You are counting back to a start point. — ucarr
I'm grouping all of the causality within an infinite universe in a set which then leads to one final question of causality, "What caused all of that causality?" This is commonly stated as, "What caused the universe?" So I'm not counting back to any start point. I'm noting that the starting point in causality is "What caused the universe?" — Philosophim
A first cause is logically necessary... A first cause is merely the point in the chains of causality throughout the universe thatlead to the[terminates] at the point in which there is nothing prior. — Philosophim
You should immediately discard your current would-be equations that use infinity as one of your input values. Using infinity as an input value is a violation of math form. It’s like trying to start a combustion engine with water instead of gasoline. Fundamentally wrong. If, however, you have your own math that rationally discards proper math form, that’s another matter. Do you have your own system of math? — ucarr
Incorrect. Infinity is a representation of a set of numbers. Just like 23 represents a set of 23 ones. Read here: — Philosophim
Your language for your premise needs to draw a parallel: Infinite causal chains are infinite series made empirical and bounded by eternal existence instead of by limits. — ucarr
I don't understand this, can you go a little more in depth? — Philosophim
Infinity is not a discrete number. It therefore cannot be precisely situated on the number line. It therefore cannot be precisely sequenced in a series populated with numbers. For these reasons, infinite values cannot be computed directly. — ucarr
Math is symbolic representation of quantities. You can symbolically represent infinity. You may not have heard of Georg Cantor's work on infinite sets. Here's an intro: — Philosophim
The Crux: QM Governs Cosmology – an infinite causal chain cannot have a precise first cause because it amounts to putting the whole number line – infinite in volume – within itself. Infinite values can be bounded (as argued above) but they cannot be definitively sequenced. — ucarr
Incorrect again. Read Cantor. — Philosophim
Given these limitations, the attempt to sequence an infinite value amounts to claiming a given thing is greater than itself; this irrational claim holds moot sway within QM, as in the instance of superposition; prior to measurement, the cat is neither dead or alive. — ucarr
Ucarr, randomly bringing quantum mechanics into this isn't going to work either. You misunderstand that statement and what it means. I can go into depth on this later if needed, but you need to understand Cantor and infinities first. — Philosophim
; b) show how my reference to QM is random and irrelevant to this context; c) show how my citation of Shrödinger's Thought Experiment is both misunderstood by me and misapplied to this context.If you want to say I'm wrong, you're going to have to prove I am wrong, not merely say I am. — Philosophim
You don't want to go this route Ucarr. I can say it doesn't because when there is nothing, there is no time. On the other hand, if you include time what you're saying is that an infinite amount of time would have to pass to get to this moment. Ucarr, if the universe has existed for infinite time, didn't you just disprove that the universe has always existed? — Philosophim
Can what could or could not have been lie beyond probability in the case of true randomness? — ucarr
This question is meant to suggest entropy weakening true randomness to something not authentically random. — ucarr
Is probability only possible in the absence of true randomness? — ucarr
This question is meant to suggest any event -- including inception of a first cause -- by the fact of its existence, prevents true randomness — ucarr
From Heisenberg we have reason to believe we can't know every essential attribute of a thing simultaneously — ucarr
Imagine that each causation within a causal chain -- because of the fact of its existence -- generates a prior (or subsequent) causation. How does the chain of causation reach the point of no prior (or subsequent) causation? — ucarr
Let us suppose true randomness is not a process. Is it still a phenomenon? — ucarr
This question is meant to suggest that if true randomness is to any degree intelligible -- as in the case of it being a phenomenon, even if not a process to a specifiable end, then it must possess a specificity of form and content — ucarr
Because of what we know from QM — ucarr
Number 6 in the OP is false, and springs from a conflation of an originally valid conception of causality into a conception of explanation—i.e., number 1 starts with a standard conception of causality about events and by the time one gets to 6 it somehow transformed into a conception about explanations without conceding that the conception changed. — Bob Ross
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
then 6 doesn’t disprove the possibility of an infinite chain of events — Bob Ross
You are counting back to a start point: — ucarr
Can you show me one equation in your reference that doesn't compute to infinity? Yes, you can. There's one equation that computes to "undefined." — ucarr
Can you cite an equation with infinity as an input value that computes to a well-defined discrete position on the number line? It needs to be a number neither irrational nor approximate. — ucarr
In the link to Cantor's differing levels of infinite series, can you cite a passage addressing infinity conceptualized as an infinite series with a discrete starting point? — ucarr
You need to go into probative details now because: a) you need to meet the same standard you apply to me:
If you want to say I'm wrong, you're going to have to prove I am wrong, not merely say I am.
