This is initially how I was conceptualizing the problem as well, but I think it runs into problems. "Time" doesn't exist outside of our 4D spacetime manifold. When our universe spontaneously exists, it is like a 4D object popping into existence, outside of any external time dimension. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Time doesn't exist if nothing exists, that's true. However, there is one thing we're likely making a mistake on. If its true that there is no reason why anything should exist, there's also no reason why only one thing should exist. We tend to look at 'the origin' as a one time event. Nothing before, then something after that had set laws. There's no reason that it had to be this way. The start of the universe may very well have been one small particle appearing, followed by others for countless eons.

What we usually refer to in the universe's origin is, "When the big bang happened" There's nothing in the math that leads to the big bang that necessitates there was nothing prior to the big bang. There's also nothing that states that things could have continued to appear after the big bang.

Other things that spontaneously exist wouldn't "start to exist" within the context of the time dimension of our own universe. You need an external frame here, and here it might be useful to conceptualize our universe as only two dimensional, with a third time dimension — Count Timothy von Icarus

Time is only a comparison of change between two existences. So a thing that forms on its own does not have time for itself prior to its being, but as soon as it enters into a universe with existence, time happens. I wouldn't place too much emphasis on time personally. Its just change between existences and not an actual existent force or entity.

Smarter people than me, who actually specialize in this sort of thing still think Johnathan Edwards has a point here — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think its pretty clear once we realize that thing can form without a prior explanation, that a God is not necessary. While a God is possible, so is anything else we can imagine. Since anything could have been possible, we have to look at the evidence of our universe as it is and conclusively determine "X is the origin" with evidence. Claims to God as the universal origin are not evidential. Not saying someone couldn't take this approach, but as it stands now, its not a very good argument for the universe's origins.

But I don't think this is necessarily relevant since it would seem to relate to the size/mass-energy, what have you, of objects beginning to exist within an already existing space-time. — Count Timothy von Icarus

We can even remove the virtual particle notion. If it is the case that the origin of the universe has no prior explanation for its existence, there are no rules. If something formed within nothing then, why can something not form within nothing now? There's no reason it couldn't. There's no reason preventing tons of incredibly tiny 'things' popping into and out of existence. Right now, there could be things popping into existence somewhere in this vast universe.

The point I was trying to make is that the math makes anything large, long lived, or complex orders of magnitude less likely than something that is smaller, not eternal, and simple. While the idea of something appearing within nothing without prior explanation means there are no rules, it doesn't mean we can't think of logical consequences. Namely if anything is possible, all things are equally possible. Why? If something were more possible than another thing, there must be an external reason. But there is no external reason. It simply is.

With this in mind, we can also realize that it is equally possible that a big bang formed, and for the last trillion years, nothing else formed from nothing. Perhaps something will happen again in another 5 years. Or five minutes. When you're dealing with something which has no rules, it cannot be predicted.

Of course, it's a non sequitur to go from "there is a first cause" to "this first cause is an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, intelligent designer who gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life". — Michael

Absolutely. Not that its not possible, but the chance would be so low that its statistically insignificant. Also, its just as equally statistically insignificant that an 'All-bad, dumb designer who snatched his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should perish, and have eternal death." formed instead. The reality is that we cannot look to the idea that everything is possible and say that any one thing, "Must have formed". The only way to tell what must have formed is to look at the results. Evidence is the only thing that can tell us how the universe formed.

Any supposed "first cause" might simply be an initial singularity of infinite temperature and density that then expanded. — Michael

It very well could be! The idea that I'm putting forward should never stop us from exploring the universe's origins, even if there may come a time when there really is nothing prior.

The answer is the same: "it just is; there is no prior explanation for why causation is an infinite regress". — Michael

That is the entire point of the OP. As long as we agree on that, we're all good.

What I take issue with is your claim that this then entails that there is a first cause. That is clearly a contradiction, as it cannot be both that causation is an infinite regress and that there is a first cause. — Michael

I'll tell you a secret. I wrote this over two years with an intended purpose: to get the atheists and theists in here to think. If I remember at the time, there were a rash of 'proof of God' posts. I found that some atheists would go in very disrespectfully and mock the theists. Then I found some atheists would go in gently and respectfully, but be mocked by some theists. The point was, people stopped thinking. This was to make a place where theists and atheists could be disarmed for a second. Instead of being concerned about proving or not proving God, I wanted them to really think about the origins of the universe for a second to see if they could come to a logical conclusion.

I use the phrase "first cause", but its just a phrase to get people into the discussion. The phrase isn't all that important honestly, its the underlying logic and lesson that I wanted you to learn. Call it whatever you want, I don't care. The phrase 'first cause' sure got some passions up though didn't it? It got clicks and people discussing. It was something I learned back on the internet to make sure my conversations didn't die without being seen.

Would I have written it the same way today? Maybe, maybe not. I can't argue with the results, and I wonder how many people would have never stepped into the conversation had I not phrased it that way.

You appear to conflate "brute fact" and "first cause". As I mentioned in my first comment, that explanations end isn't that causation starts. — Michael

A better word that's probably more palatable than the emotionally laden and anxiety inducing, 'first cause', is 'origin'. The origin of the universe is unexplained. It had no rules for why it should or should not have form. "It simply is". But, something to consider. If there is no prior reason for the way the universe is now, there were no rules as to what could or could have formed. You can't say there were rules, as that would mean there was some prior limitation. Which means we've proven that "something can form within nothing'.

What does this mean? Without knowing the origins of the universe, anything could have happened. I actually tried to rope in the odds of a God one time. Its possible, but pretty low. Long story short, there's no cardinality so its 1 infinity out of an infinity of infinities. Its no more likely to happen than any other crazy thing you can think of. What's fascinating to me about this is that there is no reason why 'anything could happen' could not happen again. There's a little bit of math that we might be able to show cardinality for that would demonstrate it magnitudes more likely that incredibly small and simple things would randomly appear instead of larger and more complex things. But I believe that we can logically embrace a cosmology where things can be without a prior reason for their existence, and start thinking about the consequences of this. Its not even simply a possibility, its a logical necessity.

Take a one inch square. Divide each side into n equal parts. Then there are n^2 sub squares. Assume the probability of a point being in the big square is one, and each sub square probability then is n^-2. — jgill

Thanks. So then if every chance had equal chance of being, that would be 1, then n^2, then I assume n^4 if we chopped those new squares up again? The point that I was trying to make is that if all had an equal chance of being selected individually, a smaller section of square is more likely to be selected then the larger scaled squares.

