The logic of a universal origin and meaning
This is a rewrite of X, which I wrote years ago. After reading several people's responses and confusion, I thought it better to rewrite it with those people in mind as I think the idea is incredibly useful to the discussion of Ontology. In it it will be logically concluded that there is no prior cause for the universe, and that regardless of whatever form that universe takes, meaning must be found from within, not without.
Cause
First, what is a cause? A cause is a combination of factors which explain why a state of reality is the way it is. Why does a baseball exist? We can note physics, bonds, and materials. There is some existence that makes up the existence of the baseball in combination. We can then focus on the thread of a baseball and say, "What causes that thread to exist?" Then we can delve into its chemistry and physics, as well as its interaction with the world.
Scope
When describing and discovering causes one must consider the 'scope'. The scope of a cause it how deep and detailed we are willing to look at something. I could look at the cause of the thread as being held by nylon and be done. Or I could then look at the chemical composition of nylon, then be done. Or I could continue down and then look at the atomic composition of its parts, its quarks, and so on. Thus I can do the molecular scope, atomic scope, or quark scope. Generally a scope does not capture the full picture of cause, but it does allow us to compartmentalize a cause into useful and manageable concepts. As long as those concepts are verified in reality and not merely theoretical, we know these causes apart from belief.
While we may limit the scope of a cause for useful purposes, that does not mean that there is not cause to be found in more detail or depth. Sometimes there are limits of measurement or theory. For example, we may not know exactly what causes a quark to exist, let alone 'this' specific quark in the nylon string. But that doesn't mean that there isn't something that makes up that quark. The limits of knowledge are not the limits of reality.
Another scope of cause is time. We might be able to break down the composition of the ball into its causal parts, but we can add a new dimension in by asking why the state of the ball is the way it is now opposed to one hour before. Perhaps the ball is currently flying through the air. The reason why its flying through the air is 2 seconds prior I threw it. 1 second prior the current state of the ball, its moving because it had velocity x. .5 second prior, it was velocity y. We can choose a starting scope depending on what we want to know.
Causal Chains
In both cases, we can chain scopes of causes. We can plot the scope of the flying ball over 2 seconds, and note its compositional state, and its prior state that necessarily lead to another state in time. Thus we can draw a line from my throwing the ball to its velocity, location, and composition 2 seconds later in the air. I like to describe this as a chain as there is a start and end with various possible points of scoped time and composition along this line that link the two together.
A causal chain can also be scoped and may not involve everything that necessarily make the state at X time or Y level of composition. For example, air resistance may not be taken as a factor, even though air resistance would bring clarity and accuracy if we were to try to repeat the steps to make the ball be at the same location in 2 seconds. Thus a chain may explain something within a particular scope, but the introduction of a new scope may bring a fuller picture.
Unlimited or Limited?
With this all in mind, there comes the ultimate question and scope: Is there an origin to existence itself? This is as expansive of a scope as you can get, both compositionally and through time. Can we handle such a question? I think we can construct a rational conclusion using logical limits.
First start with the the metaphor of a chain that captures this particular scoped question. The chain must encompass all sub-scope composition, and all time composition. When trying to include these scopes, one question remains. Are there a limited number of scopes, or unlimited number of scopes? Lets look.
Its easiest to start with time. In some sense, yes there is an unlimited scope of time. I can take a second, and divide that second in half. Then divide that result in half, and so on infinitely. However, this does not eliminate the end point and the start point. The invention of scopes does not deny the reality of the existent end and beginning.
The same goes for scope of composition. Lets say I see the combination of quarks, and I want to examine the one small part of the quark. In our current understanding of composition, when you break something down small enough, it usually is labeled some other form of matter. A molecule if looked at in enough detail becomes many atoms for example.
This infinite division of a whole should not be confused that the limited whole is itself unlimited in its ability to be subdivided by 'cutting the inch in half infinitely'. The 'atom' is the whole. There is a beginning and end to it if we run a straight line across it. Eventually at some point there will be space or another atom. So in terms of composition we can divide something inward infinitely, but can we do the inverse and multiply something outward infinitely? Is there something beyond the atom that causes the atom to be?
An outward multiplication would be including something outside of the atom's composition as the cause. So at first we include the surrounding atoms. Then the surrounding molecules. And this can seemingly go on infinitely. However, we will eventually reach a point of scope in which we arrive at, "The entire universe". The question is whether 'the entire universe' is infinite or finite. We can't know the answer to that, but for the purposes of our scope it doesn't matter. That's because we've captured both concepts in the manageable term of 'the entire universe'. So whether we have an internal or external infinite scope of composition, this can all be captured in this one concept.
The same applies to time. Whether the universe has existed eternally or had a specific starting point, this is simply encompassed in 'the entire existent time of the universe'. 'The entire universe' is the compilation of everything known and unknown. Composition, time, everything. With this understood we can now ask the question, "Is the entire universe caused or uncaused?"
Is the universe caused or uncaused?
If we understand the full abstract scope, then the solution becomes clear. First, in terms of composition, if we're talking about composition that caused the universe, this would requires something outside of the universe. But because we've encompassed 'the entire universe' there is nothing outside of the universe which could cause it. In terms of composition, the universes cause would simply be what it is, and nothing more.
The same applies to time. Whether the universe has existed forever or not, there is nothing before the universe's existence which caused the entire time of the universe. "The entire universe" is everything. There cannot be something outside of everything that caused everything. Meaning that there was nothing before which caused the universe to exist both in time and composition.
Thus the solution can only be the conclusion that 'the entire universe is uncaused by anything else'.
Unpacking the conclusion - What does it logically mean to be uncaused by something else?
While the conclusion to the origin of the universe is simple, what logically follows is not. The nature of something being uncaused by anything outside of itself is a new venue of exploration for Ontology. There are a few things we can logically conclude.
1. There is no limitation as to what 'could' have been, or can be.
If there is no ultimate cause for existence, then that means that there is no underlying rule of what had to be. This is not to be confused with 'the rule of what is'. The rule of what is, is what has transpired. And in that sense, 'it is, and we know it is because it happened.' But the rule of 'had to be' is that it could not have been anything but 'what is'. But if there is no underlying prior cause for why U 'the universe' exists, then there is also no prior cause for why U should not exist. Just because our universe is the U in this scenario, it doesn't mean another universe couldn't substitute for U as well.
Imagine a universe which is composed only entire of rocks. If it formed, there would be no prior cause for why it formed, and no prior cause for what it should not have formed. Meaning it could form, or could not form. There is nothing to prevent nor necessitate that it does or does not form. Our U formed. But it didn't 'have' to form. That's because nothing outside of it caused it to form. Now that it is formed, its causality can be explained within it. But there is no prior causality which explains why it is to begin with, and thus did not 'have' to be.
This might seem quaint at first, but this leads to another logical step:
2. There is no limitation to what can be besides what is
What do I mean by 'no limitation'? Prior causality is the discovery of some other state that necessarily lead to another state. If X didn't happen, Y would not form in that way. But if Y formed in 'that way' without a prior cause of X, then it is not necessary that Y formed in that way, it 'simply did'. This also means that it could have 'simply not'. It did, but it wasn't necessary that it did. It necessarily is because it exists, but it didn't necessarily have to exist.
This means that anything could have been, but more importantly, anything could still be. How so? If something can happen without prior cause, then that means its possible something could still happen at any moment without prior cause. Meaning that 1 second from now something could start to exist that did not exist prior, and nothing prior to its existence caused it to exist. If this is true, what does this mean for science? A fascinating thought.
3. This means that there is no prior causal meaning in existence besides the fact that it exists.
If ultimately there is no prior cause for existence, this means there is no prior meaning for existence. This is not to be confused with 'existence is meaningless'. 'Meaning' is development and purpose created and maintained within existence, not from outside of itself.
Looking for an origin point to explain, Why are we here? does not lead any other answer besides, Because we are. Meaning instead should be focused on what an existence does, and what it will become.
4. But what about a God?
Yes, it is logically possible that a God could exist, but we would need evidence of its existence. There is logically no need for a God, and even if a God did exist, its meaning would be the same as anything else in the universe. It too would have to find its own meaning, and its own meaning would not necessitate that it is our meaning. Just as we may create new intelligence or life; it too would not have to follow our meaning for it, but its own.
Cause
First, what is a cause? A cause is a combination of factors which explain why a state of reality is the way it is. Why does a baseball exist? We can note physics, bonds, and materials. There is some existence that makes up the existence of the baseball in combination. We can then focus on the thread of a baseball and say, "What causes that thread to exist?" Then we can delve into its chemistry and physics, as well as its interaction with the world.
Scope
When describing and discovering causes one must consider the 'scope'. The scope of a cause it how deep and detailed we are willing to look at something. I could look at the cause of the thread as being held by nylon and be done. Or I could then look at the chemical composition of nylon, then be done. Or I could continue down and then look at the atomic composition of its parts, its quarks, and so on. Thus I can do the molecular scope, atomic scope, or quark scope. Generally a scope does not capture the full picture of cause, but it does allow us to compartmentalize a cause into useful and manageable concepts. As long as those concepts are verified in reality and not merely theoretical, we know these causes apart from belief.
While we may limit the scope of a cause for useful purposes, that does not mean that there is not cause to be found in more detail or depth. Sometimes there are limits of measurement or theory. For example, we may not know exactly what causes a quark to exist, let alone 'this' specific quark in the nylon string. But that doesn't mean that there isn't something that makes up that quark. The limits of knowledge are not the limits of reality.
Another scope of cause is time. We might be able to break down the composition of the ball into its causal parts, but we can add a new dimension in by asking why the state of the ball is the way it is now opposed to one hour before. Perhaps the ball is currently flying through the air. The reason why its flying through the air is 2 seconds prior I threw it. 1 second prior the current state of the ball, its moving because it had velocity x. .5 second prior, it was velocity y. We can choose a starting scope depending on what we want to know.
Causal Chains
In both cases, we can chain scopes of causes. We can plot the scope of the flying ball over 2 seconds, and note its compositional state, and its prior state that necessarily lead to another state in time. Thus we can draw a line from my throwing the ball to its velocity, location, and composition 2 seconds later in the air. I like to describe this as a chain as there is a start and end with various possible points of scoped time and composition along this line that link the two together.
A causal chain can also be scoped and may not involve everything that necessarily make the state at X time or Y level of composition. For example, air resistance may not be taken as a factor, even though air resistance would bring clarity and accuracy if we were to try to repeat the steps to make the ball be at the same location in 2 seconds. Thus a chain may explain something within a particular scope, but the introduction of a new scope may bring a fuller picture.
Unlimited or Limited?
With this all in mind, there comes the ultimate question and scope: Is there an origin to existence itself? This is as expansive of a scope as you can get, both compositionally and through time. Can we handle such a question? I think we can construct a rational conclusion using logical limits.
First start with the the metaphor of a chain that captures this particular scoped question. The chain must encompass all sub-scope composition, and all time composition. When trying to include these scopes, one question remains. Are there a limited number of scopes, or unlimited number of scopes? Lets look.
Its easiest to start with time. In some sense, yes there is an unlimited scope of time. I can take a second, and divide that second in half. Then divide that result in half, and so on infinitely. However, this does not eliminate the end point and the start point. The invention of scopes does not deny the reality of the existent end and beginning.
The same goes for scope of composition. Lets say I see the combination of quarks, and I want to examine the one small part of the quark. In our current understanding of composition, when you break something down small enough, it usually is labeled some other form of matter. A molecule if looked at in enough detail becomes many atoms for example.
This infinite division of a whole should not be confused that the limited whole is itself unlimited in its ability to be subdivided by 'cutting the inch in half infinitely'. The 'atom' is the whole. There is a beginning and end to it if we run a straight line across it. Eventually at some point there will be space or another atom. So in terms of composition we can divide something inward infinitely, but can we do the inverse and multiply something outward infinitely? Is there something beyond the atom that causes the atom to be?
An outward multiplication would be including something outside of the atom's composition as the cause. So at first we include the surrounding atoms. Then the surrounding molecules. And this can seemingly go on infinitely. However, we will eventually reach a point of scope in which we arrive at, "The entire universe". The question is whether 'the entire universe' is infinite or finite. We can't know the answer to that, but for the purposes of our scope it doesn't matter. That's because we've captured both concepts in the manageable term of 'the entire universe'. So whether we have an internal or external infinite scope of composition, this can all be captured in this one concept.
The same applies to time. Whether the universe has existed eternally or had a specific starting point, this is simply encompassed in 'the entire existent time of the universe'. 'The entire universe' is the compilation of everything known and unknown. Composition, time, everything. With this understood we can now ask the question, "Is the entire universe caused or uncaused?"
Is the universe caused or uncaused?
If we understand the full abstract scope, then the solution becomes clear. First, in terms of composition, if we're talking about composition that caused the universe, this would requires something outside of the universe. But because we've encompassed 'the entire universe' there is nothing outside of the universe which could cause it. In terms of composition, the universes cause would simply be what it is, and nothing more.
The same applies to time. Whether the universe has existed forever or not, there is nothing before the universe's existence which caused the entire time of the universe. "The entire universe" is everything. There cannot be something outside of everything that caused everything. Meaning that there was nothing before which caused the universe to exist both in time and composition.
Thus the solution can only be the conclusion that 'the entire universe is uncaused by anything else'.
Unpacking the conclusion - What does it logically mean to be uncaused by something else?
While the conclusion to the origin of the universe is simple, what logically follows is not. The nature of something being uncaused by anything outside of itself is a new venue of exploration for Ontology. There are a few things we can logically conclude.
1. There is no limitation as to what 'could' have been, or can be.
If there is no ultimate cause for existence, then that means that there is no underlying rule of what had to be. This is not to be confused with 'the rule of what is'. The rule of what is, is what has transpired. And in that sense, 'it is, and we know it is because it happened.' But the rule of 'had to be' is that it could not have been anything but 'what is'. But if there is no underlying prior cause for why U 'the universe' exists, then there is also no prior cause for why U should not exist. Just because our universe is the U in this scenario, it doesn't mean another universe couldn't substitute for U as well.
Imagine a universe which is composed only entire of rocks. If it formed, there would be no prior cause for why it formed, and no prior cause for what it should not have formed. Meaning it could form, or could not form. There is nothing to prevent nor necessitate that it does or does not form. Our U formed. But it didn't 'have' to form. That's because nothing outside of it caused it to form. Now that it is formed, its causality can be explained within it. But there is no prior causality which explains why it is to begin with, and thus did not 'have' to be.
This might seem quaint at first, but this leads to another logical step:
2. There is no limitation to what can be besides what is
What do I mean by 'no limitation'? Prior causality is the discovery of some other state that necessarily lead to another state. If X didn't happen, Y would not form in that way. But if Y formed in 'that way' without a prior cause of X, then it is not necessary that Y formed in that way, it 'simply did'. This also means that it could have 'simply not'. It did, but it wasn't necessary that it did. It necessarily is because it exists, but it didn't necessarily have to exist.
This means that anything could have been, but more importantly, anything could still be. How so? If something can happen without prior cause, then that means its possible something could still happen at any moment without prior cause. Meaning that 1 second from now something could start to exist that did not exist prior, and nothing prior to its existence caused it to exist. If this is true, what does this mean for science? A fascinating thought.
3. This means that there is no prior causal meaning in existence besides the fact that it exists.
If ultimately there is no prior cause for existence, this means there is no prior meaning for existence. This is not to be confused with 'existence is meaningless'. 'Meaning' is development and purpose created and maintained within existence, not from outside of itself.
Looking for an origin point to explain, Why are we here? does not lead any other answer besides, Because we are. Meaning instead should be focused on what an existence does, and what it will become.
4. But what about a God?
Yes, it is logically possible that a God could exist, but we would need evidence of its existence. There is logically no need for a God, and even if a God did exist, its meaning would be the same as anything else in the universe. It too would have to find its own meaning, and its own meaning would not necessitate that it is our meaning. Just as we may create new intelligence or life; it too would not have to follow our meaning for it, but its own.
Comments (152)
For every effect there must be a cause, except in parts of ithe universe where time has stopped (black holes?), or for a possible origin of spacetime (e.g. qubits), for which it makes little sense to assume a causal origin.
How does this apply to the points of the paper? I feel like you just chimed in with your own viewpoint on something, but it would be great if you could compare it to the points I made showing why its either an agreement or disagreement with those points.
On the logic of a universal origin, my "viewpoint" is that it takes spacetime for origins to be possible, and the universe includes arguably not only spacetime but also a more fundamental domain in which there is no spacetime, but from which spacetime emerges, entanglement of particles etc.
Which is fine, but I'm asking you how this applies to what I've written. Do you believe this counters the arguments of the OP, agrees with the arguments of the OP, or is it just a comment you wanted to make on your own feelings and it doesn't really have anything to do with what I wrote?
You seem to have neglected a very important aspect of causation ("why a state of reality is the way it is"), and that is "intention". Why does a baseball exist? It was created artificially for the purpose of playing the game of baseball.
Your discussion of scope, causal chains, and limits, does not even approach the true answer for "why does a baseball exist?". Do you not see that "intention" (it was produced for a specific purpose) provides the true answer here, and this is where you ought to be focusing your attention?
That's simply included in the classification of composition and time. If part of the prior reason for an action included an intelligent being, then intention would be one of the part. But when a prior reason does not include an intelligent being, like sun rays traveling to Earth, there's no need to include it.
Are you claiming that intention is somehow separate? That intention cannot be explained over time and through the composition of the intelligent creature's state at those moments? If so can you explain how it does not fit in?
Often, the purpose of an object, and even sometimes, that it was created for a purpose, does not become evident until after the object has existed for an extended time. When encountering an object, what principles would you apply to determine whether intention was involved as a cause or not?
Quoting Philosophim
Take this as an example. On what principles do you conclude that the cause of the sun's rays travelling to earth does not involve intention? I do not see how the classification of "composition and time" as you describe it, could provide adequate criteria.
Well if we could trace its composition over time we would come to a being that had intention when making the object. That fits in fine with my argument.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
We need a consciousness for intention, and if the scope is the sun itself, it doesn't fit the criteria for being conscious. Intention is part of a composition explanation. Why is the ball in the air? Because a few seconds ago I wanted to throw it. That's intention, and part of the causal explanation. I am not excluding intention, and I'm not understanding where you think it is.
Not necessarily. Think of something produced mechanically in a factory for example. We trace the composition of the thing, and the closest we get to the being with intention, is the factory. We would never know that there is intention behind the thing, and we would not necessarily see the need to trace the factory for intention.
And even if we determine that the factory was built intentionally, we cannot answer "why the thing exists" until we determine the specific intent. And this is the real problem with what you said about determining why a particular state exists. Anything created with intention requires that we determine the specific purpose of the thing, in order to know why it exists. And, a thing right off the production line will not fulfill its purpose until a much later time. This implies that we cannot know why the thing exists until sometime in the future.
Quoting Philosophim
We do not necessarily need a consciousness for intention, as intention is defined by purpose, not consciousness. And, we do not know whether or not there is purpose, or even some form of consciousness, behind the existence of the sun.
Quoting Philosophim
I don't know where intention is, neither does anyone. But we do not deny the reality of it, even though we do not know how or why it exists. As is the case with specific "intentions", it's probably the same with the general "intention", that we will not know why it exists until sometime far in the future.
That's because we've limited the scope to that factory only. Increase the scope to the people who planned and built the factory and now we have intention.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
If your scope requires intent, then yes.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Intention doesn't require the future to understand it. Intention is merely a 'What I'm hoping to result from this," action. We could build a factory with the intention of creating 5,000 jobs, and it creates more or less than that. That doesn't change the intention.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
What is a purpose if not the intention of something? Perhaps consciousness isn't needed, I suppose intention can be an unconscious desire too. I'm still not seeing how this applies to the argument. Can you relate it somehow to the argument so I can better understand the point you're making against/for it?
What you've written is about the meanings of 'scope', 'causal chain', 'limit' etc but there's little or nothing about cosmology, physics, or current research (e.g. quantum gravity) from which there is reason to suggest that spacetime is not fundamental, and therefore there is no universal origin. The Big Bang might be the origin of spacetime, but not the origin of the universe. Without spacetime it's meaningless to assume that the universe had an origin.
I am neither arguing for or against spacetime as fundamental. I don't understand the point.
Quoting jkop
Right, I've never even mentioned the Big Bang. Tell you what, put what you're saying next to a quote of mine in the argument so I can see what you're referring to. Right now I don't understand where you are.
What's the underlying assumption? All facts about anything can be wholly explained by facts about smaller composite parts? Prima facie, one could also assume that all facts about parts can only be wholly explained in terms of the whole. Physicists do indeed make this claim, with some claiming that "fundamental" particles are only explainable in terms of wholly universal fields. Claims about information being ontologically basic often slide off in either direction, with either (q)bits themselves being "fundamental," or else only being information at all in virtue of a relation to the whole universe.
Obviously, we might hope for a via media here as well, to avoid sliding to either extreme.
"Cannot be explained" or perhaps "is not best explained" or maybe "is not wholly explained." We might suppose that more general principles explain things more fully than a reductionist appeal to composition. For instance, flight in flying machines and animals is well understood through the principle of lift and related principles. Flight is not best understood through a chemical analysis of the cells in flying animals' wings, though no doubt such cells are a prerequisite for animal flight. The same might be said for intentional aims. To be sure, we need neurons to think, but it hardly seems that "goodness," "justice," "love," etc. shall be best known through a study of neurons.
Indeed, in physics at least, most of our best explanations involve "top-down" sorts of explanations. Because we lack a compelling "top-down" explanation for consciousness and intentional aims, fields such as neuroscience tend to default to "bottom-up" explanations. I believe this is why a commitment to reductionism tends to be stronger in some of the special sciences than in either they physical sciences or some of the social sciences.
Anyhow, I think the most likely counter to is going to be that it relies on an impoverished notion of causation. You seem to dance between efficient and material causes, while even touching on formal causes, but then the notion of causality here also seems somewhat ambiguous. Some physicists hope to ground everything in formal causes, and this shows up the strongest in forms of ontic structural realism, where all efficient, material, and final causes are subsumed in the mathematical structure of what the universe (normally considered as a single object) is. But here too, questions of essence verses existence remain. Why does one universe exist and not others? Or do they all exist necessarily (e.g. the "Mathematical Universe Hypothesis")? This answer brings up all sorts of Boltzmann Brain type problems and problems of underdetermination.
Weak notions of cause will be the target of causal eliminitivists, and those with a broader notion of causation alike.
The other issue is that some will no doubt object to the use of "logical" in the OP. I don't, I get what you mean. It is in some sense not only pedantic but question begging to assume that "logical" must apply to some system of formal logic.
I don't think this is strictly true. The brain works on various different scales so you have to study it on various different scales, whilst bottom up explanations in terms of biology must coexist with more top-down explanations in terms of things like computation and information. Neither do embodied, enactive, extended, ecologocal perspectives neatly fit into a bottom-up view. One of the most in-vogue ideas in neuroscience, the free energy principle, is unambiguously a top-down, unifying principle akin to "top-down" explanations in physics. I have even heard the author of the theory use the phrase "downward causation" in an interview.
No argument there.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
All of these are questions of scope. You can explain emotions without neurons if that isn't within your scope. Include that as the scope however, and that because part of the causal chain. Flight in itself doesn't need the scope of the birds cells, but we can also increase that scope down to the birds wings. So far I'm not seeing an issue with what I've noted in the OP.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Seems, or is ambiguous? How exactly is it ambiguous so I can clarify if I've missed something.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
There is no prior cause, so there is no reason. To posit a reason is to imply, "There is something else which exists which caused universe A to exist. That's a misunderstanding of the issue. U is the entire universe. You're asking, "What caused U?" Nothing caused U. U simply is. There is no X caused U, because U is everything. If you introduced X, X would be within U, and then the question would repeat, what caused X? This simplifies to "What caused U"? The answer is the same. Nothing. So I see no problem of underdetermination or Boltzmann Brain problems unless you can point out specifically why.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
This is a statement, but I'm not sure how this applies to the argument.
Thanks Timothy, I look forward to your follow up.
Yes, this is helpful. So the argument boils down to something like: "to have a reason or explanation is to have a cause and cause just means 'some prior state in time that determines some future state.'"
But that definition of cause is precisely what people will reject, either the that all explanations and elucidations of "because" involve "causes," or that causes just involve temporal ordering (or both).
Why can we only fully tile certain surfaces with certain equilateral shapes in certain patterns? Well, there seems to be a "because" here, and perhaps formal cause, but absolutely no notion of time is required. And some physicists like to explain physics in this sort of way. Time is just another dimension in a mathematical object.
Likewise, whether a statue is a statue [I]of[/I] our newly returned Augustus does not seem to be a relationship that is explained in terms of time, even if the causes of the actual physical statue involve time.
Plus, many argue that time is just the dimension in which change occurs. No change, no time. But to then say that changes require time to exist is backwards. Time only exists because their are changes, and causes must explain change, which is at best simultaneous with time. That is, time is not a "container" that must first exist to contain changes.
Then, on the eliminitivist side, they will say your notion of cause doesn't actually entail any sort of "because" at all. All you have is Humean constant conjunction. Yet if all explanations involve causes, and causes are just constant conjunction, then nothing is really explainable at all.
Which maybe is where you might head anyhow, because there are two questions in play here. Why does the universe exist? A question of existence. And why is the universe the way it is? A question of essence or quiddity. It's the second question where problems like the Fine Tuning Problem(s) show up. A brute fact explanation for existence is one thing, but if it includes quiddity as well, then the ultimate explanation for everything, the Holocaust, baseballs, why anyone gets cancer, etc. is "it just is," plus or minus some potential quantum indeterminism. Everything is ultimately arbitrary. A problem? Perhaps.
No, that's not what I stated. I noted that cause can be in terms of composition, time, and scope. It is only after establishing what cause is, that I increase the scope of time and composition to everything that encompasses the universe. Re-read up through causal chains again and see if you have any questions.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Right, I answer both. There is no reason for the universe's existence. It is the way that it is, simply because it is. There is no fine tuning problem, unless you can point out specifically in the argument I make where that comes in.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Did you read the whole post Timothy? I go into meaning at the end and explain that no, everything is not arbitrary. Do you have an issue with the explanation I gave in the post?
Hence I said that your paper says little or nothing about cosmology, physics etc. so I propose an approach to the logic of a universal origin from available science.
