This notion of first cause being the existence of the chain is no more than interesting speculation. When I speak of a chain receding to infinity that doesn't leave much to grasp at philosophically, so one resorts to the "being" of the chain , like yanking on an emergency cord. — jgill

I really wish you would stop demeaning the post without anything but a deriding opinion. I have answered your questions and critiques, so I would like a little more respect for what I've written here. Either demonstrate the argument is false, or not.

What I find in metaphysics is logical demonstrations as to why this idea of "a chain receding to infinity" is unrealistic. — Metaphysician Undercover

I also agree, but I decided to take an approach of, "What if it was real?" Turns out it still results in a first cause so the idea of infinite prior causality is moot.

That a first cause is necessary may be proven logically, but it does not follow that there can be no reason for the first cause. — Metaphysician Undercover

Oh, I never claimed that there was no reason for a first cause. The reason for a first cause is that, "It exists without prior cause." Meaning that there is no other reason for why it exists. If there is no other reason for its existence, there cannot be any rule which made it come into being. Meaning the only logical conclusion is that its existence is truly random as I've defined above.

Because of this difference we must class it as categorically different from all the other causes in that causal chain, and the same for all the other causal chains. In other words, the "first cause" does not abide by the inductive (general) principles by which we describe all the other causes of causal chains, it cannot be observed to have a cause, therefore we must categorize it separately. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, its category is merely the first right? Categorizing it or naming it differently doesn't make it any different from what I've noted. The only difference is that it does not have a prior cause. Trying to overcomplicate it doesn't change what it is.

You say that the first cause is not explained by anything other than itself, but this claim is not justified. What is justified is that there is no cause for the first cause, "cause" being as described in the sense of the causal chain. But now we've determined a different type of "cause". — Metaphysician Undercover

You've lost me here. How is it different? If something is not caused by something else, how is my claim not justified? I hear the claim, but I'm not seeing the evidence or reasoning. The first cause is something which is not explained by something else, but is a cause when it interacts with other existences forming the normal chain of causality we understand. Its not different besides the fact that it is an uncaused existence.

Since we have now determined the reality of a different type of cause, there is nothing to indicate that there cannot be any reason for the first cause, the first cause being a completely different type of cause itself. Therefore there could be a reason for the first cause, that reason being a type of cause which is other than a "cause" as described in the causal chain. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, there is no reason that this follows. The reason for the first cause is its own existence simply being. If you have another cause 'cause' a first cause, its not a first cause. This is a clear contradiction Metaphysical.

What this means is that it is not predictable in the same way that other causes are predictable. But this does not imply that it is not predictable in an absolute way. — Metaphysician Undercover

Can you explain why? I've presented a clear argument why it is absolutely not predictable which I'll post again. The reason why patterns, rules, and laws happen is because there is a solid reason besides itself. A reason that does not involve itself, is a cause that is separate from itself. A first cause can have no other cause besides itself. There can be no outside constraint that forces it to be. There can be no outside constraint that forces it not to be. It simply is. Thus it is completely unpredictable and not constrained by any outside cause.

If you say its not absolutely random, how? What is causing it to not be absolutely random? That's the question that you'll have to answer without introducing another cause.

Once we start to identify the real existence of first causes, we may start to understand that they have patterns of occurrence, and that they are, through some mathematical principles, predictable. That there is not a cause for their occurrence, in the sense that "cause" is used to describe the causal chain, does not imply that their occurrence is absolutely unreasonable. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is almost true. First, first causes will never be predictable no matter how much we study them. Study assumes that what is consistent today will be consistent tomorrow. The appearance of a first cause can never be consistent, because some other cause was making it consistent. It would be consistent if it just happened to appear consistent.

Now what I have done in other posts is compared the likelihood of a first cause appearing based on the limitations of space and time. I do not promise that my math is perfect at all and I was hoping for someone to give their own take on it, but it seems that we can use cardinality to demonstrate that first causes would most likely be small. If anything can happen in a cube of space, there is a much higher degree of cardinality that something would appear within in a slice of that cube than the cube itself. I can go into more detail next time if you wish, but we need to settle the point of absolute randomness first.

Back to the point, no amount of study will ever show a first cause to be consistent, because the definition of a first cause prevents there from being any other cause which would constraint it to consistency.

Therefore you do not have the premises required to conclude that the first cause is not caused by anything. It may just be caused by a different type of cause. — Metaphysician Undercover

This right here is the crux. No, this is a contradiction. A first cause cannot, by definition, be caused by another cause.

Taking this example, "the big bang", we trace the causal chain to that event, and as you say, we determine it to be a "first cause". This does not imply that there is "nothing prior to the big bang. — Metaphysician Undercover

No. If it is proven and determined to be a first cause, and it is a first cause, there is nothing prior to the big bang. That's the definition. Anything which has a prior cause does not meet the criterion of a first cause.

Knowledge isn't truth; it is applied when someone has discovered the truth. — Ludwig V

I've written my own viewpoints on knowledge that I've developed over years here if you're interested. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1 There's a summary by the immediate next poster that nails the paper 100%, so feel free to check it out if you're curious.

And further questions will develop. And people will call all of these things causes. You can insist they are not, but that won't affect the process. — Ludwig V

I don't think I'm asserting anything as a first cause that would later be found to have a prior cause. Claiming something is a first cause is not a trivial task. It must be proven, and proving such a thing is rather difficult. I think my points greatly reduce the need to label something as a first cause, and I am for sure not asserting that anything in our universe that we know of should be labeled as a first cause. I do not believe the Big Bang is an actual first cause, I was simply using it as a hypothetical in examples to remove a bit of abstraction from the overall points.

It seems like you are saying that the best action to take is the one that maximizes material and expressive existences in the longest foreseeable future, is that right? — Bob Ross

Correct.

Spikes of existence that don't negatively impact steady and constant sets of existence. Explained above with the murderer. But if I want to go have a party with friends, the existence spikes up and is a good thing.

I don’t understand this one. So if I go in my garage and do a whole bunch of useless nonsense but technically it produces expressive existences and I don’t harm anyone doing it, then that is better than if I had done one productive thing that produced less expressive existences? — Bob Ross

Ah, you've made an unknowing contradiction here. That which is productive is something that is useful and good. If you go into the garage and produce something with overall less existence, then it is not as good as if you could have produced something with overall more existence. That which produces more positive existence is more productive than that which does not.

Assuming my responses here are accurate (to what you are conveying), then, yes, I think I understand and still think this is going to lead to all sorts of counter-intuitive conclusions; but I am waiting until we get to your analysis of a reality with life in it first (; — Bob Ross

Thank you Bob, you truly are a great thinker and once again I am delighted to have someone of your caliber to speak with! I know its a lot to ask and yet you patiently have awaited these points.

It sounds like you are holding straight up act-consequentialism, but I could be wrong. — Bob Ross

I don't believe it is. For one, act-consequentialism is about maximizing human good, whereas this is about maximizing existence. Lets call it existentialism. :) If we can evaluate two different outcomes and note that outcome B is more moral than outcome A, and with equal effort we could choose either A or B, it would be more more to choose B. But what is we calculate B is more moral, but we simply didn't have all of the information that A was more moral. In such a case it was still more moral to choose B with the information we had. But on to building up to humanity now.

So why is humanity special. Its not. Humanity is part of the entire totality of existence in the universe. There are two things though that make humanity special and more of a condensed higher existence than the rest of the universe.

1. Expansive Intelligent
2. They are a social species.

Intelligence can be defined in many ways. At its most basic, intelligence is the speed at which neurons process to obtain conclusions. The 'expanse' of an intelligent being is that which it is able to process. We could have an intelligent ant that processes responses much faster than other ants, but its expanse is limited to chemical processing for signals and basic survival. Most life has a much more limited expanse than humanity. Many creatures simply react to outside stimulus with the goal of preserving their existence, and nothing more. No long term planning, or contemplation beyond self-existence.

What's interesting about an expanse is that there is something which to our knowledge, does not form in normal chemical reactions or flat matter, consciousness. Consciousness is like its own world, an ability not only to exist, but to recognize to some extent its own existence. As consciousness expands, it can envision a world ahead of its actions, and attempt to make the world its own actions. As we have noted in the prior patterns, anytime a brand new identity of existence is formed, it factorially explodes in its ability to potentially interact with other existences. Consciousness is essentially a simulation of material reality, and at a bare minimum, doubles the potential existence of the reality it will interact with in its lifetime.

