Do you accept a free will act as a true first cause? Take your ball example. Imagine that you are holding the ball intent on letting it drop at some point. After a duration of time you drop it. There is no determinable "cause" for the drop at the moment it was dropped because the time was randomly selected in your mind. Therefore this freely willed action appears to be a first cause, no apparent cause of the dropping. — Metaphysician Undercover

First, lets address randomness vs true randomness. First, randomness. When you roll a six sided die, you know there are only six sides that can come up. Any side has a 1 out of 6 chance of occurring. What is 'randomness'? Randomness is where we reach the limits of accountability in measurement or prediction. Its not actual randomness. The die will roll in a cup with a particular set of forces and will come out on its side in a perfectly predictable fashion if we could measure them perfectly. We can't. So we invented probability as a tool to compensate within a system that cannot be fully measured or known in other particular ways.

Randomness has clear limits. And when there are limits, there are reasons for those limits. You say it was random when you dropped the ball, but was it random like a die, or true randomness which I'll go into now.

True randomness has zero constraints or rules as to what can be. Limited randomness always has a constraint of some sort. "What causes that constraint?" means that we haven't gotten to a first cause cause. The appearance of a first cause is true randomness. Why? Because if it wasn't, there would be some thing causing one possible outcome to be more or less likely than the other. So is 'free will' truly random? I don't believe so. Humans are physical creatures with physical brains. Brains have rules they have to follow. Now are those rules so complex that measuring and predicting what a brain will do next with 100% certainty a current impossibility? Yes. So free will is not a first cause.

As for ruling out infinite causality, its irrelevant. Instead of trying to prove that infinite regressive causality was possible/impossible, I just asked what the logical consequence was if they existed. And it turns out, there's still a first cause.

I interpret this as saying that causality is contextual. We can post any convenient starting-point for a causal system. I agree with that understanding. — Ludwig V

We can attribute a starting point anywhere in a chain of causality. For example, when explaining why a ball falls when I let go of it, I don't have to address quantum physics. Does that mean that quantum physics and a whole host of other things are not part of the causality of the ball falling? No. It just means we don't look at it creating a mathematical origin or starting point.

A first cause is a logical necessity where causality exists.
— Philosophim
And since causality requires time and time and space are not absolute, but relative, then surely causality must be relative. Surely? — Ludwig V

No. A first cause is absolute. It is something which exists without a prior cause. It is not that we chose that as a starting point, it means that there comes a point in exploring the chain where there is no prior cause for its existence. It will exist, simply because it does. The logic points out this occurs whether the chain of causality is infinite or finite.

While yes, a God is not impossible, neither is any other plausibility you can imagine.
— Philosophim
On the face of it, that's not particularly re-assuring. There will be people who assign the name "God" to whatever the first cause is. — Ludwig V

People will do that with anything. And I didn't come up with the logic to make a point, I looked at the logic to see what point it would lead to.

The point here is that while they can logically do so, they have no reason which necessitates it be God or 'it just happened'. If we don't know what a first cause in a causality chain is, it could be anything. To claim it is a specific thing, you must justify why it is that specific thing over any other idea out of the infinite possibilities available to the imagination. There is no justification alone which necessitates a God be a first cause, so it must be proven. While a first cause has no prior explanation for its being, it enters into the causal chain of the rest of existence. Meaning there must be solid proof which demonstrates any claim of a first cause, is in fact, a first cause.

You are right, of course. But you've just demonstrated that any first cause will generate new questions - especially the last one. That's not a problem. — Ludwig V

I find new questions to be fun and exciting to think about! I'm glad you do as well. :)

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

Correct! I hope that's cleared things up a bit jgill. I appreciate you sticking with me through it.

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

I have no problem with you saying there is a first cause. What difference does it make? — jgill

It makes plenty of difference. Lets go over a few.

1. A God is not necessary. The universe can have just formed on its own without intelligent life. This is not by a belief, but a logical conclusion. Meaning yes, a stopwatch could be found in the forest and no one made it. Metaphorically of course.

2. The consequence of a first cause existing means there were no rules or limitations as to what could form. This includes size, shape, complexity, and also time. Meaning that its logically plausible that something self explained formed five seconds ago somewhere in the universe.

While yes, a God is not impossible, neither is any other plausibility you can imagine. Complex things are unlikely of course due to math which I covered in another post with Timothy. I think you were there. We cannot look to ontology to tell us what specific origins caused the universe, or even if it was just one. In fact, it could be that it was multiple self explained existences that came into being that resulted in our universe today, and it may be ongoing at a very small level.

3. If the logic holds, this is a final debate on the matter. Its a solution, done, finished. Now instead of debating this tired subject, we can move onto new debates. What does the fact that there is a first cause entail? Can we work out probabilities of things forming? What does that tell us of the nature of the universe? Do we continue to look for explanations to things, or is it reasonable to reach a point where it doesn't matter anymore?

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

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

Now put the chain somewhere on a graph. The 'line''s many points are simply the links in the chain. The first link is the beginning of the line, the first point is the beginning of the line. It doesn't matter where the origin is right? I can make my origin 0,0, 1,1, etc. It doesn't matter where I put my chain on the graph either. Put the chain's start at 5,4, its irrelevant. An origin is merely what base we use to examine the line. The origin does not affect the chain's structure no matter where we put it on the graph. We are
examining the chain's structure, not the graph we decide to put it on. If you want to look at the middle of the line and say, "I'm looking here as a mathematical origin" you're missing the literal point. Where you start is irrelevant. That's what I'm trying to show you.

So now that you understand a mathematical origin does not apply, you're left with the points and solution I gave. A first cause is a logical necessity where causality exists.

But I see (removing the snark, hehe) what you're getting it. It necessarily follows that it would be the first thing to cause anything. I think they can both be right. — AmadeusD

Yes, I hope he understands that he's not arguing against my point. Just silly there has to be snark in there to begin with. :)

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

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

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

What caused you to exist though? You are not a first cause. You are an origin by which we may demarcate a 'start' within a causal chain. But you have prior reasons for why you exist and wrote the chain, so are part of the full causal chain. There is a difference between an origin, and an actual start to a line. I can move the origin anywhere on the line. That doesn't mean its the start of the line.

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

You insist on thinking this is about origins when I've clearly told you several times that a first cause is not an origin. You are making an amateur mistake both in philosophy and math. You and I well know that you can make an origin any set of numbers you want. That is not the same as the beginning of a line. Either you are willfully ignoring this fact because you don't want to address the issue, or you've made a mistake in understanding the issue. Either way, your example about origins are wrong. If you have nothing but sass and eyerolls to add, just let the reply go so we have a nice end to the conversation instead of a back and forth over pointless ego.

