The arrow of time, therefore, is the direction of order (information) itself. Going from a state of 0 entropy to a state of maximum entropy is what the forward arrow of time means. For the arrow of time to be reversed, one must make the box smaller and smaller until all the marbles are packed tight again and unable to move. This does not reverse time itself, but it does reverse the arrow of time. The increase in size of the box is akin to the breaking of symmetry, and the tightly packed non-moving marbles are akin to a state of perfect symmetry. A 0 entropy state theoretically has time, but no arrow of time. — punos

Cause and effect form a temporal relation?" — ucarr

Well, yes, in the sense that cause comes before effect. Of course, after the initial effect, that effect then becomes the cause for the next event, and thus the chain of causality continues, governed by the logic of time. — punos

Non-entropic time absent of space and matter holds tucked within itself entropic time?" — ucarr

The potential for entropic time is, in a sense, latent in primordial or non-entropic time, but it cannot emerge until the first instance of space and matter, or energy in space. — punos

"Humans know of non-entropic time only indirectly through inference?" — ucarr

Yes. — punos

Language, which posits things performing actions, cannot apply to non-existence because it allows no language and its concepts. — ucarr

Language can also capture concepts and negations. This is similar to people being against the idea of the number 0 when it was first introduced. Are you going to argue that the number 0 isn't a viable part of the language of math? — Philosophim

If something has causality then during that 'touch' or interaction, the forces and reaction imparted by and to it make an outcome. — Philosophim

What you're doing is the same mistake I keep pointing out. "Has not power to actualize..." You're viewing 'uncausation' as a cause again. It doesn't actualize anything Ucarr. "It" is not a 'thing'. Its a logical assertation that X cannot be caused by anything. That's it. It simply is, no cause for what it is. And Ucarr, you already believe this. Infinite universe? Uncaused. God? Uncaused. Its not like I'm putting forth a foreign concept. You cannot talk about any origin without eventually asking, "What caused that?" and having to mumble together some type of 'eternal outside universe' argument that is just an avoiding of saying what we all know: "Its uncaused".

Its avoided because implicitly that leads to there being no 'necessary' origin. And a few people really hate that, I get it. But our dislike of the concept alone is not enough to argue logically against it. We all comprehend it Ucarr. We all get it. Let not pretend we don't. — Philosophim

Uncaused" universe is just a word game that paints over the truth of "Uncaused" universe, another something-from-nothing argument. — ucarr

Nope. And you know this. It it not, "Something from nothing." Its simply, "Logically, there has to be something that's uncaused". That's it. You know this is right. — Philosophim

But we don't have to confirm because its a thought experiment where we've set all the parameters ourself. We know the cards, and we know its truly random. Its an example, a tool to help pull us out of the abstract and into understanding the concept in a more concrete way. — Philosophim

Why do we understand that a jack in a randomly shuffled deck has a 4/52 chance of being drawn? Because there are limitations and rules that establish what can happen. There is a fact of there only being 4 jacks and only 52 cards.

In one statement you say the card pulled is random. In the other statement you say the card pulled is probable.
— Philosophim

Therefore, saying "...if uncaused stands outside the causal universe, then likewise un-causation stands outside the causal universe." nonetheless keeps un-causation in application to both caused and uncaused. — ucarr

I never said uncaused lies outside of the universe. You're doing it again. You're thinking "uncaused is something out there'. Its not. Its a logical consequence of the full scope of causality. — Philosophim

Our rule of No restrictions restricts us from restricting shoes to ones without cleats." — ucarr

First, I'm talking about probability, not an entity. There is no thing that can decide to restrict or not restrict. You're talking about the noun restriction, then the verb restriction as applied from an entity. There is no entity in an uncaused situation. There is simply no restrictions. Yes, if an entity gets involved, then language can create situations that are impossible. As I already mentioned, while we can create the verbiage of a thing both existing in X coordinate in space and not existing in X coordinate in space at the same time, this is a contradiction. For something to not exist, it cannot exist. Therefore we can't say, "A thing that exists does not exist". — Philosophim

t's possible for no-design to be a design if a person intentionally allows a thing to be configured randomly. — ucarr

A design is a crafted intent from a being. You can have a design that looks like it wasn't designed, but the reality is that it would be designed and thus caused by something else. Uncaused reality has no design, only caused reality. — Philosophim

If there's unlimited potential, then that too can be construed as a design in the sense of an unlimited number of possible limits upon what universe emerges. — ucarr

No, you cannot. A design is caused. We can look at the logical consequence of something existent. We can look at the logical consequences if the universe is uncaused, ie, all possible origins had equal chance of being. But the word 'design' is stricken from use because it implicitly admits a 'designer'. No designer, no design. — Philosophim

Drawing an ace instead of a jack examples what happens based upon the total number of cards in the deck and the total number of each type of card. — ucarr

Except in this case there are infinite numbers of cards of infinite varieties. Again, the example is to help you understand the idea of equal probability when there is nothing which would sway anything towards or against any one specific card being pulled. — Philosophim

Someone's mind is required for the logical possibility to exist. — ucarr

So a mind is required for it to be possible for a volcano to erupt when the core temperature and pressure rises? If a tree falls in the forest Ucarr, it still vibrates the air. There's no being around to sense that vibration and interpret it, but that being isn't needed for the vibration of the air's existence. Logical possibilities are simply observations and necessary conclusions given a set of premises in reality. We are necessary to interpret them into the language we use, but not necessary for what we base this on to exist. — Philosophim

Possibility cannot be excluded [directly] from real things. — ucarr

Do you believe there exist real things that are impossible? One conceivable example is a sign that shows a circular triangle. It expresses circular triangulation. Can you draw this sign and directly present it to me here? — ucarr

I hopefully answered this with my example of 'something cannot both exist and not exist at the same time". We can create impossible blends of concepts through language. I can create a rounded triangle and some people would accept that as a circular triangle through language. If you restrict the language enough to for example say, "Can you create a 2D image viewed by a sane 3D being from one particular angle and it be observed as both a legitimate definition of a triangle and a legitimate definition of a circle at the same time?" No, that's impossible. The definition of a triangle excludes the definition of a circle in the language. If your language specifically excludes some type of existence for it be identified, then that existence cannot have what the word has excluded to be that word. — Philosophim

Possibility cannot be excluded [directly] from real things. — ucarr

Do you believe the scope of causality equals existence that encapsulates everything that is? — ucarr

No. — Philosophim

If you're equating zero with non-existence, I disagree. As you say, zero is a number. — ucarr