Humanity is special in that it has the most expansive intelligence of all creatures that we know of. It can consider and enact its interactions with the universe far beyond any other living thing. It can access chemical and physical structures of the universe that other living things can only dream of. It can potentially comprehend its moral place in the universe, and act on it. It can finally get away from pure reactions and random chance, and shape the universe into a much more existent place that what a less expansive being can do.

But it doesn't stop there. Even an absolute genius is limited in what they can do as a singular person. This is where the social aspect of humanity explodes even further. Just like the pattern of a multi-celled vs single celled creature, the potential and expressed existence compounds once again. This should be self-evident at this point, so unless this needs to be proved, I will leave this for now to move onto how we can construct morality to optimize humanity within the totality of existence.

As we can see, humanity as a species can be extremely moral as long as it follows some basic patterns.

1. It must be indefinitely self-sustaining. So no using up all the resources so everything dies or bombing everything to destruction for some short term gains.

2. It must not unnecessarily destroy other self-sustaining things, or lives. Unnecessary destruction would be destruction that does not involve reasoned self-preservation. Killing a bug because its in your house spreading disease and its impossible to catch is not the same as being outside and killing a benign bug for the delight of hearing it pop.

The moral precepts of humanity must balance the two points that make humanity special. The individuals potential and expressed existence vs societies potential and expressed existence.

Per the individual, they should follow the same basic pattern that is repeated in moral existence. Self-sustain, do no unnecessary decreasing of existence, and work to expand one's own expression and potential existence where possible.

Notice that expanding one's potential and expressed existence should not come at the expense of self-sustainment. If someone were to take a drug that could heighten their emotions and senses for a few hours, but took years off of their overall life, this would be immoral. If one sacrificed their overall health and well being to accomplish something for themselves alone, this would also be immoral (assuming no affect on society here)

This is a moral guidance for the individual. This can come into conflict with the moral guidance for a society, which is where some of the debate over moral laws comes into play. A society as well must follow the same guidance as everything else. Self-sustainment, and not unnecessarily destroying other lives. Thus a good society should seek to preserve and assist the individuals within it with their moral guides as well. Prolonging a healthy life that encourages individuals to reach their highest expressed and potential existence as possible.

With this general approach and our understanding of an existential morality, we can now examine moral laws in society and understand the reasoning behind them, as well as more carefully evaluate if they are optimal.

First, lets examine vices, or the seven deadly sins that are largely agreed as immoral across cultures.

Gluttony - An excessive consumption of food or resources. This one is self-explanatory. Gluttony in the individual results in a destruction of one's health, impacting both self-sustainment and potential expression. In a society gluttony can burn through limited resources leaving other individuals to be mal-nourished or die.

Prostitution or fornication - With our knowledge of sexual diseases, as well as a history of humanity that had limited resources and little to no birth control, this makes sense. Creating a child without a stable family is less optimal than creating a child with one. Children take immense effort and resources to raise to their potential, and having a child out of wedlock can result in either the mother or the child suffering excessively and ultimately dying.

As humanity has advanced in birth control and has the ability to handle such cases, fornication and prostitution are less of a moral challenge. If one can have sexual intercourse without risk of disease or accidental birth, and it does not impact one's ability to one day have a stable family and children, little wrong can be seen in this. Again though, if such actions produced abuse, neglect, unstable families, and unwanted children, this would still be considered a sin.

Greed - Not much different from gluttony. I'll add that wanting excessive resources for yourself costs time and energy that does not result in more production and use of those resources, just hoarding. If you have spare resources that are completely unneeded, it would be better to give those to other people who need them.

Envy - Envy is sadness at another person's moral success. It is self-evident why this is a sin.

Wrath - Excessive anger and the destruction of things for one's own pleasure. This is different from anger, which is a natural emotion that can be channeled for a productive outcome. Wrath is about destruction for destruction's sake. It does not care about the end result beyond its own satisfaction. This destroys community in society, and violates the core precepts of existential morality.

Sloth - When a person does nothing with their existence beyond basic self-sustaining. Self-evident.

Vanity - An excessive value of one's self-worth over others. As there is a moral instinct that higher existence is more valuable than lower existence if there comes a time where only one can exist, vanity is a lie to oneself that one is more valuable than they are. This ignores the reality of one's moral decisions and will result in an overall loss of existence.

Pride or Hubris - An excessive value of one's own self-worth. I believe the difference between this and vanity is vanity is specifically comparing oneself to others, while pride only involves the self.

Alright, this is enough to cover for now! Let me know what you think Bob.

Hey Metaphysician, I'll address your second post as well. I see it bleeds into my other response to you, so I'll try to address anything that was left out of my reply.

There are no constraints prior to it coming into being, there are constraints after it comes into being.
— Philosophim

This is incorrect, as demonstrated by my argument, there necessarily is constraints prior to its coming into being. "Constraints after it comes into being" doesn't even make sense. If the constraints only exist after the cause, then they have no capacity to act as constraints on the cause. — Metaphysician Undercover

Let me give an example so I can clarify. Imagine our photon again. Now a photon is a photon because of what it is and how it reacts to other existences. In other words, a photon doesn't suddenly produce a million dollar bills at its location. It also doesn't start talking or turn into an eggplant. It has rules, restrictions, and laws based on what it is.

So there is no rule as to what should appear as a first cause without referring backwards from any chain. Meaning if I'm staring at a blank area of the universe, there's no prediction as to what could appear as a first cause. But once that first cause appears, it is what it is. And what a thing is, is defined by rules based on its makeup and the way it consistently interacts with other things in the universe. The status of 'first cause' lasts for only one time tick in the universe. Once a second tick happens the cause of the existence of the thing at the second time tick is the existence of the thing at the first time tick.

Or, taken together as a set of infinite regressive causality, the first cause is the entire set itself. There is nothing prior. But if the first set made a second set, the second set is not a first cause, it is actually subsumed under the first set, as its a continuation of causality. A first cause is extremely literal and simple. "That which is not caused by anything else besides the fact of it existing."

In other words, your idea of an absolutely unconstrained "cause" is self-contradicting, because the concept of "cause" has constraints inherent within it. if you want to talk about a completely, or absolutely, unconstrained act, this act cannot be known as a "cause" in the common sense which relates "cause" to "effect", because that completely unconstrained act could not be said to have an "effect", effect being described in terms of "change". — Metaphysician Undercover

So to clarify, it is not self-contradicting. A first cause is defined as something which has no prior cause. If you are setting up a situation in which there must necessarily be a prior cause, then you aren't talking about a first cause. If a photon comes into the universe unbidden by anything, it is uncaused. From that moment on while it exists, it is then part of the chain of causality formed by that first initial formation.

Your proposal of things to imagine as examples of first cause are all constrained by what is described in the terms of the examples, therefore those proposed "first causes" are actually constrained. In reality, if you can imagine it, then what you are imagining is the effects of the supposed "first cause" on the preexisting constraints, therefore constraint is implied by the image. So your requirement of no constraints is nonsense. This is what makes "first cause" as you propose, completely unimaginable, incomprehensible, unintelligible, and self-refuting nonsense. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm not seeing this. These are all examples of potential first causes, not assertions that they are first causes. What I'm noting is that because a first cause has no prior causation for its existence, there can be no constraints on its initial existence. Now this is only if we have no causal chain to examine. If we have a causal chain, we can work its way back up and see specifically what the first cause of that chain is. Once a first cause appears, it is constrained by its causal influence on reality. So while I'm noting that there is nothing that constrains what a first cause could potentially be, I'm not stating that any specific first cause that does exist, could potentially be something it is not.

For example, if the big bang is the actual first cause of existence in the universe, then we can trace physics back to it, and attempt to demonstrate conclusively that there is nothing prior to the big bang. It doesn't mean that we can trace physics back to the big bang and then randomly claim, "It was actually a little bang".

But, lets say suddenly another universe appears out of nowhere and we have no causal chain to work up to. The first cause of that universe could potentially be anything. The actuality of what it is can in theory be discovered. But there was no rule that necessitated that universe appear at all, or that the first cause had show up right there. Does that clear up the issue?