Nothing caused it to exist, it's like asking why 2 + 2 = 4. — Christoffer

So then it is something which has no prior cause for its existence, or a first cause. That's my point. That which has no prior cause, is a first cause. Yes, there is a cause for 2+2 = 4. Human minds invented math with our ability to create discrete identities or 'ones'. Just like the reason we have a Plank scale is because it is the limit of our current measurements.

demonstrate why.
— Philosophim

What should I demonstrate? — Christoffer

No it's not. Maybe you should read up more on quantum mechanics.
— Christoffer

If its not, demonstrate why. — Philosophim

Don't insinuate someone doesn't know something, explain why they don't know something. Otherwise its a personal attack. Personal attacks are not about figuring out the solution to a discussion, they are ego for the self. You cannot reason with someone who cares only about their ego.

For one, your incorrect use of concepts like the Planck scale shows how versed you are. — Christoffer

No, I asked you what caused it to exist. You stated: " And how there's no need for one if the universe expanded from the Planck scale." You were claiming it came from the Planck scale, so I asked you what caused the Planck scale. This is not me asserting how the Planck scale works. But again, this is silly. You're commenting on me instead of the points. Keep to the points please.

I've given a run through of how causality can appear out of nothing at the point of Big Bang, something that's much closer to what scientists actually theorize. — Christoffer

And what caused the big bang? Did something prior to the big bang cause the big bang? Or is the big bang a first cause with no prior cause for its existence? You keep dodging around the basic point while trying to introduce quantum mechanics. Citing quantum mechanics alone does not address the major point.

Again, you don't understand what the Planck scale is. It is not an invention by us and I don't know why you keep implying that. — Christoffer

Yes, it is an invention by us. Its the limitation of our measuring tools before the observations using the tools begins affecting the outcome. Or, in more proper terms, "At the Planck scale, the predictions of the Standard Model, quantum field theory and general relativity are not expected to apply, and quantum effects of gravity are expected to dominate."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units

I'm not seeing how your citing plank length invalidates a first cause. Plank length is a limitation of measurements before we need other tools and math. How does "It expanded from the Planck scale" (Your words) explain anything?

Regardless of how we view the Big Bang, all projections starts the universe at such a dense point that it fundamentally becomes zero dimensional and there can be no such thing as a first cause before this since there's no spacetime in this state. Without dimensions, there's no causality and no cause. — Christoffer

No, if you're saying "Quantum fluctuations caused the big bang" then you have causality. To not have causality means, "Nothing prior caused X to happen". Now if you want to recant and state, "The big bang was not caused by anything," then the big bang is a first cause. So either way, you're proving my point, not going against it. You're seeking very hard to disprove what I'm saying, but perhaps you should make sure you understand what I'm saying first. I don't think you get it.

So if you're looking for a first cause, I've already pointed at it; the first event of time and causality at the point of the big bang. — Christoffer

Then you agree 100% with my OP. There's nothing else to discuss if you state this.

No, you clearly misunderstand everything into your own logic and you have become so obsessed with that logic that you believe the Planck scale is an invention and disregard how general relativity breaks down at a singularity point. — Christoffer

No man, relax. You're not the first person who's come in here without reading or understanding the OP with a crusade. :) Be it Planck scale, God, no God, or hatred of causality this thread is full of people who don't understand the OP. Its cool. Just try to go into future threads with the intent to understand first before you critique.

If causality breaks down, then you can have no causes before this event as there's no spacetime there to produce it. — Christoffer

So then we have something which has no prior explanation for its existence? A first cause? Again, I appreciate your agreement.

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

No. The entire point of this thread is to think of about a first cause as part of the natural world, and think about how it would apply to our universe as it is today. While yes, a God could be a possible first cause, it is one of an infinite number of possibilities. Further, one would have to prove that such a first cause existed, it would not be a given. More likely things just happened.

So far, all my mathematical causation chains have first causes and origins. — jgill

Just origins. You've given no mathematical example of a first cause. An origin is a tool of measurement and does not represent a first cause. One can put an origin on the first cause of a chain of causality, but it is not our measurement of a first cause that makes a first cause, it is simply the fact that a first cause has no prior explanation for its existence.

I can start talking about atomic chemistry without talking about quarks. That doesn't mean quarks don't exist and make up an atom.

The philosophy in this thread seems ethereal. — jgill

I'm not sure what that means. I've given the examples as clearly as I can.

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

Its pretty simple isn't it?

You didn't read what I actually wrote. I'm talking about the idea of a first cause, as in the cause that kickstarted all we see of determinism. And how there's no need for one if the universe expanded from the Planck scale — Christoffer

Lets go with the theory that what caused the universe was its expansion from the Planck scale. What caused the Planck scale to exist? When you answer that, I'm going to ask, "What caused that to exist?" And eventually you come back to where I am. Is there a finite limitation to causality, or infinite regression? And as noted, in both cases the answer is that there is no prior reason for why there is a finite or infinite regression of causality, there simply is.

You didn't read what I actually wrote. I'm talking about the idea of a first cause, as in the cause that kickstarted all we see of determinism. — Christoffer

I never stated that there was one singular first cause. I stated that a first cause is necessary. There could be multiple. You are talking about a specific first cause. I am talking about the logical conclusion that there must be at least one first cause. Whether its your specific first cause, a quark simply appearing out of nothing, or a big bang, the logical conclusion is the same. Can you demonstrate how Planck scale escapes the notion I've put forward? I'm not seeing it. I did read what you wrote. My point is that it does not counter what I'm stating.

False. Quantum physics is not magic. It a series of very cleverly designed computations that handle outcomes where we do not have the tools or means to precisely manage or measure extremely tiny particles. That's it.
— Philosophim

No it's not. Maybe you should read up more on quantum mechanics. — Christoffer

If its not, demonstrate why. Saying, "Read up more" is an abandonment of the conversation. You have no idea how versed I am in quantum mechanics. If I'm wrong, show why, do not make it personal please.

And how there's no need for one if the universe expanded from the Planck scale. That determinism is underlying our reality is not what I was talking about. — Christoffer

What do you mean by need? A first cause doesn't care about our needs. Its not something we invent. It either exists, or it doesn't. Logically, it must exist. Until you can counter the logic I've put forward, you aren't making any headway.

A first cause is merely the first causal event and as I described it can simply be the first causal event out of the quantum fluctuations before the big bang. — Christoffer

No, it cannot. A first cause is by definition, uncaused. You are stating that a first cause is caused by the quantum fluctuations before the big bang. That's something prior. Meaning your claim of a first cause, is not a first cause.

Do not mistake a first cause for an 'origin'. An origin is a starting reference point we create as a tool, like a line graph with origin 0. A first cause is not a construct. It is something that has no prior explanation or reason for its existence.

A dimensionless infinite probabilistic fluctuation would generate a something and still not be a first cause as it is a fundamental absolute probability. — Christoffer

Its very simple. What caused it to be a fundamental absolute probability? Is there some prior reason for its existence, or does exist without a prior reason for its existence?