— Philosophim
; b) show how my reference to QM is random and irrelevant to this context; c) show how my citation of Shrödinger's Thought Experiment is both misunderstood by me and misapplied to this context. — ucarr
If existence is eternal, you're metaphysically constraining existence to a binary structure of "to be" or "not to be." Do you feel completely comfortable excluding a grayscale gradient between "to be" or "not to be"? — ucarr
Suppose you could choose whether or not the universe is binary or complex. Which would you choose? — ucarr
Please explain how 'existence does not exist' without self-contradiction. Otherwise, necessary (eternal) existence. — 180 Proof
I don't know what you are talking about (re: the underlined above).We're looking at a metaphysical binary structure for existence, and thus everything conceivable is metaphysically constrained to a fundamental binary. Can we liberate ourselves from this constraint? [ ... ] the existence binary — ucarr
:chin:↪ucarr Please explain how 'existence does not exist' without self-contradiction. — 180 Proof
Lets break this down again. Probability as we know it is built off of constraints. These constraints are our capability to measure or observe aspects that would be needed for precise calculation. Thus shuffling cards that we cannot see. — Philosophim
There is no true randomness in shuffling — Philosophim
The other constraint we consider are the rules involved. A die bounces because of things like mass and gravity. There are tangible things we can measure combined with things that we cannot measure that allow us to make a probability, or educated guess at a constrained outcome. — Philosophim
True randomness has no constraints. Its not that there isn't something that we can observe or measure, its that there is nothing there to measure at all. Whenever an outcome happens, there was nothing that had to be for it to happen. There was nothing to limit what would be, and nothing to push what would be. — Philosophim
Entropy is just the separation of matter and energy from a higher state to a lower state over time. This has nothing to do with true randomness. — Philosophim
Is probability only possible in the absence of true randomness? — ucarr
Based on how I've defined probability, what do you think? — Philosophim
True randomness is not constrained. Something which can be constrained has laws, and is therefore not truly random. There is nothing to constrain or influence Ucarr. You keep seeing it as a 'thing'. It is a logical concept. — Philosophim
From Heisenberg we have reason to believe we can't know every essential attribute of a thing simultaneously. — ucarr
This is only because our measurement impacts the results. The QM level is so small that anything we bounce off of it to detect it is going to alter its velocity. You can get the same effect by bouncing a baseball off of a softball. This has nothing to do with true randomness. — Philosophim
Imagine that each causation within a causal chain -- because of the fact of its existence -- generates a prior (or subsequent) causation. How does the chain of causation reach the point of no prior (or subsequent) causation? — ucarr
That's the same thing as 2T + infinity = y — Philosophim
Let us suppose true randomness is not a process. Is it still a phenomenon? — ucarr
What is your definition of phenomenon? — Philosophim
True randomness is not a thing. It is a logical concept and conclusion. — Philosophim
QM is not going to help you. You are taking things that exist and trying to impact true randomness as if its some dimension somewhere. Its not. — Philosophim
There was nothing which could have changed or prevente the inception of the universe Ucarr. It just happened. — Philosophim
Hey, welcome back Bob! You still retain the title of the first person who realized this could not be proven empirically. — Philosophim
If an Alpha exists, its own justification for existence — Philosophim
Are you talking about constraints that empower precision of measurement: "our capability to measure or observe," or constraints that limit precision of measurement: "shuffling cards that we cannot see"? — ucarr
So, in our phenomenal world, material outcomes of material things in motion always have a measure of determinism attached. — ucarr
Probability cannot be cancelled in the real world. Therefore, your thought experiment with true randomness is an idealization. — ucarr
There is no true randomness outside of a thought experiment. — ucarr
There is no nothingness outside of its paradoxical presence within a thought experiment. The metaphysical binary of existence confines us to existence via self-contradiction. We cannot exit ourselves from existence, not even via our thought experiments. Your thought experiment re: nothingness is thoroughly embedded within existence. If it weren't, it wouldn't be possible for you to entertain yourself with the thought of it. At no time are you making contact with nothingness, so your arguments from a supposed but fictional nothingness are paradoxical non-starters. — ucarr
Entropy is just the separation of matter and energy from a higher state to a lower state over time. This has nothing to do with true randomness.