If "not" denotes non-existence, and "was." denotes existence, then the critical question is "How this change?" When you answer, "Uncaused existence." you declare existence in a manner similar to the God of the Judeo_Christian scriptures when we hear "Let there be light." — ucarr

You say "uncaused" is a logical consequence of the full scope of causality. You're describing something that exists prior to the universe. — ucarr

You say, "There is no entity in an uncaused situation." You claim all of existence in an uncaused situation. — ucarr

Switzerland maintains design on countries at war by maintaining no design on countries at war. This design by no design is called neutrality. — ucarr

Why can't potential be the designer in the sense of causation by logical possibility? — ucarr

As there are only mathematical decks of cards with infinite numbers and infinite varieties, there are only abstract notions of non-existence exemplifying a void acting as open space for equal probability and the absence of bias toward particular outcomes. — ucarr

Causal chains are subsets of the universe? — ucarr

Please explain how "scope" attached to "existence" differs from "scope" attached to "causality. — ucarr

That's for you to explain. I'm not using scope with existence and it doesn't make any sense to me. — Philosophim

If we understand the full abstract scope, then the solution becomes clear. First, in terms of composition, if we're talking about composition that caused the universe, this would requires something outside of the universe. But because we've encompassed 'the entire universe' there is nothing outside of the universe which could cause it. In terms of composition, the universes cause would simply be what it is, and nothing more. — Philosophim

The same applies to time. Whether the universe has existed forever or not, there is nothing before the universe's existence which caused the entire time of the universe. "The entire universe" is everything. There cannot be something outside of everything that caused everything. Meaning that there was nothing before which caused the universe to exist both in time and composition. — Philosophim

In terms of composition, the universes cause would simply be what it is, and nothing more. — Philosophim

Thus the solution can only be the conclusion that 'the entire universe is uncaused by anything else'. — Philosophim

With these two statements you say the universe is caused by what it is and nothing else. Is your premise that the universe has no cause outside of itself? Do you think this statement is equivalent to saying the universe is uncaused? — ucarr

When I introduce "uncaused" in the next sentence, I don't put the word into your mouth. I ask you a question about whether self-caused and uncaused are the same thing. — ucarr

Yes that is a fair point. My intention was to convey "We know a thing exists by the fact that it does. There is no other explanation." It cannot cause its own existence as it would have to exist before it existed otherwise. — Philosophim

I believe possibilities exist only as abstract thoughts within the mind of a thinker. I therefore think that with non-existence there are no thinkers and thus no possibilities. — ucarr

Lets clarify this. Possibilities are logical outcomes based on a state of reality at one point compared to another point. The logical outcomes of prediction would still stand even if no human was there to realize it. Non-existence itself has no possibility, as it is literal non-existence. So we agree there. But uncaused existences are once again, not caused by anything and are not tied to non-existence. So the point is moot. — Philosophim

Non-existence itself has no possibility, as it is literal non-existence. So we agree there. But uncaused existences are once again, not caused by anything and are not tied to non-existence. So the point is moot. — Philosophim

First, I'm talking about probability, not an entity. There is no thing that can decide to restrict or not restrict. You're talking about the noun restriction, then the verb restriction as applied from an entity. There is no entity in an uncaused situation. There is simply no restrictions. Yes, if an entity gets involved, then language can create situations that are impossible. As I already mentioned, while we can create the verbiage of a thing both existing in X coordinate in space and not existing in X coordinate in space at the same time, this is a contradiction. For something to not exist, it cannot exist. Therefore we can't say, "A thing that exists does not exist". — Philosophim

I hopefully answered this with my example of 'something cannot both exist and not exist at the same time". We can create impossible blends of concepts through language. I can create a rounded triangle and some people would accept that as a circular triangle through language. If you restrict the language enough to for example say, "Can you create a 2D image viewed by a sane 3D being from one particular angle and it be observed as both a legitimate definition of a triangle and a legitimate definition of a circle at the same time?" No, that's impossible. The definition of a triangle excludes the definition of a circle in the language. If your language specifically excludes some type of existence for it be identified, then that existence cannot have what the word has excluded to be that word. — Philosophim

How did non-existence connect with existence if they have nothing in common? — ucarr

Again, Ucarr stop using the word 'connect'. Or 'cause' or 'lead to' or 'movement' or anything else that links. There was nothing. Now there is something. There is no link. Nothing, has nothing to do with that something besides the fact it was a different state prior to that something being. I'm going to ask you very plainly this time and you answer Ucarr. What is it for something to be uncaused? Answer in your own words. — Philosophim

An eternal universe concept avoids this question because under its auspices, there has never been non-existence, nor has there ever been an origin of existence. — ucarr

And what caused there to always be existence? All you're doing is leading right back to my point. The only answer Ucarr is, "It just is". If you defend a universe that has always existed, then you agree 100% with me that it is uncaused by anything else. Meaning, I'm right. And if I'm right that an uncaused thing can exist...then that means something could also NOT have always existed because there is no cause why it could not have. — Philosophim

This observation is an inhabitant of the abstract thinking of the mind? — ucarr

The observation requires an observer. But time began whether we were there to observe it or not. — Philosophim

Given "It simply was not, then it was." how does the inception of universe reconcile itself with the symmetries of its physics and their conservation laws? This is a question asking how do mass, energy, motion, and space incept in the wake of non-existence. — ucarr

You're asking how, which means, "What causes this?" Something uncaused doesn't have a 'how' Ucarr. It just is. Are you going to answer how something could exist eternally? Of course not. — Philosophim

Do you realize you just wrote that you agreed with me? — Philosophim

n our expanding universe, the symmetry of energy production/consumption alternates so that the total supply of energy of the universe stays balanced at zero. This means that the total supply of energy is conserved. The total volume of energy neither increases nor diminishes overall. — ucarr

No debate. Also irrelevant to the point. That is the rule we've discovered from what currently exists. I'm not debating against the causality of what already exists. You again are saying, "Causality does this, so how does an uncaused thing do that?" Wrong question. You're applying 'how', 'cause', etc to something that has no cause. Every single question you ask me, ask yourself about your universe that's always existed. — Philosophim

You're applying 'how', 'cause', etc to something that has no cause. — Philosophim

...you keep writing sentences that imply non-existence has anything to do with uncaused existence. — Philosophim

2. Stop saying 'scope of existence' as if I use it. I don't. Its not a thing. Its not ever going to be a thing. :) I will simply answer "No" if you ever reference it going forward because I've answered this enough. — Philosophim

