Without really understanding why, I really liked causal sets. I know too little to make an informed choice. I'm reading up on it. Interesting stuff: http://jamesowenweatherall.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/3CausalSets_v12.pdf

In relation to quantum physics, first cause is subject to Schrödinger's cat

The cat is either a live or dead until measured.
3rd possibility is uncertainty, which is the cause of virtual particles and current state of science.

Therefore first cause is logically necessary until measured otherwise. (that is until the box is opened)

As to your explosion question, I felt I gave a pretty clear answer.
— Philosophim
Clear enough, but not to the question. — tim wood

I may not have understood the question then. Could you try to rephrase it to make it more clear?

Then what is "in between"?
I'm assuming it exists.
— Philosophim — tim wood

Are you asking what's in between the cause and effect? Time. What scale of time do you want to talk about? The only time when there is no cause and effect is if time is zero. Cause and effect are 4d measurement's essentially.

And if I assume you owe me $100, can I expect a check in the next day or two? — tim wood

Nope! Ha ha ha! We can of course believe all sorts of things, but that is not knowing all sorts of things. You really should go read my knowledge paper, I explore this idea in depth. To bring it to a simple real world example, when I press the space bar key on my keyboard, I expect a space between my words. Pressing the space bar causes the space to appear between the words. Am I wrong? Is that not a good example of cause and effect?

If not, what would you replace it with? It is incredibly easy to say, "I doubt everything," but its impractical, and if you read my paper, does not lead to knowledge. I have knowledge of cause and effect. I use it effectively and consistently in my daily life without fail. If its wrong, give me something that is just as, or more effective to try. But asking questions that cast doubt on something, just to doubt it, is something anyone can apply to any concept.

You like to think that, up to you. Do you understand quantum mechanics? — Raul

In general, yes I do.

I think in the microscopic quantum world things don't happen in a lineal cause-effect way. — Raul

Based on what evidence? We can believe and have opinions on all sorts of things. I'm not asking for personal beliefs or opinions. I'm asking someone to give me a hard fact that causality doesn't exist. Explain to me how you are able to press the keys on your keyboard to type words, and you expect those words to appear, and this can be understood without causality.

Why is Schrödinger equation full of probabilistic functions? Do you think it is because we don't know enough so we replace a "deterministic" function by a probabilistic one? — Raul

Yes, that is exactly that. The whole point of the experiment is when we don't observe the cat. The experiment continues without guesswork if we watch the cat the entire time. Quantum mechanics are understood because we understand rules that consistently work. Due to incredible difficulty of measuring and monitoring the quantum world, we are left with math that leads us to probabilities. But the math should not be confused as representing the quantum world as unpredictably random, but a predictable randomness based off of the knowledge we have, the the knowledge that we know we don't have.

I believe the world, what we call the reality is much more complex than the naïf-intuition of cause-effect.
I guess I'm not the only one, let s ask the physicists ;-) — Raul

No need. Any physicist will tell you cause and effect exists. I could ask any one of them, "What causes your keyboard to type words," and they will attempt to provide an explanation. But not one of them will say, "There is no cause, words just appear without explanation."

Also, we shouldn't need to ask a physicist if you have the answer yourself correct? If it is more than a belief, show it. If not, why should your belief matter to me? You could believe that unicorns control the world as well right? If you can't demonstrate that, is that a belief I should bother considering?

No need for several universes. This very universe of ours appears made of things popping in and out of existence all the soddin' time. An non-determinist universe is a universe in constant creation. — Olivier5

So here are some cool things to consider. If there are no rules as to what should be self-explained, then it seems like there are no limitations as to what could form self-explained. Well, within the limitations of definition. A complex object would arguably not be 1 self explained entity, but several forming at the exact time in a way that caused a stable identifiable existence apart from just the individual combinations. This would be exceedingly rare, and might pull in Cantor's cardinality to calculate the odds of such an event. Of course, perhaps that's irrelevant in a sea of infinite possibilities, but intuitively (for all that's worth) it would seem the case that over a set period of time, it would be more likely that there is a greater set of simple alphas that form independently, versus an increasingly smaller set of alphas that form with the correct way and timing into a more complex objct.

Yes, this does mean the universe would BOTH be deterministic, and non-deterministic. Once something forms, it is deterministic. But, the addition of an unpredictable alpha, even an incredibly tiny one for a few seconds, throws the forces off "just" slightly enough to never be 100% predictable. Here we have a solution to the deterministic problem that is logically consistent.

As for multiverse theory, it still might be a bunk theory, as we are attributing a possibility to an unknown. All we know is our notion of space. But what is there is a notion of space that can exist, but could never interact with our notion of space? I can't say its impossible (though in how we define space, maybe it is, another discussion) but it seems that if anything could form without prior explanation, why couldn't it?

