Would a science forum assure me that I'm not peeping into another universe when I'm asleep? — frank

If its a good one, yes. :)

How do you tell what is real while awake? Lets use sight. Light floods into your eye, hits a nerve, which sends electrical signals to your brain. Your brain constructs a visual reality for you. You don't actually see reality, you envision reality. Meaning you have the capacity in your brain to think something is real when its just a representation.

That's all dreams are. That partial construction and exercise of the brains ability to construct a conscious reality. Its not another dimension, and its not real outside of your own image. If you doubt this, go to a science forum. Philosophy that does not address the science of its day in its musings is not philosophy, but ignorance masquerading as profoundness.

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

The context is the OP. If there is something I am saying that is unclear, please ask me to clarify as I've attempted to.

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

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

It's unsupported and is therefore unlike the evaluation of the expression 2+2 which, paired with = 4 creates an equation that evaluates the expression 2+2 down to one number 4. — ucarr

The argument supports it. You are having trouble imagining it or understanding it because you have never experienced it before. But that's not an argument against its logic. You are using an incorrect metaphor. Something uncaused it not 2+2=4. Its 1. A whole integer without parts. You keep inserting causality where something is uncaused. If you can show that the logic of the OP cannot lead to something uncaused, feel free to present that argument. But all you're presenting here is essentially, "I don't like it or have experience with it, therefore it just can't be." That's not an argument, that's just a protestation.

You have not done the work of evaluating by a chain of reasoning to the conclusion, "There was nothing, then something." All you have is what you believe to be a conclusion to a fundamental truth without the work of evaluating to it via a chain of reasoning. — ucarr

No Ucarr. You and I both know I reasoned to it. And you're avoiding that argument entirely because you can't counter it. That's why you keep trying to make these outside argument instead of addressing the argument directly. Ucarr, lets say something existed forever. What caused it? Nothing right? Its not that an uncaused existence is beyond your understanding. Its that you've never considered the logical consequence of what the existence of even one uncaused thing means. That's the new territory. And like new territory people are either fascinated by it or react against it. You're still in 'react' mode which is fine. But I'm trying to get you to get to the 'fascinated' part which is quite frankly much more fun. :)

You are confusing the circularity of repeating an unproven conclusion with the justifiable repetition of a conclusion from a chain of reasoning to a fundamental truth. — ucarr

No, I have the argument in the OP. Feel free to point out where you think it fails logically. Your addition example is not addressing something uncaused, but involved causality. Use the vocabulary I've provided, use the examples I've provided and address the argument. Otherwise all you've stated is an expression that you don't like it which is not enough to counter the argument.

If it is a causal chain we cannot assume that it is one thing that existed alone and suddenly gave birth to a second thing. — JuanZu

Maybe. The problem is we're talking about universal origins, and we're talking about theory, not fact. For all we know its possible that there is something that formed that then formed something else.

Causality does not consist in creating things out of nothing (one thing creating a second thing out of nothing) but in creating things out of other various things (plural). That is why the idea of a first cause is so problematic. — JuanZu

Understood, and again, I think this is a good thing to think about. One of the conclusions about my point here is that anything can exist at anytime without prior cause. So why would it only be one thing that is uncaused? Why would it be 1 billion things? Why not one thing, then another thing 1 second later? What if there are still uncaused things happening throughout the universe as we speak? My point in all of this is that the argument does not conclude it has to be only one thing.

Perhaps the problem is to understand causality in a linear and horizontal way and not in a vertical way in the order of coexistence. — JuanZu

I believe we have to consider it in all ways, thus expanding the scope out to everything.

Yes, it can be said that it is possible that only one thing exists. But then we could no longer speak of causal relationships, don't you think? — JuanZu

At that point we would be looking at something that is uncaused and what that would entail.

You don't use the words "scope of existence," but "existence encapsulates everything that is" means the same thing. — ucarr

Ok, so you admit that I don't use the phrase "Scope of existence". I also cannot read your mind and noted, "I don't know what you mean by 'scope of existence'. Now I know. Why not just say, "Existence encapsulates everything that is"? It makes your point clear and I know what you're talking about.

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

I specifically relate the scope of causality to all of existence. There is no, 'lesser or greater' scope. That's you being dishonest with a phrase of your own invention to create a straw man in a poor attempt to make this a set theory argument. Got ya. Be honest with me and stop playing games Ucarr.

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

You have quoted me and stated I used the phrase "Scope of existence" when i did not. Now you're just flat out lying. I don't mind an honest conversation Ucarr, but you're using underhanded tactics. That's only used by people who have no legitimate argument. Stop with the games and trying to twist what you want in what I'm stating. I can only conclude at this point that if you take what I say at face value, you have no actual counter. Why do all this otherwise?

About the scope of composition I have always wondered if when we reach the limit of composition we come to find something very different from composite things: A simple thing, without parts. I wonder likewise whether this simple thing is in a higher order of existence with respect to composite things. — JuanZu

And we would still ask, "What caused that to exist?" The answer is always the same in the end of the causal chain.

This said in causal terms seems to indicate that there are always at least two and never a first cause. First there is relation in terms of ratio essendi. The relational aspect of things seems to be primary and determinative of the identity of things themselves. — JuanZu

An interesting point. But we can imagine a universe consisting of one simple thing. That would exist correct?

