No, I am saying that we don't know. Perhaps there is an X for a Y, or perhaps there is not. — Philosophim

I see. So "X: represents an existent prior causality to Y" is an hypothetical element. So, we don't know whether Y exists or not and we don't know whether X exists or not. OK, there's no conflict in this, but also there's no ground where I can stand on. And maybe the same holds for Z and Alpha ... In short, everything is possible!

This for me is walking on thin ice ... Even worse, walking on the air; I get dizzy! :grin:

What I can do though is to try in my own way to prove or disprove your thesis: A first cause is logically necessary, which anyway, as I already told you, I find it quite interesting ...

Anyway, thank you a lot for your willingness to clarify things!

This for me is walking on thin ice ... Even worse, walking on the air; I get dizzy! :grin:

What I can do though is to try in my own way to prove or disprove your thesis: A first cause is logically necessary, which anyway, as I already told you, I find it quite interesting ...

Anyway, thank you a lot for your willingness to clarify things! — Alkis Piskas

I'm glad you're enjoying the challenge! If I've given you something to think and wonder on, whether it ends up holding true or false in the end, it is one of the greatest compliments I could receive. Feel free to keep asking for clarification where needed, and keep challenging it as your thoughts arise.

But we can only conclude logic with what we know today correct? — Philosophim

We don’t know there is a first cause, yet we conclude logically there must be one. What we know today is that, in our experience, every change has a cause. So it is the case that what we know from limited experience contradicts what we logically conclude regardless of experience.

do I fail at philosophy here? — Philosophim

Define “fail”. There’s nothing patently new, no paradigm shift; there’s nothing supported by experience; there’s nothing to which a complementary negation doesn’t equally fit, so while there may be no logical failure, per se, there is just as little evidentiary success. If the only condition humans seek more than happiness is knowledge, and this purely logical exercise grants none, then yes, it fails.

Fortunate for us, methinks, that human reason by its own nature wanders hither and yon in epistemic wastelands, and at the same time by its own nature, curtails itself from becoming lost in them. It remains only a wish such rational camaraderie obtains in the same subject.

We don’t know there is a first cause, yet we conclude logically there must be one. What we know today is that, in our experience, every change has a cause. So it is the case that what we know from limited experience contradicts what we logically conclude regardless of experience. — Mww

I don't think that's quite correct. What I did was take cause up to its logical conclusion. There are only two alternatives. If one is logically eliminated from actually being possible, only the other remains. Now where the theory could fail is if some third alternative arrives. Of course, I also think that's impossible. Its like saying the number 3 could exist in binary. If we include a 3, its not really binary anymore.

So I've proven with the information we have, that a first cause is necessary. And in that, I think that's new. Its not a "maybe", its a "logical certainty". The question of applicability and needing evidence is only in what form it would take.

there’s nothing to which a complementary negation doesn’t equally fit — Mww

Unless of course you can negate the argument. Currently its what I'm waiting for to hear from people. Because if people don't, then philosophically, this debate and any debate about finite vs infinite regression is concluded.

What we know today is that, in our experience, every change has a cause. So it is the case that what we know from limited experience contradicts what we logically conclude regardless of experience. — Mww

I don't think we learn through observation that every change has a cause. We assume it. It's the Law if Explanation per Schopenhauer, and a way out of the OPs conundrum is to note that cause and effect are bound together, two sides of one coin. The problem is coming from analysis, or dismantling the clock.

OK - that's where I thought you were going with this - I just wanted to make sure. Your point is well taken. I'll re-phrase:

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

To the best of our knowledge this statement is false. I believe that the rest of what I said still applies.

Now if Philosophim had said "I believe that we will eventually find etc etc"? That would be fine (or at least it would be on firmer logical grounding). But that would not be a definitive proof, because the argument would start off with an unprovable axiom.

And this where faith comes in - to believe in the a god or gods or the supernatural requires a leap of faith. I have known many people of varying religious beliefs and I have seen first hand how their religious beliefs help them in their daily lives - and as long as they do not try to impose their religious beliefs on me that's fine.

But for some people faith is not sufficient - they require some sort of absolute irrefutable evidence or definitive proof. I believe these attempts are doomed to failure - you cannot use logic to prove something illogical.

But maybe I'm wrong - and that would be very cool. But prime mover or first cause arguments lack the necessary rigor for many reasons beside the one I mentioned.