The cause-effect intuition (Hume was great explaining it) implies a cause of a cause in a infinity loop what is irrational in itself. That's it! — Raul

I think this is incorrect. Hume was talking about predicting the future. Hume couldn't deny we could figure out cause and effect in the moment. His point was we could never be certain cause and effect would continue. Why should the rules and laws of physics remain constant tomorrow? Or even an hour from now. It is an inductive belief based on habit. And it may very well be the case that tomorrow, cause and effect stops working. All we are left with at that point is things that are essentially self-explained, and cannot be predicted or tell us its past.

That does not mean cause and effect is irrational, or incorrect. Look at the words you typed. What caused that? The question makes perfect sense to you. Try to answer that question without cause and effect in a way that is meaningful in reality. If you can do that, I will consider that cause and effect is not real.

Against this backdrop, we could explore possibilities in re the so-called laws of nature e.g. in the case of the Big Bang (first cause), was gravity negative? — TheMadFool

Yes, an excellent point. We can only have faith that the rules of causality were the same billions of years ago as they are today. But perhaps they were not. Perhaps gravity is not a constant, but changes. But does that eliminate cause and effect itself? No. What it eliminates are our formulas of consistency being applied to the past.

Cause and effect are brought about due to categorical distinctions. Within distinctions values are emergent. — I like sushi

Cause and effect are four dimensional measurements of the world. They are representatives of the world, just like words and math are. But, we can have inaccurate measurements, and accurate measurements. Is there a cause and effect behind you ability to type out words on the screen as a response? Of course there is, and it is accurate. The fact that cause and effect can be used inaccurately does not deny cause and effect.

To ask about a ‘first cause’ states that there is a first cause as ‘cause’ and ‘first’ are framed via temporal appreciation not via atemporal appreciation. — I like sushi

I've never removed time. Time is simply the relation between two state changes. If things can change, there is time. If they cannot, there is no time. I am not claiming first causes are apart from time.

I cannot value one thing about another without two things. I can value myself above myself in terms of temporal difference (the me previously to the future me) but this is likely a trick as the ‘now’ is the accumulation of past/future me not distinct from it. — I like sushi

Well, I am valuing two things. A first cause leads to a second right?

None of this likely helps the discussion though because it is meant as means of putting an end to it — I like sushi

No, trying to show that the discussion is along the wrong path is helpful. Analyzing whether are assumed premises are valid is incredibly important. But, I don't think you've succeeded in showing the premises of cause and effect aren't real. Try to explain to me how you can type words on your keyboard without cause and effect. Do that, and there might be a foothold here.

Any physicist will tell you cause and effect exists. — Philosophim

I was a physics major in college (albeit not a very good one). i can assure you that the expression "cause and effect" never came up in my 4 years of college.

Either all things have a prior cause for their existence, or there is at least one first cause of existence from which a chain of events follows. — Philosophim

We factually know that this is not true. Events at the atomic and sub-atomic level have no prior "cause". Events do follow certain statistical patterns, but each event is totally random with no prior "cause". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam

In the last 100 years our knowledge of the physical universe has grown exponentially and new discoveries are being made - we are likely just scratching the surface here. To think we can draw any sort of grand philosophical conclusions about the nature of reality is an act of hubris. We must be humble and acknowledge that we really don't know what's going on.

We factually know that this is not true. Events at the atomic and sub-atomic level have no prior "cause". Events do follow certain statistical patterns, but each event is totally random with no prior "cause". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam

In the last 100 years our knowledge of the physical universe has grown exponentially and new discoveries are being made - we are likely just scratching the surface here. To think we can draw any sort of grand philosophical conclusions about the nature of reality is an act of hubris. We must be humble and acknowledge that we really don't know what's going on. — EricH

Doesn't your second paragraph refute your first one here?

Well, I am valuing two things. A first cause leads to a second right? — Philosophim

Is that a 'value'? Why is it important what comes 'first' or if something does come 'first'? Do you apply more value to first or second and if so why do you do this?

But, I don't think you've succeeded in showing the premises of cause and effect aren't real. — Philosophim

Real in what way? Why does the value 'real' come into play here? Are claiming that cause and effect are real because you value them or because you value cause and effect or because you don't value them. I'm guessing you apply the term 'real' to them because you value them so when you say 'real' you mean of 'value'. The question is then 'value' how and due to what distinction?