"One chance out of the infinite" means what? — jgill

Sorry, its late here. I meant to say 'the limit as this division approaches infinity', if there is one. Meaning the smaller the size of the particle, the more chances per square inch it appears over something the size of an inch itself (assuming all have the same chance of appearing)

Sorry. Language is a lot looser in philosophy (or this forum) than where I worked. — jgill

Not a worry. All good!

Now, to be completely honest, I am rethinking this normative theory; because I don’t think it works anymore. I have this darn habit of writing something up, and quickly defeating my own position—back to the drawing board! ): — Bob Ross

No shame at all. The person who isn't making mistakes in trying to forge forward to new discoveries isn't doing anything meaningful. The fact you can admit flaws in you own arguments puts you years ahead of many people who have attempted serious philosophy.

The reason I don’t think it works is because I think the contradiction doesn’t actually exist if one disambiguates the language: kind of like how B and C were really easy to conflate in your theory, being an being with the ability to set out absolute ends is different than being an absolute end. — Bob Ross

Hey, I'm glad you learned something from my mistake then! I've made a lot of them over the years, let me know if you need any more. :D

They're called virtual particles
— Philosophim

A mathematical convenience that cannot be observed through instruments. — jgill

Good to know, I appreciate the info! I had looked into them at a cursory level, but apparently I need to read more.

Wrong. And I think you mean an inch cube in 3-space? Or an inch square in my favorite, the complex plane. — jgill

Just using a basic 2d example. Also, despite virtual particles not being what I thought they were, this is a thought experiment for the OP.

But divide the square in half. Anything could appear in that square at any moment, and not in the other half. Right? Right.
— Philosophim

Wrong. Where do you come up with these flights of fancy? — jgill

Did you read the OP?

Please don't. And don't ask a mathematician to do so. And something would appear very small if it is very small. — jgill

You misread what my intent was. It was to compare the probability of something occurring in a one inch square versus several magnitudes smaller as we divide up the square, assuming equal probability of something appearing in each measured location.

I love it when philosophers dabble in physics and math. Especially quantum physics. :cool: — jgill

Why be snide? Just educate. If the person you're educating is being rude, then be snide.

Fantastic thread.

If this is the case, and things can start to exist, for no prior reason (they are uncaused), then why don't we see more things starting to exist at different times? — Count Timothy von Icarus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgKJV_p48AQ

They're called virtual particles.

I've written a bit on this in the past. We have to logically think about what would result if things could appear without a prior cause.

1. There is no reason for their being.
2. There is no reason they should continue to exist.
3. There is no reason they should follow any laws except after they exist.

Meaning that a particle could appear, but then disappear soon after. No reason why it couldn't. When you talk about something that has no reason for its existence, you also can't say why it could NOT exist either.

So then why don't we see things like chairs randomly pop into existence and then disappear. That's due to probability. If anything could exist without reason, there are no limits. Meaning we have to consider all possibilities.

First, lets start with scale. Let think of an inch by inch square of space. Anything could appear in that square of space at any moment right? Right. But divide the square in half. Anything could appear in that square at any moment, and not in the other half. Right? Right. Continue to do this ad infinitum or until we get to what is the smallest particle we can see.

What does this mean? For every one square inch we see that has one chance out of the infinite, we have a square that subdivides down into magnitudes smaller, meaning in the comparative likelihood of one square inch, its much more likely that something appear very small. I don't want to math this out, maybe someone else could.

Second, lifespan.

A particle could exist in between the smallest possible measurement of existence that we can imagine to the largest. Meaning, like the square space, we have a situation in which there is a near infinite amount of time to exist that is both before and after. Seeing a particle form that would also form with the ability to be indestructible would also be exceedingly rare considering all other possibilities.

Third, complexity

Complexity is many smaller things integrated together. Something formed without prior rules would need to interact with something else without prior rules (Or perhaps other existences that have been here a while) and form something meaningful. What's the chance of that? Probably pretty low.

So over time its not surprising that we would see extremely small 'things' forming and unforming as they enter into existence, interact, and wink out. What would be exceedingly rare, though possible, is something of a large magnitude with massive complexity forming. Its possible again, just exceedingly rare.

Its an interesting notion though. If anything is possible, over infinite time, will all things happen? Anyway, fun thoughts to think on.

I have no problem with the metaphysics description and the use of words that do not lean on the physical. My concern is that it should not be forgotten that it is all physical at its core.
— Philosophim
That's where you and I agree & disagree. — Gnomon

Which is fine by the way! I respect your views.

*2. Experimental test for the mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
A recent conjecture, called the mass-energy-information equivalence principle, proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy and exists as a separate state of matter.
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/sci/article/2022/9/091111/2849001/A-proposed-experimental-test-for-the-mass-energy — Gnomon

Now this? This I love. This is an attempt to put a theory to the test. I would love to see it happen.

I agree. I've noted several times that it is currently impossible to objectively evaluate someone else's subjective experience. But do note that this problem does not go away even if we remove science.
— Philosophim

Objective or empirical evaluation of subjective experience may be an oxymoron. But Subjective theoretical evaluation of subjective Ideas is what Philosophy*2 is all about. No need to "remove" the reasoning of Science, just the requirement for empirical evidence. — Gnomon

True that we would remove empirical evidence, but then what objective evidence do we have? As you noted, it may very well be an oxymoron. And I'm inclined to agree. Subjective experience can only be discussed subjectively, not objectively. The problem that I see is if there is no objectivity, then there is no scientific standard. Subjective analysis falls much more easily to bias, difficulty in replicating results, and consensus. Its not that objective analysis cannot have these problems as well, but the frequency is far less and these problems can easily be identified, nullifying the research without much debate.

I feel subjective experiences are honestly best left to psychology. There they at least have some methodologies to account for this, though it still has its problems. I am aware I speak from ignorance however, my knowledge of psychology is limited.

Again, great post Gnomon!

What I'm noting is that if it is, according to itself, it shouldn't be.