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

Can you quote my ambiguous language? — ucarr

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

With you saying directly above "My point is only that existence has no outside cause for its being," I ask again, "Why do you not think there is non-existence followed by the universe being caused [by] non-existence? — ucarr

And I tell you again, non-existence cannot cause existence. Uncaused Ucarr. Your conscious or unconscious refusal to use the vocabulary I've given you is not my inability to communicate that.

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

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

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

No. I thought we settled this earlier.

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

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

You're going back on what you stated earlier. The above is what stands. I don't know whether you're aware you're doing it or not, but before you post next time check yourself please.

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

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

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

Uncausation is not a thing Ucarr. You repeatedly make this mistake. It does not exist outside of the universe. It is a logical conclusion. You keep inserting a 'thing'. Uncaused is not a thing. Non-existence is not a thing. There was nothing, then something. No inbetween. No movement. That's it. I've been gracious on this as I'm hoping you just don't understand it. Your insistence in continually not just using the concept of 'uncaused' is starting to look like you're trying to be sneaky and dishonest. I expect next post you will not have this problem.

Try again using the terms I've provided. Nothing, something, no going from one state to another. Just non-existence, then existence.

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

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

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

I can and did. Your ability to comprehend it or desire not to accept it has no bearing on whether its a logical conclusion.

You describe your uncaused universe in such a way that it becomes what you want to believe about it. — ucarr

No, my wants have nothing to do with the argument. I'm only noting what is logically concluded. You want it to be some other way, not me Ucarr.

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

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

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

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

Possibility cannot be excluded from real things. — ucarr

I don't know what you mean by this. Try again using the idea of 'uncaused' without trying to insert something inbetween non-existence and existence please.

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

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

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

By your own projection... — DifferentiatingEgg

If you haven't read this section, do so now. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/480/site-guidelines-note-use-of-ai-rules-have-tightened

You are off topic and attacking me personally. Last warning before I flag your post for a moderator.

↪Philosophim lol, Mr. IS-OUGHT himself... — DifferentiatingEgg

To help you do better on these forums, feel free to address my points here instead of a personal opinion you have about my character.

Thinkers just debate logical arguments. Debating what we should call a thought process like 'process philosophy' is a waste of time. Either the argument a person presents is logically sound or it isn't. Most people aren't going to care what you label it, especially on these public forums. This is a debate for bored people who aren't working on solving real issues of philosophy.

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

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

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

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

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

Why don't you care about the relationship between the scope of existence and the scope of causation? — ucarr

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

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

I don't know what the phrase, "Plays within the universe" means. The argument has been presented, feel free to note where you disagree at this point. A couple of pure questions is fine Ucarr, but it feels like you're asking things that are plainly answered, and it feels like you're using ambiguous language as a trap. Don't do that. Submit your criticism and I'll clarify if there's a problem.

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

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

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

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

Since you say, "...if there is no prior cause for something being, then there are no rules for why it should or should not be," why do you not think there being no rules governing being, not being and how to be amounts to unlimited possibility? — ucarr

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

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

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

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

First, you don't have to do anything in life. Amputate your arm if you wish. Snort cocaine. Beat your head into a wall until you crush your nose into your face. There is nothing forcing you to do anything. So the idea that an argument against suicide has to be, "Because I have to live", is absurd.

Do you want to live? That's a perfectly fine reason not to commit suicide. Argument over. Now the greater question: Do you want to live, but currently you're not really feeling it right now? Go talk to a psychologist or friend. Try to get to the root of why you're not feeling that way when you once did. You cannot take personal emotional issues and turn them into philosophical issues. Good luck.

Since existence encapsulates everything that is, that includes the entire scope of causality within the closed system of existence? — ucarr

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why should I let you do such a thing? Let's start with that. — Arcane Sandwich

Obviously you're not interested in this discussion. Another day and another post then.

I don't think that's physically possible. Like, how would you even do it? Do you set up a sort of trap to catch it? — Arcane Sandwich

I think we're having a semantic disagreement. Let me be more specific and you can describe it in whatever terms you would like.

Lets say that science claims that ten tons of force in X direction will result in it traveling Y kilometers in Z direction. We apply the force, and the result happens without the introduction of new variables. Looks like the causal prediction was true.

Lets say that science does the same, no new variables are introduced, but the distance falls short one meter every time. Our causal claim does not match to reality, therefore is not true.

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

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

Is it true you're saying the entire scope of causality is the focal point of your argument? — ucarr

I believe so, yes.

Are you saying the uncaused thing began inside of the universe? — ucarr

"Inside" is a tricky word if there was nothing to begin with. If there was at least one thing that existed and something uncaused appeared, then yes. But if there was absolutely nothing, that inception would be the beginning of the universe.

Are you saying your logic of a universal origin and meaning gives equal weight to the possibility of: a) an uncaused universe; b) an eternal universe? — ucarr

Yes.

Are you saying that before the entirety of existence existed, the universe could have been anything? — ucarr

Yes.

↪Philosophim Reality is what it is. Truth is why it is what it is. — EnPassant

Causality is why it is what it is. If we have captured causality that is real, then it is true.

Look, I think climate change denialists should take half of their brain out of their head, make a smoothy out of it, then drink it. I think they're some of the dumbest and ethically lowest human beings on the planet. That being said...they should be given a chance to say whatever they want. As long as they are not outright insulting or trolling, this is a place where all ideas should be discussed. Self-righteousness is something we ought to be very careful of. We debate all people, not just the educated, ethical, or highly intelligent.

