I am currently unable to understand your ideas, and I am respectfully asking you to clarify them if you want me to remain engaged. — Philosophim
There is no time --contained or involved-- in something either. — Alkis Piskas
Ucarr, I'm asking a question to understand what you're trying to say. Returning my question with a another question is just more confusing. :) In fact, all of my questions you just answered with questions. My questions are not statements, I'm just trying to figure out what you're saying. — Philosophim
...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
Are you saying that all a priori deductions don't take any time to realize? — Philosophim
Deduction does not require empirical observation. But we need to think through it right? — Philosophim
Are you saying that abstract reasoning does not take time? — Philosophim
Can we observe things outside of time? — Philosophim
Show me how you will determine the calculation of input values and a binary operator after you die; show me how the universe will determine the calculation of input values and a binary operator after all sentients die. — ucarr
Sorry. No idea what you are talking about. — jgill
Non-existent is a concept. — Mark Nyquist
It does exist as brain state, — Mark Nyquist
Brain; (a concept) — Mark Nyquist
Brain; (a non-existent entity) — Mark Nyquist
Also brains activate muscles soand concept can takeaffect physical matter. Like the result of a math problem.
That's the only way an abstraction, concept, mathematical construct can affect physical reality. — Mark Nyquist
The effect comes from the cause (by definition), so the effect includes the cause. — LFranc
The effect comes from the cause (by definition), so the effect includes the cause. — LFranc
The effect comes from the cause (by definition), so the effect includes the cause. — LFranc
If the effect hasn't happened yet, its not there. — Philosophim
Is mathematics non-existent? Some might say yes. It's certainly non-physical. — jgill
...non-existent... — Mark Nyquist
...logic says non-existent and non-physical things don't have any cause and effect relation. — Mark Nyquist
I think you are sincerely trying to grasp an Idealistic worldview*1 that is radically different from your own Materialistic worldview*2 — Gnomon
*2. Materialism :
Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions of material things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism — Gnomon
On p.1 of this thread back in 2022 (if you've missed it), I had posted very brief logical and physical objections to the OP's incoherent claim of "logical necessity of the first cause" (i.e. there was/is no "first cause"). FWIW, here"s the link to my post (further supplimented on the next few pages of this thread) containing two other links to short posts: — 180 Proof
...prior to the inception of a first cause, "It could be anything." — Philosophim
Since logical necessity is a strict limitation, by your main argument -- There're are no limitations on what a first cause can be -- a first cause cannot be logically necessary. The necessity of its existence precludes its existence. Why is this not a Russell's Paradox type of contradiction that negates the truth value of your thesis? — ucarr
It seems to me your argument misses a significant distinction: 'that there is first cause' & 'what the first cause is'; "there is no limitation on what the first cause is', not in reference to 'that there was a first cause'. — 180 Proof
Imagine a die with all possibilities. Now the die is rolled. Whatever lands is what is. If someone claims, "Its a six", we should be able to prove that it did roll a six. Once it is rolled we are out of the realm of possibility and in the realm of actuality. — Philosophim
You've previously stated there're no limitations on what a first cause can be. Are you now presenting an elaboration that rejects the notion "there're no limitations on what a first cause can be and "anything that can exist might be a first cause"? are logically equivalent? — ucarr
No. Please explain how you came to this conclusion from what I wrote. — Philosophim
I'm saying I'm not claiming any one PARTICULAR thing is a first cause. — Philosophim
So, you're saying anything that can exist might be a first cause? — ucarr
We're having a language barrier issue here. :) Think of it as a variable set Ucarr. I'm noting the variable of 'a first cause' is logically necessary. What's in that actual set, one or many more, is irrelevant. What actual first causes have happened over the lifetime in the universe is up for other people to prove. I am not saying that anything which exists can be a first cause. — Philosophim
... Are you now presenting an elaboration that rejects the notion "there're no limitations on what a first cause can be and "anything that can exist might be a first cause"? are logically equivalent? — ucarr
...we weren’t discussing brain activity. — Mww
That the self is impossible without the brain is given, but is at the same time far to general a proposition to be of any explanatory help. — Mww
