↪Philosophim because talking with you is relatively pointless. — DifferentiatingEgg

Whereas talking with you in this post is objectively pointless. Have a good day and bring a better attitude next time.

Except that's what you were arguing for so, no, no I was not confused about anything. — DifferentiatingEgg

Clearly you are as I just told you it was not. You seem to have also lost your ability to continue to read past one sentence and address the full point I gave you. This does not make you look intelligent, but someone with a chip on their shoulder. Be better than that as I know you have the capability to.

No, in fact you're one of the people who tried using this bogus appeal towards me in your stupid is-ought fallacy post. "Good is" thus "Good ought to be." Tautology and Is-Ought at that... that you forgot and said I made it up... well, just goes to show how piss poor your memory is. — DifferentiatingEgg

You confuse the question "So if I desire to murder a child is that good?" as proof of an objective morality. It is not, nor is it ever claimed as proof. Its a question designed to make you look at your own stance on subjective morality. Often times subjective moralists like to criticize objective morality and simply assume subjective morality is the default. What they forget is that exact same criticism comes back their way.

The reason you get angry with it is because its effective. It forces you to defend subjective morality with more than 'people can do what they want and its fine'. Often times the desire to hold onto subjective morality isn't for a rational well thought out reason, but a selfish and lazy one. Thinking about morality is hard. Thinking that maybe there are some things you should do and not do that you don't personally want to is annoying. Its essentially one of the first questions to test if you've given the notion of subjective morality serious thought, or if its just because you like what it lets you do personally.

Any person who's seriously thought about subjective morality and its larger consequences will have a good answer to that question when it pops up. Have you really thought about the consequences beyond your own personal desires as to what that would entail if morality truly was subjective?

The argument is a cheap rhetorical tactic, relying on multiple logical fallacies, including: Appeal to Emotion, Appeal to Popularity, Begging the Question. — DifferentiatingEgg

Do you realize the irony of what you did here? Isn't this statement an appeal to emotion, popularity, and begging the question?

I'll start with the unimaginative low-hanging straw these moralists love to grasp for when making the foundation of their argument—the claim that "killing babies is objectively evil." — DifferentiatingEgg

Is that really what objective moralists claim? Are there no objective moralists who support abortion? Are objective moralists really so simple as to have a 5 word argument without any justification, clarification, or objective evidence? This seems to be an unimaginative low-hanging straw you're grasping here to make the foundation of your argument.

Eitherway their rigid morality collapses in on itself as a house made of straw. — DifferentiatingEgg

No, a five word sentence you invented for some imaginary objective moralist, which has no evidence for being objective, is collapsing because you designed it to. A straw man.

I sense you got into a conversation with someone recently and became frustrated. So you came here to vent and invent a scenario that you could win and express your belief in your self-perceived superiority to them without them actually being here to shut down your personal delusion. Color me shocked that a subjective moralist is a lazy thinker who creates poor arguments to look down on other people, and likely holds onto the 'philosophy' to justify their own less than stellar behavior towards others.

I've read about half in seriousness and about half skimming because of time this morning. What I can say so far: Well done. This is a serious paper that a LOT of work went into and there's no way I could answer such a piece without really looking into it in depth. I'll comment more later.

I see you made an extensive argument against God, — Gnomon

Then you have not read or did not understand the post. God if one of infinite possibilities and my argument makes God plausible.

If you can prove that the universe is self existent, then there will be no need for a transcendent Creator. :smile: — Gnomon

I did, and you're correct. But it doesn't eliminate its plausibility of being. Feel free to go over and try poking holes in it, I've been looking forward to someone doing so. Otherwise what else can I conclude except that its right?

This, I think, is close to Chakravartty's sense. He specifies "minimal constraints of internal consistency and coherence” -- so, broadly speaking, logical. In that sense, then, you're saying that such a stance is not voluntary or optional; we should choose it. — J

You should choose the most rational stance in X context if you are in X context. If you don't, then don't. Just clarifying there is nothing innate forcing anyone to choose anything.

This voluntarist position has to answer the objection made most recently by Christopher Pincock here (and in other places by other philosophers, of course). It is, in brief, that an epistemic stance that can, for instance, endorse scientific realism is made obligatory by a certain understanding of rationality. And this understanding (which, its proponents have to claim, is the only legitimate or defensible version) can be shown to rule out other epistemic stances as irrational. — J

Again, its contextually dependent. Its irrational to be rational if you want a conclusion that is not rational. If you want a conclusion to be rational, then it is rational to be rational. And what is rational is based on the context of the knowledge and tools you have available to you at the time.