Suspicious page alert Banno.

Not a worry Bob! We may not agree on these points but I always respect your honest engagement and viewpoint.

Bob I'm not even too sure where to start with this one at this point. I feel you keep making this needlessly complicated and introducing aspects that I'm not including. I would read Ucarr's reply and my response to him to reset on the right track. Let me see if I can sum up your issues and get us back on a clearer path again.

What I was noting is that if something caused C, when taken as its members, and is not itself caused then that thing is not a member of C; and this is patently true because C contains only real things that are caused—which precludes things that are not caused — Bob Ross

No, this is not what C is. C is the entire sum of all scoped causality. So by consequence if A causes B, then C does not cause A. If nothing causes A, then there is no prior causality that caused A. That's all part of the scope.

Existence itself is not a property like other properties: you can’t ask “why is there being?” like “why is there red things?”. — Bob Ross

Why can't I? That fits in the scope. You'll need to explain why this question cannot be asked logically. For example I can say, "There are red things because light reflects off of them at a particular wavelength that we label as 'red'". That's a more narrow scope, but the scope of causality can be expanded further to the point of encapsulating everything. If it cannot, please point out in the OP where I make this mistake and why.

In terms of why do things exist, the question in an infinite regress would be that each one explains the other: that’s no problem to answer. — Bob Ross

What caused the infinite regress? Again, what caused it to be an infinite regress of diamonds versus garnets? What you're doing is limiting the scope, but you can't give me a logical reason why I can't expand it farther.

As you know, I would say that God is the explanation. The issue is that your argument tries to determine a priori that each cogent solution results in the idea of everything being uncaused; — Bob Ross

What caused God?

The answer is not that F causes C. Its that C is uncaused.

If you agree that sets aren’t real, then you must concede that C cannot be caused or uncaused. — Bob Ross

This doesn't address the point at all. I don't know what you mean by sets not being real, nor how this addresses the logic of something uncaused.

your proof is supposed to demonstrate all of them leading back to everything being uncaused; and so if there is even on solution that doesn’t lead back to that, then your thesis is void. — Bob Ross

Correct.

An infinite regression is one such example. — Bob Ross

No, because you have yet to demonstrate how an infinite regression is caused by something prior instead of uncaused.

Again, read Ucarrs post and my reply before responding Bob. I think that will help reset us on the same page again.

Good to see you again Ucarr! Great write up, let me see if I can justifiably answer your points.

The implication of a total existence from infinite possibilities is that non-existence is actually unlimited possibility. There’s an idea that nothingness equals no restrictions. — ucarr

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

On the other side of the coin, we can ask, how existence, being self-contained, can do other than persist as existence. — ucarr

It persists as existence because the causal beginning point "It simply is" formed an existence that did not have anything within itself that it would cease to exist. There is nothing preventing an existence that formed and would only last for 12 seconds before ceasing to exist. The existence we have today has lasted for billions of years, but that doesn't mean that it has to. Statistically, its likely that the tiniest aspects of existence which are not composed of other existence, may very well fade out over time as one could last 1 billion and one seconds, 1 billion and two seconds, etc. In addition, these small aspect of existence may simply form at any time as well. Its an interesting cosmology to think about.

Now we have two posits about the origin of the universe: a) the universe is eternal; b) the universe is self-caused. — ucarr

These are not mutually exclusive. It is one possibility that the universe is both eternal, and does not have any prior cause that made it eternal.

This leaves us preferring to see the universe as self-caused and eternal. — ucarr

And it can also be the case that the universe is not eternal and has no prior cause that explains why it started to begin. So if what I've noted is true, both are equal possibilities with none being more necessary than the other.

There is no argument for God being unchanging in the context you're using.
— Philosophim
There are several arguments for that. Please see Count Timothy von Icarus post here. By change, I mean going from one state to another state. — MoK

My point is that's a gross misunderstanding of the text and quite frankly, stupid. If someone holds that argument don't even waste your time.

Hi EricH, I wanted to say first of all I love your light hearted style of posting, much appreciated. :)

As I use them, the words “true” and “false” are adjectives which describe properties of statements/propositions. The words “truth” and “falsehood” are the noun forms of the adjectives; they identify statements/propositions that have the property of being true/false. — EricH

I agree with this.

Any discussion of wisdom, knowledge, belief etc is a separate topic which has no bearing on the semantics of the word “truth”. — EricH

This is a common mistake among newer philosophers. Any discussion of true and false must involve the context of belief and knowledge in some sense of the discussion. Its because there are a few questions that always pop up? "Do you believe it is true, or do you know it is true?" "What is truth apart from our beliefs and knowledge?" Often times when speaking about 'truth' people mistakenly blend in belief or knowledge and conflate the two. So the division is actually pretty important.

1) Statements are true if they accurately (or as accurately as possible) describe the real world (AKA reality, the universe, existence, what is, etc) This is commonly referred to as the Correspondence Theory of Truth.
2) Mathematical/logical propositions are true if they follow the rules of a particular mathematical/logical framework -e.g. Peano Arithmetic. Any particular proposition can be true in one mathematical system and false in another. — EricH

No objection here either. What's important here is that you have clearly established that we are talking about truth as a state of reality, not a belief or something we know.