And even if it weren't it can also be explained by a loop system, infinitely cyclic like Penrose's theory. — Christoffer

Did you read the actual OP? I clearly go over this. Please note if my point about this in the OP is incorrect and why.

A first cause isn't necessary within a probabilistic function. — Christoffer

Yes it is. Let me explain what probability is. When you roll a six sided die, you know there are only six sides that can come up. Any side has a 1 out of 6 chance of occurring. What is chance? Chance is where we reach the limits of accountability in measurement or prediction. Its not actual randomness. The die will roll in a cup with a particular set of forces and will come out on its side in a perfectly predictable fashion if we could measure them perfectly. We can't. So we invented probability as a tool to compensate within a system that cannot be fully measured or known in other particular ways.

So yes, causality still exists in probability. The physics of the cup, the force of the shake, the bounce of the die off the table. All of this cause the outcome. Our inability to measure this ahead of time does not change this fact.

So, through quantum physics, a first cause isn't a necessity. — Christoffer

False. Quantum physics is not magic. It a series of very cleverly designed computations that handle outcomes where we do not have the tools or means to precisely manage or measure extremely tiny particles. That's it.

Virtual particles, as understood right now, does not have a first cause, they are probabilistic random existences. — Christoffer

Not knowing whether they have a first cause or not does not determine whether they have a first cause or not. I'm also not noting here that "x" is a first cause. I'm noting that logically, we will always end up in a situation where we find something that has no prior causality for what it exists. I'll sum it again.

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

A first cause is something which exists which has no prior reason for its existence. It simply is.

What makes you think that you can conceive of a first cause? — sime

Conceiving things is the easy part. There is nothing, then, there is something. Its a binary issue. A current state is either caused by something prior, or it is not.

In my experience of fellow atheists, they often harbor a peculiarly theological belief in "nothingness" — sime

I only mentioned I was an atheist because jgill assumed this was a theistic argument and that was preventing him from thinking clearly about the argument. Other than that, we should not attribute arguments to atheists or theists. Please just note your point so we can stick with the logic.

But if we reject this ontological interpretation of nothingness as being nonsensical, then how else are we supposed to conceive of absolutely first (and last) events? — sime

Its an unnecessary concept to understand the logic. I show you through the OP that it doesn't matter whether you have a causal chain which leads to a finite start, or a causal chain that is infinitely regressive.

What caused the finite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason.
What caused the infinite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason.

It all boils down to the point that eventually in any chain of causality, infinite or finite, the causation of its existence will eventually have no prior explanation for its existence. Reality, at its core, simply is and has no prior reason for why it should be.

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

Let me clarify. You asked me to give you an example of an uncaused cause. I'm not saying this actually exists. While an uncaused cause logically must exist, proving 'x' is an uncaused cause is ridiculously difficulty.

Lets go back to our quark example again. Remember how I said an uncaused cause has no limitations on its existence? If a quark appears, it can also appear with uncaused velocity. But from our viewpoint, we would think the quark had existed prior to its formation because we would assume something caused the velocity, we just couldn't find it.

The logic is not about saying, "This is an uncaused cause." The logic of the OP is noting that logically, there must be an uncaused cause in our universe. Chains of causality all reach a point in which there is no prior explanation for some things existence, besides that it exists.

OK. Demonstrate an uncaused cause, where you are certain some process begins. — jgill

Sure. An uncaused cause has no rules or restrictions on what it can, or cannot be. But lets keep it simple. A quark appears in the universe, then persists. That's it. It wasn't there, now it is there. It has no prior reason for its being there, besides the fact that it just started being there.

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

Sorry for my anger earlier, you seem smart and I get frustrated when smart people come up with irrational arguments for and against points more because they don't like what the solution implies, then whether the solution is right or not. Its not stupidity, so I know its some other type of emotion like disgust, arrogance, hubris, etc. Why can't smart people shove those things aside for a conversation?

Its not 'you' its just I have had this conversation for years with people, and the pattern happens again, and again. Let me show you an example of it below.

This is very simple. Either you believe there is a first cause or you do not believe there is a first cause. It's a matter of belief, not reasoning. — jgill

See, this is a complete dismissal of the OP and the points made in here several times. None of which had anything to do with belief or faith. Its dishonest. Its emotional vomit when a person no longer wants to discuss the issue. Take the reasoning and demonstrate it is a belief. Its actually a lot more fun than indulging in the other negative emotions.

I read your OP from 2 years ago. — Ø implies everything

If you would like to discuss there, I gladly will. I make a rule not to derail other people's threads. However, I did take this as an invitation to read your OP, which I did!

If absolute nothingness is a thing, it would entail its own non-existence, which would mean absolute nothingness would be true and untrue at the same time: a contradiction. — Ø implies everything

I like this approach. However, isn't logic the best assessment of reality that we have? Absolute nothingness itself is not impossible. Logic is a tool we use to grasp reality. If there were absolute nothingness, there would be no logic, thus no contradictions to reality.

Fortunately, as long as there are thinking things like us, there is logic, and we can definitely assert that there is something, because if there wasn't, we wouldn't be here to claim it. As to whether its possible that one day there might be absolutely nothing, who knows? No one will be around to find out what its like.

I think my argument can be simplified to this:

Absolute nothingness is impossible, but it would not be impossible if it were not for the existence of something. — Ø implies everything

We can say that right now, absolute nothingness is not the state of reality. But it says nothing about whether it could or could not be in the future. Nice post.

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

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

I apologize, I must have misunderstood you then. — Bob Ross

Not a worry Bob! Again, it may have been that I wasn't clear in my writing as well.

What is the difference between ‘existence’ and ‘material’: I thought the latter was a sub-type of the former. Same with expressed vs. existence. — Bob Ross

That's very fair, and honestly where I thought the questioning would go first. The material existence is an atomic existence which is the combination of all possible expressions it can manifest when met with another material existence. An expression is the manifestation of a material existence in a unique way based on its situation and difference with another state. This state could be itself (Perhaps a singular existence has a bit of a warp or vibration to it over time) or what we can actually observe, its relation to another material existence.

This is still counter-intuitive: it is entirely possible that the maximal expressed and material existences is entities which are not alive. — Bob Ross

True. Sometimes the calculation works out like that. To see if its unintuitive, why don't you create an example that you're thinking of try to calculate it out. The problem is you're trying to intuit some complex math. You can't. Its well documented that we suck at it as human beings. What I've found is that after calculating a situation, it often is surprising against what I initially thought the outcome would be.

