The implication of a total existence from infinite possibilities is that non-existence is actually unlimited possibility. There’s an idea that nothingness equals no restrictions. — ucarr
On the other side of the coin, we can ask, how existence, being self-contained, can do other than persist as existence. — ucarr
Now we have two posits about the origin of the universe: a) the universe is eternal; b) the universe is self-caused. — ucarr
This leaves us preferring to see the universe as self-caused and eternal. — ucarr
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 caused—which precludes things that are not caused — Bob Ross
Existence itself is not a property like other properties: you can’t ask “why is there being?” like “why is there red things?”. — Bob Ross
In terms of why do things exist, the question in an infinite regress would be that each one explains the other: that’s no problem to answer. — Bob Ross
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; — Bob Ross
The answer is not that F causes C. Its that C is uncaused.
If you agree that sets aren’t real, then you must concede that C cannot be caused or uncaused. — Bob Ross
your proof is supposed to demonstrate all of them leading back to everything being uncaused; and so if there is even on solution that doesn’t lead back to that, then your thesis is void. — Bob Ross
An infinite regression is one such example. — Bob Ross
Are you saying that existence has no outside cause and that it has no outside at all? — ucarr
Is it true you're saying the entire scope of causality is the focal point of your argument? — ucarr
Are you saying the uncaused thing began inside of the universe? — ucarr
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? — ucarr
Are you saying that before the entirety of existence existed, the universe could have been anything? — ucarr
Are you saying that existence has no outside cause and that it has no outside at all? — ucarr
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. — Philosophim
Is it true you're saying the entire scope of causality is the focal point of your argument? — ucarr
I believe so, yes. — Philosophim
Are you saying the uncaused thing began inside of the universe? — 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. — Philosophim
The universe did not come 'from nothing'. Nothing did not create 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 — Philosophim
Are you saying that before the entirety of existence existed, the universe could have been anything? — ucarr
Yes. — Philosophim
Since existence encapsulates everything that is, that includes the entire scope of causality within the closed system of existence? — ucarr
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? — ucarr
So your theory has at it center the greater scope of existence with the lesser scope of causality inside of it? — ucarr
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? — ucarr
Are you now saying the universe did come from nothing? — ucarr
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? — ucarr
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. — Bob Ross
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? — ucarr
I don't know or care. The set is a tool to help you understand the concept, not a mathematically rigid logical model. — Philosophim
So your theory has at its center the greater scope of existence with the lesser scope of causality inside of it? — ucarr
No, I'm just talking about the scope of causality. I don't know what the scope of existence is. — Philosophim
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. — Philosophim
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. — 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? — 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. — Philosophim
Are you now saying the universe did come from nothing? — ucarr
No. Nothing and Something are not connected. Nothing cannot cause anything. Uncaused means uncaused Ucarr. Not that 'nothing' caused something. — 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? — 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. — Philosophim
Do you think the mathematical and logical precision of set theory is mis-applied to your theory? — ucarr
Why do you say you don't know what is the scope of existence given your earlier statement re-posted below:
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. — ucarr
Why don't you care about the relationship between the scope of existence and the scope of causation? — ucarr
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? — ucarr
I understand you to be saying non-existence and existence are closed and cannot interact. — ucarr
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? — ucarr
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? — ucarr
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? — ucarr
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). — Bob Ross
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? — ucarr
Do you think the mathematical and logical precision of set theory is mis-applied to your theory? — ucarr
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. — Philosophim
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. — Philosophim
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. — Philosophim
Because I never introduced the scope of existence. I don't know what this is. Again, a straw man. — Philosophim
Why do you say you don't know what is the scope of existence given your earlier statement re-posted below: — ucarr
I don't know what the phrase, "Plays within the universe" means. — Philosophim
...it feels like you're using ambiguous language... — Philosophim
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? — 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. — Philosophim
When you say there is no prior cause for the universe, 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? — 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. — Philosophim
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. — Philosophim
Give me an example of an uncaused existence that has restrictions and rules to see for yourself. — Philosophim
Give me an example of an uncaused existence that has restrictions and rules to see for yourself. — Philosophim
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. — Philosophim
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? — 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. — Philosophim
...it feels like you're using ambiguous language...
— Philosophim
Can you quote my ambiguous language? — ucarr
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? — ucarr
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. — ucarr
This, therefore, is you implying that non-existence moved to existence, viz, non-existence caused existence. — ucarr
I understand you to be saying non-existence and existence are closed and cannot interact.
— ucarr
Thank you for confirming this, I won't mention it again then. — 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." — ucarr
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. — ucarr
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. — ucarr
You can't describe something without applying limits to what it is. Anything goes is unintelligible. — ucarr
You describe your uncaused universe in such a way that it becomes what you want to believe about it. — ucarr
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. — ucarr
If an uncaused existence entails a logical possibility, then, by the existence of the uncaused existence, the logical possibility also exists. — ucarr
Possibility cannot be excluded from real things. — ucarr
Why do you say you don't know what is the scope of existence given your earlier statement re-posted below: — ucarr
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. — Philosophim
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. — Philosophim
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. — Philosophim
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. — JuanZu
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. — JuanZu
You don't use the words "scope of existence," but "existence encapsulates everything that is" means the same thing. — ucarr
you specifically relate the lesser scope of causality to the greater scope of existence. — ucarr
Moreover, I've never mis-represented you because I've always quoted what you wrote verbatim. — ucarr
And we would still ask, "What caused that to exist?" The answer is always the same in the end of the causal chain. — Philosophim
An interesting point. But we can imagine a universe consisting of one simple thing. That would exist correct? — Philosophim
...it feels like you're using ambiguous language... — Philosophim
Can you quote my ambiguous language? — ucarr
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. — Philosophim
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. — 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!" :) — Philosophim
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.