What I did was take cause up to its logical conclusion. — Philosophim

Yes, you did. That conclusion being there is a necessary first cause. Which is the same as, if a first cause is necessary, there absolutely must be one.

There are only two alternatives. If one is logically eliminated from actually being possible, only the other remains. — Philosophim

The two alternatives here being necessity and possibility? The logical necessity for a first cause automatically and immediately eliminates its possibility. Problem is, necessity and possibility are not proper complements, they are properly speaking, different and separate modalities. Necessity and contingency, on the other hand, are directly complementary. That which is necessary cannot be merely possible, but that which is possible is not therefore necessary. That which is necessary, on the other hand, can never be contingent, and that which is contingent can never be necessary.

This makes a difference because to say a thing is necessary automatically eliminates its possibility, but it is not equally true to say that which is necessary automatically eliminates its being contingent. To be a first cause presupposes it is not itself an effect, but presupposition doesn’t serve to eliminate it from being one. Experience validates that for ever effect a cause is necessary, and that cause itself always contingent on it being itself an effect of something antecedent to it. It follows that if the validation given by experience is continued in kind into the infinite range of effects contingent on causes, it is logically impossible for there to be a cause that is not itself an effect.

Your argument for first causes is negated, and your philosophy fails, insofar as one logical determination is offset by another with equal justice.

TA-DAAAAA!!!

Or not. Six of one, half dozen of the other.

I don't think we learn through observation that every change has a cause. — frank

True enough, but not quite what I said. We don’t observe every change, but the changes we observe all have causes.

True enough, but not quite what I said. We don’t observe every change, but the changes we observe all have causes. — Mww

I agree that the changes you observe all have causes, I just think that's apriori knowledge.

If we actually knew the causes of all the changes we see, science would be completed, right?

I've given you something to think and wonder on — Philosophim

Indeed. Thank you. This doesn't happen often to me!

I agree that the changes you observe all have causes, I just think that's apriori knowledge. — frank

Oh absolutely. Good point. What the changes are, how they manifest, is knowledge a posteriori.

Plato Enlightened.

What the changes are, how they manifest, is knowledge a posteriori — Mww

:up:

The two alternatives here being necessity and possibility? — Mww

Lets clarify what necessity and possibility are.

Logical necessity is a logical conclusion that cannot be contradicted within the system. For example, if you define yourself as "the thing that thinks about what I am". You then say, "Either I exist, or I do not exist." Then if you think about what you are, it is logically necessary that "you" exist because you have eliminated the possibility of "you" not existing. You can expand the definition of "you", but then its a new system that has new considerations.

We could expand the scope of what "you" are into the realm of possibility. For example, you could say, "I like cherries, I like ice cream, I will probably like cherry ice cream." This is not logically necessary, but logically possible. Cherry ice cream exists, therefore you might like it. The flaw in the argument of possibility is the idea that liking cherries or ice cream has any bearing on whether you'll like cherry ice cream as many times a combination of foods we do not like creates a taste we do like.

As you can see, the OP is not an argument about logical possibility, but logical necessity.

It follows that if the validation given by experience is continued in kind into the infinite range of effects contingent on causes, it is logically impossible for there to be a cause that is not itself an effect. — Mww

I never claimed first causes are outside of cause and effect once they exist. The opposite in fact. While I stated an alpha is an entity that does not have an X, I did NOT state that an alpha could not have an X. The implicit (which perhaps should have been made explicit) understanding is that an alpha can, or cannot have a Z. And as we know, cause and effect are measuring tools of perspective. That which we are measuring to have been caused, is effected. This can of course turn around. Just as we can say the cue ball caused the 8 ball to move, we can state that the 8 balls acceptance of the force transfer from the cue ball, caused the cue ball to slow down substantially.

The only hard rule for an alpha, is that its initial existence for being has no X. I find it logically necessary that at least one alpha must exist in any chain of causality. If this clarifies the idea, do you agree that the argument fits the criteria for logical necessity?

a way out of the OPs conundrum is to note that cause and effect are bound together, two sides of one coin. — frank

I fail to see this. Mind using this to demonstrate how this dismantles the OP? Anything can be claimed, but for it to matter, it must be logically shown.

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

To the best of our knowledge this statement is false. — EricH

Please demonstrate how this is false. I can go around saying a lot of things are false, but it must be shown to be false, not merely believed to be false.

