To me he looks like someone bored with his audience and wishing to be elsewhere. He could be a Biden spokesperson. Poor guy.

We aren't even close to the beginning of the chain — Philosophim

Of course not. Suppose instead we observe such a chain in nature, imbedding it in our minds. It now exists in two realms. Does an act of "measurement" affect FC?

The chain exists despite our ability or inability to define it. — Philosophim

Suppose I create the chain. Am I the FC? Or are electro-chemical processes in the brain FCs?

Let's consider chains that originate in the human mind. How does FC differ from physical chains observed in nature?

Again, on which timeline are you measuring this? — noAxioms

The word "timeline" is, of course, vital in the study of history. Over an era there is a timeline of wars, a timeline of governance, illnesses, etc. But the word used in this thread is a many-worlds fabrication. Its twin brother is "alternate history".

Is there any evidence of the existence of timelines in the physical world beyond time dilation?

Would you say the definitions constitute a first cause? — jgill

I don't quite understand the question — Philosophim

Suppose it is possible to prescribe each link in the chain. Is this description a first cause of the chain? It coincides with existence. Precedes it, actually.

If a well-defined causal chain extending back in time has no beginning or has arbitrary beginnings, does it have a first cause? Would you say the definitions constitute a first cause?

the banana republicanization of the US would be complete — 180 Proof

I am old and my memory fades, but did we become a Banana Republic during 2016-2020?

Maybe this time around . . . :chin:

I predict just before the presidential election Biden will declare war, possibly with Iran. It won't be pretty, but it will draw upon patriotism of the citizenry. It might work or it might not. Remember the disastrous departure from the now Taliban country.

The vagueness of first cause is troubling for me. It seems like category confusion. Suppose we have a finite or infinite regression. I know from my studies that certain infinite regressions have the same origin at each step back, but such an origin doesn't get counted as a first cause even if the regression is finite. Instead, a first cause is the existence of the regression or causal chain. In fact, no matter which kind of causal chain we consider, its first cause is always its existence. So a first cause is a metaphysical notion, not something specific to the chain or regression.

the only only conclusion is that a causal chain will always lead to an Alpha, or first cause. — Philosophim

In a metaphysical sense, of course.

@ChatGPT

:up:

(Sorry @Philosophim, but he sounds so authoritative I succumb to his reasoning.)

In thinking on causality, I have concluded that the nature of existence necessitates a "first cause". — Philosophim

OK. If the chain goes back to an origin lying outside of spacetime, that may be its first cause. If it continues back unbounded, possibly going outside spacetime, then the existence of the chain is its first cause. It looks like you cannot lose here.

Use math, but use it to address the points being made, not a straw man as you've done several times so fa — Philosophim

It's your "line", not mine. I am happy to say causal chains have a first cause. But more on intuition than logic.

No. I'm just trying to communicate to you in a way that you understand as you like math. The line represents a chain of causality. Each link represents the step in the chain. Can we have multiple chains that link together? Of course. But the first link is the start.

Now put the chain somewhere on a graph. The 'line''s many points are simply the links in the chain — Philosophim

Now we are considering a causal chain having an uncountable number of links. Even between two points close together on the line, an uncountable number of links. With quarks you strayed into quantum theory, now you have strayed into mathematics.

Fortunately I have actually investigated an approximation to a causal chain continuum:

${{G}_{n}}(z)={{g}_{n/n}}\circ {{g}_{n-1/n}}\circ \cdots \circ {{g}_{2/n}}\circ {{g}_{1/n}}(z)$

$G(z)=\underset{n\to \infty }{\mathop{\lim }}\,{{G}_{n}}(z)$

A dynamical system in which each "link" shrinks to a point. However, the measure of the set of points missed by this process is the length of the line. This is an aside having little to do with your thesis.

Its a shame philosophy is so riddled with sloppiness of language that sometimes arguments are sabotaged by examples to clarify. But that's life.

A first cause is a logical necessity where causality exists — Philosophim

You have patiently spelled out your logic. You are the origin of this thread, but clearly not the first cause.

At the end of the day if Trump gets elected it’s only the fault of the electorate. If trains don’t gain traction (pun intended), it starts with the consumer. — schopenhauer1

Damn. I get blamed for everything.

You are then inserting FC (first cause) into the "natural world", but it is ineffable. — jgill

Not really. Something which has no prior reason for its being was either always there, or not there, then there. Why is that hard to understand? — Philosophim

So it is an effable feature of nature. Then tell us about it. Or don't bother.