How would you argue for that? Or do you think Pincock's position basically sets out that argument? — J

I think I have set it out straight clear and I really have no interest in what Pincock thinks. Comparing and contrasting two philosophers is way below my interest at this point. I care about arguments, not about what people might think or how they would defend something. If you think I'm in line with Pincock or against Pincock, great either way. Does the argument and point work? That's all that matters to me.

OK. And would you say that's a voluntary epistemic stance, in Chakravartty's sense? — J

It depends on what you are trying to achieve. If you're trying to achieve the most logical outcome, then you should. If your goal is to justify something you want and you don't care about it, then no. For example, lets say I want to believe in God. Being truly rational may not allow me to justify that belief. So instead of choosing the most rational outlook, I choose something more subjective and emotional.

Can I voluntarily decide to be rational vs less rational? Of course. There is nothing holding a person down requiring them to be rational. Lots of people hate it. They want what they want and they'll use any tactic to get it. There are of course consequences for being less rational in life, and a person has to decide if paying those consequences for being less rational is worth the outcome they want.

Or perhaps I should ask, do you think there's a single version of what is rational -- and hence what should inform our epistemic stance -- when doing science? — J

Yes. I note it in the paper I linked. First, use deductive knowledge based off of context, resources, and time. Where there are limitations, use inductions based off of hierarchy of induction. So in order of cogency, probability, possibility, plausibility, and irrational.

From such evidence, he concluded that some kind of rational intelligence must be "behind" it. — Gnomon

Well I logically prove that wrong in the linked post. Feel free to point out if its wrong and if Whitehead would be able to counter it.

Its a good stab, but 'stances' can be greatly simplified to 'contexts'. The idea that there is one 'this is rational' context misses the point of language and identity. What is rational in one context may not be rational in another context. Prior to the discovery of oxygen, phlogiston theory was a rationally considered theory. With today's knowledge it will be absurd, and 200 years from now oxygen theory might seem laughable as it is replaced with a better one.

If you want to know about knowledge within contexts, read here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1 We create our own contexts and knowledge is essentially deduction within that context. With that we can rationally also figure out induction. I think this explains what you're asking far better than this theory here.

But, why do we need a God-concept anyway? Typically it's supposed to provide a basis for Morality, explain the Existence of the universe, and ground the search for Meaning and Purpose in human life. — Gnomon

Here I've conclusively proven the only thing we can conclude about the existence of the universe. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15722/the-logic-of-a-universal-origin-and-meaning/p1 Anything could have happened, and there is no innate meaning or morality behind it.

If you want to consider an objective morality, go here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15203/in-any-objective-morality-existence-is-inherently-good/p1 I conclude that all of existence essentially must be good in any objective morality, then build it up to evaluation existences and determine which ones are better than others.

Its much better to do philosophy then do philosophy about process.

But the question I wish to ask is, in some sense, aren't all universal moral systems inevitably going to be flawed in some way and therefore rendered futile? — Dorrian

No. If its a true universal moral system, it will be objective. Not saying it can't be improved upon or more discovered, but it would be a solid science at that point.

What is the point in laying out moral edicts that are so abstract and impractical when the layman already has a fairly solid intuitive grasp of how to act ethically based off sheer compassion and, for want of a better term, "common sense"? — Dorrian

1. AI. We are rapidly creating intelligence without morality. This is incredibly dangerous.

2. "Common sense" is not so common and really just a comfortable cultural subjectivity based on context. So for the common everyday, sure. But I also don't need a ruler to see if one person is taller than another. Its pretty useful when I have to use specifics, height matters, etc. Moral precepts would be for the higher levels situations. If they're generally accurate we would think they wouldn't contradict the base moral too much. Essentially an objective morality should measure how 'tall' something is, not declare that the taller individual is somehow shorter.

If you're serious about it and not just lamenting, I've done a serious attempt at an objective morality here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15203/in-any-objective-morality-existence-is-inherently-good/p1 Its a several part series, so ask for clarification on the first part but then go onto the second part linked at the bottom of the OP when you're ready.