I am saying that existence encapsulates everything that is — Philosophim

You're going to have to inevitably agree with me that uncaused things are possible to hold our infinitely existing universe idea. Then we can debate the logic I've noted that if something uncaused can exist, then there would be no limits as to what could come into being uncaused, removing the idea that an eternal universe is necessarily true. — Philosophim

"If we consider a container that is packed maximally tight with marbles as a near-zero entropy, do we arrive at picture of a zone wherein physics is almost at a standstill and relative time likewise?" — ucarr

"Might such a zone have extreme asymmetry because, being near the zero state, there can be only asymptotic progression in one half of the oscillation cycle towards the storage of energy (as opposed to the consumption of extreme heat)?" — ucarr

"From this we see that causation is perhaps a specifically complex type of motion. Specific complex states of material systems are configured for specific functions that are their effects." — ucarr

"Here perhaps the time element becomes tricky to track. If something is a cause, then it's implied the effect co-exists in time with its effect, otherwise a thing is just a thing, not a cause, and vice versa." — ucarr

"If all fundamental components of mass-energy are re-configurable across the total scope of material creation, then each thing emergent is a road map to all other things." — ucarr

"You're saying entropic time is an emergent dynamism of mass-energy-motion-space? If so, does this let us envision entropic time as a higher order of mass-energy-motion-space?" — ucarr

"Since acceleration and gravitation de-accelerate passing time, history as sentient reality is configured by the bending and stretching and curving of the higher order of ductile time?" — ucarr

"Is it possible to configure an experiment that makes predictions about the natural world that will point a phenomenal finger at a logically necessary conclusion about the necessity of making an inference to absolute time?" — ucarr

Language, which posits things performing actions, cannot apply to non-existence because it allows no language and its concepts. — ucarr

Language can also capture concepts and negations. This is similar to people being against the idea of the number 0 when it was first introduced. Are you going to argue that the number 0 isn't a viable part of the language of math? — Philosophim

If you're equating zero with non-existence, I disagree. As you say, zero is a number. — ucarr

Zero is a number, or a word that represents the concept of 'nothing'. The argument for and against zero has long been settled. Yes Ucarr, we can create words that symbolize nothing. There's no debate here. — Philosophim

If "not" denotes non-existence, and "was." denotes existence, then the critical question is "How this change?" When you answer, "Uncaused existence." you declare existence in a manner similar to the God of the Judeo_Christian scriptures when we hear "Let there be light." — ucarr

Ucarr, this is the same old song and dance. I've already proven that uncaused existence is the only logical answer to the the full scope of the causal chain. Asking, "How" is silly because you're thinking about causes where there is no cause. Until you can counter the argument that the end scope of the causal chain always results in something uncaused, your above point is pointless. — Philosophim

Well, that’s a huge difference! An argument that the totality of what exists has no cause is true (trivially) because any cause—be itself caused or not—would be included in such totality; however, that the totality of caused things has no cause does not follow these lines of thinking—for an uncaused thing would be outside of that totality. You would have to provide some further argument—and perhaps I missed it—for why there would be no cause to such a series. — Bob Ross

No, the uncaused thing would be the limit inside of that totality. — Philosophim

Do you believe the scope of causality equals existence that encapsulates everything that is? — ucarr

No. — Philosophim

Scope, which means extent of, can be applied to the inclusivity of a set. Example: the universe is the set of all existing things. Why do you deem this usage nonsense? — ucarr

Logical possibilities are potential outcomes conceived in the mind. Given non-existence, no minds, no logical possibilities as potential outcomes. — ucarr

When you make a declaration that puts "uncaused" next to "existences," as you do above, and then declare, "It simply was not, then it was." you are the entity -- a human doing abstract thinking -- getting involved with language and creating a linguistic situation that describes something existentially impossible — ucarr

"It simply was not, then it was." is what we're examining here for its connection to reality out in the world. However, we can neither experience non-existence nor the origin of existence. We therefore must use our abstractly reasoning minds to examine your statement as we try to determine if it refers to something consistent with what we can experience. — ucarr

When you make a declaration that puts "uncaused" next to "existences," as you do above, and then declare, "It simply was not, then it was." you are the entity -- a human doing abstract thinking -- getting involved with language and creating a linguistic situation that describes something existentially impossible. — ucarr

Language, you acknowledge, empowers you to say things existentially impossible, and that's what we're dealing with in our debate. — ucarr

However, we can neither experience non-existence nor the origin of existence. We therefore must use our abstractly reasoning minds to examine your statement as we try to determine if it refers to something consistent with what we can experience. — ucarr

If you show us how you follow a chain of reasoning that correctly evaluates to "It simply was not, then it was." as a logically necessary conclusion, then you will have made a valid case for the acceptance of your theory as a working hypothesis that physicists can use in the doing of their work. — ucarr

Repetition of your declaration takes the form of circular reasoning that declares, "It simply was not, then it was. 'because I say so.'" — ucarr

The Big Bang is presented as fundamental truth about a universe that oscillates between a Big Bang and a Big Crunch. Since it excludes non-existence, there's no looming question about what powered the existence of the universe. — ucarr

My premise is that you cannot exclude, "'...connect'. Or 'cause' or 'lead to' or 'movement' or anything else that links." when you talk about two different states. — ucarr

The continuity that describes the change from an initial state to a final state lies at the core of science, math and logic in all of their varieties. — ucarr

Now to the question "What is it for something to be uncaused?" I think being uncaused means an existing thing pre-existing causation. — ucarr

If we reason from the premise of eternal universe, we avoid non-existence and also we avoid origin of existence. — ucarr

I do acknowledge an eternal universe is uncaused. — ucarr

Your uncaused universe, if it isn't eternal, participates in a couplet expressing a change of state from non-existence to existence. Since your uncaused universe makes the change of state — ucarr

The problem of your uncaused universe is that it can't power up in the absence of necessary prior conditions for its existence. — ucarr

Regarding first causes, we know the symmetries and their conservation laws prohibit inception from empowering agencies not pre-existent with respect to the things they empower. — ucarr

Since you observe time by watching things change, your experience of time is always linked to you. Regarding the reality of the nature of time apart from human observation, we don't know. — ucarr

You know you have a problem with universe incepting from nothing. You try to solve this problem by moving to uncaused universe. — ucarr

Your maneuvering around the circularity of identity is an extreme version of fine tuning a theory to explain why its parameters have precisely the rules they return: unexplainable (beyond "It is what it is." ) — ucarr