Try to explain to me how you can type words on your keyboard without cause and effect. — Philosophim

I can show you. Here. I had no need whatsoever to type the words you said I wouldn't be able to stop myself from typing! :D

Seriously, that is part of what I'm getting at. You are reliant upon a certain means of communication to express ideas and can only, at best, vaguely adumbrate certain feels and senses about other vague feelings and senses. The problem is we're not exactly accurate and you did note that.

I can type without any real consideration towards what I am doing as a matter of 'cause and effect' so in that respect (as with walking and breathing) I do not take part in such activities due to being consciously attentive to the world as a 'causal stream' of happenings. I merely live and do for the vast majority of my actions and at certain alarms and triggers happen to draw my attention to or from one matter to another. I do not consider my general actions as being the 'cause leading to an effect' as I probably wouldn't get much done.

I'm aware of how physics models the world. Of course in that department there has been great discoveries and successes regarding cause and effect. The matter of 'time' is not something humans seem to have much of an idea about as it is part of us not apart from us ... or maybe we do have an atemporal element? Or maybe we're just caught up in the whole obsession of measuring and comparing x to y to see beyond it.

If we break down the cause and effect into the item you gave (typing) then I can just keep on dividing up any given act. For example I could say that the cause of me typing on a keyboard is my want to communicate, but then I could ask where this 'want' comes from. I could say my thoughts instigate my want, but what instigates my thoughts. Or I could move in another direction and ask what instigated that particular thought to type, or did I even think about typing or merely acted to the cause of reading your post? Where does this go? What direction do I take? Is this meaningful and if so, or not, how?

First cause makes no sense no more than 'cause and effect' makes sense out of specifically defined boundaries. Then we're back to value and distinction.

There are certain theories of math and philosophy that have succeeded by showing certain things are impossible, thus leaving us with a known alternative. That's essentially what the argument is doing. — Philosophim

If the bridge is washed out, my path across it is impossible. That the path is impossible doesn’t leave me with a known alternate for getting across what the bridge allowed. I’m left with knowing I need one, but only to continue despite the loss of the bridge. But I could just turn back, in which case not only is there no given known alternative to the bridge, there isn’t even a need for one. Now, one could say retracing my steps is the known alternative to the impossibility of crossing over the bridge, but that is merely experience. I would have that exact same alternative knowledge even if the bridge hadn’t washed out.

If this is what the first cause logical necessity argument is showing.....is it really showing anything I didn’t already know?
————-

There is no necessary existence. It is simply that if we are to think about the end logic of causality, it is necessary that there must be a place in the chain that has no prior explanation for its existence. — Philosophim

Granted already; there is a first cause logical necessity. But only in the case of a chain comprised of a regressive series. Doesn’t work that way for a progressive series. Next month cannot be explained without the priority of next week.
————

The argument is that there essentially is the possibility of infinite regressive causality, or finite regressive causality. Yet the argument concludes that even when we propose an infinite regressive causality, it is impossible to escape that fact that if it is infinitely regressive in causality, that there can be no outside reason for this, but the fact of its own existence. — Philosophim

Again, I just don’t see how this says anything. The possibility of infinite regressive, and even infinite progressive, causality, is logically given. Do you mean there is no outside reason other than its being logical? What other reason could there be for that which is merely a logical proposition?
————

that which exists without at least a logical reason is utterly incomprehensible....
— Mww
I've heard things like this before, and I consider it wrong. If I can logically conclude that it must exist, then it must. — Philosophim

How can it be wrong, when it is you providing the reason, in the form of a logical conclusion? Technically though, mine has existence antecedent to the conclusion, hence logically sound, yours has existence post hoc ergo proper hoc conditioned by the conclusion, logically fallacious in that mere logic is insufficient causality for phenomenal existence. Yours would be true if you’d said, “...it must logically exist”. Or, “logically, it must exist”.

I am suddenly and inexplicably rich. The conclusion I reach that a rich uncle I never knew willed me his fortune, is sufficient reason for me being rich, but the rich uncle does not necessarily exist, nor is it necessary I was even a beneficiary. But there being no reason whatsoever for me being rich, is incomprehensible, whether I care about the reason or not. I simply cannot suddenly be rich (a change) without a reason (a cause), whether I conclude anything respecting it, or not.
———-

At this point I think you've strayed too far from the OP. — Philosophim

Yeah....I get that a lot. Don’t mind me none; point/counterpoint is the name of the game.

That's likely just a semantic distinction then. If you want to call a first cause a "brute fact", that's fine. My question of course is why does that brute fact exist? In which case we can say, "It doesn't have anything prior that caused it to be, it just is." So I don't think we're in disagreement here. — Philosophim

I wouldn't want to call a brute fact a "first cause," because it would be misleading. Take your trichotomy of possible brute facts, for example: infinite regress, causal loop or first cause. One of these, of course, is called "first cause," but as a fact about the causal structure of the world, it is not located anywhere in time, nor is it a cause in the usual sense (only in a loose sense that is synonymous with "explanation" or "reason").