Careful, now. If you say the Big Bang is the known starting-point of universal creation, you are saying, not only that it is the starting-point of universal creation, but that we know that it is. — Ludwig V

Oh, let me clarify the way I define of knowledge. Knowledge is not truth to me. It is a tool we use to best assess what is most likely to be true with the observations and reason we have at the time. Meaning what is known can change without issue to me depending on context and tools. So I am in agreement with you. :)

There is an issue with your theory. You sweep everything up into one classification, and brush aside the variety and difference in the concepts of causation under one term.
But it is no more significant that the conclusion that something exists, which neglects the differences between rainbows and trees, numbers and lines, arguments and theories, myths and fables, and all the rest of the many different kinds of object - and hence different kinds of existence (and of logic) that also exist. We have Aristotelian causes, Newtonian causes, Einsteinian causes, Quantum causes, not mention reasons for action, premises and conclusions in mathematical arguments. — Ludwig V

The subdivision and different interpretations of general causality into specifics is done for different purposes. I'm using general causality because I want to end a debate that's been going on far too long. Is there a first cause. Yes. Done. Does this note that there must be a specific first cause? No, it can be anything we could imagine, but once in reality it is part of the chain of causality and can be found with evidence and proof. Done.

That's the problem that's trying to be solved. And I believe it is. It doesn't need a subdivision or a reexamination of causality beyond the simple and basic understanding all of us know. If causality exists, logically there must be a first cause. Its not about creating something interesting, its about solving a problem I see in philosophy, and giving a strong base for other ideas to be built on.

I appreciate your contribution Ludwig, its nice to see intelligent and friendly replies and critiques that understand what's being stated here.

to be giving Philosophim some difficulty, the relationship between the first cause, and the resulting causal chain. In the descriptions, or definitions which Philosophim provides, there appears to be some ambiguity as to whether the first cause is part of the chain, or something separate from the chain. — Metaphysician Undercover

Then this I need to be clearer. The idea is that a first cause is not separate from the chain but is part of the chain, or the chain itself. A first cause is not explained by anything outside of itself, therefore must be explained by itself, and is the start of its impact on causality.

These are the principles laid out by Aristotle in the cosmological argument. A "cause" (in the modern sense which corresponds with Aristotelian efficient cause) is a contingent event. This means that it consists of two parts, the temporally prior potential for the event, and the posterior actuality, after the event. The "contingency" is due to the fact that the prior potential is always a potential for a multitude of possible events, and the resulting actuality is the one particular event which actually occurs. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't use this definition because I do not believe, except in cases of first cause, that there is a potential difference in outcomes. There is a difference between our inability to measure and predict, and real randomness as I've noted.

Now, if we ignore the "contingency" aspect and represent the causal chain as a simple cause precedes effect model, in a determinist way, then we effectively remove the "potential" from the model. One actual state precedes another actual state, and this determinist representation provides no real principle whereby we could say that the potential for an event precedes its actual occurrence, all there is is another actual event as cause. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, this is the way it is. Of course, if you disagree with this, that is of course your choice. I have never seen real randomness proved in science, only an inability to measure properly. The conclusion that a first cause logically exists only works with the idea that that everything is deterministic except first causes. By the way, I like your previous idea that first causes can influence the brain. If it is the case that we had very tiny things popping into existence all over the place constantly, it could very well apply a real randomness to outcomes as they bounce against the chemistry of the brain. But this is the only way randomness, according to the definitions I've provided, could ever come into the universe.

Yes, I agree. But that means whenever we think we have found a first cause, we must ask ourselves whether that is due to the limitations of our tools and evidence or to it really being a first cause. I would always bet on the former. Under what circumstances could I confidently bet on the latter? Given the ingenuity and determination human beings have displayed over the last 400 or 500 years, I can't imagine any. — Ludwig V

I largely agree. The logic points out that there must be a first cause, but it does not make any claim as to what that first cause might be. There are SEVERAL difficulties in proving a first cause. I'll list just one.

To keep it simple, imagine a photon appeared as a first cause right now. The thing is, it could also appear with momentum considering that there are no constraints on what a first cause could be. As such, if we were to find that photon we would assume because it has velocity, that something else caused that velocity. The more reasonable conclusion based off of our previous knowledge, is that we simply didn't find exactly what started the velocity of the photon.

In fact, it is possible that all of creation only happened five minutes ago, but we have all of our memories and observations that lead us to think its billions of years old. So even if we stumbled upon a situation in which there was a first cause, if the first cause appeared in such a way that would lead us to believe something else caused it, we would have no logical choice but to assume something else caused it.

This means there must be a VERY specific situation to prove something is a first cause. To my mind, the only thing I can think of is a perfect and absolute vaccum, which I'm not sure is possible to make. As in, absolutely nothing must exist, then suddenly something would form into existence. Even then, we would be scouring to see if it was our own measurement tools that were the issue, as we should.

The point of the idea is to simply note what logically must be true, then think about what it would take to prove such a thing true. As we can tell, proving anything is a first cause is a nigh impossible undertaking. It doesn't mean we shouldn't keep the knowledge around in the back of our minds however. Maybe one day, we'll find something that fits the bill.

My point was that every time something like a first cause or brute fact has been found, we have redefined (or perhaps better "re-invented") the concept of "cause" and carried on. — Ludwig V

This time there is no re-invention needed. We have a clear definition of what it is, and what it would take to prove it exists. The Big Bang for example would be changed to, "The known starting point of universal creation" instead of "The first cause of creation".

I will reply more later today, I'm out of time for now.

So it is not that the soul is a first cause, nor strictly speaking, is free will itself the first cause, but there are first causes, and the soul is able to utilize them for its purposes toward effecting change in the world. The reality of the free will is what provides us evidence that there are first causes, and the evidence is that the soul is using first causes toward its goals. The soul itself is not a first cause, but the soul has free will, and the free will requires first causes for its existence. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is an interesting idea, but interesting ideas are not proof. With the idea of first causes, anyone can propose an equally competitive idea. For example, I could just say that a God created souls, and souls create free will. Or I could say there are no souls and free will is deterministic. All these claims require proof now. You must prove without a doubt that something is a first cause.

Your description of a soul using first causes needs specifics. How can a soul channel something which the soul would not know would exist? After all, first causes are 100% unpredictable, and could be anything. So what you're really stating is that there are very specific first causes that follow very specific rules that pop into reality every time we make a choice. That doesn't make any sense or line up to the complete randomness of a first cause. So its an interesting idea, but logically doesn't make sense, let alone without proof.

So the issue of constraints is not relevant, as I said above. The soul has free will, and it is free because of the reality of uncaused causes which are happening within the living body, but the soul is still constrained by the physical reality of that body at the same time. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, it is entirely relevant. A constraint, by definition, is caused by something. You cannot have a restrained first cause. Its a contradiction.

I've read similar articles already. The point I made about reflex was to demonstrate your illogical use of that article. That some human actions are reflex, does not mean that all human actions are reflex. That is my analogous example. Likewise, that some decisions occur in the way indicated in the article, does not imply that all decision occur in this way. So the article doesn't provide any point to argue, it's like someone arguing that since some human actions are by reflex, therefore free will is not real. — Metaphysician Undercover

Let me clarify my point then. My point is that we have evidence that some decisions of the brain are caused prior to conscious awareness. Meaning something caused you to make a decision. Does that mean all causes are? Not necessarily. But there must be evidence that this is so, not merely a claim that it is so. Since we have evidence that some choices are clearly causal, we cannot easily claim that some other choices are not.

I don't see any relevance here. We are talking about the free will act which rolls the die, and how this act utilizes first causes, we are not talking about the action of the die rolling after being thrown. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure, the relevance is that 'randomness' is not random. It has clear causal constraints. The only truly thing that would be random is the existence of a first cause. There can be no restraints on what is possible or what should or should not happen.

I don't agree with this. I do not think that you understand the relationship between first causes and constraints.

The first cause comes into being without any reason for its existence, as you say, but it comes into being into an already existing environment. It is not caused by that environment, nevertheless it comes into being in that environment. Therefore there are constraints which are prior to it, which necessarily limit (constrain) its coming into being as it does so, specifically the effect it will have. There are no constraints as to why it exists, but there are constraints as to what effect it will have. — Metaphysician Undercover

We're really close on agreement here. I've bolded the sentence, your conclusion, which does not follow from the rest of the premises that are correct.

There are no constraints prior to it coming into being, there are constraints after it comes into being. But what those constraints are cannot be predicted. Meaning it could be a photon, an explosion, or anything else you can imagine. What you're doing with free will is constraining what comes into existence as a first cause. Something that the soul can turn into free will, and that appears without prior cause that can somehow be molded by the soul without issue.

