I do not think the complete scientific method can exist without philosophy. I do not think a completely philosophical exploration can be complete without science. — Philosophim

So, it appears that you, like me, see the two disciplines connected within a bi-conditional relationship.

I don't see how philosophers looking over scientists' shoulders does any good. The various sciences have their own procedures... — jgill

We're on the same page here. I smile upon scientists who do in-house philosophizing about the meaning of one type of procedure versus another type. However, as you say:

There are some philosophers who are versed in contemporary knowledge who might qualify as well. — jgill

So, it should be okay too if philosopher-specialists provide some of the thinking about proper scientific goals in general and likewise proper general scientific procedure.

…..no science is ever done purely a priori, and no philosophy is ever done purely a posteriori; — Mww

Do you think it's also true when we switch the position of the two disciplines in the above statement?

…..philosophical truths are proven logically and are necessarily so, scientific truths are proven empirically and are contingently so; — Mww

This statement is interesting in a suggestive way: empirical truth, logically speaking, examples provisional knowledge in reference to abstract logical statements. Does this imply abstract logical statements are idealizations?

…..no science is done that isn’t first a philosophical construct, from which follows…. — Mww

Here you show that scientific theorizing dovetails with philosophy: thinking in terms of correlation, logic and causation is always epistemological.

...a philosopher is not always, nor needs be, a scientist; — Mww

I differ with you here. If a philosopher is not first a scientist, then they need to always maintain a direct line to someone who is. I think the relationship between scientific truth and philosophical truth is bi-conditional. They're always linked by a double-implication. I think you say as much with:

…..no science is done that isn’t first a philosophical construct — Mww

and with:

…..a scientist is always a philosopher... — Mww

philosophy differs from science merely in the determination and application of rules. — Mww

I think this difference, when the two disciplines dialog constructively, for my reasons above, shrinks to a near vanishing point. I suppose I'm saying science and philosophy are two sub-divisions, or specializations operating under one over-arching category.

In the modern era the philosophy of science is largely done by scientists who work on the cutting edge of science. Their speculations are the creative philosophical gems that propel discoveries.

There are some philosophers who are versed in contemporary knowledge who might qualify as well. — jgill

Yes. This activity needs to be occurring steadily, and it is. Complicated processes need regular oversight with regard to methodology. Maybe it's a stretch, but I think metaphysics as the grammar or rules of procedure offers suggestions as to how methodology might evolve.

Interesting elaboration of certain practices likely going on quietly within science circles. Thanks for turning on this light.

Over time the one diverged from the other according to modern usage of either terms, especially as the sciences became more specialized. Nonetheless, PhD still stands for Doctor of Philosophy. — NOS4A2

Can the philosopher nowadays be taken seriously as a science generalist? This label is meant to parallel the general practitioner of medicine, a doctor who does not specialize.

The difference between philosophy and science is a philosophical difference — Wayfarer

Some scientists are very firm on a big difference between the two fields: Richard Feynmann. Must they wax philosophical when they describe the difference?

The inability to make that distinction is one of the main causes of scientism. — Wayfarer

Have philosophers established talking points explaining why science should not be privileged above philosophy?

Philosophy is more concerned with qualitative questions and with question of meaning. — Wayfarer

Do you deem these reasons for classifying philosophy within the humanities?

Philosophy of science does not govern scientific practice. — wonderer1

If philosophy of science has no practical application, what value do philosophers find within it?

Is every category of science a type of physics? — Vera Mont

This is how I first thought to word my question.

If there's only a narrow separation between materialism and physics, does this suggest a reason why philosophy seeks its playing field upon the platform of subjectivity?

But this thread is not about First Causes, or Final Effects. It's about the First Concept : the original light bulb in the chain of mindless material evolution. Do you have any ideas about when, where, & how that Initial Inkling emerged from Material Reality? — Gnomon

If the underlined above are your essential focal points for this conversation, I'm struggling to see why it isn't chiefly a scientific inquiry within evolutionary biology rather than a philosophical inquiry within theory of consciousness.

Are you not examining emergence of mind from matter? Is not this the focus as opposed to examining the structure and functioning of cognition once emergent?

If you're seeking after an argument that labels such and such content as the earliest thinking, isn't it likely you'll get an argument for concepts of purposeful behavior towards survival? Isn't it likely you'll get claims about earliest thinking based on observation of apparent cause-and-effect relationships?

Isn't it possible you'll get arguments underscoring the essential nature of cause-and-effect thinking and how it's supported by something more reliable than intuition? For example, is math more verifiably true in the world than intuition? Well, math equations tell us how input values are changed by logical operators. An equation is language that details a cause and effect relationship. If you think this is unreliable intuition floating about in the mist, I conclude your heart is in your mouth every time you drive across a suspension bridge. Is it the case, instead, that you refuse to drive across suspension bridges?

I think language can at best only deal with empirical experience - what other experience would there be? The trouble comes about when empirical experience is taken for the world itself as it is in itself. — tim wood

You say language reaches its limit dealing with empirical experience. Can you elaborate on "dealing with"? For example, "Dealing with" means perceives and understands as if through a glass darkly.

I've been forming the impression you see clearly two distinct experiences, one linguistic, the other hands-on_material.

I'm of the mind that there are no paradoxes in the world, only in descriptions of the world. — tim wood

You think paradoxes logical things categorically apart from hands-on_material things?

You think paradoxes the products of narratives made incoherent due to missing pieces? Do you have any ready-to-hand examples?

What do I infer? That lacking a lot of preliminary groundwork, mostly in establishing working definitions - though they be provisional and subject to change... the question remains a non-sense question...an attempt to make sense where there is no sense to be made. — tim wood

Are you steeped in linguistic philosophy?

Temporality is implied in "first."... But what does modern physics say? For events space-like related which came first depends on who you ask - and notions of entanglement make that even more difficult to understand. — tim wood

Do you think language is inherently limited in its ability to characterize empirical experience truthfully and completely, or do you think language has innate potential to do this, but your endorsement of this characterization comes with the proviso that, up front, tremendous work over eons is necessary?

...it appears the language yields paradox. The world? No apparent paradox, but also no easy understanding. — tim wood

Do you think paradox exists only within language? I ask bearing in mind superposition at the quantum scale.

[Georg ?] Cantor's paradox (about set theory) arises out of descriptive language thought entirely sound but found to be flawed, the remedy being to fix - qualify - the language. A set of all sets seems at first reasonable; it turns out not to be. — tim wood

I'm interested in learning how and why "A set of all sets" is not reasonable. Are you referring to the ZFC restriction of the comprehension axiom and how they avoid Russell's Paradox and fixed Frege's math set theory premises? Can you pass along citations to this literature?

The "paradox" of first beginnings is an applying of language to the world. The world being neither obliged to cooperate with nor obey language, paradox in this case nature's way of saying "Dead-end. Turn about and go another way." — tim wood

When you say "paradox in this case nature's way of saying "Dead-end. Turn about and go another way,"are you invoking the principle of non-contradiction?

Let me correct myself. When I posed my question to you and tim wood, I was understanding tim wood to be questioning generally about the relationship between words -- as in propositions -- and empirical experience. Now I see -- I think -- that tim wood is questioning specifically about a relationship between the proposition: "There is a first cause." and empirical experience.

This latter interpretation of tim wood's meaning has him saying of the proposition: "It's a false claim. There are no first causes.

Now, let me correct my attempted correction. I see in tim woods' response above that, indeed, he has clarified his meaning. So, yes, my first interpretation is correct after all. He is questioning the relationship between words and empirical experience.

I find much in his clarification agreeable. So, I find your endorsement of tim woods' first post understandable and reasonable.

...supposing that an(y) artifact of language...has anything to do with physical reality. Recognize that it doesn't and the problem of reconciling irreconcilables evaporates. — tim wood

So, why are you two posting here? I don't suppose you refute the notion written narratives have no relationship to material things. Do you?

