I got my degree in CS, I know how these things work...regardless, none of it necessitates that causality exists independently of the human mind. Rather, all it demonstrates is that our perception of computers always involves an element of causality.

There is the computer chip qua phenomena, which is conditioned by the pure sensible conditions of space and time, and is understood through the application of concepts, one being causality; note that the computer chip qua phenomena is nothing when not considered in relation to them. Objects of perception are always in a relation to the mind, in that it is the mind that determines how the object is perceived.

The computer chip, as it exists independently of the human mind (qua noumena), is unknowable, i.e. it transcends the conditions of the possibility of experience. — _db

Let define what you mean by perception. When I think of perception, I think of the senses. Then there is interpretation of what those senses perceive. Finally, there is application. I cannot interpret a perception of sight if I am blind. Light within my eyes causes me to see, and my mind causes me to interpret that light a particular way. I can then analyze and think about how the light behaves, and how to use it.

But if I am blind, light still exists. My perception of it by sight is gone, but it is still around. This is evidenced by there being blind people in the world and light still exists. If you are going to go into solipsism, I decline as that goes too far out of the topic we are covering.

If you understand CS, then you understand causality. Unless there is a language barrier, I can't think of anything more plain to prove that causality exists apart from direct perception than that.

Yeah, but it's not that simple. If you want to talk about quantum mechanics and creation from nothing, they'll tell you the quantum vacuum isn't nothing. Anything that can cause something is, by definition, something. — T Clark

Nothing ever is! The quantum vacuum is of course only a theory at this time. Many of its postulates are hypothetical. We know certain things are happening like particles popping in and out of existence, and this is an attempt to explain why.

But barring this, lets say it is real. What caused the quantum vacuum? And we're right back where we started. The existence of the quantum vacuum is irrelevant to the point made in the OP, because it is simply another Y.

This doesn't mean we should keep trying to look for prior to that which we discover causality, but logically, there will be a point that has no prior explanation for its existence. And if that is logically the case, what does that mean for the universe's existence? What potentials does that open up? Does this mean multiverse theory is not only plausible, but a logical certainty given enough time?

I'm just trying to capture what you mean by causing something to exist. It sounds like it would be less confusing to just drop the exists part... at this point I'm not sure what the difference is between "cause things to exist" and just "cause things". — InPitzotl

If that would make things clearer, lets do that. Its about things being a state captured in time, another state captured later in time, and an explanation for why the state of the later is different form the former.

Would gravity be a force? Magnetism? The Higgs Mechanism? — InPitzotl

I am not trying to put my own spin on force here. Yes. All of these are forces in physics.

It is my understanding of quantum mechanics, that matter and energy are continually being created and destroyed from nothing and to nothing in the quantum vacuum state. — T Clark

Yes! You don't know how good it feels to finally speak with someone who is willing to take the conversation to its conclusion.

I realized it after I finished the proposal. After all, an uncaused cause does not necessarily have to remain existing. In fact, since an alpha would follow no rules for its being, it would seem that anything could form at equal likelihood. Why would a self-caused existence necessarily exist forever? If any period of time to exist is equally likely, as there would be no reason why it should or should not, by random chance most alphas would have a finite existence.

I've often wondered if that also means alphas would be "small". A self caused entity would be complete right? A complex "self-caused" entity would be several self caused entities that not only appeared in a specific order, but also would be able to interact in a way that remained stable. That's seems ridiculously unlikely. I've often wanted another person's take on this. What do you think?

What then do you see as one instance of independent causality, which is only an illusion on your part, as reality doesn't contain causation, as it's merely imparted on it by us, to make our way through space and time. Very usefull features, them cause and effect, but merely Illusions. As seen by the person you address. Is his view not corresponding to reality, because he made use of cause and effect himself? — Verdi

Verdi, when you press the key on your keyboard to type a message, does the message type? Doesn't the press of the physical key cause the letter to appear on you screen? Aren't you the one causing the message to be typed and sent to me? Or is that all in your mind?

When it gets compiled into very specific 1's and 0's sent over your line, read by a server that only responds very specifically to a set combination of 1's and 0's, is that not causality? If you can demonstrate that these instances are all in my mind, and do not exist independently of our observation, I will consider your proposal.

My apologies if I've been confusing. The state of the cue ball in its new velocity is not the same as the cue ball without velocity. This is a "new" state caused by the cue ball's collision. Without the cue balls collision, or an equally placed force, the 8 ball would not be in its new state of velocity.