For example, it is entirely possible that when forced to choose between saving a robot and a baby, you will have to save the robot (because the material and expressed existences is higher in the former over the latter). — Bob Ross

While I am still loath to discuss this aspect of higher intelligence yet as I fear it will just keep you from getting to the base level first, I also want to keep the conversation engaging. But really, remove ALL ideas of intelligence and especially human morality now, because you have to learn the base calculations first. When we get to intelligence and humanity, then feel free to give feedback if something is unintuitive. But for now, I'll answer this one in a way where you can see yes, sometimes saving the robot would be better.

Humanity is facing a crisis that cannot be solved with human minds alone. In 51 years, humanity will be wiped out if it isn't solved. So they created a robot that has spent the last 50 years calculating a solution to their problem. It has done it! With this it will save humanity. Unfortunately the building its in is on fire, and wouldn't you know it, someone left their baby there too. You have just enough time to save either the robot or the baby. The moral choice is clear. By saving the robot, you save humanity. By saving the baby, you doom humanity. Saving the robot results in more overall existence.

But lets leave that example there. Do not include society, sacrifice, etc. because we aren't there yet! Pretend you don't know we're going to humanity yet, just like a person learning addition does not know calculus is on the horizon. Or a person who doesn't understand that the 8 binary logic gates we have can be combined into a computer. Lose your intuitions about the advanced use of basic things. Lets just focus on logic and see where it takes us.

Likewise, so far you seem to be saying we can just make up a time frame to use for their comparisons, but then it becomes utterly arbitrary. — Bob Ross

Again, you're getting ahead. What I'm doing is showing you how to do the math. We can set up any time frame we want to compare. What we haven't covered yet is, "What time frame should we use as intelligent creatures when trying to solve a moral dilemma?" The current point I'm trying to get across is this is how we can measure morality in a limited scope when life does not exist. Do you disagree with this as a function of measurement?

Likewise, if you consider potential expressed and material existences, then this also has weird consequences; e.g., a hurricane may end up, if it runs its full course, producing much more expressed and material existences than a newborn baby--but obviously everyone is going to say that we should stop hurricanes and preserve the rights of babies. Yours would choose to preserver the hurricane over the baby (if in conflict). — Bob Ross

People are notoriously bad with complex math and long term thinking. They also think that what we want or feel we should do is often times right. Morality is not about our feelings or what we intuit. If morality is objective, and it can be shown as such, it would be about the objective results. We can simplify this even without doing calculations.

1. Assume we have an objective morality, and it is a fact that a particular hurricane is worth more than a babies' life.
2. We're put in a situation in which we can't just save the child, but the child must die.
3.We have a magic gun that can stop the hurricane in its tracks. But doing so will cause horrible things to happen.
4. I want to save the baby despite all of this.

Does my want make it moral to save the baby? Of course not.

Objectively, it would be wrong to end the hurricane to save the baby. This isn't unintuitive either. We send people all the time to die in wars to preserve entire countries. Men will shield women and children from danger. The idea of sacrificing for something greater than yourself is a universal theme in all of humanity across cultures.

Mainlander, and the Gnostics would dispute this metaphysical claim. — schopenhauer1

What would they present to dispute this? I'm not interested in someone's general non-related claims as I'm sure you can understand. Where in the logic and build up would they disagree?

I think we are both missing each others points, so let me slow down and ask one question: are you not saying that, in principle, the entity with more atoms is (morally) prioritized higher over one with less? — Bob Ross

No. I'm talking about a system with the greatest existence, material, expressed, and potential would be considered the more moral reality.

Take a scenario with 5 atoms that cannot form a new identity vs four atoms that can.

Eliminate that which is identical within the potential existence. So 4 atoms can bump into each other on both, which leads 5 individual 'bumps' 4 atoms can move anywhere, so we have one 'can move anywhere' set.

So 4 basic interactions, one move anywhere set for the atom.

Now compare to the four atoms that can potentially combine into molecules. Disregarding what is equal to the five molecules, we have 1 formation into a 2 atom molecule, and each individual atom bumping into that molecule and each other. 3*2*1 = 6. Multiply this four times as each atom can combine into a molecule, so 24. We can have the potential of two molecules forming out of the four, so 2 existence molecules, and one potential bump between them * four atom combinations = 12

So we've already gained more potential existence in basic interactions. to be 36, or nine times more potential interactions than the five single atoms. As for the infinite movement set, you have 4 atoms then the two molecule identities that could move around, for a total of six infinite movement sets.

But why do you see it as wrong?

You have not given a clear analysis of what the property of goodness is (i.e., what is good?) nor why it is objective. — Bob Ross

Hm, I may have lost you then. I've gone over it several times at this point and I'm not sure what else to tell you. I need something more specific Bob. What about what I've written is unclear? What is good is what should be right? If you're not with me at this point, then it might be a lost cause.

You just seem to be noting I can do all of them, but I want to know, in your formula, are you determine the right thing to be based off of a span of 1 year, 1 minute, most forseeable future, etc.? — Bob Ross

Ok, this would be human morality. We'll get there soon.

It isn’t, though: I am talking about the formula used for non-life and life here. — Bob Ross

I've noted several times its the time span that we decide to look at. So you could determine the total existence after 1 minute or 1 hour.

An atom-to-atom comparison is not going to land you with life > non-life. E.g., a 1,000,000 ton rock has more atoms than a single-cell life and a (human) baby—so your conclusion would then be, when in conflict, to preserve the rock over the baby. — Bob Ross

No, you don't understand the theory. I see no reference to material, expressed, or potential existence. You're not calculating, you're just expressing. I seem to have lost you completely.

Something I've been noting is you seem to be using morality as a means of comparative elimination.

I am using comparisons and counter-factual examples to demonstrate how the conclusions of this theory are severely morally counter-intuitive. — Bob Ross

No, you are not showing me any calculations or the thoughts or vocabulary of the theory itself. We aren't on the same page.

Does this mean all single cell life should become multicellular? No. Just like the possibility of atoms forming into molecules doesn't mean all atoms should form into molecules

Why not? You seem to be saying it is objectively right/good for more identifiable entities to exist, and ‘upgrading’ from a single-cell to multi-cell seems better relative to that. — Bob Ross

Go back to the calculations I did comparing atoms that cannot combine into a molecule vs atoms that can combine into a molecule. I believe I've mentioned already that a world in which all atoms combined into molecules permanently would be less potential existence then one in which there can still be a breakdown and interactivity between atoms and molecules.

Likewise, it doesn’t make sense to say you are maximizing existence when you also believe that that matter is all that exists and cannot be created or destroyed: that entails existence itself is always equal—rather, what it exists as changes. — Bob Ross

Please go back and look at expressed and potential existence. I've noted this a few times already and me repeating it here will not add anything more to it.

But if you are just doing an atom-for-atom comparison, it may turn out that a big sheep may need to be preserved over a small, feeble wolf. — Bob Ross

This is true. When we take an individual comparison we may find this to be the case. It depends on the results of the calculation. If the small and feeble wolf cannot hunt easily and will die in a year vs a big healthy sheep that would live for ten years, it would be more moral for the sheep to live in this particular limited calculation.