Sam this isn't the place to proselytize NDEs. You've made your arguments and a discussion has been had. Do these add anything new to discuss philosophically?

I find questions like 'what is masculinity' to be rather silly, especially on a forum such as this. You will just get people pulling some idea out of their ass. I also think the question cannot be answered because in my view what x is depends on the interaction of people with x. The question "What is masculinity?" presupposes some essentialist answer to the question. — Tobias

That was my point. If you use terminology that has a high variance of answers and disagreement, its not good terminology to use. These words are usually emotionally biased which doesn't lead to good discussion.

Now that is a fine question in its own right but then I would not get to the topic I think warrants discussion, namely why a certain political view that would be considered far out of the ballpark 20 years ago is very popular nowadays. — Tobias

Is it though? Trump was also elected 8 years ago. We had George W. Bush 8 years prior to Obama. If you want to cover that case, that's not bad, but you'll need to present why you think that.

I could go into that of course and it would be good, but it would also extend the length of the post and not make it very suitable for a forum like this. — Tobias

Ha ha! I struggle with post length myself so I understand. But if you want to make a clear argument and a post worth discussing you have to either increase the length or focus the topic down to more digestible points. The problem is you through a lot of assumed terminology and concepts out there then expect a serious discussion on your end points. You have to build to that. Assuming, "We all agree on this and its obvious" isn't going to get you anywhere. I would try to get to your end points without the terminology of masculinity and see if you can do better. Political science is a very messy and complex subject, and I doubt that if you really closely examine it you'll find that the 'manosphere' is a major part of it. Pundits and pop culture analysis are often done for clicks and attention, not careful philosophical diagnosis.

Let me ask you, where do you disagree with Hofstede, where do you find him not convincing? Do you think these values are not commonly associated with male or female identities? — Tobias

Sure, here's a start:

ego oriented / relationship oriented
money and things are important / quality of life and people are important

Utter bullshit. I know tons of women who are money grubbing evil shits who are all about their ego. I know tons of men who are humble men who sacrifice daily for their family and friends. And vice versa. There is nothing about being a man or woman that innately indicates you're going to be focused more on one or the other. You need statistics and evidence for this. Otherwise this is punditry and pop science, not a real analysis. Honestly, this is a topic all on its own to discuss.

Of course plenty of men do not fit the definition. I bet not one man or woman actually embraces all these values to the furthest extent. There will be a lot of women that embrace values associated with masculinity and vice versa. That is also not the point of an ideal type. It is a way to make certain phenomena visible by simplifying and exaggerating certain traits. If it is totally out of touch with reality, then it should be dropped of course. — Tobias

You can debate whether it should be dropped. We're here to dive in carefully and dissect lazy premises, emotional bias, and assumed conjecture. My point is that you've brought in a very debatable set of premises that you need to analyze more carefully before getting to your end argument.

Consider this quote from the CAWP website: "Women tend to be more supportive of gun control, reproductive rights, welfare, and equal rights policies than men. They tend to be less supportive of the death penalty, defense spending, and military intervention". — Tobias

Now this is good analysis. But is this evidence that means they're more concerned with relationships than ego? No. A lot of these ideologies are supported out of selfishness and fear, not communal interest. Just as many who don't support these policies will say its because they think the community is better off even if it might put themselves more at risk.

As for your questions on the manosphere, all interesting questions, but not the focus of my question. — Tobias

Then don't include it in your topic. If you don't want questions about it or it to be a possible focus, don't bring it up.

Data indicates that economic concerns were the most dominant reason for voters to vote Republican, but those do not explain for instance why there is a huge gender gap in the US among young voters. As many observers expected before the election, there was a significant gender gap among young voters. Young women preferred Harris to Trump by a 17-point margin: 58% to 41%. But young men preferred Trump by a 14-point margin: 56% to 42%. — Tobias

Again, these are good statistics. But have you given ample reason to explain this? What are men concerned with more than women? Start with that instead of masculinity and femininity.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. For me the terms are useful because they enable me to make an analysis and present it to you If the analysis goes wrong I like to know where. — Tobias

Right. My feedback is telling you that you're using controversial terms without adequate argument as to why we should use them. You're going A -> B -> C and you haven't proved A or B because you want to get to C. A common desire, but I'm letting you know that you can't just gloss over A and B if you want to have C seriously discussed. This isn't Reddit. You have to build your case carefully here.