As I said in my response to your OP, the entire argument, to the extent that I could make sense of it, hinges on an equivocation about the word "cause". Whatever meaning you prefer to use, if you use it consistently throughout, then it doesn't appear that you have managed to say much with your argument. My most generous interpretation of it is as an argument for the existence of brute causal fact(s), as opposed to the unrestricted principle of sufficient reason. But that is not novel, and could have been (and has been) stated much more clearly.

Hume was talking about predicting the future. — Philosophim

This is incorrect, you missed the important part on Hume.
Hume challenges us to consider what we can know of the constituent impressions of causation. All we can come up with is an experienced constant conjunction of cause and effect. He points out that we never have an impression of efficacy. Because of this, our notion of causal law seems to be a mere presentiment that the constant conjunction will continue to be constant, some certainty that this mysterious union will persist. Hume argues that we cannot conceive of any other connection between cause and effect, because there simply is no other impression to which our idea may be traced. This certitude is all that remains.

But this is Hume, and Hume didn't know quantum physics. I gave you several examples that, in a way, confirm Hume's argument and my argument that cause-effect is a naïf-intuition. Check those out and you will get the answer to your question.

Interesting topic! I have, however, quite a few questions/reservations on the whole thesis ...

1. Either all things have a prior cause for their existence, or there is at least one first cause of existence from which a chain of events follows. — Philosophim

Doesn't the second premise imply the first one? Wouldn't each event in a chain of events have a prior one that is its cause? But this is not important. What follows is!

Y: represents an existence that has an unknown prior causality.
X: represents an existent prior causality to Y. — Philosophim

I assume that by "unknown" it is meant that Y has a prior causality but it is unknown, and that unknown causality is represented by X, rather than it does not have a prior causality or that it is unknown whether it has a prior causality or not. The reasons I assume that first meaning are:
1) It is the most obvious, as it stands by itself.
2) Any of the other two cases would lead to a conflict or impossibility: that of X representing an inexistent causality.

Z: Represent an existence caused by Y. — Philosophim

OK, this doesn't add anything to the situation at this point, except the fact that Y has at least one "child".

Alpha: A Y existence that is identified as having no prior causality — Philosophim

I see a conflict here, since I have established that Y does have a prior causality, so Alpha cannot be an instance or existence of Y, since it has no prior causality!

So, it seems that things get stuck here. Is there a 4th interpretation for Y "having an unknown prior causality"? Because I showed that the other two meanings cannot apply because then the definition of X could not stand.

It would be good if we this impasse is cleared! :smile:

But the math should not be confused as representing the quantum world as unpredictably random, but a predictable randomness based off of the knowledge we have, the the knowledge that we know we don't have. — Philosophim

I'm not saying cause-effect does not exist. We humans have created the words cause and effect to describe something. What I'm saying is that they don't work to properly describe reality. It is like Newton vs Einstein. We cannot say Newton was wrong but was incomplete.
I'm arguing the same, cause-effect is not wrong. Those 2 words and their use work (Wittgenstein pragmatism) but are incomplete and wrong to describe reality.
You yourself accept the "randomness".... so here you go. Randomness breaks the cause-effect link.

Any physicist will tell you cause and effect exists. — Philosophim

Not really, they talk about action-reaction and anyway my point is that cause-and effect is not enough to describe reality. I give you more examples (besides quantum stuff), concepts like emergence in complex systems (what causes the liquidity of water?) that show you reality cannot be thought as cause effect.

"What causes your keyboard to type words," — Philosophim

If this question is for you relevant to this discussion I think you're too biased by using a language in wrong context. This then becomes a linguistic or phil of language issue (Wittgenstein, Recanati....)... you will keep going in circles if you keep working with this language created to understand our daily life not reality...

As I said in my response to your OP, the entire argument, to the extent that I could make sense of it, hinges on an equivocation about the word "cause". Whatever meaning you prefer to use, if you use it consistently throughout, then it doesn't appear that you have managed to say much with your argument. My most generous interpretation of it is as an argument for the existence of brute causal fact(s), as opposed to the unrestricted principle of sufficient reason. But that is not novel, and could have been (and has been) stated much more clearly. — SophistiCat

:up:

Another scientific poem on a quantum vacuum first cause physical example:

On the One and Only Base Existence

Prolog

In this lost haunt on the Orion arm
Of the galaxy, safe from the core’s harm,
The philosophers meet in the forum,
As sleuth-hounds unweaving the Cosmic yarn.