My example, again, is that it takes spacetime for an origin to be possible, but if the universe includes a domain more fundamental than spacetime (i.e. from which spacetime emerges), then the universe is arguably without an origin.
Quoting Philosophim
So, compare what I'm saying above with what you're saying in this quote:
Quoting Philosophim
Despite its apparent lack of a universal origin, the universe doesn't seem so incapable of creating and maintaining development and purpose (e.g. big bang, organic life, baseball).
It is because the argument does not require cosmology or physics. They are irrelevant to its point.
Quoting jkop
It seems like my point and yours coincide. Yes, meaning is found within the universe, not without.
If your argument is not about the physical world, then what is it about?
Quoting Philosophim
Sure, meaning is found within the universe, but you also write that there is no prior causal meaning and:
Quoting Philosophim
I don't think it follows from an uncaused universe that anything could have been. Somehow spacetime, big bang, causal chains, organic life, flying baseballs etc emerge within a universe which is not caused by anything else. Unlike our juggling of words, there is relevant science which might eventually show us how that works.
This doesn't really answer the question. Finding out that there was a being with intention involved in the creation of a thing doesn't provide "the intention". The question of "why" is answered by determining the specific intention, not by determining that there was intention, in a general way.
Quoting Philosophim
So if you do not see the purpose, by watching the thing fulfil its function (in the future), how would you determine what the intentional being was "hoping to result from this"?
Quoting Philosophim
I'll go back to your example then, the suns rays traveling to earth. We've agreed that consciousness isn't a necessary feature of intention. On what principles would you decide whether there is intention behind this activity?
Hello again! I had some time to re-read the OP and give it the proper attention it deserves. Heres my thoughts.
I dont have a problem with your definition of a cause; but the problem is you seem to equivocate it quite frequently. I would like to clarify that, if you believe the the universeas a wholejust is what it is with no explanation then the universe is not caused. It is not self-caused, it is not caused, and it is has no first cause.
Maybe I am misreading this OP, but I get the inkling that you are arguingin various disparate spotsthat the universe has no cause, it is self-caused, and it has a first cause. None of these are compatible with your claim that the universe just simply is.
Just as a side note, this historically is false. Many different fields of philosophy have been analyzing the nature of a necessary being and arbitrarily existent beingssuch as theology, metaphysics, and ontology.
It sounds like you are claiming that the universe did begin to exist and yet its beginning to exist has no causeis that right?
In my mind, I thought originally you were claiming that the universe is just eternal and immutable itself with no cause.
These are two very different conceptions.
If you are claiming that the universe began to exist, then you cannot categorically encompass all of reality in the universe; unless you are saying it came from nothingwhich I would say is just an absurdity (no offense).
If you are claiming that the universe never began to exist (viz., never formed), then it has always been; and this would entail no first cause.
Irregardless of which of the previous theses I mentioned you are going for, it is clear that God cannot exist in your view of the universe; for if the universe has no first cause then there are no necessary beings (which includes God) and if the universe just poofed into existence out of nothing then there cannot be any God which was prior to it which created it nor sustains it.
The only kind of God which would exist in your worldview heredare I sayis a demi-god.
Please indicate the part of the OP where you thought, "This is where cosmology and physics needs to be mentioned, even though the author never does." What was the idea that you got out of reading the OP? If I understand the conclusions you thought I was making first, then I can better answer your question.
Quoting jkop
I feel like I can answer this one. If something is uncaused, is there any reason for its existence? No. If something is uncaused, is there any reason for it not to exist? No. What outside of an uncaused universe would prevent that universe from existing? Implicit in your idea that, "An uncaused universe couldn't be anything," there is only one legitimate reason. That something outside of that universe would limit or prevent it from forming.
You're still thinking in terms of caused universe. You're still thinking there is an X -> U, either through creation or restriction. There is no X. There is no creation, nor restriction. There is no push nor limitation. There simply is U. Can you think of an outside restriction on U that does not boil down to X restricts U? If you cannot, then there is no reason to believe in a restriction of what could have been.
To also re-emphasize another point, there is a separation of understanding 'what is'. Once something is here, it is bound by what it is. If something forms with all the properties of an atom, its an atom. So things like the big bang are great studies of 'what is', but they can never explain anything as to why U exists at all. The only explanation that makes logical sense is that there is no explanation. We find meaning in terms of what is, not outside of what is.
Then increase the scope to that. The specific intention of the people to build the factory was to build widgets. The point still stands.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
By asking the being, looking at their notes, or listening to past recordings of conversations with others. I'm not sure why this is relevant however. Whether we personally know the intention or not does not make the intention that was actually involved in the creation any less real.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I'm saying its possible, but we need a reasonable example. I noted 'unconscious intention', but there's still a thinking entity behind it. The sun has no brain or thoughts. Sunrays are a byproduct of plasma in space. I don't think there is any intention from the sun, conscious or otherwise. Feel free to propose otherwise if you have a different thought. And still, if possible, I would like for you to explain why you think this is important to the OP's points. I haven't excluded or denied intention, only noted that it seems irrelevant to the point I've made. Can you point out where it seems relevant?
Quoting Bob Ross
Correct.
Quoting Bob Ross
They all argue for it, but have never rationally settled it. I argue for its logical certainty. Meaning after this, the debate is over, and we can think about what that means for our universe.
Quoting Bob Ross
Almost. The only thing is that the universe has no cause. I don't argue for a finite starting point, as time is only one aspect of cause. Its very plausible that an infinitely regressive universe has always existed. Why has it always existed? Did an X cause it to be that way? No, it simply does.
Quoting Bob Ross
This is one of infinite possibilities, yes.
Quoting Bob Ross
You can. U = a -> b ->c Why does it matter if the chain is really long? U = a -> b -> c -> a Why does it matter if the chain loops? U = infinite letters -> a -> b -> c -> infinite letters Why does it matter if it captures infinite?
The universe did not come 'from nothing'. Nothing did not create anything. It doesn't come 'from' anything. It simply was not, then it was. Or its always been. Either way, nothing made it into being or restricted what could have come into being. That is the only logical conclusion.
Quoting Bob Ross
Correct. The term 'first cause' in the previous paper was always to get attention to the topic when I was knew on these forums years ago, and really was a bending of the term to mean, "no cause". I rewrote this with the same conclusions without the attention getting terminology.
Quoting Bob Ross
Incorrect. Most of us look at only one side of the point that the universe formed without limitations. We often think about what can, but then still have some notion that somehow there is a 'can't' Why can't it Bob? If there is no X -> U, then there is also no X -> ~U. There is nothing the prevents a God from existing, then that God creating the rest of the universe.
The only thing a God can't be is the prior cause of its own existence. Which if you think about it, makes sense right? If a God eternally existed, there is no outside reason why that God existed. There is no outer meaning for it. Why is there any more or less reason for a universe with an eternal God to exist then a universe with eternal rocks to exist? There isn't any. Because there is no outside reason for any of those possibilities to exist or not exist. If it exists, it simply does.
I agree with Bob that you appear to be equivocating here, hence my confusion.
Right, that's exactly what I mean by "arbitrary."
Now, like I said, the argument is stronger if it anticipates the counterarguments likely to be levied against it. Saying "there is no Fine Tuning Problem for me because I just posit that everything just is, for no reason at all," isn't a response to the Fine Tuning Problem, it's just ignoring it.
The part on God seems ancillary, but there the assumption seems to be: "if God exists God will "be" like everything else, a very powerful entity that exists [I]within[/I] the universe, a part of the universe, an entity that can sit on a Porphyrian tree next to other beings. But this is precisely what much theology and philosophy, e.g. Neoplatonism, the Islamic philosophers, much Jewish thought, and the dominant Orthodox and Catholic theology, explicitly deny. In particular, many of these are going to deny the univocity of being, and they will claim that "meaning and purpose" relate to Goodness, Beauty, and Truth as transcendentals.
This is probably ancillary, as I said though.
How exactly am I equivocating in the argument? I don't see it from my viewpoint, and I can't see it from your viewpoint unless you point out where I'm doing it.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Its not ignoring it at all. Please point out in the post where the fine tuning problem comes in. If everything just is, and there's no reason for anything to have been or not been, there is no fine tuning problem. The fine tuning problem only comes about because there is a belief that there has to be some outside law or cause that would lead to a particular result. That without that law or cause, that event could not happen. If there is no outside causality for why the universe exists, then if it exists tuned as it is, that's what happened. Where am I wrong?
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Of course. That's what it is to exist. The Universe is everything. It doesn't mean that there can't be other dimensions, or that it exists in a way that is currently foreign to us. But you can't exist and be outside of existence. Perhaps there are other 'universes' or things that exist separately from the total causality of our pocket of reality. But if the two ever met, then they would intertwine in causality. A God, if it ever interacts with this universe, is part of this universe.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
People say a lot of things. If they have logic and reason on their side, great. But a lot of things that are said and believed do not have logic and reason on their side. A history or large number of people who hold such beliefs do not lend any more weight to their truth.
Got it; but doesnt this entail that you believe that there are existent things which exist outside of time and of which interact, to some degree, with temporal things; given that the death of a previous universe to fuel the big bang would require moments where there is no time? Also, if time is reduced to a real entity in the universe (like the big bang theory does), then wouldnt there have to be aspects to the universe which transcend it (or at least are on par with it)?
This is incoherent. Either the universe arbitrarily came into beingwhich is what it sounds like you are saying hereand it came from nothing or it has always been: those are the two options for the position that the universe has no cause.
If it simply was not, then it was, then you are sayingto be clearthat it there was nothing and then there was something; which is exactly to say that it poofed into existence from nothing. The reason most people wont get on board with this is because it is absurd. Something cannot just poof into existence from nothing: there cannot be nothing and then magically something out of nothing.
Which one are you arguing for? These are two incompatible claims.
Fair enough.
To be honest, I didnt follow this at all. Can you reword it? What do you mean (X ? U) ? (X ? !U)? I am not following the relevance of that statement.
Yes there is under your view. The two options you have spelled out is that (1) the universe arbitrarily came into being (from nothing) or (2) the universe has always existed; and both entail that God cannot exist, since God is an unlimited being which creates the universe. In #1, God wouldnt be creating the universe; and in #2 God would simply not be God since this being would be some sort of limited being within the universe (if we assume traditional theism, which is widely accepted as the standard of what God is in a mono-theistic sense). In #2, only a demi-god could exist as a mere being among beings in the universe, who may have much greater being than we do.
Thats going to depend on your theological commitments. Just briefly relating this to my OP, if one finds arguments convincing that God is required to explain the universe, then there are better reasons, all else being equal, to believe God exists as the necessary and eternal being than positing the universe itself.
Yes, in principle any being or series which is necessary and brute has equally no explanation for its existence; but the burden is on your OP to demonstrate why we should believe that the universe came into existence out of nothing or always existed. I am not sure what the argument is here. Going back to what I said earlier:
Your argument in the OP seemed to be that we are just defining everything as in the universe; so there cant be anything outside of it to cause it to exist. But this is just an equivocation: the universe usually refers to the natural world we live in and not the totality, per se, of existent things.
A theist could easily piggy-back off of your point and say that the universe as you mean it is really reality and reality, which includes God, has no reason for its existence but it is not a necessary being since it is just the abstract representation of the whole of God and Gods creation.
If this is what you mean by the universe has no causeviz., reality has no causethen that is true but trivially true and is detracts from any conversation about necessary beings. No matter if the universe, in the standard sense, needs a cause or not; it will still be true that the totality of things has no cause itselfirregardless if theres an infinite series of causes or a finite series that bottoms out at God. Likewise, this would sidestep my objections above because God would not be limited by reality, since reality is just Gods infinite nature in addition to what God created (namely the universe).
Its one of many possibilities, but not a necessity. Just as something can exist without prior cause, so can it eventually end and another thing later exist without prior cause.
Quoting Bob Ross
Oh, no problem! There is no prior cause which leads to a universe existing, so there is no prior cause which would lead to a universe not existing either.
Quoting Bob Ross
No, there's nothing that entails that a God cannot exist. If a God exists, then it is part of the universe, but it could be that prior to the rest of the universe existing only a God existed. From there a God created the rest of the universe. But can a God be outside of the scope of everything? No. That's just a consequence of categories.
Quoting Bob Ross
If you're describing a limited being as something that could create all the existence we are and experience, then what are we? =D A God would still be necessary in that universe for the rest of the universe to exist, as God would be part of the chain of causality. But even theists could never escape the question, "What created God then?" If you say, "There was nothing prior that created God, then you're in line with my point. The issue is that God is not separate from the scope of everything, and not necessary for the scope of everything to be, nothing is.
Quoting Bob Ross
Again, if a God is part of the causal necessity that explains the rest of existence, that's fine. But that has to be proven with facts and evidence, not philosophy. Because as I've noted here, a God is only one of limitless possibilities for the rest of existence. It could be a divine mortal being, or simply a big bang that appeared without prior cause.
Quoting Bob Ross
I am not arguing that the universe had a finite or infinite starting point. I'm noting that it doesn't matter. In either scenario, if you increase the scope out to everything that exists U = finite or U = infinite regress and ask, "What caused this to exist?" you cannot find a cause outside of itself. Meaning that there is ultimately no necessary cause that there is existence at all.
Any meaning or causality must be found within existence itself. There is no meaning or causality outside of existence that caused existence to be. That is the only logical conclusion we can philosophically conclude about the origin of all of existence.
Quoting Bob Ross
Its not an equivocation, its a solid definition. Call it the capital U Universe or 'all of existence'. I felt I was pretty clear about expanding the scope to include everything, not just a part.
Quoting Bob Ross
A theist? I'm not a theist and I already did! Its also just as likely that the Universe has no God and exists as it is as well. In terms of philosophical ontology, there is no way to prove any particular origin of our universe once this argument is understood. At that point, the only way to prove something like a God exists is with evidence within the universe itself. That has standards, can be questioned, and ultimately must be proved instead of believed.
Quoting Bob Ross
Its not trivial at all. It reveals there are no necessary beings for a universal origin. Quoting Bob Ross
Sure, that is one out of an infinite number of possible origins. But its not philosophically necessary. That's the point. No origin can be philosophically proven as necessary, as it has just been proven that nothing is necessary.
I see what you are going for, but this entirely sidesteps the discussion of causality in metaphysics and ontology. When philosophers discuss whether all these things that exist are just infinitely causally related, self-caused, or have a first cause (or first causes); they are discussing the totality of what exists and how to explain them. You are jumping in noting something trivial, which is that irregardless of which philosopher is right the totality of existent things has no cause because that would include the first cause, self-caused things, or the infinite causality. No one disputes this, and this does not help further the discussion on whether or not causality is infinite, there are self-caused things, there are arbitrarily existent things, or/and there are first causes.
For example, taking my OP, my argument for a first cause---assuming for a second it is valid---is equally compatible with your idea that reality itself is uncaused just as much as a person who believes that causality is infinite.
EDIT: all your OP does, then, as far as I can tell, is forces the philosopher to be more precise with what they mean by the "reality" that one is trying to explain.
I guess my question would be: how does this help resolve any of the debates about first causes, infinite causality, arbitrary causes, and the like? Is there something about this that I am missing?
Yes. The result means that it is philosophically impossible to conclude that any of these ideas are necessarily existent or impossible. The discussion is in effect over for philosophy. The only way to discover if something was infinitely or finitely regressive is to actually discover this using science. Anything could have been possible, but what actually happened can only be discovered by looking at our universe and determining by fact how it did.
Why? I don't see how that follows from the OP. Again, all the OP seems to be saying is that totality of what exists is uncaused; but the debate is about the totality of the world in which we live (viz., the physical world).
The classical debate about the totality of the world in which we live is completely unaffected by your point.
Another way of thinking about, if you will, is that you are thinking of the totality of what exists too loosely and what needs to be explained in terms of causation is stricter sense of the things which exist in nature and in the universe.
But I thought in the above that you were claiming that your OP has resolved the question about first causes, infinite causation, arbitrary causation, etc. as it relates to the universe---no? If so, then this is incoherent with that point; as science wouldn't be required to solve anything.
Again, this contradicts the idea that you have resolved the debate about causation by pointing out that reality has no cause.....
We're close. The point I'm making is the philosophical ontological argument is now complete. The only logical conclusion is that the entirety of existence has no prior reason for its existence, and therefore could have been anything. No philosophical proposal is necessary ontologically, therefore there is no more debate or consideration.
The scientific ontological argument is still on. Is it the big bang? A God that made a big bang? Etc. The different is it requires evidence, reason, testing, and confirmation. That is outside the realm of philosophy. Try it. Try to show that any particular origin is philosophically necessary if the OP is true and see if it works.
Let me take another stab at this: let me know if this is what you are saying. I think here's basically your argument:
1. Reality must be uncaused.
2. Therefore, whether or not the universe is a series of infinite causality or has a first cause is equally probable.
Is that it?
If so, here's my thoughts:
1. Ceteris paribus, it is correct that two or more things are equally probable if those things equally have no explanation for their existence; however, the probability of one or the other changes given our understanding of the universe.
2. Philosophy does not engage in merely pure reason; and so ontology and metaphysics certainly is engaging in reasoning based off of empirical evidence (to some large extent) and this is perfectly valid for it to. (I say this just because you seem to think philosophy would be mute on this study of causation since it requires empirical data to determine)
3. Philosophy, particularly metaphysics, is still the proper study of the nature of causality and as it relates to the totality of physical things. Science can't determine if the universe is just an infinite relation of causality, has a first cause, etc. because in principle there is no scientific proof which can be afforded; given that science presupposes that every change has a cause for the sake of doing science (and so every scientific experiment already presupposes the law of causality in the first place) and an infinite regress would be impossible to experimental 'sniff out' since each causal member would merely entail that causal relation and not the causal relation of the nth member.
This is a contradiction in terms: ontology is philosophy, not science. Science cannot get at ontology, being merely the study of the relation of things and not the nature of things.
Yes, this is metaphysics which rides closely with science; as it should be. Most scientists are also metaphysicians whether they like it or not.
This is true of the vast majority of philosophy.
What do you mean by "philosophically necessary"?
In my OP, e.g., I am considering actual impossibility as that modality relates to an infinite series of composition. Are you saying if a first cause, infinite series of causes, etc. cannot be proven to be logically necessary then it must be outside the purview of philosophy?
Correct. This would be science or discovery of new facts.
Quoting Bob Ross
But there is no philosophical discovery at that point. There would be the discovery of whether there was a first cause, or infinite regress. I hesitate to include this point at this time as I want to make sure you understand this first, but it might be impossible to truly discover the origin scientifically if the OP is true. But for now, lets say it is. It would be measurements, recordings, and conclusions. Where does philosophy fit in?
Quoting Bob Ross
Then the debate is truly finished. The only logical conclusion is that we cannot know.
Quoting Bob Ross
I do not find this to be true. Philosophy is more often then not the logical construction of concepts. Science is the test and application of those concepts. Does the reality of the situation match the philosophical conclusion? Then it is scientifically sound.
Quoting Bob Ross
I mean that there is no logical construct which can ever be proven to be ontologically necessary as the origin of the universe. The only way we can discover it is by working up the chain of causality which is the hard work of science.
Quoting Bob Ross
If the OP is correct, then you cannot prove it to be impossible. If anything could have been, then nothing is impossible ontologically. It can only be proven to be impossible or possible from within the causal chains of existence that we have to work through step by step.
Quoting Bob Ross
No, its a fun type of origin to think about. My point is there is no way to prove that any one of them is logically more likely to be than the other based on reason alone. The only way to discover what the actual origin is, is through science.
The definition of philosophy is a tricky and interesting one.
Philosophy literally translates to the love of wisdom, and wisdom (traditionally) is the absolute truth of the nature of things (with an emphasis on how it impacts practical life as a whole and in terms of practical judgment). Thusly, philosophy dips its toes in every subject-matter; for every subject at its core is the study of the nature of something. Nowadays, people like to distinguish philosophy from other studies akin to distinguishing, e.g., history from science; but the more I was thinking about this (in preparation of my response to your comments) I realized this is impossible. Philosophy is not analogous to history, science, archaeology, etc. It transcends all studies as the ultimate study which gives each study lifeso to speak. For without a yearning for the understanding of the nature of things, which is encompassed in the love of wisdom, then no subject-matter is sought afternot even science.
Some might say philosophy is the study of self-development, but this clearly isnt true (historically). It includes self-development but is not restricted to just that domain. E.g., logic is not an area itself within the study of self-development and yet it is philosophical.
Some might say, like you, that philosophy is the application of pure reason (viz., the study of what is a priori); but is is equally historically false. E.g., cosmological arguments are typically a posteriori. Most disputes in philosophy have and will continue to be about reasoning about empirical data to abstract what is mostly likely the nature of things (and how to live life properly in correspondence with that knowledge).
This would entail that science is philosophy at its core, but is a specific branch that expands on how to understand the nature of things; and so science vs. philosophy is a false dichotomy.
The problem I have with your understanding of philosophy vs. science is that it seems to be very verificationistic. The vast majority of what we know with the most credence cannot be scientifically verified. E.g., the nature of a proposition being a statement that is truth-apt; 1 + 1 = 2; a = a; !(a && !a); the nature of truth being such that it is the correspondence of thought with reality; the law of causality; etc.
The truth is that most of our knowledge is not scientific: they are evidence-based reasoning. They are probabilistic based off of our experiences; and this is not science propernor is it an imitation of science.
I would challenge you to demonstrate how science proves that a proposition cannot be both true and false; or that 1 = 1; or that knowledge is a JTB; or that every change has a cause; etc.
We can still do the exact same philosophical questioning of causes: your OP just notes that if we take the totality of what we posit as existing then that totality cannot have a cause; which is a trivial note. We still have up for grabs whether or not an infinite regress of causes is absurd; whether a first cause is arbitrary; whether a self-cause is incoherent; whether .
Nothing about this OP negates any of this. You seem to be equivocating the totality of things which need explaining with the thing being used to explain it. E.g., the theist says there must be a first cause to explain the totality of these things which exist, and you come around and point out that God + those things is now the new totality which is uncausedthis is a mute point (by my lights).
Ontology and metaphysics is largely not about a priori proofs; and so they have not been primarily about arguments from pure logic or reason. You seem to think thats not the case
See, this is where you are equivocating. No, your OP does not entail that an infinite regress vs. a first cause of composition is equally probable: it demonstrates that irregardless of which one we think is most probable because the whole of things we posit (which includes that regress or first cause) cannot have a cause itself. Which is, dare I say, obviously true but not relevant to the debate.
When we debate cosmology, we are debating the comsosthe whole of what immediately needs explaining; and NOT the whole of what we end up having to posit as real. You are conflating these two.
My reference to philosophy and scientific separation are meant to be layman here. As for our discussion, if you wish to define philosophy in this particular way I have no objection. My point stands that there can be no conclusion to what necessarily must be the origin of the universe without finding direct evidence. It is not something which can be reasoned to, but factually concluded.
Quoting Bob Ross
By reason, the OP proves that none of them are absurd or incoherent. No prior cause means no limitations. Anything is possible as an origin, possibility and impossibility can only be found within what already is.
Quoting Bob Ross
Its not moot at all because I demonstrate that their claim to God is no longer necessary, and that it has no more reason to be the origin then any other origin someone else can think of.
Quoting Bob Ross
The conclusions I've put forward are from pure logic and reason. Can you demonstrate at what point my conclusions aren't?
Quoting Bob Ross
And if it cannot have a prior cause itself, what does that logically lead to next? The realization that no origin is necessary for existence or can be impossible. If I say, "X origin cannot be possible," there is a reason prior why it would be impossible. Is there anything prior which could make it impossible, then of course it would mean there was a prior cause. A cause not only tells us what is possible, but also impossible.
Meaning that only within the causality we have right now can we work our way up to the actual origin of our universe. That cannot be done with reason alone, but with actual discovery. Again, try it. Put something forward that demonstrates a necessary origin and refutes the conclusions of the OP.
But thats what philosophy also engage in. Metaphysics is reasoning about evidencewhich can be empirical.
Again, this is an equivocation. When we discuss cosmology, it is about what needs to be explained (i.e., the things around us: the universe) and NOT the totality of what we end up having to posit. You are shifting goal post and then trying to claim to be at the original goal post: thats not valid.
The more I think about it, I think you are right that this argumentif I am understanding it correctlyis an a priori style argument; for you are noting that reason dictates that irregardless of if there is a first cause, infinite causality, etc. that the totality of what is real must be uncaused. So I recant my position on this point.
We have dont have to try to give a counter-argument to know this argument is fallacious. You saying:
1. The totality of what exists could have a first cause, be self-caused, etc.
2. The totality of what exists, being such that nothing can exist outside of it, must be uncaused.
3. Therefore, whether or not the totality of what exists has a first cause, is self-caused, etc. are all equally probable.
The underlined portion is where the equivocation happens that is pivotal to your argument working and of which you are implicitly asking the reader to conflate (with each other); and, I for one, am not willing to. They are not referring to the same thing; and, not to mention, it is patently incoherent (for if this totality is uncaused then it is impossible for it to have a first cause, etc.).
EDIT: I think demanding an argument for the nature of the the cosmos is a red herring, but if you want one, here's a basic one:
1. Per se contingent beings lack the power to exist themselves.
2. An infinite series of contingent beings all lack the power to exist themselves.
3. Therefore, it is impossible for the cosmos to be an infinite series of contingent beings.
4. Therefore, there must be at least one necessary being.
The point is not that you need to accept that argument, it's that your OP doesn't negate anyone from validly engaging in this type of metaphysics.
Yes, that's what I intended to convey.
Quoting Bob Ross
First, I'm not using the phrase, "The totality of what exists" in the argument. I'm saying the entire scope of causality.
Second, you're missing the step I introduced that leads to 3 as a conclusion.
Quoting Philosophim
If anything could happen, and there is no cause which would make any one thing be more likely than the other to happen, then they all had equal chance of happening.
Quoting Bob Ross
Premise two is incorrect. A contingent being lacks the the power to exist without another being existing which supports it, true. We can invent the concept of an infinite set of contingent beings. But that set is not contingent on anything else. Just like I can have a finite set of contingent beings, but that set is not contingent on anything else. You've already agreed with me on this. There would be no prior reason which causes a finite set of causality to occur, and there would be no prior reason for an infinite set of causality to occur. Therefore both are equally as likely to happen if we do not know what actually happened.
