Do you believe a definition cannot be used as a premise? If not, why not? — ucarr

A definition takes the form "I am using the word 'X' to mean such and such in some context". A premise takes the form "X is being presumed here to be the case". — noAxioms

I suppose with some careful wording, a statement can be used as either. The closest example I could think of was the fallacy of using a definition as a premise (actually as a conclusion), resulting in Anselm's ontological argument.
Give me an example of a definition being used as a premise. — noAxioms

In your two descriptions, respectively, of "definition" and of "premise," you example something taking a form by force of an axiomatic assumption without evaluation to a reasoned conclusion. This is an argument they are non-identical yet interchangeable. Example: You can't dig up earth without creating a pile of earth and a hole that shake hands symmetrically. This is my definition of symmetry, i.e., transformation without net change. It's also my premise for reasoning to the conclusion that matter is neither created nor destroyed. In the case of digging up the earth, the net change is re-arrangement of matter at zero change due to the material pile and the material space it created being summed to zero.

Consider: I will use E1 to develop a chain of reasoning that evaluates to a conclusion negating the possibility of predication standing independent from existence. — ucarr

That would be great. Nobody else has tried. You're saying that if definition E1 is used (I think Meinong is using it), then EPP must be the case, something Meinong denies. — noAxioms

Material things vis-á-vis existence describes a part/whole relationship. Existence indexes physics in that it supervenes as context into all material things, both concrete and abstract. Existence as supervenient context establishes all real things in relationship to each other. I don't expect anyone to claim they can name something both real and non-existent.

You can't name an attribute of a thing without simultaneously indexing it within the quintet: mass, matter, energy, space, and time.

Insuperability serves as an index of the eternal reach of existence.

Existence is eternal and nothing is prior to an eternal thing. An emergent property is a derivative, so the fund of that property, the quintet, exists prior to it. The fund of a potential thing is that thing's necessary prior condition.

Eternal universe uncaused is my starting point. — ucarr

By 'eternal', do you mean unbounded time (everlasting), or do you mean that time is part of the universe (eternalism)? Either way, it is uncaused. If it's caused, we're not including the entire universe, just part of it. — noAxioms

Time is part of existence, as is the universe. Existence is the largest largest container; it is insuperable to all that lies within it. The insuperability is so extreme that occupants of existence can't fathom non-existence beyond positing it as a limit of existence.

Eternal universe existence uncaused is my starting point. I equate it with existence. I equate connect existence with objectifiable reality (public, repeatable, measurable). There is an oscillation between "to experience (subject)" and "to measure (object)."

The measurement problem of QM might be related to subject/object entanglement, and it might example a bi-conditional relationship between subject/object such that a complex grayscale region of the two inter-mingled perplexes simple, binary notions of subject/object. This relates to the insuperability of existence from the standpoint of observation_measurement not being possible without inter-subjective_inter-objective entanglement.

It isn't objective if it is confined to being public, repeatable, measureable. That's an empirical definition (E2). It exists relative to an observer. Putting the word 'objective' into a subjective description does not make it objective. — noAxioms

The subject/object duet is not divisible. Where there is subject there is object. If we examine subjectivity without objectivity, what do we have? The answer is solipsism.* If we have objectivity without subjectivity, what do we have? The answer is Kant's noumena. In separation, the two modes become lighthouses of eternal isolation. Be of good cheer, no existing thing is truly isolated.

*Even with the assumption of solipsism, we still can't avoid the self as both subject and object of itself.

The alternative to the subject/object duet is neither, but that entails non-existence. There is no non-existence. Given the indivisibility of the subject/object duet, we see the problem of the search for an origin story in cosmology. There is the insoluble problem of point-or-view. If you're trapped within a container - existence is an insuperable context-as-ecology-of-physics - you can't observe it as a whole because that demands you be greater than yourself. This, in turn, tells us that every sentient being comprises the entirety of existence by means of consciousness. What happens when consciousness, the uncontainable agent meets existence, the inescapable container?

I read E1 as, "Existence is a part of all parts of objective reality." — ucarr

But then you go and describe a subjective reality. As far as I can tell, there is no test for something objectively existing or not objectively existing. Any test would be a relational test, a subjective one. — noAxioms

In this statement, you bolster my claim: the subject/object duet is not divisible. Moreover, you sign on to the index function of the quintet, the scaffold of existence.

Saying you can only talk about death as a living person is also obvious and trivial. Of course it's true because a dead person can't talk about anything. You we never dead is true but you were non-existent as a living conscious being before you were conceived and you will be non-existent as a conscious living being after you die because of the definition of "exist" and "death". You might say that your atoms existed in different forms before your being existed and that would be true and the atoms that make up your body may continue to exist after you die but they are not a conscious living human being by definition. Now you can try to alter or impart other meanings onto words or shift contexts mid statement, but that violates the rules of language. I call this semantic gymnastics which arm chair philosophers do all the time to try and prove some profound truth they think they have discovered. — philosch

All of this supports the interpretation that language and the thought supporting it are emergent properties, not the fundamentals of the dynamism of physics. Absent mass, matter, energy, space, and time, no thought and no language to make assertions about the presumed priority of thought and language vis-á-vis physics.

Supervenience shows that emergent properties are downwardly causal, but not to the extent that thought and language conjure the physics from which they emerge. Were that the case, thought and utterance of the type depicted within Genesis would have precluded science. Few to no deathbed scenarios if thought and utterance could abolish the degeneration of the body.

"when death becomes an objective reality for you it won't become an objective reality for you because there won't be any you" is of the form; When A (death) becomes B(an objective reality) of (-) C (you), A won't become a B - C because C no longer exists. That is not quite correct. B in this argument, is dependent on C by definition. Remove C and of course B ceases as well. So A becomes the B-C for an instant and then C and B-C or now non-existent. So what, it's trivial. — philosch

The crux of your argument is the equation of B: objective reality with C: human cognition rendered through language. If, as you've been arguing:

If there is an objective reality we can never perceive or realize it because we are completely bounded by our own senses including our consciousness. — philosch

then you're in no position to make your supporting claim for your argument:

B in this argument, is dependent on C by definition. Remove C and of course B ceases as well. — philosch

A, in the context of a given C is by definition the "end" of that C and anything dependent on that C. — philosch

You over generalize; children's lives are contingent upon their parents, whether dead or alive. This gets at my main theme: no existing thing is alone. This especially true of children who, without their ancestors, would scarcely know themselves. The general fund of existence: mass, matter, energy, space, and time have total reach WRT all existing things.

Death is the ending of life which is what you are really calling existence. — philosch

There is neither beginning nor ending of existence. For this reason, no life ever knows death. Why do we not fully know either the world or ourselves; eternity cannot be analyzed whole.

When you say "our" immersion within existence is weirdly infinite, this depends on the "our" that you are talking about.If you are referring to our conscious living state then you are wrong by definition.
— philosch

If there is an objective reality we can never perceive or realize it because we are completely bounded by our own senses including our consciousness. Our personal reality is completely bounded by our own subjective experience. — philosch

How is it that your two above quotes are not contradictory?

If you are referring to our conscious living state then you are wrong by definition. — philosch

Supervenience and subvenience, I think, mirror-image each other as a symmetry essential to emergence. Given this, "No mind, no logical thinking/No brain, no mind," stand as evidence, facts and measurable truths.

The aforementioned context is the hard, un-analyzable fact of existence. If you ask, "Why do I exist?" the only answer is, "You exist because you do exist." This sounds like non-sensical circularity; it's because existence can only be examined by a thinking sentient, and there can only be thinking if the thinking sentient exists.

You, as a thinking person, have never not existed. Even your thinking about not existing is entirely confined to existing. You can only talk about death as a living person. You've never been dead and you never will be dead. When death becomes an objective reality for you, it won't become an objective reality for you because there won't be any you. Our immersion within existence is weirdly infinite in this way — ucarr

I partly agree and disagree. I think you are playing semantic gymnastics. Saying you exist because you exist is definitely just circular reasoning (Self referential). You actually exist because we as beings, capable of language, have defined a word "exist" to mean what ever it's definition is. There is no absolute meaning. There's only the meaning of the word in the context of our human language and shared experience. I could have just as easily said there is no objective reality, only subjective reality, or I could have said everything is relative, or nothing can be understood outside of it's relationship to other things which we have also defined. Those statements are all getting at the same thing. If there is an objective reality we can never perceive or realize it because we are completely bounded by our own senses including our consciousness. Our personal reality is completely bounded by our own subjective experience. It's locked in that context and cannot escape it. That's what my original statement was getting at. — philosch

Are you viewing my quotes through a Wittgenstein-inspired lens of analytic philosophy?

Language is a voice emergent from the effects of expression constrained by the parameters enforced by the signification rules of grammar. If you believe the referents for the signs you express as language are just more signs of that same language, then you are: a) practicing the gymnastics of higher-order signification, an engulfing, upward spiral, all of it derivative; b) fraternization with solipsism.

... everything we think, say, experience and even philosophize about is bounded by context. — philosch

You are not your context. This is a way of saying you did not generate yourself through you own language acts. If you're total existence is distinct from your language capacity, then you are not trapped within that language capacity. You are, however, trapped within the totality of your existence.

Let's try to examine the difference between the derivative language context and the insuperable existence context.

Russell's Paradox helps us see that existence is authentically insuperable: The unrestricted axiom of comprehension in set theory states that to every condition there corresponds a set of things meeting the condition: (∃y) (y={x : Fx}). The axiom needs restriction, since Russell's paradox shows that in this form it will lead to contradiction.

Without comprehension restriction we get: Let R = (x | {x⊂x}), then R∈R ⟺R∉R. This tells us that a set cannot be a proper subset of itself. If we translate this rule into conversational speech, we get, "My statements are equal to their referents." This translates to, "My statements, being equal to their sources, are proper subsets of themselves." Your language capacity can't be equal to its sources in your experience of phenomena because that expresses phenomenal experience mapped to grammatical signs one-to-one. When you see two vehicles collide at an intersection, then later that day recount the event in words to your brother at the dinner table, your words do not equal the phenomena observed by you earlier. They sign for it. If the signs equal the phenomena, then one thing simultaneously possesses two different values. That’s the upshot of your subjective (cognitive_linguistic) reality equals your objective (dynamics of physics) reality. You might say, in push back, at the scene of the collision, I was immersed in language. Here we see why total existence cannot be analyzed. The totality which general existence embodies cannot be subsumed by anything outside itself for observation, measurement and analysis because that leads to Russell’s Paradox. In the case of totality, there can be nothing beyond it because that would mean a thing being greater than itself, a paradox. This limit expresses the insoluble POV problem lying at the heart of cosmology.