What’s really wrong with this, in principle, though? It doesn’t even seem incoherent to me. — Bob Ross

If you mean its not incoherent that it leads to this result, I agree. I mean its incoherent, and therefore likely not going to be the objective morality if it exists. I'm switching between "Assume it exists" to then "Show it exists". I can invent a lot of ideas that would be incoherent or lead to contradictions, but that usually lends weight to them not being real.

If I don't know if "Contradictions should be encouraged" is real, I can follow the logic to realize it contradictions itself, so then in conclude contradictions should probably not be encouraged. A morality that exists that states it shouldn't exist is contradictory by this measure, so likely does not exist. Is this a certainty? Of course. But since we don't know either way yet, we go by what seems most rational.

Literally anyone will agree with your definition here of morality, but I want to dive deeper: what are the properties themselves? Not what is morality, but what are the nature of moral properties? — Bob Ross

Oh, yes. That was the purpose of the original question. To find what rationally 'should' be at a foundational level. The conclusion is, "Existence should be." You may want to read the OP from that point to see what I say from there. That's where I go over what we can conclude from this. I most certainly do not think "I have it", but this is a fun part where we get to brain storm and see where this goes.

So how many convergent subjective analysis constitute an objective one then, in your terms? Is that how it works? — Bob Ross

Not quite. The point is to remember that your opinions and beliefs do not make reality. A subjective viewpoint is typically associated with a belief or outlook that makes claims about reality that are not sufficiently tested.

I can get on board with that, but why do you think there are moral judgments that exhibit this kind of objectivity (viz., that there are moral conclusions which are despite our desires or viewpoints)? — Bob Ross

A very good question. That's a combination of many factors over the years. I've done some basic study into morality and come to a couple of conclusions.

1. There are universal moral decisions across cultures. Why? What's the underling fundamental that causes that?

2. We are moral to animals. Some animals even show signs of morality. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6404642/#:~:text=The%20empirical%20evidence%20gathered%20until,or%20even%20a%20direct%20loss.
This is in contrast to the ideas of morality being subjective, selfish, or even cultural.

3. There are various other contradictions and debated issues with many versions of subjective morality. That tells me that over the eons we've spent studying it, we haven't come up with an acceptable solution.

4. There is great value to having an objective morality. Such an understanding can bridge cultures, religions, and further the understanding and progress of humanity.

5. Humans are made out of matter. I do not see us as separate from the universe, but very much a part of it. I find it odd that suddenly morality pops up and its only a human condition. I believe there is something underlying this beyond just evolution that allows morality to express itself through us.

None of these reasons mean that there is an objective morality, but they are reasons I think its worthwhile to search for one.

Which leads me to: what states-of-affairs in reality are morally relevant, then? What out there are we able to access that is of moral signification? — Bob Ross

That which we can have control over. There are a couple of things we can get into later such as cost and capability. But first we have to build up what morality actually is when it gets to the human level.

This entails that when you affirm that morality is objective that there are moral judgments which are made true in virtue of reality, and are not made true in virtue of our pyschology—so what is it, then? Platonic forms, naturalistic empirical inquiries, etc.? — Bob Ross

So far? "Existence should be" As I noted earlier, its time to read the rest of the OP.

I don’t think there is anything in reality that tells us what we ought to do, so it does not matter how much a rational agent reflects accurately about reality: the normative or morally relevant information comes from within, not without. — Bob Ross

There is nothing preventing you from believing this opinion as we discuss. My point is to see if I can demonstrate that morality could be a logical consequence of rationality and existence. Its about considering and thinking on new ideas. Hopefully you'll find it fun. :)

But what I've said here does negate the possition you have take over your last few threads, especially the causal necessity stuff. I'm not surprised that you feel the need to resort to this. — Banno

I didn't mean it as an insult, only a description. Jester's are entertaining after all.

What I did was to suggest that we cold simplify the issue of what "physicalism" is by sticking to physics. — Banno

Banno embodies a jester. Once you realize that his posts are easily understood.

A mind is an emergent process of a brain or a soul (take our pic) which is capable of having desires, cognizing, and having a conscious experience or an awareness of its environment; whereas, an end-in-itself is just a shorthand for something capable of deploying absolute ends. — Bob Ross

Yes, but can you give an example of that 'something' that isn't a mind?

Ok, which premise then? — Bob Ross

P4: To treat a mind as solely a means towards an end is to contradict their nature — Bob Ross

Contradicting a person's nature is not the law of non-contradiction. For example, someone's nature could be to commit suicide, but I step in and stop them. No logical contradiction happened like 'True is false'. Its just going against someone's desires that we call, "Nature". I'm not seeing a reason why I shouldn't go against someone else's desires based on the points you've covered here. As I noted earlier, I think you'll need Kant's categorical imperative to have some type of justification that tells me I can't use someone for my own ends.

So you're saying that there is both an infinite regress of causes and that there is a first cause. Do you not see the contradiction? — Michael

No. But maybe I'm wrong. Can you answer this question: "What caused there to be infinite regressive causality?" Remember the answer that I gave to finite causality. "It just is, there is no prior explanation for its being." Is your answer different?

For example, I don’t see how morality, if it were ‘objective’, would be ‘at odds with itself’ or that it ‘doesn’t fit’, in principle, if A were true. — Bob Ross

Let me separate out two points so you can see where I'm coming from.

If the objective morality that exists is "Existence should not be," it doesn't matter, that's what it is. I'm not debating that. Just like if the real morality is "Contradictions should be encouraged in life". If that's what it is, that's what it is.

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. Just like if it was objectively true that "Contradictions should be encouraged in life" that we should contradict that.

That's the odd thing about speculation on what's objective without proof. Technically, you can invent anything as objective, and its plausible. Of course, its equally as plausible that objective morality is, "Existence should be," When we're in a state in which we have two options without evidence, we take the stance that seems more reasonable and likely to be based on the evidence we do have, as well as whether such an option would directly or indirectly lead to a contradiction of some sort. Just like "Contradictions should be encouraged," leads to a line off logic that means you should contradict it, so to does the idea of a morality that exists that says it shouldn't exist.

1. What is the nature of moral properties? — Bob Ross

For now? Morality is the analysis of what should or should not happen. Keeping to what should or should not be is moral, while going against the precepts is immoral.

2. What is the nature of objectivity? I am assuming you mean “that which can be rationally agreed upon”. — Bob Ross

The nature of objectivity is a rational deduction that persists despite differences in subjective experience. The nature of subjectivity is a rational or irrational conclusion that relies on one specific subjective experience. These have never been precise nor perfectly divided definitions. They are more what I'll call "guidance" definitions.