Likewise, if you are considering how to maximize how many existent entities are there, then you would have to do more than an atom-to-atom comparison and consider the foreseeable consequences of keeping the sheep vs. the wolf and pick the one that seems to maximize your goal here. — Bob Ross

Correct. As we increase the scale beyond the atomic in comparisons, atoms become an insignificant digit in our calculation. What is important is to understand the fundamentals of the atomic comparison so that we can continue to apply the patterns going forward.

I'm afraid I'm losing you here Bob. It may very well be that I haven't communicated clearly, but you're also missing quite a few points I've gone over. I will work harder to be more clear, but I can also see a problem you may be doing that is preventing you from understanding the issue.

1. You're working backwards from human morality down to this. You won't understand it that way. We have to start from the basics of "Should there be existence" and work our way up without looking ahead.

2. Don't worry about whether its subjective or objective for now. You seem so concerned about seeing it as subjective that you're missing the idea itself. Just go with the assumption, "There should be existence" is the base objective morality and go from there.

If you can't or don't want to do that Bob, then we probably can't continue. Which is fine by the way, not all ideas are open to discussion between people depending on where they are at the moment. I have had several exciting and fun conversations while talking about this to a few people, so maybe something is getting lost in the written word here. But as of this moment I feel like everything I've said before just isn't being grasped, and I am at a loss as to how to clarify this when you aren't referring to many of the points I've already made.

You just seem to be noting I can do all of them, but I want to know, in your formula, are you determine the right thing to be based off of a span of 1 year, 1 minute, most forseeable future, etc.? — Bob Ross

Ok, this would be human morality. We'll get there soon.

I would say, in this case, you have just setup a moral framework where the most entities existing is best and your conclusions aren’t that particularly off; it is the idea that this is objective that is wrong, but I have been granting it for the sake of seeing where this goes. — Bob Ross

But why do you see it as wrong? The way to take it is to assume that no life exists, but morality still would. What would morality look like without life? This question must be answered, because life is technically still just atoms and molecules cobbled together a particular way. We are not separate from the rest of the universe, we are made up of it.

I would say, in this case, you have just setup a moral framework where the most entities existing is best and your conclusions aren’t that particularly off — Bob Ross

If you are ok with what has been noted here so far, then I will continue. We may need to return, but we'll see.

To understand life, we first need to understand chemical reactions. Chemical reactions are typically a flurry of interactions over a short period of time that eventually end once the material for the chemical reaction is used up. There is a high concentration of existence here, however it comes to an end.

Life is interesting in the fact that it is a series of chemical interactions that continually seek to extend these chemical reactions as long as possible. Even to the point of creating a new life, or set of chemical reactions, that will continue on once the original can no longer renew itself. Comparing a single cell to a rock, we can see just in the internals alone how much existence there is. We have cytoplasm, organelles, and a cell wall. Not to mention we have mobility, as well as reproduction. Life is a high concentration of existence and considered more moral in comparison to an equivalent number of atoms in a rock.

Something I've been noting is you seem to be using morality as a means of comparative elimination. In all cases, it is more moral to have both the rock and the life instead of either the life or the rock. Now in a case in which the rock would be destroyed or the one cell would live, in this comparison alone the life would be considered more moral and should continue to exist over the rock. But getting into eliminative morality should only be a consideration when there is an absolute choice between the two and no means of compromise.

Of course, what's more existent than single cell life? Multicellular. This is the same exact pattern as atoms and molecules. Does this mean all single cell life should become multicellular? No. Just like the possibility of atoms forming into molecules doesn't mean all atoms should form into molecules.

With this, we see the pattern of moral existence continues. What is most moral is an environment in which life and non-life can co-exist. Why life is particularly special is that it needs to sustain its own chemical reactions. This at time may put it into conflict with other lives. Ideally, two cells should be able to coexist. But there may be reasons why they cannot. Both cells may need the parts of the other cell to survive, and if neither of them eat the other, both will die. But in all cases, it should only be that one cell destroy the other only if it is necessarily more existence for it to do so. It is not about what the cell feels or wants (if it could feel such things) it is again a calculated outcome of existence.

Can we have an evil cell then? Yes. Lets say we have a cell that kills every other cell it comes across. It does not eat the other cell or use it in anyway. The other cells are no threat to it. It just kills the other cell because it can. At this point, such a cell should either be contained from other cells, or be eliminated from existence. Its expressed existence is one that lowers the potential and actual existence around itself overall compared to a good cell.

Multicellular life follows the same pattern once again. Instead of cells co-existing, its sheep and wolves. Ideally, both would be able to co-exist without killing one another. But, a wolf must eat meat to live. Further, simple multicellular life has no check on itself for its multiplication beyond available resources. If a population multiplies too much and burns through all of its resources, it can no longer renew itself and dies out entirely. Wolves serve as a check to ensure too many sheep do not form, eat all the grass and plants in an area, and result in a mass extinction event.

Ok, take a look at what I've noted for life and see if you have any issues. Once you're good here, we'll move onto humans.

Do multiple causation chains spring into being with first causes or first cause? — jgill

Possibly. Once something begins, it immediately has relations with anything around it. Something small or large could appear and its gravity would suddenly now be an influence on other things, as well as itself may be influenced by other things. It could be as simple as an uncaused helium atom entering the world and then existing within it. Once an uncaused thing is within the rest of the interplay of existence, it is no more special than anything else.

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

It is limited to things uncaused, surely. — AmadeusD

Ha ha! Of course. :)

@Gnomon Well said.

If I am understanding correctly, then it sounds like you are just calculating total net 'identities' in reality over time — Bob Ross

Ah good. I had hesitated to use that word as I wasn't sure it fit. I've been trying to pare this down as basic as possible. I view an identity as a section of existence which has a unique capability to interact with another existence. Even two similar identities are never identical as they exist in different locations.

where preferably it is calculable closest to the last point in time. — Bob Ross

Its an option based on what we're trying to accomplish. Time is a component of calculation. We could use seconds, minutes, hours, or years. While the smallest time tick would be the most accurate, it may be impractical to do so. For one, in the time it would take to calculate the total existence in the next tick, several ticks would have passed and we'll never catch up.

This doesn't seem moral to me and there are plenty of examples where this is just morally counter-intuitive and immoral. — Bob Ross

Based on, 'Existence should be," do you have something in our approach so far that doesn't seem moral. Moral intuitions should be thrown away for now. We have a start, and from that start we've set the next step. Is this logical? Are there problems with it now? All life is gone in the universe, and this is all that remains. Are we wrong in our approach? We'll move on after as it all builds up from here.