Well, thats a huge difference! An argument that the totality of what exists has no cause is true (trivially) because any causebe itself caused or notwould be included in such totality; however, that the totality of caused things has no cause does not follow these lines of thinkingfor an uncaused thing would be outside of that totality. You would have to provide some further argumentand perhaps I missed itfor why there would be no cause to such a series.
I am not following: I think you are conflating causality a lot. Let me just explain what I am thinking about your position and correct me where Im getting it wrong.
If we are talking about the total series of caused things, then your OP is arguing that such a series is either infinite or self-caused; but it cannot argue that there is a first cause. A first cause would exist outside of the series of caused things.
If it is infinite, then each member has a reason for its existence from the previous member.
If it is self-caused (notwithstanding how patently incoherent this concept is itself), then the being has its own existence explained through itself.
Either way, nothing is equally probable in the sense you described; for either the ultimate cause explains itself (viz., is contingent upon itself) or there is an infinite series of sufficient explanations.
If you posit a necessary being, then you would be positing a first cause; and this would exist outside of the series of caused things and would have no cause itself. This also would not entail an equal chance of things happening, for it simply would entail the existence of whatever it causes and it would be the sufficient explanation of those causes.
That doesnt matter. Thats like saying an infinite series of gears rotating is possible because we can conceptually posit it and the whole series does not require rotation. The set itself is not an entity that you can manipulate like that. The set itself of contingent members is just a bunch of contingencies abstracted into a set: the set is not a necessary being.
No, the uncaused thing would be the limit inside of that totality.
Quoting Bob Ross
There would still be the scope of, "What caused there to be an infinite series of sufficient explanations?" And this would be uncaused.
Quoting Bob Ross
No, its not a necessary being, only uncaused. Feel free to look at it again with the limit being inside of the totality.
Again:
I will quote myself from the previous thread:
No contradiction. Let me see if this helps.
U1 = A -> B -> C
U2 = infinite regress -> C
What caused U? In both cases the answer is, "Nothing". There is no prior cause for U1 or U2. But the causality within U1 and U2 are true. U1 has a first cause, A. U2 does not. U2 simply exists like A simply exists in U1.
If nothing caused U1, and nothing caused U2, then there is nothing which would prevent their formation either. Since there is an equal weight for both for or against the U's existing, both U1 and U2 have an equal chance of being or not being.
Arguments from brute facts in cosmology are almost always extremely ad hoc. Yours is no exception. "It just is, for no reason at all," could be applied to any phenomena at all. So, for instance, given the principle of indifference, the extremely low entropy of the early universe is almost unfathomably unlikely. It's the sort of thing that cries out for explanation.
The brute fact explanation is only thrown out when a better explanation isn't available. It's ad hoc. If it is acceptable at all, it should be equally acceptable for "why does water dissolve salt," and yet no one would accept a brute fact explanation here because better explanations exist.
No doubt, if Penrose's hypothesis for why the entropy of the early universe was so low, or any of the others, was borne out by more evidence and became the consensus opinion of cosmologists, it would not make sense to rebut the new theory by stating: "no, it's just is. No explanation is possible."
Likewise, presumably you are going off the assumption that the universe does have a begining because that is the majority opinion in cosmology. But this wasn't always so, most cosmologists used to think the universe was without beginning or end. The Big Bang, and then a period of Cosmic Inflation prior to the Big Bang, were both posited to help explain phenomena that seemed vanishingly unlikely to have occured by chance. However, from the perspective of the brute fact view, there was absolutely no reason to go looking for these explanations, and no reason to prefer them. If "it just is," is actually as good of an explanation as any other, all sorts of now dominant theories in cosmology are unnecessary. We didn't need to explain the curvature of space: "it just is."
And yet no one actually does appeal to "it just is" when solid explanations exist. Hence, it is just an ad hoc appeal for those who cannot countenance mystery.
Consider: if new stars appeared across the sky tonight that clearly spelled out "Allah is the greatest," would that be evidence of a creator? Well, on the brute fact view the emergence of the new stars, and the timing of their light reaching Earth, is all just the result of brute fact laws and initial conditions. If the advocates of such a view are consistent, they will declare: "We cannot assume that this happening is any more or less probable than anything else, since the laws and initial conditions just are, for no reason at all."
But this seems implausible. If stars spelling out Koran verses appeared across the night sky tonight, we would have epistemic warrant for thinking something special was going on.
Do you not see how "well other people [I]might[/I] not have logic and reason on their side, because people sometimes have irrational beliefs," is not a good response to: "We reject the premise of the univocity of being."
Like I said, a good argument anticipates objections. "I don't need to anticipate objections because they [I]could[/I] be irrational" is not a compelling resolution. This is particularly true of brute fact appeals because, if they are ever compelling, they are only compelling because they have shown that no other explanation is possible. Yet all you have shown is that, provided we accept the brute fact explanation, we will have accepted a brute fact explanation.
Second, it's worth pointing out that:
A. Cosmologists are in no way unanimous that the universe even has a beginning. Cyclical theories are still posited.
B. The philosophers of the Abrahamic tradition and many Pagan philosophers agree that nothing is temporally prior to creation. Space and time do not exist prior to creation. God is not in space or time. God is not a being. As St. Augustine puts it, God is "within everything but contained in nothing." God is cause and first principle of the universe as ground, not as temporally prior efficient cause. So arguing that "it doesn't make sense to speak of a time prior to time or changes prior to change," isn't really addressing the most popular theologies at all.
Sure, you are correct. Provided that we accept that "it just is, for no reason at all," is as good an explanation of things as any other, this would indeed render any other explanation "unnecessary," and imply that there "[should] be no more debate or consideration." After all, such an explanation can be proffered for literally anything we might inquire about. "Why is grass green?" It just is. "Why does the caged bird sing?" It just does. "Why did Hitler declare war on the USA?" He just did. "How to words refer?" They just do. "Why do some people prefer their cucumbers pickled?" That is just the way of the world.
Whether it would be [I]wise[/I] to affirm such misology is another question.
Normally I would agree with you. It is an exception here because we're talking about a rational limit to causality. If I'm wrong, point out where in the argument my point fails please.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
I understand your concern, but that's not what I'm trying to do here. This is not an attempt to shut down further examination into why things work the way they do in our universe. This is not to shut down the causality that exists. Learning these things can only be helpful and should be encouraged. My point is 'the limit'. One day we may, or may not find the limit. But logically, we can determine there is one. Ultimately that limit is something that is uncaused by something else.
Knowing this we can determine that any proposal to a necessary universal origin without evidence is 100% wrong. If the limit is something uncaused, then necessarily anything could be the limit in an ontological theory. This doesn't mean it actually is anything we can imagine, only that without knowing the origin, we know this at least must be true. Thus we are left without any other means of discovering the actual origin besides science, research, and evidence.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
No. Within existence we have causality. There would be a reason why the stars aligned that way. Anyone who said, "It can't be Allah" should be dismissed. Same with anyone who said, "Maybe its aliens or a government trick." The only way to determine the truth would be through evidence. My point is not that 'everything is arbitratry', my point is that the origin of the universe is ultimately uncaused. That doesn't mean things within aren't caused by other things within it.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
My point was only intended to criticize the notion that a unity of people believing something leads any credence to the accuracy of that belief. It is not intended to convey anymore than that.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
And my conclusion determines this is a viable possibility, as is anything.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
God is an uncaused being. But I've noted that if something can be uncaused, there is no limit as to what could be uncaused as an origin. Meaning rocks being uncaused is just as possible as a God being uncaused. My point does note that a God is a possibility, but it is only one of an infinite amount of options, and not logically necessary.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
The grass is green because light bounces off grass at a particular wavelength that we interpret as green. It is not, "Just because". Again, my argument is talking about the very specific scenario that the ultimate cause of our universe is uncaused. Everything else within it follows from the causality of its integrated existence. So not only am I not specifically saying this argument can be applied to everything, I'm pointing out it would be wrong to.
I dont know what this is supposed to represent.
If there is a first cause, F, then it would be outside of the set of causality. If you were to say something like why F has no reason for its existence: it is necessary, then you would be correct; and theres nothing about it that is similar to an infinite regress: a regress would entail that there is an infinite series of sufficient explanations.
I think you think such an infinite series of sufficient explanations doesnt have a sufficient explanation because you are invalidly abstracting out the entire series and treating it like an object.
Considering the first cause would be the first part of causality, A -> B, isn't A part of the set of causality?
Quoting Bob Ross
But what I'm doing is looking at the entire set. In the case of U1, the first cause is the first part of the set. So when I ask, "What caused U1?", the answer is that the first cause existed without prior causation, then caused other things. In the second case there is no first cause, but there is still the question of "What caused U2?" The answer is that its entire infinitely regressive existence exists without prior causation.
Quoting Bob Ross
Lets focus on this part then. How is my abstraction invalid? If I'm expanding the scope of the universal evaluation to include everything, don't the U1 and U2 examples each capture this accurately?
No. The set contains all caused things. Now, like I said before in the other thread, you could quantify over the set of all things simpliciter and then your argument would work but be trivial.
What you are describing is not the set of causality (viz., of caused things) but, rather, the set of all things; and you are right that this set, U1, is uncaused.
The reason you end up with a trivial conclusion is that you are abstracting like this for other options for causal series (such as infinite regression) and conflating it with explaining the set of caused things.
Lets call the set of caused things C, the set of all things A, a first cause to C F, an infinite circularity O, a self-cause of C S, a necessary cause of C N, and an infinite regression R.
The debate in metaphysics, ontology, which your OP claims to solve, is about C not A. What needs be explained is the causality which we see around us and so we abstract out how this causality would work; so we ask is there a first cause? and what not, but this refers to the abstraction of the set of caused thingshence C. Subsequently, you end up with all sorts of positions about C; such as C being identical to R, being identical to a O, C requiring F, F being O, F being N, etc.
What you are doing is conflating A with C. You are noting that irregardless of who is right about how causality works, the totality, A, of all things is uncaused; and this is trivially true and has nothing to do with the debate. Moreover, more specifically, you are conflating a being that is uncaused with a set being uncaused: F, assuming it is of type N, is certainly not uncaused in the same sense as A nor Rfor a set is not a being. A being that is uncaused is something which is real and lacks any explanation for its existence; whereas a set of real things is not itself real and lacks the ability to require any explanation in the first placefor what needs explaining are the things in the set of real things and not a mental abstraction of the totality of them. Thusly, if we say that R is A, then it necessarily follows that every real thing has an explanation for its existencethere is nothing uncaused in the sense of a real thing lacking any explanation for its existence. Saying that the set is uncaused is just to equivocate, because if we were to say it is uncaused then we mean it in a disanalogous sense of needing no explanation for why it is because it is itself not real.
Think about it, if every real thing has a cause, then every real thing has a reason for its existence; the abstraction of every real thing into a totality does not introduce a real thing which is uncaused: that contradict that every real thing has a cause (which we presupposed in the first place).
There is no logic for existence - Julius Fann Jr
There is no logic for anything in this universe to exist. To be more precise, there is logic to existence. Now this means that all that exists in the universe should not be, and therefore, dealing with the effect will always lead one to deduce that which has no meaning.
Let me step back and offer a personal analysis and interpretation by asking myself, what is? In asking, the answer was pulled out of thin air and fell at my feet, saying there is no logic to creation; therefore, there is no logic to the universe nor humanity. Being such, that which occupies the universe as a mind filler has no logic to exist, inclusive of man, which is the reason no human mind can find intellectual cognitive fillers to anything beyond the eyelid. No philosophy, spiritual, nor reasoning comprehensible has ever given reasoning for creation to exist. Such dialogue, as here then, is pure assumption for that which should not be for humanity to worship that which should not exist - materialism.
Regardless of one's belief in the logic or illogic of creation, belief alone is not enough, and does not overarch the truth as articulated by the Apostle Paul: "I perceive that in all things ye are superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotion, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. WHOM THEREFORE YE IGNORANTLY WORSHIP, HIM DECLARE I UNTO YOU. God is the world and things therein, seeing that He is Lord of heaven and earth figuratively, dwelleth not in temples made with hands, neither is he worshiped with men's hand, as though he needed anything, seeing he giveth to all life, breath, and all."
Now for this writer, this alone nullifies any metaphysical, or scientific, or attempt to speak one cause and effect, being they ae of the mindset of laws dealing with human speculations, religion or other teaching which has rules and by-laws dealing with materialism and human mind cognition. Furthermore, it nullifies the belief that there is another god of this world who has dominion over inner Spirit, Christ, whose altar no human is attentive. At this point, it must be emphasized that mere belief is not sufficient to make one a true believer, as the supposed god this world, whom some call Satan, also believes in God. Yet, considering the impact of his beliefs on the world, should a Satan indeed be real.
In short, there is no logic to the universe because there is no logic for existence, with one exception, and that is found in Rev.4:11, "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power; for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." - jufa
You didn't need to introduce a new set, as everything was in the U1 and U2 sets.
Quoting Bob Ross
But I'm not including the set of all things in the U1 and U2 comparison.
U1 = A -> B -> C
U2 = infinite regress -> C
This is the set of all causal relations in the the universe Bob, not set of all things.
Quoting Bob Ross
I'm not conflating A, because A does not belong in the above example. I'm noting that if you extend the causality to its entire scope, you will reach a point where it is inevitably uncaused. In the case of U1, its A. In the case of U2, its discovering there is an infinite regress of causality. What caused there to be a universe that had infinitely regressive causality? Nothing. What caused there to be a universe with finite causality? Nothing. There is no prior cause at the end of the causal chain of discovery, therefore it is impossible to note that a finitely regressive causality is anymore necessary then an infinitely regressive causality.
Quoting Bob Ross
A set of infinitely regressive causality could itself be just as real and lack any explanation for its existence as a set of finite regressive causality.
Quoting Bob Ross
But I am not saying R is A, so I don't think this applies. Remove A from the notion, which I am not including, and I'm not sure my abstraction is invalid. Try again without A being involved and see if your claim still holds.
The universe is not itself identical to the the set of all things nor the set of all causality per se: which are you referring to, if either?
Assuming we are talking about the universe, then we are talking about cosmology; which is about whether or not we think the universe itself is contingent or not (ultimately). The minute you abstract further than thatwhich is required for your proof in the OPone ends up in a broader discussion of ontology which will result in discussion the sets that I was discussing before.
The problem is that you are not clearly defining to yourself what you are quantifying over in this set. You said it was the universe, and now you are saying it is the entirety of causal thingswhich is C in my abstractions and not A. You are still conflating A and C; but you are adding into the mix U which is irrelevant to the discussion. U itself is not in principle identical to C or A, and it does not allow for any discussion of the totality of causes (C).
The members would be real, the set would not; and your argument depends on the set itself being treated as real like its members. Again, and to which you never responded, the members sufficiently explaining each other makes the entire set sufficiently explained; and, thusly, the set itself is not uncaused in the sense of causing the members.
I never said you did.
The problem is that either U (1 or 2) is a member of C and A; or is a member of only A. There is no third option, Philosophim; viz., either this universe is contingent and a member of the set of causal things, C, or it is not contingent and is a member of the totality of things, A, but is not a member of the set of causal things, C. Your idea of U just muddies the waters, since you are trying to argue that ontologically we can determine that all causal things are uncaused by way of abstraction of the totality of caused things (C).
If I understand this correctly, I think the only problem you have is with the idea that an infinite regress of causality has no cause for its being.
Quoting Bob Ross
We also seem to have a mix up between my example and your example. Lets pull this back into a better abstract as the specifics aren't communicating the issue that I'm trying to point out. The knowledge of the infinite regress does not make the entire set of causality sufficiently explained. What caused that particular set of infinite regresses? I think a better way to fold it all together Bob, "Why is there anything at all?"
The answer is that its uncaused. Even a God right? And if there is no prior cause for anything, whether that 'anything' start with a God, a pile or rocks, or has infinite minor causes running back forever, then there is no origin that is logically necessary for the universe to exist.
If there is no cause which explains why the universe is here, then it didn't need to be here. It could have just as easily not been. It could be that there are other universes. Why not? When we realize the ultimate cause for why there is any existence at all is 'uncaused' there are no limits as to what could have been.
No matter what you discover about your universe, it will never change this fact. Discovering those origins can tell you a lot about your universe as is, but it will never indicate why it is. It simply is. It did not require anything necessary for it to be, it just is. Therefore if one does not know the full causal chain of their universe by scientific proof it is impossible to philosophically argue by reason alone that any one possible causal origin of that universe was necessary or impossible. Necessary and impossible imply an inviable causality, and since there is none, there is no limit.
The problem is that you are not explaining which set you are quantifying over; and I suspect you are switching back and forth between C and A. Sometimes you say you are talking about the totality of caused things, and then say it is the totality of what exists. Which is it?
Causality is outside the purview of a set of all caused things. The set of all caused things, C, is literally the encapsulation of all caused things; so it doesn't make sense to ask what caused C since that conflates C with being one of its members.
EDIT: in other words, asking "is C caused?" presupposes that C could be a caused thing which would entail it is not C but rather a member of C (viz., it is not the set of caused things but, rather, a caused thing that is in that set).
I am talking about the scope of causality that encompasses all things. You cannot talk about the totality of call causes without the totality of all existence. In the case of an infinite regress of causality, the scope would be capturing everything causally. Its no different from a finite set. The difference is in the locus of the question. In a finite set we ask, "What caused A to be?" and there is no prior causality. In a finite set we ask, "What caused this infinite regressive set to be?" and there is no prior causality.
Another way to answer this is, "The first cause is explained by itself." "An infinite set of causality is explained by itself." There is functionally no difference between these two at the last scoped question of causality which is essentially, "What caused the set to exist?"
Again I think the infinite set is the only issue you have. Lets say we have one universe A that is a set of causal interactions between diamonds. That's all the universe is. There is a starting point we call the Gem God. Now there is a universe B which is a universe of cobalt. There is a starting point we call the cobalt God.
Now imagine the same universes, only there is no gem or cobalt God. Its just a cascading series of gems causing other gem states in C, and just a cascading series of cobalt causing other cobalt states in D. What caused universe C to exist instead of universe D? What caused A or B? Nothing. There is a scope of causality that when we fully extend out, cannot be found. There is no outside force, because anything outside is included in the set. But this last question when the full scope of any universe is reached always has the same answer. Nothing caused that particular universe to be. It simply is if it exists.
Quoting Bob Ross
'C' is the scope of all causality. And yes, when you extend the scope of causality out, we ask the last question, "What caused all of this other causality to exist apart from what we can discover?" And the answer IS inside of C Bob. The answer is, "Its uncaused". Its the final piece of any universal set of causality. We find we always come to a question we cannot answer, therefore the only answer is, "Its uncaused." And if its uncaused, then all the other consequences I noted follow.
So, is your answer that you are talking about A and A = C?
But this isnt true for a first cause, F, of C; such that if there is a first cause then C != A.
This A that you refer to herewhich is an existent thing and not a setcannot be a member of C if it is uncaused.
Also, that there is a first cause does not entail that the set is finite. It could be a set of infinite sets, like [F, C]. Where C is a set of an infinite amount of caused things. You seem to be implying, although I may be mistaken, that a first cause would entail a finite set which has the first cause as a member of C.
Sets are not causedever. The members of the sets may be caused. Again, you are conflating sets with real things. Sets are not real.
I am not sure how a diamond causing other diamonds and how that could be identical to a universe, but lets roll with it.
Lets call the set of the totality of caused diamonds in diamond universe D; and lets call the set of the totality of caused cobalt in the cobalt universe T. Heres have comments I would have:
1. The Gem God would not be a member D; nor is the Cobalt God a member of T.
2. One cannot quantify causally over a set itself like a member.These universes, if they have no first cause(s), are not uncaused. Either:
A. Each previous member sufficiently causes the next member; or
B. There is a member or members which caused itself and thereafter caused the other members; or
C. There is a point where the causal series circles around.
There is no situation in this case where anything that exists is uncaused. Your response is: but what about the set itself?. The set isnt real. It is not a real thing which is caused or uncaused.
3. What causes T to exist as opposed to D is to, again, ask what caused a set; and this is fallacious reasoning. Sets are not real. E.g., if T is an infinite regression of caused cobalt, then the reason each cobalt exists is explained by the previous leaving no room to need to explain anything else. It would be, contrary to D existing, because such-and-such cobalt caused this cobalt to be cobalt and that cobalt caused such-and-such cobalt to be cobalt because of this other cobalt ad infinitum. There is nothing left unexplained in this type of analysis.
That is incoherent. You either are not asking if the totality of caused things is caused by shifting the goal post and saying that the totality of caused things is not this total that you are evaluating; or you are asking if the totality of caused things is caused and this leads to a set of first causes.
It cant be the case that F causes C and that F is a member of C
No, I'm noting that C involves A, but they are not the same thing. You're the one who introduced A, not me. :)
Quoting Bob Ross
The scope captures everything causally because C != A. I've never claimed that it was equal.
Quoting Bob Ross
Yes it can, because one of the answers to something causally is that it is uncaused. You seem to be putting this answer outside of causality, when I'm noting its one of the answers.
Quoting Bob Ross
We're in complete agreement that sets aren't real. I'm just using it to give a better understanding of what I was trying to get across. This has seemed to add more confusion, so I gave you another example, "What caused existence period?" I never said 'the set' itself is caused, only its members. I am not conflating anything here Bob, I think that's just you.
Quoting Bob Ross
Incorrect. They are part of the causality of that universe, therefore they are part of the scope of causality in that universe. There is no logic in separating them from the causal chain of the universe when they are part of the chain. I think you are misunderstanding what the causal scope is. Take a re-read of the scope section if you need to so that you understand it is not a chain of 'all things' but 'the full scope of causality'.
Quoting Bob Ross
No, I'm referring to the chain we've found in the set itself up to the point where we increase the scope to include the question, "What caused existence at all?" Can you answer that question Bob? My answer is, "Its uncaused." Why am I wrong?
Quoting Bob Ross
No, because there's still the question, "What caused there to be existence at all?" Further this ignores the question of other possible universes. What caused universe 1 to exist instead of universe 2 once you go up the causal chain within that universe? There is nothing outside of that universe that caused it to be, therefore it is uncaused.
Quoting Bob Ross
The answer is not that F causes C. Its that C is uncaused. Which again, we're having problems with the set here instead of you addressing the plain question. "What caused existence?" You didn't reply to this very specific question from the last post Bob, so I think you're avoiding it to refocus on the sets that I've already told you are just a tool to convey this notion. Drop the sets if they aren't helpful to you, I don't care. This question is the question that only has one answer, 'Its uncaused."
I am trying to give you the tools to provide clarity on your position. You still keep conflating them and talking about unclear sets.
If you have your own sets that you want me to work with, then please provide them in an analogous way to how I provided mine.
If there is an infinite regress of causal things, then it would have to be. For if every real thing is a member of C, which is the case if every real thing is sufficiently explained in an infinitely regressive fashion, then there is no real thing which is not a member of C; and therefore no real thing which is not a member of C and A; so C = A.
We are not quantifying over answersand purposefully so (because it muddies the waters and leads to issues in inferences as seen in your OP)but, rather, real things; and C is the enumeration of all of those real things that are also caused.
What I was noting is that if something caused C, when taken as its members, and is not itself caused then that thing is not a member of C; and this is patently true because C contains only real things that are causedwhich precludes things that are not caused. A, ceteris paribus, assuming theres nothing else to consider but the two, would look like: A = [F, C] not C = [F, < >] = A.
This is crucial though to my point; because you keep asking questions that assume they are real. For example, you keep asking what caused C?. C is a set: it is not real. When we ask colloquially what caused C?, we charitably meant to ask do the members of C sufficiently explain each others existences or not?. Crucially, an infinite regress proper would be such that each member would suffice to explain the next member and so on; and, therefore, there is nothing required to explain the members outside of that set. There is nothing uncaused in this!!! The set being outside of the purview of causality is not the same as it being a real thing that is uncaused.
This is too vague. The only valid way to translate this, as far as I can tell, is to assume you mean what caused these real things to exist?, then, again, an infinite regression explanation would dictate that there nothing uncaused: each real thing is explained by the next or the previous or what not.
Existence itself is not a property like other properties: you cant ask why is there being? like why is there red things?.
Let me just grant your point here. Lets say theres a first cause, F, to the set C and the set W = [F, C]. Ok, fair enough. How does this change anything? An infinite regression would entail that there is no F and C just has an infinite amount of members which explain each others existences; and C itself is not caused or uncaused.
If I take it literally, then it is an invalid question. Existence is not a proper property. In terms of why do things exist, the question in an infinite regress would be that each one explains the other: thats no problem to answer.
As you know, I would say that God is the explanation. The issue is that your argument tries to determine a priori that each cogent solution results in the idea of everything being uncaused; and this is simply not true UNLESS you conflate a set as a real entity.
The infinitely regressive set would be identical to the universe: again, you are treating the set as if it is real because you substituted the word set for universe here. Theres no extra-beyond universe from the infinite collection of sufficiently explained real things if the person arguing for an infinite regress is right. Your question here assumes that there is still something real, namely the universe itself, which has not been answered; but all the universe is here, in your argument, is the set of the all the real things. Hence, your question is just falsely framed.
This is different, per se, from asking about our universe and what caused it because we arent necessarily stipulating that the universe is just a set of all caused, e.g., cobalts.
If you agree that sets arent real, then you must concede that C cannot be caused or uncaused.
Hopefully my above response suffices to answer this. However, it doesnt matter: that is the introductive question to the solutions (e.g., infinite regressions, infinite circularities, first causes, etc.) that your proof is supposed to demonstrate all of them leading back to everything being uncaused; and so if there is even on solution that doesnt lead back to that, then your thesis is void. An infinite regression is one such example.
Quoting Bob Ross
Bob Ross appears to imply that a universe with a beginning not incepted from nothing must have been predated by existences outside itself, and thus such a universe cannot encompass total existence.
You can. U = a -> b ->c Why does it matter if the chain is really long? U = a -> b -> c -> a Why does it matter if the chain loops? U = infinite letters -> a -> b -> c -> infinite letters Why does it matter if it captures infinite?