The guidance of objectivity is the understanding that there are certain conclusions which are apart from our desires or personal viewpoints. Meaning an objective conclusion has the potential to violate everything we wish and stand for. It is the understanding that there are forces beyond ourselves that will contradict ourselves.

The guidance of subjectivity is to understand that you have a personal viewpoint of reality that may not be the same as others. The default child-like state is to believe that one's perspective is unalienably correct, and reflective of reality. Objectivity is meant to raise a person's thinking beyond this, while subjectivity is its contrast and reminder to be conscious of our own limitiations.

I am assuming you mean “that which can be rationally agreed upon”. — Bob Ross

This requires me to answer, "What is rational?" What is rational is to connect information together in such a way that is reflective of reality. This is usually known by avoiding being contradicted by reality. Logic and tools of reasoning are time tested methods that help one avoid being contradicted by reality.
The ultimate measuring stick that trumps all is if reality contradicts you. If so, all tools which have lead to this contradiction should be re-examined to find its flaws.

3. What is the nature of an “objective moral judgment” or a “moral fact” to you? — Bob Ross

It is a judgement that accurately reflects reality. If A should exist over B in reality, then this is a fact. Deciding to shape reality so that A happens is a correct moral decision. Concluding that A should exist over B in reality through rationality, is a correct moral judgement.

I will say, to be totally honest, I think your position is a form of moral subjectivism (; You are a comrade in disguise.... — Bob Ross

Ha ha! The way you define subjectivism, I am. The way I define subjectivism? Not so much. At the end of the day, I honestly don't care about what the specific words are to different people. I care about the guidance. If a moral objectivism exists, then we can be contradicted in reality by our moral choices and finding out what the objective morality is will allow us to construct objective moral judgements.

You're saying that the set of all causes is itself a cause. This is a category error. The set itself doesn't cause anything and so isn't a cause. The term "cause" refers to the members of the set, not the set itself. — Michael

No, I'm saying when you examine the entire set of regressive causality and ask, "What caused everything to be infinitely regressive?" there is no prior cause. It exactly the same as taking a set of finite regressive causality and asking, "What caused everything to be finitely regressive?"

The answer is the same. There is no prior reason for its being, therefore, it just is. This is the first cause for all chains of causality.

You're saying that id either a) or b) is true then c) is true. This makes no sense. If either a) or b) is true then c) is false. — Michael

Take the set of all regressive causality, A.
What prior existence caused A to be?
There is nothing, A is A because it exists. Thus it exists without a prior explanation for its being, and is thus a first cause.

c. There comes a time within a causal chain when there is only Y, and nothing prior to Y. This Y is Alpha. (first cause)

You then ask:

"Why would it be that there exists an infinite prior or infinitely looped causality in existence?"

I am suggesting that perhaps there is no answer. — Michael

That is exactly what I'm agreeing with. And if there is no prior cause for its existence, point c notes that this is the first cause. It exists without prior explanation for its being.

Again, you erroneously imply that I deny the role of Brain in Mind functions. — Gnomon

Sorry, that was not intended to target you in general, more the general idea some have in this thread.

What we call "mind" is the immaterial function of a physical brain. — Gnomon

I have no problem with the metaphysics description and the use of words that do not lean on the physical. My concern is that it should not be forgotten that it is all physical at its core.

That's the problem with Materialism, it looks for empirical evidence of something that is immaterial. The only evidence of Mental Functions is philosophical inference. — Gnomon

I agree. I've noted several times that it is currently impossible to objectively evaluate someone else's subjective experience. But do note that this problem does not go away even if we remove science. Any attempt, be that metaphysical, idealist, etc., falls prey to the same criticism. Such language is fine to describe our emotions and feelings, but it will never be objective.

You may not think Darwin was asserting something unbelievable, but most of his contemporaries did, because they were convinced of a different belief system. — Gnomon

My point is not whether a person agrees with beliefs or not. My point is whether they are open to looking at the facts, even those that challenge their beliefs, and determine whether their beliefs hold true in the face of the evidence. Trust me, I challenge belief systems all the time, including my own. I'm sure some members despise me for it. :) Often times I don't communicate in the 'meta' of philosophy, and that really bothers some people. I have read and formally studied many different philosophies, and I have found that to think freely, you need to not be unduly constrained by communities or habits.

A person being constrained by their beliefs is not the same as a person proposing new, undeniable facts that invalidate that belief. If you can show me undeniable facts that demonstrate something which exists apart form matter and energy, I'm very open to it.

And this is not a problem. This is the limit of what we can measure today, and we take what is most reasonable from that analysis.
— Philosophim
I agree. Yet Reasoning is not empirical, but philosophical. A Paradigm Shift is a change of perspective on the evidence. :cool: — Gnomon

I agree that it is both. Empirical evidence without logic or reason leads to nothing new. We must have a strong sense of skepticism in any claim, and require logic and evidence. New perspectives should always be brought forward, but they must be tested against the hard rock of existence.

PS___ I appreciate your respectful skepticism. It forces me to tighten-up my own reasoning. And to find new ways to describe an emerging new paradigm of Philosophy and Science. — Gnomon

I really appreciate your viewpoints as well Gnomon! I'm glad you're not taking my points the wrong way. I greatly enjoy chatting with thinkers like yourself, and I think you're setting up your language and approach to science and consciousness that is palatable to someone like myself.

Thus, beginnings, or "first causes", are demonstrably not "logically necessary" in ontology (topology or cosmology) though, of course, they are possible. — 180 Proof

Let me word it another way. We don't know if the universe has infinite causality or not, that's not what I'm claiming. Lets look at it in sets.

A. The set of all causes from point A until a finite beginning.
B. The set of all causes from Point A infinitely regressive.
C. The set of all causes from Point A until it loops to Point A again.

The question is not, "Which set is correct?" The question is, "Do we find a finite limit to prior causality?"

And we do. What caused the set? Put in set A, B, C, or any other crazy idea someone comes up with. What caused that set to be instead of some other set? If we look for a prior explanation, by our sets, there is none. There is no prior reason why the universe would be finitely or infinitely regressive.

A first cause is simply defined as "That which exists without any prior causality for its existence." All sets come to this point. Meaning that all sets do not have a prior cause for their existence. Meaning they simply exist, there is no prior reason why the set is besides the fact that it is. This is ontologically necessary.