In other words your are asking if there is (or was) an original plan for the creation of the Universe. — Alkis Piskas

No, I'm actually not. I don't think it requires an intelligence for there to be a morality, only an intelligence to comprehend a morality. This is not a morality that is human centric, but universal.

Still, you don't define what you consider as "moral". This makes it difficult to engage in a quest on the subject of existence. For one thing, it raises the question, "Moral in what sense and for whom"? — Alkis Piskas

Morality is simply the question of, "What should be?" That's it. It doesn't require you or I. It doesn't require a God. Its the very simple question of whether there should, or should not be anything first, then building up from there.

They mean the same. 'Should there be?' is just another way of asking 'is there a reason for?' — Wayfarer

No, and here's why. I can explain the reason why we have pollution. Should there be pollution? I can explain the reason why a criminal stole from the bank. Should the criminal have stolen from the bank?

Here we are, trying to re-invent philosophy on the basis of hair-splitting distinctions. — Wayfarer

We're really not. What about the rest of the summary Wayfarer?

Where should we search for that? Morality is a broad term: it can mean conformity to a set of rules of right conduct. — Alkis Piskas

I did not summarize everything in the OP, though perhaps I should have. As defined in the OP, morality is "what should be".

Now, about your logical scheme ... I have some difficulty following it. What does "everything should not exist" --or its opposite for that matter, "everything should exist"-- mean? How and where can this be applied to? And what does this have to do with morality? (Morality comes in only in step (4).) — Alkis Piskas

The point is that all moral questions will eventually require this question, "Should there be existence?". "Why should we help people?" must answer the question, "Why should there be people?" which eventually must answer the question, "Why should there be anything at all?"

Isn't that another way of asking 'is there a reason for existence?' — Wayfarer

No, its really just asking the question, "Should there be existence?" Check my reply above to Alkis, you're both on a similar line of questioning.

Nice topic! Are you able to follow what's going on here? I just posted a little summary for Wayfarer above. I would love to hear your opinions if you're interested.

Do you have any famous philosophers in mind here, or just the hoi polloi? — Joshs

Just the general industry. Famous philosophers are typically famous for a good reason.

I disagree. There is no word in any language that expresses "epiphenomenalism". From this fact, it is evident that there is a need for new words to be coined. Those new words quickly become jargon. — Lionino

I'm more going by George Orwell's six point of writing.

Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
Never use a long word where a short one will do.
If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
Never use the passive where you can use the active.
Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

If epiphenomenalism is the the most clear and simple way of communicating an idea, use it. I'm not stating use of vocabulary should be restricted. It should be used as needed for clarity, not to pad a sentence with jargon when it could be stated more simply.

In our case, its quarks. But maybe in the future it will be something smaller. So the examples here are 'atomic' comparisons, but are simply an abstract for, 'the smallest existence'
— Philosophim

Good ol' atomism, eh? The problem is, quarks, whatever they are, are not ‘identifiable material’ or ‘particles’ as such. From an article on the nature of particles: — Wayfarer

Hello Wayfarer! I appreciate your contribution to the thread, but this is a fairly special one. I'm building up a case as I go to propose a 'logical supposition' for an objective morality. As you noted in the quote, I am not endorsing atomism, I am using it as a convenient abstraction to communicate the underlying ideas of the OP.

While we could have an interesting discussion about mathematical particles vs waves in another thread, its not relevant here and I don't wish to get side tracked. If you're interested in thinking about the logical plausibility of an objective morality, let me paste a summary of the initial part leading up to this point. This should be a very fun measure of philosophy where we're really thinking about something new and different. I would love to have your thoughts. :)

The idea is that we don't know if there is an objective morality. If there is though, I find all moral questions boil down to needing the foundation of "Should existence be" or "Should nothing be"? Basically if "Existence should not be" is true, all other moral questions are moot. If there is an objective morality, then only one of these can be right. Either existence should, or should not be. No answer means, no objective morality. Which is fine if you don't believe in one, its about determining what would make the most sense if there was one.

So examine the following:

1. It is unknown whether, A, 'everything should not exist' is true. A = T/F
2. IF A is true, it must not lead to a conclusion which contradicts itself A = A && A != !A
3. Assume 'nothing should exist' is true A = T
4. Because it is moral that 'nothing should exist' the objective claim 'nothing should exist' should also not exist.
5. But if the moral claim, "Existence should not exist" should not exist, then by consequence, "Existence should exist" A -> !A
Therefore, if we are assuming an objective morality exists, the only claim which does not lead to a contradiction to its claims is "Existence should be".

What I'm noting is that if it is, according to itself, it shouldn't be. If such a morality exists, it would be immoral for it to exist. Compare this to the idea of "Contradictions should be encouraged". If that's the case, then we should contradict the point "Contradictions should be encouraged". But if we contradict this, then this necessarily means "Contradictions should not be encouraged".

With the idea that "Existence should be" would logically be the foundation for any objective morality, I'm building up a way to use math to calculate out comparative existence scenarios and build up to a morality that people can use that is based on objectivity, not culture.

1. Existence is the smallest bit of identifiable material possible.

I don’t think ‘existence’ is quite the word you are looking for (unless I am just misunderstanding), as the term refers to anything that ‘is’. #1 here refurbishes the term to only refer to the most fundamental and primitive entities. — Bob Ross

My mistake, 'material existence' works better.

With respect to PEB, what are you grounding/anchoring the span of potential expressions for comparison between ‘candidates’? (E.g., are you calculating it in terms of total net relative to the ultimate outcome? Are you calculating it in terms of the immediately foreseeable outcome? Are you anchoring it in the present or future?) — Bob Ross

Alright, as long as you understand the start, we can move into time. Over unlimited time, if nothing eliminates material or potential existence, then all things are possible. But we don't have unlimited time, nor know if it exists. We have limited time. What is moral is based upon a time frame. If over 100 seconds there is a steady total of '10 existence' this is a better outcome then a total of 12 existence over 50 seconds, then 0 existence over 50 more seconds.

But, this does man that an existence of 1000 over 1 second would be equivalent. Of course the problem is the zero existence afterward. Over the course of a limit to infinity, having even 1 existence over all of that time would be superior to any limited set of existence that destroys itself completely.

Thus another general rule.

1. Potential existence can be lower temporarily if it will/may pay off by creating more potential existence later.

Of course, now lets put the idea out there that we could manage it somehow. We can't plan for infinite time, just limited time. How do we manage our atoms?

This could be very complex, or simple. Lets start simple. We have 4 atoms floating around in infinite space. While potentially they could interact with one another to create a molecule, in actuality, the probability of doing so is extremely low. More likely than not, the four atoms will scatter to infinite distances of one another to never again interact. The 'potential' is there for them to interact, but the forces practically cut that potential off entirely. I'm not sure what to call this.