Just one of several problems here to think about is that free will is consistent. True randomness could be consistent for a time, but is unlikely to. Meaning that it most often should come and go if it were a first cause. You can't just claim a first cause anymore knowing what it is. You have to give evidence and prove it. Free will is a predictable constrained behavior within intelligent beings and brains. This is a far cry from being a first cause.

I think the existence of free will provides very good evidence of the reality of first causes. Look at all the causal chains which must come to an end within us, much of the energy we eat gets stored, so it turns passive. And all the causal chains of all information we absorb through sensation must come to an end if they do not cause a reflex. — Metaphysician Undercover

Causal chains do not end unless existence itself disappears. A causal chain is not a creation of measurement by people, it is the reality of X influences Y's outcome. Even the disappearance of an existence may cause an outcome elsewhere.

Again, you are misrepresenting the role of constraints. The uncaused cause comes into being without a cause, in the middle of preexisting constraints. The limitations, are not causal, they are only restrictions to the cause. So it is incorrect to say that the uncaused cause has no restraint on it. — Metaphysician Undercover

To be clear once again, there is no restriction on what can occur. Once it occurs, it of course has its own restrictions on what it is. The problem I'm seeing is that you're putting a restriction on what can occur in a very specific situation and place. That is not a first cause. Free will is very specific to intelligent beings and is consistent. This is evidence of prior causality, not it being a first cause.

To clarify with another example. Lets say a God did exist. Its appearance would be a first cause. But what makes up that God, and what that God does are all causal at that point. If that God found something that was uncaused in existence and used it, this would also be causal. The appearance of the first cause would of course not be caused, but anything done with that first cause would be causal.

It's simple logic. The uncaused caused cannot have an effect (therefore it cannot be "a cause") unless there is something already existing which it will have an effect on. Therefore it necessarily comes into an existing environment. And the already existing thing which the uncaused cause has an effect on, will be a constraint to the uncaused cause. Therefore the uncaused cause will necessarily be constrained. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, I am confirming that you understood this perfectly! I'm just pointing out that you're drawing incorrect conclusions from this that necessitate free will is a first cause.

A hypothetical chain going back to infinity doesn't have to have a first cause. — jgill

No, it is the first cause. Its entire existence is uncaused by anything prior.

I would prefer more emphasis on the chain itself and its origin than on what comes before its origin. — jgill

That's exactly what this is. If the universe is infinitely regressive, why? Logically there is no causal explanation besides the fact it simply is. Meaning all the rest of the logic flows.

The first cause must have an effect on the causal chain it initiates. Therefore, by definition, it is an element of that chain and not something prior and abstract. — jgill

Exactly.

Although you are not being theological here, your assertion is equivalent to the existence of God. — jgill

Its really not. Its the assertion that eventually we necessarily reach a point in causality where there is something which is not explained by something prior. This is something that is identifiable and testable. A far cry from a God.

I only wish this thread wasn't ultimately so existential and debatable. — jgill

Isn't that part of the fun though? Didn't you get to think about something new and different? Did you stretch your mind? Perhaps similar lines of thinking may do you well in your applications of theoretical math moving forward. I really do hope you enjoyed thinking about it.

From the free will perspective, such a relationship cannot be established, because there is another active force involved, that of the soul, and this active force actually ends and begins causal chains. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm not intending at all to debate the soul, so lets assume one exists. If free will comes from the soul, then free will is not a first cause. Is the soul a first cause then? For it to fit within a first cause it would need to be to be randomly created. There should be no reason a soul should or should not exist. Meaning that a God could not have created them. For if God created souls, then souls are not first causes. I just want you to be aware of this.

Even then, souls would be causing free will. So there's no real free will then either. If a soul is causing something, then it is constrained by rules and limitations. There is no limitation or rule as to what can be a first cause, but once its formed, it then causes other things. For example, lets say a photon appeared with no prior causality. It still acts like a photon once formed. It can be influenced, influence, etc. The only part that is a first cause is its appearance.

OK then, by your definition, "a first cause" is "truly random", not even omniscience could predict it. So, what I am arguing is that this is consistent with "free will" as a first cause, not even omniscience could predict it. — Metaphysician Undercover

To think about the issue, lets say then that a soul is not behind free will but free will is its own thing uncaused by anything else. To prove this, we would have to show that free will is limitless and unconstrained. Except there are a few things we find.

1. Free will is constrained to living things. Free will does not exist on its own in the universe.
2. Free will is constrained to certain biological functions like the brain and nerves. Unless you think your toes or rocks can have free will.
3. Free will shouldn't be contained or limited by intelligence, and yet it is. A roach does not have the same will as a human being.

All of these things refute the idea that free will is a first cause. There are clearly only certain areas where free will can form and is constrained by that biology.

Its actually been determined that people can make unconscious decisions up to 11 second prior to them being aware of it. https://qz.com/1569158/neuroscientists-read-unconscious-brain-activity-to-predict-decisions
— Philosophim

I don't see how this is relevant. If a type of decision can be made in this way, it does not imply that all decisions are made in this way. Many human acts for example, are shown to be simply reflexive, but this does not mean that all human acts are reflexive. — Metaphysician Undercover

You should read the article, its pretty interesting. Here's the second paragraph:

"Using the fMRI to monitor brain activity and machine learning to analyze the neuroimages, the researchers were able to predict which pattern participants would choose up to 11 seconds before they consciously made the decision. And they were able to predict how vividly the participants would be able to envisage it."

That's not a reflex, that's a choice.

Constraints do not necessarily lead to "a particular outcome", constraints limit the possibilities. Therefore your appeal to constraints in this context does nothing to imply that a free will act does not produce a first cause. — Metaphysician Undercover

Let me explain. Take a die roll. Can you roll a die and have a pink elephant appear? No. There are plenty of causes that explain the die roll. A '1' is a result because someone created the die to have a 1. It rolled because of the force of a human putting it into a cup, shaking it, and dropping it. It rattled because of gravity and reactions to force. It stopped moving because of friction. The die result is not a first cause. It is caused by many other forces and constraints.

A first cause has zero reason for its existence besides the fact that it exists. This means there can be no constraints as to what or why it exists. Of course, once it forms, its part of causality and may be limited. Once a thing lasts longer than a measure of time, it is no longer a first cause. At that second tick of time, it is caused by the previous tick in time. It is only at that first tick of time where nothing prior has formed, restricted, or influenced its appearance that it is a first cause.

As mentioned above, in my reply to Ludwig, I think this idea of "a sense of timing" is from a naive form of scientism, based in determinism. In reality there is probably thousands, or millions, of causally chains occurring in the brain at the same time, extremely rapidly, far beyond the brain's capacity to understand its own mechanics. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree 100%. As we come to understand the basics of what I wrote, we realize that tons of chains interlink all over the place. A first cause is not an interlink though. It is the end of prior causality somewhere in that mess. While there logically must be at least one, there could be several. And each would be exceedingly difficult to prove. How to you prove that prior to a certain point, a "X" (variable) has no reason for its existence? There's always the question that we simply missed something with our instruments or understanding. Proving that there is no instrument or understanding that could show some prior cause is very difficult. While a first cause is logically necessary, proving that "X" is one is a very high bar.

We don't get to create the chain.
— Philosophim

As explained above, this is an unsound premise. You insist that the idea of a free will act being an uncaused cause cannot be accepted without prove, but the inverse principle holds just as well. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, this is not the case. A first cause necessitates that it be uncaused by something prior. If there is evidence at all that some other type of causality is in place, then a claim of a first cause fails. Here's one last nail in the coffin. Free will must respond to a stimulous, or choice. Do I go left, or right? What caused me to go left or right? One part of the prior cause is that I had an option to go left or right. Choices are necessarily caused by the limitations in front of us. Something which has no prior cause has no restraint as to what it must be.

And the vast multitude of causal chains which are active within the brain, in an extremely rapid way, make it very difficult to understand with any degree of certainty, whether some are actually beginning and ending there. If the causal chains are beginning within the brain, then we cannot say "we don't get to create the chain". — Metaphysician Undercover

An inability to understand something completely is not evidence of a first cause. Evidence of a first cause requires that there be no possible explanation for why "X" occurs. Our comprehension of it is irrelevant. Free will has too much evidence that it is constrained and influenced by other factors. Therefore it is not possible that free will is a first cause.