To avoid any implications you believe I'm going with this, this is all I'm claiming here. There is no requirement that anything be designed by a consciousness or with intent. I'm just noting that it is logically concluded that no matter what, the ultimate causality of the universe will always result in the answer that there is no prior explanation for its existence.

Correct. Which is why when we reach a point in any chain of causality where there is no prior causality for its existence, 'it simply is', that we've reached the first cause from which the rest of the chain or set follows
— Philosophim

I'm not sure you're even reading what I'm writing. — Michael

My apologies if I'm not understanding your point. What did I miss?

I think I am beginning to understand what you are trying to go for, which is, if I am not mistaken, that morality itself contains a ‘moral’ judgment that ‘the reason must/should exist’ if it is to have ‘moral’ signification and then you are trying to demonstrate that this contradicts B. Is that sort of right? — Bob Ross

Yes, that's about it. Essentially a reason must exist for any moral judgement. But if it exists, then according to it, it should not exist. Morality is the analysis of what 'should' be. Meaning that according to the the claim, "Everything should not exist", even a reason for this moral claim should not exist.

‘B != !B’ is, even when conjoined with ‘B = B’, a tautology that is not equivalent to the law of non-contradiction — Bob Ross

Its not the law of non-contradiction, just pointing out a contradiction.

This one is more of a question than a critique: is ‘moral’ signifying anything special here? — Bob Ross

Yes. I think I realized that I was putting the emphasis on the wrong point. I was putting emphasis on the reason, B, instead of the moral proposal itself, A. Its not that B makes A false, its that A makes B false. The moral claim notes that its reason should not exist, which means that the moral claim, "Everything should not exist,' should not exist either.

Its making me wonder if I'm introducing an extra variable into the equation, the reason. I'm looking for the foundation as it is, and the reason is what we're trying to discover. At the end, I'm essentially stating that the reason why it 'should or should not' is because there is a contradiction in 'should not exist' itself, not a contradiction in the reason. So yes, if I simplify this down a bit, I think it will be much more clear.

An objective morality is not necessarily dependent on human judgement. So we're claiming its possible that it would exist on its own. If an objective morality exists, then it boils down to one binary question as its foundation: "Should existence be, or not?" Instead of looking for a reason, what we're really looking for is the logical consequence of the solution.

So if it were true that an objective morality existed and its conclusion is that "Existence should not be." then its claiming its own existence shouldn't be either. Meaning an objective morality that states 'Existence should not be,' shouldn't exist. This also means nothing should exist. Not us, not the reasoning to find an objective morality, and not morality itself.

Its definitely not a classical contradiction, but it is something. It would mean there should be the cessation of everything, and yet existence persists. It would also fly in the face of every moral theory ever concocted. It doesn't contradict its own ontology, but it is in perpetual conflict with it. For something to have a 'should' it means if reality could make that state, it should. Which means that if reality could, it would eliminate the objective reality that states, "Existence should not be'. But if we eliminated that objective morality, we don't eliminate the question. Which means at the end of the day, what should be, is that there should exist an objective morality that concludes, "Existence should be".

So then, its not an ontological necessity that if an objective morality exists, that it conclude 'Existence should be.' Its more that such a morality seems so at odds with itself and with our general sense, that it doesn't fit. If it were the case, its time to put on the clown mask, whip up some bombs, and destroy the world and oneself with a bang! :D

So then I can't ontologically prove that if an objective morality exists, its not "Existence should not be". However, we can still look at the idea that such a morality would still insist that it should not exist, and I am inclined to agree with it! Meaning I still think that it is reasonable to conclude that if there is an objective morality, at its foundation it should be "Existence should be".

If you agree with this portion, then we can move onto other aspects of the discussion. We can go back to the objective/subjective setup, the idea that '2b or not 2b' is the fundamental moral argument that all moral questions chain down to, or we can move onto the fun thought experiments I had with the idea that "Existence is good" would lead to. Thank you for sticking with this portion until this point at my request, the choice is yours going forward.

It makes no sense to say that "there is no first cause" is the first cause. — Michael

Correct. Which is why when we reach a point in any chain of causality where there is no prior causality for its existence, 'it simply is', that we've reached the first cause from which the rest of the chain or set follows.

This isn't anthroprmorphism though. I'm not stating there is any consciousness or intent behind a first cause. I'm just logically pointing out that no matter the type of causality, infinite or finite, we still arrive at a point where the cause for existence taken in total has no prior explanation, or cause, for why it exists. At then end of the day, the first cause is, "It simply is."

I'm suggesting that "it simply is" the case that (2) is correct or that "it simply is" the case that (3) is the case.

So, "it simply is" the case that there is no first cause. — Michael

"It simply is" is the first cause.

It may simply be a brute fact that there is no first cause. That explanations end somewhere isn't that causation starts somewhere.
— Michael

In other words, it could be that "it simply is" the case that causality is infinite. — Michael

We are actually talking about the same thing. :) Where explanations end is the start of causation. A first cause has no prior explanation for its existence, "it simply is". That base, "X simply is" is a first cause from which other causes can happen. My point is that whether the universe has an finite or infinitely regressive causality, the reason why it is one way over the reason that it isn't another way is, "It simply is." There is no prior explanation or reason for its existence.

Its nice to see someone actually addressing the OP.

In (4) you say that if (1) is true then A has no cause.

In (5) you ask "why is either (2) or (3) the case?".

Notice that these address different considerations. It is equally appropriate to ask "why is (1) the case?". — Michael

I ask the same question about 1. Why is there a finite limit to causality? The answer cannot be found by looking to something prior. So the answer is that 'It simply is.' Its the same answer in each case. Essentially the question is, "What caused existence?" And in all cases, there is no prior explanation. The first cause is, "It simply is."

This is getting wildly off topic now guys. Please refer to the OP. If you want to make another topic to discuss, feel free.

If you prefer to think that your Mind is a material object, what are its tangible properties : entangled neurons? Can you examine an Idea under a magnifying glass? — Gnomon

You can examine a lit object under a magnifying glass, but you can't examine a sound under a magnifying glass. We're using the wrong tool and looking for the wrong thing. We measure consciousness by behavior. We experience our own consciousness, but no one else's. As such, we cannot measure our own subjective consciousness, nor any other. But we have determined that the brain affects consciousness over multiple scientific discoveries over decades now. Its incontrovertible.