Mathematics is not true by virtue of being. Mathematical statements/propositions are true or false within the rules/context of a particular framework, but the words “true” and “false” do not apply to the field of mathematics (the manipulation of numbers and symbols). Mathematics is neither true not false. — EricH

Almost, we just have to clarify the context. Is it true that 1 captures 'an identity'? Is it true that 1+1=2? Is it a belief, or is it a known truth? After all, we just don't believe that 1+1=2, we know that 1+1=2. 1+1=3 would be false, but this is because we know it to be false. So true and false do apply to mathematics, its just when we have correct math its 'true' and incorrect math is 'false'. Is it a truth apart from knowledge and belief, or is it true in virtue of the knowledge that created math?

If you are using the word “truth” as a synonym for “existence” then the following sentence is semantically correct:

“According to our best scientific knowledge, truth came into existence 13.8 billion years ago” — EricH

Close! If there was no existence, then that would be the truth of 'what is'. In this case, 'what isn't'. If it helps, think of the state of A vs not A. A if false if it doesn't exist, and A is true if it does. But if A does not exist I can also say, "It is true that A does not exist". So the same if there was no existence all those years ago.

Absolutely! That is exactly what you are doing here - you are giving the word “truth” an additional context that converts it into a “wiggle word”. There are already two clear & distinct contexts in which we can use the word “truth”, there’s no compelling need to give it this third definition. — EricH

I don't think it is wiggly though. Truth is, "What is". In the first two cases it is 'what is' apart from belief and knowledge. In the second case it can also be 'What is" despite belief and knowledge. I'm noting that some people also use truth to say, "Its true that I believe X" and "Its true that I know y." In the case of these statements however, it doesn't mean that what one knows or believes is true itself, its that its true that you know or believe it.

Its false that a pink elephant exists (True that it does not exist)
Its true that I believe there is a pink elephant.
Its true that I know there is a pink elephant.

In every case the term true as 'What is" is the same, its just that belief and knowledge introduce a context in which we have to be careful. Is true targeting the state of the person's outlook on A, or whether the underlying outlook A is true or not?

I would consider “knowledge” and “belief” to be wiggle words - and as I stated they have nothing to do with the point I am trying to communicate. There are endless discussions out here on TPF debating the meanings/usages of these words - and it seems like no two people can agree. — EricH

Fair enough.

As long as we remember that belief and knowledge are assessments of what is true, and not 'Truth' itself, its a bit easier to sort out a solid meaning of truth that more easily avoids being a wiggle word.
— Philosophim
I’m not sure what you’re saying here. You’ve capitalized ’Truth’. Are you asserting that there is this, umm, thing out there called Truth? — EricH

Hopefully the above clarified the issue. Its basically the difference between the state of our outlooks on A, versus whether A is true or false apart from our outlooks.

I asked for the argument for God being unchanging. I didn't ask whether God is immortal or not. — MoK

There is no argument for God being unchanging in the context you're using. I'm noting that 'immutable' in this sense is the fact of the eternal nature. You have to be very careful to understand the context and not just use out of context meaning of the words. No one, and I mean no one, is saying that God literally cannot act, think, evolve, etc. Your argument is a straw man. If you want to attack what people are saying, note the fact of God's eternal existence or ineffability.

What is the argument for God's essence to be immutable? — MoK

My understanding again is this is meant to convey that God cannot be created or destroyed. God always was, and always will be.

By unchanging I simply mean that it never moves or changes. God could have existed since the beginning of time and by unchanging I don't mean that. — MoK

No worry, that's just a misinterpretation of prose to mean God has always existed, or that his standard of good and plan have been known since the beginning. Of course God changes in the act of 'acting'. He even spoke to people in the bible, which requires action and reaction.

P1) The act of creation is caused by an agent so-called God
D1) This act is defined as an act of creation of something from nothing — MoK

Your second premise contradicts your first. If God created something, then that something came from God, not nothing.

We can still hold C1, but that only comes from P1 if we assume D1 is false.

FC) Therefore, God changes — MoK

Yeah, everything else leads to that, no issues here. My greater question would be what you're trying to point out. If you're trying to say that in prose writing someone said, "God is unchanging", do you understand what the term means? Do they mean unchanging as in, "God has never moved and is frozen in time," or "God has always existed." Because its usually the latter, and only the confused cite the former. :)

So, is your answer that you are talking about A and A = C? — Bob Ross

No, I'm noting that C involves A, but they are not the same thing. You're the one who introduced A, not me. :)

In the case of an infinite regress of causality, the scope would be capturing everything causally

But this isn’t true for a first cause, F, of C; such that if there is a first cause then C != A. — Bob Ross

The scope captures everything causally because C != A. I've never claimed that it was equal.

In a finite set we ask, "What caused A to be?" and there is no prior causality

This “A” that you refer to here—which is an existent thing and not a set—cannot be a member of C if it is uncaused. — Bob Ross

Yes it can, because one of the answers to something causally is that it is uncaused. You seem to be putting this answer outside of causality, when I'm noting its one of the answers.

Sets are not caused—ever. The members of the sets may be caused. Again, you are conflating sets with real things. Sets are not real. — Bob Ross

We're in complete agreement that sets aren't real. I'm just using it to give a better understanding of what I was trying to get across. This has seemed to add more confusion, so I gave you another example, "What caused existence period?" I never said 'the set' itself is caused, only its members. I am not conflating anything here Bob, I think that's just you.