Few folk have ever held justified true belief to be both sufficient and necessary conditions for knowledge. Not even Socrates thought it adequate, and he is the fellow who developed it - describing it as a "wind-egg". Gettier just presented examples that undergraduates could understand. — Banno

I appreciate the history lesson. I was taking a stab in the dark. I probably shouldn't have. :)

Of course not. Suppose instead we observe such a chain in nature, imbedding it in our minds. It now exists in two realms. — jgill

I don't see any separation between realms, or a loss of causal connectivity. You observe, your mind stores the observation and definition as memory in your neurons. We can trace the causal chain from your first observation on. We are not separated in another realm.

Does an act of "measurement" affect FC? — jgill

No.

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

We don't get to create the chain. We are not first causes. We can extend the chain into different branches. but we are not existences that formed without some prior causality. As you noted we are caused by other things such as a brain and body. Further, humans were caused by other things such as evolution. We aren't even close to the beginning of the chain.

Edit in case you reply before I finish:

Perhaps what you're asking is, "What would the necessary requirements be for a human to be a first cause?" Very simply you would not need to exist, then through no cause from anything else, appear whole as you are. From then on, you would be within causality, limited by what you are with the rest of the world around you.

In another case, its possible that you exist, and a photon appears in your body without any prior causality. That would be a first cause that then enters into the rest of the causal system within you. But you yourself would not be a first cause.

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

No. What causes the description? The interaction between a human and the link. The chain exists despite our ability or inability to define it. If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, it still vibrates the air. :)

If a well-defined causal chain extending back in time has no beginning or has arbitrary beginnings, does it have a first cause? — jgill

Yes, the first cause is its existence. What is the reason why this infinitely regressive chain of causality exists? There is no prior cause for it, it simply is. One way I've tried communicating it is you can view it as the set of all causality. What caused the set of all causality? Nothing else caused the set of all causality.

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

I don't quite understand the question. Lets say there's a rock that exists which we haven't defined yet. Does our ability to define it mean it doesn't exist? No. It exists despite our definitions. The interaction of our minds and identities is the cause of definitions, so we can conclusively say definitions are not first causes.

I must have missed something. I thought you were saying that while first causes must exist, there were no existing examples. — Ludwig V

I meant that there are no existing proven discoveries of anything that is a first cause. No one to my mind, has ever conclusively proven that any "x" exists without something prior causing it to be. A belief or limitation in current capabilities is not evidence of a first cause. We must have the tools and evidence to conclusively demonstrate something is a first cause.

I accept that there are first causes in pragmatic applications of an existing causal framework. Call them pragmatic. — Ludwig V

I am not talking about pragmatism, origin creation, or a 'starting point' that we pick. I'm talking about a factual, inalienable, provable first cause that exists regardless of our current capabilities or awareness. A first cause does not depend on our observation, it simply is.

But the concept of a cause outside a framework of definition and explanation, is meaningless. — Ludwig V

See my above reply for what a first cause entails. I'll be happy to dive in further if required.

there is too much internal energy within an atom due to a proton, electron imbalance, there is not enough force to keep the atom together.
— Philosophim

This describes the necessary conditions for decay to occur, but what is the specific event/cause X that causes the specific Y at that specific time? — EricH

Oh, I see what you're asking for now. Let me give you your answer and then a bit more. First, I'm not a physicist which is why I linked you the material to read. But I think what you're looking for is that we either do not know the exact mechanisms or we are unable to know after the fact. Our lack of knowledge or inability is of course not enough to declare it as a first cause however. That's because we've clearly defined what a first cause is so can easily identify it.

First, a first cause has no prior causality for its existence. This means that there is nothing which directs it, shapes it, or limits it outside of itself. To claim something is a first cause, this must be proven. We cannot say, "We don't understand or can currently measure something, therefore its a first cause." It must be demonstrated without a doubt that there is nothing prior which made that existence.

Second, a first cause does not entail that it is separate from causality once formed. For example, a photon could form without prior cause, but once it is formed, if it enters into direct play with anything else, it is now part of a causal chain. Meaning the first cause for the photon in this instance would be its formation. Its interaction with another atom would not be a first cause, but a next step in causality.

Could a quark simply appear somewhere in the universe than vanish out five seconds later, all without a prior cause?
— Philosophim
What's your answer? Yes or no? — EricH

So, if a first cause has no prior explanation for its existence, then it has no reason why it should be. This also entails that there is not a reason that anything could not simply be either. Why? If there is a lean or limitation towards a particular first cause, there is a reason behind this limitation. Meaning our purported 'first cause' is in fact, not a first cause. The first cause would be the lean or limitation. Meaning that a first cause has no limitations, reasons, or necessary things it must be or do besides the fact that nothing prior to it caused it to be.

So, is it plausible? Sure. If we consider that first causes are necessary in any causal chain, and think about what that entails, it means a first cause could appear as anything at any time. Again however, if we are to claim "This X is a first cause," it must be shown with proof. Thus any causal chain must be followed to its first cause. We cannot invent a first cause that is imaginary or separate from the causal chain. Meaning that in your atom example, we work backwards from physics until we get to the point where we can predict a stable probability of atomic decay. This consistency is evidence of something stable and limited. For example, atomic decay does not random spawn an elephant or cookies, but radiation without fail. What is causing this? That question must be answered with proof.

I asked you this before and never got a response, so I'll try again. Using your terminology from the OP, let Y be an atom radioactively decaying into another atom. Is there an X that caused this Y? — EricH

My apologies if I missed an earlier reply! Here's a quick summary of how radioactivity works. https://www.arpansa.gov.au/understanding-radiation/what-is-radiation/ionising-radiation/radioactivity#:~:text=What%20causes%20atoms%20to%20be,an%20excess%20of%20internal%20energy.

In layman's terms, when there is too much internal energy within an atom due to a proton, electron imbalance, there is not enough force to keep the atom together. Over time, the internal structure sends out parts of the atom which when separated, are referred to as energy or photons. So yes.

One paradigm shift is likely The Gettier Problem. Knowledge was generally understood to be justified true belief. Then Gettier came in and scuttled all of that. I believe today knowledge is understood as a tool to grasp truth and reality, but does not necessarily grasp truth itself.

There's a puzzle. I don't think that idea of a cause that is self-explanatory makes much sense. It doesn't seem to fit with your idea of causality. Is that meant to be an example of a first cause? — Ludwig V

Yes, a first cause is that which is not caused by something else. It may be difficult to comprehend, but it is logically necessary.

So finding a first cause is just a reason for developing new ideas. It has happened before and no doubt it will happen again Whether one calls them causal or not really seems much less important. — Ludwig V

No, its just a logical consequence. You're looking for a reason beyond trying to solve the puzzle first. Its a consequence, not why I tried to solve the puzzle! The reason I tried to solve the puzzle was because I thought the back and forth between God and no God was missing a glaring point. Is there a first cause somewhere in causality? Its not an opinion, its a logical conclusion that there must be.

Yes, I take the point that there is a difference between the Big Bang and an arbitrarily chosen starting-point. The Big Bang is implicit in the framework of explanation. But then, there are these pesky people who ask questions which do not go away. And so we start developing new ideas, based on what we already know, but also going beyond them. Whether you call them causal or not is not really very interesting. — Ludwig V

With the understanding that there must be at least one first cause (there is no limitation of course) we have a very clear definition of what a first cause entails. This lets us do something great: require proof. While its logically necessary that first causes exist, saying, "X is a first cause" is a high bar of proof that is falsifiable. Thus we can propose ideas or have faith, but none of it has teeth without evidence.

Appreciate the contribution Ludwig.

I don't quite understand this. An event which cannot be predicted is not necessarily purely random. I understand a freely willed event to be like this, it cannot be predicted yet it is not random. — Metaphysician Undercover

A random event is not about our current ability to measure to predict, it is about a hard logical limitation to predict. A first cause is something self-explained, there is nothing prior that causes it. Such a thing cannot be predicted to arise as there is absolutely nothing causing it.

The point I'm trying to make is that randomness due to lack of knowledge is not the same as randomness with even perfect omniscience could not predict.

The drop cannot be predicted, not even by the person dropping it or else that person does not adhere to the principles of the experiment. — Metaphysician Undercover

Its actually been determined that people can make unconscious decisions up to 11 second prior to them being aware of it. https://qz.com/1569158/neuroscientists-read-unconscious-brain-activity-to-predict-decisions

That an event occurs within constraints does not necessitate the conclusion that it is a caused event. — Metaphysician Undercover

A constraint is part of what causes an outcome. A first cause cannot have constraints or anything that would lead a particular outcome. Because that would 'cause' the first 'first cause' to be. Meaning its not really a first cause. A first cause is as simple as "No quark is there, not a quark is there." There is nothing that caused the quark. It exists purely because it does.