Of course, I can't prove that's true, any more than scientists can prove that a cosmic Bang created a universe from nothing-nowhere. — Gnomon

True, but scientists at least have math to back their reasoning. That's the difference. There is 'something' behind the prediction besides imagination. This is the same thing with quarks. We don't have a complete understanding of them yet, but the understanding we have so far is based on testable evidence. This is how progress is made. We theorize, but then we must test. The problem with the theories that consciousness is separate from matter and energy, is that there is no evidence from tests. Its why I state repeatedly that consciousness is really not in the realm of philosophy any longer, but neuroscience. We can use philosophy off of what we know in science, but if we speculate without taking in what we know, its likely going to be a cast off idea in history.

Sounds like you do have an issue with philosophical and scientific Postulation*2. In Darwin's day, the explanation for the variety of plants & animals was based on the Genesis myth. Do you think he was out of line to "assert" that there was another way to make sense of biology? — Gnomon

No, because Genesis was not known and provable with evidence, it was myth. Beliefs are not the same as what is known at the time.

Just as Catholics believe in angels based on infallible scripture, modern physicists definitely believe in Quarks based on infallible math. — Gnomon

The difference here is that its an opinion that scripture is infallible, and fails several applied tests. Quarks do not purport to be infallible ideas, they are what continue to stand in test after test.

Quark masses are fundamental quantities in particle physics, but they cannot be accessed and measured directly in experiments because, with the exception of the top quark, quarks are confined inside composite particles — Gnomon

And this is not a problem. This is the limit of what we can measure today, and we take what is most reasonable from that analysis.

Any measure you could speak of is a meaning, and all meaning is created and the property of a conscious subject, and/or collectives of conscious subjects. Measures and meanings are not lying around on the ground of an orchard like so many fallen apples. The source is subjective consciousness in its individual form or its collective. Perhaps, I am missing something here in your objection, please enlighten me. — boagie

Hi Boagie, I really appreciate your contribution to the thread, but Bob Ross is currently doing me the favor of either discounting or helping me refine what I'm trying to say here to a much more refined level. If you want to follow a long a bit in the conversation feel free, but it might be hard to spring board into right now. I think when he and I get through some more I'll likely write up the addendum, or note that it didn't work.

No contradiction. You conflated B with “B should not exist”. Those are separate propositions. — Bob Ross

No, I missed writing a step like you noted. I also think I see now what your issue is. I'm not conflating that B is the same as B should not exist, but the language SURE comes close. I'm noting that if B should not exist, then B cannot be true. I too have felt that the previous iteration didn't quite hit the mark, but this may finalize it.

First, we have to understand that for A to exist, it must have a reason. But this doesn't mean the reason exists. We still have to demonstrate we can have a true reason. To be a true reason, it must not contradict itself.

1. It is unknown whether, A, 'everything should not exist' is true. A = T/F
2. If A is true, then there must be a reason, B, and B must be true. A <-> B
3. It is unknown if B is true = T/F
4. For B to be true, it must not contradict itself B = B && B != !B
5. B is the reason that 'nothing should exist'
6. Because it is moral that 'nothing should exist' the reason should also not exist.
7. But for 'Everything should not exist' we have a reason that does exist, that should not exist.
8. But if the reason should not exist, then it is immoral for the reason to exist. Thus B is false. !B
9. if the reason should not exist, then 'Existence should not exist' should not exist either. !B <-> !A

The problem I'm having is fitting in 5,6, and 7 with propositional logic alone, I wonder if I need predicate logic. I can definitely see the trickiness of the language here in what I'm doing, and I'm not certain if its correct. I think the weirdness is that we have to prove that the reason doesn't contradict itself. Its a simple matter of "Can't have 1 and 2, but 2 is needed to prove you can't have 1 and 2", but does it actually work or am I getting caught up in a language game? See if you can poke some holes in it again.

As n increases without bound one can look at the entire structure as a mathematical entity that has the value α=limn→∞Fn(z),z∈S — jgill

Yes, the point is not to analyze the regressiveness itself, its to look at the entire structure then ask what prior causation existed that caused it to be that structure.

Then the causation chain exists as a mathematical enterprise but cannot be associated with a particular value. It simply is. (My attempt at philosophy) :cool: — jgill

Yes, the value in question is irrelevant. The point is that no matter the the value, it simply is and thus 'a first cause'.

“Emergence” is a philosophical term for mysterious appearances with "no discernible path". — Gnomon

But is what emerged something other than matter and/or energy? To my knowledge, no. If you think it is something other than matter and energy, do we have evidence of it existing apart from our imagination?

The mind has three basic functions: thinking, feeling, and wanting. — Gnomon

Right, but there is no evidence that this originates apart from matter and energy. We can call our thoughts and ideas whatever terminology we want. Do we have evidence of something existing apart from matter and energy?

But philosophers tend to question everything, and to speculate beyond current knowledge. Do you think Science has all the answers that we need to know? — Gnomon

No. My issue is not with speculation. Its with assertion. Maybe we'll find out in the future that consciousness isn't physical. But today? It is. A speculation that it might not be in the future does not invalidate what we know today. The problem is some people get so lost in the excitement of their speculation, that they forget they've failed to demonstrate its truth. Its very easy to construct a speculative argument that has air tight logic and solves all of our problems. Its another to demonstrate it can be applied to reality without contradiction.

So, my thesis is just carrying-on the tradition of questioning supposedly "settled science" — Gnomon

Keep at it! I find it very important that we poke and prod at science. My issue again is the assertion that because we can think of a possibility, that this somehow invalidates what we know today. That is never true. I can think of a magical unicorn as the reason for electromagnitism, and construct an valid set of premises and conclusions based on this being true. What has been forgotten is that you must first prove the unicorn exists.

For example, both quarks & gluons are unobservable hypothetical entities, that are basically definitions without referent. — Gnomon

This isn't quite correct.

"Although the theory (quarks) was clever, it didn't immediately catch on because there was no experimental evidence for quarks. This came four years later in 1968 at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) in California. Experimenters fired electrons, and then later muons, at protons, and found evidence that the electrons and muons were scattering off three smaller particles contained within the protons, each of these smaller particles having their own electric charge. These particles are the quarks.