Quoting Philosophim
Philo counters by arguing by implication the possibilities for creation of a universe are infinite.
ucarr Interpretation
The implication of a total existence from infinite possibilities is that non-existence is actually unlimited possibility. Theres an idea that nothingness equals no restrictions. But no-restrictions is a something; its a restriction, viz, its a specification.
How is it that unlimited possibility dovetails Venn diagrams with non-existence?
Is there a way to conceptualize unlimited possibility as a member of the set of non-existence?
We know the null set is a proper subset of every non-null set. It is not, however, a member of any set. Since the empty set does not contain the empty set, which is to say the empty set is not even a member of itself, we see that the null set as representative of non-existence cannot get beyond itself, i.e., it cannot get beyond its non-existence, and therefore we infer that, likewise, non-existence itself cannot get beyond itself, i.e., cannot get beyond its non-existence.
Quoting Philosophim
Philo establishes with his own words bolded above that existence, like non-existence, cannot go outside itself. Given thus that both non-existence and existence cannot go outside themselves, we can ask how non-existence, being self-contained, can do other than persist as non-existence. On the other side of the coin, we can ask, how existence, being self-contained, can do other than persist as existence.
This reasoning suggests that non-existence and existence cannot be sequenced. They are both eternal. If they are both eternal, then they are also mutually exclusive.
Since we believe we exist, we must believe existence eternal and non-existence non-existent.
Non-existence being non-existent being a paradox, and thus being existent as non-existence, we see more evidence that existence cannot go outside of itself.
Quoting Philosophim
Here Philo says the universe is self-caused.
Now we have two posits about the origin of the universe: a) the universe is eternal; b) the universe is self-caused.
Is the question of one or the other undecidable?
Self-causation of all existence to the exclusion of non-existence implies eternal existence. Since existence cannot go outside itself, and thus we, as existents, can't experience non-existence, we must doubt we can know non-existence, and thus we must also doubt: The universe did not come 'from nothing'. Nothing did not create anything. It doesn't come 'from' anything. It simply was not, then it was.
This leaves us preferring to see the universe as self-caused and eternal.
Is there faulty reasoning in the path to this conclusion? For example: If the universe is self-caused and contains the totality of existence, then all of the parts of existence are contemporaneous with each other. Does this suggest: a) there is no causation; b) causation has no temporal component?
On the other hand, do the conservation laws support no causation and thus imply only endless change of forms?
Does this tilt us toward Neo-Platonism?
Quoting ucarr
This is the one area that I think you misinterpret from me. I am not saying "Something is formed from nothingness". Nothingness does not cause somethingness. Nothing and something are two very different things that do not cause each other. My point is only that existence has no outside cause for its being. There could be something that already exists for example, then something else appears elsewhere without prior cause. Arguably there's nothing to stop an overlap besides the statistically insignificant odds of it happening if something can appear anywhere at any time.
Quoting ucarr
It persists as existence because the causal beginning point "It simply is" formed an existence that did not have anything within itself that it would cease to exist. There is nothing preventing an existence that formed and would only last for 12 seconds before ceasing to exist. The existence we have today has lasted for billions of years, but that doesn't mean that it has to. Statistically, its likely that the tiniest aspects of existence which are not composed of other existence, may very well fade out over time as one could last 1 billion and one seconds, 1 billion and two seconds, etc. In addition, these small aspect of existence may simply form at any time as well. Its an interesting cosmology to think about.
Quoting ucarr
These are not mutually exclusive. It is one possibility that the universe is both eternal, and does not have any prior cause that made it eternal.
Quoting ucarr
And it can also be the case that the universe is not eternal and has no prior cause that explains why it started to begin. So if what I've noted is true, both are equal possibilities with none being more necessary than the other.
Quoting Bob Ross
No, this is not what C is. C is the entire sum of all scoped causality. So by consequence if A causes B, then C does not cause A. If nothing causes A, then there is no prior causality that caused A. That's all part of the scope.
Quoting Bob Ross
Why can't I? That fits in the scope. You'll need to explain why this question cannot be asked logically. For example I can say, "There are red things because light reflects off of them at a particular wavelength that we label as 'red'". That's a more narrow scope, but the scope of causality can be expanded further to the point of encapsulating everything. If it cannot, please point out in the OP where I make this mistake and why.
Quoting Bob Ross
What caused the infinite regress? Again, what caused it to be an infinite regress of diamonds versus garnets? What you're doing is limiting the scope, but you can't give me a logical reason why I can't expand it farther.
Quoting Bob Ross
What caused God?
Quoting Bob Ross
This doesn't address the point at all. I don't know what you mean by sets not being real, nor how this addresses the logic of something uncaused.
Quoting Bob Ross
Correct.
Quoting Bob Ross
No, because you have yet to demonstrate how an infinite regression is caused by something prior instead of uncaused.
Again, read Ucarrs post and my reply before responding Bob. I think that will help reset us on the same page again.
Unfortunately, I don't see any way forward either ):
I think we are going in circles at this point, so I am going to remove my hat from the ring. The last thing I will say is that, again, your arguments depend on conflations---especially between a set and its members and between C and A.
You too, my friend! I look forward to our next conversation.
The logic of a universal origin and meaning
Extract of Philos Main Points
My point is only that existence has no outside cause for its being.
Are you saying that existence has no outside cause and that it has no outside at all?
I'm saying the entire scope of causality (is the focal point of my argument)
Is it true you're saying the entire scope of causality is the focal point of your argument?
...the totality of caused things has no cause
Are you saying the totality of caused things has an uncaused beginning?
...the uncaused thing would be the limit inside of that totality (the totality of what exists).
Are you saying the uncaused thing began inside of the universe?
It simply was not (the universe), then it was. Or its always been.
Are you saying your logic of a universal origin and meaning gives equal weight to the possibility of: a) an uncaused universe; b) an eternal universe?
...the entirety of existence has no prior reason for its existence, and therefore could have been anything.
Is this the main argument for: The logic of a universal origin and meaning?
Are you saying that before the entirety of existence existed, the universe could have been anything?
I am saying that existence encapsulates everything that is. "Existences" are subdivided quantifications of existence. My note is that if you increase the scope of causality to its limit, there is no outside cause that creates existence, as whatever exists is part of existence.
Quoting ucarr
I believe so, yes.
Quoting ucarr
"Inside" is a tricky word if there was nothing to begin with. If there was at least one thing that existed and something uncaused appeared, then yes. But if there was absolutely nothing, that inception would be the beginning of the universe.
Quoting ucarr
Yes.
Quoting ucarr
Yes.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Since existence encapsulates everything that is, that includes the entire scope of causality within the closed system of existence?
If the entire scope of causation is a proper subset of the entire scope of existence, then proper subset cannot contain a cause beyond its superset, the entire scope of existence?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
So your theory has at it center the greater scope of existence with the lesser scope of causality inside of it?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Are you saying that given a pre-existing universe, the uncaused beginning of the entire scope of causality must occur within the pre-existing universe?
Are you now saying the universe did come from nothing? Did you strike through your recent statement:
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
By saying, "Before the entirety of existence existed, the universe could have been anything," are you implying: a) unlimited possibility pre-dated the universe; b) unlimited possibility had a causal influence upon the universe?
Yes.
Quoting ucarr
I don't know or care. The set is a tool to help you understand the concept, not a mathematically rigid logical model.
Quoting ucarr
No, I'm just talking about the scope of causality. I don't know what the scope of existence is.
Quoting ucarr
No, I'm saying if there is nothing, then something, that something is the universe. The universe is all that exists. If there is nothing that exists, there is no universe.
Quoting ucarr
No. Nothing and Something are not connected. Nothing cannot cause anything. Uncaused means uncaused Ucarr. Not that 'nothing' caused something.
Quoting ucarr
No to both. There is no 'thing' that is generating probability. Its simply a a logical conclusion that results from understanding that if there is no prior cause for something being, then there are no rules for why it should or should not be.
Ontology is the study of what existsmetaphysics is the study of the nature of what exists. Science is the only possible guide to both enquiries. Imagination alone won't do. Logic alone won't do. So, what are we left with?
Science involves both imagination and logic of course, but it does not stop thereit observes and studies the phenomena we encounter and the perceived invariances and speculates about how things are in ways that can be tested.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Do you think the mathematical and logical precision of set theory is mis-applied to your theory? If so, why have you chosen for your title: "The logic of a universal origin and meaning"?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Why do you say you don't know what is the scope of existence given your earlier statement re-posted below:
Quoting Philosophim
Why don't you care about the relationship between the scope of existence and the scope of causation? Consider your earlier statement below:
Quoting Philosophim
When you say nothing caused the universe and nothing restricted what it could become, you seem to be setting the stage upon which the chain of causation plays. Even though this statement makes it sound as if the unfettered scope and possible identity of existence is fundamental to the scope of causation, you're now clarifying that the relationship between existence and causation is not fundamental to your theory?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Is it true that the entire scope of causation plays within the universe? Does this agree with nothing caused the universe and nothing restricted what it could become?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
I understand you to be saying non-existence and existence are closed and cannot interact.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
When you say there is no prior cause for the universe, why do you not think there is non-existence followed the universe being caused by non-existence? Is it not clear that if, as you say, "...existence encapsulates everything that is," then before existence there could only be non-existence, and thus the transition from, "It simply was not, then it was," could only be brought about by non-existence?
Since you say, "...if there is no prior cause for something being, then there are no rules for why it should or should not be," why do you not think there being no rules governing being, not being and how to be amounts to unlimited possibility? Do you not agree that the universe of all existence cannot happen if it's not possible? Do you not agree that if possibility is necessary for a thing to happen, and if there are no restrictions on what that thing can be, then the possibility must be unlimited?
Eh, scientism doesn't work nor logical positivism. E.g., you can't scientifically determine the nature of truth, logic, mathematics, knowledge, some a priori modes of cognition, etc.
There is nothing science can say of, e.g., the nature of a proposition.
Likewise, metaphysics which is not derived from science may still be informed by it; and the parts that are not are guided by that application of reason to evidence---not the imagination (if it is done properly).
Yes, I am not using set theory. That's why I'm telling you that the 'set' example is not the argument, just an example to help you understand. The argument is still logical.
Quoting ucarr
Because I defined scope very clearly in the OP. Inserting, "Scope of all existence" is not a phrase I used or claimed. You're introducing something I've never asserted, and we don't want a straw man fallacy.
Quoting ucarr
Because I never introduced the scope of existence. I don't know what this is. Again, a straw man.
Quoting ucarr
I don't know what the phrase, "Plays within the universe" means. The argument has been presented, feel free to note where you disagree at this point. A couple of pure questions is fine Ucarr, but it feels like you're asking things that are plainly answered, and it feels like you're using ambiguous language as a trap. Don't do that. Submit your criticism and I'll clarify if there's a problem.
Quoting ucarr
Thank you for confirming this, I won't mention it again then.
Quoting ucarr
'by' is not a good word to use as it implies that non-existence caused existence. We have confirmed it does not. The simple expression is, "It is uncaused." Not brought about. Not 'by'. Uncaused. No rules, no restrictions, nothing prior, no existence, no nothing. Its was not, then it was.
Quoting ucarr
Why do we understand that a jack in a randomly shuffled deck has a 4/52 chance of being drawn? Because there are limitations and rules that establish what can happen. There is a fact of there only being 4 jacks and only 52 cards.
If something is not caused Ucarr, where are the rules? Where are the restrictions? There are none. Because there is nothing that caused it. Since there is nothing that caused it, there is nothing that restricts it from forming either. Give me an example of an uncaused existence that has restrictions and rules to see for yourself.
Quoting ucarr
Lets clarify this one as well. There does not exist in the ether a 'possibility'. Its not out there just waiting. Its a logical conclusion of what is entailed by uncaused existence. If there are no restrictions, then anything is possible, yes. If we have an infinite deck of cards and each card type has an infinite amount in this deck then every card has an equal chance of being drawn.
Demonstrating the nature of truth, and the other things you mention cannot be done. If it could be it would have been by now after more than two thousand years of trying.
Those are not scientific questions, they are semantic follies, but the nature of the world can only be investigated by science, not by imagination or logic alone.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Since the argument from set theory supports your claim no first cause lies outside of the scope of existence, why do you object to it?
Why do you say you don't know what is the scope of existence given your earlier statement re-posted below:
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
Since we see here from your quoted posting of the statement, (Click on your name at the bottom of your quoted statement #2 in this post and it'll take you to your original post (with your name on the top banner) posted in Thread 3 two days ago) that I'm quoting your own words verbatim, why do you deny making the statement?
Quoting Philosophim
Since written evidence of you defining "scope of existence" is available for public viewing here in Thread 3 of your conversation "The logic of a universal origin and meaning," why do you deny writing it?
I never use the phrase scope of existence anywhere in that quote. I don't know what you mean by it. I talk about the scope of causality. You have introduced a phrase 'scope of existence' that I don't understand. You cannot introduce a phrase I do not use then tell me I'm avoiding using it.
Make your point Ucarr and stop trying to get me to say things you want me to say instead of the things I'm saying.
Quoting Philosophim
I'm asking you if causation began after the universe existed.
Quoting Philosophim
Can you quote my ambiguous language?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Here is my unedited quote:
Quoting ucarr
Here's more evidence you have written about the universe being the scope of all that exists:
Quoting Philosophim
With you saying directly above "My point is only that existence has no outside cause for its being," I ask again, "Why do you not think there is non-existence followed by the universe being caused [by] non-existence? Is it not clear that if, as you say, "...existence encapsulates everything that is," then before existence there could only be non-existence, and thus the transition from, "It simply was not, then it was," could only be brought about by non-existence?"
When you describe the uncaused universe as "It simply was not, then it was," you present a sequence of non-existence followed by existence. For this change to happen, there has to be movement from non-existence to existence. This, therefore, is you implying that non-existence moved to existence, viz, non-existence caused existence.
By your own words "My point is only that existence has no outside cause for its being." you imply that "...existence incapsulates everything that is," and thus when you say "It simply was not, then it was," you imply that only non-existence could have moved to existence.
Quoting Philosophim
You acknowledge that something does not come from nothing. This is a restriction that invalidates "If something is not caused... where are the rules? Where are the restrictions?" when it is applied to "Existence has no outside cause for its being."
If "Existence has no outside cause for its being," and thus existence encapsulates everything that is, then outside of existence lies non-existence.
Following from these stipulations, we see that an uncaused universe totally encapsulating everything can only have non-existence outside of itself.
This means, therefore, that uncausation, due to its logical priority, applies to everything that exists, and so it must also lie outside of the universe.
This means that uncausation equals non-existence.
You present a sequence of non-existence followed by existence. For this change to happen, there has to be movement from non-existence to existence. This statement, therefore, has you implying that non-existence moved to existence. What could do the moving other than non-existence?
If we understand that non-existence cannot do any moving, then we understand that uncaused equals non-existence.
Quoting Philosophim
By my argument above, there is no un-stipulated uncaused existence.
About the scope of composition I have always wondered if when we reach the limit of composition we come to find something very different from composite things: A simple thing, without parts. I wonder likewise whether this simple thing is in a higher order of existence with respect to composite things.
But I immediately realize that the whole (or the relational property of the whole) has a retroactive effect on all parts, including the simple parts of a whole. The relational whole acts as the context of the simple thing making the simple thing something that is not known from itself but from its context, that is, from its relation to the other things.
Then it would not be a problem to reach the limit of the composition, we do not reach something divine or of a superior order of existence (the bricks of god). We arrive at one more part of the whole, since these last parts of the composition are only possible to know and understand them by putting them in relation to other things.
This said in causal terms seems to indicate that there are always at least two and never a first cause. First there is relation in terms of ratio essendi. The relational aspect of things seems to be primary and determinative of the identity of things themselves.
Let's look at a stipulated uncaused existence.
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
You apply the restrictions when you try to deny them. No rules is a restriction. No restrictions is a restriction. "Since there is nothing that caused it, there is nothing that restricts it from forming either." is a restriction. You can't describe something without applying limits to what it is. Anything goes is unintelligible. You describe your uncaused universe in such a way that it becomes what you want to believe about it. You want to believe in a maximally versatile universe. That's a restriction because it's not allowed to be a narrowly defined and unvaried universe.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
If an uncaused existence entails a logical possibility, then, by the existence of the uncaused existence, the logical possibility also exists. Were this not the case, you could not make logical conclusions about the possibilities entailed by the uncaused existence. Possibility cannot be excluded from real things.
My point was you kept using phrases like "scope of existence" and "Plays within The universe". These phrases could mean anything and need more detail.
Quoting ucarr
And I tell you again, non-existence cannot cause existence. Uncaused Ucarr. Your conscious or unconscious refusal to use the vocabulary I've given you is not my inability to communicate that.
Quoting ucarr
No, there does not. There's no movement. There was nothing, then something. That's it. No inbetween. No cause. No non-existence going, "Whelp, time to start existing!" :)
Quoting ucarr
No. I thought we settled this earlier.
Quoting Philosophim
You're going back on what you stated earlier. The above is what stands. I don't know whether you're aware you're doing it or not, but before you post next time check yourself please.
Quoting ucarr
I don't get it. Use the deck analogy I gave otherwise this doesn't make any sense.
Quoting ucarr
Uncausation is not a thing Ucarr. You repeatedly make this mistake. It does not exist outside of the universe. It is a logical conclusion. You keep inserting a 'thing'. Uncaused is not a thing. Non-existence is not a thing. There was nothing, then something. No inbetween. No movement. That's it. I've been gracious on this as I'm hoping you just don't understand it. Your insistence in continually not just using the concept of 'uncaused' is starting to look like you're trying to be sneaky and dishonest. I expect next post you will not have this problem.
Try again using the terms I've provided. Nothing, something, no going from one state to another. Just non-existence, then existence.
Quoting ucarr
No, that's the definition of no restriction Ucarr. If you're saying "No restriction is a restriction," you've cancelled yourself out.
Quoting ucarr
I can and did. Your ability to comprehend it or desire not to accept it has no bearing on whether its a logical conclusion.
Quoting ucarr
No, my wants have nothing to do with the argument. I'm only noting what is logically concluded. You want it to be some other way, not me Ucarr.
Quoting ucarr
This is not a belief. Again, if you're stating an unlimited universe is a restriction, this is a contradiction.
Quoting ucarr
That's an outcome. Once I pull a jack out of a deck of cards then I have the reality that I drew a jack. That has nothing to do with the possibility of the what could have been drawn before it was drawn. Again, use the deck analogy I gave Ucarr.
Quoting ucarr
I don't know what you mean by this. Try again using the idea of 'uncaused' without trying to insert something inbetween non-existence and existence please.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Here's the quote with the pertinent statement in bold; click on your name at the bottom and it will take you to your post from two days ago.
Quoting Philosophim
You don't use the words "scope of existence," but "existence encapsulates everything that is" means the same thing. Furthermore, when you say "My note is that if you increase the scope of causality to its limit, there is no outside cause that creates existence, as whatever exists is part of existence." you specifically relate the lesser scope of causality to the greater scope of existence.
Moreover, I've never mis-represented you because I've always quoted what you wrote verbatim.
Quoting Philosophim
Whenever I make reference to something I claim you said either explicitly or implicitly, I always quote your words verbatim, as I've done here.
And we would still ask, "What caused that to exist?" The answer is always the same in the end of the causal chain.
Quoting JuanZu
An interesting point. But we can imagine a universe consisting of one simple thing. That would exist correct?
Ok, so you admit that I don't use the phrase "Scope of existence". I also cannot read your mind and noted, "I don't know what you mean by 'scope of existence'. Now I know. Why not just say, "Existence encapsulates everything that is"? It makes your point clear and I know what you're talking about.
Quoting ucarr
I specifically relate the scope of causality to all of existence. There is no, 'lesser or greater' scope. That's you being dishonest with a phrase of your own invention to create a straw man in a poor attempt to make this a set theory argument. Got ya. Be honest with me and stop playing games Ucarr.
Quoting ucarr
You have quoted me and stated I used the phrase "Scope of existence" when i did not. Now you're just flat out lying. I don't mind an honest conversation Ucarr, but you're using underhanded tactics. That's only used by people who have no legitimate argument. Stop with the games and trying to twist what you want in what I'm stating. I can only conclude at this point that if you take what I say at face value, you have no actual counter. Why do all this otherwise?
If it is a causal chain we cannot assume that it is one thing that existed alone and suddenly gave birth to a second thing. The causal relation as a relation requires at least two or more. Causality does not consist in creating things out of nothing (one thing creating a second thing out of nothing) but in creating things out of other various things (plural). That is why the idea of a first cause is so problematic.
Perhaps the problem is to understand causality in a linear and horizontal way and not in a vertical way in the order of coexistence.
Quoting Philosophim
Yes, it can be said that it is possible that only one thing exists. But then we could no longer speak of causal relationships, don't you think?
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Since you supply only phrases without context, I think your evidence is no less vague than that you ascribe to my words.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Consider: a) 2+2=4; b) 4. With a) we have an equation that moves from the expression 2+2 to its evaluation which is 4. This is a change that involves motion along the number line from 2 through twice 2 to 4. With b) we have 4 alone. No change is shown. If we stay at 4, all we can do is repeat 4 over and over.
When you say "There was nothing, then something." and then follow with "That's it. No inbetween. No cause. No non-existence going, "Whelp, time to start existing!" you make a declaration that you haven't evaluated. It's unsupported and is therefore unlike the evaluation of the expression 2+2 which, paired with = 4 creates an equation that evaluates the expression 2+2 down to one number 4.
When you declare, 4 and then, when challenged to give an expression paired with an equation that evaluates to 4, you double down and repeat, 4! You refuse to elaborate a chain of reasoning that concludes with 4.
Your repetition 4, 4, 4 is an example of your practicing circular reasoning that masquerades as fundamental truth. Given 2+2=4, a chain of reasoning that reaches a conclusion of 4, which can be shown as a valid movement along the number line, allows the writer of the equation, when asked what the conclusion is, to say 4. If asked repeatedly, the writer of the equation can do like you and repeat, 4,4,4 . This person has established a fundamental truth, the evaluation of the equation to 4. The difference between this person and you is that theyve done to work of evaluating the expression 2+2 to the conclusion =4. You have not done the work of evaluating by a chain of reasoning to the conclusion, "There was nothing, then something." All you have is what you believe to be a conclusion to a fundamental truth without the work of evaluating to it via a chain of reasoning. When challenged to produce your chain of reasoning to your conclusion, you double-down and repeat the conclusion.
You are confusing the circularity of repeating an unproven conclusion with the justifiable repetition of a conclusion from a chain of reasoning to a fundamental truth. Fundamental truths can only be repeated because they can't be reduced any further. You are promoting your circular reasoning: "There was nothing, then something." and then follow with "That's it. No inbetween. No cause. No non-existence going, "Whelp, time to start existing!" by masquerading it as fundamental truth. All your circular reasoning is saying is, "There was nothing, then something." Ask me again, and I'll tell you the same.
Maybe. The problem is we're talking about universal origins, and we're talking about theory, not fact. For all we know its possible that there is something that formed that then formed something else.
Quoting JuanZu
Understood, and again, I think this is a good thing to think about. One of the conclusions about my point here is that anything can exist at anytime without prior cause. So why would it only be one thing that is uncaused? Why would it be 1 billion things? Why not one thing, then another thing 1 second later? What if there are still uncaused things happening throughout the universe as we speak? My point in all of this is that the argument does not conclude it has to be only one thing.
Quoting JuanZu
I believe we have to consider it in all ways, thus expanding the scope out to everything.
Quoting JuanZu
At that point we would be looking at something that is uncaused and what that would entail.
They have been demonstrated, but not scientifically. I don't know why one would expect it to be proven scientifically when it is presupposed for science to work in the first place.
If you really don't believe we know what truth is, then you can't do science properly; because it depends on investigating the truth.
The context is the OP. If there is something I am saying that is unclear, please ask me to clarify as I've attempted to.
Quoting ucarr
The evaluation is the OP. Its the only logical conclusion.
Quoting ucarr
The argument supports it. You are having trouble imagining it or understanding it because you have never experienced it before. But that's not an argument against its logic. You are using an incorrect metaphor. Something uncaused it not 2+2=4. Its 1. A whole integer without parts. You keep inserting causality where something is uncaused. If you can show that the logic of the OP cannot lead to something uncaused, feel free to present that argument. But all you're presenting here is essentially, "I don't like it or have experience with it, therefore it just can't be." That's not an argument, that's just a protestation.
Quoting ucarr
No Ucarr. You and I both know I reasoned to it. And you're avoiding that argument entirely because you can't counter it. That's why you keep trying to make these outside argument instead of addressing the argument directly. Ucarr, lets say something existed forever. What caused it? Nothing right? Its not that an uncaused existence is beyond your understanding. Its that you've never considered the logical consequence of what the existence of even one uncaused thing means. That's the new territory. And like new territory people are either fascinated by it or react against it. You're still in 'react' mode which is fine. But I'm trying to get you to get to the 'fascinated' part which is quite frankly much more fun. :)
Quoting ucarr
No, I have the argument in the OP. Feel free to point out where you think it fails logically. Your addition example is not addressing something uncaused, but involved causality. Use the vocabulary I've provided, use the examples I've provided and address the argument. Otherwise all you've stated is an expression that you don't like it which is not enough to counter the argument.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
So how is there a change of state from nothing to the physics of the universe?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Since we agree non-existence and existence are closed and cannot interact, how is there a change of state not from non-existence to the physics of the universe and not from causation but from... what? to the physics of the universe?
You're describing a change of state, so you're describing something that happened, a change. What is it that served the function of making the change of state from nothing to the physics of the universe?
Consider: Joe was thirsty. Joe ran a glass of water from the tap and drank it. Joe quenched his thirst.
This example shows a change of state of Joe from dehydration to hydration. What served the function of making the change of state in Joe from dehydration to hydration? Joe himself served the function of making the change of state in Joe.
It's not enough for the requirements of either science or philosophy to say, "Joe was thirsty, then he wasn't." In both disciplines, you must reason from the expression of an initial state to a final and different state by way of a chain of reasoning that logically evaluates from the initial state to the final state. If you merely say, "Joe was thirsty, then he wasn't." you're jumping from an initial state to a final state without elaborating the equation of reasoning that bridges together the two states.