1. The Gem God would not be a member D; nor is the Cobalt God a member of T. — Bob Ross

Incorrect. They are part of the causality of that universe, therefore they are part of the scope of causality in that universe. There is no logic in separating them from the causal chain of the universe when they are part of the chain. I think you are misunderstanding what the causal scope is. Take a re-read of the scope section if you need to so that you understand it is not a chain of 'all things' but 'the full scope of causality'.

There is no situation in this case where anything that exists is uncaused. Your response is: “but what about the set itself?”. The set isn’t real. It is not a real thing which is caused or uncaused. — Bob Ross

No, I'm referring to the chain we've found in the set itself up to the point where we increase the scope to include the question, "What caused existence at all?" Can you answer that question Bob? My answer is, "Its uncaused." Why am I wrong?

E.g., if T is an infinite regression of caused cobalt, then the reason each cobalt exists is explained by the previous leaving no room to need to explain anything else. — Bob Ross

No, because there's still the question, "What caused there to be existence at all?" Further this ignores the question of other possible universes. What caused universe 1 to exist instead of universe 2 once you go up the causal chain within that universe? There is nothing outside of that universe that caused it to be, therefore it is uncaused.

It can’t be the case that F causes C and that F is a member of C — Bob Ross

The answer is not that F causes C. Its that C is uncaused. Which again, we're having problems with the set here instead of you addressing the plain question. "What caused existence?" You didn't reply to this very specific question from the last post Bob, so I think you're avoiding it to refocus on the sets that I've already told you are just a tool to convey this notion. Drop the sets if they aren't helpful to you, I don't care. This question is the question that only has one answer, 'Its uncaused."

Sometimes you say you are talking about the totality of caused things, and then say it is the totality of what exists. Which is it? — Bob Ross

I am talking about the scope of causality that encompasses all things. You cannot talk about the totality of call causes without the totality of all existence. In the case of an infinite regress of causality, the scope would be capturing everything causally. Its no different from a finite set. The difference is in the locus of the question. In a finite set we ask, "What caused A to be?" and there is no prior causality. In a finite set we ask, "What caused this infinite regressive set to be?" and there is no prior causality.

Another way to answer this is, "The first cause is explained by itself." "An infinite set of causality is explained by itself." There is functionally no difference between these two at the last scoped question of causality which is essentially, "What caused the set to exist?"

Again I think the infinite set is the only issue you have. Lets say we have one universe A that is a set of causal interactions between diamonds. That's all the universe is. There is a starting point we call the Gem God. Now there is a universe B which is a universe of cobalt. There is a starting point we call the cobalt God.

Now imagine the same universes, only there is no gem or cobalt God. Its just a cascading series of gems causing other gem states in C, and just a cascading series of cobalt causing other cobalt states in D. What caused universe C to exist instead of universe D? What caused A or B? Nothing. There is a scope of causality that when we fully extend out, cannot be found. There is no outside force, because anything outside is included in the set. But this last question when the full scope of any universe is reached always has the same answer. Nothing caused that particular universe to be. It simply is if it exists.

EDIT: in other words, asking "is C caused?" presupposes that C could be a caused thing which would entail it is not C but rather a member of C (viz., it is not the set of caused things but, rather, a caused thing that is in that set). — Bob Ross

'C' is the scope of all causality. And yes, when you extend the scope of causality out, we ask the last question, "What caused all of this other causality to exist apart from what we can discover?" And the answer IS inside of C Bob. The answer is, "Its uncaused". Its the final piece of any universal set of causality. We find we always come to a question we cannot answer, therefore the only answer is, "Its uncaused." And if its uncaused, then all the other consequences I noted follow.

Your idea of U just muddies the waters, since you are trying to argue that ontologically we can determine that all causal things are uncaused by way of abstraction of the totality of caused things (C). — Bob Ross

If I understand this correctly, I think the only problem you have is with the idea that an infinite regress of causality has no cause for its being.

A set of infinitely regressive causality could itself be just as real and lack any explanation for its existence as a set of finite regressive causality.

The members would be real, the set would not; and your argument depends on the set itself being treated as real like its members. Again, and to which you never responded, the members sufficiently explaining each other makes the entire set sufficiently explained; and, thusly, the set itself is not uncaused in the sense of causing the members. — Bob Ross

We also seem to have a mix up between my example and your example. Lets pull this back into a better abstract as the specifics aren't communicating the issue that I'm trying to point out. The knowledge of the infinite regress does not make the entire set of causality sufficiently explained. What caused that particular set of infinite regresses? I think a better way to fold it all together Bob, "Why is there anything at all?"

The answer is that its uncaused. Even a God right? And if there is no prior cause for anything, whether that 'anything' start with a God, a pile or rocks, or has infinite minor causes running back forever, then there is no origin that is logically necessary for the universe to exist.

If there is no cause which explains why the universe is here, then it didn't need to be here. It could have just as easily not been. It could be that there are other universes. Why not? When we realize the ultimate cause for why there is any existence at all is 'uncaused' there are no limits as to what could have been.

No matter what you discover about your universe, it will never change this fact. Discovering those origins can tell you a lot about your universe as is, but it will never indicate why it is. It simply is. It did not require anything necessary for it to be, it just is. Therefore if one does not know the full causal chain of their universe by scientific proof it is impossible to philosophically argue by reason alone that any one possible causal origin of that universe was necessary or impossible. Necessary and impossible imply an inviable causality, and since there is none, there is no limit.

Bye Egg. Keep working on English and logic, you'll improve with time.