...Each one has its own set of quantum numbers, and their masses are very different, with the up and down quarks being the least massive, and the top quark being the heaviest with a mass over 61,000 times more massive than the up quark.

https://www.space.com/quarks-explained#:~:text=Quarks%20in%20quantum%20physics,-The%20Large%20Hadron&text=Experimenters%20fired%20electrons%2C%20and%20then,These%20particles%20are%20the%20quarks.

So we can see that quarks have mass and have been conclusively measured. So as you can see, there's still no evidence of something in the universe that cannot be confirmed to be matter or energy yet.

The hypothetical in the top quote is just using ‘must’ in a non-normative ‘moral’ sense to indicate that if there is a reason, then there is a reason — Bob Ross

Agreed.

whereas the assertion in the second to top quote is that there simply must/should be a reason, not that if it were to exist, then it would exist. — Bob Ross

This is the part I'm not understanding. Can you clarify? What does must/should mean?

It was identity in your point 2:

2. There must be a reason that everything should not exist — Bob Ross

An identity is A = A. I'm not seeing how I'm doing that here.

When reformulated, this just tautological:

2. For there to be a reason that everything should not exist, some reason should [has to] exist [such that everything should not exist]. — Bob Ross

This is true, but that's why I condensed it down into the revised version above.

If you are conveying, instead, that “if everything should not exist, then there must be a reason” then that is not taulogical, but that is not equivalent to point 2 (you made). — Bob Ross

Correct, that's not the same as what point 2 is saying. Its an odd thing that I agree with practically everything you're stating yet I can't understand the overall point you're trying to make. :) We're almost there I feel though, so please keep trying.

So if the truth of its own premise is that it shouldn't exist, but it must exist if it is to claim that it shouldn't exist, we're left with a contradiction

I agree, but that's not my conclusion. The contradiction is not in the fact that there must be a reason that exists if its the case that 'existence should not be.' The contradiction is in what it claims if this reason exists. The reason itself must be coherent. This is pointing to my language leading to ambiguity, so let me see if I can clarify.

For A to be, there must exist a B for it to exist, does not mean that "B must exist". After all, we don't know if A is true. Now if it is the case that A is true, then B must also be true. But we cannot prove that A is true, so this is an If 'A <-> B' statement, not a 'A is' statement. I feel like we've mixed up 'must' with true, so maybe this is where the confusion is coming from. Let me see if I can write this more cleanly then to avoid this unintentional ambiguity.

Remember, what is true or false is whether it 'should' be or not.

1. It is unknown whether, A, 'everything should not exist' is true. A = T/F
2. If A is true, then there must be a reason, B, and B must be true. A <-> B
3. If B is true, then B should not exist. B -> !B
4. But if B is true, then B is false by contradiction B = B = !B
5. If B should is false, then A is false. !B <-> !A
Therefore 'everything should not exist' cannot be true, because the reason itself notes that itself should not exist. The reason would note that its own existence is immoral, and should not be. Meaning what should be, is that the reason, and thus the initial moral claim, should not exist. And if there should not be a reason for 'nothing should exist', the only conclusion in the binary is that 'something should exist'.

This is good Bob, keep going please.

This is still incorrect: the claim is that if there is a reason that everything should not exist, then there is a reason that everything should not exist. — Bob Ross

Almost, but not quite. We're assuming if 'everything should not exist', there must be a reason. Its not an identity.

“There must <...>” is the same statement as “There should <...>”: same issue. — Bob Ross

Now I'm confused. Didn't you just have an issue with me swapping 'should' and 'must' earlier? I agree you had that right. What should exist is not the same as what must exist.

9. Because A cannot assert the truth of its own premise, or contradicts itself, it cannot exist. Therefore 2 is contradicted, and there cannot be a reason for why everything should not exist. — Bob Ross

Correct.

The truth of its own premise is that it shouldn’t exist, not that it should and should not exist. — Bob Ross

Also correct.

So if the truth of its own premise is that it shouldn't exist, but it must exist if it is to claim that it shouldn't exist, we're left with a contradiction. It means we cannot claim that "Everything should not exist." What this means is that the reason why there should be no existence, should not be. Remember, we're finding a foundational reason. A foundational reason must not be a contradiction.

The best we can do is alter the statement. "Everything should not exist, except the reason that everything should not exist." Why? That's not a foundation, that just leaves more questions and confusion. This can also be translated to, "At least one thing should exist." The reason? Because without a reason existing to indicate what should or should not be, there is no should or should not be. Meaning that once again, we cannot claim that 'everything should not exist'.

Does that clear it up?

hat it is exceedingly vague. As pointed out by me above, and by the SEP article, at issue the question of what constitutes the physical. — Wayfarer

For me, the physical is something that requires matter or energy to exist. I don't think its honestly all that detailed, its just an answer like: "What makes up molecules? "Atoms". The answer doesn't answer every question we have. It doesn't tell us how atoms can combine or be built into a world of humans. Its just noting the building blocks that everything fundamentally has at its core.

It also does not deny language that has arisen like 'mental', 'subjective' or 'feelings'. Its just important that while using different terminology that we don't forget that its all based in physical reality at the end of the day.

This is 'Hempel's dilemma': if physicalism is defined by reference to contemporary physics, then it is false — after all, who thinks that contemporary physics is complete? — Wayfarer

Hempel's dilemma is an issue of epistemology. Replace 'physicalism' with 'anythingism' and Hempel's dilemma still applies. All Hempel is noting is that what we know today may not be known tomorrow. As an epistemological problem, its trivial. Of course this is the case. That doesn't mean we dismiss what we know today for today. If we did, then we would be stuck in Hempel's dilemma every tomorrow as well. As such its a point that helps us understand epistemology, but does nothing about the issue of physicalism, idealism, or any other ism.

In effect, and this is the way you use it, 'physical' amounts to a general deference to science as an arbiter of reality — Wayfarer

Yes. I refer to what is known today. We always keep the possibility that what we know tomorrow may invalidate the knowledge of the day. But the only rational choice is to take what we know today and do our best with it. It doesn't mean we can't speculate! As I've noted many times, speculation is fun and can lead to some interesting ideas. The problem comes in when someone is so enamored with speculation, that they believe it must be true, and invalidates what we know today. This can never be the case.