— Philosophim
If by higher state you mean level of organization of material things into functional systems, then explain why level of organization has nothing to do with its opposite: no organization, i.e., randomness? — ucarr
Based on how I've defined probability, what do you think?
— Philosophim
I think the answer is "yes." I also think it not possible to have a state of total non-organization. So, no true randomness. If no true randomness, then no general anything-is-possible. — ucarr
There is no true randomness outside of a thought experiment.
There is no nothingness outside of its paradoxical presence within a thought experiment. — ucarr
In a complicated way, thoughts are things. — ucarr
True randomness breaks apart all connections of the material universe. — ucarr
Just as you can't observe an elementary particle without changing it, you can't observe true randomness through a thought experiment without changing it. — ucarr
In all cases of what you experience and therefore know, you're connected with the objects of your observation. — ucarr
In your act of observing true randomness, you prevent it from being true. — ucarr
That's the same thing as 2T + infinity = y
— Philosophim
As I recall, y is an infinite value, and thus it has no discretely specifiable position on the number line; it's unlimited volume over limited extent between limits. It never arrives at a start point (or an end point). — ucarr
Let us suppose true randomness is not a process. Is it still a phenomenon?
— ucarr
What is your definition of phenomenon?
— Philosophim
Since a phenomenon is an object of a person's perception, what's already been said about observation of a material thing (facts as thoughts are material things) applies here too. — ucarr
With your language you're saying -- literally -- that true randomness does not exist. — ucarr
Within the context of your thought experiment. And, as you think, your thought experiment has no dimensions, so, by your thinking, where does that posit the universe? Well, the one you think incepted from nothingness exists within the context of your thought experiment within your brain. See below for your own verification of this.
Hey, welcome back Bob! You still retain the title of the first person who realized this could not be proven empirically.
— Philosophim — ucarr
Lets edit this to: "If there exists an X which caused any infinite causality exists, then its not truly infinite causality, as there is something outside of the infinite causality chain."
Can you show me one equation in your reference that doesn't compute to infinity? Yes, you can. There's one equation that computes to "undefined." — ucarr
Which one? — Philosophim
Can you cite an equation with infinity as an input value that computes to a well-defined discrete position on the number line? It needs to be a number neither irrational nor approximate. — ucarr
Its logic. — Philosophim
Here's a question I think unaddressed and important that arises: With the exception of first causes, is it true that -- within the everyday world of things material and otherwise -- all things are part of a causal chain that inevitably arrives at a first cause? — ucarr
Yes. To not be would be complete and utter chaos that could never be understood, codified, or made into any sort of law. — Philosophim
Imagine that each causation within a causal chain -- because of the fact of its existence -- generates a prior (or subsequent) causation. How does the chain of causation reach the point of no prior (or subsequent) causation?
— ucarr
That's the same thing as 2T + infinity = y — Philosophim
So we have the equation 2T + infinity = Y representing an infinite chain of causation. Per your premise, this infinite causal chain has a first cause.