E1 was the definition (it's not a premise or any kind of assertion) that was problematic with EPP since EPP was difficult to justify. — noAxioms

Do you believe a definition cannot be used as a premise? If not, why not? Consider: I will use E1 to develop a chain of reasoning that evaluates to a conclusion negating the possibility of predication standing independent from existence.

This is the upshot of what I'm declaring to you.

Perhaps you can attempt to do that, but I really have a hard time parsing your posts. Try to be clear. Nowhere in your post do I see EPP justified given an E1 definition, mostly because you never reference E1 at all. — noAxioms

Eternal universe uncaused is my starting point. I equate it with existence. I equate existence with objectifiable reality (public, repeatable, measurable). There is an oscillation between "to experience (subject)" and "to measure (object)."

Eternal universe is the “bank account” that funds the reality chiefly characterized by mass, matter, energy, space, and time. So, the currency of phenomena and the science that observes and measures it is the aforementioned quintet. The “bank account,” being conserved, proceeds by way of a zero-sum structure. All transactions of the physics of reality balance to zero.

I think E1 is a distillation of my two above paragraphs. I read E1 as, "Existence is a part of all parts of objective reality." I see it as being distinct from E4, which I read as, "Existence is a part of objective reality."

All of the apparently distinct physical things of the phenomenal world are temporarily emergent from the "bank account" that funds the quintet of essentials part and parcel of the dynamism of material things emerging into and subsuming out of the physics of reality.

The zero sum structure -- powered by the symmetries and their laws of conservation -- of emergence and subsumption of the dynamism of physics is what I refer to when I say a physical_material thing has two parts: a) local part; b) non-local part. Example: the red apple: a) the local part is the piece of fruit in the bowl on your breakfast table; b) the non-local part is the "bank account" funding the quintet of essentials out of which the piece of fruit on your table is emergent.

If eternal universe lies at the heart of objective reality, and if it functions as the "bank account" funding an alternately emergent/subsumed change of forms eternal, then nothing can precede it, it being without a beginning.

Existence references the item to the totality. It’s a cataloguing reference to the totality that honors the conservation laws. Matter is neither created nor destroyed. Existing things all come from the same fund of mass_energy and thus are inter-connected all of the time. — ucarr

I made little sense of most of the post, but this seems to reference the E4 definition (is a member of our universe), a relation. — noAxioms

I'm defending the EPP. My defense stands upon E1 as its premise: "Is a member of all that is part of objective reality"

I catch my clue about the relationship between any material thing and general existence as an all-inclusive category like Star Trek's The Borg: "You will be assimilated resistance is futile."

Do you know how you can't get the last drop of ketchup out of the bottle, or how your birthday party balloons deflate and fall to the ground? Things cooperate with our intentions most of the way, but not all of the way.

Everyone and everything pays involuntary allegiance to the great cosmic trade-off. The impermanence of things is summed up by the conservation laws. If something is gained on one side, something of equal measure is lost on its mirror-image side. Everything in existence has been shifted around from some prior, reciprocal existence. When a guy digs a shovel into the dirt, he's got no choice about simultaneously creating a pile of shifted dirt and a corresponding hole of matching dimensions.

When we say matter is neither created nor destroyed, we're simultaneously saying existence is neither created nor destroyed.

... everything we think, say, experience and even philosophize about is bounded by context. — philosch

The aforementioned context is the hard, un-analyzable fact of existence. If you ask, "Why do I exist?" the only answer is, "You exist because you do exist." This sounds like non-sensical circularity; it's because existence can only be examined by a thinking sentient, and there can only be thinking if the thinking sentient exists.

You, as a thinking person, have never not existed. Even your thinking about not existing is entirely confined to existing. You can only talk about death as a living person. You've never been dead and you never will be dead. When death becomes an objective reality for you, it won't become an objective reality for you because there won't be any you. Our immersion within existence is weirdly infinite in this way.

Nobody and nothing is alone because our existence is predicated upon an emergence that is configured such that every existing thing, as a fundamental of it existing, emerges as half-symmetry of a pairing across the line of mirror-imaging with the reciprocal partner.

You've never not been known to exist because the cost of your existence has always been a depletion reciprocating your addition.

What does existence-in-general add to the red apple? A notification of orientation to the void the red apple can never transcend, "You will be assimilated resistance is futile." The red apple is the local part; the void is the non-local part. The void seems not to be paired with the red apple because that's the nature of a void. Why death? Because life costs something. What does life cost? It costs the expenditure of energy allowing you to swim above the waves of the void, for a while. Eventually, however, we must be ourselves. We are the void.

Premise – Metaphysics is An Incomplete Project

... everything we think, say, experience and even philosophize about is bounded by context. — philosch

Meinong, when he says certain things (a circular triangle) have no regular existence, but nonetheless have some kind of existence, speaks toward the indirection of complexity.

The indirection of complexity, as with the imaginary numbers of the complex number plane, shows us that some real things must be approached in terms of a multi-part complex.

Their existence is no less real than an imaginary number is a real complex number.

The implications are more interesting. Existence itself becomes a property, or gets redefined to something other than the typical presumption of 'being a member of <objective> reality'. What meaningful difference is made by having this property vs the same thing not having it? — noAxioms

Existence references the item to the totality. It’s a cataloguing reference to the totality that honors the conservation laws. Matter is neither created nor destroyed. Existing things all come from the same fund of mass_energy and thus are inter-connected all of the time.

Existence as a property of things makes them complex in the sense of imaginary numbers being complex. Existing things have two parts: a) the local part (collections of attributes); b) the non-local part (inter-connection to all things). The suggestion of QM is that at that scale the non-local part of things becomes detectable.

Existence as a predication, given its non-local part, plays as an acknowledgement of the insuperability of context for presence. Present things are all connected. When I say a red apple exists, I say a red apple is a roadmap to all other existing things. The apple is the Gestault of its generalizable attributes such as red and apple, and existence is the general container, i.e., the inter-connectivity of all Gestaults. Existence of a thing is its approach to the container of containers.

Existence as a catalog reference for a thing and its ecology is useful to the physicist in general and the cosmologist in particular.

So existence is context generalized to insuperability. It is the limit of presence. It is why there is not nothing. The question answers itself by the brute fact of its existence.

The insuperability of context forestalls analysis. Questions of being are insoluble problems of perspective.

The serial solutions to questions of being reside within the hierarchy of upwardly evolving dimensions. The third spatial dimension of depth looks at an infinite series of aerial planes and understands them categorically as algebraic manifolds. The cubic POV affords an overview of aerial manifolds.

What does an infinite series of cubes become categorically? We don’t know the experience of hyper-cubic space. What does its overview of all cubic spaces afford?

If we generalize the hierarchy of upwardly evolving dimensions to an infinite series, then we ask ourselves what is the Gestault of evolution toward infinite presence? Is it scalable presence across upwardly evolving complexity of dimensional extension? Existence as generalized and scalable context upwardly multi-dimensional perplexes vector measurement of location. Might the measurement problem of QM be evidence of strategic cosmic incompleteness? Can we express it locally as perpetual trans-hyper presence?

A big question asks, “What’s the relationship between existence as context insuperable and consciousness as awareness uncontainable?” When the inescapable container engulfs the uncontainable agent, what happens? happens. This is our universe (semi-verse really) as a bi-directional irrational expansion.

The POV problem of Why Existence? that forestalls analysis tells us that metaphysics is necessarily is an incomplete project.

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

I can imagine non-spatial continuity, but i cannot see how space can exist without the property of continuity (or "absolute" time). If it were possible for space to exist without continuity, it wouldn't be a universe, or at least not our universe. — punos

...there is no room for movement within a 0-dimensional point — punos

I wonder if a 0-dimensional point, as in the singularity, hints at what space without time might be like. I think I’ve seen some debate whether time exists at the singularity. As for space at the singularity, since there is the Big Bang, can we assume there was space within the Big Bang? Explosion implies space, doesn’t it?

As for non-spatial temporal continuity, do you think absolute time motionless? Also, am I wrong in conjecturing that absolute zero temperature equals no motion and thus it's prohibited by the motion of absolute time, and thus absolute time does always move in space since it keeps material things always moving. Moreover, this shows us that motion of time is never uncoupled from mass-energy-motion-space, and thus mass-energy-motion-space-time is a never-broken quintet?

Might absolute time and relative time be two aspects of one temporal phenomenon?

It is the basis of continuity in space and is instantaneous in its action — punos

Loop quantum gravity pictures space broken down into discontinuous, granular pieces that combine to form space. Does this not suggest space and time inseparable?

Although the transmission of a state to the next point is instantaneous, from successive instances emerges a finite rate of propagation we call the "speed of light". — punos

I'm trying to remember if you told me time is a form of energy. If you did, does it have both a particle form and a waveform?

According to my model, the kind of energy that constitutes mass originates from the logic of continuity. — punos

Is continuity an attribute of time, or vice-versa, or do they form a co-equal pair? If time is the continuum of change, how can it be measured; wouldn't that be like trying to stop never-stopping motion? Are perceived phenomena really incorporeal samples of ineffable continuous change?

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

What is "0th order time"?
0th order time is what one might call "absolute time," "primordial time," or "non-relativistic time." It is the basis of continuity in space and is instantaneous in its action. It is timeless in the sense that it never began and never will end. It represents the first degree of freedom within a single 0-dimensional point. This point is a single element of time and space, and is an abstract process or function self-contained in an elemental point space. Without this 0th order time, there can be no existence because it is the ground of existence itself. — punos

Can eternity move? If no beginning and no end means an irrational-number-like middle, then that suggests to me the stop-motion of eternity.

What is "1st order time"?
1st order time is an emergent kind of time characterized by intervals in quantized multi-point space. This interval nature emerges from the instantaneous transmission from one space point to another. Each space point contains within it the temporal characteristics of 0th order time. Although the transmission of a state to the next point is instantaneous, from successive instances emerges a finite rate of propagation we call the "speed of light". This is the maximum speed at which a state signal can travel along a path of multiple spatial state points. Quantized space has the effect of quantizing time in multi-point space, and thus quantizes energy. — punos

Might the instantaneous transmissions from state to state be evidence of paired states (similar to particle pairs)? Might cause and effect be evidence of paired states at Newtonian scale?

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

Sure, maybe, but can you give an example of such a case of distortion? — punos

There's a ASI cyborg on a space station outside of both earth's and mars' gravitational fields. She's collecting data on the orbit of mars in prep for a mars landing. She develops hyper-drive data processing only after being off-planet for a while. She sees that some anomalies are developing in the mars orbit due to an eruption on the planet's surface releasing tons of electromagnetic compounds. She's making a long term projection about the deviation from orbit not presently detectable by anyone but her and her hyper-drive data processing. She sends this data to monitoring humans on earth. She sees that they're not getting her info re: the orbital anomaly and knows the mars landing will be far afield from the chosen landing site. Since she's due to stay in orbit until after the mars landing, she knows there's nothing she can do about the impending botched navigation to the landing site.