I have no problem with you saying there is a first cause. What difference does it make? If you choose to believe that, that's fine with me. But the discussion seems to me like an exercise in medieval scholasticism.

You insist on thinking this is about origins when I've clearly told you several times that a first cause is not an origin. You are making an amateur mistake both in philosophy and math. You and I well know that you can make an origin any set of numbers you want. That is not the same as the beginning of a line. — Philosophim

So the beginning of a line is a first cause? So if I perceive my imaginary line beginning at zero on the imaginary axis and have it extend up indefinitely I have violated your rule. I am confused.

You are making an amateur mistake ... in ... math.

I get this all the time from MU. :smile:

But please go on that trains to and from rural areas or at least, outer suburbs to grocery stores and cities- THIS is the one that is the most unbelievable and can never even be conceived in principle. — schopenhauer1

I'm trying. Hard to imagine a train track running down the road in front of my house. Would it stop at every house? Or make a reservation and the train will stop at your house.

This sounds so much better than having my car available anytime, and easily drivable to the Walmart about three miles away. Much better to wait for the neighborhood train.

If there is one let's call it "God" for convenience. Then we can consider the nature of God or not. — jgill

No. The entire point of this thread is to think of about a first cause as part of the natural world, and think about how it would apply to our universe as it is today. While yes, a God could be a possible first cause, it is one of an infinite number of possibilities — Philosophim

I used the word "God" as an example of what to call the uncaused cause, not referring to religion. You are then inserting FC (first cause) into the "natural world", but it is ineffable.

What caused an infinite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason. Its pretty simple isn't it? — Philosophim

Infinite causal chains go forward in time, also. I can easily write one down, and then I am a FC. I can also write one down going back in time, specifying FC.

I only mentioned I was an atheist because jgill assumed this was a theistic argument and that was preventing him from thinking clearly about the argument. — Philosophim

I admit. I can't think clearly about your argument. :roll:

The implication has missed me, I'm sorry :P — AmadeusD

That, in a courtroom case, you might construct a convincing argument arising out of nothing. :smile:

The logic is not about saying, "This is an uncaused cause." The logic of the OP is noting that logically, there must be an uncaused cause in our universe — Philosophim

If there is one let's call it "God" for convenience. Then we can consider the nature of God or not.

Its an unnecessary concept to understand the logic — Philosophim

Logically, it must exist. — Philosophim

So far, all my mathematical causation chains have first causes and origins. I'm satisfied with that. The philosophy in this thread seems ethereal.

The whole 'nothing requires something' seems totally incoherent. This thread may be illuminating. — AmadeusD

Perhaps it will lead to an unusual strategy for the courtroom for you. If so, let me know and I will fly to NZ for the occasion.

A quark appears in the universe, then persists — Philosophim

Not a disturbance of quantum fields? Sometimes by lab machinery? Are quantum fields uncaused causes? If so, how can you be sure?

Above my pay grade.

Sorry for my anger earlier, — Philosophim

Its emotional vomit when a person no longer wants to discuss the issue. — Philosophim

OK. Demonstrate an uncaused cause, where you are certain some process begins. No fair using random numbers or statistics to evade causation.

This thread has had a bumpy ride.

That small route can easily be re-allocated to a light rail. Simply put, all money that is supposed to go to more roads simply goes to rail. — schopenhauer1

Are you aware of what you are saying here? Where do you live?

I was just pointing out that the 'uncaused caused' is obviously limited in concept to be that which is not caused - eliminating everything we know, was the implication. — AmadeusD

I think its "uncaused cause", the very first movement in the chain. Where it starts. And, yes, I was issuing a challenge to produce one such "thing".

This has nothing to do with theological assertions jgill. Forget God. It floors me that I cannot get through to other atheists on this. Truly their fear of this being theological terrifies them to the point of being unable to think about it. I am an atheist. I wrote this. This is about base matter. Its very simple. Don't let fear prevent you from understanding it. — Philosophim

:lol: Sorry, but I had to work off the terror! I'm still shaking.

This is very simple. Either you believe there is a first cause or you do not believe there is a first cause. It's a matter of belief, not reasoning. Sounds like theology to me.

My daughter lives in NYC, population density approximately 30,000/sqMile. She has no car. I live in a S. Colorado community with an overall popdensity of 670/sqMile - but in the area where I live its more like 100/sqMile. She goes everywhere in the city on public transit, but there is no profitable way to provide those services out here on the prairie. We don't come close to "extremely remote".