Computing with Infinity
Using the above link to your citation we have,
Some Special Properties:
If x is any integer, then;
x + ∞ = ∞
So, using your math equation (it's not a symbolic logic statement), with T = 1, we get,
2+∞=∞
This equation, which computes to infinity, fails to terminate at position one, a clear and discrete position on the number line. You won't find infinity occupying a clear and discrete position on the number line. Your equation, being the logical representation of an infinite causal chain with a first cause, and moreover being the engine of your thought experiment, by failing in its representation, dooms your effort to logically support your thought experiment. — Philosophim
And Ucarr, the logic and math are all ways to break down the argument into a way you can see more clearly. The argument hasn't changed. — Philosophim
In the link to Cantor's differing levels of infinite series, can you cite a passage addressing infinity conceptualized as an infinite series with a discrete starting point? — ucarr
Again, you're looking in the wrong place. Look at the logic above. — Philosophim
First, we discussed earlier how true randomness cannot be influenced by anything else. So QM is useless. — Philosophim
the uncertainty principle is all based off of our measuring tools being too strong. — Philosophim
So in the case of the cat, its not that the cat is both alive and dead before we measure it. — Philosophim
This doesn't resolve the ambiguity but, rather, re-enforces it: when you use the term 'cause' in the infinite chain, it does not refer whatsoever to the same thing as when you use the term 'cause' outside of it. You are using the term 'cause' in two toto genere different senses, and conflating them. — Bob Ross
Otherwise, if you mean to refer to 'X "caused" <...>' in the same sense as causality within the series, you are simply not contending with an actual infinite series of causality when positing X: if the infinite series is the totality of all causality, then there is necessarily no causality outside of it and, thusly, X cannot 'cause' the infinite series but, at best, can only be afforded as a brute fact explanation. — Bob Ross
Can you show me one equation in your reference that doesn't compute to infinity? Yes, you can. There's one equation that computes to "undefined."
— ucarr
Which one?
— Philosophim
It's your citation. Find it yourself. — ucarr
Can you cite an equation with infinity as an input value that computes to a well-defined discrete position on the number line? It needs to be a number neither irrational nor approximate.
— ucarr
Its logic.
— Philosophim
No. Can you cite a math equation that... (see the underlined above) — ucarr
And Ucarr, the logic and math are all ways to break down the argument into a way you can see more clearly. The argument hasn't changed.
— Philosophim
Nor has its faulty logical support. — ucarr
First, we discussed earlier how true randomness cannot be influenced by anything else. So QM is useless.
— Philosophim
My citation is not in reference to your true randomness narrative. It refers to placing an irrational number onto the number line without calculating in terms of limits. Your mistake entails assuming that because you see no connection between our debate and QM, therefore I must be randomly throwing it into the mix. — ucarr
A common misconception about the uncertainty principle in quantum physics is that it implies our measurements are uncertain or inaccurate. — ucarr
In fact, uncertainty is an inherent aspect of anything with wave-like behavior. — ucarr
And if nothing did, then the answer to what caused the universe to be infinite is the same as "What caused X to exist?" Nothing. Either way, we reach a point in causality in which there is no other cause for a state's existence.