Atomic clocks could reveal the time lag of the slower change of time on earth compared to the change of time in the space station. Since the orbital anomaly wasn't foreseen, there are no atomic clocks available. Sometime later, it was discovered that the cyborg, being limited to transmitting her hyper-drive data at hyper-speed, could only send her data stream within a time frame shorter than the time lag between the space station and the monitoring station on earth.

The earth monitors couldn't get the mars orbital adjustment data because the time interval, in micro-seconds, was too short start to finish to be received across the duration of the time lag between the cyborg's present tense on the space station and the monitoring stations present tense on earth.

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

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

I don't twist your words; I quote your words. See the bold, underlined key word below:

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

A ninth grader easily understands your words in bold to mean: self-caused.

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

I await your response to my defense.

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

And what caused this exactly? — Philosophim

As we've agreed: eternal, uncaused universe.

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

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

You're getting confused about your own concepts. Origin of universe - by your understanding, not by mine - is not eternal universe. Eternal universe eliminates the possibility of non-existence. By you saying uncaused universe not eternal, there's non-existence replaced by uncaused universe. Nothing is what uncaused universe replaces, so how does uncaused universe draw from the pre-existing, conserved forces that fuel uncaused universe's power up? Matter is neither created nor destroyed. If uncaused universe replaces non-existence, then matter and energy would have to be created instead of being eternal. The conservation laws forbid that.

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

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

Re-acquaint yourself with the conservation laws, or read Ellman's Theory of Nothing.

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

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

Open a book of Intro Physics and do the work yourself.

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

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

Present your argument that:

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

cannot be construed as the description of a set containing things.

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

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

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

Then, as I said, a priori conceptualization needs to express correct reasoning.

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

This is a roundabout statement that makes a faulty approach to saying - I'm mostly guessing here - logic does not ever have to be consistent with what we don't know empirically. In order to make the intention of this statement even more clear, we can make another change. Logic does not ever have to be consistent with what we know through correct thinking by reason alone. This is false. Logic must always be sound, whether based on observation, or based on abstract reasoning.

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

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

Uncaused universe is the logical possibility?

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

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

Then why did you write in your OP what I've emphasized in bold letters below?

[/quote]

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

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

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

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

Just like an eternally existing universe... — Philosophim

No, an eternal universe never powered up. — ucarr

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

The mass_energy_motion_space_time of material dynamism, being a part of eternal universe, is likewise eternal. The symmetries and their conservation laws support this: matter and energy are never created nor destroyed.

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

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

Some of the theorists at TPF (punos, Metaphysician Undercover) posit the existence of absolute time in addition to relative time. Absolute time is the ultimate fundamental in their cosmology, I think. Absolute time, they say, causes things to change with it being independent of physics. By their lights, absolute time is a type of energy, and it's the engine that drives causation.

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

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

As we both have said repeatedly, you think total existence uncaused means it might be anything.

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

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

The conservation laws are bi-conditional with symmetry.

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

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

Since you've divided causation into two categories housing things: a) caused; b) uncaused, and since one thing can swing back and forth between the categories according to conditions, "caused" is optional, not necessary.

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

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

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

If unlimited God is evidence of, as you say, if something uncaused is possible, then we know there can't be any limitations as to what specifically must have existed. then saying God's unnecessary is also renders unnecessary:

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

How is your theory an example of:

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

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

You haven't responded to my counter-argument.

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

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

Your digression to your OP is irrelevant. Your consciousness never transcends your mind. You've not seen directly the origin of the universe. You have only your abstract thoughts for "viewing" the origin of the universe. If if you did see it directly, you'd still be confined to the boundaries of your mind. Your answer to Kant's question about the tree in the forest is debatable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our issue here is the viability of an uncaused origin of the universe. Since you do not respond to nor even mention my somewhat lengthy argument against the viability of an uncaused origin of the universe, I conclude you have no viable counter-argument. From experience with debating you, I know you would not hesitate to defend one of the two major prongs of your theory (uncaused origin of the universe) if you had a viable defense.

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

No. I'm using what you've written many times over:

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

As you say, uncaused origin of universe is not tied to non-existence. It doesn't come from anything. Since the uncaused universe "encapsulates all that is," it is all that exists and has always been so. This means uncaused universe is eternal.

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

No. As you say, “uncaused existences are…not tied to non-existence.” You’ve been saying I keep putting uncaused universe into a causal relationship with non-existence. No. As you say, “uncaused existences are…not tied to non-existence.”

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

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

No. We cannot say "before" in the case of uncaused origin of universe that "encapsulates everything that is." Non-existence replaced by uncaused universe. No "before" because uncaused universe not tied to non-existence.

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

No. I've argued - with pivotal use of your own words - that uncaused origin of universe that "encapsulates everything that is." is impossible because it's equal to eternal uncaused universe. You haven't responded to my argument.

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

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

I've posted three of your quotes on "scope of causation." Why isn't that evidence of me acting in good faith? Why am I prohibited from using set theory in my arguments? We have no agreement not to use set theory. There's no obvious reason why set theory should be generally excluded from debates. I seems to me you're the one with a bias against set theory. I can't read your mind and know your biases. Even if I could, why should I respect your bias against set theory? If you want such respect, you must explain why you seek to prohibit set theory. After consideration of your explanation, I may or may not comply with your request. These exact stipulations apply to me in relation to you. I have no more right to dictate terms to you about how you prosecute your side of the debate than vice versa.

Here's a fourth quote from you on the subject:

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

You appear to think that, in general, the entire scope or extent of causality includes uncaused first cause followed by contingent things.

If this doesn't imply scope of causation equals extent of causality, then I think you should clarify. Don't I always attempt to clarify when asked to do so?

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

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

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

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

I've already said the designer is the one who designs by no-design. Designing by no-design is designing by a designer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

You fail to see the circularity I keep claiming? Here it is:

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

In the bold letters we see you saying an uncaused thing has no reason (cause) for being but itself. When you say an uncaused thing has no reason for being but itself, you're saying it's uncaused and self-caused, a contradiction. Next, you defend your contradiction by saying "It just is." This is the circularity of identity being examined for reason to exist: "It exists for the reason that it is in existence."

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

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

No, eternal universe means eternal mass, energy, motion, space and time that change forms while conserved. No, unexplainably always existed, not necessarily always existed. No, uncaused origin of universe because uncaused origin equals self-causation, a contradiction; no, uncaused origin of universe because universe can't power up without pre-existing forces fueling that power up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By now you probably know I accept uncaused existence when it's paired with eternal existence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's my abstract: a) a thing is caused (including self-causation, "...once a thing exists, it now has causation from it.") or b) a thing is uncaused. So causation is optional rather than necessary. (If this is not the case, then explain how some things are caused and others are uncaused. If contingent things are only so by chance, and not essentially so, then causation is conditional and not fundamental.) This means that the members in a chain of causation of contingent things could've been uncaused instead, and thus outside the chain of causation, or it suggests chains of causation are conditional, or perhaps they're illusory. Now we're looking at a set called "universe" that might be a collection of universes with all of them uncaused. The equal pairing of caused_uncaused has many ramifications.

I do acknowledge an eternal universe is uncaused. — ucarr

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

You think that uncaused eternal universe implies the possibility of other types of uncaused universes, including one that has an origin. My objection to an uncaused origin of the universe hinges on the role played by the conservation laws WRT an original universe drawing upon forces necessary for its expansion. PoeticUniverse, in this thread, has posted a link (use the one below) that almost counters my argument. See p.14.

Roger Ellman's Theory

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

Given the context created by my abstract above, with your argument here inserted into it, your argument for uncaused real things suggests "uncaused" destroys the necessity of "caused". It therefore also casts doubt upon the implied self-causation of, "There is no reason or explanation for its being besides the fact that it is."

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

Just like an eternally existing universe... — Philosophim

No, an eternal universe never powered up.

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

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

Your interpretation of my quote is wrong. I'm not denying the existence of time apart from our experience of it. I'm denying we know anything about the reality of its supposed causation of things changing. If, on the other hand, this is all there is to know about time independent of things changing, then I infer independent time is emergent from things changing.

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

This looks like the core of your theory. In your OP, it should've been your opening paragraph, with following paragraphs elaborating from this core.

Regarding the sentence in bold above, how do we understand it to be saying anything different from what theism says about an unlimited God? If we suppose you say there is no difference, then okay. Next question is, "How is your theory an example of:

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

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

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

I have three posts from you:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sidebar:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay. We both accept eternal universe.

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

Is temporal energy measurable?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Message received.

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

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

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

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

Message - perhaps with some Shannon information theory included - received.

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

Please elaborate. — punos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Before non-existence is replaced by a universe that encapsulates all that there is, there is no potential rather than unlimited potential. Don't confuse an absence of opposition (to what might be) with a presence of force. Just because nothing stops something from happening, that alone doesn't imply there's a force making something happen. A universe of moving things doesn't just happen. There must be pre-existing forces that power the motion of those moving things.

Symmetry, which is transformation without change, operates in consistency with eternal universe. Non-existence replaced by existence doesn't operate in consistency with symmetry; it is transformation without foundation.

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

I apologize for running a day behind on my responses. Because of that, I hope you've seen by now my post acknowledging acceptance of eternal universe.

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

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

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

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

Zero can be considered a placeholder or a number. Mathematicians agree zero is a counting number, a whole number, and an integer.

Zero is a good way to demonstrate the difference between an neutral set and an empty set. Zero can be a member of a set, so {0} can be called a neutral set (zero is neither positive nor negative). The null set is { }. {0} ≠ { }. Clearly, zero as a placeholder does not represent nothing.

Regarding zero as a placeholder, If you worked a voluntary shift and then your employer surprised you and said he would pay you for your work after all, wouldn't that be a good thing? If he first offered you a check in the amount of $1.00, but then he decided to add another zero to the left side of the decimal point for the amount of $10.00, wouldn't that be a better thing? Clearly, when we add zero to the left of the decimal point, we're not adding nothing.

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

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

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

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

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

No. — Philosophim

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

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

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

Let's first look at some of your important words here. Your important words appear above in bold. Nothing and something are unrelated with one exception, they are different states. My premise is that you cannot exclude, "'...connect'. Or 'cause' or 'lead to' or 'movement' or anything else that links." when you talk about two different states.

The continuity that describes the change from an initial state to a final state lies at the core of science, math and logic in all of their varieties. For that matter, this continuity through change lies at the core of the humanities as well. We’re addressing something fundamental.