These parameters of unexplainable have no known mechanism for explaining why a dynamic material universe with respect to mass, energy, motion, space and time is unexplainable regarding why these resources are not necessary pre-conditions for the existence of the dynamic material universe. — ucarr

Why don't you re-write, "It simply was not, then it was." so that it doesn't imply non-existence prior to existence? My responses to your argument key off of this statement. Wait a minute. When you're talking about the beginning of the totality of existence, you can't do that without implying non-existence before existence, can you? — ucarr

I acknowledge uncaused existence with the stipulation that it always be paired with eternal existence. This is the crux of our disagreement. We agree on uncaused eternal universe. We disagree on uncaused non-eternal universe. — ucarr

So my counter-argument to "the end scope of the causal chain always results in something uncaused..." says the first link in a chain of causation, because it obeys the symmetries and their conservation laws, draws, for example, energy from the conserved total supply of energy of the universe, and this consumption of energy is paired with an equal subtraction of available energy. Think of it this way: if you dig a hole in the ground, the amassed pile resulting from the digging is paired with a hole in the ground that the pile created. Given these facts, the first link in a chain of causation (the hole) is caused by a re-configuration of the always pre-existent forces that fuel its emergence. — ucarr

Switzerland maintains design on countries at war by maintaining no design on countries at war. This design by no design is called neutrality. — ucarr

What? This doesn't even make sense gramaticaly. If a country decides to stay neutral by design, then the people who made the neutrality approach designed it. A design has a designer period. Just accept basic premises that no one has an issue with Ucarr. — Philosophim

Why can't potential be the designer in the sense of causation by logical possibility? — ucarr

Because a designer is a conscious being. That's the definition of the word. Again, this is flailing. — Philosophim

I've already proven that uncaused existence is the only logical answer to the the full scope of the causal chain. — Philosophim

If a universe is varied by design, why is that not a restriction blocking it from being unvaried? — ucarr

1. There is no design.
2. I said there was unlimited potential in regards to the origin of the universe.
3. The potential of what could have been is not the same as what actually happens. IE, I draw an ace from a deck of cards it does not negate the probability that I had a 4/52 chance of drawing a jack. — Philosophim

Drawing an ace instead of a jack examples what happens based upon the total number of cards in the deck and the total number of each type of card. — ucarr

Except in this case there are infinite numbers of cards of infinite varieties. Again, the example is to help you understand the idea of equal probability when there is nothing which would sway anything towards or against any one specific card being pulled. — Philosophim

The fact you ignore my first two requests means you're not even conversing anymore. Why should I bother to write answers? And if you can't bother to apply these questions to your own idea of an infinitely existing universe, you conceded that I'm right. If you want to make a post that honestly addresses the argument and includes your own idea of an infinitely existing universe that can escape the fact that it can only exist if its uncaused, we can continue. Otherwise this is over. — Philosophim

If we consider a container that is packed maximally tight with marbles as a near-zero entropy, do we arrive at picture of a zone wherein physics is almost at a standstill and relative time likewise? — ucarr

You could say that, but remember the box example is an analogy that breaks down after a certain point. The zone you would be referring to would be a 0-dimensional point. You can call it a space with no place to move. The packed box is like this point. — punos

Now, i need to say that this situation never really happened. It is a conceptual device to capture the logic. Since primordial time is timeless and has always been, some form of "physical" universe has always existed. — punos

If i understand your question correctly, let me put it like this: You can picture this primordial point with some kind of unstoppable force (continuity) running through it like a river. It's a kind of energy that is non-spatial (temporal). This "river" deposits energy (water) into the point. The point has a spatial limit of one object. The temporal energy converts to spatial energy at this point until a natural limit is reached. At this moment, because the temporal energy flow through this point continues and is unstoppable, the object that had been formed is forced out. This is the moment in which the effects of breaking symmetry appear. The forcing out of this object takes the pattern of two anti-object pairs extruded at 180 degrees from each other. This event formed the 1st dimension and can accommodate more objects with a higher object density limit. Every point in this 1-dimensional space is an exact functional replica of the original point space, with the same temporal energy flowing through each one. — punos

So absolute zero temperature in the way you are describing has never been the case, ever. Also, absolute primordial time is not defined by spatial motion. It is better defined as temporal motion, which can appear as stationary and not moving. This temporal motion can be visualized as a kind of spin: a spherical object spinning inside a 0-dimensional point. It can move but only as rotation, not linearly. As soon as the object moves linearly in relation to another object, it breaks into the 1st dimension. — punos

Yes, you are right, but this is what happens with already existing things. It's a little different at the most fundamental level, where time's flow through space causes the quantum foam of virtual particles. These virtual particles can then go on to form more complex kinds of cause and effects, determined by their specific evolved structures. — punos

Here perhaps the time element becomes tricky to track. If something is a cause, then it's implied the effect co-exists in time with its effect, otherwise a thing is just a thing, not a cause, and vice versa. — ucarr

I'm not certain i understand what you mean by a cause co-exists with its effect in time. Can you clarify? — punos

I wouldn't call it a higher order of mass-energy-motion, but there are emergent forms of space which are different from the regular spatial dimensions. Every emergent level is an emergent space in which only certain things can exist. This is what i mean by emergent space. Cyberspace is an example; biological space is another. A planet is a kind of emergent space on which only certain things can exist and develop. What changes mostly on the road to emergence is patterns of matter (information). — punos

Since acceleration and gravitation de-accelerate passing time, history as sentient reality is configured by the bending and stretching and curving of the higher order of ductile time?" — ucarr

Please elaborate. — punos

I think that what humans usually call time is just relative time, and relative time can be distorted by the speed of light, gravity, and our nervous systems. Things happen at absolute times, and then relative time distorts and modifies our perception of it. I don't really think an experiment will show us anything different. We will always see the relative effect of absolute time only. The only thing that can penetrate these relative effects and reach through to the other side of the relative veil is the use of pure reason and logic together with what we already know. Consider how Neptune was discovered. — punos

I apologize for running a day behind on my responses. — ucarr

If you conceive and maintain the intention to stay out of a war between two other parties, what steps do you take to design the conceiving and the maintaining? — ucarr

The uncaused universe, which therefore is not self-caused, nevertheless features the causation that didn't cause itself -- it looks as if, by this reasoning, a thing is not always defined by what it is -- and it also features humans who design things within an undesigned universe. Considering these non sequiturs from non-existence replaced by uncaused existence featuring the causation that didn't cause the universe that makes it possible followed by designing humans who study the undesigned powers driving their designing, you, who make these arguments, would be amenable to logical possibility, which you argue is the uncaused only answer to the full scope of the causal chain, being a designer. — ucarr