And this where faith comes in - to believe in the a god or gods or the supernatural requires a leap of faith. — EricH

This argument has nothing to do with faith or God. I often find theists and anti-theists become completely unreasonable when they suspect an argument is going for or against their personal belief. Please eliminate that inclination, and take the argument for what it is.

I agree that the changes you observe all have causes, I just think that's apriori knowledge. — frank

No, this is not knowledge at all. That is belief. For it to be knowledge, you must demonstrate that all changes you observe have causes. It is a strong and very useful belief, but it is not knowledge.

I already gave you the link. Here it is again. Sub atomic particles pop into existence with no prior "cause".

There are also many, many other quantum effects which also have no preceding cause - the decay of radioactive atoms, e.g.

To the best of our knowledge there is no causality at the quantum level. People much smarter than you & I have proposed theoretical frameworks that preserve causality, but to date these frameworks have all been dis-proven by experiments.

So just to repeat, to the best of our current knowledge there are measurable physical events in the real world that have no prior cause. These events do occur with statistical regularity - modern technology is based on this. But each individual event is causeless.

Yes, this defies our common sense notion of how the world behaves. If you're curious and want to learn more, here's a good starting point: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/

And this where faith comes in - to believe in the a god or gods or the supernatural requires a leap of faith. I have known many people of varying religious beliefs and I have seen first hand how their religious beliefs help them in their daily lives - and as long as they do not try to impose their religious beliefs on me that's fine.

But for some people faith is not sufficient - they require some sort of absolute irrefutable evidence or definitive proof. I believe these attempts are doomed to failure - you cannot use logic to prove something illogical.

But maybe I'm wrong - and that would be very cool. But prime mover or first cause arguments lack the necessary rigor for many reasons beside the one I mentioned. — EricH

There's a third option: first mover agnosticism. Nothing in this thread has yet convinced me to be for or against the idea of a first mover... or rather, everything has convinced me of both infinite causal regression and the impossibility thereof.

I already gave you the link. Here it is again. Sub atomic particles pop into existence with no prior "cause — EricH

I'm a total layperson, but have long been interested in someone explaining the quantum stuff adequately. This link doesn't really explain to me how "quantum foam," or the idea that space/time is non-linear, would negate the idea of cause and effect?

Yes, this defies our common sense notion of how the world behaves. If you're curious and want to learn more, here's a good starting point: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/ — EricH

Here Stanford seems to be discussing the notion that we can't measure momentum and location at the same time, right? Again, that doesn't seem to me to have any effect on the notion of cause and effect and I can't find any reference to it in the SEP entry.

Anything can be claimed, but for it to matter, it must be logically shown. — Philosophim

I'm not overly concerned with mattering. You need the answer to come from the dismantled clock. It's not there.

but it is not knowledge. — Philosophim

It's Kantian knowledge.

Y: represents an existence that has an unknown prior causality.
X: represents an existent prior causality to Y.
Alpha: A Y existence that is identified as having no prior causality.

The only hard rule for an alpha, is that its initial existence for being has no X. — Philosophim

Something with unknown prior causality is that which has no existent prior causality, and for any causal chain, there is at least one of those things identified as such.

Nahhhh.......you couldn’t pay me enough to agree with that, if I’m being honest. The same thing cannot both have an unknown cause and no cause at all.
————-

I agree that the changes you observe all have causes, I just think that's apriori knowledge.
— frank

No, this is not knowledge at all. That is belief. — Philosophim

And with that little tidbit of philosophical wonderment.....I’m out. I recognize a dead horse when I see one. Sorry.

I already gave you the link. Here it is again. Sub atomic particles pop into existence with no prior "cause".

There are also many, many other quantum effects which also have no preceding cause - the decay of radioactive atoms, e.g. — EricH

There is a difference between not knowing if there is a cause, versus knowing there is not a cause. At one time atoms were thought to be the smallest indivisible objects in the universe. This was not knowledge, but belief. If we learn from history, we should avoid doing that again here.

People much smarter than you & I have proposed theoretical frameworks that preserve causality, but to date these frameworks have all been dis-proven by experiments. — EricH

I am not concerned with preserving causality, when I have yet to have anyone show me its broken.

So just to repeat, to the best of our current knowledge there are measurable physical events in the real world that have no prior cause. These events do occur with statistical regularity - modern technology is based on this. — EricH

Statistical regularity can only occur because there is an underlying rule which produces said effects. Just ask yourself, what causes this statistical regularity? Perhaps it is self-explained, but perhaps it isn't. Its a Y, but we do not know if that Y has an X, or an Alpha.