There could be uncaused events occurring all the time, at a small level, and as they occur they are constrained by surrounding caused events. The point, is that there clearly is prior causality to the brain, as you say, but this does not rule out uncaused events within the brain, which make us feel like we have free will. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, this is possible. But it is something which would need to be proven. So, cool idea!

This freely willed decision is the cause of that chain of events in the brain and nervous system which causes the ball to drop, but there is no cause of that decision of "now", at that point in time. — Metaphysician Undercover

This again would need to be proven. I don't think science points that way. I think its pretty clear the brain has a sense of timing and it can be traced through causality. But, as I noted earlier, you have an interesting idea that could be tested.

Hi Metaphysician, good to see you again. :)

Doesn't my example of dropping the ball serve as proof. The act is either random or caused by free will. You showed how it is not truly random, so we can conclude free will. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think there was a misunderstanding. A first cause is uncaused. Meaning its existence is a purely random event that cannot be predicted. Free will is not purely random but has constraints and influences. As I noted earlier the brain is where human thought resides, and there is prior causality to the brain. A first cause has no prior causality, so free will cannot be a first cause either.

What you may be confusing is the idea of a first cause vs a measurement where we state, "OK, this is the starting, or origin of a causal system. Meaning we start with the hand releasing the ball as a measurement, but we're not denying that there is prior causality to why the hand is there, gravity, etc. A first cause is not a measurement by us. It is a fundamental reality that has no prior cause for its existence.

AmadeusD, especially since Christoffer posted, I see no point in continuing to comment on this issue. He has answered my accusation of a straw man argument and I have responded to his points. That is all I asked of him and he has admirably done so. And, no offense, you've admitted already you weren't sure what the OP was yourself. When your criticism is that I'm accusing him of not addressing the OP, when you don't understand it yourself, its hard to take your criticism to heart.

Now, feel free to take his criticisms and assist him. If you feel he has adequately criticized the OP, feel free to point out where exactly that criticism hits and I have not responded to. Specifics and clear reasoning behind your accusations can be convincing. But anything else at this point is just personal opinion.

Your argument's conclusion is that there has to be a first cause, which is only one interpretation in physics. — Christoffer

But what is my definition of a first cause? Its that which has no prior cause for its existence.

And through the explanations given, your logic of causality as a framework for beyond our reality does not function or becomes inconclusive since your reasoning is bound to this reality and do not compute with quantum mechanics. — Christoffer

There is nothing beyond reality. Reality is what is. Physics is the investigation of the fundamentals of reality. A more apt description to describe what I think you're intending is that we have the laws of this universe, and you are proposing that there is another universe where the laws act differently. Reality is the totality of everything, even two universes with different laws.

Now, if you're stating that the origin of this universe was caused by another universe with different laws, then you're noting that this universe is caused by another. In which case there is the question, "What caused the universe of quantum mechanics to happen?" Either something caused it to happen, or nothing caused the universe of quantum mechanics to happen and it is a first cause.

If you are instead stating that this universe was not caused by another universe, then once again, we have the existence of this universe as a first cause. Do you understand? You have been describing situations that are first causes or involve prior causality, not countering the idea of a first cause.

And seen as causality itself is in question even in our reality and isn't a defined constant, other than on the scales in which determinism operates, you cannot conclude your conclusions through the reasoning you provide. — Christoffer

No, I clearly can because a first cause is not pre-determined, so its outside of determinism. There's no prior cause for a first cause right? That necessarily means that while it can of course determine other things, its existence is not pre-determined. A first cause can result in causality as it interacts with other things, but itself is not caused by something else.

I am not seeing how causality is under question. Causality is simply noting that at any particular point, there was a prior combination of events and forces that lead to the current state. When you reach a point in which there are no prior combination of events and forces that lead to a state, you have a first cause. If you do not agree with this, please point out where this does not make sense.

I appreciate you summarizing and engaging. Really. Many people would just abandon the thread but you stuck to it. I've gone back through your previous points you believe I left unanswered that are relevant to the discussion and will try to answer them here.

But the key point is that the density of the universe right at the event of Big Bang would mean dimensions having no meaning, therefor no causality can occur in that state. It is fundamentally random and therefor you cannot apply a deterministic causality logic to it. — Christoffer

Do you see now that this is the exact description of a first cause? A first cause has no rules as to what it should be, that would be causality. Something removed from prior causality is only explained by the fact of its existence, nothing prior.

The first cause in that scenario is the first causal event to form out of the state in which causality has no meaning, which is a state that has mathematical and theoretical support in physics. But if your point is that "aha! see there's a first cause!" then you are just stating the obvious here and I don't know what your point really is? — Christoffer

My point is that a first cause is logically necessary using the summary I gave you earlier. You may have been overcomplicating the issue. Which is fair, I wrote this two years ago and would write it more cleanly now. Someone resurrected this thread a few weeks back so here we are now. :)

But it isn't conclusive. You still have the Penrose theories, and other cyclic interpretations that do not have a first cause as it's circular. There's no need for a first cause as the cycle, the loop causes itself. — Christoffer

And here is where you missed the entire point of the discussion. Let me post the summary again.

If we don't know whether our universe has finite or infinite chains of causality A -> B -> C etc...
What caused a finite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason.
What caused an infinite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason.

My addressing infinite regression was the major point of the OP. My point is that even with infinite regression, there's still a first cause. Why is it an infinite loop instead of a finite regression? There is no prior cause for this, it simply is. Feel free to debate that point, but understand that that is the entire point.

So I question the reason for this argument as physics already provide one with more actual physics-based math behind it and I question the singular conclusion of first cause as it doesn't counter the other interpretations that exist. — Christoffer

As noted, the other interpretations do not remove us from the definition of what a first cause is, or prove that a first cause is not logically necessary. Feel free to take a stab at it again, but so far I'm not seeing it.

If there are any other previous critiques that are relevant to the OP that I've missed, please let me know.

I recognize Christoffer as having a lot of insight that can be learned from. — wonderer1

Maybe he does. But right now I can't get him to summarize the argument in his own words after he confessed he didn't have to understand the argument. Such a person has nothing of value to add to the point.

Of course, I may have seen too many OPs claiming I was in league with the devil, and so it is just me thinking you are kind of control freaky. — wonderer1

I'm not claiming he's in the league with the devil. :) Its also not control freaky to guide a person back to the OP when the OP is presenting a very specific argument. This isn't a generic open ended discussion thread. There's a very clear point being made, and discussion needs to focus around that.

Again, projecting by describing yourself. You fail to simply understand that your argument of a first cause is just empty dislocated logic in face of the science actually decoding reality into a complexity beyond that use of logic. — Christoffer

A first cause is that which has no prior explanation for its being. Have you proven that you've found something in physics which has been conclusively determined to have no prior cause for its existence? If you have, great, you've shown that my claim is valid. If not, then you're still talking about something that has a prior causation for its existence, and therefore is not a first cause.

I've countered your argument, I've engaged in further explanations for the objections you raised and yet you still act as if no one has countered your OP. — Christoffer

If you want to demonstrate how you've countered my argument, simply explain to me what my argument is Christopher. I'm telling you you don't understand it. Well prove me wrong! Just summarize that in your own words. Its one of the most reasonable requests a person can make, and the easiest way to counter an accusation that you're presenting a straw man. When you're over there beating an argument of your own imagination, there's really nothing else to discuss until you resolve the accusation.
I'm an honest person, I can take all the stuff you've already said and apply it to your summary. If you can't summarize the argument and tell me what I'm actually saying, then my accusation of you using a straw man fallacy is correct and none of your other points mean anything.

The vagueness of first cause is troubling for me. It seems like category confusion — jgill

Its a fair point that a few have addressed. I'll note again that I wrote this two years ago, and I would rewrite it to be much clearer now. Not my fault someone dug it up again. :D

The clearest way I believe I can communicate a first cause is when we reach a point in causality where there is nothing prior which leads to its existence. It is not caused, but it enters into causation. Such a cause does not necessarily 'create' other things either. Its equally possible for a first cause to enter into an area where other existences have been prior. It then becomes part of the causality chains in what it interacts with.

I don't know if that clears it up any. If you can find a category error, feel free to point it out.

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. — jgill

Correct. Why does one chain exist instead of something else?