You can picture this primordial point with some kind of unstoppable force (continuity) running through it like a river. It's a kind of energy that is non-spatial (temporal). This "river" deposits energy (water) into the point. — punos

How does the super-atomic world approaching absolute zero temperature and the cessation of motion become a 0-dimensional point? — ucarr

Time and space coalesce and break symmetry only to spawn a new symmetry of anti-object pairs extruded at 180 degrees from each other? — ucarr

Time and space persist in independence, each holding its own properties? — ucarr

You describe temporal energy by taking recourse to a description of a river. Absolute time is a logical narration of something we cannot visualize directly? I'm wondering if time - even posited as absolute - emerges from mass_energy, especially given the eternity of mass-energy. Might the relationship be bi-conditional? — ucarr

So absolute zero temperature in the way you are describing has never been the case, ever. Also, absolute primordial time is not defined by spatial motion. It is better defined as temporal motion, which can appear as stationary and not moving. This temporal motion can be visualized as a kind of spin: a spherical object spinning inside a 0-dimensional point. It can move but only as rotation, not linearly. As soon as the object moves linearly in relation to another object, it breaks into the 1st dimension. — punos


By your description - as I understand it - absolute time conserves the mass_energy symmetry. — ucarr

My question relates to another question of mine, Does causation have a temporal component? Let's imagine that Plant A releases Pollen A. Joe is not allergic to Pollen A, so Pollen A WRT Joe is not a cause of hay fever, an effect. Bill is allergic to Pollen A, so Pollen A is a cause of hay fever WRT Bill. Since Pollen A has two incompatible identities simultaneously, it seems to me causation is atemporal. — ucarr

I have this idea that if consciousness is emergent from gravitational fields interacting, then around event horizons of black holes, in the run up to the infinite curvature of spacetime, continuity of events, vis., history, becomes deterministic. That light cannot escape a gravitational circularity means that it is determined. The visible light reflected off things determined illuminates that determination. Everything that happens must happen. Cosmic reality overall, however, isn't deterministic when sufficiently far from black holes. This might suggest to us black holes are anchors of cosmic history in that they constrain to some degree what can happen. — ucarr

Might our "pure reason and logic together with what we already know" also be distorted by the insuperable relative time subject to the distortions of the speed of light, gravity, and our nervous systems? — ucarr

I'm a determinist and do not believe in either randomness or 'free will'. I don't have a satisfactory model for either of those concepts, and strongly suspect that they do not exist as we commonly think they do. — punos

it resembles the state of a 0-dimensional point because there is no room for movement within a 0-dimensional point, as in the case of the maximally packed marbles. — punos

Scope, which means extent of, can be applied to the inclusivity of a set. Example: the universe is the set of all existing things. Why do you deem this usage nonsense? — ucarr

No. See past posts for what that means. — Philosophim

If we understand the full abstract scope, then the solution becomes clear. First, in terms of composition, if we're talking about composition that caused the universe, this would requires something outside of the universe. But because we've encompassed 'the entire universe' there is nothing outside of the universe which could cause it. In terms of composition, the universes cause would simply be what it is, and nothing more. — Philosophim

First, I'm not using the phrase, "The totality of what exists" in the argument. I'm saying the entire scope of causality. — Philosophim

Well, that’s a huge difference! An argument that the totality of what exists has no cause is true (trivially) because any cause—be itself caused or not—would be included in such totality; however, that the totality of caused things has no cause does not follow these lines of thinking—for an uncaused thing would be outside of that totality. You would have to provide some further argument—and perhaps I missed it—for why there would be no cause to such a series. — Bob Ross

No, the uncaused thing would be the limit inside of that totality. — Philosophim

Yes that is a fair point. My intention was to convey "We know a thing exists by the fact that it does. There is no other explanation." It cannot cause its own existence as it would have to exist before it existed otherwise. — Philosophim

If we understand the full abstract scope, then the solution becomes clear. First, in terms of composition, if we're talking about composition that caused the universe, this would requires something outside of the universe. But because we've encompassed 'the entire universe' there is nothing outside of the universe which could cause it. In terms of composition, the universes cause would simply be what it is, and nothing more.* — Philosophim

*This statement looks like it contradicts your first quote above.Yes that is a fair point. My intention was to convey "We know a thing exists by the fact that it does. There is no other explanation." It cannot cause its own existence as it would have to exist before it existed otherwise. — Philosophim

Logical possibilities are potential outcomes conceived in the mind. Given non-existence, no minds, no logical possibilities as potential outcomes. — ucarr

And again, if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, it still falls and vibrates the air. This is my point. My point is that the reality of physics does not disappear if no one is around. This is a simple concept to grasp, so if you're not addressing this point, then I don't see how your point is helpful. — Philosophim

Lets clarify this. Possibilities are logical outcomes based on a state of reality at one point compared to another point. The logical outcomes of prediction would still stand even if no human was there to realize it. Non-existence itself has no possibility, as it is literal non-existence. So we agree there. But uncaused existences are once again, not caused by anything and are not tied to non-existence. So the point is moot. — Philosophim

When you make a declaration that puts "uncaused" next to "existences," as you do above, and then declare, "It simply was not, then it was." you are the entity -- a human doing abstract thinking -- getting involved with language and creating a linguistic situation that describes something existentially impossible — ucarr

Incorrect. You have no proof that it is impossible. You not having observed it does not make it impossible. If you can prove that its impossible, then you would have a point. Do that, and you'll be right. But if you can't, then this isn't a counter argument against my post. — Philosophim

...uncaused existences are once again, not caused by anything and are not tied to non-existence — Philosophim

On the basis of these quotes, I don't see anything explicit or implicit that suggests your use of "scope" means anything other than "extent." Can you clarify? — ucarr

I've also previously stated that your argument here examples you merely referring to the contents of your mind when attempting to establish your knowledge of what happens independent of your mind. A valid argument can't be based upon what you think. Instead, somehow you will have to show that you know things independently from what you think. — ucarr

Here's my argument - expressed in your own words - proving uncaused origin of universe is impossible: — ucarr

Now we have the question, What was before uncaused universe? The answer is nothing, in the sense of non-existence. Logically, this can only mean one thing: uncaused universe has always existed, and thus eternal universe is always paired with uncaused universe. This logical certainty excludes origin of universe. — ucarr

Furthermore, let me emphasize how, within your statement defining universe origin, you say uncaused universe not tied to non-existence. In so saying, you refute the possibility of a "before" in relation to uncaused universe. — ucarr