Regarding The logic of a universal origin and meaning, the change from an initial state of non-existence to totality of existence is both fundamental and ultimate. If we’re going to approach the examination of this seminal journey from non-existence to totality of existence scientifically, then attempting to reason from non-existence to existence using logic, which non-existence prohibits, naturally leads to an evaluation that parallels God’s utterance: “Let there be light.” There is no logic, or anything else, that gets us out of non-existence. It should be noted that in Genesis, there is no non-existence; God is eternal. Likewise, with the Big Bang, there is no non-existence. I wonder if any of the spiritual traditions include non-existence. We must question the reality of non-existence.

Now to the question "What is it for something to be uncaused?" I think being uncaused means an existing thing pre-existing causation. As examples, I cite Genesis and The Big Bang. My thinking casts deep doubt upon the reality of non-existence and first cause.

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

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

If we reason from the premise of eternal universe, we avoid non-existence and also we avoid origin of existence. Regarding causation, we observe an apparent logical connection between cause and effect.
Regarding first causes, we know the symmetries and their conservation laws prohibit inception from empowering agencies not pre-existent with respect to the things they empower. Matter and energy (and some other material sources) are neither created nor destroyed. From here were reason that contingent things always draw from pre-existent sources.

Our universe is eternal? We don't know, but we can make sense of some things if we assume it is.

Why the eternal universe? We don't know, but I do acknowledge an eternal universe is uncaused.

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

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

Since you observe time by watching things change, your experience of time is always linked to you. Regarding the reality of the nature of time apart from human observation, we don't know. When you talk about what time does "independent" of your observation, you're taking recourse to your abstract observation of time's effects as a thought you're experiencing in your head.

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

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

Your interpretation of my question is wrong. I'm not asking how the universe was caused. I'm asking how an uncaused universe theory can be compatible with the symmetries of physics and their conservation laws.

Regarding "How eternal universe? I can't answer.

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

I need a clarification, unless it's another reference to eternal universe being uncaused, something which I acknowledge as being true.

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

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

Your uncaused universe, if it isn't eternal, participates in a couplet expressing a change of state from non-existence to existence. Since your uncaused universe makes the change of state happen in relation to non-existence, the question arises how does it power up as existence into the context of non-existence? It cannot draw from non-existent mass, energy, motion, space and time, and you've already refuted self-causation. The problem of your uncaused universe is that it can't power up in the absence of necessary prior conditions for its existence.

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

You know you have a problem with universe incepting from nothing. You try to solve this problem by moving to uncaused universe. When examination of uncaused universe tries to do its work, the result is always "uncaused." The circularity of identity -- U≡U -- forestalls examination and analysis of uncaused universe because identity, beyond acknowledgement to the effect of "It is what it is."

Your maneuvering around the circularity of identity is an extreme version of fine tuning a theory to explain why its parameters have precisely the rules they return: unexplainable (beyond "It is what it is." )
These parameters of unexplainable have no known mechanism for explaining why a dynamic material universe with respect to mass, energy, motion, space and time is unexplainable regarding why these resources are not necessary pre-conditions for the existence of the dynamic material universe.

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

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

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

We agree that the correct language is:

I am saying that existence encapsulates everything that is — Philosophim

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I now understand that when you say the universe is uncaused, your statement includes a refutation of the claim the universe causes its own existence.

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

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

Logical possibilities are potential outcomes conceived in the mind. Given non-existence, no minds, no logical possibilities as potential outcomes. No minds, no predictions of potential outcomes. We don't know what reality is like outside of our sensory perception, empirical experiences and abstract thinking. We do know, within the context of our abstract thinking, that given non-existence, no sensory perception, empirical experiences, abstract thinking and logical predictions of potential outcomes. When we're thinking about non-existence and the origin of the universe, we're inside of our minds; we're not anywhere else. We never experience anything outside of our minds, and therefore we don't know anything about reality outside of our minds. When we think about the world, all that we understand is how our minds react to the world.

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

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

When you make a declaration that puts "uncaused" next to "existences," as you do above, and then declare, "It simply was not, then it was." you are the entity -- a human doing abstract thinking -- getting involved with language and creating a linguistic situation that describes something existentially impossible. It's the same thing as using language to talk about a circular triangle. As you say directly below:

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

Language, you acknowledge, empowers you to say things existentially impossible, and that's what we're dealing with in our debate. You also say that by restricting language, we can show that even in language we sometimes see that what can be said is nevertheless existentially impossible by the definition of the words. This is analytic truth. "It simply was not, then it was." is what we're examining here for its connection to reality out in the world. However, we can neither experience non-existence nor the origin of existence. We therefore must use our abstractly reasoning minds to examine your statement as we try to determine if it refers to something consistent with what we can experience.

Establishment physics tells us that the singularity of the Big Bang contains the universe within its ultimately collapsed state. Everything needed to power the rapid inflation of the expanding universe: mass, energy, motion, space and time are there pre-existing the start of the rapid inflation.

Given the non-existence component included as part of your declaration "It simply was not, then it was." you must explain how it is that within the context of non-existence, where there is no mass, energy, motion, space and time, the rapid inflation of the expanding universe nonetheless gets underway. If you show us how you follow a chain of reasoning that correctly evaluates to "It simply was not, then it was." as a logically necessary conclusion, then you will have made a valid case for the acceptance of your theory as a working hypothesis that physicists can use in the doing of their work.

Repetition of your declaration takes the form of circular reasoning that declares, "It simply was not, then it was. 'because I say so.'" All you've done since the days when you were declaring that real things incept from nothing is insert an additional word: uncaused. This is a language fix that, by my evaluation, does nothing but paint over your earlier "inception from nothing." I think you're still declaring inception of universe from nothing; this goes away if you can give reason how existence of the universe is powered in the situation of non-existence.

The Big Bang is presented as fundamental truth about a universe that oscillates between a Big Bang and a Big Crunch. Since it excludes non-existence, there's no looming question about what powered the existence of the universe. With your insertion of "uncaused" I think you're trying to masquerade "inception from nothing" as fundamental truth.

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

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

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

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

With this clarified in agreement between us, we now want to examine this same process at the beginning of existence as a whole. You say of existence "It simply was not, then it was." If "not" denotes non-existence, and "was." denotes existence, then the critical question is "How this change?" When you answer, "Uncaused existence." you declare existence in a manner similar to the God of the Judeo_Christian scriptures when we hear "Let there be light."

Existence is pronounced emphatically and then we're expected to understand existence is present due to the reality signified by the pronouncement. The problem consists in the fact the reality signified by the pronouncement is the reality verified by the pronouncement. There is no start point in a space or context which is socially confirmed by the consensus of multitudes of observers.

Consider: 2+3=5. This equation is a math journey from two numbers added together to the conclusion, a sum. The journey from the natural number two three spaces to five by moving along the number line is something everyone can see for themselves. The conclusion in the sum of five has been shown publicly. There’s a world of difference between this and declaring “It simply was 2, and then it was four.” There’s no journey from one public space we can all see to another public space we can all see, thus making it possible for us to agree that such a journey is real and meaningful.

Also critical is establishment of the possibility of making the journey from a specified start point to a specified end point. Here’s where we have a problem in our debate. We agree there’s no traveling from non-existence to existence. Next you say, “However, we can, after all, make the journey from non-existence to existence when I declare, "It simply was not, then it was." When queried about how you can claim to get past the barrier, you say, in effect, “The barrier was overcome.” Queried again at this point, you repeat “The barrier was overcome.” Thereafter you retort all queries with “The barrier was overcome.” You never show us the public and observable journey from non-existence to existence. We can logically infer the reason why you don’t. You, like the rest of us, understand there’s no way to show how to get past the barrier.

Science doesn’t operate in this manner, nor does philosophy.

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

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

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

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

I don't argue against something uncaused if it's eternal. I think your argument here excludes an origin of the universe. I know you hold both as two distinct possibilities. Our difference is that I don't think eternal and uncaused can be separated. I see also that you argue for a totally free existence not limited in what it, potentially, can be.

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

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

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

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

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

You say "uncaused" is a logical consequence of the full scope of causality. You're describing something that exists prior to the universe. How can you reason from " uncaused is a logical consequence of the full scope of causality" toward "universe" if the former doesn't precede the latter?
Your unexamined assumption is that abstract reason precedes "universe." How can this be the case if "universe" contains everything?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why can't potential be the designer in the sense of causation by logical possibility? Since impossible things can't happen, there is a specificity to possibility that can be construed as design.

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

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

As there are only mathematical decks of cards with infinite numbers and infinite varieties, there are only abstract notions of non-existence exemplifying a void acting as open space for equal probability and the absence of bias toward particular outcomes. Alas, given non-existence, there are no situations or events conducive to outcomes.

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

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

If we exclude panpsychism, everything happens as you describe, but it doesn't mean anything. (That’s how QM contains super-position, baffling to us, but not to QM because QM bears no meaning. In the absence of consciousness, unlimited possibility doesn’t exist; Only what language cannot describe and minds cannot decipher exists.) Logical possibility does mean something, but only to a reasoning mind.

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

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

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

Sounds to me like you agree with

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

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

No. — Philosophim

Causal chains are subsets of the universe?

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

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

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

I have some additional speculations: This suggests to me that such a zone at near absolute zero temperature might be prohibited by absolute time. Absolute time, if it’s connected to physical things, and if current theory is correct, would prohibit arrival at absolute zero temperature, as the passing of time preserves the motion of physical things. Moreover, the arrow of time would slow absolute time’s movement towards reversal to an asymptotic approach.

Cause and effect form a temporal relation?" — ucarr

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

From this we see that causation is perhaps a specifically complex type of motion. Specific complex states of material systems are configured for specific functions that are their effects. Here perhaps the time element becomes tricky to track. If something is a cause, then it's implied the effect co-exists in time with its effect, otherwise a thing is just a thing, not a cause, and vice versa.

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

Regarding the relationship of time, direction, position and information, perhaps the puzzle of Heisenberg uncertainty can be made coherent and complete deeper examination of the arrow of time and the order/disorder oscillation.

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

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

You're saying entropic time is an emergent dynamism of mass-energy-motion-space? If so, does this let us envision entropic time as a higher order of mass-energy-motion-space? Since acceleration and gravitation de-accelerate passing time, history as sentient reality is configured by the bending and stretching and curving of the higher order of ductile time? Example: thought experiment of twins who separate, with one traveling near light speed for a distance in miles that is a distance traveled in time only a fraction of the same temporal distance traveled by the other twin. With near-light-speed travel,
human practice of logic might work its designs upon history.

