If existence is eternal, you're metaphysically constraining existence to a binary structure of "to be" or "not to be." Do you feel completely comfortable excluding a grayscale gradient between "to be" or "not to be"? — ucarr
Suppose you could choose whether or not the universe is binary or complex. Which would you choose? — ucarr
Please explain how 'existence does not exist' without self-contradiction. Otherwise, necessary (eternal) existence. — 180 Proof
You are counting back to a start point. — ucarr
I'm grouping all of the causality within an infinite universe in a set which then leads to one final question of causality, "What caused all of that causality?" This is commonly stated as, "What caused the universe?" So I'm not counting back to any start point. I'm noting that the starting point in causality is "What caused the universe?" — Philosophim
A first cause is logically necessary... A first cause is merely the point in the chains of causality throughout the universe thatlead to the[terminates] at the point in which there is nothing prior. — Philosophim
You should immediately discard your current would-be equations that use infinity as one of your input values. Using infinity as an input value is a violation of math form. It’s like trying to start a combustion engine with water instead of gasoline. Fundamentally wrong. If, however, you have your own math that rationally discards proper math form, that’s another matter. Do you have your own system of math? — ucarr
Incorrect. Infinity is a representation of a set of numbers. Just like 23 represents a set of 23 ones. Read here: — Philosophim
Your language for your premise needs to draw a parallel: Infinite causal chains are infinite series made empirical and bounded by eternal existence instead of by limits. — ucarr
I don't understand this, can you go a little more in depth? — Philosophim
Infinity is not a discrete number. It therefore cannot be precisely situated on the number line. It therefore cannot be precisely sequenced in a series populated with numbers. For these reasons, infinite values cannot be computed directly. — ucarr
Math is symbolic representation of quantities. You can symbolically represent infinity. You may not have heard of Georg Cantor's work on infinite sets. Here's an intro: — Philosophim
The Crux: QM Governs Cosmology – an infinite causal chain cannot have a precise first cause because it amounts to putting the whole number line – infinite in volume – within itself. Infinite values can be bounded (as argued above) but they cannot be definitively sequenced. — ucarr
Incorrect again. Read Cantor. — Philosophim
Given these limitations, the attempt to sequence an infinite value amounts to claiming a given thing is greater than itself; this irrational claim holds moot sway within QM, as in the instance of superposition; prior to measurement, the cat is neither dead or alive. — ucarr
Ucarr, randomly bringing quantum mechanics into this isn't going to work either. You misunderstand that statement and what it means. I can go into depth on this later if needed, but you need to understand Cantor and infinities first. — Philosophim
; b) show how my reference to QM is random and irrelevant to this context; c) show how my citation of Shrödinger's Thought Experiment is both misunderstood by me and misapplied to this context.If you want to say I'm wrong, you're going to have to prove I am wrong, not merely say I am. — Philosophim
You don't want to go this route Ucarr. I can say it doesn't because when there is nothing, there is no time. On the other hand, if you include time what you're saying is that an infinite amount of time would have to pass to get to this moment. Ucarr, if the universe has existed for infinite time, didn't you just disprove that the universe has always existed? — Philosophim
I don't see how what you've written here is related to what I've written previously in response to Philosophim. I can't grok what you're saying, ucarr, possibly becauae of the way you're saying it. — 180 Proof
True randomness cannot be constrained or predicted. — Philosophim
Not like the constraints of rolling a die which are really just a lack of knowledge which would necessarily lead to the outcome. — Philosophim
...logically, there is a limit to prior causality and that we will eventually reach a point in our causation query in which there is no prior cause for some existence. — Philosophim
True randomness is the lack of limitations on what could, or could not have been. — Philosophim
A first cause 'is'. — Philosophim
In your case, the universe has no start, but has always existed. — Philosophim
Not quite. For me, existence itself..."always exists" (how could it not?) — 180 Proof
There are now no more questions of prior causality to explore. — 180 Proof
you commit a compositional fallacy, Philo, arguing from the causal structure intrinsic, or dynamics internal, to "the universe" to the conclusion that "the universe" is the effect of a "first cause" that is extrinsic, or external, to it when, in fact, our best science (QG) describes "the universe's" earliest planck diameter as a random event – a-causal. — 180 Proof
..."prior causality" is as incoherent as "prior existence" or "prior randomness" or "prior spacetime" ... — 180 Proof
My first impulse is to deem your non-response a blatant evasion. Could it be you have nothing to say about a first cause and its followers? — ucarr
Look at this again Ucarr. A -> B -> C Nothing caused A. A is a first cause. I don't see me evading anything, you seem to be overcomplicating the issue or seeing something there that I don't. — Philosophim
After inception, when the first cause is in the world existing as it exists, how is it physically related to its causal chain? — ucarr
That's definitely not what I intended. The first cause is the start of the causal chain. — Philosophim
My first impulse is to deem your non-response a blatant evasion. — ucarr