It simply was not, then it was." is what we're examining here for its connection to reality out in the world. However, we can neither experience non-existence nor the origin of existence. We therefore must use our abstractly reasoning minds to examine your statement as we try to determine if it refers to something consistent with what we can experience. — ucarr

First, you are correct in stating this is an argument purely from logic, not experience. Second, your second statement of "consistent with what we can experience," is actually 'consistent with what we have experienced'. You have not given any argument to demonstrate that an uncaused existence is impossible, only that you haven't personally experienced one. The former is a viable line of argument, the later is not. — Philosophim

However, we can neither experience non-existence nor the origin of existence. We therefore must use our abstractly reasoning minds to examine your statement as we try to determine if it refers to something consistent with what we can experience. — ucarr

Logic does not ever have to be consistent with what we experience if we have not experienced it yet. — Philosophim

All we have is logic, so presented 'evidence' of causal reality is moot in proving whether uncaused existence is existentially impossible or not. — Philosophim

The Big Bang is presented as fundamental truth about a universe that oscillates between a Big Bang and a Big Crunch. Since it excludes non-existence, there's no looming question about what powered the existence of the universe. — ucarr

And what caused this oscillation? And what caused that to cause the oscillation? And we're right back to my point which you still have not disproved. — Philosophim

Because you are talking about causal relationships. You can't include a connection in an uncaused relationship because there isn't any. Are you trolling me at this point? Any honest person would concede you can't place a causal connection in an uncaused existence. — Philosophim

Thank you for answering this so I can understand how you're seeing it. Your way of seeing things doesn't work because once a thing exists, it now has causation from it. You can't pre-exist causation. Something either exists, or it does not. It either exists in a state caused by something else, or uncaused by something else. — Philosophim

I do acknowledge an eternal universe is uncaused. — ucarr

Good. Now we can eliminate a lot of this back and forth and focus the argument down. We both agree that ultimately there is uncaused existence. What logically does this mean? Doesn't this mean that just as easily the universe could have not existed eternally and simply incepted one day? Why or why not if an uncaused thing has no causal limitations or rules behind it? — Philosophim

No. There is no couplet of expression. There is no, 'thing that makes the change of state." There is nothing, then something. "But what about the inbetween?" There is no inbetween. "But what about..." No. "But how..." No. That's what uncaused means Ucarr. It means "not caused". There is no reason or explanation for its being besides the fact that it is. — Philosophim

The problem of your uncaused universe is that it can't power up in the absence of necessary prior conditions for its existence. — ucarr

Just like an eternally existing universe... — Philosophim

Since you observe time by watching things change, your experience of time is always linked to you. Regarding the reality of the nature of time apart from human observation, we don't know. — ucarr

So when you go to sleep at night and lose sense of time, time stops? Lets not resort to silly arguments to avoid the real ones Ucarr. Time exists, just like you believe the universe eternally existed prior to humans being alive. — Philosophim

... I'm demonstrating that all causality leads to a logical end point where something is uncaused... if something uncaused is possible, then we know there can't be any limitations as to what specifically must have existed. Thus a universe that incepted uncaused vs always existed uncaused have the same underlying reasons for their existence if they did exist. — Philosophim

The nature of something being uncaused by anything outside of itself is a new venue of exploration for Ontology. — Philosophim

Your maneuvering around the circularity of identity is an extreme version of fine tuning a theory to explain why its parameters have precisely the rules they return: unexplainable (beyond "It is what it is." ) — ucarr

Your attempt to not address the actual argument is a clear sign that the argument is pretty tight isn't it? If its so simple to refute, why haven't you done it yet Ucarr? I fail to see this circularity you keep claiming. You already believe in an uncaused eternal universe, so you're in the exact same boat I am. — Philosophim

No. There is no couplet of expression. There is no, 'thing that makes the change of state." There is nothing, then something. "But what about the inbetween?" There is no inbetween. "But what about..." No. "But how..." No. That's what uncaused means Ucarr. It means "not caused". There is no reason or explanation for its being besides the fact that it is. — Philosophim

These parameters of unexplainable have no known mechanism for explaining why a dynamic material universe with respect to mass, energy, motion, space and time is unexplainable regarding why these resources are not necessary pre-conditions for the existence of the dynamic material universe. — ucarr

Exactly like an eternally existing universe. You've already agreed uncaused existences logically are. Now you have to indicate why it must necessarily have always existed vs finitely existed. — Philosophim

My repeated attempts are to get you from thinking in terms of causality and into 'uncausality'. You keep implying something comes before an uncaused existence. It doesn't. You keep thinking things exist in non-existence prior to existence. They don't. You keep thinking there is something that compels or explains an existence that incepts despite it being uncaused. It doesn't. If you can't understand these basic premises at this point, then this discussion is likely beyond you. — Philosophim

I acknowledge uncaused existence with the stipulation that it always be paired with eternal existence. This is the crux of our disagreement. We agree on uncaused eternal universe. We disagree on uncaused non-eternal universe. — ucarr

Fantastic! Lets lose all the silly parts then. Just focus on this part. I've mentioned above a few reasons why your idea of an eternal universe has the same 'problems' you've noted for a finite universe. Your part next should be to demonstrate why an uncaused existence must necessarily be eternal vs have finite existence. I look forward to this! — Philosophim

First, this is a massive run on sentence I can hardly understand. Second, read my replies to your first two posts and see if what you wrote still stands. — Philosophim

Switzerland maintains design on countries at war by maintaining no design on countries at war. This design by no design is called neutrality. — ucarr

Switzerland maintains design on countries at war by maintaining no design on countries at war. This design by no design is called neutrality. — ucarr

What? This doesn't even make sense gramaticaly. If a country decides to stay neutral by design, then the people who made the neutrality approach designed it. A design has a designer period. Just accept basic premises that no one has an issue with Ucarr. — Philosophim

The point is that a design needs a designer. You cannot have a design without a designer. — Philosophim

The uncaused universe, which therefore is not self-caused, nevertheless features the causation that didn't cause itself -- it looks as if, by this reasoning, a thing is not always defined by what it is -- and it also features humans who design things within an undesigned universe. Considering these non sequiturs from non-existence replaced by uncaused existence featuring the causation that didn't cause the universe that makes it possible followed by designing humans who study the undesigned powers driving their designing, you, who make these arguments, would be amenable to logical possibility, which you argue is the uncaused only answer to the full scope of the causal chain, being a designer. — ucarr

On the basis of these quotes, I don't see anything explicit or implicit that suggests your use of "scope" means anything other than "extent." Can you clarify? — ucarr