180 Proof, if you respond, I expect you to nuance away from the simple premise implied by my question.

"What could we call it" refers to the first cause? — Lionino

Gnomon is asking what title should be affixed to this conversation.

...leaving the Original Cause of expansion as an open question for feckless philosophers to waste spare-time on. — Gnomon

Did you commit a typo? Perhaps you were intending to write: space-time?

I'm proposing a new thread with similar implications but different presumptions : a First Cause implies a Final Cause, produced by the operations of an Efficient Cause, working in the medium of a Material Cause. What could we call it? — Gnomon

And now, before the next round of beer and peanuts, a title pitch from the chronically gassy, Dept. of Crabby Chyrons : How Set Theory Got Started: A Cosmic Mystery.

In our premiere episode, thrill to the edge of your seat watching Charger, a supremely irreverent electron with velocity learn to do the secret handshake with Ghost Universe.

:up: :100:

Also a more interesting an viable discussion in my mind is Bob Ross's points. — Philosophim

I acknowledge that of the two of us, Bob Ross has a deeper grounding within sentential logic.

You've been extraordinarily generous with your time, energy, and patience in the interest of the thoroughness of our dialogue. Your exertions herein have afforded me an ample supply of time and opportunity to practice and develop both my debate strategy and my execution.

I'm now going to bow out from our dialogue.

Henceforth, I will follow your dialogue with Bob Ross.

It seems like you are trying to argue that since the set of all causes intersection with the null set would result in the null set, that something not having a cause is impossible. The problem with such an argument is twofold: firstly, that something that has no cause would not be a member of the set of all causes NOR a member of the null set and, secondly, the intersection of two sets equaling the null set just means that it has no communal members (which doesn't itself entail that it is impossible for there to be a member of either of the sets).* — Bob Ross

I’m arguing that nothingness cannot support an intersection with somethingness. I’m choosing my words carefully because I’m not saying nothingness can or cannot cause somethingness. I know first cause is uncaused. However, first cause incepting in nothingness is, as I say, a somethingness nothingness cannot support.

I support this claim by saying all existing things are networked. Therefore, no existing thing exists in pure isolation from other existing things, and this pure isolation is the implication of first cause as it is defined.

*I made "either" above bold because, in the case of a set with an element being disjoint with the null set, and that disjunction evaluating to a null set, I don't see how the null set (of the disjunction) can contain an element (not common to the other set) since that contradicts the definition of a null set as a set with no elements.

Okay. (Aside from the asterisk immediately above) everything is clear up to this point. Let me run by you one additional consideration: The intersection of disjunct sets is supposed by me to show that the null set is disjunct with every set except itself. So, even if the other set contains a member, its disjunction with the null set evaluating to a null set resultant shows that an intersection of nothing to something always results in nothing.**

A simpler notation for this argument says: 0(X)=0.

I brought up the fact the null set is a subset of every set to show -- in the interest of thoroughness -- that when we consider the null set conjunct with every set because of the null set being a universal subset, it's still a conjunction of nothingness with nothingness.

**This is presumably a directional truth because the reverse: something-to-nothing is apparently possible, although a sound argument that something never reduces to nothing is perhaps possible.

Hello Bob Ross,

I come to you asking a favor. Can you examine my argument below and tell me if it contains any fatal flaws?

Consider: ∅={ }; this is the empty set. So, if ∅={ } = nothingness and (1) = first cause, then they are disjoint sets, meaning they have no common members. So, the intersection of
∅={ } and (1) takes us right back to ∅={ }. — ucarr

The statement makes an explicit point: nothing intersecting causally with something always results in nothing. So, no something-from-nothing. There's only nothing from nothing. You [Philosophim] have argued that nothingness in your argument is not a thing. With nothingness as a thing, say, a thing represented by zero, nothingness-as-a-representable-nothing can only interact causally with something along the lines of (0)X=0. — ucarr

One wants to claim the null set is disjoint with all other sets. Nevertheless, since the null set is a subset of all sets – including the universal set – then the null set is not disjoint from itself as a subset of any other set. But this simply means the nothingness of the null set is of one piece with the nothingness of its own nothingness as the subset of all other sets. So, again, the null set is disjoint with any somethingness in all other sets. So, again, no somethingness-from-nothingness.

Statistical probability is a math-based science. Calculating probabilities is not educated guesswork. Either the math is correct or it isn't. — ucarr

Probability is absolutely educated guesswork Ucarr. No one knows what card will be drawn next. Its an educated inference about the future. It might take 49 card draws before we see our first jack despite the odds being 4/52. — Philosophim

When a probability is calculated, either the computed probability is right or wrong. So, there's no guesswork involved in computing a probability equation. That the range is what is calculated is not uncertain. When you list 4/52 as a ratio expressing the probability of drawing a certain kind of card within a range of possible draws, there's nothing uncertain about the correctness of this computed ratio. What's uncertain is which particular member of the set computed by the ratio will be chosen and where within the range of possibilities. So, yes. We have to guess what and when one of the four possibilities will be chosen, but that there are four possibilities to be possibly chosen over the specified range is certain. If this weren't so, you wouldn't be quoting the odds as "4/52."

"It might take 49 card draws before we see our first jack despite the odds being 4/52."

The range is from 1 through 49 possible draws. What's uncertain is the exact number of draws within the specified range. The science of probabilities concerns itself with telling you what the range will be. By definition, a range of probabilities is about the range of probabilities, not about exactly when a member will be chosen.

Don't imagine the casinos in Vegas depend on educated guesswork for their profits. — ucarr

Yes, they do. The casino's only survive because the long term odds balance out to their predicted outcomes. There are several points in games where a person cleans out the house. But those points typically don't happen long often enough and often enough to override the losses. — Philosophim

Casinos don't run on educated guesswork. Educated guesswork involves knowledge pertinent to outcomes, but probability, being a science, follows strict rules that govern computations. Do you think pollsters get paid to do educated guesswork about possible outcomes of elections? When tv stations call election results before all of the ballots are tallied, do you think that's educated guesswork?

Your explanation supports my claim (this is an indication we're saying the same thing in different words). In your explanation, you describe what the casinos know. What they know are the odds. Knowing the odds is not educated guesswork. Why do you think successful gamblers -- casinos being the best example -- always know the odds? Also, at a 15% to 30% profit margin, do you think casinos are just getting by?

The more constraints you have, the more deterministic it becomes and the number of possibilities approach zero. — Philosophim

This is a simplification of nature. Regarding a higher number of constraints in one situation compared to the number in another situation, the total level of constraint varies complexly rather than simply because of the possibility of constraints upon constraints.

Removing all constraints reveals all possibilities and is the negation of determinism. So no, this does not approach a probability of 0. — Philosophim

Removing constraints in relation to determinism is governed bi-directionally. At the top end of the continuum of determinism, removal of constraints increases possibilities up to a point, and then the effect reverses if there isn't a certain amount of checking constraints maintained at the bottom end of the continuum of determinism.

The process of removal of constraints can't go all the way to a total removal of constraints because that would mean total removal of intelligibility. You won't have any real and useful things if all constraints are removed because real and useful things -- being the products of constraints -- necessarily introduce intelligibility into a medium. Any medium populated by intelligible things has necessary constraints upon both the parameters of the medium itself as well as upon the intelligible things populating the medium. Without this no form, no content, no consciousness perceiving form and content. This is another way of arguing against the possibility of nothingness* and true randomness.

*Nothingness is a thing. It's not possible to reason with unthingly nothingness because its not possible for existence to transcend itself.

It [true randomness] doesn't have to happen at any time. — Philosophim

Can it ever happen? If true randomness exists empirically, the fact of its existence contradicts the definition of its existence. Any type of existing thing has a measure of determinism attached to it as a thing in itself. It would not be intelligible were this not the case. Kant might be right that we can't know a thing in itself, but I think he's only right up to a point. By his narrative, we can know a thing in itself as a thing that can't be known, otherwise what is he talking about?

