• Philosophim
    2.8k
    Good to see you again Ucarr! Great write up, let me see if I can justifiably answer your points.

    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

    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.

    On the other side of the coin, we can ask, how existence, being self-contained, can do other than persist as existence.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.

    Now we have two posits about the origin of the universe: a) the universe is eternal; b) the universe is self-caused.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.

    This leaves us preferring to see the universe as self-caused and eternal.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.
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    Bob I'm not even too sure where to start with this one at this point. I feel you keep making this needlessly complicated and introducing aspects that I'm not including. I would read Ucarr's reply and my response to him to reset on the right track. Let me see if I can sum up your issues and get us back on a clearer path again.

    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 causedBob 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.

    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

    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.

    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

    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.

    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

    What caused God?


    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

    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.

    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

    Correct.

    An infinite regression is one such example.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.
  • Bob Ross
    2k


    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.
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    Not a worry Bob! We may not agree on these points but I always respect your honest engagement and viewpoint.
  • Bob Ross
    2k


    You too, my friend! I look forward to our next conversation.
  • ucarr
    1.6k


    The logic of a universal origin and meaning

    Extract of Philo’s 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?
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    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.

    Is it true you're saying the entire scope of causality is the focal point of your argument?ucarr

    I believe so, yes.

    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.

    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

    Yes.

    Are you saying that before the entirety of existence existed, the universe could have been anything?ucarr

    Yes.
  • ucarr
    1.6k


    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

    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?

    Is it true you're saying the entire scope of causality is the focal point of your argument?ucarr

    I believe so, yes.Philosophim

    So your theory has at it center the greater scope of existence with the lesser scope of causality inside of it?

    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

    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:

    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 conclusionPhilosophim

    Are you saying that before the entirety of existence existed, the universe could have been anything?ucarr

    Yes.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?
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    Since existence encapsulates everything that is, that includes the entire scope of causality within the closed system of existence?ucarr

    Yes.

    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.

    So your theory has at it 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.

    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.

    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.

    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.
  • Janus
    16.7k
    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

    Ontology is the study of what exists—metaphysics 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 there—it observes and studies the phenomena we encounter and the perceived invariances and speculates about how things are in ways that can be tested.
  • ucarr
    1.6k


    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

    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"?

    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

    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.Philosophim

    Why don't you care about the relationship between the scope of existence and the scope of causation? Consider your earlier statement below:

    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

    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?

    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

    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?

    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

    I understand you to be saying non-existence and existence are closed and cannot interact.

    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

    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?
  • Bob Ross
    2k


    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).
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    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.

    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

    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.

    Why don't you care about the relationship between the scope of existence and the scope of causation?ucarr

    Because I never introduced the scope of existence. I don't know what this is. Again, a straw man.

    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 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.

    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.

    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.

    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

    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.

    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.
  • Janus
    16.7k
    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

    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.
  • ucarr
    1.6k


    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

    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:

    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

    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?

    Because I never introduced the scope of existence. I don't know what this is. Again, a straw man.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?
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    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.

    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.
  • ucarr
    1.6k


    I don't know what the phrase, "Plays within the universe" means.Philosophim

    I'm asking you if causation began after the universe existed.

    ...it feels like you're using ambiguous language...Philosophim

    Can you quote my ambiguous language?

    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

    Here is my unedited quote:

    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

    Here's more evidence you have written about the universe being the scope of all that exists:

    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

    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.

    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

    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.

    Give me an example of an uncaused existence that has restrictions and rules to see for yourself.Philosophim

    By my argument above, there is no un-stipulated uncaused existence.
  • JuanZu
    201


    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.
  • ucarr
    1.6k


    Let's look at a stipulated uncaused existence.

    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

    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.

    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

    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.
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    ...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.

    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

    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.

    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!" :)

    This, therefore, is you implying that non-existence moved to existence, viz, non-existence caused existence.ucarr

    No. I thought we settled this earlier.

    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'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.

    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

    I don't get it. Use the deck analogy I gave otherwise this doesn't make any sense.

    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

    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.

    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

    No, that's the definition of no restriction Ucarr. If you're saying "No restriction is a restriction," you've cancelled yourself out.

    You can't describe something without applying limits to what it is. Anything goes is unintelligible.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.

    You describe your uncaused universe in such a way that it becomes what you want to believe about it.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.

    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

    This is not a belief. Again, if you're stating an unlimited universe is a restriction, this is a contradiction.

    If an uncaused existence entails a logical possibility, then, by the existence of the uncaused existence, the logical possibility also exists.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.

    Possibility cannot be excluded from real things.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.
  • ucarr
    1.6k


    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

    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.

    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

    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.

    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

    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.
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    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

    And we would still ask, "What caused that to exist?" The answer is always the same in the end of the causal chain.

    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

    An interesting point. But we can imagine a universe consisting of one simple thing. That would exist correct?
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    You don't use the words "scope of existence," but "existence encapsulates everything that is" means the same thing.ucarr

    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.

    you specifically relate the lesser scope of causality to the greater scope of existence.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.

    Moreover, I've never mis-represented you because I've always quoted what you wrote verbatim.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?
  • JuanZu
    201
    And we would still ask, "What caused that to exist?" The answer is always the same in the end of the causal chain.Philosophim

    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.

    An interesting point. But we can imagine a universe consisting of one simple thing. That would exist correct?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?
  • ucarr
    1.6k


    ...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

    Since you supply only phrases without context, I think your evidence is no less vague than that you ascribe to my words.

    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

    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 they’ve 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.
123Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.