Lol, I really can't take that seriously though, not only is it non sequitur from sentence 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 but 2 and 3 aren't questions of should. — DifferentiatingEgg

You don't think anyone who's lived has ever asked, "Should I be alive?" People commit suicide all the time Egg. Its a viable question of morality that is asked and should have an objective answer. Just because you're simply alive, doesn't mean that objectively you should be alive. "Should" entails that given the option in the next second to continue living or end your life, you should continue living.

Existence doesn't need to be justified before asking a moral question, — DifferentiatingEgg

This isn't about justifying existence. Whether existence should be or not is irrelevent to the fact it exists.
I'm wondering if you understand this distinction in my terms, as I think you keep mixing up 'should' with 'is'. You are ironically, committing an is/ought fallacy. Just because something exists, doesn't mean it should exist. So the fact that existence is, doesn't mean we can't ask the question 'But should it?" You precluding asking the question and assuming because it is, its justified in existing...is an is/ought fallacy. I am not doing this. I am separating the fact that existence is from the question of whether it should be.

In your argument morality define existence because of it being ao easily reduced to absurdity from the ambiguous definitions which you use Is Ought fallacies to achieve which we can see because good should be is. — DifferentiatingEgg

This is a run on sentence that doesn't have a cohesive point. Let me break it down for you to see if I can get to what you're trying to say here.

"In your argument morality defines existence..."

No, I do not use morality to define existence. Existence is, whether it should be or not. Morality is the question of whether it should be. A separation of the is, from the ought.

"Easily reduced to absurdity from the ambiguous definitions which you use"

I've given you clear definitions in a recent post. An assertion without evidence doesn't work in a discussion like this. Maybe you're right that I have something ambiguous, but if you don't point out exactly where it is, I won't know if you are correct or had a question I can easily answer and clarify.

"Is Ought fallacies to achieve which we can see because good should be"

Except for the fact that I never note that the fact that existence is, is why it should be. I've told you this several times now and asked you to cite in the OP where I do this. You have not been able to, which means currently you are wrong. Point to the evidence in the OP and give your reasoning.

Please spend a little more time reviewing paragraphs like these before you post. I'm trying to figure out if this is what you're trying to say instead of you clearly communicating your intentions. Let me know if my assessment captures what you're saying, and if not, clarify more carefully please.

I know I know, you're going to attempt an appeal to emotion via the fallacy of equivocation through taking your definition adjectival good and substituting it for the noun of a moral good with your example of murdering a child... but that's just another fallacy you use to move the goalpost switching between definitions through equivocation. — DifferentiatingEgg

I genuinely don't know what you're talking about here. Attacking something you think I'm going to say doesn't really work. If I say it, fine. But I'm not saying that.

I easily showed how we can reduce your argument to absurdity by the ambiguity of your definitions by line 2 of your OP. — DifferentiatingEgg

What is line two? This? 2. It is unknown whether there is an objective morality. Part b? Please clarify.

1. Good should be
2. Existence is
3. Morality evaluates Good
4. Existence should be

Ok, so 1,2 and 3 are definitions. Again my definition of 1 is not "Good should be" its Good - "What should be"

You're also omitting a fairly important step, "Assume an objective morality exists." Because this is part of the argument that leads to the conclusion of 4. I conclude 4 as part of an entire argument, not simply from the definitions of 1,2, and 3.

So, no ambiguity of definitions, just set definitions and an argument that leads to the conclusion. I have yet to see you address the actual argument. That's steps c-g. That's how I conclude 4. This argument of ambiguous definitions is over unless you point out where there is ambiguity specifically, as well as this argument that I'm just concluding 4 from the definitions alone.
— DifferentiatingEgg

5. Thus, Existence = Good (cause 1&4)
6. Thus, morality evaluates existence (3&5) — DifferentiatingEgg

Lets clarify 5. Existence is, and it should be. But I do not make the claim "Because existence is, its good". I make the claim that existence is through parts c-g. 6 I'm not really making. Morality evaluates what should be. But non-existence is on the table. So it doesn't evaluate existence, but also whether existence should be.

7. When in truth you evaluate existence to define morality not the other way round. — DifferentiatingEgg

Are you saying I do this, or are you saying this is what you believe? If you think I do this, you'll need to demonstrate where this happens in parts c-g.

But in your model, since existence is only good (5) all morality is good (because 7 logically morality is a subset of existence), thus even killing under your model is good, as it is also a subset of existence... — DifferentiatingEgg

No, I never make this claim. Again, as I mentioned last post, this is answering a very specific and base question. "If there is an objective morality, faced with non-existence vs existence, should existence be?" This is existence in the abstract, not quantified specifics. You're predicting where I'm going to go afterward, then criticizing me. That's wrong. If I haven't stated it, then you're arguing against something I haven't said That's a straw man. Only address the logical conclusion made at this time. Is the logical conclusion from steps c-g flawed? That's what you can reasonably criticize.

You see I divided the entire theory up into a few posts. If you look at the end of the OP, I have another section linked. This post is only meant to establish a base. The second is to explore what that means. There I introduce quantity within existence, and demonstrate that some states of existence should be over others. So no, if existence is good compared to nothing, that does not logically lead to the idea that all states of existence are equal and some states cannot be more good than others.

Complete utter nonsense. — DifferentiatingEgg

Yes, attacking something I didn't say is complete and utter nonsense. Work on your reading comprehension and sentence structure over sweeping assertions meant to belittle. You look like an idiot.