Probability is a an educated guess at what will likely happen based on deterministic rules that we know. — Philosophim
Probability cannot be cancelled. If we haverandomlyshuffle some cards and pull a card, its a 4/52 chance its a jack. — Philosophim
My thought experiment on true randomness is not an idealization, its a correctly concluded conclusion. That which is not caused by something else, has no constraints, and thus prior to its inception could not be predicted. — Philosophim
There is zero contradiction in stating that nothing is possible. — Philosophim
Is zero impossible or a contradiction — Philosophim
A belief that you cannot have a state of toral non-organization does not counter why its been concluded to necessarily exist. — Philosophim
I'm pretty sure that when you go into space, there's a whole lot of nothing. — Philosophim
In a complicated way, thoughts are things. — ucarr
True. But in this case the thought is a representation, not actual randomness itself. — Philosophim
ust as you can't observe an elementary particle without changing it, you can't observe true randomness through a thought experiment without changing it. — ucarr
As I recall, y is an infinite value, and thus it has no discretely specifiable position on the number line; it's unlimited volume over limited extent between limits. It never arrives at a start point (or an end point). — ucarr
Correct. I've never claimed it does. That changes nothing of what stated. — Philosophim
Did you mean my reference to Cantor? If so, what is your point? I don't believe any of the equations I used in my example resolve to undefined. — Philosophim
No, you're ignoring the point. I'm simply using the equation to represent a set. If the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time, will there always be infinite prior causes? Yes. At every point T, will there be additional causes? Yes. — Philosophim
If you agree to this, then you agree to the equation. If the form of the equation bothers you, turn it into an array set of values where t is the index. Its the same thing. — Philosophim
I'm assuming an infinitely existing universe makes sense and is possible. If you agree, then the equation makes perfect sense. — Philosophim
And Ucarr, the logic and math are all ways to break down the argument into a way you can see more clearly. The argument hasn't changed — ucarr
Nor has its faulty logical support. — ucarr
This is not an argument Ucarr. If you're just going to give opinions, then my argument stands as logical. — Philosophim
Infinity is not a discrete number. It therefore cannot be precisely situated on the number line. It therefore cannot be precisely sequenced in a series populated with numbers. For these reasons, infinite values cannot be computed directly. — ucarr
The Crux: QM Governs Cosmology – an infinite causal chain cannot have a precise first cause because it amounts to putting the whole number line – infinite in volume – within itself. Infinite values can be bounded (as argued above) but they cannot be definitively sequenced. — ucarr
Given these limitations, the attempt to sequence an infinite value amounts to claiming a given thing is greater than itself; this irrational claim holds moot sway within QM, as in the instance of superposition; prior to measurement, the cat is neither dead or alive. — ucarr
My citation is not in reference to your true randomness narrative. It refers to placing an irrational number onto the number line without calculating in terms of limits. Your mistake entails assuming that because you see no connection between our debate and QM, therefore I must be randomly throwing it into the mix. — ucarr
If its not in reference to true randomness, I don't see the point then. — Philosophim
Infinity is not a discrete number. It therefore cannot be precisely situated on the number line. It therefore cannot be precisely sequenced in a series populated with numbers. For these reasons, infinite values cannot be computed directly. — ucarr
I never said our measurements were uncertain or inaccurate. I stated our measurements affect the outcome. — Philosophim
Second, the uncertainty principle is all based off of our measuring tools being too strong. The way we measure things is by bouncing smaller particles off of larger things. Usually the particles are small enough that the bounce does not impact its location or velocity. But in the quantum world, what we bounce off of the things we are measuring affects the outcome. We're measuring the smallest things with some of the smallest things, not smaller things. — Philosophim
In fact, uncertainty is an inherent aspect of anything with wave-like behavior. — ucarr
Agreed. — Philosophim
This is not a debate about QM unless you can demonstrate why its pertinent to the above two points. — Philosophim
You need to logically demonstrate two things:
1. Why a first cause is not necessary.
2. Why a first cause would not be completely random. — Philosophim
Consider: ∅={ }; this is the empty set. So, if ∅={ } = nothingness and (1) = first cause, then they are disjoint sets, meaning they have no common members. So, the intersection of ∅={ } and (1) takes us right back to ∅={ }. This is like multiplying any positive number by 0. The result is 0. Also, disjoint sets means first cause and its causations are separated; this is self-contradiction.