If you have zero dollars Ucarr, money owned by you does not exist. — Philosophim

Incorrect. Money owned by me in this situation can be represented by the number zero. So, I own money at volume zero. Don't confuse zero with nothing. Zero represents a specific volume of something, thus the representative and the thing represented are alike not nothing. Also, consider: $0.10 compared with $.010. Ten cents is ten times greater than one cent, a big difference. By changing the position of the zero in relation to the decimal point, the value decreased by a factor of 10. That zero effects that change is evidence that representation of nothing and being nothing are two different things.

Consider: ∅={ }; this is the empty set. So, if ∅={ } = nothingness and (1) = first cause, then they are disjoint sets, meaning they have no common members. So, the intersection of ∅={ } and (1) takes us right back to ∅={ }. — ucarr

I don't see the point. I'm not using an empty set nor multiplying by zero. — Philosophim

The statement makes an explicit point: nothing interacting with something always results in nothing. So, no something-from-nothing. There's only nothing from nothing. You've argued that nothing in your argument is not a thing. With nothing as a thing, say, a thing represented by zero, nothing-as-a-representable-nothing can interact with something along the lines of (0)X=0. Nothing that is not a thing cannot be discussed without contradiction.

Philosophim's Main Premise -- Every causal chain inevitably arrives at a first cause.

This being your main premise, a claim that inhabits the domain of set theory, everything you write in the conversation -- in order to be pertinent -- should hold reference to set theory. Therefore, I'm advancing a pertinent argument in this conversation whenever I employ set theory logic within my arguments.

Here is an argument that implies your pure randomness is an idealization. If, as I believe, pure randomness is the absolute value of disorder, then it's not found in nature. — ucarr

Pure randomness has nothing to do with 'the value of disorder' whatever that is. — Philosophim

Firstly, how can you make a declaration of fact about something you know nothing about?

You keep confusing the point that true randomness comes from the result of a first cause being necessarily true. — Philosophim

Isn't this what you believe? You're the one propounding first cause from nothing.

If you want to counter the idea of true randomness, you need to attack what proves it to be true, not the concept of true randomness itself. — Philosophim

You keep telling me how to manage my argumentation. Are you trying to control my narrative? When I couple this behavior with you repeatedly telling me not to draw my own inferences from what you write, and declaring that, instead, I should ask for your explanations of your meanings, I conclude that, firstly, you're trying to focus my attention on your intended meanings as distinguished from what you write and, secondly, that you have scant respect for the independence of my thinking. I'm inclined to think you are a bully. This isn't ad hominem; it's a reasoned argument drawn from the evidence cited here.

If you want to counter the idea of true randomness, you need to attack what proves it to be true, not the concept of true randomness itself. — Philosophim

Either point of attack is sound.

You can walk into an empty room. You can't walk into a non-existent room. — ucarr

This is poor language use, not a proof. — Philosophim

This is an argument. It's your job to disprove it.

I can walk into a vacuum sealed room right? Or a room empty of air? Non-existence as a concept is quite viable Ucarr. — Philosophim

In making your sequence of argumentative statements, you leave out one crucial statement: I can walk into a non-existent room. Why do you leave out this statement?

Non-existence as a concept is quite viable Ucarr. Are you sure the concept of infinity is? — Philosophim

Firstly, infinite causal chains are central to your premise. Is this an admission your premise is therefore flawed? Secondly, I'd like to see you argue against the logical merit of infinity as a concept, thereby simultaneously arguing against the logical merit of your premise.

Just above you agreed thoughts are things. Still earlier, you agreed the presence of a thing changes what it observes, so your thoughts observing true randomness change it. — ucarr

My thoughts on true randomness change true randomness? How? How does my thinking about an atom incepting randomly change true randomness? — Philosophim

Your thoughts are organized. The content of your thoughts are likewise organized. "True randomness" within your reasoning thoughts is light years removed from what you intend it to mean. Organization and disorder always fight on contact. Be thankful that organization, in your case, continues to win. Do you imagine you could reason with true randomness in an argument if your mind was randomized?

Every infinite causal chain inevitably traces back to its first cause. If it does it's not infinite because infinity never begins. If it doesn't, it's not a causal chain because every causal chain has a first cause. — ucarr

You are once again confusing the infinite causality within the universe with the causal chain of that universe. There is still the question in the chain, "What caused that infinite universe to exist?" Either something caused the infinite universe to exist, or it didn't right? — Philosophim

I've been arguing an infinite series doesn't arrive anywhere specific. That means the infinite series does not arrive at its limit, the universe. So that, in turn, means no final position along the infinite series has been reached, thus triggering the encounter with its first causation. Let's pretend for the moment it does reach its discrete end. When you reason that: There is still the question in the chain, "What caused that infinite universe to exist?" you uncouple your infinite series from its first cause. This uncoupling destroys your premise: Every causal chain inevitably arrives at its first cause. You're saying, instead, when the sequence of the chain is fully encompassed, there's still something beyond it. So, the total infinite chain has not and cannot arrive at its first cause. If it could, the question wouldn't remain.

Your premise, along this line of examination, is fundamentally flawed because you configure it with an organization that necessitates a separation of first cause from its causations. You've committed yourself to this design and you've memorialized this commitment in the written record of this
conversation:

The critical question pertinent to our debate is whether or not you can talk logically about the before or after of a bounded infinity. When talking logically about the start of a chain of causality, you’re talking about the beginning of a continuity. That’s talking about the extent of a series. Since the infinite number of elements populating the series precludes you from ascertaining a start point, you can’t claim logically that before the start point there were such and such necessary conditions because you cannot specify a start point. — ucarr

Your mistake is that you are looking inside the set for a start point. The start point is not inside the set. It is the question of what caused the entire set. — Philosophim

When you address the problem of an infinite series having neither a beginning nor an ending, you destroy your premise by negating "A chain of causation inevitably arriving at a start point." The uncoupling of first cause from it chain of causations causes this negation.

You have also memorialized another closely related problem within the conversation:

Given a first cause, is it correct to say the next thing following the first cause -- the first thing caused by the first cause -- appears as the first causation? Subsequent links in the causal chain are, likewise, causations? — ucarr

Seems good to me. This is definitely clear in a finitely regressive universe. 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."

If there's no first causation, how does the causal chain begin?

If the causal chain doesn’t progress sequentially, meaning the infinite causal chain is always considered as a whole, then it’s not a causal chain, it’s a unified set with no first cause. This isn’t causation; it’s creation.
— Philosophim

I'm assuming an infinitely existing universe makes sense and is possible. If you agree, then the equation makes perfect sense. — Philosophim

I agree. An eternal universe makes sense. One of it's salient attributes is the absence of a beginning. If you try to say an eternal universe is itself a first cause, you're positing it in its causal role as the outer parentheses set with itself as the inner parentheses set, but you're prohibited from doing so by the rule of set theory that says a set cannot be a member of itself. — ucarr

Correct. But I'm not doing that because there's another question on the causal chain. "What caused the infinite universe to exist?" — Philosophim

If that question pertains to something that's a part of the causal chain, then you've got a set being a member of itself. If the question does not pertain to something that's a part of the causal chain, and thus the universe is not part of the causal chain, then with an infinite causal chain you have the incoherence problem because infinite series have no beginnings or endings.

Let me repeat a second time what I repeated above:
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

Ok, and I'm going to repeat that this is irrelevant to the question, "What caused the infinite universe to exist?" — Philosophim

It's not irrelevant because:

The set is only meant as a way to capture all of the causality within an infinite universe. Set of X = [all causality within an infinite universe]. The equation was just a way to represent it over time, which is perfectly viable if you believe that infinity exists. — Philosophim

Aside -- Now we see why you keep trying to focus my attention on what you intend to mean rather than on what you write.