I have listed this repeatedly. Please go back and re-read where I mention the value of realizing what a first cause is and its consequences. I would relist this if it were once or twice, but I've already mentioned this at least 3 times. — Philosophim
So, first cause possesses the distinction of prior nothingness? — ucarr
Yes. This has been said numerous times as well Ucarr. Please stop asking the same questions again and again and just start asserting your thoughts. I will correct you if you make a mistake. My current correction is your mistake in asking the same question again and again. — Philosophim
Such an emergence would be stupendous if coupled with playing the role of an on-sight parent nurturing children, but you say, with pique, first cause is not party to its descendants. — ucarr
It would be stupendous. But such an empirical claim must be empircally proven. If you claimed, "This pregnant woman incepted out of nowhere with a biological age of 23," you better have airtight proof that your claim matches reality. — Philosophim
I think in your mind you've journeyed to a lonely place defined by the absoluteness of its isolation. Moreover, the solitary denizen of that yawning emptiness flails about, haunted by unbreakable seclusion. — ucarr
Yeah...that's an opinion about me not about the theory. Maybe you've just reached the end of exploring this Ucarr. We've gone over it numerous times, it still stands, and maybe its time to accept that. Admitting it works for now doesn't mean you have to like it, or that it can't be disproven in the future. But if we're descending into insults about the creator of the idea, it seems like the idea is pretty solid and there's nothing more to be said for now. — Philosophim
What sort of questions about nothing cry out for answers? Let's suppose our world has nothing for its ancestor. How does nothing animate and uplift human nature? — ucarr
Why do you need something else to do that? If there was something out there that intended humanity to be inanimate and hated human nature, wouldn't you give it the metaphorical finger and uplift humanity anyway? Purpose is not found from without. It is found from within us. — Philosophim
First cause has no truck with us? How dismal. — ucarr
Lets say there is a God Ucarr. It would know its a first cause. Meaning it would be in the same boat you're talking about. "Why am I hear? There's no outside reason for me, a God, to exist. Oh woe is me!" The God would need to make the same decision we do. They must find value and purpose in their own existence. So Ucarr, there is no escaping the reality that even a God has no prior cause, no prior purpose, no sanctioned greater purpose than what they are. — Philosophim
...as I've learned from Gnomon, causation is believed but not yet proven — ucarr
Hey, I'm just accepting David Hume's reasoning, about the universality of cause & effect. I'm not an expert in these matters, so you can argue with him. — Gnomon
Hume points out that we never have an impression of efficacy. Because of this, our notion of causal law seems to be a mere presentiment that the constant conjunction will continue to be constant, some certainty that this mysterious union will persist. — edu/hume-causation/
After inception, when the first cause is in the world existing as it exists, how is it physically related to its causal chain? — ucarr
That's definitely not what I intended. The first cause is the start of the causal chain. — Philosophim
As the first cause, is the first cause bacterium distinguishable from its offspring? — ucarr
It is distinct in the fact that if we were to trace the bacteria back to the first, we would find there was no evidence of there being a prior bacterium. — Philosophim
Does this raise a question about the practical value of isolating a first cause in abstraction? — ucarr
What do you think? Ucarr, I've told you the value already in understanding the idea. What do you think about that? — Philosophim
The logic is about prior causation, so its use is in questions about prior and ultimate causation. — Philosophim
David Hume addressed the philosophical Causation Problem by noting that, in Physics there is no Causation, only Change*1. Yet, the human mind attributes the Power of Causation (potential) to some unseen force. By the same reasoning, there are no Laws or Logic in the physical world. But the human mind seems to inherently "conceive" of consecutive Change as the effect of some prior physical input of Energy. It's a Belief, not a Fact. — Gnomon
...as I've learned from Gnomon, causation is believed but not yet proven. — ucarr
I would question what you mean by 'not proven'. Without causation all of science and reason goes out the window. If causation is gone, then I can't say you typed your reply to me. "You" didn't cause it. And that's absurd. — Philosophim
It's not clear to me if the universe contains things that are causations mixed with things not causations. — ucarr
First causes would not be causations, but everything after their inception would be. — Philosophim
What I remember pertinent to first causes within the context of causality is that after inception, a first cause is henceforth subject to the laws of physics in application to all things inhabiting the natural world. — ucarr
More accurately, it exists in the way it exists, and interacts with others in a resultant manner that can be codified into rules and laws. — Philosophim
It's not clear to me if the universe contains things that are causations mixed with things that are not causations. Is it the case that whatever is not a causation is a first cause? — ucarr
I have been over this numerous times at this point. Its been answered already several posts up, please review. We had a lengthy discussion about first causes and how they enter into causality once formed. Please look for that again. — Philosophim
My issue with contingency is that we don’t know enough about reality to know if all things are contingent. — Tom Storm
This is not an empirical proof, but a logical proof based on what we know today. — Philosophim