Disingenuious selective reading. Let's not waste anymore of each other's time. Our respective posts might be read and evaluated by interested third-parties. I've guven this thread topic far more attention than it warrants. Pax. — 180 Proof

Disingenuious selective reading? You don't read my post, you post very selective readings, then when I read your selective readings and show they were straw men, you throw a pithy insult in an attempt to save face and run away?

Third parties ARE reading our posts, and you are setting a very poor example. I hope you're just having a bad day because you were incredibly disappointing.

Not quite, imo. Cause is simply a presupposition of a theory. That means at best it is never true - except as a cogwheel in the theory - but only efficacious. Apparently for parts of modern physics it's no longer adequate even as that. Perfectly good for billiards players though, still. — tim wood

The presupposition of theory is that cause will continue into the future. That is the induction. That is what can never be truly known, because we cannot know until we step into the future and confirm it. Still, we take it on faith, and it has always been confirmed (so far).

Do you think the computer you are using doesn't use causality? I'm going to need a little more detail than the idea that some scientists in some things don't use causality anymore. As far as I know, every single thing manufactured and used in this world cannot be done without a fundamental understanding of causality. If you can grant me this much, then you should be armed to address the OP.

The internet and the computer I use are phenomena that are conditioned by the mental apparatus. Things in space and time have no independent existence outside of their appearance. — _db

Your computer is a bunch of circuits and logic gates that only function because we know how they will respond once electricity is applied properly. If the gate is on, its true and lets electricity go to the next gate. If it is off, electricity is shunted to another gate. All of this necessitates that causality, independent of the human mind, exists. You believing that the computers circuitry does not exist when you aren't looking at it is not good enough for the chip manufacturers who ensure you received a working product.

Now you impose your idea of causation into someone's mind. If the person addressed doesn't agree, your reality is wrong, and your idea of causality is just an idea then. Even if computers and the internet seem to conform to your idea. There can even be physics done without the use of time, without cause and effect, seeing the whole of existence as one instant happening, unstructured by cause and effect. — Verdi

No, I'm not imposing anything. They made a claim. I pointed out a contradiction I saw with that claim. They are free to counter that point if they wish. We are here to think about things logically (as best we can, I fail too), so I am going to point out when I see a contradiction.

Lets say that physics can be done without cause an effect. That still does not counter my specific contradiction I pointed out to him. With even one instance of independent causality, it cannot be the case that causality is merely in the mind. The points I am making are about causality, and the logic we can conclude from it. If he cannot prove that causality does not exist, then my points still stand.

Sure, the usual example in philosophy is a cue ball hitting an 8 ball.
— Philosophim
Example of what? This sounds like a typical example of causality per se. My question is about what you mean causing something to exist.
The 8 ball exists in a new velocity state
— Philosophim
Is there a new thing that exists when the 8 ball exists in a new velocity state?
You could go plot the life of the entire ball up to its creation in the factory if you wanted.
— Philosophim
Sure... would that be a new thing existing? — InPitzotl

Yes, the 8 ball in a state of velocity is different from the 8 ball in a state of zero velocity. There is added heat to the ball through friction and the slight bend and reaction from the impact. The reason it is in the state of velocity at this particular shap shot is because a cue ball hit it one second ago. Depending on the scale of measurement, we could view the ball as merely an arrangement of atoms and elections. That is up to you. Create whatever scale you would like. I believe the argument isn't concerned with scale, though perhaps you can find a flaw in it if you do think there is a valid point here.

Third possibility: "causation" is a concept of the mind, and does not have any application to things as they exist independently of it. — _db

This is not a possibility, backed by the fact that you posted an argument on an online forum. Barring the fact that you were the cause of writing that argument, the internet and the computer you use could not work if cause was simply a concept of the mind, and not an independent reality.

It does seem, though, that cause is most easily seen, understood, appreciated as an observer's account, serving the needs of the observer, rather than something itself. — tim wood

The classic Hume approach. I believe Hume is correct in our belief that consistent cause that will repeat in the future is something unknowable. Why should the rules of physics be the same tomorrow? That does not mean we cannot accurately find the rules of physics today through experimentation and scientific elimination. When we do have faith that causality will continue to work, our faith is fulfilled. It is the habit of belief that causality will be maintained that Hume rightly points out as an induction, but that does not deny that causality cannot be deduced.

Cause is generally measured through the application of distinct force over time. You can set the time scale to however back you wish. But what must be consistent is that a chain of force events occur that necessarily lead to the present time of the 8 ball. Clearly if some ne'er do well were to attempt to drop an 8 ball 3 stories up on my head, no court of law would question whether they attempted to use gravity to drop the 8 ball on my head. We can discuss the types of force involved, the scale of the forces involved, and scale of time involved, but no one denies that prior events cause the events of today.