What is also lacking to my knowledge at least is a discursive analysis of images of masculinity and femininity among right wing populist parties. I wanted to undertake such an analysis, but alas, I want a lot of things... — Tobias

I get it. And I hope you don't take my criticism the wrong way. You've made a good attempt to discuss something you wanted. The attempt is made with intelligence, it just mistakenly glosses over too many controversial points and needs better focus on what you're trying to discuss. To your point sociology and philosophy can be pseudoscience if done improperly. I'm attempting to point out a more proper methodology that lets your post be less opinion and pop-conjecture, and more logical and reasoned points.

By all means do a better job. I tried to provide definitions actually used in sociology. Two lines are a bit disappointing, but I am happy hearing where the argument goes wrong. — Tobias

Alright. First, I generally frown on one sided political topics in philosophy. Politics and religion are two ideologies that make people extremely defensive and shut their brains off. We don't argue for Christianity or Islam here, just like we shouldn't argue for Republican or Democrat here. Good topics are "What is God? What would prove God?" A good political discussion would be, "What is masculinity? What would prove masculinity?"

Plenty of people will disagree with your definitions of masculine and feminine. Citing an author from 24 years ago doesn't lend credence. What is the justification for these definitions? How do we know his ideas aren't crack pot? You're coming in with something very sociological and often considered pseudoscience.

How would I fix this? Talk about men. If men are having problems, what are their problems? Is this all men? Because plenty of men do not fit in with this definition of 'masculinity'. Define what the manosphere is. Explain what is wrong with it. Are all men in the manosphere? Is it some men? What men get drawn to the manosphere? Why does the manosphere encourage misogyny?

After you get past all of that, why are these particular men voting for the right? What is on the right that attracts these men? What about the men who voted for the right who aren't in the manosphere?
Are these men the only reason the right won last election? Why is it oppressive misogyny and not economic perception or people feeling like government wasn't serving them?

My overall point is your approach if very 'reddit'. A pop psychology opinion that states terms as if they were simply agreed upon facts and asks us to think deeply about them. Instead you should be questioning your terms as much as we are. Present to us why these terms are useful and concrete. That would be a philosophical topic worth discussing.

Social pressure is used to cook a society the way certain powerful individuals want. The advantage of this is we can prevent a society from leaning into its lesser emotive motivations like greed and crime through laws and stories that dissuade this.

On the flip side, it can also be used to get people to think certain things are important that are not. There is absolutely no rational reason to buy a diamond for an engagement ring, its a manufactured social pressure that abuses a male's desire to provide some indicator of love and commitment to a woman. Social order constrains our desires while advertisement tells us which desires are safe to unleash, and how we should unleash them (preferably by paying a lot to someone else).

With threads like these, I honestly have to squint to find anything I find vaguely agreeable. It's like you all are living in a different world or something. — Tzeentch

100% agree. This feels more like a pop culture argument with very poor definitions of masculinity and femininity that are tools to argue a political point.

Another popular position is so-called eternal oblivion. Simply put, there’s nothing at all after we die. After all, if it’s the body that produces consciousness, there’s no reason to believe in any continuity of life once the body ceases to function. — Zebeden

Its not a popular position, its the only rational conclusion we can draw at this point in science and history.

What bothers me, though, is that there is no reason to believe that consciousness cannot reoccur again. It already happened once – I’m conscious now. Why wouldn’t this phenomenon occur again? But if it can happen, then it’s no longer eternal oblivion. It appears to me as some sort of reincarnation. — Zebeden

Not quite. You are conscious because of the way matter and energy is arranged. In theory if we could copy your exact physical make up we could reproduce your consciousness. The funny thing is, "you" wouldn't be you. If you still existed there would be two different consciousnesses, one in each body. Meaning that if you died and we reconstructed you...it wouldn't be you either.

Even if there's a heaven, its merely a reproduction of you here. It would be a new body and brain constructed with the pertinent memories of your now dead body. Which, if that's the case, why wait for you to die at all? If you were good, wouldn't heaven just reproduce you up there at your prime? Its not like your old shell will ever know. Why wait until you're old? Maybe if you're really good heaven makes a few copies of you as you age, each needed for different purposes.

The thing is, there is only one 'you'. This is it. It can't actually be reproduced as you in that location and moment in time is a seminal event of irreproducibility. So...better live well. There is no do over, no eternal reward or punishment. There is only now and how far you can carry the future version of you after present you dies.