We search for the Start of the Universe,
The End, the Before, the After, the Kinds,
The Measures, and All That Lies Between:
The Music of the Spheres’ Magnificat.

We follow every single avenue,
Whether it’s brightly lit or a dark alley,
Exploring one-ways, no-ways, and dead-ends,
Until cornered where the Truth is hiding.

Since we all became of this universe,
Should we not ask who we are, whence we came?
Insight clefts night’s skirt with its radiance—
The Theory of Everything shines through!

i can assure you that the expression "cause and effect" never came up in my 4 years of college. — EricH

A force collides with an object and causes it to move 1 meter per second upon impact. What caused the object to be in the state of velocity of 1 m/s?

We factually know that this is not true. Events at the atomic and sub-atomic level have no prior "cause". Events do follow certain statistical patterns, but each event is totally random with no prior "cause". — EricH

I'm not sure what facts you're getting. Feel free to link to them. My understanding is there are plenty of forces at play like the weak, strong force, etc. An atom does not typically turn into a bomb unless certain causes happen correct? Something having odds or statistics does not eliminate cause and effect. Your cell phone works due to our understanding of quantum mechanics. If the quantum level was truly random, there would be no prediction or manipulation that we could do which would allow the precision communication of a cell phone. Finally, quantum foam as a theory does not destroy cause and effect.

I'll let Artemis address your last paragraph.

Is that a 'value'? Why is it important what comes 'first' or if something does come 'first'? Do you apply more value to first or second and if so why do you do this? — I like sushi

I'm just trying to speak in the terms you were using. I don't value anything more than another.

Real in what way? Why does the value 'real' come into play here? Are claiming that cause and effect are real because you value them or because you value cause and effect or because you don't value them. I'm guessing you apply the term 'real' to them because you value them so when you say 'real' you mean of 'value'. The question is then 'value' how and due to what distinction? — I like sushi

Real means what exists. What is not real, does not exist. Can you demonstrate that cause and effect do not exist?

I can show you. Here. I had no need whatsoever to type the words you said I wouldn't be able to stop myself from typing! :D — I like sushi

Did your fingers press the keys to type the words? Of course they did. Those fingers pressing the keys caused the words to appear on the screen. Its important that when obvious conclusions arrive in a discussion, we admit to them, even if we don't personally like them.

If we break down the cause and effect into the item you gave (typing) then I can just keep on dividing up any given act. For example I could say that the cause of me typing on a keyboard is my want to communicate, but then I could ask where this 'want' comes from. I could say my thoughts instigate my want, but what instigates my thoughts. Or I could move in another direction and ask what instigated that particular thought to type, or did I even think about typing or merely acted to the cause of reading your post? Where does this go? What direction do I take? Is this meaningful and if so, or not, how? — I like sushi

Yes, that is the scale of measurement. Cause and effect are a 4 dimensional measurement that analyzes states at one point in time, compares them to a previous point in time, and attempts to prove there is a necessary relation between it and the other states around it, that caused the current state to exist. We can use whatever time units we want, limit or expand the forces, etc. Its just like 2d measurement. I can measure length. But at what scale? Inches, cm, nanometers? What is the precision we desire, or is practical for predictive outcomes? You don't think because length measurement is a model, that there is no length right?

Dunning-Kruger is in full effect. :zip:

If the bridge is washed out, my path across it is impossible. — Mww

That's not really the same thing as the OP's points. Really, my best example of what the OP is trying to do, is the OP itself. But perhaps a better example is a light switch. If you turn it off, the light goes off. But if you turn it on, you expect it to light up. However, you find that when you turn it on, there's actually a circuit behind it that prevents it from turning on. You thought turning it on was an option, but its actually impossible. Therefore, the light switch can never turn the light on. Don't go crazy on the thought experiment. Its just to get you in a certain mindset. Use the OP if you find that mindset wrong.

Granted already; there is a first cause logical necessity. But only in the case of a chain comprised of a regressive series. Doesn’t work that way for a progressive series. Next month cannot be explained without the priority of next week. — Mww

Yes, agreed.

Again, I just don’t see how this says anything. The possibility of infinite regressive, and even infinite progressive, causality, is logically given. Do you mean there is no outside reason other than its being logical? What other reason could there be for that which is merely a logical proposition? — Mww

Fair question. If it turns out that all of causality is infinitely regressive, what caused it to be that way? If you introduce an X, or a prior explanation, then its not really infinitely regressive right? If we continue for an infinity of infinities, we still can only come to the conclusion, "it simply is, because that is how reality exists". There is no outside cause for why infinite regression would exist, its existence would be self explained, a first cause, an alpha.