This is another refutation of something-from-nothing. As you see above, when nothing has nothing in common with something, nothing persists. — ucarr
That the infinite series of causality just is, doesn't make it a cause; thusly, it is not a first cause. — Bob Ross
The infinite series of 'causality' is really the infinite series of causality-es, and asking "what caused-e this infinite series?' is an incoherent question, so we throw it out. — Bob Ross
Statistical probability is a math-based science. Calculating probabilities is not educated guesswork. Either the math is correct or it isn't. — ucarr
Don't imagine the casinos in Vegas depend on educated guesswork for their profits. — ucarr
If you dial down determinism and probability to zero, you are left with neither form nor content. One might refer to any remainder, if such exists, as undefined. The intelligibility of form and content won't allow your pure randomness to come on stage. — ucarr
You're correct about rejoicing with Bob Ross over his understanding first cause cannot be verified empirically. Were that the case, with pure randomness extant empirically, you and Bob Ross wouldn't exist. — ucarr
Neither. Zero is a number. It holds a place on the number line between -1 and 1. Don't confuse it with non-existence. — ucarr
Consider: ∅={ }; this is the empty set. So, if ∅={ } = nothingness and (1) = first cause, then they are disjoint sets, meaning they have no common members. So, the intersection of ∅={ } and (1) takes us right back to ∅={ }. — ucarr
Here is an argument that implies your pure randomness is an idealization. If, as I believe, pure randomness is the absolute value of disorder, then it's not found in nature. — ucarr
You can walk into an empty room. You can't walk into a non-existent room. — ucarr
Just above you agreed thoughts are things. Still earlier, you agreed the presence of a thing changes what it observes, so your thoughts observing true randomness change it. — ucarr
Every infinite causal chain inevitably traces back to its first cause. If it does it's not infinite because infinity never begins. If it doesn't, it's not a causal chain because every causal chain has a first cause. — ucarr
My point is that an equation that computes to either infinity or undefined does not represent: "Every causal chain inevitably arrives at a first cause." — ucarr
I'm assuming an infinitely existing universe makes sense and is possible. If you agree, then the equation makes perfect sense.
— Philosophim
I agree. An eternal universe makes sense. One of it's salient attributes is the absence of a beginning. If you try to say an eternal universe is itself a first cause, you're positing it in its causal role as the outer parentheses set with itself as the inner parentheses set, but you're prohibited from doing so by the rule of set theory that says a set cannot be a member of itself. — ucarr
Let me repeat a second time what I repeated above:
Infinity is not a discrete number. It therefore cannot be precisely situated on the number line. It therefore cannot be precisely sequenced in a series populated with numbers. For these reasons, infinite values cannot be computed directly. — ucarr
My reference to QM, therefore, is, in turn, a reference to a first cousin of randomness, quantum certainty. Since elementary particles are also waveforms, and since waveforms and their uncertainties are related to randomness, QM, which deals with these uncertainties, might also be speculated to deal with randomness, this especially given the relationship between random quantum fluctuations and the singularity. — ucarr
From the evidence above, it's clear to me you're talking about gross measurement tools being grossly inaccurate — ucarr
Perhaps now -- given the similarity of uncertainty and randomness -- you can see my reference to QM is not random. — ucarr
I could show the pertinence of QM within this context, but I acknowledge that that pertinence introduces narratives too far afield from your points. — ucarr
Regarding #1 -- My direct attack -- were that my purpose herein -- would be an attempt to show that first cause doesn't exist. I think 180 Proof is doing a successful job in managing that objective. — ucarr
I'm not directly attacking "first cause is logically necessary." Perhaps it is. — ucarr
Statistical probability is a math-based science. Calculating probabilities is not educated guesswork. Either the math is correct or it isn't. — ucarr
Probability is absolutely educated guesswork Ucarr. No one knows what card will be drawn next. Its an educated inference about the future. It might take 49 card draws before we see our first jack despite the odds being 4/52. — Philosophim
Don't imagine the casinos in Vegas depend on educated guesswork for their profits. — ucarr
Yes, they do. The casino's only survive because the long term odds balance out to their predicted outcomes. There are several points in games where a person cleans out the house. But those points typically don't happen long often enough and often enough to override the losses. — Philosophim
The more constraints you have, the more deterministic it becomes and the number of possibilities approach zero. — Philosophim
Removing all constraints reveals all possibilities and is the negation of determinism. So no, this does not approach a probability of 0. — Philosophim
It [true randomness] doesn't have to happen at any time. — Philosophim
If you have zero dollars Ucarr, money owned by you does not exist. — Philosophim
Consider: ∅={ }; this is the empty set. So, if ∅={ } = nothingness and (1) = first cause, then they are disjoint sets, meaning they have no common members. So, the intersection of ∅={ } and (1) takes us right back to ∅={ }. — ucarr
I don't see the point. I'm not using an empty set nor multiplying by zero. — Philosophim