Furthermore, from your presupposition of objective morality in line 1, we may presuppose the objective morality as:

"Assume the objective morality is that all humans must die, because all humans are mortal"

then its not necessarily that existence should be... making line 2 an occasion sentence. — DifferentiatingEgg

You could presuppose that, but you can't make a logical argument for it because of sections c-g. The conclusion that existence should be is from c-g, and since you aren't citing how c-g leads to your supposition being logically proven, its not. Please clarify what an 'occasion sentence' means as this is a nonsense phrase and not proper English.

So in summary, read parts c-g as that's the actual argument, not an argument through definitions alone.

Instead of a big post, that I had, we're going to take this 1 step at a time. Starting completely over. — DifferentiatingEgg

Not a worry, we'll tackle it that way then.

I assume from presupposition that an objective morality exists. — DifferentiatingEgg

Correct, we're assuming there is an objective morality, but we aren't asserting there actually is one. This is not a proof of an objective morality, this is assuming that if an objective morality exists we can find something necessarily true about it.

But your seemingly multiple leaps in logic prevent me from seeing how point b is possible.

That existence should be.

How does point b necessarily follow if hypothetically an objective morality exists? — DifferentiatingEgg

Sure, let me go over it.

Starting with human centric morality, a question might be asked, "Should I lie to another person for personal gain?" But to truly answer this objectively, I must first have the answer to the question. "Should I exist at all?" Yet this goes further. until we arrive at a fundamental question of morality that must be answered before anything else can. "Should there be existence at all?" — Philosophim

My point is, take any moral question and it will have a cascading set of implicit questions that have to be answered first if it is to be objective. If I'm asking whether I should steal for my own benefit, I have to first know whether I should be concerned about my own benefit. Of course, this means that I should also know if I should exist. But for me to exist, there must be matter that exists as well. Should that exist? Until eventually we ask the question, "Should anything exist at all, or should nothing?" If there is an objective morality then there are only two answers as its a binary, yes or no.

At this point, I have not declared that the answer is yes. That's the remaining letters. Does this clarify what I'm doing at this point? Any problems that you see?

Assume the objective morality is that all humans must die, because all humans are mortal then existence necessarily should not be... and it's the case that because you think existence is good, that it ought to be... — DifferentiatingEgg

To be clear, this isn't what we're asking. We're starting at a very simple base right? We can't solve calculus until we start with what the number 1 means, and then 1+1=2. I'm claiming nothing more at this point then the question of, "Should there be existence, or none?" So its important not to take anything more than that in the current OP. I build on it into something more in the second post linked in the OP, but for now, its just this one lone basic question.

"Existence should be" is at best an occasion sentence. — DifferentiatingEgg

No, its an answer from a very clear yes or no question that was setup through a and b. Reread the other letters to see why "Existence should be" is the only logical answer we can give.

Existence is
Morality defines good
Good should be — DifferentiatingEgg

A correction, morality is the methodology used to evaluate what is good. Good is defined as "What should be" "Existence" on its own does not necessitate that it should be. These are the definitions I start with and are not interchangeable.

Existence should be (thus existence is also defined as good)
Morality defines what should be
But good is also what should be, but also existence should be...so morality defines existence...which defines good which defines morality which defines existence... — DifferentiatingEgg

None of this follows from my initial definitions, nor do I claim this. Reread it with the proper definitions I've given, not summaries of your own.

Definitely not envious of perpetuated delusion. — DifferentiatingEgg

And I am not envious of your flaw that you cannot keep a conversation civil and need to insert insults like a monkey throwing poo. I have been polite about your reading comprehension so far because the way you type indicates that English is likely your second language. Your sentences often lack clarity, appropriate detail, and I am trying my best to infer what you mean. A little self-reflection and humbleness that you may not be grasping the full context or communicating accurately what you intend may dispel YOUR delusion that you have any right to be making claims that I'm perpetually deluded.

Take what I've written here, think about it some more carefully, and write a response that is polite like a basic civilized adult. English as a second language doesn't mean you have to be a piece of trash in conversations. If the next response indicates an obvious lack of reading comprehension, straw man argument, or another monkey throwing poo session for you, my patience and this conversation will be over.

"Good should be"
Starting a premise with a conclusion begs the question why good should be. Which you never answer without is ought. — DifferentiatingEgg

Its just a definition. And its that the term is defined as "What should be." I'll ask again, do you have another definition of good? If you have an issue with my definition that's fine. Me proposing a definition that many would agree with is not a logical is/ought fallacy.

And the adjectival form of good is not what should be. Simply something desired. Should be assumes entitlement to what is good. — DifferentiatingEgg

Ok, now this is something we can discuss. So you think the definition of good is what we desire. So if I desire to murder a child is that good? What is your justification for noting that anything we desire is good?

More of less it's an argument from presupposition that good should be which begs the question of how you derive at the notion of why good should be and everyone of your moving of the goalpost examples of why good should be ends up pointing back to several fallacies. — DifferentiatingEgg

Again, this is not an argument of supposition, it is an introduction to a definition and then logical arguments from there. Feel free to disagree with the definition and what you would propose instead. My definition does not fall into the is/ought fallacy as it is merely a definition, but you can propose another we should work with and why you think that's better.

You cannot state logically why the noun "Good" "should be" — DifferentiatingEgg

Once again, I'm going to type out a more complete representation here. I say the definition of good is "What should be". You have not asked me to justify this until now. Instead of saying, "You cannot state," simply ask me to justify it first.