Arguably, even if we discovered an entity which was self-explained, we might not be able to actually prove it. There would always be the question of whether there was something prior to it. Further, a self-explained entity joins causality once formed. We could use that causality to move backwards and predict that some event caused the alpha, when in reality, we are only predicting that there must have been some prior force to generate its existence.

That is why this argument is important. It may be impossible to ascertain by evidence if something is self-explained or caused by something prior. Perhaps some alphas would fit into a provable context, but I could see just as many not. With a logical certainty that alphas must exist, perhaps it can help us ascertain reality better when we arrive at situations that appear to occur without prior cause.

everything has convinced me of both infinite causal regression and the impossibility thereof. — Artemis

I have not stated that there could not be a chain of infinite causal regression. All I've stated is there can be no prior reason as to why there exists a chain of infinite causal regression. Meaning the cause for why there is a chain of infinite causal regression is the fact that it exists, and nothing else. So far, I have not seen any one provide a valid counter argument to this claim.

I'm not overly concerned with mattering — frank

Then your point will not matter.

You need the answer to come from the dismantled clock. It's not there. — frank

This sentence is nonsense. If you want your point to matter and make sense, use your example and point out where the OP is wrong.

but it is not knowledge.
— Philosophim

It's Kantian knowledge. — frank

A priori knowledge is that which is independent from experience. You cannot conclude that everything must have a prior explanation for it being based upon experience, because you have not experienced every prior cause to every prior thing. Not that there aren't flaws with Kant's theory of knowledge, nor am I using Kant's model, but you haven't accurately ascribed what a priori knowledge is.

I have not stated that there could not be a chain of infinite causal regression. All I've stated is there can be no prior reason as to why there exists a chain of infinite causal regression. Meaning the cause for why there is a chain of infinite causal regression is the fact that it exists, and nothing else. So far, I have not seen any one provide a valid counter argument to this claim. — Philosophim

I was not merely referring to your posts alone. When I talk about the thread, I'm referring to its entirety.

Nahhhh.......you couldn’t pay me enough to agree with that, if I’m being honest. The same thing cannot both have an unknown cause and no cause at all. — Mww

I'm not claiming a thing can have both an unknown cause and no cause at all. That which has an unknown cause is a Y. That which has no prior cause, is an alpha. Someone else had this same confusion earlier. I told them if it makes it easier, a Y that is proved to have an X could be called a "why" (Because of X). A Y is merely a state that has the question of whether there is an X or not. No X, alpha. Has X, why. Does that make it more clear?

I agree that the changes you observe all have causes, I just think that's apriori knowledge.
— frank

No, this is not knowledge at all. That is belief.
— Philosophim

And with that little tidbit of philosophical wonderment.....I’m out. I recognize a dead horse when I see one. Sorry. — Mww

I clearly pointed out why it is not a priori knowledge. If you cannot refute it, my point stands. And if you wish to leave it that way, that is fine.

I was not merely referring to your posts alone. When I talk about the thread, I'm referring to its entirety. — Artemis

Understood.

Feel free to better explain how I am making this equivocation then. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just not seeing where you are coming from. — Philosophim

I already explained several times, including in the remainder of the post that you quoted. I don't feel like spending more of my time on this.

I already explained several times, including in the remainder of the post that you quoted. I don't feel like spending more of my time on this. — SophistiCat

Assuming that the world regresses infinitely into the past, if there is an explanation for that, that explanation doesn't in any way negate the premise. Nor does the absence of an explanation. — SophistiCat

When you stated premise, I assumed you spoke about the OP. Our previous conversations seemed to lean to the idea that you found the solution uninteresting, but sound. So if the premise of the OP is not negated, I assumed you had no issue.

"Cause" is sometimes used in a loose sense, synonymous with explanation, reason, grounding. In that sense, one can ask about the "cause" of time - meaning a reductive scientific account or a metaphysical ground, for example. — SophistiCat

Is this what you were talking about? Yes, this is part of cause and effect. Cause and effect are ways to measure the reason why a state changes from one to another over time. The cause is the reason for the effect. There is not a false equivocation here, and entirely intended in the argument. If this had presented a problem to the argument, I did not feel you pointed this out properly.