But what we could do is put a limiter. For example, put a box around our atoms. They can drift away, but not so far away that they never have the actual possibility of contacting one another again. Funny enough as a side, gravity in theory attracts all things towards each other. Meaning that if there were no other outside forces, there would be a practical limit to how far away atoms could get from one another before gravity reversed their momentum to return.

To get complicated we would need some math that I'm not willing to go through right now. :) Lots of probabilities and calculations for the optimal limitation distance etc. There are two more points we want to glean out of this now.

1. The math can get, 'big'. In an ideal scenario we could calculate it all out. And if we want to be 100% correct, we should. But of course calculating future morality is the realm of probability. Nothing is certain.

2. Because the specifics of the math can get rather large, we need a more efficient way to handle scenarios. This is the rule of eliminating equivalences in both sides. So if we are comparing two universes in a box with three atoms, if the box size is the same in both universes, we do not have to take the existence into consideration in comparing both. This is exemplified in the submarine example.

3. Significant figures should also be taken into account. Considering we are including a lot of unknowns in the situation, there comes a point where further calculation is unnecessary for general conversation and decisions. If for example we get a ratio of 1.9997621 to 1.9998621 this can largely be rounded to 2. This will be important as we scale beyond atoms. Eventually there will come a point on our scale where the 'quark' value of existence is so insignificant for measurement and practical purposes that we disregard it as a consideration.

4. These moral patterns do not change as existence becomes more complex. At its base, the calculations and rules are the same. How we assess something as it moves up to a new identity like 'life' is important, but still follows the same fundamental rules.

I also noticed that you said “in most cases” and not “in every case”: so, is PEB just a general principle as opposed to an absolute one? — Bob Ross

As you can see from the above, this is why this is a general principle. Time and meaningful significant digits can bend this a bit.

2. Where possible, the elimination of one existence's actual and potential existence should be avoided.

I get what you are saying; but this doesn’t seem moral to me at all. This will absolutely lead to biting a ton of bullets in ethics; and same with PEB (and EB). — Bob Ross

Perhaps, but remember we cannot look to where we're going when starting at a base. We have to look at where the base leads us. As I noted earlier, we can dip into lower potential and actual expressions of existence if the payoff is more existence down the road.

That's enough for now. Let me know what you think Bob! Once we feel comfortable with what's happening at the atomic level, I'll move back to life.

Since the immanent experience of mind is both what is being explicated and what is doing the explicating this is a mischaracterization. Perhaps it is in some sense a story, that does not make it un-factual, only historical. Scientific facts likewise exist within an historical context, which can be extensively revised as scientific understanding evolves. — Pantagruel

We know from studies that self-reporting is riddled with bias, inaccuracies, and conflicting takes. A story is not a fact, regardless of its history. Scientific facts are not historical stories, they are long and bloody battles where they are the only victors to survive. The comparison between personal subjective musings and science is like comparing an infant to Einstein.

Many of the philosophers of yesteryear would agree with me that philosophy should ultimately result in factual progress, which requires a strong set of grounded facts to start from.

Sorry for the delay Bob. I had to take a break from the forum for a few days to handle other things, but I'm back.

As I am reading through your response, I think it is worth us slowing down a bit and discussing the actual formulas you are deriving and using to make these calculations. Initially, I was just trying to point out the severe counter-intuitiveness to the ethical theory, which I still think is applicable, but I think you are more interested in the formulas themselves. — Bob Ross

This exactly.

For example, on the one hand you seem to deploy a ‘atom-for-atom’ formula (such that an entity with more atoms is better than one with less); while, on the other, you seem to deploy a ‘potential-for-potential’ formula (such that an entity with more potential to act is better than one with less); and, yet another, is that you seem to compare potential for act-potentials as well (e.g., baby is better than a lion when considered as a fully developed adult). — Bob Ross

Yes, you didn't have a grasp on these formulas which I feel we must debate over first, so there is no point in moving on until you do. Lets keep to the atom comparison for now. So no more lions or babies for now!

First, let me introduce a few rules I've been coming up with to simplify understanding.

1. Existence is the smallest bit of identifiable material possible.

In our case, its quarks. But maybe in the future it will be something smaller. So the examples here are 'atomic' comparisons, but are simply an abstract for, 'the smallest existence'

2. Existence is also created by the relation between another existence.

This is about force exchange, or distance. Think gravity as a simple force exchange as all existences exert gravity on one another. If force exchange makes it too complicated, just make it distance.

3. When this relation is affected by another expression of existence. Expressions are changes in the underlying function of the existence when isolated or comes into basic contact with another. Think of a pool ball bouncing against another. Both the pool bars retain their individual identity, but react differently than in isolation.

4. This can create an entirely new identity in which two existences create something more than a trivial interaction. Think about two atoms forming a molecules. The combination of these expressed existences becomes something entirely new adds new expressed existence that could not happen for each 'atom' in isolation.

5. Potential existence is the total possible amount of expressed existence that can happen from one atom, or a new 'identity' like a molecule.

Consequences of these rules:

1. In most cases, having more potential expressions of existence allows a greater existence to ultimately be expressed.

2. Where possible, the elimination of one existence's actual and potential existence should be avoided.

3. A variety of expressed existences are preferable to uniform. For example, there is more potential existence in having a hydrogen and helium atom alone, while also having a separate pair of hydrogen and helium atoms as a molecule instead of two molecules.

Lets start with just this. Go through the rules and consequences and pick at it thinking in atoms alone at this point. No babies! :D I have next steps planned, but we need to go slow.

To begin, the claim that everything that comes into existence has a cause is equivalent to the claim that it is impossible for anything to come into existence without a cause. If the second of these claims cannot be sustained, the former cannot either. — expos4ever

Then you agree with the OP. A first cause is an 'uncaused cause'. Or something unexplained that is justified by its own existence, that then can enter into causality chains with others.

The philosophy of mind isn't dead, it just needs to be married to neuroscience and today's facts. People thinking they can solve philosophy of mind problems from a purely philosophical perspective are deluding themselves. All philosophy needs to be based on facts. Otherwise its just a story.

Well, this is certainly a deep issue. Good luck. Nice chatting with you. :smile: — jgill

You as well jgill! I greatly enjoyed your contributions to the thread.

↪jgill One can maintain some respect for this thread if one sees it as ↪Philosophim attempting to phrase Fundamentality, in causal terms. — Banno

Fantastic link Banno, I was not aware this was a study of philosophy. After reading it, yes, this is basically what I'm doing.

To avoid this overlap, we should not use 'should' and 'preferable' together to avoid an emotional connotation.

This doesn’t really address the issue though, unless you are conceding that ‘existence is not preferable to non-existence’ or that preference is irrelevant. — Bob Ross

My point is about context. "I would prefer to do X, but I should do this instead." Preference is often subjective.

Recall that chaos means anything can happen. Which could mean that in 50 years the range between nothing happening vs everything happening exists.