There's a large difference in outlook between knowing that things are determined vs the idea that nothing can know what that is. Even measuring the entire system is part of the determination. You would then need to measure yourself measuring yourself and then of course time has passed and...in the end you can really only know what happened and make a best guess at what will happen.

So even if there is determinism its not like we can fully understand it.

Hi Kranky. First, what is 'certainty'? Is it being free from doubt? Because I can doubt is just a state of mind in which you are suspicious that something isn't true, not that it actually isn't true. What you're likely looking for is 'know'. Can we know things? Yes.

First, take the fact that you experience. By experience I mean the flood of every sensation and awareness that you are in one big blob. If you can't experience, then you can't doubt that you experience can you? So you know that there is experience.

Further, you are able to part and parcel that experience into 'experiences'. "That" is a field of grass. "That' is a blade of grass. "That" is a piece of a blade of grass. How do you know you can do this? Well, if you don't exist, you can't say, "I don't exist". If you can't parcel experience into 'experiences' or discrete identities, you can't form the words, "I can't know anything." Your ability to speak and think and yes, even doubt, confirm that these are things you know.

For knowledge is simply a deduction of one's experiences that do not contradict reality. Is there much you can know beyond that? Yes. If you're interested in more, feel free to read here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context There is a summary a few posts down if it helps.

Therefore, methodology is the most important discipline in the philosophy of mind. The focus is not on the ontological questions about the "essence" of the spirit or consciousness, but on the critical reflection of our methods of cognition and descriptions. A methodologically reflected philosophy of mind does not primarily investigate what consciousness "is", but how we grasp it, describe it and examine it.
This methodological shift shifts the focus from the search for the "true essence" of the mind to the analysis of the conditions and limits of our cognition. — Wolfgang

Well said. Still, there is room for "What is consciousness" as a philosophical puzzle. While I agree that your approach is more likely effective in actually making progress and discoveries, the former is an idle plaything for newer philosophers to dabble in. Let them have their fun, then direct them towards this when they start to think that anything in their game of consciousness actually applies to anything beyond speculation and wonder.

So to repeat myself: "What is" is not true. "What is" is not truth. "What is" is not "the Truth". Etc. "What is" simply is. — EricH

And I don't think we disagree on this, I'm just trying to add the wrinkle of context in here. If I say, "Mark is an unmarried man" then say, "Its true", its true for that logical preposition. There may be no Mark I'm referencing at all besides the abstract concept.

Again - no! You keep equating our sentences with "what is". True sentences describe "what is" - they are not equivalent to "what is". — EricH

I agree with this depending on the context. In some contexts we are equating our sentence as 'what is' like in the logic preposition I mentioned above. But this is really out of my major point which is that truth in any context still contains 'what is' at its base. The subject of what is, be the sentence itself or what the sentence is describing, is based on context.

I really don't think we're all that off from one another. No need to agree or disagree if you feel the discussion has reached its end, those are just my thoughts on the subject.

Therefore using reason-based thought for God is necessarily a showing of a lack of faith in God. — DifferentiatingEgg

That's one way to view it. Another is to convince others who do not have faith why they should. If I could present a reasonable argument that persuaded a person to eventually have faith, that's pretty useful if I think my own faith is right.

Faith is personal. Arguments are for others to join your outlook on life. Faith alone rarely convinces others to join your outlook and so you need argument beyond faith.

Well this is horrifically dystopian! Who gets to decide what empathy is? We have massive debates on moral grounds as it is, who is going to say, "Yeah, don't have empathy since you believe X ideology, lets fix that". Does empathy mean you believe in a God? That a transwoman is an actual woman? That all of your money should be donated to an organization for the poor? Or how about having immense empathy with starving kids in Africa, so its ok to accept that you have food rations from the government?

The problem is we're altering one human being for a perceived social benefit. Who gets to determine that social benefit? Why should society benefit from my personal alteration instead of absorbing the costs of a different outlook on things? Or is having a difference of opinion "Dooming humanity" now?

You don't need brain alterations to fix humanity and create a harmonious society. You create a society that serves the needs and wants of individuals and in return they'll support it.