So a first cause is a metaphysical notion, not something specific to the chain or regression. — jgill

What do you in particular mean by metaphysical? I only ask this because in my experience plenty of people have their own unique take. If I understand correctly, you're noting that the first cause is that the chain exists, not a first cause necessarily causing the chain to exist. Its the logical conclusion that at the end of the day, we're going to reach a point in causality where there is nothing prior. There is nothing that caused existence to be. It simply happened.

The understanding of this, that there is at least something that exists without prior explanation, lets us see a truth to the universe. There is no underlying grand plan. There simply is. Lets make the most of it.

You are not engaging with his objections with replies like this. You are claiming he doesn't understand - which is also what he is saying to you. Surely, you can understand that if he has the same notion you do, there might be something in it (might be on your side too!!) — AmadeusD

There's one major difference. We're discussing the OP, not his theory. If he wants to post his own theory, feel free. If he's not understanding or addressing the OP after I try to point to it, then I have no responsibility to further engage with him. If I went into another thread, ignored or misunderstood the OP, then started going on my theory, I would be the one off base. It is not my responsibility in my own thread to go down some rabbit hole away from the OP. I've done that plenty of times in the past, and it ends up nowhere.

If someone repeatedly speaks past you, ignoring what you're saying, you wouldn't be partial to spending more time nutting out their problem for them. — AmadeusD

And this is exactly why I'm telling him to demonstrate he understands the OP at this point. I'm very tired of talking past him. His responsibility is to point to the OP with his problems and critiques. I'm not interested in talking to a guy who after I've already pointed out he agrees with me on issues of the OP, he continues to rant onward. I'm also not going to continue to engage in his personal quibble of whether I understand quantum physics or not. That's just ego talking, not an addressing of the points.

You've (imo, very condescendingly) asserted that he's using a Straw man (I can't see where) and then not dealt with his clear, precise objections. — AmadeusD

You bet I did. Let me point out why I did.

Just try to go into future threads with the intent to understand first before you critique.
— Philosophim

I don't have to, I understand the physics instead. — Christoffer

THIS is condescending. I will treat people respectfully until they start this, then I will respond in kind.
This tells me this person is not interested in discussing the OP, but their own ideas. The OP has nothing to do with physics. I don't care about his own ideas. I care about how is own ideas add or critique the argument I'm giving. His ideas are not. He's not even trying to.

He can make his own thread if he wants to talk about his own ideas. You cannot discuss with someone who does not want to, or care to, understand the point the OP is making.

And this is why I didn't bother with the rest of his post. Its not that he doesn't understand. I can work with that. He doesn't want to understand. Why am I discussing with him then? A waste of my time. I've debated a lot over the years, and this is the reddest of red flags that the person is not going to listen to you.

Don't try to address fifty things in a post. Pick one thing and press him on it, if that's the issue. If you're willing to engage ad infinitum, respect. But be reasonable about what you're engaging - particularly if you see his responses as scatter-shot straw men :) — AmadeusD

Good advice. I did try to rope it back to the most important point, his admittance that he did not care to understand what the OP was saying, but use his own argument. The admittance of a straw man that needed to be dealt with before anything else.

I appreciate the discussion, but lets let him weigh in now if he chooses. I don't want to derail the thread further.

For now, that is all I have; as the rest of your response is about things you asked me not to indulge in yet (; — Bob Ross

Fair enough! I know you want to get to these, I just know I can't until you understand the base theory first.

What you're talking about is calculations with the intent to find the most existence possible. So lets cover that.

A consequence of realizing that existence is calculated over time, is that optimally we want the most existence possible over time. The longer the time continues at X level, the better the long term existence.

As we noted earlier, expressions of existence can add more complexity per material, expressions, and potential existence to a particular time point. We'll use seconds to remove some of the abstraction. I'll go back to the comparison between chemical reactions vs stable matter. Chemical reactions are highly concentrated interactions of existence between two entities. Its a system of funneling different molecules into a new identity. The problem of course is that chemical reactions burn out eventually.

Lets take baking soda and vinegar. We mix the two and the volatile reaction happens for 10 seconds. So for those ten seconds we have a spike in existence relative to the baking soda and vinegar independent of one another, and then back to the status quo of nothing happening. Ideally, we would like to keep a chemical reaction going as long as possible. If we could get one or a series of chemical reactions that would constantly renew themselves, we could keep the heightened existence going as long as possible. We call this process homeostasis. This is the advent of life.

Life is a series of chemical reactions that do not passively burn out, but actively seek to keep it going. Even though an individual life might die, it reproduces, finding another way to keep the chemical process going. Thus life, a highly concentrated form of existence, can exhibit a constant rate of existence instead of a one and done chemical reaction.

So then how long do we calculate. Where possible we look for calculations of existence that are constant and sustained. We might have an example of a beautiful explosion that creates 10 million existence in one second, but if we can get a chemical reaction that creates 10 existence a second, after 1 million seconds we have more overall profit.

To calculate every single one individually would take too much time, and is unneeded for our general purposes. So we can set a general hierarchy of what is important in calculating morality.

1. Constant and consistent rates of morality are the most valuable. Anytime there is no foreseeable limit to its end, this will always be a more valuable existence than a 'spike' of existence. Thus I could murder someone for a quick spike of existence, but then we would lose the constant rate of that person's life. This is almost always a net negative.

2. Spikes of existence that don't negatively impact steady and constant sets of existence. Explained above with the murderer. But if I want to go have a party with friends, the existence spikes up and is a good thing.

So, anytime a negative or positive spike of existence is considered, we must compare it to the steady existence rates like life or things which support life. If for example you wonder if you should smoke, you might get a short bump in happiness and activity for a while, but die to cancer early down the road. This would be a net negative and immoral to do.

I examine life before intelligent life next to demonstrate how apparent negatives can be positive in extending a homeostasis in the overall life environment. An environment of only sheep would eat all the grass as their population exploded, end all food, and kill all sheep years down the road. Predators prevent this, and extend the homeostasis of life 'indefinitely'.

So,, this is enough again for now. What do you think about what I've written here. Don't think about humans yet! :) Does what I'm saying make sense from what we've built in a world without humans so far?

I don't know nearly enough to know whcih side is closer to 'correct' or whatever the actual case is - I'm just saying how it appears to someone in that position. — AmadeusD

In that case, the normal default is you side with the OP's accusation and expect the accused to answer it. If the OP is of course lying or unfairly accusing, feel free to point out where the OP's accusations fail. But it should be specifics, not general.

I would suggest that your 'Baffle Them....' assertion is likely unconscious projection. — AmadeusD

I would take that suggestion if you presented some evidence. I am very keen that there are people who want me to just be wrong. That colors a lot of the argumentation. Which is fine. And I'm also aware I'm human and can make the mistake that I'm accusing other of. But I would like a concrete example to be sure.

I have had to accept (with Banno, particularly) that I just dont get it — AmadeusD

This is fair and honest. If I'm not being clear enough, that's fine. I've already mentioned this was written two years ago, and if I were to rewrite it today it would be much clearer. Somehow the thread got kicked up again and here we are though. :D

Its really pretty simple:

If we don't know whether our universe has finite or infinite chains of causality A -> B -> C etc...
Lets say there's a finite chain of causality. What caused a finite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason, it simply is.
Lets say there's an infinite chain of causality. What caused an infinite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason, it simply is.

Thus in either case, we have something which has no prior reason for its existence, thus a first cause is logically necessary.

I think the humility to accept that someone in that kind of position is probably on to something is reasonably helpful. — AmadeusD

We shouldn't be concerned about the person, but the arguments. Having success in one area does not mean you'll be successful in another. If there is a particular point that was pointed out that you want me to address, I'll do so.

I am only speaking about your conduct, not your arguments. I simply do not see you addressing hte objections — AmadeusD

If my conduct is flawed or overly hostile, I'll try to do better. I try to keep neutral in the discussion, but I'm human and can fail. My point is that many of his objections are not objections, and he doesn't understand the OP. I could go through paragraph by paragraph and show why, but I did that on his previous post and he's still not getting it. At that point I've found a good way to move forward with honest debaters is to recenter and ask the person critiquing to demonstrate that they understand the OP. Otherwise it can become pages and pages of points and counter points over things that don't even matter to the idea. If he's honest, he'll give it a shot. If he just want to 'be right' and he's doing this for ego, he won't.

I appreciate the feedback btw.