But there being no reason whatsoever for me being rich, is incomprehensible, whether I care about the reason or not. I simply cannot suddenly be rich (a change) without a reason (a cause), whether I conclude anything respecting it, or not. — Mww

True, but you're straying from the OP again. :P Lets try to keep the counter examples to the OP if possible. Btw, I enjoy your points, and think you are making excellent conversation. I'm just trying to steer it back tot he original point.

One of these, of course, is called "first cause," but as a fact about the causal structure of the world, it is not located anywhere in time, nor is it a cause in the usual sense (only in a loose sense that is synonymous with "explanation" or "reason"). — SophistiCat

This is fair. "First cause" is simply a label for the underlying concept. And that concept is that every chain of causality must end. The end point logically, cannot have a prior explanation for its initial existence. It is called a "first cause" because that generally fits the narrative, and also communicates that once it is formed, it enters into causality. The only important note is that there is no prior causality. If you have a better word for this, I'm very open to it.

Whatever meaning you prefer to use, if you use it consistently throughout, then it doesn't appear that you have managed to say much with your argument. — SophistiCat

I think pointing out that there must be something in our universe that does not have a prior explanation for its existence is a pretty big thing to say. If you're not interested, fair. But if you're not saying I'm wrong, I and others find that interesting. Since you seem to think there was a simpler way to prove this, feel free to show it.

I assume that by "unknown" it is meant that Y has a prior causality but it is unknown, and that unknown causality is represented by X, rather than it does not have a prior causality or that it is unknown whether it has a prior causality or not. — Alkis Piskas

No, and I thank you for pointing that out. I should detail that explicitly. Y is an object that we believe has an X, but we do not know if it does. That is why there is no contradiction. An alpha is a Y that is discovered to have no prior X.

I'm not saying cause-effect does not exist. We humans have created the words cause and effect to describe something. What I'm saying is that they don't work to properly describe reality. — Raul

If cause and effect cannot accurately represent reality, then they are unicorns that do not exist. Cause and effect is a 4D measurement of states over time, and discovering which forces caused those state changes over time. It describes reality with accurate enough precision, that we know it exists. How did you type the words to post your idea? What caused the words to appear on your computer screen? Are you saying there is no cause, nor effect?

I'm hearing a lot of, "They're just words that don't really work". But I'll need to see it demonstrated to me the situation of cause and effect that I just showed, is false. Show me an argument that clearly indicates there is no cause that allowed the effect, those letters that appear on the screen. If you can do it honestly, I will be impressed. Can you argue with the letters on your keyboard, showing why you did not cause those letters to appear on the screen?

If this question is for you relevant to this discussion I think you're too biased by using a language in wrong context. — Raul

How? How am I using it in the wrong context? It seems clear to me. There must be more than a claim, you have to give me a reason that backs that claim.

Not really, they talk about action-reaction and anyway my point is that cause-and effect is not enough to describe reality. — Raul

Action-reaction is another way of saying cause and effect. Reaction means a response to an action, an affect from a cause.

I read the whole thing. Again, very impressive!

I'm just trying to speak in the terms you were using. I don't value anything more than another. — Philosophim

That cannot be true. I value 'first' more as most people do. I am not saying it is logical just more a condition of culture I think.

The rest is just repetition of physics. Not interested. You can find plenty of discussion abut that on science forums with people who know what they are talking about.

Nothing you are saying looks or sounds like philosophy so I'm out. Have fun :)

Hello @Philosophim,
Thank you for your commentary and further elaborative thoughts on my response post! I really appreciate you taking your time to address my remarks one-by-one. With that being said, I would like to respond to your response and, hopefully thereby, spark further conversation.
Firstly, I would like to confess an apology: I see now that you are making an argument of abducto ad absurdum—which, in your response, you cleared that up quite nicely. Further, I am glad that we can agree about how it can be problematic to use induction as a means of proof (with respect to this discussion topic)! However, I would have a couple issues with the use of abducto ad absurdum as well (in the context of this topic). Before I continue, let me quickly quote you:

The OP is an argument of abducto ad absurdum. Meaning, I am not showing that a first cause is necessary by showing proof of a first cause, but instead showing that if we assume there is no first cause, there exists an absurdity, or contradiction. The argument shows that I simply cannot logically deduce a situation that does not have a first cause, even when I propose an infinite regress.