Alright Ucarr, we've been back and forth over this for days now and I'm consistently seeing that you're not interested in discussing anymore as you're starting to descend into insults like 'any ninth grader could...' This discussion is no longer a discussion, but a mission on your end. The quality of your posts has decreased. I cannot discuss with a person who doesn't care about anything but the outcome they want. I'm having my statements ignored and you insisting I'm saying one thing when I'm clearly not.

You are misunderstanding this discussion at this point. My job is not to convince you. I cannot convince anybody of anything they don't want. Your job is to convince me, and I am actually open to being wrong. I have been wrong many times, I'll be wrong many times in the future, and it may be that my argument IS wrong. But if it is wrong, that takes someone who's engaging honestly with good ideas that target the argument. None of what you are saying at this point is on track or giving me pause to consider, and I do not view you as an honestly engaging person at this point. As this is descending into hostility, points are continually repeated with no evolution, and I am constantly having to point out the same issues again and again, I see no further value in continuing this conversation.

Its been fun until now, so lets end it on a higher note. Another discussion another time Ucarr! :)

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.

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.

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

Yes, and I apologize for the frustration on this. I'll try to remember that you post in pieces going forward.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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".

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.

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

And what caused this exactly?

No, unexplainably always existed, not necessarily always existed. — ucarr

So... there's no cause? So its uncaused?

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.

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.

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.

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. — ucarr

Because I had literally just posted a list of replies to your previous two posts while you were posting that one.

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. — ucarr

The above sentence your quote is mentioning is run-on nonsense Ucarr. You don't get to post poor grammer and explanations, then when I ask for clarity in your writing, you say, "I was doing stuff." Explain in detail. Break down your points and offer a clear conclusion.

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.

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.

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.

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

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. — ucarr

If 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.

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.

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".

I'll never understand the level of invective out here. I mean let's face it - we're all a bunch of eccentric cranks out here. Let's have some fun, but don't take it too seriously. — EricH

Exactly! And if we don't agree, who cares as long as it was a fun conversation right?

Suffering succotash! You seemingly just agreed with me above that the word "truth" identifies statements that are true. So I most definitely am not talking about "truth as a state of reality". To repeat, I am talking about the word "truth" as a property of sentences/propositions. — EricH

Yes, truth is used slightly differently depending on the context, but at its base, is what I noted 'true'? If true refers to the property of sentences and propositions, isn't a true sentence "what is" while a false sentence is "what is not"?

For example,

a. A bachelor is an unmarried man.
b. Mark is unmarried.
c. Mark is a man
Therefore Mark is a bachelor.

In each case we say the premises are true, so the conclusion is true. In the context of this true at its base still means, "What is". The premises are what is, and the conclusion is 'what is'. If B were false, so if "Mark is unmarried = false = 'what is not' then the conclusion would also be false or 'what is not'

Context is always considered, but at its core, there's an underlying base to words that we should find. My challenge for you is to see if you can come up with a context of truth that doesn't contain 'what is' at its base, and a context of falsity that doesn't contain at its base 'what is not'.

Per your request, I've removed any reference to knowledge and belief from this point. What do you think?

I apologize for running a day behind on my responses. — ucarr

Oh, no worry! In the future if you haven't completely answered everything you intended to, let me know a the bottom so I can wait until you're finished.

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? — ucarr

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

I didn't understand this Ucarr. Feel free to read my other replies though to see if this needs a repass.

Wonderful post. Just had to comment. :)

I already told you I'm not going to debate 'zero' with you. There are certain things so far outside of a discussion they can be dismissed, and this is one of them.

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. — ucarr

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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

No, I am using language to describe a logical conclusion. You have not proven that it is impossible.

Language, you acknowledge, empowers you to say things existentially impossible, and that's what we're dealing with in our debate. — ucarr

Feel free to prove why its existentially impossible. I'm able to demonstrate why a thing cannot exist and both not exist at point X in Y moment for example. You have not demonstrated the impossibility of an uncaused existence.

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

I agree with you until the last part. Logic does not ever have to be consistent with what we experience if we have not experienced it yet. That's a poor approach to new discoveries. The first person who invented flight was doing something people didn't think was possible. Many times in new fields of chemistry the normative expectation of outcome is not delivered where the logical expectation did because of our experienced ignorance at the time.