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

Yes. — punos

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

Scope of existence" equals "existence encapsulates everything that is — ucarr

Then just use the meaning and don't introduce new terms. "Scope" as you defined there is not the same as 'scope' as I defined it with causality... — Philosophim

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

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

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

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

No, it is not caused. It is uncaused. Which is what I stated in the quote.
You keep insisting on putting 'cause' in where I say 'uncaused'. Anytime you do this its going to be immediately dismissed going forward as I have pointed this out patiently enough. — Philosophim

We see clearly from your first quote (bold text) that you say "the universes [sic] cause would simply be what it is, and nothing more." I then say as an interpretation of your quote "you say the universe is caused by what it is and nothing else." This is almost a verbatim quotation of your words. When I introduce "uncaused" in the next sentence, I don't put the word into your mouth. I ask you a question about whether self-caused and uncaused are the same thing. By the way, this question is tied to the important question whether or not causation is temporal. If causation is temporal, then self-causation might have a logical problem.

1. There is no limitation as to what 'could' have been, or can be. — Philosophim

Since non-existence precludes all that exists, how can there be possibilities within the mind of a thinker? — ucarr

What does non-existence have to do with the possibilities a mind can think of? — Philosophim

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

There is no limitation to what can be besides what is — Philosophim

Since non-existence precludes all that exists, how can there be anything that is? — ucarr

Yep, you're doing it again. You're linking nonexistence as somehow causally aligned with existence. Its not. This question doesn't make any sense. — Philosophim

We've agreed that non-existence and existence cannot connect. That means they have nothing in common and are thus parallel to each other. So, regarding what is, viz., A≡A, given non-existence, there can be no identity. This premise, being central to your OP, holds critical importance regarding what might be the ultimate question about the origin of the universe: How did non-existence connect with existence if they have nothing in common? An eternal universe concept avoids this question because under its auspices, there has never been non-existence, nor has there ever been an origin of existence.

If my questions are pertinent to your conclusion, then an eternal universe undecidable as to causation seems to me favored over a universe that began without an external cause. — ucarr

They are not pertinent, and while an eternal universe is possible, equally so a finite universe. In both cases Ucarr, they are uncaused. So if you agree that an eternal universe is possible, then you are holding onto an origin that is uncaused. — Philosophim

If a universe of total existence finite in time implies it possesses both a beginning and an end, and if we can suppose a state before its beginning and a state after its end, then there is the question: How did non-existence connect with existence if they have nothing in common? Likewise, there is the question: How did existence connect with non-existence if they have nothing in common? An eternal universe concept avoids this question because under its auspices, there has never been non-existence, nor has there ever been an origin of existence.

If my questions are pertinent to your conclusion, then an eternal universe undecidable as to causation seems to me favored over a universe that began without an external cause. An external eternal universe appears to avoid the problematical question of common ground between non-existence and existence. — ucarr

Incorrect. That's just a category to move the ball away from your discomfort. What caused that external universe? The same causality chain and answer still apply. — Philosophim

I inadvertently mislead you due to a typo. As shown above with the strikethrough of "external" and "eternal" beside it, I show that my intention was to say "eternal" not "external."

Is "It simply was not, then it was." a continuity? Given non-existence as the initial state, there was no time so there's no temporal continuity from non-existence to existence. — ucarr

Correct. If there is nothing, then something, there was no time, now there is time. Time is not a substance, it is a result of recognizing change. To recognize change, there must be a comparison to a previous state. If there is no previous state, that is essentially the zero position, or origin, in regards to time. — Philosophim

Time begins to exist when the universe begins to exist?

Time is non-physical in the sense of an emergent property of physical things in motion observed?

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

Given "It simply was not, then it was." how does the inception of universe reconcile itself with the symmetries of its physics and their conservation laws? This is a question asking how do mass, energy, motion, and space incept in the wake of non-existence. To further clarify, a physical thing needs energy to instantiate and behave. Since energy consumption is symmetrical with energy production, as an energetic universe expands, how does it consume and produce energy simultaneously toward expansion of its being? This simultaneity would be a stalemate of cancellation leaving expansion of the universe stuck at zero.

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

In the case of "It simply was not, then it was." we have energy consumption from no pre-existing supply of energy to draw from. Likewise, we have no pre-existing time passing for time to emerge from the changes of state of things.

At, say, $10^{-67}$ sec the big bang theory says no laws of physics exist. Does this mean there are no symmetries and conservation laws prohibiting expansion in the wake of non-existence?

At this early stage however, the super-heat of the big bang expansion tells us physics exists, even if not governed by the symmetries and their conservation laws. So the singularity is still a pre-existing physical entity, albeit one at the cusp of material information and math-inferred information.

Sometime later, when the behavior patterns of extant atoms begin to obey the laws of physics, the symmetries and their conservation laws are in effect. This tells us that whenever we have normal physics, we have the symmetries and their conservation laws.

There's no existence in the wake of non-existence.

By saying "there is no limitation to the number of forms that can be via emergence." are you making reference to abstract thought? — ucarr

Yes, and no. If you take the human perspective then no it would appear as solid and real, but if one takes the perspective of the universe, to the universe it appears as abstractions of itself. — punos

Your use of "emergence" in your context here refers to the existence of material things as distinguished from the sense of "emergence" that describes attributes of a system emergent from the parts of the system acting collectively? An example of the latter sense is water emergent from the bonding of hydrogen and oxygen atoms.

I believe that there is an initial pattern or rule of maximal simplicity or minimal complexity that serves as the seed from which the universe extends. — punos

These are boundaries of a physical system in its initial state? — ucarr

No, i do not believe there are boundaries at the initial state except for logical boundaries. — punos

How is the simplicity of a physical thing logical? As a clarification of what I'm asking: when an oxygen atom bonds with a hydrogen atom, any logic pertinent to the sharing of electrons between the two atoms is an abstract thought within the mind of the observer. These are physical boundaries established by the covalent bonding in water. If we picture an initial state of matter without the physical boundaries of chemistry, how does logic go about holding atoms and molecules together?

These rules are prescriptive restrictions on what the universe can be? — ucarr

Yes. If it could have been anything, or can be anything at any time then we will have chaos, and no possibility of coherence. — punos

:up:

I have a distinction between passive, and active logic. Passive logic is what we humans do, but the universe does active logic. It's a reversal of polarity in the process of logic. The universe processes logic forward onto itself (creating what is true and real), and people process logic from the universe onto themselves to ascertain the truth of the universe or what is real. — punos

The arrow of time is future to present? Passive logic is reactive whereas active logic is creative?

The antecedents are qualities or properties from which physicality emerges. — punos

I see you think non-physical things antecedent to physical things.

Passing time is the engine of causation? Is there a form of passing time both eternal and non-relative? — ucarr

Correct, passing time is the engine of causation. — punos

Cause and effect form a temporal relation?

And yes, there is primordial time which is non-entropic time absent of space, and matter. Once extended space and matter come into the picture the arrow of time is formed through entropic (relative) processes. So relative time emerges from non-relative time i guess you can say. — punos

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

Non-entropic time passes independent of activity and events?

Non-entropic time is non-physical?

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

Since non-entropic time never stops, can we infer to no absolute zero temperature and no cessation of motion?

Is motion an effect of causation?

Is the logical ordinality of the universe: time, causation, and space-motion-energy-mass?

Time is fundamental and thus unapproachable by analysis? — ucarr

Not necessarily. It can by analyzed by the pure logic of its own being. If it is its own reason, then by that reason we can know it, but we have to learn how to apply the logic correctly in the right order. This will be hard to accept by a pure materialist/empiricist. — punos

Help me examine whether your first two sentences directly above are incompatible with each other. First you say "time can be analyzed..." thereby suggesting time can be broken down into more fundamental parts.

Next you say "If it is its own reason, then by that reason we can know it..." thereby declaring time is fundamental and cannot be broken down into more fundamental parts.

There is a logical limitation as to the form of that which could have been, or can be, but there is no limitation to the number of forms that can be via emergence." — punos

By saying "there is no limitation to the number of forms that can be via emergence." are you making reference to abstract thought?

I believe that there is an initial pattern or rule of maximal simplicity or minimal complexity that serves as the seed from which the universe extends. — punos

These are boundaries of a physical system in its initial state?

Why would the universe follow these logical rules if they were not there to begin with? — punos

These rules are prescriptive restrictions on what the universe can be?

Reason and logic are held within the infinitesimal expanse (0 dimensional space, or latent space) of primordial time. — punos

Reason and logic are mental abstractions tied to (and emergent from) physical antecedants?

This primordial time had no cause, as it is the reason for cause. Time is the infinite energy by which logic acts upon the universe. — punos

Passing time is the engine of causation? Is there a form of passing time both eternal and non-relative?

To keep it simple, i won't get into how or why these particles have the energy they have, except to say that it comes from time itself. — punos

Time-authored energy is subject to the symmetries and their conservation laws?

The universe must form because time does not stop and always acts. The nature of time or energy is that it must move, it must flow with no exceptions. Time (energy) is the unstoppable force, and if it finds it cannot move, it then spawns spatial dimensions to accommodate the necessary forced movement (progression, process). Each progressive spatial dimension does not form or come into existence until it is necessary, and they all extend from the temporal dimension, which is contained in the primordial 0-dimensional point throughout all of space. Time is not the 4th dimension; it is the 0th dimension. — punos

Time appears to be the centerpiece of your cosmology. The universe reduces to time passing eternally without interruption? If energy is the ability to move, then time supports a multiplex with mass-energy-motion-space as its components?

Time is fundamental and thus unapproachable by analysis?

A definition defines a restriction, viz., the meaning of the word it defines. — ucarr

Ok, and the word 'unrestricted' is defined as having no restrictions. This is a silly argument that I'm not going to spend any more time on. — Philosophim

Consider: You go to a park to play baseball. A big sign posted says "No Restrictions in This Park." You go to the office of the administrator with a request. You say to the administrator "Can we restrict baseball players from wearing metal cleats? They cause puncture wounds." In response, the administrator points to a sign in his office that says "No Restrictions in The Park." He then says, "Sorry, we can't implement your restriction because in this park the rule is no restrictions. Our rule of No restrictions restricts us from restricting shoes to ones without cleats."

Do you follow this chain of reasoning?

You can't describe something without applying limits to what it is. Anything goes is unintelligible. — ucarr

I can and did. — Philosophim

Is this an argument for someone claiming truthfully you're one thousand feet tall? — ucarr

I argued that description of a thing limits that thing to the specification of what it is. If someone describes you as being human, we know, without seeing you in person, that you're not one thousand feet tall because we know humans never attain to that height. This demonstrates that by describing you as being human, we apply limits to what your height can be. This, therefore, is a limit to what you are based upon the description of you.

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

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

It's possible for no-design to be a design if a person intentionally allows a thing to be configured randomly. It would be a case of design by no-design.

If there's unlimited potential, then that too can be construed as a design in the sense of an unlimited number of possible limits upon what universe emerges. If, say, a much-varied universe emerges, then that's a block of the emergence of a monotonous, unvaried universe. Since the enormous variation was a possible pre-condition that blocked monotony, then the pre-condition designed the much-varied universe in the sense of ultimately determining what universe emerged before-handedly.