I'll never forget a train trip I took from London to Wales in 1985. Meadow after meadow, trees here and there, a few cattle - idyllic with no human in sight. Then, all of a sudden, a huge apartment building crammed with people, squeezed together like sardines. Walled off in the midst of nature. No cars in sight.

It's a question of cramming people together. Some like it hot.

but what is the real substance of a radar waveform? — Gnomon

Pulsating electromagnetic energy? I consider this a real "thing", but the aether probably is not.

so do you know where I could find such an illustration of material absence? I'm serious. — Gnomon

How about radar.

On it's face I want to say, I don't know what 'the empty set' is to talk about, so am out of my depth. — AmadeusD

The Empty set is where things begin in mathematical set theory. Here, I'm saying unless a specific first cause can be determined the set of first causes is empty, there are none. I see this thread as revolving around a theological assertion.

Causal chains, however, is not. There is a mathematical theory of sorts that centers upon infinite compositions of functions, which are mathematical analogues of actual physical chains.

I watched a Nature of Things episode about the butt and its hole. Interesting, but just not the same without David Suzuki. — Vera Mont

Yes, he would have added an environmentalist's perspective to the subject. :cool:

(He and I were at U of C the same time).

I’m intending normal human interaction — AmadeusD

But none of us looks as good as you, all spiffed up in shirt, tie and vest. Most of us look like Lionino's avatar with a little hair. :gasp:

${{\left( a+b \right)}^{2}}\equiv {{a}^{2}}+2ab+{{b}^{2}}$ for all a and b.

but

$2x+1=3$ only if $x=1$

Some future events, especially those which are more immediate, would have a probability approaching an infinite value — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you mean probability approaching 1?

It is a basic ontological mistake to extend a causal chain into the future, — Metaphysician Undercover

In the physical world perhaps. In the idealized mathematical world it is fairly easy to do.

Everything, everywhere all at once.

Best picture winner last year. I have to say: meh. — Mikie

I agree. I gave up and turned to something else. Too much like a video game.

Barbie, on the other hand . . . . :smile:

The mathematical waveform is not a real thing — Gnomon

:up:

There are no material waveforms in Reality — Gnomon

Ocean waves might be considered as waveforms, although they are erratic. Radar, etc. are waveforms in reality.

So there exists semantics for infinitesimals (and their reciprocals) that does not imply the existence of infinite time, space or information (which is the unfortunate result of misinterpreting such numbers as literally denoting limitless extensions) — sime

Excellent posts. Very thought-provoking. :up:

That's what I do, take everything to the most base level, and lay it out plain and simple. But the simple confuses many because at the most simple level things are complex. — Metaphysician Undercover

:cool:

These are avenues of thought that lie close to First Causes. However, my mathematical approach provides tangible examples that can be picked apart. Otherwise the discussion devolves quickly into "Yes, they exist" and "No, they don't" - virtually theological banter.

And don't forget the other end of causal chains - do they terminate in the future, or peter out into nothingness. And by what mechanisms do they interact? At least these are not simply beliefs.

But, good thread, everyone. :smile:

quick-witted — jgill

:lol: Come on. — Mikie

I might be wrong. I had just watched a clip from a Biden press conference.

Philosophy should meet the same standard of clarity met by math — ucarr

Let's start with Being compared with, say, Complex number. :roll:

There is no limitation as to what a first cause could be — Philosophim

It is limited to things uncaused, surely. — AmadeusD

Unless a clear, non-debatable physical example arises the things uncaused may be the empty set.

I would assume that those who do not understand that this is a form of rounding off, and claim that the two expressions are actually the same, despite the glaring difference in meaning between them, are lost in self-deception. — Metaphysician Undercover

Thank you for illuminating this issue for the fifth graders on the forum.

Is this the way forward in philosophy - to create new expressions or words, then debate them? Actually, it resembles math in this respect, other than math defines the expression clearly.

↪jgill
You kidding? The last presidential debate between the two was a disaster for Trump. He completely derailed the debate, talked over everyone, including the moderator, and kept devolving into outright raves. — Wayfarer

I watched him for awhile in the recent town hall meeting in Iowa and he looked quick witted and vibrant. We'll see where all this goes. Curious times. I still think Michelle Obama could be chosen at the convention, with Biden retiring. She would have my vote.