And it is simply that cause that I am addressing. I do not think the argument stretches those limits, but perhaps you can point out where it does.

Fine, this one time I'll go over your straw man arguments.

Your first link starts with,

"the premise [ ... ] everything has to have a cause to exist
— Varese
... is patently false. See Causa sui, etc ... follow links for further contexts."

So if you read the conclusion of the argument, you agree with me. A first cause is an "uncaused cause". It is existent without prior explanation. When I read the first sentence that agreed with my point, but you were implying it contradicted my point, I knew you hadn't read it.

Your second point in that same link was,

""3. An infinite regress ... is impossible"

False."

I never claim infinite regression is impossible. In fact, I assume its possible, and think about the consequences if it is true in the argument.

So again, your first link posits two points which agree with what I've stated in the argument. When you imply this counters my argument, what am I to think except for the fact that you didn't read it? If you were someone knew to philosophy, I would assume you simply didn't understand it. But combined with the initial troll in the beginning, I can only conclude you didn't read, and STILL haven't read it.

For your second post, the first two parts I have no disagreement with. Only your last part,

- Was there a first cause?
No.

disagrees with my end premise, but contains no explanation why there would be no first cause as defined in my argument. Just read the argument 180 proof. You clearly have the intelligence for it, and you might even agree with my conclusion.

Could I get an example of a thing causing something to exist? — InPitzotl

Sure, the usual example in philosophy is a cue ball hitting an 8 ball. The 8 ball exists in a new velocity state because the cue ball struck it with a certain amount of force. You could go plot the life of the entire ball up to its creation in the factory if you wanted.

For the reason I described - I thought my point was not central to your argument and I didn't want to send your discussion off on a tangent. — T Clark

Not a worry. We're here to discuss philosophy, and I'm interested to see other people's take.

Most of our understanding of the world is based on statistical effects. It's not the action of two balls on a pool table, it's the mass action of trillions of molecules in a tank. — T Clark

I agree 100%. I start by keeping things simple until people want to push it to the next level. In the same vein, there is nothing to necessitate there only be one first cause. There could have been many first causes. In theory, there could be first causes happening in the universe now that we're unaware of. But much like multiverse theory, its something we really can't test easily, if at all.

I would state at this point that this new possibility negates the necessarily so conclusion that there must have been a first cause.

That's just my take on the issue. — Shawn

A good conversation then. We'll have to go our own way with our own beliefs. I appreciate you taking the topic seriously. Have a good day!

Hi Tim. Yes, this OP presupposed some information that absolutely should be defined.

Causality is the idea that a snapshot of existence is in the state that it is because of some prior state of existence. Lets use a pool table for example. If I shoot a cue ball into the 8 ball, a certain amount of force is applied to the cue ball, which then transfers to the 8 ball, which then sinks in the right corner pocket.

If we shake this magic 8 ball for a minute, we discover that it moved because of the force applied from the cue ball. In other words, the 8 ball didn't just move itself without any internal or external force. It did not move "simply because it moved". A first cause would be if the 8 ball moved and there was no reason why it should have moved, internally, or externally.

Does that clarify causality? Do you have another take on it?

The premise has been twice refuted by logic and physics, therefore your argument fails. Period. Stop kidding yourself – the OP is that weak. There's nothing more to discuss unless you adopt another unrefuted premise and thereby make (at least) a valid argument. — 180 Proof

It would be nice to see that refutation by logic and physics. And to hear what you think the premise actually is. But if you cannot provide it, I have no choice but to think you either do not have that refutation by logic and physics, or you don't understand the premise. Later.

Something of the sort that something came out of nothing. Such as the existence of the universe, for example? — Shawn

What that argument is doing is applying causality to "nothing". If I say, "Nothing caused this to exist," isn't it the same as saying, "This thing that exists has no prior cause?"

"Nothing" cannot cause something. That we logically know to be true. The argument shows that the only thing which must necessarily be, is that something within our universe has no reason for its existence, besides the fact of its existence. It has no prior cause for being. I note that this is logically necessary, because the only alternative that I can think of, "infinite regression" does not in fact have a prior reason as to why the universe should be infinitely regressive.

I think the opening for criticism here, is whether I am correct on that last part. What do you think? Can you point out a flaw there?

Gibberish. Sorry, man. You've no evidence I didn't read your argument but you give plently that you haven't read my 2 logical and physical counter-arguments aimed directly as your premise. You expect a conversation and yet haven't thought through either what you're saying or the substance of oppositions to it. :meh: — 180 Proof

Maybe you missed my most recent reply. Yes, I noted you linked the kalem argument and an argument about plank space. Neither of those arguments addressed the point I am making. Now, maybe they did. Feel free to point out specifically the parts of the argument that are countered by those arguments. If I am wrong, I will apologize without shame.