It is actually the self finding fault with an act a posteriori, as effect, but not necessarily with its antecedent judgement by which the act is determined a priori, as cause. — Mww
The assertion, then, reduces to either the conveyance, not of the content, but of the thought itself, to the self that has the thought, a contradiction, or, there is nothing whatsoever conveyed to the self regarding thought and its content, that doesn’t already reside therein, such that, ipso facto, thought is possible. — Mww
I, on the other hand, hold the self is reducible to a unitary, or singular, rational identity. — Mww
I’m familiar with arguments in which the self is both subject and object. This happens only in expositions of it, wherein what the self is in itself as object, is confounded with the manifestations of the self’s doings as subject. In other words, the self is necessarily reified when attempting to explain itself. Which gives rise to the inevitable absurdity of the self reifying itself. Still, conceptions, intuitions, morals, thoughts, subjects and objects and whatnot, are all required pursuant to expressions of the human kind of intelligence, but the self doesn’t use any of them to do what it does, except to manifest itself as subject. — Mww
So, yes, I submit the self not only isn’t aware of itself objectively, but is absurd to suppose it needs to be. In fact, I reject the notion that the self is aware of itself subjectively, hence the redundancy, while merely granting the availability of some mechanism by which it seems to be the case. — Mww
Are we looking at a concept of causation with an unlimited number of possible and independent first causes? — ucarr
The start of each chain is separate and independent — Philosophim
I'm noting the variable of 'a first cause' is logically necessary. What's in that actual set, one or many more, is irrelevant. — Philosophim
By immaterial existence I mean an abstract concept — ucarr
I don't care whether they're immaterial or not. Are they real? Yes. — Philosophim
I can tell you that nothing has changed from our conversation in which I spoke to you Ucarr. So its best not to confuse yourself by trying to follow it [Philosphim's dialogue with Gnomon]. — Philosophim
First, if you remember a first cause cannot cause another first cause. — Philosophim
Second, its possible that there was a first cause that happened, then other first causes happened later. Or it could be that two or more first causes happened simultaneously. — Philosophim
I'm saying I'm not claiming any one PARTICULAR thing is a first cause. — Philosophim
I don't even know what immaterial existence is. — Philosophim
That's simply a philosophical/mathematical concept, as contrasted with a physical/material object. — Gnomon
Also correct! — Philosophim
Its completely irrelevant whether there is immaterial existence or not. — Philosophim
This is not a claim of any 'one thing' being a first cause. Its just a logical note that there must be a first cause, and that first cause has nothing prior that limits or influences what it should be. — Philosophim
Is immaterial existence even a thing? I don't know. If it exists, then its a thing. If not, then its not. — Philosophim
First Cause is necessary to chain of causation it's outside of and affecting. — Gnomon
My understanding of a logically necessary First Cause is a philosophical conjecture, not a scientific observation. So there is no "whereness" to specify. — Gnomon
...but like all fundamental Principles, the Prime Cause is a theoretical Concept, an Idea with "no material physicality". However, the referent is not an anthro-morphic deity located in space-time, — Gnomon
Deism is known as the "God of the Philosophers". As I said in the previous post : "But one sticking point seems to be confusing a logical First Cause (of some resulting chain of events) with an objective Thing or God operating in space-time". — Gnomon
The scientific Big Bang theory understandably avoided the philosophical question of where the Energy & Laws of Nature came from. That's because those logical necessities for a Chain of Causation are presumably Eternal & Everywhere. — Gnomon
...it’s [our dialogue] become too psychological for my interests, so, thanks for the alternative perspective. — Mww
There isn’t any space in a thought, and if the self just is that which has thoughts, one is temporally inseparable from the other. — Mww
The self judges, so it can’t be that the self is judged. — Mww
…..b) a judging self is self-aware in its acts of judgment….. — ucarr
Tautologically true, but congruent with every other aspect of what the subject does…. — Mww
…..and self-awareness requires a separation of self (…) from self….. — ucarr
I find it a mischaracterization of self, in its irreducible sense. — Mww
Self-awareness is redundant. Awareness presupposes self, and, self is necessarily that which is aware. — Mww
If self separates from self, what then becomes of self-awareness? — Mww
Thought and judgement, because they are related to each other….communicate? — Mww