As you admit above: 2T+infinity=Y says in writing that your math description of an infinite causal chain arriving at a first cause happens in terms of an infinite series for which this can't happen. Believe what I intend, not what I write.

If an infinite universe exists, at any time T does there exist an infinite amount of prior causality? Its a clear yes or no question. If you answer yes, then my equation is fine. if you answer no, then my equation is not fine, but then again, we also just demonstrated an infinite universe is illogical and can't be put on the number line. — Philosophim

No. An eternal universe is uncaused. Your equation fails, but the concept of an eternal universe does not fail alongside of it. In our conversation, you, not I, have been writing equations with infinity as an input value. I'm not trying to put an eternal universe on the number line with an equation that computes an infinite value. The standard of failure you cite is your equations; I have no involvement with your equations. I have no proof the universe is eternal, and you offer no proof its illogical.

How does this relate to our conversation on probability being a set of restrictions that enable us to reasonably guess at a future? — Philosophim

My defense only addresses your accusation I dragged in QM randomly. No, QM uncertainty -- like the concept of randomness -- relates to uncertainty.

Second, the uncertainty principle is all based off of our measuring tools being too strong.The way we measure things is by bouncing smaller particles off of larger things. Usually the particles are small enough that the bounce does not impact its location or velocity. But in the quantum world, what we bounce off of the things we are measuring affects the outcome. We're measuring the smallest things with some of the smallest things, not smaller things. — Philosophim

This may be a language issue, so I'll point out the definitions.

Inaccurate - Measurements which are unreliable.
Reliable - Measurements which are consistent
Measurements can be accurate despite impacting the target. For example, if I hit a cue ball into a billiard ball with X force, y spin, at Z angle, the ball will billiard ball will reliably result in a set velocity in w direction. Measurements that impact other things are not inaccurate. The fact that the cue ball changes the billiard balls velocity does not mean our measure is inaccurate.

An example of an inaccurate measurement would be a stretchable ruler that constantly fluctuates in size and inches width. Or trying to measure something at a distance by spacing your thumb through the air without precision. QM measurements are not inaccurate, they just affect what is being measured because the size of our measuring tool cannot help but affect the thing being measured. — Philosophim

All of the above is irrelevant to the issue in dispute: whether or not you erroneously identified The Uncertainty Principle as being a measurement problem. Given the evidence of what you wrote, as quoted above, there can be no doubt of it.

Perhaps now -- given the similarity of uncertainty and randomness -- you can see my reference to QM is not random.
— ucarr

Perhaps now you can see that your reference to QM does not solve the question, nor does covering this subject do anything for your case. — Philosophim

You're spinning away from the issue to separate issues.

I could show the pertinence of QM within this context, but I acknowledge that that pertinence introduces narratives too far afield from your points. — ucarr

That's conceding the point then. — Philosophim

No. If you're familiar with Venn Diagrams, then you know intersecting sets with members in common as well as non-common members is not an example of a random collision of wholly unrelated things.

Regarding #1 -- My direct attack -- were that my purpose herein -- would be an attempt to show that first cause doesn't exist. I think 180 Proof is doing a successful job in managing that objective. — ucarr

Then you have not adequately understood his points or read my counters. — Philosophim

Neither I, nor 180 Proof, are so far persuaded by your logic. Also, neither I, nor 180 Proof are persuaded by your claim you and he are really on the same page.

I know you're not persuaded by my logic and I, likewise, am not persuaded by yours.

I hope you don't feel obligated to refute my arguments here.

Perhaps you're willing to make a closing comment on our dialogue.

If you are, I'll go first with mine and then let you have the last word.

Did you mean my reference to Cantor? If so, what is your point? I don't believe any of the equations I used in my example resolve to undefined. — Philosophim

My point is that an equation that computes to either infinity or undefined does not represent: "Every causal chain inevitably arrives at a first cause."

No, you're ignoring the point. I'm simply using the equation to represent a set. If the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time, will there always be infinite prior causes? Yes. At every point T, will there be additional causes? Yes. — Philosophim

You're saying this while believing an eternal universe with infinite prior causes inevitably arrives at a first cause with nothing prior to it?

If you agree to this, then you agree to the equation. If the form of the equation bothers you, turn it into an array set of values where t is the index. Its the same thing. — Philosophim

With t as the index, does the index extend to infinity?

I'm assuming an infinitely existing universe makes sense and is possible. If you agree, then the equation makes perfect sense. — Philosophim

I agree. An eternal universe makes sense. One of it's salient attributes is the absence of a beginning. If you try to say an eternal universe is itself a first cause, you're positing it in its causal role as the outer parentheses set with itself as the inner parentheses set, but you're prohibited from doing so by the rule of set theory that says a set cannot be a member of itself.

And Ucarr, the logic and math are all ways to break down the argument into a way you can see more clearly. The argument hasn't changed — ucarr

Nor has its faulty logical support. — ucarr

This is not an argument Ucarr. If you're just going to give opinions, then my argument stands as logical. — Philosophim

Have you forgotten the assessments repeated below, or do you deny they're logical assessments of your logical support for you premise?

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

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

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

My citation is not in reference to your true randomness narrative. It refers to placing an irrational number onto the number line without calculating in terms of limits. Your mistake entails assuming that because you see no connection between our debate and QM, therefore I must be randomly throwing it into the mix. — ucarr

If its not in reference to true randomness, I don't see the point then. — Philosophim

Let me repeat a second time what I repeated above:

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

My reference to QM, therefore, is, in turn, a reference to a first cousin of randomness, quantum certainty. Since elementary particles are also waveforms, and since waveforms and their uncertainties are related to randomness, QM, which deals with these uncertainties, might also be speculated to deal with randomness, this especially given the relationship between random quantum fluctuations and the singularity.

I never said our measurements were uncertain or inaccurate. I stated our measurements affect the outcome. — Philosophim

Second, the uncertainty principle is all based off of our measuring tools being too strong. The way we measure things is by bouncing smaller particles off of larger things. Usually the particles are small enough that the bounce does not impact its location or velocity. But in the quantum world, what we bounce off of the things we are measuring affects the outcome. We're measuring the smallest things with some of the smallest things, not smaller things. — Philosophim

From the evidence above, it's clear to me you're talking about gross measurement tools being grossly inaccurate, and moreover, you're claiming The Uncertainty Principle is all about that measurement inaccuracy. If you meant something else, you failed to use the correct words.

In fact, uncertainty is an inherent aspect of anything with wave-like behavior. — ucarr

Agreed. — Philosophim

Perhaps now -- given the similarity of uncertainty and randomness -- you can see my reference to QM is not random.

This is not a debate about QM unless you can demonstrate why its pertinent to the above two points. — Philosophim

I could show the pertinence of QM within this context, but I acknowledge that that pertinence introduces narratives too far afield from your points.

You need to logically demonstrate two things:
1. Why a first cause is not necessary.
2. Why a first cause would not be completely random. — Philosophim

Regarding #1 -- My direct attack -- were that my purpose herein -- would be an attempt to show that first cause doesn't exist. I think @180 Proof is doing a successful job in managing that objective.

I'm not directly attacking "first cause is logically necessary." Perhaps it is. This time round, I'm merely trying to set a standard of proof for the claim by examining your logical support in the form of equations. As you know, I deem your current equations a failure.

Regarding #2 -- I'm already on the job of refuting this claim. Below is a copy of my next-to-last posting to this conversation.

Consider: ∅={ }; this is the empty set. So, if ∅={ } = nothingness and (1) = first cause, then they are disjoint sets, meaning they have no common members. So, the intersection of ∅={ } and (1) takes us right back to ∅={ }. This is like multiplying any positive number by 0. The result is 0. Also, disjoint sets means first cause and its causations are separated; this is self-contradiction.