Further, one of your original posts I quoted you added some details to after. I caught the edit, and addressed them in my prior post. Again, no worry if we got off on the wrong foot or we misunderstood each other's intentions. All I want is a conversation from people who can examine the argument and provide good criticism for conversation.

But, ex nihilo arguments would seem to contradict a first cause argument. Or at least doesn't constitute a first cause, does it? — Shawn

Mind stating which specific ex nihilo argument contradicts the points here? I just need more specifics, I am enjoying your points.

I'm just basing it off the PoSR. The PoSR can only stipulate an X, with only empirical observations entertaining an alpha, no? — Shawn

There is no reason prior to observation, to believe that there is some prior causality to anything. It is the belief that there must be an X that drives us to look for that X. Hume called our belief in causality a "habit of the mind". While I disagree that we cannot eventually know causality upon study, the idea that there must be a prior causality is not a proven statement, but a belief. My conclusion here is that we can be logically certain that eventually there is something within the chain of causality that is not caused by anything prior.

I thought you said you read it? :rofl: — Artemis

I thought you said it was just a book recommendation? Troll elsewhere Artemis.

Phishing for more credit than you deserve, friend, ain't the way to get it. — 180 Proof

It wasn't the intention. You gave me a counter to the Kalem argument as a counter to my argument, when my argument, wait for it...is a counter to the Kalem argument. I expect better of a long time forum goer as yourself to catch yourself on mistakes when pointed out, not double down.

However...I noticed you edited one of your earlier posts to include some actual substance. If we discuss this way, I don't care about the previous stuff. I just want a good conversation.

There can be no underlying reason for why the universe is.
— Philosophim
This is my counter to the OP's premises.

It simply is, no matter the type of origin we invent.
"The type of origin we invent" matters to degree it is consistent with the best available observational data and measurements. Logic, as it were, is merely the syntax of any "origin we invent" and not metaphysically determinative as you apparently to believe. — 180 Proof

Yes, I agree that the type of origin we invent must be consistent with the best available observational data and measurements. I note this in part 4 when describing an alpha. You can lead up the chain of causality to find the origin. The question is not about a specific origin like the big bang or plank space. It is the logical conclusion that there must be an origin of explanations that eventually arrives at the conclusion, "It just is".

The big bang, if it is the first cause, is. But even if we conceptualize the idea that there is infinite regression, the reason for why there is infinite regression does not have a prior cause, it simply is. Meaning that logically, there is something in our universe that has no prior reason for its existence. It simply is.

Relax, it was just a book recommendation. — Artemis

Not pertinent to the discussion. If you want to discuss book recommendations, I'm sure there's a post somewhere that would be happy to have you.

I'd say that there's a mistake of saying a first cause instead of a 'prior' cause.

Besides the Principle of Sufficient Reason can only (without appeal to metaphysics) posit a prior cause. — Shawn

I'm a little confused. A prior cause is X above. A first cause would have no prior cause, which I designate alpha.

What "strawmen"? Stop special pleading ... Your premise is incoherent, therefore the argument fails. QED. — 180 Proof

Disappointing. You made a mistake in thinking it was a particular topic that it is not, and instead of bothering to read it and enter the conversation, you've doubled down on not reading it, and insisting its something that it is not. I expected better.

See Kant, "Critique of Pure Reason" — Artemis

That's a rather large topic that covers many points. You'll need to narrow down what specific points counter my reasons if we're to have a meaningful conversation. I have read it before, and I have a good understanding of the subject matter.

The emergence of time must be preceded by time. — Verdi

According to my argument, no. To disprove this, you either need to show a flaw in my logic, or show why it is logically necessary that the emergence of time must be preceded by time.

The best we can say is that the universe is all there is, unless the multiverse theory happens to be true, which is difficult to test at the moment. — Manuel

No disagreement.

If it is infinite however, it was never formed, it just is. — Manuel

Yes, I'm using the word "formed" but perhaps "incepted"? would be a better word? I originally wrote, "It just is" repeatedly in the lines, and while accurate, I felt I needed a word to encapsulate that phrase. So yes, that is the crux of the argument. If a universe is infinitely regressive, or finitely regressive, the reason for this is, "It just is." There can be no underlying reason for why the universe is. It simply is, no matter the type of origin we invent.