Ucarr, we both know you're trying to make this a set issue right? Stop insulting my intelligence and goodwill. Read the OP and use scope in relation to causality. I'm going to ignore any further questions on this unless I see some good faith effort on your part to cite the OP. — Philosophim

... I'm demonstrating that all causality leads to a logical end point where something is uncaused... — Philosophim

Are you trying to say, "Logic need not be consistent with what we don't know empirically"? Both empirical observation and a priori conceptualization need to express correct reasoning. — ucarr

Are you claiming your OP solves the problem of infinite regress thought by some to be connected to origin of universe? — ucarr

The time lag in my responses causes you to suspect trolling. Hopefully my most recent responses have cleared away your suspicion. — ucarr

Here's my abstract: a) a thing is caused (including self-causation, "...once a thing exists, it now has causation from it.") or b) a thing is uncaused. — ucarr

This means that the members in a chain of causation of contingent things could've been uncaused instead, and thus outside the chain of causation, or it suggests chains of causation are conditional, or perhaps they're illusory. Now we're looking at a set called "universe" that might be a collection of universes with all of them uncaused. The equal pairing of caused_uncaused has many ramifications. — ucarr

No, an eternal universe never powered up. — ucarr

Your interpretation of my quote is wrong. I'm not denying the existence of time apart from our experience of it. I'm denying we know anything about the reality of its supposed causation of things changing. — ucarr

You think that uncaused eternal universe implies the possibility of other types of uncaused universes, including one that has an origin. — ucarr

My objection to an uncaused origin of the universe hinges on the role played by the conservation laws — ucarr

Given the context created by my abstract above, with your argument here inserted into it, your argument for uncaused real things suggests "uncaused" destroys the necessity of "caused". — ucarr

Regarding the sentence in bold above, how do we understand it to be saying anything different from what theism says about an unlimited God? — ucarr

"How is your theory an example of:

The nature of something being uncaused by anything outside of itself is a new venue of exploration for Ontology. — ucarr

In the bold letters we see you saying an uncaused thing has no reason (cause) for being but itself. When you say an uncaused thing has no reason for being but itself, you're saying it's uncaused and self-caused, a contradiction. — ucarr

No, eternal universe means eternal mass, energy, motion, space and time that change forms while conserved. — ucarr

No, unexplainably always existed, not necessarily always existed. — ucarr

no, uncaused origin of universe because universe can't power up without pre-existing forces fueling that power up. — ucarr

You keep being unable to explain how an uncaused universe powers up without pre-existing forces fueling that power up. Even if an uncaused universe can power up without pre-existing forces, that's self-causation, not uncaused. — ucarr

An uncaused universe eternal includes symmetries coupled with their conserved forces powering the dynamism of material things. — ucarr

First, this is a massive run on sentence I can hardly understand. Second, read my replies to your first two posts and see if what you wrote still stands.
— Philosophim

Why don't you repost your quotes for my convenience. I always do that for you. — ucarr

You're the one championing no restrictions on what could be within an uncaused universe. Going from there, I describe a string of contradictions and non-sequiturs arising from your uncaused, no-restrictions universe. — ucarr

There's no obvious reason why set theory should be generally excluded from debates. — ucarr

I've also previously stated that your argument here examples you merely referring to the contents of your mind when attempting to establish your knowledge of what happens independent of your mind. A valid argument can't be based upon what you think. Instead, somehow you will have to show that you know things independently from what you think. — ucarr

That would be the OP. Where in the OP is my argument wrong? I expect better criticism at this point Ucarr. — Philosophim

Here's my argument - expressed in your own words - proving uncaused origin of universe is impossible: — ucarr

...uncaused existences are once again, not caused by anything and are not tied to non-existence — Philosophim

Since uncaused existences are not caused by anything, in the case of the uncaused universe, which "encapsulates everything that is." there is only non-existence replaced by existence. Now we have the question, What was before uncaused universe? The answer is nothing, in the sense of non-existence. Logically, this can only mean one thing: uncaused universe has always existed, and thus eternal universe is always paired with uncaused universe. This logical certainty excludes origin of universe.

Approaching my same argument from the transitive property law: Statement 1: uncaused existences are once again, not caused by anything and are not tied to non-existence = Statement 2: eternal universe uncaused. If Statement 1 = 2+3, and Statement 2 = 5, then Statement 1 = Statement 2.

Furthermore, let me emphasize how, within your statement defining universe origin, you say uncaused universe not tied to non-existence. In so saying, you refute the possibility of a "before" in relation to uncaused universe. Something uncaused with no "before" is obviously uncaused and eternal. — ucarr

You already agreed with me that an infinitely existing universe is uncaused. I think you mean a finite origin vs infinitely always existing origin. — Philosophim

f you're going to use a semantic "Because there was no time, once time started it always existed," argument, that's fine. My point still stands. Nothing, then something. You just agreed with me. An actual eternal universe wouldn't even have the idea of nothing prior to it. In otherwords, "always something". It also still does not negate the fact that if something uncaused happened, there are no limitations in to how or why it could happen. Meaning things that are uncaused are still possible to happen even with other existences elsewhere. — Philosophim

...uncaused existences are once again, not caused by anything and are not tied to non-existence — Philosophim

Nothing, then something. You just agreed with me. — Philosophim

Furthermore, let me emphasize how, within your statement defining universe origin, you say uncaused universe not tied to non-existence. In so saying, you refute the possibility of a "before" in relation to uncaused universe. — ucarr

I'm glad you're finally seeing what I've been noting this entire time. But we can actually say 'before', especially when we consider that uncaused things can happen even with other existences elsewhere in the universe. — Philosophim

Alright! We've finally come to an agreement on the base idea that an uncaused existence is logically necessary, so at this point the only part left is for you to address my second point. "An uncaused existence has no reason for its being, therefore there is nothing to shape or constrain what could be. Therefore there is no limit as to what could form uncaused at any time or place". — Philosophim

Logic does not ever have to be consistent with what we experience if we have not experienced it yet. — Philosophim

Are you trying to say, "Logic need not be consistent with what we don't know empirically"? Both empirical observation and a priori conceptualization need to express correct reasoning. — ucarr

No, I'm saying that we have no way of empirically verifying or countering the proposal here, so all we're left with is logic. — Philosophim

Logic does not ever have to be consistent with what we experience if we have not experienced it yet. — Philosophim

Are you claiming your OP solves the problem of infinite regress thought by some to be connected to origin of universe? — ucarr