Although (I would say) there is a lot to discuss in the above quote, I will start with your statement “The argument shows that I simply cannot logically deduce a situation that does not have a first cause, even when I propose an infinite regress”. Now this may be me just being technical (and forgive me if that is the case), but your use of the term “deduce” leads me to believe that you are attempting, in your argument, to use deduction, on the contrary to induction, to derive (logically) a first cause. This may be a fundamental difference between you and I: I think deduction is actually less reliable than induction (with respect to the topic at hand) because it requires the use of a basic principle (or principles) that then can be “explored”, so to speak, to logically determine its consequences. For example, if I begin with the concept that a triangle has three sides, then I can logically deduce whether a given shape is a triangle or not (which is fine and dandy—solid proof). However, I don’t think the aforementioned example is analogous to the attempted derivation of the origin of the Universe—for what basic principle can one use in their process of deduction? In fact, I would argue, the use of deduction to derive thereof would necessarily require the use of some sort of axiom, which I think would defeat the whole purpose of the derivation in the first place. Now, again, I may be overthinking your use of “deduce”, but if I am correct thus far, then I would say it is a faulty line of logic (no offense). In other words, the derivation of the origin of the Universe is a bottom-to-top (or, more accurately, a subject-to-object) approach (induction or/and abduction) but never a top-to-bottom (object-to-subject) approach (deduction) because the overlying principle (which would have to be used in the process of deduction) would be the origin of the Universe. Anyways, on another note, I would like to push back a bit on your appeal to absurdity to prove a first cause: I do not see how a first cause, which would defy all laws and logic we have thus far (especially causality), is any less “absurd” than an actual infinite. To say something just infinitely regresses, or infinitely loops around, has just as little explanatory power (I would say) as saying it just is, or that it is its own cause in itself. Maybe we just don’t agree, but to put it another way, I think that refurbishing your statement “I simply cannot logically deduce a situation that does not have a first cause” to “I simply cannot logically induce (or abduce) a situation that does not have a cause” would suffice in demonstrating our differences on this topic (in an overly simplified sense).

Secondly, I love your enthusiasm and curiosity about the implications of a first cause! Although I am still not convinced that it is the case, given the idea, I also would have a vast array of questions.

Is multiverse theory actually a statistical certainty, and not merely a fun theory? Is the nature of reality essentially infinite time and possibility?

I am a bit confused with respect to both of these statements. I bet you can already guess my question pertaining to your first sentence (in the quote): are you open to the idea that the multiverse, if it is true, also has a sufficient cause? That it has a “first cause”, so to speak? Now, coupled with your second sentence (in the quote), I am now questioning whether you are arguing for a first cause that all things (and “thing” defined in the most ambiguous and generic sense possible) are derived therefrom, or are you merely attempting to prove that the Universe itself had a first cause (of which its first cause would also have a first cause—i.e. the multiverse example)? If the latter is the case, then I would wonder where and why you would draw the line? When is the “first cause” of something necessarily the very first cause of all other “things”? When you say that reality may be “infinite time and possibility”, are you asking if it may be infinite chain of causation? I reckon you aren’t, but then I would be curious as to how “infinite time and possibility” would be derived anywhere but from some sort of actual infinite?
Thirdly, I would like to address your remarks pertaining to the relationship between the first cause and space/time fabric:

Prior to its [first cause’s] existence, yes. But once it exists, is it not part of space and time? ...First causes within our universe would necessarily have to be part of the space and time that results from them. That is because, as you noted, causality happens both ways. For space and time to come from a first cause, it must also be able to encounter space and time.

Before I address the above quote, I would like to, first and foremost, to agree with you that I also think that your argument (as presented hitherto) is open to the idea of multiple first causes, which leads me to believe (given that you agree with me on that) that I may have originally misunderstood your argument: you seem to be arguing for a first cause of the Universe, but not necessarily elaborating on whether those causes were caused or not (which is an entirely different discussion, but, although I won’t elaborate here, I think they are intertwined—as they both bring forth heavy implications for the other). Again, correct me if I am wrong here. Now back to the quote: I am a bit confused because you seem to be asserting that a first cause must necessarily be “part of space and time that results from them”, which seems contradictory to causation. You see, the cause cannot be the effect (nor part of the effect). That would mean that an effect, or at least a part of an effect, could possibly be its own cause—which I don’t think is consistent with humanities knowledge of causation as we currently know it. In other words, the cause of space/time fabric must reside outside of space/time—otherwise, if there is a part of the cause that resides therein, then that part logically would not be part of the cause (paradoxically): it would be part of the effect. If one were to argue that part of the cause is the effect, then one is also arguing that part of the effect caused itself (which is, at a bare minimum, a partial self-manifestation). I also, thus far, haven’t brought up the fact that quantum physics (although I am no expert by any means) reveals to us that our “traditional” intuitions of causation do not work at the quantum level (which I am still exploring the literature on that as we speak). However, I think that may be for another conversation.