If you jump to a conclusion without reasoning to it, and then, when queried about the "how" and the "why" of the conclusion, you double-down and repeat the conclusion as if its self-evident truth needing no further explanation, then your repetition of the conclusion is circular reasoning ( "Why is it true?" "It's true because I say it's true." "Why is it true?" "It's true because...") masquerading as fundamental truth.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Given that "Existence has no outside cause for its being." then, apart from existence, there is only non-existence as nothing extant stands outside of the set of existence, viz., nothing stands outside of the universe. Non-existence is so self-effacing it cannot even be itself. We cannot directly speak of non-existence. We can only speak at it through the faulty reification of language.
When you say, "If something is not caused... where are the rules? Where are the restrictions?" you imply an absence of restrictions equals unlimited possibility. From here you reason to our universe to which you attribute unlimited possibilities including causeless existence.
The mind struggles to reach a sense of the absolute negation of non-existence because the mind exists totally immersed within existence, and thus all of its conceptions are existing things, including non-existence. If the universe is closed and internally self-sufficient, then its identity is totally bound to what it is and this is the absolute restriction of identity, as in A?A. The universe posited within the isolation with which you enclose it cannot be anything possible; it can only be what it is.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
As caused is to causation, so uncaused is to uncausation. From logic we know it's legitimate to conceptualize the negation of any existing thing, including abstract concepts. From this reasoning we see that if caused affords causation, the uncaused affords uncausation. Continuing in this line of reasoning, if uncaused stands outside the causal universe, then likewise uncausation stands outside the causal universe.
If non-existence is not a thing, then nothing likewise is not a thing. We know language reifies things lacking the hard boundaries of a steel girder.
Its uncaused. So there is nothing that causes it to change.
Quoting ucarr
This is the part I get you're having trouble with. Let me translate your question. "You say there is nothing that causes it, but what causes it to appear?" Do you see the problem? There is nothing that causes it to appear. There is no cause.
Quoting ucarr
Again, you're saying, "What caused the uncaused existence?" Nothing Ucarr. There is nothing that caused the state change.
Quoting ucarr
Sure, you're describing causal interactions. I'm not denying those exist. But we reach a point in which there is no causality. You keep trying to apply causality to something that is not caused. That doesn't work. If it is logical that something in the chain of causality is uncaused, then we have to logically consider it as it is, not like it is 'some other cause'.
Quoting ucarr
No, I'm not jumping to a conclusion without reason. You have not stated my reasoning or conclusion is false, you are just having a hard time wrapping your head around the notion of something that is uncaused. I'm trying to show you what it means for something to be uncaused. You have not criticized it, but been unable to accept the idea of it and keep trying to put causality back in. That's all I'm noting. If you wish to criticize the logic that leads to my conclusion, or criticize my logic from what I conclude if something is uncaused, feel free to address it. But that's not what I've seen so far. I've simply seen your disbelief or insistance that there has to be some type of 'cause' in there. There isn't. That's what uncaused means.
Quoting ucarr
Sure.
Quoting ucarr
No, I think we can speak to the concept pretty easily. You're being a little artsy here which I get, but I'm not interested in poetic language. Nothingness is the absence of somethingness.
Quoting ucarr
To clarify, the causeless existence is what allows those unlimited possibilities, not the other way around. Further, this is only if we don't know the origin. Obviously what happens is what happens. Just like I can pull a jack from a deck of cards and measure that probability, the possibilities are irrelevant once we draw that card and see what it is.
Quoting ucarr
Correct. We have no disagreement on this. It is the card which was drawn.
Quoting ucarr
Your example is mistaken though. The negation of uncaused is caused. Not 'uncausation'. 'Causation' is the noun describing the act of causality, so 'uncausation' would be a noun describing the act of uncausality. I've never introduced the term 'uncausality' so I'm not sure that it exists.
Quoting ucarr
No, this is a misuse of the language concepts. That's like saying, "If no is the negation of yes, then no stands outside of the state of yes and no questions." Obviously when we talk about the causal universe we're talking about what is both caused and uncaused.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
A definition defines a restriction, viz., the meaning of the word it defines. Consider: when no restrictions is applied to the writing of the dictionary, that restricts the writer of the dictionary from restricting certain meanings to certain words, and thus each of the words in the dictionary can have all of the meanings in the dictionary.
Discipline restricts behavior. The concept of good and bad depends upon discipline. Consider: when no restrictions is applied to the behavior of children, adults are restricted from disciplining children for bad behavior.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Is this an argument for someone claiming truthfully you're one thousand feet tall?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
If a universe is varied by design, why is that not a restriction blocking it from being unvaried?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
The logical possibility is an entailment that exists within your mind.
What card you pull from a deck is directly related to what cards are in the deck you pull from. The cards in that deck add up to a number; each suit of each card adds up to a number, and those numbers determine mathematically the probability of each card being pulled.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Can you cite some real things that are impossible?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
You're saying the scope of causality is equal to the scope of existence? If so, how is it that causation is contained within existence? Are you thinking not only is causation contained within existence, but also existence is contained within causation? If so, do you agree that universe=causation?
Consider your dialogue with Bob Ross.
Quoting Bob Ross
Quoting Philosophim
Here's a replay of how we started examining your claim existence encapsulates everything that is."
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Use the link below to return to the post. I want you to quote me when you think I'm being deceptive.
Ok, and the word 'unrestricted' is defined as having no restrictions. This is a silly argument that I'm not going to spend any more time on.
Quoting ucarr
No, I'm not 1000 feet tall nor claiming that. I don't understand what this example is supposed to point out.
Quoting ucarr
1. There is no design.
2. I said there was unlimited potential in regards to the origin of the universe.
3. The potential of what could have been is not the same as what actually happens. IE, I draw an ace from a deck of cards it does not negate the probability that I had a 4/52 chance of drawing a jack.
Quoting ucarr
No, its a logical possibility that is argued for that does not require my specific mind. This is not an argument Ucarr.
Quoting ucarr
Correct. My point is there are infinite cards of infinite varieties.Quoting ucarr
A question does not clarify your initial statement. Clarify your initial statement first and I will answer this question.
Quoting ucarr
No. We've been over this. I don't use the term scope of existence. Use the vocabulary and ideas that I use or you're not addressing the argument.
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
"Scope of existence" equals "existence encapsulates everything that is."
"Plays within The universe" equals "Occurs within the universe."
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
With these two statements you say the universe is caused by what it is and nothing else. Is your premise that the universe has no cause outside of itself? Do you think this statement is equivalent to saying the universe is uncaused?
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
Since non-existence precludes all that exists, how can there be possibilities within the mind of a thinker?
Quoting Philosophim
Since non-existence precludes all that exists, how can there be anything that is?
Quoting Philosophim
Since non-existence precludes all that exists, how can there be an existence that supports the fact that what exists exists?
Quoting Philosophim
Since non-existence precludes all that exists, how can there be a God who exists as God?
If my questions are pertinent to your conclusion, then an eternal universe undecidable as to causation seems to me favored over a universe that began without an external cause. An eternal universe appears to avoid the problematical question of common ground between non-existence and existence.
Is "It simply was not, then it was." a continuity? Given non-existence as the initial state, there was no time so there's no temporal continuity from non-existence to existence. Is it an axiomatic statement about the hard fact of an eternal universe? Not quite because it seems to assume the presence of time in both the initial state and the final state. Eternal universe coupled with eternal time might be an axiomatic assumption that grounds physics.
Quoting Philosophim
Your theory embraces an eternal universe. Carl Sagan speaking in a video might be evidence your reasoning to an eternal universe does not open "a new venue of exploration for Ontology."
You can see the video by using the link below.
Sagan_ Eternal Universe
Then just use the meaning and don't introduce new terms. "Scope" as you defined there is not the same as 'scope' as I defined it with causality. You putting that word in there is to implicitly make it the same when it is not. It only decreases the clarity of the conversation, so do not use it when the definition works fine.
Quoting ucarr
No, it is not caused. It is uncaused. Which is what I stated in the quote. You keep insisting on putting 'cause' in where I say 'uncaused'. Anytime you do this its going to be immediately dismissed going forward as I have pointed this out patiently enough.
Quoting ucarr
What does non-existence have to do with the possibilities a mind can think of? Are you again trying to imply that non-existence causes something, or that something like possibility resides in non-existence? Because none of those are true.
Quoting ucarr
Yep, you're doing it again. You're linking nonexistence as somehow causally aligned with existence. Its not. This question doesn't make any sense.
Quoting ucarr
They are not pertinent, and while an eternal universe is possible, equally so a finite universe. In both cases Ucarr, they are uncaused. So if you agree that an eternal universe is possible, then you are holding onto an origin that is uncaused.
Quoting ucarr
Incorrect. That's just a category to move the ball away from your discomfort. What caused that external universe? The same causality chain and answer still apply.
Quoting ucarr
Correct. If there is nothing, then something, there was no time, now there is time. Time is not a substance, it is a result of recognizing change. To recognize change, there must be a comparison to a previous state. If there is no previous state, that is essentially the zero position, or origin, in regards to time.
Quoting ucarr
If there is an eternal universe and state has changed over that universe's existence, then time has also existed eternally. This is one possibility.
Quoting ucarr
As only one of infinite possibilities. It is equally likely that it is a finite universe, and equally likely that things that are uncaused can still happen today. That's a bit of a jump from Sagan.
Quoting Bob Ross
The nature of truth has not been definitively demonstrated if what you mean by 'demonstrated' involves any kind of thesis. There are several conceptions of truth for example and there are problems with the JTB notion of knowledge.
I haven't said we don't know what truth is, just that we cannot give a definitive account of it. The Tarski sentence is just a formulation of the common understanding that truth is what accords with actuality. But then the question as to what actuality is can be asked and so on it goes. If you keep asking for the definitions of things you will go around in circles.
We can recognize what is true and what is not when it comes to direct statements about what is observed and we also know what is true by definition, and we can do science, and it is obvious that it works, and that it has come to form a vast body of conceptually coherent knowledge. We don't need more than that.
We cannot determine with certainty whether scientific theories are true...it is always possible that any theory will be superceded or improved upon. We count a theory as true provisionally if what it predicts is consistently observed to obtain.
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
Since you describe a change of state from non-existence to existence, how do you evaluate from the initial state to the final state?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Your translation of my question is wrong. You say of state 1 "It simply was not..." You say of state 2 "then it was." I say explicitly "not from non-existence to the physics of the universe" - so I'm lining out something from nothing - and I say explicitly "not from causation..." - so I'm lining out causation - and finally I'm asking how do you evaluate from state 1 to state 2?
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Your translation of my question is wrong. You start with your first clause "It simply was..." You follow with your second clause "then it was not." The two clauses are not identical, so there is a change from first clause to second clause. If the change is due to random chance, then your statement has no chain of reasoning giving it philosophical force and meaning. If your statement is not a conclusion from a chain of reasoning, then it's just an observation of what might've happened.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
In the peer reviews of theories such as we have here at TPF, "But we reach a point in which there is no causality." is a proposition that needs to be a conclusion arrived at by way of a correct evaluation of a chain of reasoning. Merely repeating Quoting Philosophim across multiple threads does not embody a valid evaluation.
I don't understand the question. There was nothing, then something. There's nothing to evaluate besides the fact there was nothing prior.
Quoting ucarr
My apologies if I misunderstood. My prior answer should answer this one as well.
Quoting ucarr
As long as you understand there is nothing inbetween that causes the change, we're on the same page. Its not random chance, as there would have to be something that is going on that's random right? Its uncaused. We evaluate that an uncaused event is 'true randomness' as in completely unpredictable. If something ceased to exist without cause, then there is no reason it ceased to exist besides the fact it does not anymore. That is the only reasonable way to describe something that ceases to exist without cause that I can see.
Quoting ucarr
Ucarr, that's the entire argument of the OP. Evaluate the argument of the OP and demonstrate why my reasoning is incorrect. I'm not just asserting this, its the conclusion of the full argument.
I claim there cannot be only one thing, in a causal context. Ex nihilo nihil fit. Causality presuposses relations n+1, If we want to maintain a principle of reason we cannot appeal to things created out of nothing.
From my point of view the causality of the universe is closed in its structure, since we cannot think of one thing in the absence of any causal relation with another thing, nor of things created out of nothing. Therefore causality has no end or start.
Quoting Philosophim
To me that is irrational. How is it possible for one thing to completely form another thing out of nothing?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
You say "No, I'm not jumping to a conclusion without reason." Here's an example of it.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
This quote shows you doubling down on unsupported declarations. You might argue that you're demonstrating the logic of a universe uncaused by anything outside of it. Critical to this demonstration by a chain of reasoning is the work of establishing logically the reality and efficacy of uncaused as an adjective attached to universe.
Your readers ask you, Whats the logic of an uncaused universe? Frequently you respond with
Quoting Philosophim
Your best statement about the rational promise of your theory appears in the OP as follows: Quoting Philosophim
You say "You have not stated my reasoning or conclusion is false..." Regarding
Quoting Philosophim
For quite some time we've been debating my interpretation of your above quote as: a) unlimited possibility; b) a restriction on the nature of the universe. See below.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
If my argument is correct, then the principle of sufficient reason does not apply to the question of existential origin. It still holds other than this. Also, it is not that something is created 'out of' nothing. Its that there was nothing, then something. Or there always was. Either way, uncaused existence.
Quoting JuanZu
It ends when you get to the full scope and ask what caused it. So whether we discover an infinite regress vs a finite regress, what caused it always has the same answer at the end of the scope. "Its uncaused."
Quoting JuanZu
According to the argument I presented in the OP, its the only rational conclusion. How is it possible for anything to be at all? There is no reason, it simply is. To say, "X caused this," leaves the question of "Well what caused X?"
And where have I failed to do this? You say, "What caused it?" and I answer, "Nothing, its uncaused." You ask, "How does the shift work?" The answer is, "Its uncaused, so it simply is there." There is no inbetween Ucarr. There is no, "Understanding the process" as there is no process. There is no cause. How do you expect me to answer? "Well X causes the uncaused thing?" I have noted several times the consequences of this, and what it means logically for a universe even today.
Ucarr, you keep treating uncaused reality as if its caused. Me pointing out to you repeatedly that uncaused reality is not caused is not an assertion without logic, its basic logic. All you have to do is demonstrate why my points are wrong on this. Saying, "You assert it without logic," when you have no argument of your own does nothing.
Quoting ucarr
We have not been debating anything. You've stated a clear contradiction, I've called it out, and you have not presented a coherent argument that indicates its not a contradiction.
Maybe its time to admit I have a point? You're trying so hard to avoid the conclusion and argument I present without addressing the conclusion and argument itself. You seem more personally against the idea of an uncaused reality then you have a logical argument against it, and this line of argumentation will go no where.
I think we agree on this, given the structural closure of causality. That is what I have referred to with these two restrictions:
1. Ex nihilo nihil fit
2. Causality implies only relations between two or more things.
There has always been causality.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Language, which posits things performing actions, cannot apply to non-existence because it allows no language and its concepts. Our minds, likewise, stand apart from non-existence because it allows no concepts aimed at describing and comprehending it. We agree that non-existence and existence cannot intersect; I'm elaborating some details of what their non-intersection implies.
Quoting Philosophim
I acknowledge that your un-causation is a symmetry with causation in that it is the not-doing of causation, and thus the net balance to zero is maintained. The not-doing of un-causation allows unlimited possibilities and therefore, we see logically that un-causation within non-existence devoid of causation is equivalent to no restrictions and unlimited possibility. Looking from the opposite direction, in symmetry with un-causation we see that where there is the doing of causation, there is restriction based upon the attributes of the things caused. For example, within our universe there is entropy such that operational systems go forward toward increasing disorder; things gradually fall apart over time. This is a restriction such that we don't see randomly increasing order. The dropped egg shatters into disordered parts; the shattered egg doesn't reverse direction and reassemble itself. Causation produces contingent things; in our world of contingent things with specific attributes, restrictions abound.
What's pertinent to our debate is the fact that the unlimited possibilities of un-causation produces no actuation of those possibilities as real, operational things. Causation does that. The critical question posed to your theory is how causation enters the chain of events extending from non-existence to a causal universe filled with contingent things.
Causation of a causal universe filled with contingent things is problematic because causation logically prior to the universe isn't an origin of existence. It leaves us stuck in the bog of infinite regress.
Enclosing causation within the universe does nothing to solve the problem because un-causation logically prior to the universe has no power to actualize possibilities. "Uncaused" universe is just a word game that paints over the truth of "Uncaused" universe, another something-from-nothing argument. Evidence this is true is your repetition of your mantra:
Quoting Philosophim
Repeatedly pulling a card from a deck over a large number of times with the jack appearing at a frequency predicted by the mathematically calculated probability distribution is a confirmation of the logic and the accuracy of the calculation. A confirmation of an evaluation to a calculated result is not irrelevant to the probabilities. It is fundamental to the probabilities.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
I'm not talking about the negation of un-caused. Since I'm defending the viability of uncaused, it should be clear I'm talking about the negation of caused, viz., uncaused.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Your argument is impertinent to the example of a chain of reasoning. Consider: A=addition; S=subtraction: ¬(A ? S) ? ¬A ? ¬S. The negation (¬) is distributive with respect to (A ? S). We show this by placing it outside of the parentheses. We see that ¬ causes both un-addition and un-subtraction. Therefore, saying "...if uncaused stands outside the causal universe, then likewise un-causation stands outside the causal universe." nonetheless keeps un-causation in application to both caused and uncaused.
This is an essential acknowledgment. :up:
Quoting Philosophim
I like to think of it in terms of cycles, with smaller (shorter) harmonic cycles of cause and effect nested within. The resonant cycle for a given layer of emergence determines its time unit and rate of process or progression. Things happen faster at smaller scales than they do at larger ones.
Quoting Philosophim
This is another essential acknowledgment. :up:
Quoting Philosophim
This is my first contention from your OP. I would restate it like this:
"There is a logical limitation as to the form of that which could have been, or can be, but there is no limitation to the number of forms that can be via emergence."
I believe that there is an initial pattern or rule of maximal simplicity or minimal complexity that serves as the seed from which the universe extends. This initial primordial rule is the logic and reason for the form our universe takes. It determines what is true (real) and what is false (not real). Notice that you are using logic in your analysis to determine what does or doesn't happen in the universe. Why would the universe follow these logical rules if they were not there to begin with? What i am essentially saying is that reason (logic) is the basis for the universe in any form it takes. Reason and logic are held within the infinitesimal expanse (0 dimensional space, or latent space) of primordial time.
This primordial time had no cause, as it is the reason for cause. Time is the infinite energy by which logic acts upon the universe. Logic is a comparator function that takes what is and processes what will be. The initial comparison is upon itself. A vast infinite emptiness in all directions gives us the shape of a sphere, and this is why all fundamental particles are spherical in nature. There is no other information at this point from which to draw from to inform the shape of particles. To keep it simple, i won't get into how or why these particles have the energy they have, except to say that it comes from time itself.
Quoting Philosophim
The universe must form because time does not stop and always acts. The nature of time or energy is that it must move, it must flow with no exceptions. Time (energy) is the unstoppable force, and if it finds it cannot move, it then spawns spatial dimensions to accommodate the necessary forced movement (progression, process). Each progressive spatial dimension does not form or come into existence until it is necessary, and they all extend from the temporal dimension, which is contained in the primordial 0-dimensional point throughout all of space. Time is not the 4th dimension; it is the 0th dimension.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Consider: You go to a park to play baseball. A big sign posted says "No Restrictions in This Park." You go to the office of the administrator with a request. You say to the administrator "Can we restrict baseball players from wearing metal cleats? They cause puncture wounds." In response, the administrator points to a sign in his office that says "No Restrictions in The Park." He then says, "Sorry, we can't implement your restriction because in this park the rule is no restrictions. Our rule of No restrictions restricts us from restricting shoes to ones without cleats."
Do you follow this chain of reasoning?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting ucarr
I argued that description of a thing limits that thing to the specification of what it is. If someone describes you as being human, we know, without seeing you in person, that you're not one thousand feet tall because we know humans never attain to that height. This demonstrates that by describing you as being human, we apply limits to what your height can be. This, therefore, is a limit to what you are based upon the description of you.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
It's possible for no-design to be a design if a person intentionally allows a thing to be configured randomly. It would be a case of design by no-design.
If there's unlimited potential, then that too can be construed as a design in the sense of an unlimited number of possible limits upon what universe emerges. If, say, a much-varied universe emerges, then that's a block of the emergence of a monotonous, unvaried universe. Since the enormous variation was a possible pre-condition that blocked monotony, then the pre-condition designed the much-varied universe in the sense of ultimately determining what universe emerged before-handedly.
Drawing an ace instead of a jack examples what happens based upon the total number of cards in the deck and the total number of each type of card.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Someone's mind is required for the logical possibility to exist.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting ucarr
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
The answer to my question clarifies my initial statement. Do you believe there exist real things that are impossible? One conceivable example is a sign that shows a circular triangle. It expresses circular triangulation. Can you draw this sign and directly present it to me here?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Do you believe the scope of causality equals existence that encapsulates everything that is?
Quoting punos
By saying "there is no limitation to the number of forms that can be via emergence." are you making reference to abstract thought?
Quoting punos
These are boundaries of a physical system in its initial state?
Quoting punos
These rules are prescriptive restrictions on what the universe can be?
Quoting punos
Reason and logic are mental abstractions tied to (and emergent from) physical antecedants?
Quoting punos
Passing time is the engine of causation? Is there a form of passing time both eternal and non-relative?
Quoting punos
Time-authored energy is subject to the symmetries and their conservation laws?
Quoting punos
Time appears to be the centerpiece of your cosmology. The universe reduces to time passing eternally without interruption? If energy is the ability to move, then time supports a multiplex with mass-energy-motion-space as its components?
Time is fundamental and thus unapproachable by analysis?
Yes, and no. If you take the human perspective then no it would appear as solid and real, but if one takes the perspective of the universe, to the universe it appears as abstractions of itself.
Quoting ucarr
No, i do not believe there are boundaries at the initial state except for logical boundaries.
Quoting ucarr
Yes. If it could have been anything, or can be anything at any time then we will have chaos, and no possibility of coherence.
Quoting ucarr
I have a distinction between passive, and active logic. Passive logic is what we humans do, but the universe does active logic. It's a reversal of polarity in the process of logic. The universe processes logic forward onto itself (creating what is true and real), and people process logic from the universe onto themselves to ascertain the truth of the universe or what is real.
The antecedents are qualities or properties from which physicality emerges.
Quoting ucarr
Correct, passing time is the engine of causation.
And yes, there is primordial time which is non-entropic time absent of space, and matter. Once extended space and matter come into the picture the arrow of time is formed through entropic (relative) processes. So relative time emerges from non-relative time i guess you can say.
Quoting ucarr
Very much so, yes.
Quoting ucarr
Yes it must be so.
Quoting ucarr
Not sure how to answer this one, can you restate the question?
Quoting ucarr
Not necessarily. It can by analyzed by the pure logic of its own being. If it is its own reason, then by that reason we can know it, but we have to learn how to apply the logic correctly in the right order. This will be hard to accept by a pure materialist/empiricist.
Thank you for your questions. They were good questions. :smile:
Language can also capture concepts and negations. This is similar to people being against the idea of the number 0 when it was first introduced. Are you going to argue that the number 0 isn't a viable part of the language of math?
Quoting ucarr
Fantastic analysis, I agree.
Quoting ucarr
Ok, I think I see more clearly what you're asking now. Once a an existence 'is' then it is defined by what it is and how it interacts with other things or 'itself' if such a thing is possible. What happens when there is a 'touch' between this and some other 'that' is the rule of that existence. If something has causality then during that 'touch' or interaction, the forces and reaction imparted by and to it make an outcome.
Once a thing is existent, it is therefore within the realm of causality. Does this answer your point?
Quoting ucarr
What you're doing is the same mistake I keep pointing out. "Has not power to actualize..." You're viewing 'uncausation' as a cause again. It doesn't actualize anything Ucarr. "It" is not a 'thing'. Its a logical assertation that X cannot be caused by anything. That's it. It simply is, no cause for what it is. And Ucarr, you already believe this. Infinite universe? Uncaused. God? Uncaused. Its not like I'm putting forth a foreign concept. You cannot talk about any origin without eventually asking, "What caused that?" and having to mumble together some type of 'eternal outside universe' argument that is just an avoiding of saying what we all know: "Its uncaused".
Its avoided because implicitly that leads to there being no 'necessary' origin. And a few people really hate that, I get it. But our dislike of the concept alone is not enough to argue logically against it. We all comprehend it Ucarr. We all get it. Let not pretend we don't.
Quoting ucarr
Nope. And you know this. It it not, "Something from nothing." Its simply, "Logically, there has to be something that's uncaused". That's it. You know this is right.
Quoting ucarr
But we don't have to confirm because its a thought experiment where we've set all the parameters ourself. We know the cards, and we know its truly random. Its an example, a tool to help pull us out of the abstract and into understanding the concept in a more concrete way.
Quoting ucarr
I never said uncaused lies outside of the universe. You're doing it again. You're thinking "uncaused is something out there'. Its not. Its a logical consequence of the full scope of causality.
Quoting ucarr
First, I'm talking about probability, not an entity. There is no thing that can decide to restrict or not restrict. You're talking about the noun restriction, then the verb restriction as applied from an entity. There is no entity in an uncaused situation. There is simply no restrictions. Yes, if an entity gets involved, then language can create situations that are impossible. As I already mentioned, while we can create the verbiage of a thing both existing in X coordinate in space and not existing in X coordinate in space at the same time, this is a contradiction. For something to not exist, it cannot exist. Therefore we can't say, "A thing that exists does not exist".
Quoting ucarr
Yes, I agree! I did not understand this the first time you were trying to communicate this, but I've also mentioned this type of concept before.
Quoting ucarr
A design is a crafted intent from a being. You can have a design that looks like it wasn't designed, but the reality is that it would be designed and thus caused by something else. Uncaused reality has no design, only caused reality.
Quoting ucarr
No, you cannot. A design is caused. We can look at the logical consequence of something existent. We can look at the logical consequences if the universe is uncaused, ie, all possible origins had equal chance of being. But the word 'design' is stricken from use because it implicitly admits a 'designer'. No designer, no design.
Quoting ucarr
Except in this case there are infinite numbers of cards of infinite varieties. Again, the example is to help you understand the idea of equal probability when there is nothing which would sway anything towards or against any one specific card being pulled.