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

If an uncaused existence entails a logical possibility, then, by the existence of the uncaused existence, the logical possibility also exists. — ucarr

No, its a logical possibility that is argued for that does not require my specific mind. This is not an argument Ucarr. — Philosophim

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

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

I don't know what you mean by this. — ucarr

Can you cite some real things that are impossible? — ucarr

A question does not clarify your initial statement. Clarify your initial statement first and I will answer this question. — Philosophim

The answer to my question clarifies my initial statement. Do you believe there exist real things that are impossible? One conceivable example is a sign that shows a circular triangle. It expresses circular triangulation. Can you draw this sign and directly present it to me here?

You're saying the scope of causality is equal to the scope of existence? — ucarr

No. We've been over this. I don't use the term scope of existence. Use the vocabulary and ideas that I use or you're not addressing the argument. — Philosophim

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

Non-existence is so self-effacing it cannot even be itself. We cannot directly speak of non-existence. We can only speak at it through the faulty reification of language. — ucarr

No, I think we can speak to the concept pretty easily. You're being a little artsy here which I get, but I'm not interested in poetic language. Nothingness is the absence of somethingness. — Philosophim

Language, which posits things performing actions, cannot apply to non-existence because it allows no language and its concepts. Our minds, likewise, stand apart from non-existence because it allows no concepts aimed at describing and comprehending it. We agree that non-existence and existence cannot intersect; I'm elaborating some details of what their non-intersection implies.

To clarify, the causeless existence is what allows those unlimited possibilities, not the other way around. Further, this is only if we don't know the origin. Obviously what happens is what happens. Just like I can pull a jack from a deck of cards and measure that probability, the possibilities are irrelevant once we draw that card and see what it is. — Philosophim

I acknowledge that your un-causation is a symmetry with causation in that it is the not-doing of causation, and thus the net balance to zero is maintained. The not-doing of un-causation allows unlimited possibilities and therefore, we see logically that un-causation within non-existence devoid of causation is equivalent to no restrictions and unlimited possibility. Looking from the opposite direction, in symmetry with un-causation we see that where there is the doing of causation, there is restriction based upon the attributes of the things caused. For example, within our universe there is entropy such that operational systems go forward toward increasing disorder; things gradually fall apart over time. This is a restriction such that we don't see randomly increasing order. The dropped egg shatters into disordered parts; the shattered egg doesn't reverse direction and reassemble itself. Causation produces contingent things; in our world of contingent things with specific attributes, restrictions abound.

What's pertinent to our debate is the fact that the unlimited possibilities of un-causation produces no actuation of those possibilities as real, operational things. Causation does that. The critical question posed to your theory is how causation enters the chain of events extending from non-existence to a causal universe filled with contingent things.

Causation of a causal universe filled with contingent things is problematic because causation logically prior to the universe isn't an origin of existence. It leaves us stuck in the bog of infinite regress.

Enclosing causation within the universe does nothing to solve the problem because un-causation logically prior to the universe has no power to actualize possibilities. "Uncaused" universe is just a word game that paints over the truth of "Uncaused" universe, another something-from-nothing argument. Evidence this is true is your repetition of your mantra:

No, there does not. There's no movement. There was nothing, then something. That's it. No inbetween. No cause. No non-existence going, "Whelp, time to start existing!" :) — Philosophim

Repeatedly pulling a card from a deck over a large number of times with the jack appearing at a frequency predicted by the mathematically calculated probability distribution is a confirmation of the logic and the accuracy of the calculation. A confirmation of an evaluation to a calculated result is not irrelevant to the probabilities. It is fundamental to the probabilities.

As caused is to causation, so uncaused is to uncausation. From logic we know it's legitimate to conceptualize the negation of any existing thing, including abstract concepts. From this reasoning we see that if caused affords causation, then uncaused affords uncausation. — ucarr

Your example is mistaken though. The negation of uncaused is caused. Not 'uncausation'. 'Causation' is the noun describing the act of causality, so 'uncausation' would be a noun describing the act of uncausality. I've never introduced the term 'uncausality' so I'm not sure that it exists. — Philosophim

I'm not talking about the negation of un-caused. Since I'm defending the viability of uncaused, it should be clear I'm talking about the negation of caused, viz., uncaused.

Continuing in this line of reasoning, if uncaused stands outside the causal universe, then likewise uncausation stands outside the causal universe. — ucarr

No, this is a misuse of the language concepts. That's like saying, "If no is the negation of yes, then no stands outside of the state of yes and no questions." Obviously when we talk about the causal universe we're talking about what is both caused and uncaused. — Philosophim

Your argument is impertinent to the example of a chain of reasoning. Consider: A=addition; S=subtraction: ¬(A ∧ S) → ¬A ∧ ¬S. The negation (¬) is distributive with respect to (A ∧ S). We show this by placing it outside of the parentheses. We see that ¬ causes both un-addition and un-subtraction. Therefore, saying "...if uncaused stands outside the causal universe, then likewise un-causation stands outside the causal universe." nonetheless keeps un-causation in application to both caused and uncaused.

If you jump to a conclusion without reasoning to it, and then, when queried about the "how" and the "why" of the conclusion, you double-down and repeat the conclusion as if its self-evident truth needing no further explanation, then your repetition of the conclusion is circular reasoning ( "Why is it true?" "It's true because I say it's true." "Why is it true?" "It's true because...") masquerading as fundamental truth. — ucarr

No, I'm not jumping to a conclusion without reason. You have not stated my reasoning or conclusion is false, you are just having a hard time wrapping your head around the notion of something that is uncaused. I'm trying to show you what it means for something to be uncaused. You have not criticized it, but been unable to accept the idea of it and keep trying to put causality back in. That's all I'm noting. If you wish to criticize the logic that leads to my conclusion, or criticize my logic from what I conclude if something is uncaused, feel free to address it. But that's not what I've seen so far. I've simply seen your disbelief or insistance that there has to be some type of 'cause' in there. There isn't. That's what uncaused means. — Philosophim

You say "No, I'm not jumping to a conclusion without reason." Here's an example of it.

When you describe the uncaused universe as "It simply was not, then it was," you present a sequence of non-existence followed by existence. For this change to happen, there has to be movement from non-existence to existence. — ucarr

No, there does not. There's no movement. There was nothing, then something. That's it. No inbetween. No cause. No non-existence going, "Whelp, time to start existing!" :) — Philosophim

This quote shows you doubling down on unsupported declarations. You might argue that you're demonstrating the logic of a universe uncaused by anything outside of it. Critical to this demonstration by a chain of reasoning is the work of establishing logically the reality and efficacy of uncaused as an adjective attached to universe.

Your readers ask you, “What’s the logic of an uncaused universe?” Frequently you respond with

No, there does not. There's no movement. There was nothing, then something. That's it. No inbetween. No cause. No non-existence going, "Whelp, time to start existing!" :) — Philosophim

Your best statement about the rational promise of your theory appears in the OP as follows:

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

You say "You have not stated my reasoning or conclusion is false..." Regarding

1. There is no limitation as to what 'could' have been, or can be. — Philosophim

For quite some time we've been debating my interpretation of your above quote as: a) unlimited possibility; b) a restriction on the nature of the universe. See below.

By saying, "Before the entirety of existence existed, the universe could have been anything," are you implying: a) unlimited possibility pre-dated the universe; b) unlimited possibility had a causal influence upon the universe? — ucarr

No to both. There is no 'thing' that is generating probability. It’s simply a a logical conclusion that results from understanding that if there is no prior cause for something being, then there are no rules for why it should or should not be. — Philosophim

.

You want to believe in a maximally versatile universe. That's a restriction because it's not allowed to be a narrowly defined and unvaried universe. — ucarr

This is not a belief. Again, if you're stating an unlimited universe is a restriction, this is a contradiction. — Philosophim

Its uncaused. So there is nothing that causes it to change. — Philosophim

The universe did not come 'from nothing'. Nothing did not create anything. It doesn't come 'from' anything. It simply was not, then it was. Or its always been. Either way, nothing made it into being or restricted what could have come into being. That is the only logical conclusion. — Philosophim

Since you describe a change of state from non-existence to existence, how do you evaluate from the initial state to the final state?

Since we agree non-existence and existence are closed and cannot interact, how is there a change of state not from non-existence to the physics of the universe and not from causation but from... what? — ucarr

This is the part I get you're having trouble with. Let me translate your question. "You say there is nothing that causes it, but what causes it to appear?" Do you see the problem? There is nothing that causes it to appear. There is no cause. — Philosophim

Your translation of my question is wrong. You say of state 1 "It simply was not..." You say of state 2 "then it was." I say explicitly "not from non-existence to the physics of the universe" - so I'm lining out something from nothing - and I say explicitly "not from causation..." - so I'm lining out causation - and finally I'm asking how do you evaluate from state 1 to state 2?

No, there does not. There's no movement. There was nothing, then something. That's it. No inbetween. No cause. No non-existence going, "Whelp, time to start existing!" :) — Philosophim

You're describing a change of state, so you're describing something that happened, a change. What is it that served the function of making the change of state from nothing to the physics of the universe? — ucarr

Again, you're saying, "What caused the uncaused existence?" Nothing Ucarr. There is nothing that caused the state change. — Philosophim

Your translation of my question is wrong. You start with your first clause "It simply was..." You follow with your second clause "then it was not." The two clauses are not identical, so there is a change from first clause to second clause. If the change is due to random chance, then your statement has no chain of reasoning giving it philosophical force and meaning. If your statement is not a conclusion from a chain of reasoning, then it's just an observation of what might've happened.

Consider: Joe was thirsty. Joe ran a glass of water from the tap and drank it. Joe quenched his thirst.

This example shows a change of state of Joe from dehydration to hydration. What served the function of making the change of state in Joe from dehydration to hydration? Joe himself served the function of making the change of state in Joe. — ucarr

Sure, you're describing causal interactions. I'm not denying those exist. But we reach a point in which there is no causality. You keep trying to apply causality to something that is not caused. That doesn't work. If it is logical that something in the chain of causality is uncaused, then we have to logically consider it as it is, not like it is 'some other cause'. — Philosophim

In the peer reviews of theories such as we have here at TPF, "But we reach a point in which there is no causality." is a proposition that needs to be a conclusion arrived at by way of a correct evaluation of a chain of reasoning. Merely repeating

No, there does not. There's no movement. There was nothing, then something. That's it. No inbetween. No cause. No non-existence going, "Whelp, time to start existing!" :) — Philosophim

across multiple threads does not embody a valid evaluation.