I just wanted it to be clear that your assumption is not self-evident. — T Clark

Which if you feel that way, is fine. But why? You simply said, "I don't agree." and left it at that! I want other viewpoints other than my own. If you just say "No" and walk away, I'll never know if your view point is right.

No, sir, I also read your opening sentence: — 180 Proof

Sigh. For shame 180. I am not arguing the Kalem cosmological argument. It is irrelevant whether it is plank state or big bang. Why all the effort to not read and comment on the logic of the argument, instead of just reading and commenting on the logic of the argument? Enough straw men please?

The article was a synopsis of a long-term satellite experiment on the direction in which cows lay together. No, there were no connections with drink water. This was also asked when I sent it. But why should there be? To dismiss it a priori shows narrow,-mindedness and certainly no scientific attitude. There could be a true link between magnetism and drinking behavior. — Verdi

Try to think about it from their point of view. You're trying to find people who have experience with cows who have had the same problem as yourself. You're looking for answers from people with results. As a practical rancher, you aren't looking for untested hypotheticals, you are looking for tested solutions that you can implement so that you minimize the time and cost of experimenting yourself.

Dismissing untested hypotheticals when you are looking for tested solutions is not narrow minded. Trying the most likely solutions then working your way to the unlikely is efficient. I'll use disease diagnosis as an example. A new Dr. sees a patient who has a high temperature and chills. It could be several possibilities. The new Dr. asks a Sr. Dr., "New diseases pop up in Africa all the time, and he was in Africa for a day. Maybe its a new disease?" The Dr. is going to say, "Why don't we first see if it matches a disease we know about first before seeing if its something new?"

Its plausible the patient has a new disease. But we don't know if its possible, as there may very well not be any new disease. So first you start with the most likely, then work your way down. Now if the rancher had tried every reasonable possibility they could think of, like water, food quality, and cow stress, then maybe they could take the substantial cost of moving their cows to a new location. The rancher was not being closed minded or unscientific, they were being practical.

And as a question for yourself, are you trying to find evidence that fits your theory, or are you trying to find evidence that contradicts your theory? Before casting aspersions on the rancher, apply the scientific mentality to your own questions at this time, and see what you come up with. Try to prove yourself wrong, and see if it is impossible.

Maybe this is the case, maybe it's not. We have to "stop the buck" somewhere otherwise we go down an infinite chain of postulates. We don't know enough to say either is the case. — Manuel

Yes, you understand this part then. What I am proposing are plausibilities. Its either "Infinitely Regressive", or "Finitely regressive". We don't know for sure which is real. So what I'm doing is saying, "Lets pretend one is real, what logical conclusions can we reach or not reach?"

An argument could be made for both needing a first cause (or an uncaused cause) or not needing one, in the case the universe is actually infinite. — Manuel

The argument that I'm making is that yes, the universe could be finitely or infinitely regressive, but that there logically can be no cause for why this should be. Many people say, "The universe could not have formed on its own," but my conclusion is, "The universe necessarily formed on its own".

No. The relevance of precision in this case is that precise measurement of Mercury's orbit showed that Newton's theory was not imprecise but wrong. — T Clark

Interestingly enough, Newton wasn't wrong. It was simply not precise enough for large bodies. You can take the theory of relativity and reduce it down to Newton's equation for regular sized bodies. It is evidence that certain equations are useful for particular scales, but breakdown in others.

Depends on how we think of cause. It's not impossible that the universe came into being for no reason or cause. Someone can say that makes no sense at all, but it could be the case for all we know. — Manuel

According to my OP, I conclude that it is logically necessary that the universe came into being for no reason or cause. Do I make a good case for it?

I don't follow the logic of your discussion, but that doesn't matter, since I don't see why this is true. — T Clark

Fair enough, I am presupposing some knowledge here.

Causality is the idea that a snapshot of existence is in the state that it is because of some prior state. Lets use a pool table for example. If I shoot a cue ball into the 8 ball, a certain amount of force is applied to the cue ball, which then transfers to the 8 ball, which then sinks in the right corner pocket.

If we shake this magic 8 ball for a minute, we discover that it moved because of the force applied from the cue ball. In other words, the 8 ball didn't just move itself without any internal or external force. It did not move "simply because it moved". A first cause would be if the 8 ball moved and there was no reason why it should have moved, internally, or externally.

Does that clarify causality? Do you have another take on it?

Y

My post simply shows that "first ... logically necessary" is incoherent. — 180 Proof

You're judging my post based on the title? Isn't that the same as reading the title of a news article, then commenting on it at the bottom of the forum? Come on, you're better than that. The title is just something to get people to click on it and read the post. Feel free to read the post, then let me know if my title was inappropriate.