What we can both agree on is that none of us have experienced the origin of existence. So all we have to go on is logic. Logically, my conclusions currently stand invalidating all other logical conclusions to the contrary. You cannot cite existence as we understand it through causation as evidence that uncaused existence cannot be, because we're talking about an existence that isn't caused. Saying, "Caused existence does X, therefore uncaused existence can't be" is irrational. We're talking about something new beyond the horizon Ucarr. All we have is logic, so presented 'evidence' of causal reality is moot in proving whether uncaused existence is existentially impossible or not.

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. — ucarr

Already did in the OP. You still haven't countered it yet and keep going on other tangents. Feel free to indicate why the OP's conclusion is wrong.

Repetition of your declaration takes the form of circular reasoning that declares, "It simply was not, then it was. 'because I say so.'" — ucarr

No, its the conclusion of the OP not circular logic. I get to declare my conclusion as long as you haven't countered the logic that leads to that conclusion.

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.

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. — ucarr

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.

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. — ucarr

Causality, not 'uncausality'. I'm getting tired of repeating a very basic premise and you either ignoring this or not even attempting to comprehend it. This is coming across as contrarian because you don't like it personally, not because its illogical.

Now to the question "What is it for something to be uncaused?" I think being uncaused means an existing thing pre-existing causation. — ucarr

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.

If we reason from the premise of eternal universe, we avoid non-existence and also we avoid origin of existence. — ucarr

Not at all. What caused an eternal universe to be Ucarr? There is no prior cause, therefore it is uncaused. And if it is uncaused its not bound by any rules as to what have been, or could not have been. If we agree that an uncaused existence exists, then the second part is what has be addressed.

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?

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 — ucarr

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.

I'm being completely fair here. Apply every criticism you applied to a finite universe to an infinitely existing universe. What caused the state to be forever? Where did the energy come from? Why is it this type of universe and not another type? The same answer. "It just is". There is no link, nor cause. It just 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. There is no prior condition for its eternal existence vs finite existence. There is no reason why its always been. That's the entire point. That's what uncaused means.

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. — ucarr

So that applies to an eternal universe? So there was something pre-existent to an eternal universe that created an eternal universe? Again, you're not using uncaused, but 'caused'. Uncaused has no pre-existence. Symmetry and conservation laws are all causal laws from what currently exists.

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.

You know you have a problem with universe incepting from nothing. You try to solve this problem by moving to uncaused universe. — ucarr

Its as if I've given a very specific argument, told you that argument, then asked you to address that argument. :) Of course something can't incept 'from' nothing. That's causation. I'm demonstrating that all causality leads to a logical end point where something is uncaused. It so happens that 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.

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.

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.

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? — ucarr

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.

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!

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.

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.

You say "uncaused" is a logical consequence of the full scope of causality. You're describing something that exists prior to the universe. — ucarr

Of course it can't exist prior to the universe as nothing existed. You're just flailing now and this is going nowhere.

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

No I don't claim all of existence is an uncaused situation, as once something is in the universe it enters into causality. I feel like I'm saying the same things over and over again and you're either ignoring them or don't understand.

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.

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.

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. — ucarr

This is just nonsense.

Causal chains are subsets of the universe? — ucarr

No.

Alright Ucarr, I asked you to refocus the argument in three ways. You didn't bother. Instead I get a post of half written incomplete ideas, repeats of already refuted comments, and nothing new. You continued to use non-existence, you continue to try for subsets when I've said this isn't a set exercise, and I didn't see a single part where you attempted to apply your own questions to your own notion of an eternally existing universe.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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." — ucarr

No worry, thanks for clarifying.

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? — ucarr

I would agree with this.

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.

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.

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

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. — 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.

At, X time
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? — ucarr

I don't care. The real question is, "What caused the Big Bang?" Was it caused, or uncaused?

Alright, we're starting to cover the same points again and again. Let me help focus this conversation to a point we can make progress on.

1. I want you to erase the word 'non-existence' from your vocabulary for now. "Caused and uncaused". Intentional or not, you keep writing sentences that imply non-existence has anything to do with uncaused existence. You do not need the term 'non-existence' in any way for now.

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.

3. I want you to take every criticism you make and first apply it to your idea of a universe that has always existed. Can a universe that has always existed be caused by something else Ucarr? Unless you surprise me, we both know the answer is "No". Then you can agree with me that uncaused things are possible.

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.