My point was you kept using phrases like "scope of existence" and "Plays within The universe". These phrases could mean anything and need more detail. — Philosophim

The context is the OP. — Philosophim

"Scope of existence" equals "existence encapsulates everything that is."

"Plays within The universe" equals "Occurs within the universe."

When you say "There was nothing, then something." and then follow with "That's it. No inbetween. No cause. No non-existence going, "Whelp, time to start existing!" you make a declaration that you haven't evaluated. — ucarr

The evaluation is the OP. Its the only logical conclusion. — Philosophim

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

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

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

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

1. There is no limitation as to what 'could' have been, or can be. — Philosophim

Since non-existence precludes all that exists, how can there be possibilities within the mind of a thinker?

2. There is no limitation to what can be besides what is — Philosophim

Since non-existence precludes all that exists, how can there be anything that is?

3. This means that there is no prior causal meaning in existence besides the fact that it exists. — Philosophim

Since non-existence precludes all that exists, how can there be an existence that supports the fact that what exists exists?

4. But what about a God? — Philosophim

Since non-existence precludes all that exists, how can there be a God who exists as God?

If my questions are pertinent to your conclusion, then an eternal universe undecidable as to causation seems to me favored over a universe that began without an external cause. An eternal universe appears to avoid the problematical question of common ground between non-existence and existence.

Is "It simply was not, then it was." a continuity? Given non-existence as the initial state, there was no time so there's no temporal continuity from non-existence to existence. Is it an axiomatic statement about the hard fact of an eternal universe? Not quite because it seems to assume the presence of time in both the initial state and the final state. Eternal universe coupled with eternal time might be an axiomatic assumption that grounds physics.

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

Your theory embraces an eternal universe. Carl Sagan speaking in a video might be evidence your reasoning to an eternal universe does not open "a new venue of exploration for Ontology."

You can see the video by using the link below.

Sagan_ Eternal Universe

you specifically relate the lesser scope of causality to the greater scope of existence. — ucarr

I specifically relate the scope of causality to all of existence. There is no, 'lesser or greater' scope. — Philosophim

You're saying the scope of causality is equal to the scope of existence? If so, how is it that causation is contained within existence? Are you thinking not only is causation contained within existence, but also existence is contained within causation? If so, do you agree that universe=causation?

Consider your dialogue with Bob Ross.

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

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

Here's a replay of how we started examining your claim existence encapsulates everything that is."

Are you saying that existence has no outside cause and that it has no outside at all? — ucarr

I am saying that existence encapsulates everything that is. "Existences" are subdivided quantifications of existence. My note is that if you increase the scope of causality to its limit, there is no outside cause that creates existence, as whatever exists is part of existence. — Philosophim

Use the link below to return to the post. I want you to quote me when you think I'm being deceptive.

You apply the restrictions when you try to deny them. No rules is a restriction. No restrictions is a restriction. "Since there is nothing that caused it, there is nothing that restricts it from forming either." is a restriction. — ucarr

No, that's the definition of no restriction Ucarr. If you're saying "No restriction is a restriction," you've cancelled yourself out. — Philosophim

A definition defines a restriction, viz., the meaning of the word it defines. Consider: when no restrictions is applied to the writing of the dictionary, that restricts the writer of the dictionary from restricting certain meanings to certain words, and thus each of the words in the dictionary can have all of the meanings in the dictionary.

Discipline restricts behavior. The concept of good and bad depends upon discipline. Consider: when no restrictions is applied to the behavior of children, adults are restricted from disciplining children for bad behavior.

You can't describe something without applying limits to what it is. Anything goes is unintelligible. — ucarr

I can and did. — Philosophim

Is this an argument for someone claiming truthfully you're one thousand feet tall?

You want to believe in a maximally versatile universe. That's a restriction because it's not allowed to be a narrowly defined and unvaried universe. — ucarr

...if you're stating an unlimited universe is a restriction, this is a contradiction. — Philosophim

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

If an uncaused existence entails a logical possibility, then, by the existence of the uncaused existence, the logical possibility also exists. — ucarr

That's an outcome. Once I pull a jack out of a deck of cards then I have the reality that I drew a jack. That has nothing to do with the possibility of the what could have been drawn before it was drawn. — Philosophim

The logical possibility is an entailment that exists within your mind.

What card you pull from a deck is directly related to what cards are in the deck you pull from. The cards in that deck add up to a number; each suit of each card adds up to a number, and those numbers determine mathematically the probability of each card being pulled.

Possibility cannot be excluded from real things. — ucarr

I don't know what you mean by this. — Philosophim

Can you cite some real things that are impossible?

This, therefore, is you implying that non-existence moved to existence, viz, non-existence caused existence. — ucarr

No. I thought we settled this earlier. — Philosophim

No, there does not. There's no movement. There was nothing, then something. That's it. No inbetween. No cause. No non-existence going, "Whelp, time to start existing!" :) — Philosophim

So how is there a change of state from nothing to the physics of the universe?

I understand you to be saying non-existence and existence are closed and cannot interact. — ucarr

Thank you for confirming this, I won't mention it again then. — Philosophim

Since we agree non-existence and existence are closed and cannot interact, how is there a change of state not from non-existence to the physics of the universe and not from causation but from... what? to the physics of the universe?

You're describing a change of state, so you're describing something that happened, a change. What is it that served the function of making the change of state from nothing to the physics of the universe?

Consider: Joe was thirsty. Joe ran a glass of water from the tap and drank it. Joe quenched his thirst.

This example shows a change of state of Joe from dehydration to hydration. What served the function of making the change of state in Joe from dehydration to hydration? Joe himself served the function of making the change of state in Joe.

It's not enough for the requirements of either science or philosophy to say, "Joe was thirsty, then he wasn't." In both disciplines, you must reason from the expression of an initial state to a final and different state by way of a chain of reasoning that logically evaluates from the initial state to the final state. If you merely say, "Joe was thirsty, then he wasn't." you're jumping from an initial state to a final state without elaborating the equation of reasoning that bridges together the two states.

If you jump to a conclusion without reasoning to it, and then, when queried about the "how" and the "why" of the conclusion, you double-down and repeat the conclusion as if its self-evident truth needing no further explanation, then your repetition of the conclusion is circular reasoning ( "Why is it true?" "It's true because I say it's true." "Why is it true?" "It's true because...") masquerading as fundamental truth.

You acknowledge that something does not come from nothing. This is a restriction that invalidates "If something is not caused... where are the rules? Where are the restrictions?" when it is applied to "Existence has no outside cause for its being." — ucarr

I don't get it. Use the deck analogy I gave otherwise this doesn't make any sense. — Philosophim

Given that "Existence has no outside cause for its being." then, apart from existence, there is only non-existence as nothing extant stands outside of the set of existence, viz., nothing stands outside of the universe. Non-existence is so self-effacing it cannot even be itself. We cannot directly speak of non-existence. We can only speak at it through the faulty reification of language.

When you say, "If something is not caused... where are the rules? Where are the restrictions?" you imply an absence of restrictions equals unlimited possibility. From here you reason to our universe to which you attribute unlimited possibilities including causeless existence.

The mind struggles to reach a sense of the absolute negation of non-existence because the mind exists totally immersed within existence, and thus all of its conceptions are existing things, including non-existence. If the universe is closed and internally self-sufficient, then its identity is totally bound to what it is and this is the absolute restriction of identity, as in A≡A. The universe posited within the isolation with which you enclose it cannot be anything possible; it can only be what it is.

This means, therefore, that uncausation, due to its logical priority, applies to everything that exists, and so it must also lie outside of the universe. — ucarr

Uncausation is not a thing Ucarr. You repeatedly make this mistake. It does not exist outside of the universe. It is a logical conclusion. You keep inserting a 'thing'. Uncaused is not a thing. Non-existence is not a thing. There was nothing, then something. No inbetween. No movement. That's it. — Philosophim

As caused is to causation, so uncaused is to uncausation. From logic we know it's legitimate to conceptualize the negation of any existing thing, including abstract concepts. From this reasoning we see that if caused affords causation, the uncaused affords uncausation. Continuing in this line of reasoning, if uncaused stands outside the causal universe, then likewise uncausation stands outside the causal universe.

If non-existence is not a thing, then nothing likewise is not a thing. We know language reifies things lacking the hard boundaries of a steel girder.

...it feels like you're using ambiguous language... — Philosophim

Can you quote my ambiguous language? — ucarr

My point was you kept using phrases like "scope of existence" and "Plays within The universe". These phrases could mean anything and need more detail. — Philosophim

Since you supply only phrases without context, I think your evidence is no less vague than that you ascribe to my words.

When you describe the uncaused universe as "It simply was not, then it was," you present a sequence of non-existence followed by existence. For this change to happen, there has to be movement from non-existence to existence. — ucarr

No, there does not. There's no movement. There was nothing, then something. That's it. No inbetween. No cause. No non-existence going, "Whelp, time to start existing!" :) — Philosophim

Consider: a) 2+2=4; b) 4. With a) we have an equation that moves from the expression 2+2 to its evaluation which is 4. This is a change that involves motion along the number line from 2 through twice 2 to 4. With b) we have 4 alone. No change is shown. If we stay at 4, all we can do is repeat 4 over and over.

When you say "There was nothing, then something." and then follow with "That's it. No inbetween. No cause. No non-existence going, "Whelp, time to start existing!" you make a declaration that you haven't evaluated. It's unsupported and is therefore unlike the evaluation of the expression 2+2 which, paired with = 4 creates an equation that evaluates the expression 2+2 down to one number 4.

When you declare, 4 and then, when challenged to give an expression paired with an equation that evaluates to 4, you double down and repeat, 4! You refuse to elaborate a chain of reasoning that concludes with 4.

Your repetition “4, 4, 4…” is an example of your practicing circular reasoning that masquerades as fundamental truth. Given 2+2=4, a chain of reasoning that reaches a conclusion of 4, which can be shown as a valid movement along the number line, allows the writer of the equation, when asked what the conclusion is, to say “4.” If asked repeatedly, the writer of the equation can do like you and repeat, “4,4,4…”. This person has established a fundamental truth, the evaluation of the equation to 4. The difference between this person and you is that they’ve done to work of evaluating the expression 2+2 to the conclusion =4. You have not done the work of evaluating by a chain of reasoning to the conclusion, "There was nothing, then something." All you have is what you believe to be a conclusion to a fundamental truth without the work of evaluating to it via a chain of reasoning. When challenged to produce your chain of reasoning to your conclusion, you double-down and repeat the conclusion.

You are confusing the circularity of repeating an unproven conclusion with the justifiable repetition of a conclusion from a chain of reasoning to a fundamental truth. Fundamental truths can only be repeated because they can't be reduced any further. You are promoting your circular reasoning: "There was nothing, then something." and then follow with "That's it. No inbetween. No cause. No non-existence going, "Whelp, time to start existing!" by masquerading it as fundamental truth. All your circular reasoning is saying is, "There was nothing, then something." Ask me again, and I'll tell you the same.