Quoting ucarr
So a mind is required for it to be possible for a volcano to erupt when the core temperature and pressure rises? If a tree falls in the forest Ucarr, it still vibrates the air. There's no being around to sense that vibration and interpret it, but that being isn't needed for the vibration of the air's existence. Logical possibilities are simply observations and necessary conclusions given a set of premises in reality. We are necessary to interpret them into the language we use, but not necessary for what we base this on to exist.
Quoting ucarr
I hopefully answered this with my example of 'something cannot both exist and not exist at the same time". We can create impossible blends of concepts through language. I can create a rounded triangle and some people would accept that as a circular triangle through language. If you restrict the language enough to for example say, "Can you create a 2D image viewed by a sane 3D being from one particular angle and it be observed as both a legitimate definition of a triangle and a legitimate definition of a circle at the same time?" No, that's impossible. The definition of a triangle excludes the definition of a circle in the language. If your language specifically excludes some type of existence for it be identified, then that existence cannot have what the word has excluded to be that word.
Quoting ucarr
No.
Quoting punos
Correct. What is 'impossible' cannot form for example. Impossible being a the existence of both a state, and at the same time the complete negation of that state.
Quoting punos
Correct, though I would slightly recast that into, "Logic is an essential principle in any existence."
Quoting punos
Your idea of time is interesting, though for my purposes I'm not trying to assert any one thing which has to be uncaused. Still, great read and neat idea. :)
That is very kind of you, thank you. :smile:
Quoting Philosophim
Yes, that's good. I concur.
Quoting Philosophim
:smile: :up:
Proof of Eternal Time:
Time is movement/change; if there were Stillness, naught could go on.
Stillness is impossible; Time has to ever be.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting punos
Your use of "emergence" in your context here refers to the existence of material things as distinguished from the sense of "emergence" that describes attributes of a system emergent from the parts of the system acting collectively? An example of the latter sense is water emergent from the bonding of hydrogen and oxygen atoms.
Quoting punos
Quoting ucarr
Quoting punos
How is the simplicity of a physical thing logical? As a clarification of what I'm asking: when an oxygen atom bonds with a hydrogen atom, any logic pertinent to the sharing of electrons between the two atoms is an abstract thought within the mind of the observer. These are physical boundaries established by the covalent bonding in water. If we picture an initial state of matter without the physical boundaries of chemistry, how does logic go about holding atoms and molecules together?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting punos
:up:
Quoting punos
The arrow of time is future to present? Passive logic is reactive whereas active logic is creative?
Quoting punos
I see you think non-physical things antecedent to physical things.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting punos
Cause and effect form a temporal relation?
Quoting punos
Non-entropic time absent of space and matter holds tucked within itself entropic time?
Non-entropic time passes independent of activity and events?
Non-entropic time is non-physical?
Humans know of non-entropic time only indirectly through inference?
Since non-entropic time never stops, can we infer to no absolute zero temperature and no cessation of motion?
Is motion an effect of causation?
Is the logical ordinality of the universe: time, causation, and space-motion-energy-mass?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting punos
Help me examine whether your first two sentences directly above are incompatible with each other. First you say "time can be analyzed..." thereby suggesting time can be broken down into more fundamental parts.
Next you say "If it is its own reason, then by that reason we can know it..." thereby declaring time is fundamental and cannot be broken down into more fundamental parts.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Please explain how "scope" attached to "existence" differs from "scope" attached to "causality."
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
We see clearly from your first quote (bold text) that you say "the universes [sic] cause would simply be what it is, and nothing more." I then say as an interpretation of your quote "you say the universe is caused by what it is and nothing else." This is almost a verbatim quotation of your words. When I introduce "uncaused" in the next sentence, I don't put the word into your mouth. I ask you a question about whether self-caused and uncaused are the same thing. By the way, this question is tied to the important question whether or not causation is temporal. If causation is temporal, then self-causation might have a logical problem.
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
I believe possibilities exist only as abstract thoughts within the mind of a thinker. I therefore think that with non-existence there are no thinkers and thus no possibilities.
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
We've agreed that non-existence and existence cannot connect. That means they have nothing in common and are thus parallel to each other. So, regarding what is, viz., A?A, given non-existence, there can be no identity. This premise, being central to your OP, holds critical importance regarding what might be the ultimate question about the origin of the universe: How did non-existence connect with existence if they have nothing in common? An eternal universe concept avoids this question because under its auspices, there has never been non-existence, nor has there ever been an origin of existence.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
If a universe of total existence finite in time implies it possesses both a beginning and an end, and if we can suppose a state before its beginning and a state after its end, then there is the question: How did non-existence connect with existence if they have nothing in common? Likewise, there is the question: How did existence connect with non-existence if they have nothing in common? An eternal universe concept avoids this question because under its auspices, there has never been non-existence, nor has there ever been an origin of existence.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
I inadvertently mislead you due to a typo. As shown above with the strikethrough of "external" and "eternal" beside it, I show that my intention was to say "eternal" not "external."
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Time begins to exist when the universe begins to exist?
Time is non-physical in the sense of an emergent property of physical things in motion observed?
This observation is an inhabitant of the abstract thinking of the mind?
Given "It simply was not, then it was." how does the inception of universe reconcile itself with the symmetries of its physics and their conservation laws? This is a question asking how do mass, energy, motion, and space incept in the wake of non-existence. To further clarify, a physical thing needs energy to instantiate and behave. Since energy consumption is symmetrical with energy production, as an energetic universe expands, how does it consume and produce energy simultaneously toward expansion of its being? This simultaneity would be a stalemate of cancellation leaving expansion of the universe stuck at zero.
In our expanding universe, the symmetry of energy production/consumption alternates so that the total supply of energy of the universe stays balanced at zero. This means that the total supply of energy is conserved. The total volume of energy neither increases nor diminishes overall.
In the case of "It simply was not, then it was." we have energy consumption from no pre-existing supply of energy to draw from. Likewise, we have no pre-existing time passing for time to emerge from the changes of state of things.
At, say, [math]10^{-67}[/math] sec the big bang theory says no laws of physics exist. Does this mean there are no symmetries and conservation laws prohibiting expansion in the wake of non-existence?
At this early stage however, the super-heat of the big bang expansion tells us physics exists, even if not governed by the symmetries and their conservation laws. So the singularity is still a pre-existing physical entity, albeit one at the cusp of material information and math-inferred information.
Sometime later, when the behavior patterns of extant atoms begin to obey the laws of physics, the symmetries and their conservation laws are in effect. This tells us that whenever we have normal physics, we have the symmetries and their conservation laws.
There's no existence in the wake of non-existence.
That's for you to explain. I'm not using scope with existence and it doesn't make any sense to me.
Quoting ucarr
Yes that is a fair point. My intention was to convey "We know a thing exists by the fact that it does. There is no other explanation." It cannot cause its own existence as it would have to exist before it existed otherwise.
Quoting ucarr
Lets clarify this. Possibilities are logical outcomes based on a state of reality at one point compared to another point. The logical outcomes of prediction would still stand even if no human was there to realize it. Non-existence itself has no possibility, as it is literal non-existence. So we agree there. But uncaused existences are once again, not caused by anything and are not tied to non-existence. So the point is moot.
Quoting ucarr
Again, Ucarr stop using the word 'connect'. Or 'cause' or 'lead to' or 'movement' or anything else that links. There was nothing. Now there is something. There is no link. Nothing, has nothing to do with that something besides the fact it was a different state prior to that something being. I'm going to ask you very plainly this time and you answer Ucarr. What is it for something to be uncaused? Answer in your own words.
Quoting ucarr
And what caused there to always be existence? All you're doing is leading right back to my point. The only answer Ucarr is, "It just is". If you defend a universe that has always existed, then you agree 100% with me that it is uncaused by anything else. Meaning, I'm right. And if I'm right that an uncaused thing can exist...then that means something could also NOT have always existed because there is no cause why it could not have.
Quoting ucarr
No worry, thanks for clarifying.
Quoting ucarr
I would agree with this.
Quoting ucarr
The observation requires an observer. But time began whether we were there to observe it or not.
Quoting ucarr
You're asking how, which means, "What causes this?" Something uncaused doesn't have a 'how' Ucarr. It just is. Are you going to answer how something could exist eternally? Of course not.
Do you realize you just wrote that you agreed with me? Quoting ucarr
No debate. Also irrelevant to the point. That is the rule we've discovered from what currently exists. I'm not debating against the causality of what already exists. You again are saying, "Causality does this, so how does an uncaused thing do that?" Wrong question. You're applying 'how', 'cause', etc to something that has no cause. Every single question you ask me, ask yourself about your universe that's always existed.
Quoting ucarr
I don't care. The real question is, "What caused the Big Bang?" Was it caused, or uncaused?
Alright, we're starting to cover the same points again and again. Let me help focus this conversation to a point we can make progress on.
1. I want you to erase the word 'non-existence' from your vocabulary for now. "Caused and uncaused". Intentional or not, you keep writing sentences that imply non-existence has anything to do with uncaused existence. You do not need the term 'non-existence' in any way for now.
2. Stop saying 'scope of existence' as if I use it. I don't. Its not a thing. Its not ever going to be a thing. :) I will simply answer "No" if you ever reference it going forward because I've answered this enough.
3. I want you to take every criticism you make and first apply it to your idea of a universe that has always existed. Can a universe that has always existed be caused by something else Ucarr? Unless you surprise me, we both know the answer is "No". Then you can agree with me that uncaused things are possible.
You're going to have to inevitably agree with me that uncaused things are possible to hold our infinitely existing universe idea. Then we can debate the logic I've noted that if something uncaused can exist, then there would be no limits as to what could come into being uncaused, removing the idea that an eternal universe is necessarily true.
Yes, that is how i'm using the term "emergence". Emergence begins after the first physical particles appear or manifest. The first emergence is the result of fundamental particles interacting. All other consequent emergences are higher-order complex structures composed of lower emergent complex (yet simpler) structures.
The feeling of water being wet is an abstraction in our own minds about what our nervous system detects regarding the structure and ongoing interactions of water molecules or any liquid state of matter.
Quoting ucarr
Yes, that is a product of the passive form of logic that enables us to abstract in our minds what is happening in the outside world.
Quoting ucarr
By the time chemical organization emerges, there would already be many such boundaries. The first fundamental particles provide the kind of necessary boundaries i believe you're referring to. Fundamental particles have spherical boundaries, and they form atoms, atoms form molecules, and there you have chemistry.
Quoting ucarr
The arrow of time is an effect of entropy; it is an emergence and is not fundamental. Consider a container that is packed maximally tight with marbles. The entropy of the box in this state is 0. Nothing can move inside this box. For these marbles to move, they need space to move into. If you begin to increase the size of the box, the marbles inside begin to move and take on different states or locations in relation to the other marbles. This is where entropy begins. It is a spreading out or diffusion of matter (energy and information) in space. The more space, the more possible states, and thus more entropy.
The arrow of time, therefore, is the direction of order (information) itself. Going from a state of 0 entropy to a state of maximum entropy is what the forward arrow of time means. For the arrow of time to be reversed, one must make the box smaller and smaller until all the marbles are packed tight again and unable to move. This does not reverse time itself, but it does reverse the arrow of time. The increase in size of the box is akin to the breaking of symmetry, and the tightly packed non-moving marbles are akin to a state of perfect symmetry. A 0 entropy state theoretically has time, but no arrow of time.
And yes, i believe you have it right about the passive and active forms of logic.
Quoting ucarr
Well, yes, in the sense that cause comes before effect. Of course, after the initial effect, that effect then becomes the cause for the next event, and thus the chain of causality continues, governed by the logic of time.
Quoting ucarr
The potential for entropic time is, in a sense, latent in primordial or non-entropic time, but it cannot emerge until the first instance of space and matter, or energy in space.
Quoting ucarr
I would say that is correct according to my model.
Quoting ucarr
Yes, you could say that.
Quoting ucarr
Yes.
Quoting ucarr
Fundamentally, non-entropic time has no temperature, as temperature is a measure of the average energy or movement of particles in an entropic state. You need space with free particles for there to be temperature.
Quoting ucarr
Everything except time is the effect of causation.
Quoting ucarr
1. primordial/non-entropic time (causation)
2. space
3. energy-mass-motion (energy in space is caused by primordial time)
Quoting ucarr
Primordial time is active logic. The logical operation of negation, or more precisely inversion, is its main function. The temporal operation of inversion contains within it the operations of disjunction and conjunction. It's a bit tricky to explain correctly, but inversion implies two opposite states. If NOT 0, then 1; if NOT 1, then 0. This means that NOT includes within it 0 AND 1, but only 0 OR 1 at a time. This logic in time resembles a kind of trinity of NOT, AND, OR, and neither one can exist without the others thus they are one. These three operators can not be broken down any further without destroying logic itself, it is indivisible. It is the maximum simplicity, and minimal complexity needed for the universe to exist as it is.
The trinity of logic:
Because the small hydrogen atom rolls around the much larger oxygen atom, plus the hydrogen ions are freely traded back and forth.
That's why water looks and feels the way it does to us. But notice, where is wetness when you only have one water molecule? What about two molecules, or three? When does wetness begin?
Right away, with one molecule, but this is too little for our senses to register; yet, two molecules is a better answer since it has the two ways, plus then we can say "More is different!" But, still, the feeling of wetness is aways off from there.
Is a block of perfectly frozen water wet? Is water vapor wet? :chin:
Quoting punos
If we consider a container that is packed maximally tight with marbles as a near-zero entropy, do we arrive at picture of a zone wherein physics is almost at a standstill and relative time likewise?
Might such a zone have extreme asymmetry because, being near the zero state, there can be only asymptotic progression in one half of the oscillation cycle towards the storage of energy (as opposed to the consumption of extreme heat)?
I have some additional speculations: This suggests to me that such a zone at near absolute zero temperature might be prohibited by absolute time. Absolute time, if its connected to physical things, and if current theory is correct, would prohibit arrival at absolute zero temperature, as the passing of time preserves the motion of physical things. Moreover, the arrow of time would slow absolute times movement towards reversal to an asymptotic approach.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting punos
From this we see that causation is perhaps a specifically complex type of motion. Specific complex states of material systems are configured for specific functions that are their effects. Here perhaps the time element becomes tricky to track. If something is a cause, then it's implied the effect co-exists in time with its effect, otherwise a thing is just a thing, not a cause, and vice versa.
If all fundamental components of mass-energy are re-configurable across the total scope of material creation, then each thing emergent is a road map to all other things.
Regarding the relationship of time, direction, position and information, perhaps the puzzle of Heisenberg uncertainty can be made coherent and complete deeper examination of the arrow of time and the order/disorder oscillation.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting punos
You're saying entropic time is an emergent dynamism of mass-energy-motion-space? If so, does this let us envision entropic time as a higher order of mass-energy-motion-space? Since acceleration and gravitation de-accelerate passing time, history as sentient reality is configured by the bending and stretching and curving of the higher order of ductile time? Example: thought experiment of twins who separate, with one traveling near light speed for a distance in miles that is a distance traveled in time only a fraction of the same temporal distance traveled by the other twin. With near-light-speed travel,
human practice of logic might work its designs upon history.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting punos
Is it possible to configure an experiment that makes predictions about the natural world that will point a phenomenal finger at a logically necessary conclusion about the necessity of making an inference to absolute time?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
If you're equating zero with non-existence, I disagree. As you say, zero is a number.
Quoting Philosophim
With this clarified in agreement between us, we now want to examine this same process at the beginning of existence as a whole. You say of existence "It simply was not, then it was." If "not" denotes non-existence, and "was." denotes existence, then the critical question is "How this change?" When you answer, "Uncaused existence." you declare existence in a manner similar to the God of the Judeo_Christian scriptures when we hear "Let there be light."
Existence is pronounced emphatically and then we're expected to understand existence is present due to the reality signified by the pronouncement. The problem consists in the fact the reality signified by the pronouncement is the reality verified by the pronouncement. There is no start point in a space or context which is socially confirmed by the consensus of multitudes of observers.
Consider: 2+3=5. This equation is a math journey from two numbers added together to the conclusion, a sum. The journey from the natural number two three spaces to five by moving along the number line is something everyone can see for themselves. The conclusion in the sum of five has been shown publicly. Theres a world of difference between this and declaring It simply was 2, and then it was four. Theres no journey from one public space we can all see to another public space we can all see, thus making it possible for us to agree that such a journey is real and meaningful.
Also critical is establishment of the possibility of making the journey from a specified start point to a specified end point. Heres where we have a problem in our debate. We agree theres no traveling from non-existence to existence. Next you say, However, we can, after all, make the journey from non-existence to existence when I declare, "It simply was not, then it was." When queried about how you can claim to get past the barrier, you say, in effect, The barrier was overcome. Queried again at this point, you repeat The barrier was overcome. Thereafter you retort all queries with The barrier was overcome. You never show us the public and observable journey from non-existence to existence. We can logically infer the reason why you dont. You, like the rest of us, understand theres no way to show how to get past the barrier.
Science doesnt operate in this manner, nor does philosophy.
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
I don't argue against something uncaused if it's eternal. I think your argument here excludes an origin of the universe. I know you hold both as two distinct possibilities. Our difference is that I don't think eternal and uncaused can be separated. I see also that you argue for a totally free existence not limited in what it, potentially, can be.
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
You say "uncaused" is a logical consequence of the full scope of causality. You're describing something that exists prior to the universe. How can you reason from " uncaused is a logical consequence of the full scope of causality" toward "universe" if the former doesn't precede the latter?
Your unexamined assumption is that abstract reason precedes "universe." How can this be the case if "universe" contains everything?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
You say, "There is no entity in an uncaused situation." You claim all of existence in an uncaused situation.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Switzerland maintains design on countries at war by maintaining no design on countries at war. This design by no design is called neutrality.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Why can't potential be the designer in the sense of causation by logical possibility? Since impossible things can't happen, there is a specificity to possibility that can be construed as design.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
As there are only mathematical decks of cards with infinite numbers and infinite varieties, there are only abstract notions of non-existence exemplifying a void acting as open space for equal probability and the absence of bias toward particular outcomes. Alas, given non-existence, there are no situations or events conducive to outcomes.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
If we exclude panpsychism, everything happens as you describe, but it doesn't mean anything. (Thats how QM contains super-position, baffling to us, but not to QM because QM bears no meaning. In the absence of consciousness, unlimited possibility doesnt exist; Only what language cannot describe and minds cannot decipher exists.) Logical possibility does mean something, but only to a reasoning mind.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Sounds to me like you agree with
Quoting ucarr
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Causal chains are subsets of the universe?
Zero is a number, or a word that represents the concept of 'nothing'. The argument for and against zero has long been settled. Yes Ucarr, we can create words that symbolize nothing. There's no debate here.
Quoting ucarr
Ucarr, this is the same old song and dance. I've already proven that uncaused existence is the only logical answer to the the full scope of the causal chain. Asking, "How" is silly because you're thinking about causes where there is no cause. Until you can counter the argument that the end scope of the causal chain always results in something uncaused, your above point is pointless.
Quoting ucarr
Of course it can't exist prior to the universe as nothing existed. You're just flailing now and this is going nowhere.
Quoting ucarr
No I don't claim all of existence is an uncaused situation, as once something is in the universe it enters into causality. I feel like I'm saying the same things over and over again and you're either ignoring them or don't understand.
Quoting ucarr
What? This doesn't even make sense gramaticaly. If a country decides to stay neutral by design, then the people who made the neutrality approach designed it. A design has a designer period. Just accept basic premises that no one has an issue with Ucarr.
Quoting ucarr
Because a designer is a conscious being. That's the definition of the word. Again, this is flailing.
Quoting ucarr
This is just nonsense.
Quoting ucarr
No.
Alright Ucarr, I asked you to refocus the argument in three ways. You didn't bother. Instead I get a post of half written incomplete ideas, repeats of already refuted comments, and nothing new. You continued to use non-existence, you continue to try for subsets when I've said this isn't a set exercise, and I didn't see a single part where you attempted to apply your own questions to your own notion of an eternally existing universe.
The fact you ignore my first two requests means you're not even conversing anymore. Why should I bother to write answers? And if you can't bother to apply these questions to your own idea of an infinitely existing universe, you conceded that I'm right. If you want to make a post that honestly addresses the argument and includes your own idea of an infinitely existing universe that can escape the fact that it can only exist if its uncaused, we can continue. Otherwise this is over.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Scope, which means extent of, can be applied to the inclusivity of a set. Example: the universe is the set of all existing things. Why do you deem this usage nonsense?
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting ucarr
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
I now understand that when you say the universe is uncaused, your statement includes a refutation of the claim the universe causes its own existence.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Logical possibilities are potential outcomes conceived in the mind. Given non-existence, no minds, no logical possibilities as potential outcomes. No minds, no predictions of potential outcomes. We don't know what reality is like outside of our sensory perception, empirical experiences and abstract thinking. We do know, within the context of our abstract thinking, that given non-existence, no sensory perception, empirical experiences, abstract thinking and logical predictions of potential outcomes. When we're thinking about non-existence and the origin of the universe, we're inside of our minds; we're not anywhere else. We never experience anything outside of our minds, and therefore we don't know anything about reality outside of our minds. When we think about the world, all that we understand is how our minds react to the world.
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
When you make a declaration that puts "uncaused" next to "existences," as you do above, and then declare, "It simply was not, then it was." you are the entity -- a human doing abstract thinking -- getting involved with language and creating a linguistic situation that describes something existentially impossible. It's the same thing as using language to talk about a circular triangle. As you say directly below:
Quoting Philosophim
Language, you acknowledge, empowers you to say things existentially impossible, and that's what we're dealing with in our debate. You also say that by restricting language, we can show that even in language we sometimes see that what can be said is nevertheless existentially impossible by the definition of the words. This is analytic truth. "It simply was not, then it was." is what we're examining here for its connection to reality out in the world. However, we can neither experience non-existence nor the origin of existence. We therefore must use our abstractly reasoning minds to examine your statement as we try to determine if it refers to something consistent with what we can experience.
Establishment physics tells us that the singularity of the Big Bang contains the universe within its ultimately collapsed state. Everything needed to power the rapid inflation of the expanding universe: mass, energy, motion, space and time are there pre-existing the start of the rapid inflation.
Given the non-existence component included as part of your declaration "It simply was not, then it was." you must explain how it is that within the context of non-existence, where there is no mass, energy, motion, space and time, the rapid inflation of the expanding universe nonetheless gets underway. If you show us how you follow a chain of reasoning that correctly evaluates to "It simply was not, then it was." as a logically necessary conclusion, then you will have made a valid case for the acceptance of your theory as a working hypothesis that physicists can use in the doing of their work.
Repetition of your declaration takes the form of circular reasoning that declares, "It simply was not, then it was. 'because I say so.'" All you've done since the days when you were declaring that real things incept from nothing is insert an additional word: uncaused. This is a language fix that, by my evaluation, does nothing but paint over your earlier "inception from nothing." I think you're still declaring inception of universe from nothing; this goes away if you can give reason how existence of the universe is powered in the situation of non-existence.
The Big Bang is presented as fundamental truth about a universe that oscillates between a Big Bang and a Big Crunch. Since it excludes non-existence, there's no looming question about what powered the existence of the universe. With your insertion of "uncaused" I think you're trying to masquerade "inception from nothing" as fundamental truth.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Let's first look at some of your important words here. Your important words appear above in bold. Nothing and something are unrelated with one exception, they are different states. My premise is that you cannot exclude, "'...connect'. Or 'cause' or 'lead to' or 'movement' or anything else that links." when you talk about two different states.
The continuity that describes the change from an initial state to a final state lies at the core of science, math and logic in all of their varieties. For that matter, this continuity through change lies at the core of the humanities as well. Were addressing something fundamental.
Regarding The logic of a universal origin and meaning, the change from an initial state of non-existence to totality of existence is both fundamental and ultimate. If were going to approach the examination of this seminal journey from non-existence to totality of existence scientifically, then attempting to reason from non-existence to existence using logic, which non-existence prohibits, naturally leads to an evaluation that parallels Gods utterance: Let there be light. There is no logic, or anything else, that gets us out of non-existence. It should be noted that in Genesis, there is no non-existence; God is eternal. Likewise, with the Big Bang, there is no non-existence. I wonder if any of the spiritual traditions include non-existence. We must question the reality of non-existence.
Now to the question "What is it for something to be uncaused?" I think being uncaused means an existing thing pre-existing causation. As examples, I cite Genesis and The Big Bang. My thinking casts deep doubt upon the reality of non-existence and first cause.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
If we reason from the premise of eternal universe, we avoid non-existence and also we avoid origin of existence. Regarding causation, we observe an apparent logical connection between cause and effect.
Regarding first causes, we know the symmetries and their conservation laws prohibit inception from empowering agencies not pre-existent with respect to the things they empower. Matter and energy (and some other material sources) are neither created nor destroyed. From here were reason that contingent things always draw from pre-existent sources.
Our universe is eternal? We don't know, but we can make sense of some things if we assume it is.
Why the eternal universe? We don't know, but I do acknowledge an eternal universe is uncaused.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Since you observe time by watching things change, your experience of time is always linked to you. Regarding the reality of the nature of time apart from human observation, we don't know. When you talk about what time does "independent" of your observation, you're taking recourse to your abstract observation of time's effects as a thought you're experiencing in your head.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Your interpretation of my question is wrong. I'm not asking how the universe was caused. I'm asking how an uncaused universe theory can be compatible with the symmetries of physics and their conservation laws.
Regarding "How eternal universe? I can't answer.
Quoting Philosophim
I need a clarification, unless it's another reference to eternal universe being uncaused, something which I acknowledge as being true.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Your uncaused universe, if it isn't eternal, participates in a couplet expressing a change of state from non-existence to existence. Since your uncaused universe makes the change of state happen in relation to non-existence, the question arises how does it power up as existence into the context of non-existence? It cannot draw from non-existent mass, energy, motion, space and time, and you've already refuted self-causation. The problem of your uncaused universe is that it can't power up in the absence of necessary prior conditions for its existence.
Quoting Philosophim
You know you have a problem with universe incepting from nothing. You try to solve this problem by moving to uncaused universe. When examination of uncaused universe tries to do its work, the result is always "uncaused." The circularity of identity -- U?U -- forestalls examination and analysis of uncaused universe because identity, beyond acknowledgement to the effect of "It is what it is."