For the sake of making this less wordy, I am going to start quickly addressing your comments with less structure (I fear I am not being concise enough):

You are correct however. My only minor quibble would be self-causation, but that's technical and honestly irrelevant. I agree they all fit under the "first cause" definition.

To be honest, I am not sure what the difference would be between self-causation and self-manifestation: is it that the latter may require a will of some kind? If so, then I am perfectly happy using the term self-causation instead! That would make sense to me why you would prefer not to label it that way and, quite frankly, I think it to be a very relevant critique: thank you for bringing that up!

If something creates another thing, even if it is itself, that created thing is caused by the original thing, the first cause.

This may be me being to technical again, but I think this sentence is a contradiction. On one hand, you say “something creates If something creates another thing, even if it is itself, that created thing is caused by the original thing, the first cause. thing”, but then you say “even if it is itself”: the former, I would say, is a perfect representation of causation (as the term another thing can not refer to the original thing), whereas the latter is not. I cannot think of a single example of where an effect caused itself (traditionally speaking, although I would be willing to explore the implications of quantum physics). If that were the case, namely that effects could be there own causes, then there would be no semantic difference between the term “cause” and “effect”: I would argue there would be no meaningful distinction.

If you are implying that we could argue for any type of first cause, that is a conclusion of the argument. A first cause has no explanation for why it exists, therefore it is not constrained by prior rules as to why it should exist.

I think I slightly misunderstood your argument and, therefore, I apologize. But I am still a bit confused because an actual infinite would also not be “constrained by prior rules as to why it should exist” just as much, I would argue, as saying there is a first cause that either just is or is self-caused. That is what I meant by “they would be just as out of bounds of the principle of sufficient reason as anyone could (at least) argue for any type of “first cause””: namely that defining a cause as being self-caused, for instance, breaks the chain of the principle of sufficient reason (that everything has a sufficient reason for its existence) by exhausting that principle inward on itself (i.e. what’s its cause? Oh! It is its own cause! But what’s the cause of its own cause? Oh! It is the cause of that too! Etc...)--just like, on the other hand, an actual infinite would exhaust the principle of sufficient reason outward of itself (i.e. what’s its cause? Oh! That is its cause! What’s the cause of that? Oh! That is the cause of its cause! Etc..). You see, they both break the principle of sufficient reason (and I personally think this is one out of many reasons why our logic and reason is not reliable pertaining to anything beyond space/time, or anything postulated to be the cause of space/time but yet part of it in some way). I am saying this because I was under the impression that you were arguing against the idea of an infinite regression, but I would say that an actual infinite regression is just as valid, so to speak, on contrary to a potential infinite regression, as the idea of a first cause which is self-caused.

The point of addressing actual infinities was to eliminate the only other option to the idea of finite regression. If we cannot have a situation that does not always boil down to a first cause, there must inevitably exist a first cause.

Forgive me, but I am not entirely sure (in light of what I previously stated) how you eliminated actual infinities? I thought, and correct me if I am wrong, that you were arguing that an infinite regression would logically require a reason for why it infinitely regresses: but that’s only true, definitions wise, for potential infinities. By definition, an actual infinite is, in its own definition, necessitated to be truly infinite (there is nothing outside of it), just like how, by definition, a self-caused first cause, in its own definition, necessitates that it is truly its own cause (there is nothing beyond it). I am finding it hard to see how you concluded that one is invalid while inferring the other is perfectly valid.

You are also correct. But they are the only known options we have. I cannot bring logic into that which we have no knowledge of. As such, I am left with what I do know. If there was another option that came into light in the future, then the argument would be invalid. However, within the confines of what we do know, does the argument make sense? I think I've made a decent case.

Fair enough! And you have absolute made a decent case (if not more than that)! However, I don’t think that we can say that there is definitively a first cause given how little we understand the topic: it isn’t analogous, I would argue, to the study of cells, for instance, where we have ample knowledge on the topic. Sure, we could discover something entirely new about cells that rocks our previous understand at its core, but we have plenty of positive evidence for our claims, whereas you seem to be arguing by process of elimination (abducto ad absurdum), which is purely negative evidence. I find this problematic because negative evidence only tells me logically what can’t be, but rarely ever what can be (which requires positive evidence—with the exception of statements that are truly limited in scope, like whether the cat is or is not in the kitchen).
Hopefully my responses find you well and are at least somewhat substantive.
Bob

Finally, quantum foam as a theory does not destroy cause and effect. — Philosophim

What is the prior cause that causes these sub-atomic particles to pop into existence? Answer that question and you'll get the Nobel Prize for Physics.