Here is an argument that implies your pure randomness is an idealization. If, as I believe, pure randomness is the absolute value of disorder, then it's not found in nature. — ucarr
Pure randomness has nothing to do with 'the value of disorder' whatever that is. — Philosophim
You keep confusing the point that true randomness comes from the result of a first cause being necessarily true. — Philosophim
If you want to counter the idea of true randomness, you need to attack what proves it to be true, not the concept of true randomness itself. — Philosophim
If you want to counter the idea of true randomness, you need to attack what proves it to be true, not the concept of true randomness itself. — Philosophim
You can walk into an empty room. You can't walk into a non-existent room. — ucarr
This is poor language use, not a proof. — Philosophim
I can walk into a vacuum sealed room right? Or a room empty of air? Non-existence as a concept is quite viable Ucarr. — Philosophim
Non-existence as a concept is quite viable Ucarr. Are you sure the concept of infinity is? — Philosophim
Just above you agreed thoughts are things. Still earlier, you agreed the presence of a thing changes what it observes, so your thoughts observing true randomness change it. — ucarr
My thoughts on true randomness change true randomness? How? How does my thinking about an atom incepting randomly change true randomness? — Philosophim
Every infinite causal chain inevitably traces back to its first cause. If it does it's not infinite because infinity never begins. If it doesn't, it's not a causal chain because every causal chain has a first cause. — ucarr
You are once again confusing the infinite causality within the universe with the causal chain of that universe. There is still the question in the chain, "What caused that infinite universe to exist?" Either something caused the infinite universe to exist, or it didn't right? — Philosophim
The critical question pertinent to our debate is whether or not you can talk logically about the before or after of a bounded infinity. When talking logically about the start of a chain of causality, you’re talking about the beginning of a continuity. That’s talking about the extent of a series. Since the infinite number of elements populating the series precludes you from ascertaining a start point, you can’t claim logically that before the start point there were such and such necessary conditions because you cannot specify a start point. — ucarr
Your mistake is that you are looking inside the set for a start point. The start point is not inside the set. It is the question of what caused the entire set. — Philosophim
Given a first cause, is it correct to say the next thing following the first cause -- the first thing caused by the first cause -- appears as the first causation? Subsequent links in the causal chain are, likewise, causations? — ucarr
Seems good to me. This is definitely clear in a finitely regressive universe. In the case of the formula of an infinitely regressive universe, because there is infinite time and we are capturing all possible causations within infinite time, there is no 'first causation."
If there's no first causation, how does the causal chain begin?
If the causal chain doesn’t progress sequentially, meaning the infinite causal chain is always considered as a whole, then it’s not a causal chain, it’s a unified set with no first cause. This isn’t causation; it’s creation.
— Philosophim
I'm assuming an infinitely existing universe makes sense and is possible. If you agree, then the equation makes perfect sense. — Philosophim
I agree. An eternal universe makes sense. One of it's salient attributes is the absence of a beginning. If you try to say an eternal universe is itself a first cause, you're positing it in its causal role as the outer parentheses set with itself as the inner parentheses set, but you're prohibited from doing so by the rule of set theory that says a set cannot be a member of itself. — ucarr
Correct. But I'm not doing that because there's another question on the causal chain. "What caused the infinite universe to exist?" — Philosophim
Let me repeat a second time what I repeated above:
Infinity is not a discrete number. It therefore cannot be precisely situated on the number line. It therefore cannot be precisely sequenced in a series populated with numbers. For these reasons, infinite values cannot be computed directly. — ucarr
Ok, and I'm going to repeat that this is irrelevant to the question, "What caused the infinite universe to exist?" — Philosophim
The set is only meant as a way to capture all of the causality within an infinite universe. Set of X = [all causality within an infinite universe]. The equation was just a way to represent it over time, which is perfectly viable if you believe that infinity exists. — Philosophim
If an infinite universe exists, at any time T does there exist an infinite amount of prior causality? Its a clear yes or no question. If you answer yes, then my equation is fine. if you answer no, then my equation is not fine, but then again, we also just demonstrated an infinite universe is illogical and can't be put on the number line. — Philosophim
How does this relate to our conversation on probability being a set of restrictions that enable us to reasonably guess at a future? — Philosophim
Second, the uncertainty principle is all based off of our measuring tools being too strong.The way we measure things is by bouncing smaller particles off of larger things. Usually the particles are small enough that the bounce does not impact its location or velocity. But in the quantum world, what we bounce off of the things we are measuring affects the outcome. We're measuring the smallest things with some of the smallest things, not smaller things. — Philosophim
This may be a language issue, so I'll point out the definitions.