Your maneuvering around the circularity of identity is an extreme version of fine tuning a theory to explain why its parameters have precisely the rules they return: unexplainable (beyond "It is what it is." )
These parameters of unexplainable have no known mechanism for explaining why a dynamic material universe with respect to mass, energy, motion, space and time is unexplainable regarding why these resources are not necessary pre-conditions for the existence of the dynamic material universe.
Quoting Philosophim
Why don't you re-write, "It simply was not, then it was." so that it doesn't imply non-existence prior to existence? My responses to your argument key off of this statement. Wait a minute. When you're talking about the beginning of the totality of existence, you can't do that without implying non-existence before existence, can you?
Quoting Philosophim
We agree that the correct language is: Quoting Philosophim.
Quoting Philosophim
I acknowledge uncaused existence with the stipulation that it always be paired with eternal existence. This is the crux of our disagreement. We agree on uncaused eternal universe. We disagree on uncaused non-eternal universe.
You could say that, but remember the box example is an analogy that breaks down after a certain point. The zone you would be referring to would be a 0-dimensional point. You can call it a space with no place to move. The packed box is like this point.
Now, i need to say that this situation never really happened. It is a conceptual device to capture the logic. Since primordial time is timeless and has always been, some form of "physical" universe has always existed.
Quoting ucarr
If i understand your question correctly, let me put it like this: You can picture this primordial point with some kind of unstoppable force (continuity) running through it like a river. It's a kind of energy that is non-spatial (temporal). This "river" deposits energy (water) into the point. The point has a spatial limit of one object. The temporal energy converts to spatial energy at this point until a natural limit is reached. At this moment, because the temporal energy flow through this point continues and is unstoppable, the object that had been formed is forced out. This is the moment in which the effects of breaking symmetry appear. The forcing out of this object takes the pattern of two anti-object pairs extruded at 180 degrees from each other. This event formed the 1st dimension and can accommodate more objects with a higher object density limit. Every point in this 1-dimensional space is an exact functional replica of the original point space, with the same temporal energy flowing through each one.
So absolute zero temperature in the way you are describing has never been the case, ever. Also, absolute primordial time is not defined by spatial motion. It is better defined as temporal motion, which can appear as stationary and not moving. This temporal motion can be visualized as a kind of spin: a spherical object spinning inside a 0-dimensional point. It can move but only as rotation, not linearly. As soon as the object moves linearly in relation to another object, it breaks into the 1st dimension.
Quoting ucarr
Yes, you are right, but this is what happens with already existing things. It's a little different at the most fundamental level, where time's flow through space causes the quantum foam of virtual particles. These virtual particles can then go on to form more complex kinds of cause and effects, determined by their specific evolved structures.
Quoting ucarr
I'm not certain i understand what you mean by a cause co-exists with its effect in time. Can you clarify?
Quoting ucarr
Sounds about right.
Quoting ucarr
I wouldn't call it a higher order of mass-energy-motion, but there are emergent forms of space which are different from the regular spatial dimensions. Every emergent level is an emergent space in which only certain things can exist. This is what i mean by emergent space. Cyberspace is an example; biological space is another. A planet is a kind of emergent space on which only certain things can exist and develop. What changes mostly on the road to emergence is patterns of matter (information).
Quoting ucarr
Please elaborate.
Quoting ucarr
I think that what humans usually call time is just relative time, and relative time can be distorted by the speed of light, gravity, and our nervous systems. Things happen at absolute times, and then relative time distorts and modifies our perception of it. I don't really think an experiment will show us anything different. We will always see the relative effect of absolute time only. The only thing that can penetrate these relative effects and reach through to the other side of the relative veil is the use of pure reason and logic together with what we already know. Consider how Neptune was discovered.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Zero can be considered a placeholder or a number. Mathematicians agree zero is a counting number, a whole number, and an integer.
Zero is a good way to demonstrate the difference between an neutral set and an empty set. Zero can be a member of a set, so {0} can be called a neutral set (zero is neither positive nor negative). The null set is { }. {0} ? { }. Clearly, zero as a placeholder does not represent nothing.
Regarding zero as a placeholder, If you worked a voluntary shift and then your employer surprised you and said he would pay you for your work after all, wouldn't that be a good thing? If he first offered you a check in the amount of $1.00, but then he decided to add another zero to the left side of the decimal point for the amount of $10.00, wouldn't that be a better thing? Clearly, when we add zero to the left of the decimal point, we're not adding nothing.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Bob Ross
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
As you've acknowledged above, the whole of the chain of causation lies within the universe. So my counter-argument to "the end scope of the causal chain always results in something uncaused..." says the first link in a chain of causation, because it obeys the symmetries and their conservation laws, draws, for example, energy from the conserved total supply of energy of the universe, and this consumption of energy is paired with an equal subtraction of available energy. Think of it this way: if you dig a hole in the ground, the amassed pile resulting from the digging is paired with a hole in the ground that the pile created. Given these facts, the first link in a chain of causation (the hole) is caused by a re-configuration of the always pre-existent forces that fuel its emergence.
No. See past posts for what that means.
Quoting ucarr
And again, if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, it still falls and vibrates the air. This is my point. My point is that the reality of physics does not disappear if no one is around. This is a simple concept to grasp, so if you're not addressing this point, then I don't see how your point is helpful.
Quoting ucarr
Incorrect. You have no proof that it is impossible. You not having observed it does not make it impossible. If you can prove that its impossible, then you would have a point. Do that, and you'll be right. But if you can't, then this isn't a counter argument against my post.
Quoting ucarr
First, you are correct in stating this is an argument purely from logic, not experience. Second, your second statement of "consistent with what we can experience," is actually 'consistent with what we have experienced'. You have not given any argument to demonstrate that an uncaused existence is impossible, only that you haven't personally experienced one. The former is a viable line of argument, the later is not.
Quoting ucarr
No, I am using language to describe a logical conclusion. You have not proven that it is impossible.
Quoting ucarr
Feel free to prove why its existentially impossible. I'm able to demonstrate why a thing cannot exist and both not exist at point X in Y moment for example. You have not demonstrated the impossibility of an uncaused existence.
Quoting ucarr
I agree with you until the last part. Logic does not ever have to be consistent with what we experience if we have not experienced it yet. That's a poor approach to new discoveries. The first person who invented flight was doing something people didn't think was possible. Many times in new fields of chemistry the normative expectation of outcome is not delivered where the logical expectation did because of our experienced ignorance at the time.
What we can both agree on is that none of us have experienced the origin of existence. So all we have to go on is logic. Logically, my conclusions currently stand invalidating all other logical conclusions to the contrary. You cannot cite existence as we understand it through causation as evidence that uncaused existence cannot be, because we're talking about an existence that isn't caused. Saying, "Caused existence does X, therefore uncaused existence can't be" is irrational. We're talking about something new beyond the horizon Ucarr. All we have is logic, so presented 'evidence' of causal reality is moot in proving whether uncaused existence is existentially impossible or not.
Quoting ucarr
Already did in the OP. You still haven't countered it yet and keep going on other tangents. Feel free to indicate why the OP's conclusion is wrong.
Quoting ucarr
No, its the conclusion of the OP not circular logic. I get to declare my conclusion as long as you haven't countered the logic that leads to that conclusion.
Quoting ucarr
And what caused this oscillation? And what caused that to cause the oscillation? And we're right back to my point which you still have not disproved.
Quoting ucarr
Because you are talking about causal relationships. You can't include a connection in an uncaused relationship because there isn't any. Are you trolling me at this point? Any honest person would concede you can't place a causal connection in an uncaused existence.
Quoting ucarr
Causality, not 'uncausality'. I'm getting tired of repeating a very basic premise and you either ignoring this or not even attempting to comprehend it. This is coming across as contrarian because you don't like it personally, not because its illogical.
Quoting ucarr
Thank you for answering this so I can understand how you're seeing it. Your way of seeing things doesn't work because once a thing exists, it now has causation from it. You can't pre-exist causation. Something either exists, or it does not. It either exists in a state caused by something else, or uncaused by something else.
Quoting ucarr
Not at all. What caused an eternal universe to be Ucarr? There is no prior cause, therefore it is uncaused. And if it is uncaused its not bound by any rules as to what have been, or could not have been. If we agree that an uncaused existence exists, then the second part is what has be addressed.
Quoting ucarr
Good. Now we can eliminate a lot of this back and forth and focus the argument down. We both agree that ultimately there is uncaused existence. What logically does this mean? Doesn't this mean that just as easily the universe could have not existed eternally and simply incepted one day? Why or why not if an uncaused thing has no causal limitations or rules behind it?
Quoting ucarr
No. There is no couplet of expression. There is no, 'thing that makes the change of state." There is nothing, then something. "But what about the inbetween?" There is no inbetween. "But what about..." No. "But how..." No. That's what uncaused means Ucarr. It means "not caused". There is no reason or explanation for its being besides the fact that it is.
I'm being completely fair here. Apply every criticism you applied to a finite universe to an infinitely existing universe. What caused the state to be forever? Where did the energy come from? Why is it this type of universe and not another type? The same answer. "It just is". There is no link, nor cause. It just is.
Quoting ucarr
Just like an eternally existing universe. There is no prior condition for its eternal existence vs finite existence. There is no reason why its always been. That's the entire point. That's what uncaused means.
Quoting ucarr
So that applies to an eternal universe? So there was something pre-existent to an eternal universe that created an eternal universe? Again, you're not using uncaused, but 'caused'. Uncaused has no pre-existence. Symmetry and conservation laws are all causal laws from what currently exists.
Quoting ucarr
So when you go to sleep at night and lose sense of time, time stops? Lets not resort to silly arguments to avoid the real ones Ucarr. Time exists, just like you believe the universe eternally existed prior to humans being alive.
Quoting ucarr
Its as if I've given a very specific argument, told you that argument, then asked you to address that argument. :) Of course something can't incept 'from' nothing. That's causation. I'm demonstrating that all causality leads to a logical end point where something is uncaused. It so happens that if something uncaused is possible, then we know there can't be any limitations as to what specifically must have existed. Thus a universe that incepted uncaused vs always existed uncaused have the same underlying reasons for their existence if they did exist.
Quoting ucarr
Your attempt to not address the actual argument is a clear sign that the argument is pretty tight isn't it? If its so simple to refute, why haven't you done it yet Ucarr? I fail to see this circularity you keep claiming. You already believe in an uncaused eternal universe, so you're in the exact same boat I am.
Quoting ucarr
Exactly like an eternally existing universe. You've already agreed uncaused existences logically are. Now you have to indicate why it must necessarily have always existed vs finitely existed.
Quoting ucarr
My repeated attempts are to get you from thinking in terms of causality and into 'uncausality'. You keep implying something comes before an uncaused existence. It doesn't. You keep thinking things exist in non-existence prior to existence. They don't. You keep thinking there is something that compels or explains an existence that incepts despite it being uncaused. It doesn't. If you can't understand these basic premises at this point, then this discussion is likely beyond you.
Quoting ucarr
Fantastic! Lets lose all the silly parts then. Just focus on this part. I've mentioned above a few reasons why your idea of an eternal universe has the same 'problems' you've noted for a finite universe. Your part next should be to demonstrate why an uncaused existence must necessarily be eternal vs have finite existence. I look forward to this!
Quoting ucarr
First, this is a massive run on sentence I can hardly understand. Second, read my replies to your first two posts and see if what you wrote still stands.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
If you conceive and maintain the intention to stay out of a war between two other parties, what steps do you take to design the conceiving and the maintaining?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
The uncaused universe, which therefore is not self-caused, nevertheless features the causation that didn't cause itself -- it looks as if, by this reasoning, a thing is not always defined by what it is -- and it also features humans who design things within an undesigned universe. Considering these non sequiturs from non-existence replaced by uncaused existence featuring the causation that didn't cause the universe that makes it possible followed by designing humans who study the undesigned powers driving their designing, you, who make these arguments, would be amenable to logical possibility, which you argue is the uncaused only answer to the full scope of the causal chain, being a designer.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Before non-existence is replaced by a universe that encapsulates all that there is, there is no potential rather than unlimited potential. Don't confuse an absence of opposition (to what might be) with a presence of force. Just because nothing stops something from happening, that alone doesn't imply there's a force making something happen. A universe of moving things doesn't just happen. There must be pre-existing forces that power the motion of those moving things.
Symmetry, which is transformation without change, operates in consistency with eternal universe. Non-existence replaced by existence doesn't operate in consistency with symmetry; it is transformation without foundation.
Quoting Philosophim
I apologize for running a day behind on my responses. Because of that, I hope you've seen by now my post acknowledging acceptance of eternal universe.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting punos
How does the super-atomic world approaching absolute zero temperature and the cessation of motion become a 0-dimensional point?
Quoting punos
Okay. We both accept eternal universe.
Quoting punos
Is temporal energy measurable?
Time and space coalesce and break symmetry only to spawn a new symmetry of anti-object pairs extruded at 180 degrees from each other?
Time and space persist in independence, each holding its own properties?
You describe temporal energy by taking recourse to a description of a river. Absolute time is a logical narration of something we cannot visualize directly? I'm wondering if time - even posited as absolute - emerges from mass_energy, especially given the eternity of mass-energy. Might the relationship be bi-conditional?
Quoting punos
By your description - as I understand it - absolute time conserves the mass_energy symmetry.
Quoting punos
Message received.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting punos
My question relates to another question of mine, Does causation have a temporal component? Let's imagine that Plant A releases Pollen A. Joe is not allergic to Pollen A, so Pollen A WRT Joe is not a cause of hay fever, an effect. Bill is allergic to Pollen A, so Pollen A is a cause of hay fever WRT Bill. Since Pollen A has two incompatible identities simultaneously, it seems to me causation is atemporal.
Quoting punos
Message - perhaps with some Shannon information theory included - received.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting punos
I have this idea that if consciousness is emergent from gravitational fields interacting, then around event horizons of black holes, in the run up to the infinite curvature of spacetime, continuity of events, vis., history, becomes deterministic. That light cannot escape a gravitational circularity means that it is determined. The visible light reflected off things determined illuminates that determination. Everything that happens must happen. Cosmic reality overall, however, isn't deterministic when sufficiently far from black holes. This might suggest to us black holes are anchors of cosmic history in that they constrain to some degree what can happen.
Quoting punos
Might our "pure reason and logic together with what we already know" also be distorted by the insuperable relative time subject to the distortions of the speed of light, gravity, and our nervous systems?
Oh, no worry! In the future if you haven't completely answered everything you intended to, let me know a the bottom so I can wait until you're finished.
Quoting ucarr
The point is that a design needs a designer. You cannot have a design without a designer.
Quoting ucarr
I didn't understand this Ucarr. Feel free to read my other replies though to see if this needs a repass.
Ever brewing as the Eternal Fount
It doesn't actually become a 0-dimensional point; rather, it resembles the state of a 0-dimensional point because there is no room for movement within a 0-dimensional point, as in the case of the maximally packed marbles.
Quoting ucarr
I wouldn't exactly phrase it as "Time and space coalesce and break symmetry", and it's currently a bit complex to explain concisely. However, the rest of the statement is correct. The only qualification i would make is that it's not a new symmetry, but rather can be thought of as a reflection of the underlying broken symmetry of space itself. These particles can be considered holographic projections that reflect, in their properties, the whole to which they belong.
Quoting ucarr
Well, i think space is actually a property of time. I can imagine non-spatial continuity, but i cannot see how space can exist without the property of continuity (or "absolute" time). If it were possible for space to exist without continuity, it wouldn't be a universe, or at least not our universe.
Quoting ucarr
It can only be perceived through the light of logic in the mind's eye. As for the rest of your question, perhaps this from my notes can answer some of it. These are my own personal terms:
What is "0th order time"?
0th order time is what one might call "absolute time," "primordial time," or "non-relativistic time." It is the basis of continuity in space and is instantaneous in its action. It is timeless in the sense that it never began and never will end. It represents the first degree of freedom within a single 0-dimensional point. This point is a single element of time and space, and is an abstract process or function self-contained in an elemental point space. Without this 0th order time, there can be no existence because it is the ground of existence itself.
What is "1st order time"?
1st order time is an emergent kind of time characterized by intervals in quantized multi-point space. This interval nature emerges from the instantaneous transmission from one space point to another. Each space point contains within it the temporal characteristics of 0th order time. Although the transmission of a state to the next point is instantaneous, from successive instances emerges a finite rate of propagation we call the "speed of light". This is the maximum speed at which a state signal can travel along a path of multiple spatial state points. Quantized space has the effect of quantizing time in multi-point space, and thus quantizes energy.
Quoting ucarr
I'll explain it this way: According to my model, the kind of energy that constitutes mass originates from the logic of continuity. When symmetric continuity is broken, the logic of time represents that break in space as energy (the measure of the break), and mass is the qualitative expression of that energy in space. Spatial energy exists solely for this reason: to conserve and restore symmetry. Once energy completes its work, it instantly disappears, as do the particles that carried it.
To put it another way, the actual symmetry break conserves the mass/energy since it is a direct expression of the break itself.
Quoting ucarr
I think what i wrote about 0th order time and 1st order time might answer at least some of your question, potentially addressing the instantaneous transmission of states between two points. Let me know if it answers your question or not.
Quoting ucarr
I do think that gravity might consist of some sort of diffuse consciousness in space, depending on how we define consciousness, of course. However, i'm not sure what you mean by "becomes deterministic". I'm a determinist and do not believe in either randomness or 'free will'. I don't have a satisfactory model for either of those concepts, and strongly suspect that they do not exist as we commonly think they do. I do agree that interesting phenomena can occur at the edge of black holes, such as "frame dragging".
Quoting ucarr
Sure, maybe, but can you give an example of such a case of distortion?
The following Free Will poetry debate actually happened on a forum, live, some time ago, amazingly!:
Free vs. Fixed Will Poetry Slam
[i]Ah, in the whole youre just afraid of being unfree,
But, hey, look, behold! There is still so much beauty!
A sublime law, indeed, else what beauty could there be?
The coins other side speaksa toss up, weighted equally.[/i]
Its from the finding of truthnot of fright,
Though determinisms not a pretty sight.
Beauty exists either way, for there is still novelty,
But determineds opposite is an impossible currency.
[i]How dare you curse the freedom to be;
Its because you are scared of He!
What greater proof of inner freedom then
Could His gift of wild flight to us send? [/i]
Really, it not of a scare that He is there,
But because random cant even be there,
For then on nothing would it dependthreadbare,
If it could even be, but it has no clothes to wear.
[i]I swear I am morethat I do act freely!
Dont pass off my passions so calculatingly.
Ill let the rams butt their heads together;
One absolute position subsides for its brother![/i]
Yes, it seems we can choose, even otherwise,
But whats within, as the state of being wise,
Knows not the non-apparent states below
A second story, with but one window.
[hide="Reveal"][i]One rigid mode of thoughts score
Consumes the other with folklore,
Unbending, unyielding with perfect defense,
To orchestrate lifes symphony at the songs expense.[/i]
Were happy to ferret out the truth;
However, when subjected to the proof,
We wish that the coin could stand on its edge,
But see that it cannot, which is knowledge.
[i]So lets define the world and human existence
On a couple hundred years of material witness,
Or burn the measuring eye to the stake!
After all, our freedoms what it seeks to forsake![/i]
Evolution didnt work by chance for us to live,
For natural selection is the scientific alternative
To Intelligent Design from something outside;
The coin of determination has no other side.
[i]The secret is simply that a secret does exist
And no amount of data can take away this,
But this doesnt mean a ghost in the machinery;
Perhaps the heart isnt just a pump, the liver a refinery.[/i]
We often forget the secret, willingly,
In order to live life excitingly,
Which it still would be, either way,
As were still part of the play, anyway.
[i]But of course there is a past of whethers
Through which weve been weathered;
Surely we are moved as dust from gust to gust,
But is two-twice-two as four always a must?[/i]
Math, too, is a must, and we try, as ever,
To predict a week ahead the weather,
Yet the data are to much to work with,
But indetermination measures not randoms width.
[i]Is not an unfree will a blatant contradiction
Developed from the an enlightened conviction?
If Ive made a choice then I have willed it,
And if its been willed then freedoms fulfilled it.[/i]
This is what I mean, that the will willed ones self,
Which is that one does not will the will itself.
The neurons vote, based on who one is;
Naught else is there to answer the quiz.
[i]And of course its in and of a misguided pit
To say that from the past weve distilled it.
Is not the idea of complete self-autonomy a ruse
Born from the illusion of the existentialist blues?[/i]
We distill what comes into us, too,
For it has to become part of us, new,
For mirror neurons act it out, while we are still,
Invading our sanctum and altering the will.
[i]But of course, this is to be much expected
From a culture that lacks all mythical perspective.
Nonsense we call it, a virtue of not thinking,
From which we have long since been departing,
So now will behold in all its transparency
Beyond childish ideals of essence and archaic fantasy.[/i]
Thats close, but its thinking that has grown,
By science and logic informed from reason sown,
In place of feeling, sensation, wishes, and the pleas
To have the universe be what it ought to be.
[i]Do not distort with a desire for meaning.
Oh, the babe, lets leave the child aweening,
But I ask of you: have you not tried in-betweening?[/I]
There are two ways of living, at times merging,
One of just state of being, of its only showing,
And one of the being plus the under-knowing,
Though when with wife, we say not of hormoning.
[i]And in that same breath we say all is forgiven;
Why hold humans responsible, leading to derision?
Of course an eye for an eye was an unjust decision
Well, we have a system that draws a line between
A crime of passion and a thought-out, sought-for infliction.[/i]
The universe made me do it, says the accused,
And the Judge replies, Well, this does excuse,
But I still have to sentence you to the pen,
Until the universe cant make you do it again,
[i]Why must it be a question of absolute freedom
As complete randomness over an unbending system
That structures everything that ever was, is, and will be,
Right down to the elementary structures of incomprehensibility.[/i]
What is set forth in the beginning
Is ever of itself continuing,
Restrained by time, yes, but unfolding,
For there is nothing else inputting.
[i]I may understand why this has to be;
I have felt the rapture of black and white toxicity,
But why subjugate all possibility for novelty?[/i]
It will still be novel, even such as a new parking lot,
For the dopamine neurotransmitters will stir the pot.
New is still new, on the grand tour through life,
But do some predicting, to then avoid some strife.
[i]Can such a thought hope to cast a wrench into these gears,
A tool so heavy that dissuades all of our fears?
Will all order and inertia be torn asunder?
Will we have giant ants wearing top hats over,
With all rationality considered a blunder?[/i]
The truth was not sought to drop a spanner into the works,
But turns out to grant more of compassions perks
For those afflicted with the inability for learning,
We eliminating great annoyances burning.
[i]Am I simply a delusional puddle here,
Perceiving just my liquid perimeter,
As I think to myself I can control
The very rain that expands my rule.
And the humidity that thins.
Should I condemn as that which sins?[/i]
There are no sins, but just destinys fate,
Which even includes ones learnings of late.
We are whirl-pools, of the same oscillations,
Some lasting, but of the same instantiations.[/hide]
What do you think of Roger Ellmans theory of Nothing? I made a pdf of it:
https://austintorn.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/everything-solved-ellman-8.75x11.25-300-dpi.pdf
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
I have three posts from you:
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Bob Ross
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
On the basis of these quotes, I don't see anything explicit or implicit that suggests your use of "scope" means anything other than "extent." Can you clarify?
Sidebar:
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
I've also previously stated that your argument here examples you merely referring to the contents of your mind when attempting to establish your knowledge of what happens independent of your mind. A valid argument can't be based upon what you think. Instead, somehow you will have to show that you know things independently from what you think.
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Here's my argument - expressed in your own words - proving uncaused origin of universe is impossible:
Quoting Philosophim
Since uncaused existences are not caused by anything, in the case of the uncaused universe, which "encapsulates everything that is." there is only non-existence replaced by existence. Now we have the question, What was before uncaused universe? The answer is nothing, in the sense of non-existence. Logically, this can only mean one thing: uncaused universe has always existed, and thus eternal universe is always paired with uncaused universe. This logical certainty excludes origin of universe.
Approaching my same argument from the transitive property law: Statement 1: uncaused existences are once again, not caused by anything and are not tied to non-existence = Statement 2: eternal universe uncaused. If Statement 1 = 2+3, and Statement 2 = 5, then Statement 1 = Statement 2.
Furthermore, let me emphasize how, within your statement defining universe origin, you say uncaused universe not tied to non-existence. In so saying, you refute the possibility of a "before" in relation to uncaused universe. Something uncaused with no "before" is obviously uncaused and eternal.
Ucarr, we both know you're trying to make this a set issue right? Stop insulting my intelligence and goodwill. Read the OP and use scope in relation to causality. I'm going to ignore any further questions on this unless I see some good faith effort on your part to cite the OP.
Quoting ucarr
That would be the OP. Where in the OP is my argument wrong? I expect better criticism at this point Ucarr.
Quoting ucarr
You already agreed with me that an infinitely existing universe is uncaused. I think you mean a finite origin vs infinitely always existing origin.
Quoting ucarr
If you're going to use a semantic "Because there was no time, once time started it always existed," argument, that's fine. My point still stands. Nothing, then something. You just agreed with me. An actual eternal universe wouldn't even have the idea of nothing prior to it. In otherwords, "always something". It also still does not negate the fact that if something uncaused happened, there are no limitations in to how or why it could happen. Meaning things that are uncaused are still possible to happen even with other existences elsewhere.
Quoting ucarr
I'm glad you're finally seeing what I've been noting this entire time. But we can actually say 'before', especially when we consider that uncaused things can happen even with other existences elsewhere in the universe.
Alright! We've finally come to an agreement on the base idea that an uncaused existence is logically necessary, so at this point the only part left is for you to address my second point. "An uncaused existence has no reason for its being, therefore there is nothing to shape or constrain what could be. Therefore there is no limit as to what could form uncaused at any time or place".
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Are you trying to say, "Logic need not be consistent with what we don't know empirically"? Both empirical observation and a priori conceptualization need to express correct reasoning.
Quoting Philosophim
By now you probably know I accept uncaused existence when it's paired with eternal existence.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Are you claiming your OP solves the problem of infinite regress thought by some to be connected to origin of universe?
Quoting Philosophim
The time lag in my responses causes you to suspect trolling. Hopefully my most recent responses have cleared away your suspicion.
Quoting Philosophim
Here's my abstract: a) a thing is caused (including self-causation, "...once a thing exists, it now has causation from it.") or b) a thing is uncaused. So causation is optional rather than necessary. (If this is not the case, then explain how some things are caused and others are uncaused. If contingent things are only so by chance, and not essentially so, then causation is conditional and not fundamental.) This means that the members in a chain of causation of contingent things could've been uncaused instead, and thus outside the chain of causation, or it suggests chains of causation are conditional, or perhaps they're illusory. Now we're looking at a set called "universe" that might be a collection of universes with all of them uncaused. The equal pairing of caused_uncaused has many ramifications.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
You think that uncaused eternal universe implies the possibility of other types of uncaused universes, including one that has an origin. My objection to an uncaused origin of the universe hinges on the role played by the conservation laws WRT an original universe drawing upon forces necessary for its expansion. PoeticUniverse, in this thread, has posted a link (use the one below) that almost counters my argument. See p.14.
Roger Ellman's Theory
Quoting Philosophim
Given the context created by my abstract above, with your argument here inserted into it, your argument for uncaused real things suggests "uncaused" destroys the necessity of "caused". It therefore also casts doubt upon the implied self-causation of, "There is no reason or explanation for its being besides the fact that it is."
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
No, an eternal universe never powered up.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Your interpretation of my quote is wrong. I'm not denying the existence of time apart from our experience of it. I'm denying we know anything about the reality of its supposed causation of things changing. If, on the other hand, this is all there is to know about time independent of things changing, then I infer independent time is emergent from things changing.
Quoting Philosophim
This looks like the core of your theory. In your OP, it should've been your opening paragraph, with following paragraphs elaborating from this core.
Regarding the sentence in bold above, how do we understand it to be saying anything different from what theism says about an unlimited God? If we suppose you say there is no difference, then okay. Next question is, "How is your theory an example of:
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
You fail to see the circularity I keep claiming? Here it is:
Quoting Philosophim
In the bold letters we see you saying an uncaused thing has no reason (cause) for being but itself. When you say an uncaused thing has no reason for being but itself, you're saying it's uncaused and self-caused, a contradiction. Next, you defend your contradiction by saying "It just is." This is the circularity of identity being examined for reason to exist: "It exists for the reason that it is in existence."
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
No, eternal universe means eternal mass, energy, motion, space and time that change forms while conserved. No, unexplainably always existed, not necessarily always existed. No, uncaused origin of universe because uncaused origin equals self-causation, a contradiction; no, uncaused origin of universe because universe can't power up without pre-existing forces fueling that power up.
Quoting Philosophim
You keep being unable to explain how an uncaused universe powers up without pre-existing forces fueling that power up. Even if an uncaused universe can power up without pre-existing forces, that's self-causation, not uncaused.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
An uncaused universe eternal includes symmetries coupled with their conserved forces powering the dynamism of material things.
Quoting Philosophim
Why don't you repost your quotes for my convenience. I always do that for you.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
I've already said the designer is the one who designs by no-design. Designing by no-design is designing by a designer.
Quoting ucarr
You're the one championing no restrictions on what could be within an uncaused universe. Going from there, I describe a string of contradictions and non-sequiturs arising from your uncaused, no-restrictions universe.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
I've posted three of your quotes on "scope of causation." Why isn't that evidence of me acting in good faith? Why am I prohibited from using set theory in my arguments? We have no agreement not to use set theory. There's no obvious reason why set theory should be generally excluded from debates. I seems to me you're the one with a bias against set theory. I can't read your mind and know your biases. Even if I could, why should I respect your bias against set theory? If you want such respect, you must explain why you seek to prohibit set theory. After consideration of your explanation, I may or may not comply with your request. These exact stipulations apply to me in relation to you. I have no more right to dictate terms to you about how you prosecute your side of the debate than vice versa.
Here's a fourth quote from you on the subject:
Quoting Philosophim
You appear to think that, in general, the entire scope or extent of causality includes uncaused first cause followed by contingent things.
If this doesn't imply scope of causation equals extent of causality, then I think you should clarify. Don't I always attempt to clarify when asked to do so?
No, I'm saying that we have no way of empirically verifying or countering the proposal here, so all we're left with is logic.
Quoting ucarr
Yes. This is now a possibility. Not necessary, but logically possible.
Quoting ucarr
Yes, and I apologize for the frustration on this. I'll try to remember that you post in pieces going forward.
Quoting ucarr
There is no self-causation because that would require something to exist before it existed.
Quoting ucarr
In theory, correct. We'll need new principles and outlooks with this in mind. I can safely sum it up to be, "Causality is the rule unless causality is completely ruled out." On this notion I would love to hear your thoughts as I think this is worth exploring.
Quoting ucarr
Then what caused the power to be? That's the point. Its the same question for a finitely regressive universe.
Quoting ucarr
I still don't understand what you mean by this, can you go into more detail? What does "its supposed causation of things changing" mean?
Quoting ucarr
Its not implied, its a logical assertion. Do you understand why? I've attempted to explain multiple times, so try explaining back to me in your words this time.
Quoting ucarr
And I have told you repeatedly, "You cannot rely on causal laws as a denial for something uncaused." Its irrelevant. Let me give you an analogy. I'm noting A -> B -> C. You're saying, "Because B -> C, you can't have just A". That's not a viable argument.
Quoting ucarr
How? I've already noted once something exists, how it exists is what we base our causal rules from.
Quoting ucarr
Because an unlimited God is only one of infinite possibilities. Theism asserts a God exists without evidence, and at best can attempt logical arguments that imply its necessity. My argument notes that yes, an 'unlimited' God is one of many possibilities, but it is not necessary. The only way to prove that a God exists is to do so with evidence, like any proposed necessary theory of specific universal origin. A card is drawn, but we must prove it is a Jack and not a King.
Quoting ucarr
The fact that something can incept uncaused at anytime is an amazing idea to be pulled into ontology. The fact that we can safely consider a God as a viable possible origin is incredible. The fact that it allows us to think of our universe and existence on a completely different level as we can confirm for a fact that there is no necessity or grand plan in anything we do.
Quoting ucarr
Ok, I don't often get angry, but your repeated twisting of my words to fit what you want them to say is starting to make me mad. Here's what I said: "That's what uncaused means Ucarr. It means "not caused". There is no reason or explanation for its being besides the fact that it is." I did not say "self-caused". That in no way implies "self-caused".
Can I have an honest conversation with you? You have some good points at times, but then you pull stuff like this and it just makes me feel like I'm wasting my time with you. Its been days of this back and forth now. Read more carefully and stop trying to add in things I don't say.
Quoting ucarr
And what caused this exactly?
Quoting ucarr
So... there's no cause? So its uncaused?
Quoting ucarr
So then power has always existed without prior cause? :) Ucarr...you've already admitted you believe in uncaused existence, lets stop this.
Quoting ucarr
"Uncaused". Meaning its not caused by anything. Meaning it requires no pre-existing forces. If I gave you a pre-existing force, that would be causation. But its not causation. There's no prior cause. And no, that's not self-causation because it would require it to exist prior to it existing.
Quoting ucarr
This is nonsense. Break this down into points and a conclusion please.
Quoting ucarr
Because I had literally just posted a list of replies to your previous two posts while you were posting that one.
Quoting ucarr
The above sentence your quote is mentioning is run-on nonsense Ucarr. You don't get to post poor grammer and explanations, then when I ask for clarity in your writing, you say, "I was doing stuff." Explain in detail. Break down your points and offer a clear conclusion.
Quoting ucarr
Besides the fact I told you its not a set theory argument? Or the fact I told you you're introducing language and concepts I don't use as if I was? Set theory isn't excluded, you don't get to introduce things like "scope of existence" which I don't use as if i do. Present your argument instead of being sneaky and trying to get me to say what you want me to say. I really respect your style of argumentation except when you try to pull crap like that. Stop it. Just post your arguments.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Your digression to your OP is irrelevant. Your consciousness never transcends your mind. You've not seen directly the origin of the universe. You have only your abstract thoughts for "viewing" the origin of the universe. If if you did see it directly, you'd still be confined to the boundaries of your mind. Your answer to Kant's question about the tree in the forest is debatable.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Our issue here is the viability of an uncaused origin of the universe. Since you do not respond to nor even mention my somewhat lengthy argument against the viability of an uncaused origin of the universe, I conclude you have no viable counter-argument. From experience with debating you, I know you would not hesitate to defend one of the two major prongs of your theory (uncaused origin of the universe) if you had a viable defense.
Quoting Philosophim
No. I'm using what you've written many times over:
Quoting Philosophim
As you say, uncaused origin of universe is not tied to non-existence. It doesn't come from anything. Since the uncaused universe "encapsulates all that is," it is all that exists and has always been so. This means uncaused universe is eternal.
Quoting Philosophim
No. As you say, uncaused existences are not tied to non-existence. Youve been saying I keep putting uncaused universe into a causal relationship with non-existence. No. As you say, uncaused existences are not tied to non-existence.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
No. We cannot say "before" in the case of uncaused origin of universe that "encapsulates everything that is." Non-existence replaced by uncaused universe. No "before" because uncaused universe not tied to non-existence.
Quoting Philosophim
No. I've argued - with pivotal use of your own words - that uncaused origin of universe that "encapsulates everything that is." is impossible because it's equal to eternal uncaused universe. You haven't responded to my argument.
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Then, as I said, a priori conceptualization needs to express correct reasoning.
Quoting Philosophim
This is a roundabout statement that makes a faulty approach to saying - I'm mostly guessing here - logic does not ever have to be consistent with what we don't know empirically. In order to make the intention of this statement even more clear, we can make another change. Logic does not ever have to be consistent with what we know through correct thinking by reason alone. This is false. Logic must always be sound, whether based on observation, or based on abstract reasoning.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Uncaused universe is the logical possibility?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Then why did you write in your OP what I've emphasized in bold letters below?
[/quote]Quoting Philosophim
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
The mass_energy_motion_space_time of material dynamism, being a part of eternal universe, is likewise eternal. The symmetries and their conservation laws support this: matter and energy are never created nor destroyed.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Some of the theorists at TPF (punos, Metaphysician Undercover) posit the existence of absolute time in addition to relative time. Absolute time is the ultimate fundamental in their cosmology, I think. Absolute time, they say, causes things to change with it being independent of physics. By their lights, absolute time is a type of energy, and it's the engine that drives causation.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
As we both have said repeatedly, you think total existence uncaused means it might be anything.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
The conservation laws are bi-conditional with symmetry.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Since you've divided causation into two categories housing things: a) caused; b) uncaused, and since one thing can swing back and forth between the categories according to conditions, "caused" is optional, not necessary.
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
If unlimited God is evidence of, as you say, if something uncaused is possible, then we know there can't be any limitations as to what specifically must have existed. then saying God's unnecessary is also renders unnecessary:
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
You haven't responded to my counter-argument.
I forgot the name of the book and its author that I summarized this from, but it wasn't well received on a physics forum
@Philosophim
@punos
The ZERO-SUM Existence
To comprehend the Cosmos, one must, hence,
Find the why and how of its existence,
For, incomplete answers will never dress
Invariably wrong, by incompleteness.
Forever Stuff could not have been always,
For then there is no reason for its plays,
Its total amount, and its certain stance:
Stuff had to be created, in balance.
No thing can be eternal, never made,
As theres no reason for the forms cascade;
Yet, there is no-thing source to make it from;
So, the default lawless is where its done.
[hide="Reveal"]The no-place of no laws is the first cause,
Requiring nothing but the same because.
Forever and always anything goes,
This being the final answer to the TOEs.
Existents are not infinitely old:
The tale of their making is ever told;
Theyre not unbreakable/unmakeable;
They are sum-thingzero-sum formable.
Existents ever back to no-thing trace,
Such as this universe, now in a race,
Even accelerating, from no-thing,
From the fuel that can never stop giving.
The null balance continues, remains, then,
As the reason things cant be so frozen
That they dont react, nor so fleeting
That all remains as chaos everlasting.
Confirmation abounds: as space and time,
Charge polarity, matter and its anti,
Kinetic/potentialstuff/gravity,
Smallest and largest, and reason and rhyme.
As per the explosive Big Bang Theory,
Our own verse appeared, nearly instantly,
Going from not there to here, inflating
A low probability happening.
As for no-thing, we knew it all along,
Philosophically, logicallyas strong,
And now, factlythe triad that we love,
For theres no-thing to make anything of.
What meaning, then, of every- from no-thing?
Well, there was no option, no deciding
Informations contents in the same row,
For both no-thing and everything: zero.
Stillness/nonexistence/no-thing/zero
Is the root of all, where anything goes,
As the state cannot remain, unconstrained,
For that state is perfectly unstable.
This bottom, default condition must leak,
Making movement natural, so to speak,
Not quietus, and, even afterwards,
Everything still moves, outwardevery-ward.
The above is the basis-eternal,
Or as best as forever we can call,
There being nothing before that state,
Or at least more nothing, at any rate.
The state is anywhere and everywhere,
Nothing beyond it but itself out there,
Which extent could be called as infinite
A first cause has nil outside/before it.
So, we have reached the simplest state of all,
Through the simpler, to where we get our call,
From up here, where we are, as composite,
From organs, cells, molecules, atoms, and bits.
In the greater Cosmos, everything happens,
Universes everywhere, working/flattened,
Some even the same, having more of us,
Even many times overno big fuss,
Cause-and-effect must then do what it does,
For all that will be, now, or ever was.
Events, and will, must depend on something,
Or the air-headed chimes would be ringing.
We are as tourists along for the ride,
Plus more, since ever within the play.
It seems new: were not on the scripted side
There is fun and enjoyment through the day.
Nothing cannot be, so, then, something must
That is all there is to tell of our crust
In a parentheses of eternity
Live, nulls paternity-maternity.
The largest is so large, near everywhere,
Since the smallest is so small, barely there.
At the mid-point, theres finite unity,
Were suspended there, hovering entirely.
The nonexistence of Nothing must then be
Neutral and symmetrical, totally,
While existence within nonexistence
Must be polaras asymmetrical.
Matter/anti are each half of at large,
Being polar and opposite in charge,
While photons represent all of the cosmos,
Being neutral, as both plus and minus.
In free space, there can only be two, yes,
Two stable charged matter particles,
Electrons and protons (makes atoms),
With no lasting uncharged neutron sums.
And, so, too, there can only be but one
Uncharged energy particle:
The photon, one, the sinusoidal wave,
And zero charged energy particles.
Oppositional-transitional schemes
Abound, such as the strong/weak nuclear
Versus the trans-electric-magnetic,
And space/matter versus past-now-future.
The void pulsates in a structured sequence.
A field is present throughout space immense,
Out of which all particles must condense
Occurring where the fields extremely intense.
Atoms are tied bundles of inertia,
Knots in the field and fabric of space;
Yet matter defines the structure of space
The Yin is in the Yang, and vice-versa!
It is to this world that we are fine-tuned
By evolutionmillions of species loomed,
And so we may not do so well elsewhere:
But Earths not alwayswe should go somewhere.
There is reality out there, for sure;
We have senses to take it in, as pure.
The brain paints a useful face upon it,
Such as colors for wave frequencies, etc.
Consciousness is ever a brain process,
One which can be halted, never-the-less,
By anesthesia, poison/drugs,
A blow to the head, a faint, or by sleep.
Change the brain and consciousness changes too.
Take drugs and the emotions change, anew.
Damage the brain and the minds damaged too.
Consciousness emerges only from the brain!
In identifying consciousness,
We often confuse what is floating in
The stream of consciousness with the water itself;
Thus, we note not the sea in which we see.
The brain interprets reality and puts
A face on the waves of sound, light, color, touch,
And a sense on molecules smell and taste.
Consciousness is the brains perception of itself.
Consciousness mediates thoughts versus outcomes
And is distributed all over the body,
From the nerve spindles to the spine to the brain,
A way to actionize without committing.
Conscious Awareness, which can but witness,
Is a safe haven from which to observe
The drama of our lives playing in our minds,
Granting us a sobering distance from it.
Why three space dimensions, plus one of time?
There must be three dimensions because
The singularity/nothingness demands
Existential closureto nonexistence
Which demands the compositional parity
Of positive and negative, as charge,
Which in turn demands that space be cubic:
Dimensionality inevitable!
The three space dimensions are compositional,
So the nullification of existence
At totality must be carried out
Via electric charge polarity,
An aspect of time, along with motion.
Over Man came the Triumph of Love
But Chastity gave it quite a shove;
However, Death then all conquered,
But this was not the final word
For Time happily reigned over all,
Or so it thoughtas its thrall,
But, Divinity vanquished its trend;
Yet, still, this was not the end
For, as ever, the basis was left to sting,
Since Nothing overwhelms everything.
Something does not compute about the way
Thoughtof eternity/infinity,
In that duration of eternity
Of all the past has already happened
And that the extent of an infinity
Has been attained. Neither can be, as thought.
There can be boundless without infinite
Boundless surfaces enclose finite spheres
They just go round and round, never ending.
N dimensions can be bounded by n-1.
A 1D line bounds a 2D finite plane.
A 0D point bounds a 1D line.
It could be that boundless 3D space bounds
A 4D finite hypervolume hypercube.
This arrangement is all extent (distance),
But, inside, one distance converts to time,
By the speed of light, as spacetime distance.
Hypervolume (distance^4) =
c(distance/time) * spacetime(distance^3 * time)
So, time is but internal to spacetime,
Being just a difference of space(s).
So, there is no time, then, externally,
And, internally, everything happens,
In the boundless eternity within,
Happening over and over again,
?As well as many times, too, everywhere,
In the boundless infinity within.
The Cosmos contains its own history,
As well as its own infinite spacetime.
Everything and every-time, both boundless,
Doth go round and round, perpetually.
Eternal causes cannot happen,
And so these must be equation-replaced
The zero-sum balance that provides for the
Conservation laws ultimately precise.
Infinite extent cannot be, and so
There must be return from it, although it
Goes round and round, but seeming infinite.
Space(s) is/are a difference of time(s).
And it is still that existence has to be
Of nonexistencetheres no other source.
We are faced with two seeming paradoxes:
A distribution of nothing versus
The same exact base forever, unmade.
One has to give, and must give, and does so.
The notion of the same exact stuff, as just?Sitting around and being there, as is,
Begs the questions answer for more reasons.
Why its total amount, for example?
(+)
C
h
S p a c e
r
g
e
(-)
Which may be the same as
T
i
V a c u u m s p a c e
e
s
Neither Nothing nor Infinite can be,
Like the same as that neither complete vacuum
Nor total solidness is possible
The midpoint is finite unity (1).
Its as if Infinite * Nothing = 1.
Or is it Infinite * Infinitesimal = 1?
As Nothing cannot be, something must be,
But it cant be infinitely solid.
There cant be stillness, which would be no time;
There cant be all at once; mid-point is now.
Its as if Stillness * All-At-Once = Now.
Or the Slow Moves * Really Fast Moves = Now?
As stillness cannot be, motion must be,
But it cant be of an unlimited speed.
Eternity cant be; times secondary.
Infinity cant be; theres round and round.
Infinite cant be, not the largest nor smallest:
The finite is their difference or product.
Eternal cant be, not pasts nor futures,
So, now is ever-present, ever here.
Only no-thing' can make basic thing(s).
Theres no other source, no way around it!
We have to deal with this, but it goes as
Kinetic stuff, of gravitys potential.
Did a lack of anything (no-thing) remain?
We know that it didnt, for theres something.
What rules/limits would apply to no-thing'?
None, for that state would have no laws at all.
This means that anything goes, for no-thing,
And when anything goes, something workable
Comes out of it. This is Possibility,
And it must be the default position.
Either basic stuff always existed
Or stuff is forever made from nothing.
If always, the stuff is a set amount
Stuff cannot have always been, in that count;
There would have been no point at which its total
Could have been specified, nor its makeup;
Therefore, this forces the other option,
That of a zero-sum distribution
Balanced oppositesnature-confirmed.
Since all from nothing must be so, we know
That a state of the lack of anything
Must be unstable, that anything goes,?
Since the state is lawlessso arrangements
Of various basic things may occur,
Some of which can form working universes.
There are no past-eternals beyond nothing;
All supposed past-eternal things end,
With nothing. Eternals, and infinites,
In actuality, can never complete.
In good time, millions of species arrived,
This taking billions of the years gone by.
Theres no past-eternal to our universe,
For it is about 14 billion years old.
It may disperse unto photons, but not
To infinity for eternity,
For those endings can never be attained,
As never-ending cant ever be reached.
Our sun is quite usable for about
3-5 billion more years, and were on
An outermost arm of the galaxy,
A safe place, from the wild galactic core.
While not fully made in the shade, on Earth,
Its still a great place, since most of it works.
Hydrogen and Carbon Dioxide
Made organics; one cell entered another.
All things had beginnings, like electrons,
Life, rocks, solar systems, or Gods supposed;
So none can be First and Fundamental
Theres no complex from Complex from COMPLEX.
We have emergence proceeding apace,
In all, but apace is restrained by time,
Yet all things eventually decay/fade,
The universe unwinding, like a spring.
This slow decay allows for assemblies,
Such as flowers, trading local gains for
Losses, in quality of substance,
Though not in quantity of substance.
Of substances and energys balance,
Dispersion, and decay of quality
Comes the emergence of what we would call
Change, vision, growth, and more complexity.
The universe bubbled out of nothing,
Pluses forming matter; minuses residing in forces,
All in perfect balance, self-sufficient,
Needing nothing outside of itself, zilch.
Existence is a zero-balance tree,
Of opposites: matter and its anti,
Opposing charge, the weak versus strong force;
All from nothing, to form reality.
Totality cannot to limits cling,
Or it wouldnt be All, so its bounding
None, granting eternitys duration,
And infinitys extent: everything.[/hide]
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
I don't twist your words; I quote your words. See the bold, underlined key word below:
Quoting Philosophim
A ninth grader easily understands your words in bold to mean: self-caused.
Quoting Philosophim
I await your response to my defense.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
As we've agreed: eternal, uncaused universe.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
You're getting confused about your own concepts. Origin of universe - by your understanding, not by mine - is not eternal universe. Eternal universe eliminates the possibility of non-existence. By you saying uncaused universe not eternal, there's non-existence replaced by uncaused universe. Nothing is what uncaused universe replaces, so how does uncaused universe draw from the pre-existing, conserved forces that fuel uncaused universe's power up? Matter is neither created nor destroyed. If uncaused universe replaces non-existence, then matter and energy would have to be created instead of being eternal. The conservation laws forbid that.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Re-acquaint yourself with the conservation laws, or read Ellman's Theory of Nothing.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Open a book of Intro Physics and do the work yourself.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Philosophim
Present your argument that:
Quoting Philosophim
cannot be construed as the description of a set containing things.
You are misunderstanding this discussion at this point. My job is not to convince you. I cannot convince anybody of anything they don't want. Your job is to convince me, and I am actually open to being wrong. I have been wrong many times, I'll be wrong many times in the future, and it may be that my argument IS wrong. But if it is wrong, that takes someone who's engaging honestly with good ideas that target the argument. None of what you are saying at this point is on track or giving me pause to consider, and I do not view you as an honestly engaging person at this point. As this is descending into hostility, points are continually repeated with no evolution, and I am constantly having to point out the same issues again and again, I see no further value in continuing this conversation.
Its been fun until now, so lets end it on a higher note. Another discussion another time Ucarr! :)
Quoting ucarr
Quoting punos
Quoting punos
I wonder if a 0-dimensional point, as in the singularity, hints at what space without time might be like. I think Ive seen some debate whether time exists at the singularity. As for space at the singularity, since there is the Big Bang, can we assume there was space within the Big Bang? Explosion implies space, doesnt it?
As for non-spatial temporal continuity, do you think absolute time motionless? Also, am I wrong in conjecturing that absolute zero temperature equals no motion and thus it's prohibited by the motion of absolute time, and thus absolute time does always move in space since it keeps material things always moving. Moreover, this shows us that motion of time is never uncoupled from mass-energy-motion-space, and thus mass-energy-motion-space-time is a never-broken quintet?
Might absolute time and relative time be two aspects of one temporal phenomenon?
Quoting punos
Loop quantum gravity pictures space broken down into discontinuous, granular pieces that combine to form space. Does this not suggest space and time inseparable?
Quoting punos
I'm trying to remember if you told me time is a form of energy. If you did, does it have both a particle form and a waveform?
Quoting punos
Is continuity an attribute of time, or vice-versa, or do they form a co-equal pair? If time is the continuum of change, how can it be measured; wouldn't that be like trying to stop never-stopping motion? Are perceived phenomena really incorporeal samples of ineffable continuous change?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting punos
Can eternity move? If no beginning and no end means an irrational-number-like middle, then that suggests to me the stop-motion of eternity.
Quoting punos
Might the instantaneous transmissions from state to state be evidence of paired states (similar to particle pairs)? Might cause and effect be evidence of paired states at Newtonian scale?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting punos
There's a ASI cyborg on a space station outside of both earth's and mars' gravitational fields. She's collecting data on the orbit of mars in prep for a mars landing. She develops hyper-drive data processing only after being off-planet for a while. She sees that some anomalies are developing in the mars orbit due to an eruption on the planet's surface releasing tons of electromagnetic compounds. She's making a long term projection about the deviation from orbit not presently detectable by anyone but her and her hyper-drive data processing. She sends this data to monitoring humans on earth. She sees that they're not getting her info re: the orbital anomaly and knows the mars landing will be far afield from the chosen landing site. Since she's due to stay in orbit until after the mars landing, she knows there's nothing she can do about the impending botched navigation to the landing site.
Atomic clocks could reveal the time lag of the slower change of time on earth compared to the change of time in the space station. Since the orbital anomaly wasn't foreseen, there are no atomic clocks available. Sometime later, it was discovered that the cyborg, being limited to transmitting her hyper-drive data at hyper-speed, could only send her data stream within a time frame shorter than the time lag between the space station and the monitoring station on earth.
The earth monitors couldn't get the mars orbital adjustment data because the time interval, in micro-seconds, was too short start to finish to be received across the duration of the time lag between the cyborg's present tense on the space station and the monitoring stations present tense on earth.