It's not clear to me if the universe contains things that are causations mixed with things that are not causations. Is it the case that whatever is not a causation is a first cause? — ucarr
The infinite causal chain equals members populating a set; they are more commonly referred to as the universe? — ucarr
No, as mentioned before its the set of all causations within that universe up to the point in which we ask, "What caused that universe?" — Philosophim
We had a lengthy discussion about first causes and how they enter into causality once formed. — Philosophim
Regarding: 'up to the point in which we ask, "What caused that universe?,"' it's not clear to me when this point is reached. Is this the point when: "It entails eventually putting it into a set." — ucarr
Yes. We take the entirety of the causations over the infinite time in the universe then ask, "What caused this to be?" Why is it 3T + infinity = y instead of 2T + infinity = y? — Philosophim
Does this evaluation of all causations into a set occur in time as we know it? — ucarr
A causation chain in total is not taken in 'time'. Its an evaluation of everything that has happened so far. You are given the formula 2T + infinity = Y. This formula contains all the causality by time in that universe. So you say, "That's neat. What caused the universe to be infinite and eternal in that way?" Is it "Nothing" or is there something else that caused it? If there's nothing which caused it to be eternal, then there was nothing that deigned its inception; it simply is. A first cause to all the rest of the causality. — Philosophim
Every causal chain inevitably arrives at a first cause — Philosophim
The infinite causal chain equals members populating a set; they are more commonly referred to as the universe?
— ucarr
No, as mentioned before its the set of all causations within that universe up to the point in which we ask, "What caused that universe?" — Philosophim
Do you have a point... — Philosophim
Keep trying Ucarr! — Philosophim
It entails eventually putting it into a set. — Philosophim
No, the chain is not the first cause. — Philosophim
Every causal chain inevitably arrives at a first cause. — Philosophim
The first cause of the chain occurs after you take all other causality within that universe. So you have mapped out that it is eternal and infinitely regressive. What remains after that is, "What caused the universe to be?" — Philosophim
In the case of the formula of an infinitely regressive universe, because there is infinite time and we are capturing all possible causations within infinite time, there is no 'first causation". Essentially the first cause comes about after we capture all possible infinite causations in that universe, then ask the next question, "What caused it to be this way?" — Philosophim
Could you rephrase that question in more conventional terms? — Gnomon
After going to the doctor with mild symptoms, you're told your spinal column is infected with pneumococci bacteria. Since it's believed this infection causes spinal meningitis, you're advised to immediately undergo an aggressive program of antibiotics within the intensive care unit. — ucarr
For the record, I don't deny Causation; but I do think it's a mental inference... — Gnomon
What does Y stand for in your equation? — ucarr
Total number of causations within that point of time on the chain. — Philosophim
Why is it 2t + infinity = Y and not 3t + infinity = Y? — Philosophim
Now here's the question which you have to answer Ucarr. Why is it 2t + infinity = Y and not 3t + infinity = Y? Is there anything outside which caused it to be one way over the other? — Philosophim
Ironically, modern science postulates several causal features of reality that are logical inferences instead of sensory observations. For example Energy is the universal cause of all changes in the world, but we never detect the Energy per se, we only infer its logically-necessary existence from after-effects in material objects. Likewise, the notion of electric or quantum Fields is a logical inference from observation of changes in the material world*3. How that universal or local field came to be --- "popped into existence" --- is irrelevant for pragmatic Science : it just is, and it works. — Gnomon
Every causal chain inevitably arrives at a first cause. — Philosophim
Your goal is to demonstrate that a first cause is not necessary. You are not going to win by challenging the definition of the first cause, if the definition is logically necessary. The only way to do that is to demonstrate that logically a universe can exist that does not inevitably arrive at a first cause within its causal chain. — Philosophim
A first cause exists, it does not negate itself. If it did, it would be gone. I'm not understanding how you see a first cause implies its own negation. — Philosophim
I'm not claiming something comes from nothing. A first cause doesn't come from anything. I'm just noting that prior to a first causes inception, there is no prior causation... — Philosophim
I first establish what a first cause is, something which is not caused by anything prior or else. The consequence of this logically means that prior to the inception of a first cause, there was no reason why it should, or should not have formed. And if there is no reason why a first cause should or should not have formed, there is no limitations or rules that shape what a first cause should, or should not be. — Philosophim
...we're taking the entire set of the eternal regressive universe and asking, "What caused this to exist?" The answer is nothing besides the fact that it exists. Thus a first cause. — Philosophim
When looking at a regressive infinite universe, we're going up the causal chain until we get to the point in the chain where we ask, "What caused an infinitely regressive universe to exist?" — Philosophim
If you're postulating an infinitely regressive universe that contains local first causes, then you're constructing a contradictory universe because if there comes into existence something causeless, then it's necessarily another, independent universe. — ucarr