Why do you say you don't know what is the scope of existence given your earlier statement re-posted below: — ucarr

I never use the phrase scope of existence anywhere in that quote. I don't know what you mean by it. I talk about the scope of causality. You have introduced a phrase 'scope of existence' that I don't understand. You cannot introduce a phrase I do not use then tell me I'm avoiding using it. — Philosophim

Here's the quote with the pertinent statement in bold; click on your name at the bottom and it will take you to your post from two days ago.

I am saying that existence encapsulates everything that is. "Existences" are subdivided quantifications of existence. My note is that if you increase the scope of causality to its limit, there is no outside cause that creates existence, as whatever exists is part of existence. — Philosophim

You don't use the words "scope of existence," but "existence encapsulates everything that is" means the same thing. Furthermore, when you say "My note is that if you increase the scope of causality to its limit, there is no outside cause that creates existence, as whatever exists is part of existence." you specifically relate the lesser scope of causality to the greater scope of existence.

Moreover, I've never mis-represented you because I've always quoted what you wrote verbatim.

Make your point Ucarr and stop trying to get me to say things you want me to say instead of the things I'm saying. — Philosophim

Whenever I make reference to something I claim you said either explicitly or implicitly, I always quote your words verbatim, as I've done here.

Let's look at a stipulated uncaused existence.

Give me an example of an uncaused existence that has restrictions and rules to see for yourself. — Philosophim

If something is not caused Ucarr, where are the rules? Where are the restrictions? There are none. Because there is nothing that caused it. Since there is nothing that caused it, there is nothing that restricts it from forming either. — Philosophim

You apply the restrictions when you try to deny them. No rules is a restriction. No restrictions is a restriction. "Since there is nothing that caused it, there is nothing that restricts it from forming either." is a restriction. You can't describe something without applying limits to what it is. Anything goes is unintelligible. You describe your uncaused universe in such a way that it becomes what you want to believe about it. You want to believe in a maximally versatile universe. That's a restriction because it's not allowed to be a narrowly defined and unvaried universe.

Do you not agree that if possibility is necessary for a thing to happen, and if there are no restrictions on what that thing can be, then the possibility must be unlimited? — ucarr

Lets clarify this one as well. There does not exist in the ether a 'possibility'. Its not out there just waiting. Its a logical conclusion of what is entailed by uncaused existence. If there are no restrictions, then anything is possible, yes. If we have an infinite deck of cards and each card type has an infinite amount in this deck then every card has an equal chance of being drawn. — Philosophim

If an uncaused existence entails a logical possibility, then, by the existence of the uncaused existence, the logical possibility also exists. Were this not the case, you could not make logical conclusions about the possibilities entailed by the uncaused existence. Possibility cannot be excluded from real things.

I don't know what the phrase, "Plays within the universe" means. — Philosophim

I'm asking you if causation began after the universe existed.

...it feels like you're using ambiguous language... — Philosophim

Can you quote my ambiguous language?

then before existence there could only be non-existence, and thus the transition from, "It simply was not, then it was," could only be brought about by non-existence? — ucarr

'by' is not a good word to use as it implies that non-existence caused existence. We have confirmed it does not. The simple expression is, "It is uncaused." Not brought about. Not 'by'. Uncaused. No rules, no restrictions, nothing prior, no existence, no nothing. Its was not, then it was. — Philosophim

Here is my unedited quote:

When you say there is no prior cause for the universe, why do you not think there is non-existence followed by the universe being caused [by] non-existence? Is it not clear that if, as you say, "...existence encapsulates everything that is," then before existence there could only be non-existence, and thus the transition from, "It simply was not, then it was," could only be brought about by non-existence? — ucarr

Here's more evidence you have written about the universe being the scope of all that exists:

This is the one area that I think you misinterpret from me. I am not saying "Something is formed from nothingness". Nothingness does not cause somethingness. Nothing and something are two very different things that do not cause each other. My point is only that existence has no outside cause for its being. There could be something that already exists for example, then something else appears elsewhere without prior cause. Arguably there's nothing to stop an overlap besides the statistically insignificant odds of it happening if something can appear anywhere at any time. — Philosophim

With you saying directly above "My point is only that existence has no outside cause for its being," I ask again, "Why do you not think there is non-existence followed by the universe being caused [by] non-existence? Is it not clear that if, as you say, "...existence encapsulates everything that is," then before existence there could only be non-existence, and thus the transition from, "It simply was not, then it was," could only be brought about by non-existence?"

When you describe the uncaused universe as "It simply was not, then it was," you present a sequence of non-existence followed by existence. For this change to happen, there has to be movement from non-existence to existence. This, therefore, is you implying that non-existence moved to existence, viz, non-existence caused existence.

By your own words "My point is only that existence has no outside cause for its being." you imply that "...existence incapsulates everything that is," and thus when you say "It simply was not, then it was," you imply that only non-existence could have moved to existence.

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

If something is not caused Ucarr, where are the rules? Where are the restrictions? There are none. Because there is nothing that caused it. Since there is nothing that caused it, there is nothing that restricts it from forming either. Give me an example of an uncaused existence that has restrictions and rules to see for yourself. — Philosophim

You acknowledge that something does not come from nothing. This is a restriction that invalidates "If something is not caused... where are the rules? Where are the restrictions?" when it is applied to "Existence has no outside cause for its being."

If "Existence has no outside cause for its being," and thus “existence encapsulates everything that is,” then outside of existence lies non-existence.

Following from these stipulations, we see that an uncaused universe totally encapsulating everything can only have non-existence outside of itself.

This means, therefore, that uncausation, due to its logical priority, applies to everything that exists, and so it must also lie outside of the universe.

This means that uncausation equals non-existence.

You present a sequence of non-existence followed by existence. For this change to happen, there has to be movement from non-existence to existence. This statement, therefore, has you implying that non-existence moved to existence. What could do the moving other than non-existence?

If we understand that non-existence cannot do any moving, then we understand that uncaused equals non-existence.

Give me an example of an uncaused existence that has restrictions and rules to see for yourself. — Philosophim

By my argument above, there is no un-stipulated uncaused existence.

If the entire scope of causation is a proper subset of the entire scope of existence, then proper subset cannot contain a cause beyond its superset, the entire scope of existence? — ucarr

Do you think the mathematical and logical precision of set theory is mis-applied to your theory? — ucarr

Yes, I am not using set theory. That's why I'm telling you that the 'set' example is not the argument, just an example to help you understand. The argument is still logical. — Philosophim

Since the argument from set theory supports your claim no first cause lies outside of the scope of existence, why do you object to it?

Why do you say you don't know what is the scope of existence given your earlier statement re-posted below:

I am saying that existence encapsulates everything that is. "Existences" are subdivided quantifications of existence. My note is that if you increase the scope of causality to its limit, there is no outside cause that creates existence, as whatever exists is part of existence. — Philosophim

Because I defined scope very clearly in the OP. Inserting, "Scope of all existence" is not a phrase I used or claimed. You're introducing something I've never asserted, and we don't want a straw man fallacy. — Philosophim

Since we see here from your quoted posting of the statement, (Click on your name at the bottom of your quoted statement #2 in this post and it'll take you to your original post (with your name on the top banner) posted in Thread 3 two days ago) that I'm quoting your own words verbatim, why do you deny making the statement?

Because I never introduced the scope of existence. I don't know what this is. Again, a straw man. — Philosophim

Since written evidence of you defining "scope of existence" is available for public viewing here in Thread 3 of your conversation "The logic of a universal origin and meaning," why do you deny writing it?

If the entire scope of causation is a proper subset of the entire scope of existence, then proper subset cannot contain a cause beyond its superset, the entire scope of existence? — ucarr

I don't know or care. The set is a tool to help you understand the concept, not a mathematically rigid logical model. — Philosophim

Do you think the mathematical and logical precision of set theory is mis-applied to your theory? If so, why have you chosen for your title: "The logic of a universal origin and meaning"?

So your theory has at its center the greater scope of existence with the lesser scope of causality inside of it? — ucarr

No, I'm just talking about the scope of causality. I don't know what the scope of existence is. — Philosophim

Why do you say you don't know what is the scope of existence given your earlier statement re-posted below:

I am saying that existence encapsulates everything that is. "Existences" are subdivided quantifications of existence. My note is that if you increase the scope of causality to its limit, there is no outside cause that creates existence, as whatever exists is part of existence. — Philosophim

Why don't you care about the relationship between the scope of existence and the scope of causation? Consider your earlier statement below:

The universe did not come 'from nothing'. Nothing did not create anything. It doesn't come 'from' anything. It simply was not, then it was. Or its always been. Either way, nothing made it into being or restricted what could have come into being. That is the only logical conclusion. — Philosophim

When you say nothing caused the universe and nothing restricted what it could become, you seem to be setting the stage upon which the chain of causation plays. Even though this statement makes it sound as if the unfettered scope and possible identity of existence is fundamental to the scope of causation, you're now clarifying that the relationship between existence and causation is not fundamental to your theory?

Are you saying that given a pre-existing universe, the uncaused beginning of the entire scope of causality must occur within the pre-existing universe? — ucarr

No, I'm saying if there is nothing, then something, that something is the universe. The universe is all that exists. If there is nothing that exists, there is no universe. — Philosophim

Is it true that the entire scope of causation plays within the universe? Does this agree with nothing caused the universe and nothing restricted what it could become?

Are you now saying the universe did come from nothing? — ucarr

No. Nothing and Something are not connected. Nothing cannot cause anything. Uncaused means uncaused Ucarr. Not that 'nothing' caused something. — Philosophim

I understand you to be saying non-existence and existence are closed and cannot interact.

By saying, "Before the entirety of existence existed, the universe could have been anything," are you implying: a) unlimited possibility pre-dated the universe; b) unlimited possibility had a causal influence upon the universe? — ucarr

No to both. There is no 'thing' that is generating probability. Its simply a a logical conclusion that results from understanding that if there is no prior cause for something being, then there are no rules for why it should or should not be. — Philosophim

When you say there is no prior cause for the universe, why do you not think there is non-existence followed the universe being caused by non-existence? Is it not clear that if, as you say, "...existence encapsulates everything that is," then before existence there could only be non-existence, and thus the transition from, "It simply was not, then it was," could only be brought about by non-existence?

Since you say, "...if there is no prior cause for something being, then there are no rules for why it should or should not be," why do you not think there being no rules governing being, not being and how to be amounts to unlimited possibility? Do you not agree that the universe of all existence cannot happen if it's not possible? Do you not agree that if possibility is necessary for a thing to happen, and if there are no restrictions on what that thing can be, then the possibility must be unlimited?