Yes. This is now a possibility. Not necessary, but logically possible. — Philosophim

Here's my abstract: a) a thing is caused (including self-causation, "...once a thing exists, it now has causation from it.") or b) a thing is uncaused. — ucarr

There is no self-causation because that would require something to exist before it existed. — Philosophim

If we understand the full abstract scope, then the solution becomes clear. First, in terms of composition, if we're talking about composition that caused the universe, this would requires something outside of the universe. But because we've encompassed 'the entire universe' there is nothing outside of the universe which could cause it. In terms of composition, the universes cause would simply be what it is, and nothing more. — Philosophim

This means that the members in a chain of causation of contingent things could've been uncaused instead, and thus outside the chain of causation, or it suggests chains of causation are conditional, or perhaps they're illusory. Now we're looking at a set called "universe" that might be a collection of universes with all of them uncaused. The equal pairing of caused_uncaused has many ramifications. — ucarr

In theory, correct. We'll need new principles and outlooks with this in mind. I can safely sum it up to be, "Causality is the rule unless causality is completely ruled out." On this notion I would love to hear your thoughts as I think this is worth exploring. — Philosophim

The problem of your uncaused universe is that it can't power up in the absence of necessary prior conditions for its existence. — ucarr

Just like an eternally existing universe... — Philosophim

No, an eternal universe never powered up. — ucarr

Then what caused the power to be? That's the point. Its the same question for a finitely regressive universe. — Philosophim

Your interpretation of my quote is wrong. I'm not denying the existence of time apart from our experience of it. I'm denying we know anything about the reality of its supposed causation of things changing. — ucarr

I still don't understand what you mean by this, can you go into more detail? What does "its supposed causation of things changing" mean? — Philosophim

You think that uncaused eternal universe implies the possibility of other types of uncaused universes, including one that has an origin. — ucarr

Its not implied, its a logical assertion. Do you understand why? I've attempted to explain multiple times, so try explaining back to me in your words this time. — Philosophim

My objection to an uncaused origin of the universe hinges on the role played by the conservation laws — ucarr

And I have told you repeatedly, "You cannot rely on causal laws as a denial for something uncaused." Its irrelevant. Let me give you an analogy. I'm noting A -> B -> C. You're saying, "Because B -> C, you can't have just A". That's not a viable argument. — Philosophim

Given the context created by my abstract above, with your argument here inserted into it, your argument for uncaused real things suggests "uncaused" destroys the necessity of "caused". — ucarr

How? I've already noted once something exists, how it exists is what we base our causal rules from. — Philosophim

... I'm demonstrating that all causality leads to a logical end point where something is uncaused... if something uncaused is possible, then we know there can't be any limitations as to what specifically must have existed. Thus a universe that incepted uncaused vs always existed uncaused have the same underlying reasons for their existence if they did exist. — Philosophim

Regarding the sentence in bold above, how do we understand it to be saying anything different from what theism says about an unlimited God? — ucarr

Because an unlimited God is only one of infinite possibilities. Theism asserts a God exists without evidence, and at best can attempt logical arguments that imply its necessity. My argument notes that yes, an 'unlimited' God is one of many possibilities, but it is not necessary. The only way to prove that a God exists is to do so with evidence, like any proposed necessary theory of specific universal origin. A card is drawn, but we must prove it is a Jack and not a King. — Philosophim

... I'm demonstrating that all causality leads to a logical end point where something is uncaused... if something uncaused is possible, then we know there can't be any limitations as to what specifically must have existed. Thus a universe that incepted uncaused vs always existed uncaused have the same underlying reasons for their existence if they did exist. — Philosophim

How is your theory an example of:

The nature of something being uncaused by anything outside of itself is a new venue of exploration for Ontology. — ucarr

The fact that something can incept uncaused at anytime is an amazing idea to be pulled into ontology. The fact that we can safely consider a God as a viable possible origin is incredible. The fact that it allows us to think of our universe and existence on a completely different level as we can confirm for a fact that there is no necessity or grand plan in anything we do. — Philosophim

In the bold letters we see you saying an uncaused thing has no reason (cause) for being but itself. When you say an uncaused thing has no reason for being but itself, you're saying it's uncaused and self-caused, a contradiction. — ucarr

Ok, I don't often get angry, but your repeated twisting of my words to fit what you want them to say is starting to make me mad. Here's what I said: "That's what uncaused means Ucarr. It means "not caused". There is no reason or explanation for its being besides the fact that it is." I did not say "self-caused". That in no way implies "self-caused". — Philosophim

If we understand the full abstract scope, then the solution becomes clear. First, in terms of composition, if we're talking about composition that caused the universe, this would requires something outside of the universe. But because we've encompassed 'the entire universe' there is nothing outside of the universe which could cause it. In terms of composition, the universes cause would simply be what it is, and nothing more. — Philosophim

Can I have an honest conversation with you? You have some good points at times, but then you pull stuff like this and it just makes me feel like I'm wasting my time with you. Its been days of this back and forth now. Read more carefully and stop trying to add in things I don't say. — Philosophim

No, eternal universe means eternal mass, energy, motion, space and time that change forms while conserved. — ucarr

And what caused this exactly? — Philosophim

no, uncaused origin of universe because universe can't power up without pre-existing forces fueling that power up. — ucarr

So then power has always existed without prior cause? :) Ucarr...you've already admitted you believe in uncaused existence, lets stop this. — Philosophim

You keep being unable to explain how an uncaused universe powers up without pre-existing forces fueling that power up. Even if an uncaused universe can power up without pre-existing forces, that's self-causation, not uncaused. — ucarr

"Uncaused". Meaning its not caused by anything. Meaning it requires no pre-existing forces. If I gave you a pre-existing force, that would be causation. But its not causation. There's no prior cause. And no, that's not self-causation because it would require it to exist prior to it existing. — Philosophim

An uncaused universe eternal includes symmetries coupled with their conserved forces powering the dynamism of material things. — ucarr

This is nonsense. Break this down into points and a conclusion please. — Philosophim

There's no obvious reason why set theory should be generally excluded from debates. — ucarr

Besides the fact I told you its not a set theory argument? Or the fact I told you you're introducing language and concepts I don't use as if I was? Set theory isn't excluded, you don't get to introduce things like "scope of existence" which I don't use as if i do. Present your argument instead of being sneaky and trying to get me to say what you want me to say. I really respect your style of argumentation except when you try to pull crap like that. Stop it. Just post your arguments. — Philosophim

I am saying that existence encapsulates everything that is. — Philosophim