At the heart of every claim to good, there is the notion that what is good is a state that is preferable over another. Lets start basic. Good is making a child laugh with joy. Bad is murdering a child for fun. The intent conveyed behind something that is considered good is that good is a 'positive' state, and a positive state is what should be. Of course, knowing objective what a positive state is and how to evaluate it is a tall order. But few disagree that what is good should 'should be' while what is bad 'should not be'.

This leads me to point 1:

1. All moral questions boil down to one fundamental question that must be answered first, "Should there be existence?"

Starting with human centric morality, a question might be asked, "Should I lie to another person for personal gain?" But to truly answer this objectively, I must first have the answer to the question. "Should I exist at all?" Yet this goes further. until we arrive at a fundamental question of morality that must be answered before anything else can. "Should there be existence at all?" — Philosophim

So, you can feel free to disagree with my definition, but put what you think works best in its place. Can it avoid the decent into asking if there should be existence at all?

This thread would get 0 action if you didn't bump it so much... because it's just complete fallacy that you continue to bump in other posts. — DifferentiatingEgg

I'm going to try with you one more time. This smacks of a petty ego that is jealous or envious that this post is so popular. Don't. What's important is a good discussion, not a post that has a bunch of replies.

Again, I have invited you to discuss with me as an equal. I'm listening to your points with respect, asking questions, and trying to answer yours the best I can. And you spit on me. I treat you like an equal, and you act like an inferior. Because only an inferior descends into ego and insults when trying to have a discussion with an equal. This is not Youtube, Reddit, or any other place on the internet. This is a place where people get to discuss intellectual topics and think about things. If you cannot rise to that, then I am sorry I ever thought you could. One last chance. Lose the derision and I will continue to discuss with you respectfully. If not, then I was mistaken and I will end this conversation.

You're literally just pushing "Plato" but philosophy has moved considerably beyond Plato though — DifferentiatingEgg

1. I have never mentioned anything from Plato.
2. "Moved on" is not an argument.

If you see something I'm saying is illogical, just point it out, and why its illogical. If you want to note its like Plato, point out how exactly it is like Plato, and why Plato had difficulty with this concept. As it is, this didn't say anything useful to the discussion.

If we are to take that good is, "What should be", then we can take at a base level that there should be existence over nothing.
— Philosophim

Literally right there in your reply to 180 proof... Is-Ought. — DifferentiatingEgg

You only took half the quote in a catered reply to another forum member. You left off the last sentence:

This is because any morality which proposed that existence should not be would contradict itself. — Philosophim

And what was I referencing? The conclusion of the argument in the OP, not an is/ought. If you want to show that I'm committing an is/ought fallacy, reference where in the OP I do this. Incomplete references to other members out of context is not an honest or viable point. This is the third time I think I've asked you to reference the OP. I'm assuming you're not stupid, so that only means you can't find an actual reference in the OP. Scrounging around anywhere else to try and back a point you find in the OP just confirms to me that you don't have a point. It might be better to admit at this point that maybe I don't have any reference in the OP that leads to an is/ought fallacy and try something else.

Trying to worm your way out of pretending it's anything other than Is Ought is a farce. — DifferentiatingEgg

Tut tut. Using a straw man argument from another thread or an incomplete quote out of context to make your point is the farce. I'm trying to be more polite about it. I ask you again to be an equal with me and bring that same politeness and respect to the conversation.

↪Philosophim Another fallacy equivocating the adjective for the noun. — DifferentiatingEgg

I'm still not seeing this and your answers are becoming shorter and shorter. There is no reason, no quotes, and no further explanation behind this statement. Its sounds like you're done. If so, I appreciate your second attempt and hope to have another nice conversation another time.

This "good should be" opinion of yours is the conclusion to a fallacy. Which you use as your first premise here, which begs the question, which always points back to the is-ought fallacy. — DifferentiatingEgg

I'm starting with the definition that good = 'what should be'. Like in the dictionary. Do you have another definition of good? Then I ask, "Should nothing be, or something be?" You can most certainly disagree with my definition, but I still don't see how I'm making an is/ought fallacy by noting a definition. I'm starting to feel we're having more a linguistic misunderstanding at this point then difference in arguments.

↪Philosophim "Good should be" EQUATES in language to = Existence is, thus Good should be, and bad shouldn't.

Doesn't matter how you word it... — DifferentiatingEgg

I don't see how that is. If good = what should be then bad = what shouldn't be. Thus there should be some states of existence that are more preferential than others right? The OP is noting a very specific instance, the choice between any existence at all and no existence. The conclusion is that if there is an objective morality, the only conclusion is that in this very specific instance, its better for there to be existence than nothing at all.

The second post goes into more detail in how we can look at existence and break it down into quantities. After breaking it into quantities we can ask if there are certain states which are preferable than other states of existence. And indeed, I do find this.

But nowhere in the OP am I claiming that 'should be' equates to existence is. Again, if you can quote me or show me where I'm doing this, I would appreciate it. As for myself, I don't see it.

Fact is you simply cannot address the is ought fallacy along with your circular reasoning and throw it out as hogwash every time it's brought up through some other fallacies you commit. — DifferentiatingEgg

I'll try one more time just in case you didn't understand. I don't use any claim in this OP that what ought to be is because it is. Please point out where in the OP if you believe I'm doing this. Use quotes and citation so you can prove exactly where I do this.