Those are rather sweeping statements. As it happens, I do believe that the grasp of, insight into, what is truly so is attainable and is the proper subject for philosophical contemplation. — Wayfarer

I do as well, but the best we can do in that is use knowledge. You might want to check out my post here https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1

What is objective is understood to be just so, independent of your or my or anyone’s ideas about it. ‘Reality’, said Philip K. Dick, ‘is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.’ — Wayfarer

There is a classic mistake that is often made in using the term objectivity. Objectivity and subjectivity refer to knowledge, but sometimes they are confused with references to truth. Knowledge is not truth. Knowledge is a system of logic applied to a circumstance that produces the most reasonable outcome that is not contradicted by reality.

The easiest is subjective knowledge. Your experience is something you know. Currently there is no way for another person to know your subjective viewpoint of the world as it is limited to only the being that is having the subjective experience.

Objective knowledge is a logical claim about the world that can be understood and known apart from subjective experience. For example, I can introduce the concept of math and teach it to someone else. I can demonstrate and prove scientific concepts like gravity. Whether I exist to subjectively experience it is irrelevant to the fact that the objective notions and proofs can be taken, learned, and concluded in the same way by any being with the necessary minimal intelligence.

Truth is simply 'what is'. There really is no objective or subjective truth, and its a misapplication of the terms. There is objective and subjective knowledge. Its true that a person can have objective and subjective knowledge. And it may be true that one's subjective knowledge actually does not capture truth, while one's subjective knowledge may capture what is true. There is no objective or subjective truth. Just knowledge.

Further confusion sometimes results in people thinking that 'objectivity' is some thing out there independent of a subject. Objectivity is an approach to knowledge, and knowledge can only be held and understood by something that can realize what it has, or a subject itself. The difference in subjectivity and objectivity are again the limits of human logic and provability. I cannot logically prove to someone else what it is for me personally to experience 'redness'. But we can objectively note that a wavelength of X frequency is red. It is about whether the knowledge we have can be packaged to others provably, or remains a private outlook.

The point is, for all of its objective power, science also contains a fundamental lacuna, a gap or an absence, at its center. How, then, can we expect it reveal what is truly so? What kind of ‘truth’ are we left with, if we ourselves are not part of it? — Wayfarer

We do not have truth, we have knowledge. No science or valid methodology of knowledge asserts that it has the truth. It contains what is most reasonable to conclude within the logical and applicable limits we have. Science has little to say about your subjective experience as it is impossible to capture. Its not just science, but anyone. Even the closest person in your life doesn't know what your actual subjective experience is.

As such, we can't truly communicate the subjective. We can attempt to. I can talk about red and how I like it, and you can only take your subjective experience about red and believe that in some way its similar to another. But communication of a subjective experience is a nebulous endeavor sustained on faith and shaped by the subjective world lens of every individual. The only way out of it is to find some common outside variables that we can all logically agree are most reasonable, which is of course objectivity.

So we do include experiences where we can like, "Happiness, sadness, etc." We see there is enough commonality in behavior and expression and biological reactions that we can create a broad approximation that allows the variety of subjective human experience to relate to it. But that's currently the best we can do.

First, a fantastic post and analysis! I rarely get this deep of an analysis, I'll hopefully rise to the occasion.

"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

Correct. What is 'impossible' cannot form for example. Impossible being a the existence of both a state, and at the same time the complete negation of that state.

What i am essentially saying is that reason (logic) is the basis for the universe in any form it takes. — punos

Correct, though I would slightly recast that into, "Logic is an essential principle in any existence."

This primordial time had no cause, as it is the reason for cause. — punos

Your idea of time is interesting, though for my purposes I'm not trying to assert any one thing which has to be uncaused. Still, great read and neat idea. :)

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?

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. — ucarr

Fantastic analysis, I agree.

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. — ucarr

Ok, I think I see more clearly what you're asking now. Once a an existence 'is' then it is defined by what it is and how it interacts with other things or 'itself' if such a thing is possible. What happens when there is a 'touch' between this and some other 'that' is the rule of that existence. If something has causality then during that 'touch' or interaction, the forces and reaction imparted by and to it make an outcome.

Once a thing is existent, it is therefore within the realm of causality. Does this answer your point?

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. — ucarr

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.

"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.

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. — ucarr

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.

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.

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".

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. — ucarr

Yes, I agree! I did not understand this the first time you were trying to communicate this, but I've also mentioned this type of concept before.

It'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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

No.

Thank you for the conversation and your insights. :)