To you, this is obvious, as you frequently say, never mind that a great deal of philosophy comprises questioning what is generally thought to be obvious. — Wayfarer

A great deal of philosophy is conjecture, fanciful ideas, and speculation. Many people love to think their viewpoint is obvious, but it must be proven, not assumed. All of these ideas are fun for sure, but its our job as philosophers to weed out philosophy that strays too far from logic and reality and begins to assert itself without proof. Philosophy is a giant brainstorm amongst multiple people, and most ideas will be wrong. Its why we study logic, logical fallacies, and means of thinking that have been proven as rational and air tight. Its so we can sail the storm to find the rare island of truth.

Please, keep brainstorming. Keep poking and prodding at what is known today. That is the only way we make progress and find things that have been missed. But a poke and a prod that does not reference what is known today, cannot demonstrate a valid and clear flaw in today's knowledge. A want, a wish, and our imagination may be desired as true, but that alone does not make it true.

One can interpret circular causality as saying that there is no initial cause, or as saying that what is considered "initial" is subjective or relative to the observer. — sime

No, whether there is an observer or not, there is still no reason, no prior existence why there is an infinite regress of causality. People seem to confuse the idea that you are needed for reality to exist. You are not. You are needed for reality to be interpreted. There still exists the thing in iteself that can be interpreted.

The important thing, is that causal circularity implies that every causal relation is symmetric and of the form A <--> B. or equivalently, that the causal order A --> B --> C comes equipped with a dual order in the opposite direction, C --> B --> A. — sime

This is one type of regressively infinite causality. There is also just flat regressive with no circularity. Understanding how the regressive causality works doesn't change the conclusion.

Also, a presentist might interpret the present as being the perpetual "first" cause , in spite of also admitting that present events are caused by "past" events when speaking in the vulgar. — sime

It depends on your measurement slice. Lets say I take a measurement slice to be as long as the universe has existed. While a fairly useless measurement slice for any other practical purpose other than this, we could do it. What prior existence caused the universe to have occurred? Whether its seconds, minutes, hours, or really, REALLY big, we're still left with the same conclusion when we complete the full set of prior causality. There is no prior reason that caused the set to exist, it simply is.

The point of the OP is to show you that no matter how causality regresses, you are left with the conclusion that there is no prior reason for existence period. Why does circular causality exist? Infinitely regressive causality? Finite causality? At some point you understand that it simply exists. There is no reason it should, or should not be. It is the first cause.

↪Philosophim I was indoctrinated in materialism for almost all my life. It's only recently that I've discovered it's incoherent. Materialism claims that we could be in a simulation. That would entail that all our feelings and imaginings and dreams and the essence of who we are are a collection of electronic switches. Doesn't that strike you as completely absurd? That the joy of playing with your children can emerge if you take some switches, run some current through them, and turn them on and off in a certain way? Why on Earth should I believe such nonsense? — RogueAI

A simulation? It means material is reality RogueAI. It doesn't strike me as absurd at all that this is how we work. Ever seen a bisection of the body? Seen the veins, muscle, viscera? You can come away with two opinions. Either its gross and unseemly, or you realize its a magnificent triumph of matter.

Yes, if someone messed with your brain, they could turn that joy off. Why should you believe such nonsense? For the same reason you should know that a bear can eat you. That if you want to continue to have joy with your kids, you have to treat your body and brain well. Eat well, don't drink alcohol beyond moderation, don't smoke, exersise, etc.

Even further, if you start having memory loss or strokes, you can go to the doctor and get treatment to fix or minimize the issue. That 'nonsense' is why we can treat brain disorders like schizophrenia, suicidal depression, and a whole host of other psychological issues. Because understanding reality gives you power to make it better instead of being completely at its whims, or worse, creating problems through choices of ignorance.

Picture Holmes in your mind right now. — RogueAI

In my physical mind? Of course. My brain is matter, and its a cacophony of electrical and chemical processes all letting me experience my individual subjective experience of "Sherlock Holmes".

Fictional characters and mathematical theorems and numbers are mental objects. — RogueAI

And aren't mental objects an experience of a physical brain? Do mental objects form in reality outside of brains? Do they exist in a subspace? What is a mental object made out of? I'm not trolling, I'm cracking your indoctrination. This is philosophy where we are supposed to freely think. Really think on it.

Let's say you describe all that rage and red-light running in purely physical terms and then showed it to an alien who didn't know if humans were p-zombies or not. Could the alien figure out, from that purely physical description of my rage-induced red-light running behavior, that I am not a p-zombie? — RogueAI

We don't know what an alien would say, as they may have a greater understanding of the universe then us. We don't need p-zombies either. Lets just separate consciousness into two parts. Behavioral consciousness and subjective consciousness. Currently, the only way we understand objective consciousness is through behavior. Currently, the only way we understand subjective consciousness is through our own personal experience.

In other words, science has never attempted to define objective consciousness through subjective behavior. That's because its impossible to know what its like to be another subject besides yourself. Did you know that some people do not have an inner monologue, while others cannot visualize a single thing? How can your or I ever objectively understand what that is like without experiencing it ourselves? We can't. Its beyond human knowledge.

A p-zombie is a 'pointless zombie'. We've never used subjective assessments of consciousness to objectively describe conscious behavior. So its irrelevant what a zombie subjectively experiences, its how a zombie behaves.

What we can do is tie behavior to the physical brain. Neuroscience and psychiatry are proven fields with real results in managing consciousness with medications, anesthesia, and brain surgery. Mental states are physical states. The subjective experience is the experience of being the brain matter. We can see the brain matter and watch your behavior. But we cannot know what you are feeling while your brain matter is responding with the behavior. And in no way does this discount that your subjective experience is also physical in origin.

Sherlock Holmes? The Pythagorean Theorem? — RogueAI

Yes, these are physical in origin too. Sherlock Holmes does not reside in a separate subspace or as a separate material from matter and/or energy. It was created by the physical brain of Arthur Conan Doyle. It was then written with physical ink on physical paper. Printed by a physical machine, and read by physical eyes and brains.

The Pythagorean Theorem is based off of a physical construct we call a triangle. We studied its physical properties, and came to the conclusion that the physical properties logically lead to certain consistent conclusions. It was communicated with physical speech as the air bent to philosopher's tongues. A physical feather written on physical parchment.

If you don't believe these things are physical in origin, then what are they made of? Where did they come from? In what space do they reside?