Given that there is no such thing as an empty thought, it follows necessarily that when a self has a thought, it must be that the content does not get conveyed to the self, but arises from the self in conjunction with the thought the self has. — Mww
This structure of thought as being inherently self-referential raises an important question: can thought occur without communication? — ucarr
...it must be that the content does not get conveyed to the self, but arises from the self in conjunction with the thought the self has. — Mww
But one sticking point seems to be confusing a logical First Cause (of some resulting chain of events) with an objective Thing or God operating in space-time. — Gnomon
Correct. People seem to think I'm using this to claim the existence of some specific first cause like the Big Bang, God, etc. I am not... — Philosophim
That's simply a philosophical/mathematical concept, as contrasted with a physical/material object. — Gnomon
Also correct! — Philosophim
I just want to be clear that a first cause as proven here is not outside of our universe, but a necessary existent within our universe. — Philosophim
So, if we are assuming that the chain of causation applies everywhere in the interconnected universe, then your immanent Cause could be its own Effect. For example the Cue ball is on the table, and can be impacted by the 8 ball. That's why my unique First Cause, or Causal Principle, is assumed to be off the table, outside the system affected. — Gnomon
I prefer not to specify where the imaginary Poolshooter is standing, and just call him an abstract-but-necessary Principle. — Gnomon
"I promise to fetch water for you if you give me some of that haunch" — Banno
Can the content only ever describe the thinker more-so than what it is intended to describe? — NOS4A2
Try to refine your question to a single, focussed point of discussion. — alan1000
This hypothesis doesn't seem valid to me even on its face, due to the fact that the individual has no existence independent of the collective (species). — Pantagruel
Quantum physicist Karen Barad has produced a model of interaffecting matter that was inspired by the double slit experiments.
Phenomena are ontologically primitive relations—relations without pre-existing relata. On the basis of the notion of intra-action, which represents a profound conceptual shift in our traditional understanding of causality, I argue that it is through specific agential intra-actions that the boundaries and properties of the ‘‘components'' of phenomena become determinate and that particular material articulations of the world become meaningful. A specific intra-action (involving a specific material configuration of the ‘‘apparatus'') enacts an agential cut (in contrast to the Cartesian cut—an inherent distinction—between subject and object), erecting a separation between ‘‘subject'' and ‘‘object.'' That is, the agential cut enacts a resolution within the phenomenon of the inherent ontological (and semantic) indeterminacy. In other words, relata do not preexist relations; rather, relata-within-phenomena emerge through specific intra-actions. (Meeting the Universe Halfway) — Joshs
...any category of existing entities derives its sense and intelligibility from a wider context of relevance. This wider context of relevance comes first, and the meaning of the list of beings is derived from it. — Joshs
This is not a physics forum so I don't see the philosophical relevance of the quote cited... — 180 Proof
...and conflating the Schrödinger equation with the 'Schrödinger's Cat' gedankenexperiment proves my point. — 180 Proof
The Schrödinger Equation -- As the QM counterpart to Newton's 2nd law in classical mechanics, it gives the evolution over time of a wave function, the quantum-mechanical characterization of an isolated physical system. — Wikipedia
Fundamentally, the Schrödinger's cat experiment asks how long quantum superpositions last and when (or whether) they collapse. Different interpretations of the mathematics of quantum mechanics have been proposed that give different explanations for this process, but Schrödinger's cat remains an unsolved problem in physics. — Wikipedia
Although originally a critique on the Copenhagen interpretation, Schrödinger's seemingly paradoxical thought experiment became part of the foundation of quantum mechanics. — Wikipedia
I understand him (Schrödinger) to be making reference to Schrödinger's equation for a superpositionally dead & alive cat. — ucarr
I understand him to be making reference to Schrödinger's equation for a superpositionally dead & alive cat. — ucarr
:roll: — 180 Proof
As the QM counterpart to Newton's 2nd law in classical mechanics, it gives the evolution over time of a wave function, the quantum-mechanical characterization of an isolated physical system. — Wikipedia
a kind of metaphysical POV [ ... ] affords us a metaphysics of practice — ucarr
I heve no idea what you mean, ucarr. — 180 Proof
Deacon sounds like he's espousing what C. Rovelli aptly calls "quantum nonsense"... — 180 Proof
...T. Deacon's thesis seems to be 'nonreductive physicalist scientism'... — 180 Proof
A first cause is an uncaused existence, that then enters into causality. — Philosophim