This is another refutation of something-from-nothing. As you see above, when nothing has nothing in common with something, nothing persists. — ucarr

Probability is a an educated guess at what will likely happen based on deterministic rules that we know. — Philosophim

Statistical probability is a math-based science. Calculating probabilities is not educated guesswork. Either the math is correct or it isn't. Uncertainty due to a range of possible outcomes -- soft constraint -- is completely scientific. Don't imagine the casinos in Vegas depend on educated guesswork for their profits.

Probability cannot be cancelled. If we have randomly shuffle some cards and pull a card, its a 4/52 chance its a jack. — Philosophim

Mathematics governs how many ways 52 cards can be shuffled. The number is astronomical, but its not vague.

As you say with 4/52, there's a calculated chance governing possible outcomes. No guesswork.

My thought experiment on true randomness is not an idealization, its a correctly concluded conclusion. That which is not caused by something else, has no constraints, and thus prior to its inception could not be predicted. — Philosophim

If you dial down determinism and probability to zero, you are left with neither form nor content. One might refer to any remainder, if such exists, as undefined. The intelligibility of form and content won't allow your pure randomness to come on stage. Likewise your mind -- the epitome of compact, efficient form and content -- won't allow you to think your way into pure randomness, except paradoxically.

You're correct about rejoicing with Bob Ross over his understanding first cause cannot be verified empirically. Were that the case, with pure randomness extant empirically, you and Bob Ross wouldn't exist. Non-existence cannot contemplate the nature of itself, but existence can and does even to the point of thought experiments that negate it.

There is zero contradiction in stating that nothing is possible. — Philosophim

And "This sentence is false."

Is zero impossible or a contradiction — Philosophim

Neither. Zero is a number. It holds a place on the number line between -1 and 1. Don't confuse it with non-existence.

Consider: ∅={ }; this is the empty set. So, if ∅={ } = nothingness and (1) = first cause, then they are disjoint sets, meaning they have no common members. So, the intersection of ∅={ } and (1) takes us right back to ∅={ }. This is like multiplying any positive number by 0. The result is 0. Also, disjoint sets means first cause and its causations are separated; this is self-contradiction.

This is another refutation of something-from-nothing. As you see above, when nothing has nothing in common with something, nothing persists.

Measuring Entropy

Why can't we measure entropy?

In simple words, entropy is a measure of the disorder of the system. No one can find the absolute value of disorder. But, the change in disorder can be measured. For example, the water molecules in ice are more ordered than in water; and the water molecules in water are more ordered than in vapor phase.

Here is an argument that implies your pure randomness is an idealization. If, as I believe, pure randomness is the absolute value of disorder, then it's not found in nature.

A belief that you cannot have a state of toral non-organization does not counter why its been concluded to necessarily exist. — Philosophim

My belief is based upon my attack upon: 2T+∞=Y.

I'm pretty sure that when you go into space, there's a whole lot of nothing. — Philosophim

Firstly, space is not empty; it's a thing. That's why is warps under the influence of massive objects, like the earth. Also, don't confuse emptiness with non-existence. You can walk into an empty room. You can't walk into a non-existent room.

In a complicated way, thoughts are things. — ucarr

True. But in this case the thought is a representation, not actual randomness itself. — Philosophim

Representations are highly ordered things.

ust as you can't observe an elementary particle without changing it, you can't observe true randomness through a thought experiment without changing it. — ucarr

Just above you agreed thoughts are things. Still earlier, you agreed the presence of a thing changes what it observes, so your thoughts observing true randomness change it.

As I recall, y is an infinite value, and thus it has no discretely specifiable position on the number line; it's unlimited volume over limited extent between limits. It never arrives at a start point (or an end point). — ucarr

Correct. I've never claimed it does. That changes nothing of what stated. — Philosophim

Every infinite causal chain inevitably traces back to its first cause. If it does it's not infinite because infinity never begins. If it doesn't, it's not a causal chain because every causal chain has a first cause.

Can you show me one equation in your reference that doesn't compute to infinity? Yes, you can. There's one equation that computes to "undefined." — ucarr

Which one? — Philosophim

It's your citation. Find it yourself.

Can you cite an equation with infinity as an input value that computes to a well-defined discrete position on the number line? It needs to be a number neither irrational nor approximate. — ucarr

Its logic. — Philosophim

No. Can you cite a math equation that... (see the underlined above)

Your premise --

Here's a question I think unaddressed and important that arises: With the exception of first causes, is it true that -- within the everyday world of things material and otherwise -- all things are part of a causal chain that inevitably arrives at a first cause? — ucarr

Yes. To not be would be complete and utter chaos that could never be understood, codified, or made into any sort of law. — Philosophim

Imagine that each causation within a causal chain -- because of the fact of its existence -- generates a prior (or subsequent) causation. How does the chain of causation reach the point of no prior (or subsequent) causation?
— ucarr

That's the same thing as 2T + infinity = y — Philosophim

So we have the equation 2T + infinity = Y representing an infinite chain of causation. Per your premise, this infinite causal chain has a first cause.

Computing with Infinity

Using the above link to your citation we have,

Some Special Properties:

If x is any integer, then;

x + ∞ = ∞

So, using your math equation (it's not a symbolic logic statement), with T = 1, we get,
2+∞=∞

This equation, which computes to infinity, fails to terminate at position one, a clear and discrete position on the number line. You won't find infinity occupying a clear and discrete position on the number line. Your equation, being the logical representation of an infinite causal chain with a first cause, and moreover being the engine of your thought experiment, by failing in its representation, dooms your effort to logically support your thought experiment. — Philosophim

And Ucarr, the logic and math are all ways to break down the argument into a way you can see more clearly. The argument hasn't changed. — Philosophim

Nor has its faulty logical support.

In the link to Cantor's differing levels of infinite series, can you cite a passage addressing infinity conceptualized as an infinite series with a discrete starting point? — ucarr

Again, you're looking in the wrong place. Look at the logic above. — Philosophim

All I see in the citation to Cantor is math irrelevant to my math claim your equation is a failure.

First, we discussed earlier how true randomness cannot be influenced by anything else. So QM is useless. — Philosophim

My citation is not in reference to your true randomness narrative. It refers to placing an irrational number onto the number line without calculating in terms of limits. Your mistake entails assuming that because you see no connection between our debate and QM, therefore I must be randomly throwing it into the mix.

the uncertainty principle is all based off of our measuring tools being too strong. — Philosophim

Incorrect. Here's a quote from the link below: A common misconception about the uncertainty principle in quantum physics is that it implies our measurements are uncertain or inaccurate. In fact, uncertainty is an inherent aspect of anything with wave-like behavior.

Heisenberg Uncertainty _CalTech

Material things are connected, thus we can't always make complete measurements locally, as in the case of complementary attributes such as position and speed when distributed in waveform. Moreover, these effects are in play at the human scale of experience, but they're too minute to be detected by our senses.

So in the case of the cat, its not that the cat is both alive and dead before we measure it. — Philosophim

It is the case the cat is both alive and dead before measurement. Denying this means denying superposition. Is that what you're doing?

Lets break this down again. Probability as we know it is built off of constraints. These constraints are our capability to measure or observe aspects that would be needed for precise calculation. Thus shuffling cards that we cannot see. — Philosophim

Are you talking about constraints that empower precision of measurement: "our capability to measure or observe," or constraints that limit precision of measurement: "shuffling cards that we cannot see"?

There is no true randomness in shuffling — Philosophim

This puts me in mind of a generalization: There is no true randomness in practice, i.e., in our phenomenal world. In other words, material things, acting through their presence, always insert a measure of determinism regarding outcomes. This is so because material things have entropy attached to themselves. Consequently, the entropy of a material thing diminishes the purity of possible outcomes, i.e., true randomness. So, in our phenomenal world, material outcomes of material things in motion always have a measure of determinism attached. Probability cannot be cancelled in the real world. Therefore, your thought experiment with true randomness is an idealization.

The other constraint we consider are the rules involved. A die bounces because of things like mass and gravity. There are tangible things we can measure combined with things that we cannot measure that allow us to make a probability, or educated guess at a constrained outcome. — Philosophim

Yes. This is the real world.

True randomness has no constraints. Its not that there isn't something that we can observe or measure, its that there is nothing there to measure at all. Whenever an outcome happens, there was nothing that had to be for it to happen. There was nothing to limit what would be, and nothing to push what would be. — Philosophim

There is no true randomness outside of a thought experiment.

There is no nothingness outside of its paradoxical presence within a thought experiment. The metaphysical binary of existence confines us to existence via self-contradiction. We cannot exit ourselves from existence, not even via our thought experiments. Your thought experiment re: nothingness is thoroughly embedded within existence. If it weren't, it wouldn't be possible for you to entertain yourself with the thought of it. At no time are you making contact with nothingness, so your arguments from a supposed but fictional nothingness are paradoxical non-starters.

Entropy is just the separation of matter and energy from a higher state to a lower state over time. This has nothing to do with true randomness. — Philosophim

If by higher state you mean level of organization of material things into functional systems, then explain why level of organization has nothing to do with its opposite: no organization, i.e., randomness?

Is probability only possible in the absence of true randomness? — ucarr

Based on how I've defined probability, what do you think? — Philosophim

I think the answer is "yes." I also think it not possible to have a state of total non-organization. So, no true randomness. If no true randomness, then no general anything-is-possible.

True randomness is not constrained. Something which can be constrained has laws, and is therefore not truly random. There is nothing to constrain or influence Ucarr. You keep seeing it as a 'thing'. It is a logical concept. — Philosophim

In a complicated way, thoughts are things.

From Heisenberg we have reason to believe we can't know every essential attribute of a thing simultaneously. — ucarr

This is only because our measurement impacts the results. The QM level is so small that anything we bounce off of it to detect it is going to alter its velocity. You can get the same effect by bouncing a baseball off of a softball. This has nothing to do with true randomness. — Philosophim

True randomness breaks apart all connections of the material universe. Just as you can't observe an elementary particle without changing it, you can't observe true randomness through a thought experiment without changing it. In all cases of what you experience and therefore know, you're connected with the objects of your observation. In your act of observing true randomness, you prevent it from being true.

Imagine that each causation within a causal chain -- because of the fact of its existence -- generates a prior (or subsequent) causation. How does the chain of causation reach the point of no prior (or subsequent) causation? — ucarr

That's the same thing as 2T + infinity = y — Philosophim

As I recall, y is an infinite value, and thus it has no discretely specifiable position on the number line; it's unlimited volume over limited extent between limits. It never arrives at a start point (or an end point).

Let us suppose true randomness is not a process. Is it still a phenomenon? — ucarr

What is your definition of phenomenon? — Philosophim

Since a phenomenon is an object of a person's perception, what's already been said about observation of a material thing (facts as thoughts are material things) applies here too.

True randomness is not a thing. It is a logical concept and conclusion. — Philosophim

QM is not going to help you. You are taking things that exist and trying to impact true randomness as if its some dimension somewhere. Its not. — Philosophim

With your language you're saying -- literally -- that true randomness does not exist. Well, I agree. The difference between us, however, is that I intend to say that whereas you don't, even though you do. Moreover, by extension of the transitive property, you're saying your thought experiment doesn't exist. I know you think your thought experiment is dimensionless, but your brain is not. No brain, no thought experiment, so your thought experiment, in a complicated way, inherits the dimensions of your brain.

There was nothing which could have changed or prevente the inception of the universe Ucarr. It just happened. — Philosophim

Within the context of your thought experiment. And, as you think, your thought experiment has no dimensions, so, by your thinking, where does that posit the universe? Well, the one you think incepted from nothingness exists within the context of your thought experiment within your brain. See below for your own verification of this.

Hey, welcome back Bob! You still retain the title of the first person who realized this could not be proven empirically. — Philosophim

ucarr_180 Proof

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

We're looking at a metaphysical binary structure for existence, and thus everything conceivable is metaphysically constrained to a fundamental binary. Can we liberate ourselves from this constraint?

You're almost certainly correct in your perception of the status of existence as indivisible lest there be self-contradiction, so that keeps us confined within the binary. And yet, however, we frequently question the existence of things conceived mentally. I know, this is retracing Meinong.

I'm just thinking a possible attack upon the binary might involve configuring an equation that computes a probability that sits between two limits as a bounded infinity. This is supposed to be a mathematical picture of an approach to an existing thing with no arrival, thus partial existence.

With establishment of a grayscale zone between "to be," and "not to be," we might calculate non-binary wave function states that might predict a class of elementary particles hovering between differential_integral functions.

Let's imagine these elementary particles bridge QM and Relativity states. Our work might be moving us toward T.O.E. Consider that tough problems in practice point to unexamined problems in our metaphysical commitments. Perhaps the existence binary is blinding us to the bridge linking QM with Relativity.

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

You are counting back to a start point:

A first cause is logically necessary... A first cause is merely the point in the chains of causality throughout the universe that lead to the [terminates] at the point in which there is nothing prior. — Philosophim

Logic is the soul of your argument; logic is continuity; many times have you written, in your own words, for every causal chain we can count back until it's not possible to count back any further; this is the start point,i.e., the first cause.

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

Computing with Infinity

Can you show me one equation in your reference that doesn't compute to infinity? Yes, you can. There's one equation that computes to "undefined."

So, all of your authorizing equations compute to a non-specific value. You want to represent an infinite causal chain mathematically. You use ∞ for the representation. Okay. What's important to your argument, by my interpretation, is logically working back through an infinite causal chain to a first cause which has nothing prior to it. Your first cause is not non-specific. Arguably, its most important attribute is its well-defined position in specificity as number one. The heart of your premise entails tracing back to a well-defined number one position for the start of real things.

Can you cite an equation with infinity as an input value that computes to a well-defined discrete position on the number line? It needs to be a number neither irrational nor approximate.

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

You're making a logical argument about the beginning of causal chains of real things. You've said this is true for a universe posited as existing eternally. Set theory has an established procedure for binding infinite series with limits that can be mathematically approximated to with no final arrival at the limit.

The point in our context here is that this insuperable disjunction between a bounded infinite series and its limit is evidence your premise is incoherent: the infinite series you're tracing back to first causes cannot reach their first causes. There's a gap of separation within your thought experiment you can approximate to mathematically, but you can't bridge that gap.

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

In my quote you don't see me denying infinity can be represented symbolically.

In the link to Cantor's differing levels of infinite series, can you cite a passage addressing infinity conceptualized as an infinite series with a discrete starting point?

Cantor's Levels of Infinity

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

You need to highlight a passage in Cantor that addresses discretely sequencing an infinite value on the number line without approximation to a limit. That's what I'm specifically talking about. What are you specifically talking about?

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

You need to go into probative details now because: a) you need to meet the same standard you apply to me:

If you want to say I'm wrong, you're going to have to prove I am wrong, not merely say I am. — 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 we represent the infinite series of nothing-to-something as undefined, or 1/0, and observe that infinitely small approximates to the limit of zero, then infinitely-small-to-zero and its reverse take an infinite amount of time. So, speaking logically and computationally, nothing-to-something is a bounded infinity of undefined.

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

You're debating against my claim nothingness doesn't exist. How is it you think you can slam dunk my claim by merely stating that nothingness does exist. I see you believe my 1/0 argument is wrong. Where is your argument proving this?

Explain how an eternal universe and a universe with infinite time difffer.

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

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"?

Suppose you could choose whether or not the universe is binary or complex. Which would you choose?

True randomness cannot be constrained or predicted. — Philosophim

Is true randomness a phenomenon; is inception of first cause an event? These questions are meant to suggest how all things -- including true randomness -- generate networks of connections that contextilize their identites.

Can what could or could not have been lie beyond probability in the case of true randomness? Does the concept of true randomness suggest to you its bond with time forever approaching but never reaching actuality? This question is meant to suggest entropy weakening true randomness to something not authentically random. More specifically, this question is meant to suggest every thing -- because of its existence -- generates entropy. In this particular context, the irony is that entropy -- the measure of increasing randomness -- diminishes the purity (non-randomness) of true randomness. (This also suggests there is no purity because there is no total isolation).

Is probability only possible in the absence of true randomness? This question is meant to suggest the presence of probability generates a measure of determinism regarding the outcome of events.

Not like the constraints of rolling a die which are really just a lack of knowledge which would necessarily lead to the outcome. — Philosophim

Is rolling a die more phenomenal than inception of a first cause? This question is meant to suggest any event -- including inception of a first cause -- by the fact of its existence, prevents true randomness; if something exists, the specificity of its existence as a particular thing with specific dimensions and attributes means that its process of being created is not random; creation cannot carry out a design of creation toward a specific thing by means of true randomness; there's no initial period of a thing's existence when, during its coalescence into a clearly defined thing, its being randomly assembled with the randomness of its assemblage gradually diminishing to zero.

Is inception of a first cause less eventuary than rolling a die? This question is meant to suggest events cannot happen with their determinism at zero.

Is inception of a first cause less presential than rolling of a die? This question is meant to suggest the presence of a specific thing (all things are specific) precludes the pure isolation of from nothing. Moreover, a particular thing-in-itself cannot be a first cause in of itself because -- per QM -- a thing-in-itself cannot only be a thing-in-itself. From Heisenberg we have reason to believe we can't know every essential attribute of a thing simultaneously, and thus we infer that all things are networked and thus we infer that no apparently distinct thing is truly distinctly alone and only unto itself. There is no transitional period when a thing is distinctly alone and unto itself in a process of transformation into existence within the natural universe governed by the laws of physics.

...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

Imagine that each causation within a causal chain -- because of the fact of its existence -- generates a prior (or subsequent) causation. How does the chain of causation reach the point of no prior (or subsequent) causation?

True randomness is the lack of limitations on what could, or could not have been. — Philosophim

Let us suppose true randomness is not a process. Is it still a phenomenon? This question is meant to suggest that if true randomness is to any degree intelligible -- as in the case of it being a phenomenon, even if not a process to a specifiable end, then it must possess a specificity of form and content and this is a curiously ironic entropy-by-presence of a particular thing that diminishes the non-randomness of "pure" randomness (I say non-randomness of "pure" randomness because I equate "true" with "pure." By definition it is something wholly unmixed and that implies absolute isolation (extreme disequilibrium). But if a thing is specific in its form and content, it cannot be wholly isolated because specificity of form and content is naturally connected to prior specificity of form and content by the design of the agency that brought it into being. If this were not so, the particular thing would not have been brought into being. Because of what we know from QM (superposition) we know this applies no less to self-creation. So, the phenomenal thing -- through the agency of its existence as a specific thing -- ironically randomizes the purity of true randomness by agency of the entropy of its presence.

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

What if I characterize nothingness as undefined somethingness, and represent it as 1/0, with
no-beginning zero = potential matter-energy-motion-space-time moving infinitely across time towards something. Does this imply a category of something-not-exactly-existential?

My attempt at naming something not-exactly-existential is strained and probably fallacious, but I'm trying to honor a metaphysical notion that nature always hedges her bets, even re: the phenomenon of eternal existence.

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

I see your commentary here as an elaboration and illumination of my enduring intuition something is fundamentally wrong with separating an existing thing from all other existing things, and also something is fundamentally wrong with partially separating any component of a causal chain from its associate causations.

My goal is to nuance the following premise: “Logically, an infinite causal chain cannot exist that does not inevitably arrive at a first cause."

I will argue that given an eternal universe – which can be construed as an infinite causal chain – a precisely determinable first cause is not possible.

I will show why an infinite causal chain cannot inevitably and precisely arrive at a first cause.

Question – Has pi been situated on the number line? Answer – Yes, but asymptotically.

Philosophim, you’re establishing a set containing an infinite series and then counting back to its start point and asserting no prior member to the start point can exist.

Can an infinite series be counted? Yes, but there are rules for doing this type of counting.

Your domain of operations for this premise is set theory.

For the math representation of your premise, you need an equation that computes toward the limits bounding your infinite series. In other words, you must treat the volume of your infinite set as an approximation forever approaching a limit.

Structurally speaking, you’re concerned with infinite volume of membership juxtaposed with limited extent.

Your input values need to all be finite and configured with math operators that compute for approximation towards the limits bounding your infinite series.

• 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?

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.

My Argument – 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.

In order to compute an infinite value, you must treat it as if it’s a discrete number; this is achieved through approximation to a number. In its calculation with infinite values, calculus establishes limits toward which infinite series approximate; it’s as if they’re discrete numbers situated on the number line.

A parallel to these calculations of calculus are sequences of reasoning towards axioms. An axiom is a limit for logical reasoning. It cannot be precisely sequenced within a chain of logical reasoning. Logic approximates toward its axioms just as calculus approximates toward infinite values, i.e., toward limits.

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.

Claiming an infinite series has a precise first cause is an irrational attempt to sequence an infinite value within itself. Put another way, it’s the attempt to make something – a number sequence – greater than itself. This is a paradox. The compatibility of an infinite value with sequencing must be asymptotically approached as an infinite progression towards a limit.

The empirical parallel to the above argument is the attempt to sequence being – general existence – logically. You cannot precisely sequence general existence logically, that is, you cannot definitively attach a first cause to general existence for the same reason you cannot discretely sequence the whole number line within itself. The attempt to do so involves putting general existence into a logical sequence as if it were rationally compatible with reasoning. You cannot reason definitively with imprecisely sequenceable values, i.e., with infinite values.

Premise – Imprecise sequenceability, an attribute of an infinite value, such as the whole number line or general existence, precludes definitive analysis. Without definitive analysis, infinite values can only be axiomatic. Axioms are the necessary start points of analysis. They can be forever approached as an approximation to a limit, and this is an analytical_logical process, but the asymptote does not equal the limit. So, there can be a logical approach to proof of infinite values, but no complete and final proof of them. Well, analysis_logic is rooted in continuity, and there is a gap in the continuity linking infinite values with analysis_logic.

This gap is the door-ajar entrée for QM into our universe.

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. This points our reasoning mind towards an eternal universe without a discrete first cause being possible.*

My Conclusion - The nuancing of: “Logically, an infinite causal chain cannot exist that does not inevitably arrive at a first cause."leads to "Moot Instead of Necessary." So, at the matrix of 3D+T, an infinite causal chain probabilistically arrives at an ad hoc, QM super-positional first cause towards the next-order matrix of dimensional expansion.

Undefined> 1/0 (nothing-to-something).

Within the objective materialism of modern science, logic and computation assume axiomatically the eternal existence of matter, energy, motion, space, and time. These five fundamentals preclude any direct connection between something and nothing. Therefore, all existing things are mediated through the fundamental five.

Nothing-to-something takes forever when the bounded infinity structure – infinite volume within limited extent – applies.

If we represent the infinite series of nothing-to-something as undefined, or 1/0, and observe that infinitely small approximates to the limit of zero, then infinitely-small-to-zero and its reverse take an infinite amount of time. So, speaking logically and computationally, nothing-to-something is a bounded infinity of undefined.

*Of course, a thing-greater-than-itself is really just the fun-house mirror distortion of higher-dimensional expansion as seen in its collapsed state at our level of perception at 3D+T. In actuality, superposition is the whereness of a material object with more than 3 spatial dimensions. Because whereness beyond 3D is so radically different, it renders QM’s insights into higher dimensional whereness as whacky gross distortions of normal whereness, i.e., common sense perception of material objects at the dimensional expansion of 3D+T.

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

So, A→C. Okay, you've shown me the transitive property via implication. No dispute from me, but the transitive property by implication is not what I'm focusing on when I accuse you of evasion.