Fwiw, I agree entirely with Christoffer. Do what you will with the information, but it seems patently clear you are not engaging with the objections and instead just rejecting that the person objecting understands you. — AmadeusD

Incorrect. I'm declaring a very real critique of his point. Look, throwing out a bunch of quantum physics references and going off on his own theories with a ton of paragraphs is not a good argument. That's just a "Baffle them with Bull!&*#" strategy. I'm not going to spend my time when I've already directed him to address particular points that he's ignoring, or he still demonstrates he doesn't understand the OP. Look at this here:

But the key point is that the density of the universe right at the event of Big Bang would mean dimensions having no meaning, therefor no causality can occur in that state. It is fundamentally random and therefor you cannot apply a deterministic causality logic to it. — Christoffer

You understand the OP, so you understand that this is the exact description of a first cause. A first cause is uncaused. And yes, something uncaused has no prior cause for its existence. That's the entire point.
This guy isn't getting that despite me trying to tell him a couple of times now. So he agrees with my point, as I've already told him, then he doubles down like he thinks he's saying something against my points. He doesn't understand. He's in his own world.

You still have the Penrose theories, and other cyclic interpretations that do not have a first cause as it's circular. There's no need for a first cause as the cycle, the loop causes itself. — Christoffer

I answer this directly with the summary I gave. He ignores this completely. He doesn't understand that the OP is addressing both finite regressive, as well as infinitely regressive and circular chains of causality and noting that at the end, there is no prior cause for their existence besides the fact of their being. What else can I say to him? You already mentioned in an earlier post that "We're both right". I get it, he can't seem to. :)

This is a lot of effort to avoid addressing the summary I put forth. Also a refusal to explain to me in your own words what I'm saying to show that you understand it.

You get so hung up on forcing people to understand you that you use others rejection of your argument as some evidence that you are right. But in doing so you ignore the objections being raised. — Christoffer

When the writer of the idea tells you that you're off, and tries to clarify it for you, listen. A straw man accusation is serious. And your statement is exactly what a person who uses a straw man does to keep using that logical fallacy. I posted the summary to indicate to you the point of the OP. That was your time to look at the summary and indicate how your point addresses that summary and my accusation was wrong. You did not do this. Meaning my accusation stands. It is not a flaw on my part to accuse you of this. It is a flaw on your part not to adequately answer this.

Nothing you are showing demonstrates that a first cause is not logically necessary by the OP's points and summary, and in many cases, you indicate you think its a very real possibility that first causes can exist. Trolling by going to chat GPT at this point is just silly.

Look, if you don't want to engage with me anymore, that's fine. I'm looking for arguments against the OP and that's all I care about. If you can't bother to address the point of the OP or clearly demonstrate that you are by referencing the OP or the summary, then the straw man accusation stands.

Just try to go into future threads with the intent to understand first before you critique.
— Philosophim

I don't have to, I understand the physics instead. — Christoffer

Have you ever heard of a logical fallacy called a "Straw man argument"?

A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.
One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I've listed an argument. If you say, "I don't have to understand it, I'm going to attack this thing instead," you're committing a fallacy. You're off in your own world over there. I can help you come to understand the OP's point if you want. This isn't to say you can't disprove the OP, you may very well be able to do so. But if you don't understand it, what are you talking about?

I'm going to sum to OP up so its easier to understand. Ask questions and seek to understand it first, then criticize it.

A first cause is something which exists that has no prior cause for its existence.
If we don't know whether our universe has finite or infinite chains of causality A -> B -> C etc...
Lets say there's a finite chain of causality. What caused a finite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason, it simply is.
Lets say there's an infinite chain of causality. What caused an infinite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason, it simply is.

Feel free to ask questions about this, refer to the OP, etc. Try to understand it first. When you show understanding, then critique. As it is, you're just not addressing what I've written and its a waste of both of our times.

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. — jgill

Its not me. I'm irrelevant. Its something we can all rationally discover and use going forward.

Proving a negative like that is indeed difficult to impossible. So it looks as if your concept of the first cause is empty. It seems that it must take care of itself, without any assistance from us. There's not much fun in that. — Ludwig V

I wouldn't call it empty. Having a clear definition and distinction allows us to pull a first cause from a hypothetical into a testable distinction. Its something we can scientifically do, so is now outside the realm of faith.

What I find fun is thinking about not only what is, but what could have been. This leads validity to the idea of multiverse theory. This also lends one to think that anything is possible. If something is not possible, there must be a reason why its not possible. But if a think has no prior reason for its existence, it means it also has no limitations for its existence.

Impossible becomes "X as a first cause does not exist, simply because it did not form". But does that mean it can't in the future? I can't see why not. Are there several things that form self-explained that happen daily, we just don't notice them or they're too small to matter?

As a thought experiment I hypothetically concluded that if things form self-explained, they are likely smaller than larger. Its not because something large cannot form, its just that if all things are possible, and all things are equally likely to happen. Taken in a cube area of matter, its just there are a lot more possibilities per cube of matter that are extremely small vs large. By orders of magnitude per square space of existence, its more likely that something self explained would be extremely small. Within the infinite possibilities we can calculate what is more possible within a limited cube of space.

Thus an event like a big bang (if its actually a first cause) would be extremely rare by orders of magnitude. Its also why we don't see things like fully formed chairs appearing. Given the fact that anything could appear, the idea that it would appear in that cube instead of spread out among all space in the universe is very small. I can go into more details if you like, but I'm trying to summarize some fun ideas I've had.

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

At this point you've made your own decision independent to countering the OP. That's your call. Good discussion.

If we don't know whether our universe has finite or infinite chains of causality A -> B -> C etc...
What caused a finite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason.
What caused an infinite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason. — 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. — jgill

And I have addressed this multiple times.

If we don't know whether our universe has finite or infinite chains of causality A -> B -> C etc...
What caused a finite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason.
What caused an infinite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason.

You have ignored this point, the point of the OP many times. Address this. Why is this wrong?

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

Its a shame you sloppily use math examples that don't properly address the philosophy. Seriously, knock yourself down a peg. We're all tempted to state how glorious our intellect is and how others are inferior to us. Don't fall into that poison trap that we're all tempted to.

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

But that's stretching the meaning of "first" to the point of vacuity, for the concept of "first" is only meaningful in relation to a recognizable order with a distinguished bottom element. — sime

No, its simply pointing out that its a very exact and simple premise. "That which has no prior cause for its being." That's not vacuous or unclear.

In the absence of a well-defined order, the concept makes little sense, especially considering that a rejection of the causal order doesn't entail that postulated "first" causes can't have explanations in terms of other causes, but only that such explanations are incomplete, vague, ever changing, etc. — sime

There is no absence of a well defined order. There comes a point where we find something that has no prior explanation for its existence.

I'm a little confused by what you mean by including both a rejection of the causal order, and an inclusion of other causes. Can you clarify?

I am not rejecting a causal order. I'm just noting that logically, there must be at least one thing which has no prior causality for its existence. It exists purely because it does, not because of something else prior.

It depends what you mean by "true first cause". In certain traditions of philosophy, free will is the traditional cause of actions (as distinct from events); it is traditionally regarded as special - either as an uncaused cause or causa sui. — Ludwig V

A first cause is as simple as you can imagine. It has no prior explanation for its existence. You can claim free will is a first cause, but now you have to prove it. If people cannot prove free will is a first cause, then they cannot claim it to be. This applies to any first cause. Big bang, God, etc.

Indeed. Just as there must be a first cause, even if we don't know what it is yet (although the Big Bang occupied that space for a while), so there must be some brute facts. But that may only mean that we haven't formulated the question yet. — Ludwig V

Very true!

So we formulate a different, and incommensurable, theory which reaches past that point. But the concept of causality is changed in the process. Newton and others, redefined the subject matter of physics in order to mathematize it and introduced the concept of gravity because it was needed (a brute fact, if you like). That concept of time and space was undermined by relativity and quantum physics. Now, physicist/mathematicians are reaching past the Big Bang. But any explanation will involve changing the rules, since "before" the Big Bang, neither time nor space existed. "First cause" will change its meaning. — Ludwig V

No, I think the definition of a first cause is a constant. Causality also does not change. The difference is whether someone has proved that their claim of a first cause is actually a 'first cause'. Can they prove that there is nothing prior that caused it? If they cannot, then they have no proper claim to say that its a first cause. The Big Bang cannot be proven as a first cause, as we do not know if there was something prior that caused it. Even if we discovered a God, it must be proven as a first cause, as there's a question of whether something prior happened to form a God.

In other words Ludwig, no one has ever proven anything as a first cause. While logically necessary that at least one exist, it is extremely difficulty to prove that any particular existence is one.