation may be related to his incredulous "spooky action at a distance" characterization of quantum entanglement, which involves sharing Information. In the 21st century, scientists have correlated Causal Energy with Knowable Information*1. :smile:

*1. A proposed experimental test for the mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
A recent conjecture, called the mass-energy-information equivalence principle, proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy and exists as a separate state of matter.
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/sci/article/2022/9/091111/2849001/A-proposed-experimental-test-for-the-mass-energy

Physics has no theory of how matter can warp space-time. . . . the quantum field is what is fundamental and that in itself actually creates space through informational effects. — Gary Venter

What is warped by Gravity is not just space, but Space-Time, which seems to include everything in the universe ( Space : matter ; Time : energy ). The quantum fields (17 types???) are not material objects, but Mathematical/Logical relationships between infinite "quantum oscillators" --- whatever that is. For my own philosophical purposes, I imagine the Quantum Field as Aristotle's eternal Potential, which when Actualized into space & time (matter & energy) becomes everything in the world that we can sense (i.e. Reality). :nerd:

a lump of matter is built up from something pretty non-material. . . . they are waves of information — Gary Venter

Einstein's E=MC^2 equation related invisible Energy and mathematical Mass to a dimensionless logical constant, which together we humans experience as Matter. Plato also related "rational principles" (Forms) with the creation of physical matter. Was he on to something, that took centuries to be expressed in a simple T-shirt equation? :joke:

conscious potential . . . the essential nature of matter and consciousness are the same — Gary Venter

Your comments remind me of my own Information-based philosophical worldview. We seem to be thinking along the same lines.

My personal thesis, Enformationism, postulates that the essence of physical Matter & Energy, and of metaphysical Consciousness, is the Principle of Potential that I call EnFormAction (power to give form to the formless). That's similar to Plato's First Cause (Form), and Aristotle's Prime Mover (Energy).

I'd like to compare notes, to see where you got your ideas about Quantum Physics & Information. Mine probably originated in John A. Wheeler's 1989 "it from bit" conjecture. :grin: