Different from the former as opposed to same as the former? — InPitzotl

I feel at this point you have something you want to say. Feel free to. Once I understand the larger point, I think we can get all of your questions out of the way at once — Philosophim

But this was just exactly my point. Causality is applied in order to understand phenomena; it is not a phenomena itself. The operation of the computer chip is understood through the application of the principle of cause and effect. "Evidence" (empirical collections of data) is the wrong thing to ask for, since such a thing could not exist if it were not for causality itself.

What you need to demonstrate is that this causality has a reality in-itself, and is not just a function of the mind. Again, the computer chip as phenomena is understood through causality. But for what reason should we believe causality exists beyond this? You have simply taken it for granted that the conjunction of phenomena in successive time by rules has a valid application beyond these phenomena. — _db

Yes! Isn't that neat? Opposed to multiverse theory being something we entertain for fun, it becomes something we can view as a logically likely reality. — Philosophim

Honestly, no, I'm still trying to analyze this. I can still what you possibly mean branching off in a few different directions, and I don't quite know which one you'll take. I reserve the right to make a point later, if I have one to make; but for now, I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from.

The question I just asked is similar to a question a couple of posts ago. You're talking about an explanation for a "different" state. I'm trying to figure out if this is some counterfactual difference you're talking about, or just a change. — InPitzotl

Was that of your own making or taken from somewhere? — Philosophim

The Planck epoch is an era in traditional (non-inflationary) Big Bang cosmology immediately after the event which began the known universe.

Therefore no lack of first cause or mention of that.
First cause in BB is unknown because of "infinitely dense mass" as an explanation before plank epoch. — SpaceDweller

The classical (macro) concept of "causality" has no physical meaning at or below the planck scale (nano). — 180 Proof

At the singularity there was no mass yet. Only an extreme high spatial tension on the fluctuating field (which means, the virtual particle fields).The extreme high negative curvature (DE!) pushed that virtual stuff into real stuff — Verdi

You're saying matter and energy come to be out of virtual particles and their tensions? — SpaceDweller

That's why I don't believe in BB and "infinitely dense mass" because it doesn't make sense to me. — SpaceDweller

I finally get what you're trying to say OP.

Hume: There is no logical necessity in causality. No reason why if the first two times I hit a ball and it rolled away, at a particular speed and direction, the third time I repeat my action, the ball should faithfully replicate the behavior precisely as before.

The idea of cause, we can forget about first cause, as having to do with logical necessity is a category mistake - like saying red is loud! — TheMadFool

I welcome all criticism! — Philosophim

4. Alpha logic: An alpha cannot have any prior reasoning that explains why it came into existence. An Alpha's reason for its existence can never be defined by the Z's that follow it. If an Alpha exists, its own justification for existence, is itself. We could say, "The reversal of Z's causality logically lead up to this Alpha," But we cannot say "Z is the cause of why Alpha could, or could not exist." Plainly put, the rules concluded within a universe of causality cannot explain why an Alpha exists. — Philosophim

6. If there exists an X which explains the reason why any infinite causality exists, then its not truly infinite causality, as it is something outside of the infinite causality chain. That X then becomes another Y with the same 3 plausibilities of prior causality. Therefore, the existence of a prior causality is actually an Alpha, or first cause. — Philosophim

SpaceDweller What's unclear about this statement:
The classical (macro) concept of "causality" has no physical meaning at or below the planck scale (nano).
— 180 Proof — 180 Proof

I strongly agree with your point that asking what came before the planck-epoch becomes incoherent because there was no notion of time to refer to on the basis of the no-boundary theory and therefore non notion of causality in the classical sense. — Benkei

If plank space is caused then there is a prior or underlying reason for its being. If plank space is uncaused, then there is no reason for its existence, besides the fact that it exists. And if something could be that has no prior causality, then logically, you can't conclude any reason why it exists. Meaning you cannot conclude that time did not exist prior to plank space either. — Philosophim

2. Time is an emergent property and therefore causality is too and causality follows time.
4. Time is fundamental but causality isn't. — Benkei

Just because something cannot be caused in a classical mechanical view of causality does not mean there's no reason why it exists. The problem is you keep talking about time and causality surrounding circumstances that aren't subject to those notions. It's incoherent to consider questions about time and causality surrounding the planck epoch. — Benkei