Not quite what I mean. I am saying that in a world with maximal existent entities, chaos between them is always better than order. Chaos, itself, does not entail that nothing might happen: it is the complete disorder and confusion of what exists as it relates to other entities that exists. — Bob Ross

What you mean is a specified kind of order then. A dice roll is not chaos, no matter how many dice you add into the mixture. We simply don't know the outcome. Can you specify the type of existence you think would be more moral? Use the calculations I've been doing so far. Start simple.

By analogy, I am saying a room full of furniture, people, electrons, etc. in a state of continual collisions and disorder is going to be better than where everything is arranged according to specific guidelines (i.e., order) because there is more ‘expressive existences’ in the chaotic room vs. the orderly room. You seem to be noting, with this response, that the existence of the entities in the room may randomly disappear or they may stop interacting with each other. — Bob Ross

I'm not saying you're wrong, but this is far too vague. Can you use the system I've put forward so far? Use one of my examples as a spring board.

Sure, but you are basically just saying “more complexity is better”; but, then, a highly complex computer or AI would be higher prioritized and better than a newborn baby. — Bob Ross

What do you mean by 'prioritized'? Remember, we've already found a mathematical rule that introducing different types of existences increases overall existence. There is nothing that prevent an AI and a baby from coexisting. In fact, its more existence for them to coexist, and no matter how moral AI becomes, it is more moral to keep the unique existence of babies within that same universe.

And you're still too far along. You're not understanding the basics yet, just trying to see where this is going. You're talking calculus before you've mastered multiplciation. :) Use atoms. Hydrogen and helium. This helps keep it at the level that you want where we can look at the math and make sure the fundamentals are understood.

Likewise, an adult Lion, by your own standards, has more “interactions and potential existence” than a newborn human baby: are we supposed to say it is better to have adult Lions than human babies? — Bob Ross

No, because a human being, IE, higher intelligence, is a much greater potential existence than a lion. Higher intelligence is much more capable than simple ambulation and survival. It can plan how to shape the universe and make it so in ways far beyond an animal. It can recognize its own morality. The amount of existence per atom heavily outweighs a lion. That being said, both or valuable. The universe is in general richer for having them both than not having one or the other. And if humans were eliminated, it would still be better for there to exist lions.

Likewise, I am not sure that a newborn human baby is more complex then unalive ecosystems. — Bob Ross

One individual baby is not, but you're making two mistakes.

1. You're assuming its either/or. Its better for there to be both.
2. You're not comparing the amount of existence generated per 'atom'. You're comparing the generation of expressed existence of 3 atoms vs 300 million atoms.

Again Bob, I have to see that you understand the part we're at first before we move to humanity, intelligence, etc. Try to take your examples and put them into the atom examples I've used so far. If you can't yet, then that means its probably past where we're at right now. We'll get there, just one step at a time. :)

↪Philosophim What is the distinction between determinism and causality? — EricH

Determinism is the idea that everything was completely set by rules from the beginning. Tempral causality simply means that a prior event is the reason why a current event is happening. First causes are not determined because there is no reason for their being besides the fact they exist. This means there is no prior law that necessitated their existence.

What I have produced in mathematical terms is an actual chain - I can make it more specific with definitions of functions, etc. if you desire. Your actual chain is a complete abstraction. — jgill

They are both abstractions. While the math proof is nice, I'm still failing to see how it address the point. I still don't see anything in this other than talking about origins. For example, I could start my origin at 0, or start it at one when counting. But an origin is no the same as a full chain of causality that does not require an observer.

The question is really about what caused the set of causality to be. If the universe has a finite chain of causality, what caused that to be? If the universe has an infinitely regressive chain of causality, what caused that to be? There is no prior cause in either case. It would be that set without prior explanation; it simply would be.

What I have shown is that first cause is more complicated than what the ancients understood. In my example, n going to infinity, using the same z at each value of n produces an infinite causal chain having that z as a sort of ultimate first cause. I would think this example would stir original philosophical thought rather than a regurgitation of traditional ideas. :chin: — jgill

I'm not sure I see that. Could you clarify more? How is this any different from creating an origin in math? I appreciate the contribution, it just seems I'm not getting how it applies yet.

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.
— Philosophim
Actually, ↪180 Proof should be "better than that", since he has a deep understanding of post-enlightenment philosophy. But he seems to dismiss any philosophy before the 17th century as religious (woo-woo) metaphysics. His self-professed worldview is Physicalism/Immanentism*1 {he'll correct me, if I'm wrong}. Which means that the notion of a First Cause, prior to the Big Bang scenario, is literally non-sense . . . from his truncated perspective. — Gnomon

I appreciate the defense, but he posted that years ago. Its the only time I've ever had an issue with him and its long forgiven. 180 Proof and I are A-ok now. :)

Think of a large disc in the plane, full of points,z, and each individual function in the chain taking any such point and producing another point in that disc. Assume that each of these functions draw any two points in the disc slightly closer to one another. Then, when you start the chain you can use any point in the disc as a "first cause". — jgill

If I understand you correctly, you're just talking about a mathematical origin. That's not the same as a first cause as defined in the OP. Lets envision an a thought experiment of an actual chain as a visual.

First, lets stretch a chain from left to right, each link is a prior cause to the next link. The first link in the left is the first cause. It has no prior link of causation.

Now lets take a chain that's looped together to represent infinite causation. What caused there to be a looped chain? There is no prior outside link that formed that chain.

In each case, the reason why there is a finite chain is that there simply is. The reason there is an infinite chain is that there simply is. There is no prior reason why there should be a finite regression of causality, or an infinite regression of causality. Does your formula apply to this? Currently I'm not seeing it.

Therefore, your work details these four general precepts with a schematic overview and a collection of algorithms for rigorous calculations. Through use of your guide, members of the public can do more precise assessments of truth content at each level. — ucarr

It makes me incredibly happy to hear you understood the paper and what the goal was.

On a speculative basis, I’m wondering if your scheme can be used with logical truth tables towards rigorous assessments at each of the four levels. — ucarr

Possibly. If there is a need for it, I will.

Note - This note is, admittedly, a somewhat fanciful suggestion: in order to keep your quartet alliterative, consider replacing your last level, “irrational induction,” with “pretension.” — ucarr

Honestly I've never been satisfied with the last phrase. Originally I was going to call it faith, but I thought that word had too much baggage attached to it. I love the alliterative suggestion, but pretention has a lot of negative connotation to it. I'll think about it. :)

↪Philosophim Right, but my point is, if it seems like a supernatural mind contributed to an apparent miracle (viz. understanding, intent), then we might as well say that a supernatural mind contributed to a veritable miracle. — NotAristotle

Certainly. But it should be 'seems because evidence points to this' vs 'seems because it requires far less work'.