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

As you can see, I ask you about the physical connection between first cause and the members of its causal chain. This is a particularly important question for you to answer because you say first cause is not a member of the set of its causations. You're apparently talking about causation without physical connection between first cause and its set of causations. You say you're only concerned with a logical argument while leaving an empirical argument to other thinkers. Well, causation -- whether viewed logically or empirically -- entails by definition a physical relationship between cause and effect, or am I mistaken?

If I'm mistaken, and you're ready to demonstrate how your logical truth directly impacts our material world, then you're opening a big can of worms regarding top-down causation from mind directly to physical effect. Whether or not this is possible is an unresolved debate. This issue is too large for you to ignore completely.

If I'm not mistaken, then your proposition: "Every causal chain traces back to a first cause," needs to explain how it is that material causal chains trace back to origins from which they're materially disconnected.

These two big and unresolved issues motivate me to charge you with evasion.

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

Again, I'm not herein focused on the simple transitive property you keep repeating.

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

No. You fail to note the importance of "distinction" in context here. I'm specifically talking about what sets off first cause from its causations. The emphasis here is on the physical relationship between first cause and its causations, not on the definition of first cause. If I were muddled about the definition of first cause, I would've asked: "What's the definition of first cause?"

Now the question arises: "How is the second law of conservation preserved?" You must answer this question about one of the foundational planks upon which physics stands.

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

For this reason, you must explain and justify the partition you posit between a first cause and the set of its causations. It is clear to you that partitioning first cause from its causal chain implies a citation from empirical evidence, right? Since causation is specifically concerned with how one thing causes another thing, it follows that claiming first cause is not directly connected to its set of causations results from direct observation of this disjunction.

I make this argument, in part, because we don't say "causation" when we talk about a chain of reasoning evaluating to a conclusion.

If you do have a logical proof first causes are separate from their sets of causations, I wonder why you don't present it. It's reasonable to think it essential to your proposition.

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

You charge me with attacking you instead of attacking your thinking supporting the proposition. Is it not possible for a living organism to be a first cause? If so, I've misunderstood what you've been telling me about a first cause: "There are no limitations on the inception of a first cause."

If there's truth in my defense here, then the accusation of a personal attack flies back in your direction: you're hurling at me a derogatory opinion about my frustration with your perceived endurance of the veracity of your proposition.

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

You seem to be forgetting we're talking about first causes. First causes, by your definition, are the inescapable sources of the many causations that populate our world. Causations always trace back to them. Well, that includes the human population. There's no doubt of it; you're first causes hold the position of God. Inescapable God needs to be inspirational, or is the universe really that cruel?

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

This is an argument not for causation -- first or otherwise -- but against it. It's a recognition and endorsement of self-actualization. Well, first cause and self-actualization being twins, you've inadvertently supported the denial first cause and its set of causations are separate. After all, humans and gods alike, we're all in the same boat.

Ironically, this endorsement -- meant to exalt God and humanity together -- trivializes the logical dimensions of first cause in isolation. The interweave of God and humanity self-actualizing together -- an existential project -- dwarfs the importance of logical isolation.

...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/

For an explanation supporting the reality of causation, I'm inclined to cite the second law of conservation: matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed. In conjunction with this, I'm inclined to propose that matter and energy are continually changing form and position via self-organizing dynamical systems across time and space. In a complicated way, causation is about shape-shifting. So, causation tells us our world is thoroughly networked.

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. Could it be you have nothing to say about a first cause and its followers? Let me examine your thoughts a bit further. If a first cause is not part of its causal chain, is not connected to its causations, what meaning does first cause possess? Merely repeating over and over that its a necessary first means nothing real and practical if you can't elaborate details of first cause active in our daily world. Merely being necessary to the inception of a descendent translates to a man who sires a child and then abandons both the child and its mother. Why is a thought experiment to such a conclusion worth your time and effort?

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

So, first cause possesses the distinction of prior nothingness? 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.

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

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. Might this be where Nietzsche landed finally, with the last, dimming glow of twilight absorbing into the darkness of his transcendent idols?

The logic is about prior causation, so its use is in questions about prior and ultimate causation. — 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? Perhaps more important is the question how does our first material ancestor, first cause -- no more connected to us than nothing -- impact our lives? At least the God of antiquity has thrown a Tanakh our way. First cause has no truck with us? How dismal.

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

Perhaps Gnomon can elaborate so rules of inference governing formal proofs not yet satisfied by reasoning about causation.

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

Regarding causal chains, you define two types of things in the world: first causes and causations.

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

What you say above is a re-wording of some of your earlier statements. What you're saying is generally clear, but now I want to take a closer look at some details. You say a first cause is not part of its causal chain. After inception, when the first cause is in the world existing as it exists, how is it physically related to its causal chain?

Let's imagine a new type of bacterium incepts into our world. Empirical examination leads medical science to believe it causes a new type of disease with unique symptoms. During its lifetime, the first cause bacterium reproduces. As the first cause, is the first cause bacterium distinguishable from its offspring? Is it indistinguishable from its offspring? Does nature provide any means by which a first cause is known as such? If it doesn't, don't we have to doubt there's any way to isolate a first cause beyond the domain of abstract reasoning? Does this raise a question about the practical value of isolating a first cause in abstraction?

If an effective treatment for the new type of bacterium is developed, does any knowledge of the first cause bacterium, whether abstract or empirical, amount to anything more than an academic exercise in thought experimentation?

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

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.

Here's a question I think unaddressed and important that arises: With the exception of first causes, is it true that -- within the everyday world of things material and otherwise -- all things are part of a causal chain that inevitably arrives at a first cause?

My issue with contingency is that we don’t know enough about reality to know if all things are contingent. — Tom Storm

You respond to Tom Storm's uncertainty about universal contingency with "correct." Is it the case your thesis posits universal contingency abstractly while, in fact, empirically you're uncertain about it being true? Is it the case your uncertainty -- if it exists -- stems from a lack of empirical verification? If so, your uncertainty might be tied to deep and complex questions about the veracity of knowledge a priori with respect to phenomena supposedly amenable to empirical verification. You've addressed the issue of empirical verification by saying it's a nearly impossible standard to meet. To my thinking this throws doubt upon the probativity of your thought experiment.

For a parallel, consider Einstein and his theories of General and Special Relativity. He developed them abstractly as thought experiments employing calculations. Subsequent to the publication of his papers, empirical verifications of their claims were established. The logical and the empirical are sometimes two halves of one whole.

This is not an empirical proof, but a logical proof based on what we know today. — Philosophim

Your implied dismissal of any crosstalk between the logical and the empirical herein notwithstanding, the two modes of inquiry are indeed herein inter-dependent because, as I've learned from Gnomon, causation is believed but not yet proven.

I write the above paragraph in reference back to the importance of: "It's not clear to me if the universe contains things that are causations mixed with things not causations."

I know you think I'm pettifogging your thesis with irrelevant blather; I hope my questions are piquant.

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 haven't forgotten you telling me after inception the causal chain develops within the everyday world as we know it.

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

Since both of your equations evaluate to the same result, I wonder whether there's any meaningful distinction between them.

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

I understand you to be telling me you arrive at your premise:

Every causal chain inevitably arrives at a first cause — Philosophim

by way of a thought experiment.

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

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?

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." Does this evaluation of all causations into a set occur in time as we know it?

It's not clear to me where the first cause is in relation to its chain of causations. Is first cause inside or outside of the set of all causations?

Do you have a point... — Philosophim

Keep trying Ucarr! — Philosophim

What do you want me to understand from these two comments?

It entails eventually putting it into a set. — Philosophim

The infinite causal chain equals members populating a set?

No, the chain is not the first cause. — Philosophim

Every causal chain inevitably arrives at a first cause. — Philosophim

Is first cause a member of the causal chain?

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

At this point, you have evaluated down to two things: first cause; causal chain as members populating a set?