No, its another separate causal chain inception. A first cause is the inception of a causal chain. — Philosophim
Anything within a causal chain caused by something prior cannot be a first cause. But this does not prevent something outside of that particular causal chain from appearing and starting its own causal chain. — Philosophim
You're making the mistake of looking at the universe instead of the causal chain of that universe. — Philosophim
. That's why there's the question whether or not self-causation is fatal:If something negates itself, its gone. A thing cannot both exist and not exist at the same time. — Philosophim
I'm asking you to give me an example of a universe without a first cause in its causation chain. — Philosophim
"Assume it is false, what do we arrive at?" The frustration Ucarr is your inability to demonstrate it is false so far. Which is fine, keep trying. If it were clearly false, we would not be still having this discussion. — Philosophim
...you cannot talk rationally about nothing (or anything else) causing the universe to exist because it's impossible to ascertain any logical reason for its existence. This is so because reason_cause imply sequence, but infinite value cannot be specified and therefore cannot be [logically] sequenced. — ucarr
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. — Philosophim
You know this isn't correct at this point. This is frustration. Don't let that win. I've laid the reasoning out clearly at this point. — Philosophim
Don't confuse the logical decision to make an unexplainable observation axiomatically with logically explaining the content of that observation. You're doing the former, not the latter. — ucarr
If you're going to assert that, you need to demonstrate that. Otherwise this is just not wanting to accept a conclusion. — Philosophim
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. — Philosophim
First comes the logical necessity of a first cause, then comes the conclusion that this means the inception of a first cause cannot be explained by anything else, thus there is nothing prior which could cause a limit on what or would not incept as a first cause. — Philosophim
Maybe you're right that its axiomatic, but can you break it down how you arrive that its merely a declaration? — Philosophim
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. — ucarr
He [ucarr] doesn't like the idea that there was nothing, then something. — Philosophim
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. — Philosophim
What caused space to always exist? Nothing. — Philosophim
Can you accept a paraphrase of: "A logical first cause is necessary" as follows: "Everything must have a beginning"? — 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. — Philosophim
An eternal universe has nothing prior. It has no prior cause for its existence. — Philosophim
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. — Philosophim
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. — Philosophim
It is not a presupposition, its a conclusion that we arrive at... — Philosophim
There is no answer besides the fact one type of universe, space and matter, exists. — Philosophim
You see Ucarr, the argument's conclusion is logically necessary. — Philosophim
...time is irrelevant to matter and vice versa. — Alkis Piskas_ucarr
Is there anything time is connected to? — ucarr
Don't quote a stetement cut off from its immediate context. It's a very bad and unacceptable habit, ucarr. — Alkis Piskas
I have enough with all that, ucarr. You are a bad interlocutor. Please don't bother me again. — Alkis Piskas
Actually the concept of "matter" was constructed by Aristotle to account for the reality of temporal continuity. What persists unchanged, as time passes, despite changes to a thing's form, is the thing's matter. So matter provides the basis for a thing's extension in time. — Metaphysician Undercover
Time has no mass, neither does it occupy space. So time is irrelevant to matter and vice versa. — Alkis Piskas
...What persists unchanged, as time passes, despite changes to a thing's form, is the thing's matter. So matter provides the basis for a thing's extension in time. — Metaphysician Undercover
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
...time is irrelevant to matter and vice versa. — Alkis Piskas
Why do you not answer my question: By what means do you sever space and time? — ucarr
I answered it. You just missed it.
... Or maybe you weren't there. :grin: — Alkis Piskas
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
If time doesn't inhabit the material-physicality of our phenomenal universe, then is false? — ucarr
is false. This fact is demonstrated by the need for what is called "relativistic mass". — Metaphysician Undercover
I have given a look to this Quora... search... [it's] based on personal thought experimentation, like yours. — Alkis Piskas
...my simple position that time is not contained in matter. — Alkis Piskas
Time has no mass, neither does it occupy space. — Alkis Piskas
Necessity is not important... — Philosophim
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around, it still vibrates the air molecules. — Philosophim
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
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
There is no time --contained or involved-- in something [matter] either. — Alkis Piskas
Initially, you indicated (indirectly) that my statement "there is no time --contained or involved-- in something either" makes E=mc2 false. — Alkis Piskas
There is no time --contained or involved-- in something [matter] either. — Alkis Piskas
And is this something, a possibility that you thought of yourself? Because I couldn'f find anything about all that in the Web ... — Alkis Piskas
If time doesn't inhabit the material-physicality of our phenomenal universe, then e=mc2 is false? — ucarr
E = mc2 says nothing about time. — Alkis Piskas
Vincent Emory, Robert Shuler — Quora
Time has no mass, neither does it occupy space. — Alkis Piskas
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