Inaccurate - Measurements which are unreliable.
Reliable - Measurements which are consistent
Measurements can be accurate despite impacting the target. For example, if I hit a cue ball into a billiard ball with X force, y spin, at Z angle, the ball will billiard ball will reliably result in a set velocity in w direction. Measurements that impact other things are not inaccurate. The fact that the cue ball changes the billiard balls velocity does not mean our measure is inaccurate.
An example of an inaccurate measurement would be a stretchable ruler that constantly fluctuates in size and inches width. Or trying to measure something at a distance by spacing your thumb through the air without precision. QM measurements are not inaccurate, they just affect what is being measured because the size of our measuring tool cannot help but affect the thing being measured. — Philosophim
Perhaps now -- given the similarity of uncertainty and randomness -- you can see my reference to QM is not random.
— ucarr
Perhaps now you can see that your reference to QM does not solve the question, nor does covering this subject do anything for your case. — Philosophim
I could show the pertinence of QM within this context, but I acknowledge that that pertinence introduces narratives too far afield from your points. — ucarr
That's conceding the point then. — Philosophim
Regarding #1 -- My direct attack -- were that my purpose herein -- would be an attempt to show that first cause doesn't exist. I think 180 Proof is doing a successful job in managing that objective. — ucarr
Then you have not adequately understood his points or read my counters. — Philosophim
The series itself is not a first cause. The answer to the question, "What caused the infinite universe to exist?" is the first cause. Its, "Nothing". So once we reach that point, we've found our first cause.
You also must consider that we're not evaluating the set, we're evaluating the set as part of a causal chain.
My overall point is that anywhere in a causal chain we will always reach a point in which there is no prior cause within the chain.
The infinite series of 'causality' is really the infinite series of causality-es, and asking "what caused-e this infinite series?' is an incoherent question, so we throw it out. — Bob Ross
Its a perfectly coherent question.
Working through the answer might seem incoherent because people don't like to accept that we've reached an end to causality (and what it entails
The series itself has no cause, and this makes it the first cause. But then you are saying the series is the first cause. — Bob Ross
You also must consider that we're not evaluating the set, we're evaluating the set as part of a causal chain.
An infinite set of all causes is not a part of a causal chain. — Bob Ross
You also must consider that we're not evaluating the set, we're evaluating the set as part of a causal chain.
An infinite set of all causes is not a part of a causal chain. — Bob Ross
A brute fact is not necessarily a cause. — Bob Ross
Consider: ∅={ }; this is the empty set. So, if ∅={ } = nothingness and (1) = first cause, then they are disjoint sets, meaning they have no common members. So, the intersection of
∅={ } and (1) takes us right back to ∅={ }. — ucarr
The statement makes an explicit point: nothing intersecting causally with something always results in nothing. So, no something-from-nothing. There's only nothing from nothing. You [Philosophim] have argued that nothingness in your argument is not a thing. With nothingness as a thing, say, a thing represented by zero, nothingness-as-a-representable-nothing can only interact causally with something along the lines of (0)X=0. — ucarr
It seems like you are trying to argue that since the set of all causes intersection with the null set would result in the null set, that something not having a cause is impossible. The problem with such an argument is twofold: firstly, that something that has no cause would not be a member of the set of all causes NOR a member of the null set and, secondly, the intersection of two sets equaling the null set just means that it has no communal members (which doesn't itself entail that it is impossible for there to be a member of either of the sets).* — Bob Ross
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.