↪Philosophim I make it a rule not to argue with idiots. Maybe study some actual cosmology. — Benkei

A person who only insults an intellect then runs away from a request to viably back that insult. I suppose you think everything you believe is right, and never argue with yourself.

Suspend disbelief for a moment and imagine that everything that is here, now, has always been here, now. No beginning and no ending, just continuous change. The changes that flow out of what is here, now, make logical sense and are predictable but there is no beginning or end to it.

Take the present moment; it does not arrive because it is already here, nor does it leave because it is still the present moment. Our sense of time comes from measuring the changes that we notice, from now to whatever duration we like. Now is always the zero point in time, since it is always now. Now may be thought of as the end of a tape measure.

Suspend disbelief for a moment and imagine that everything that is here, now, has always been here, now. No beginning and no ending, just continuous change. The changes that flow out of what is here, now, make logical sense and are predictable but there is no beginning or end to it. — Present awareness

Certainly. What caused reality to be that way? If you answer, "Something else", then I'm going to ask the same question. If you answer, "It simply is", then you have provided a first cause. My statement is that it is logically necessary that a first cause will happen in the chain of cause and effect. Am I wrong?

Fair, I have no idea what I'm talking about then, and am not interested in getting further away from the OP at this point. To that end, do you have enough information now to understand how I view causality? — Philosophim

No. You defaulted on your explanation. Specifically, I gave this example:

We have an atom that can, in a duration of time x, decay with 50% probability. Between times t0 and t1=t0+x, it did not decay. Between times t1 and t2=t1+x, it decayed. Let's call the time from t0 to t1 time span 1, and from t1 to t2 time span 2. Can we describe the cause of the decay in time span 2 as opposed to the lack of decay in time span 1? Can we say this cause in time span 2 is attributed to the properties contributing to 50% decay rate, and also that the cause of it not decaying in time span 1 is attributed to the properties contributing to 50% decay rate? — InPitzotl

And I met this request:

If that did not explain what you were asking, please try to rephrase the question with a deck of cards example. — Philosophim

...by giving you an example "card trick", which is a rephrasing of Bell's Theorem.

The problem with BT, for you, is that it refutes the idea that there is a causal story that would explain why the atom decayed in time span 2 as opposed to not decaying in time span 1. In particular, this is refuted:

Lets remember what odds are first however. Odds are a predictive model we use when we are limited in knowing particular information. — Philosophim

Quantum mechanics gives probabilistic predictions (such as, in the card trick example, that the probability of a match is 1/4) that cannot be accounted for with simple lack of information (classical probability theory mathematically constraints the probability to at least 1/3).

HVT's are still strictly allowed, but only if you give up certain "sane assumptions". But that is not what is being presented in this thread; rather, in this thread you're arguing that something is logically necessary. If there is a logical way in which it is violated (e.g., make these sane assumptions), then you don't have logical necessity. You started running for such a thing (a silly choice at that; superdeterminism), but this was the wrong approach to support your argument.

Your argument therefore has a hole in it. You need to explain how your argument addresses the notion that there can be states which are not fully explained by priors (at least with "classical" stories; but those are the types we tend to deal with when discussing causality; e.g., cards, billiard balls). This was the question asked of you with atomic decay.

Maybe you can call such decay "alphas", but it would be weird. Surely it would have to at least be some particular radioactive atom before it can decay; so it's at least partially caused by a prior. But that doesn't explain decay versus non-decay, which cannot be explained as caused by a prior.

What caused reality to be that way? — Philosophim

There was no cause. If something has always been, then it was not caused to be. The idea that there MUST be a beginning seems logical but not necessarily true.

A person whom believes in God, when asked whom created God, might answer “God has always been” which is the same thing as saying the universe has always been, only difference is a middle man is used to create it all.

I am trying not to interfere in your discussion with Banno, but I thought it would be useful to point this out for others. True randomness has no prior cause. A coin flip is not truly random. We say its random because the ability to measure it exactly is outside of our capability. Physics does not vanish on a coin flip, only our ability to measure it. If there is any confirmed limitation on randomness, then there is a cause for that. Which means, its not truly random. I hope this helps others understand the argument better. — Philosophim

Yes, but there may be true randomness and it would still remain casual. Hume didn't prove that there is no causes. All he seemed to prove is that that we don't know where the cause can be. But he was, imo, disconnected from reality and it took Kant and all of phenomenology to correct him

I'm glad you came back InPitzotl! I knew you were going somewhere with BT, but I needed to learn where so I could figure out how this applied to the argument.

First, Bell's Theorem does not violate causality. Bell's Theorem lent credence to a theory that the idea of locality did not apply to entangled electrons. The experiment for BT demonstrates causality is alive and well. We don't have to use any math to understand it.

The observation was that if you entangled two electrons, then separated them at a distance, you could predict the spin of another electron with a certain accuracy by spinning the other electron, even at a large distance. The question was, "What causes this to happen?" There is an effect, and one cause was proposed. Assuming that locality was true, one proposal was to place an unknown variable within consideration. I'm no advanced physicist, but I don't have to understand the equation completely. I only have to understand one thing, this was an attempt to provide a cause for a consistent, and repeatable observed effect.

Now that particular proposal for a cause failed. But why it failed is when the experiment was repeated, the outcome which was expected with the introduction of the third variable did not occur. So we know (If Bell's Theorem holds) that the cause of the effect was not a third variable. Bell's conclusion then is that locality does not apply to entangled electrons. So what causes the electrons to respond over large distances? The cause that is proposed is that it is a non-local influence.

Action at a distance is not new in physics. Newton proposed that gravity violated locality as well. His idea was that everything in the universe, no matter the distance, was always exerting gravitational forces on one another. Action at a distance is the cause for the effect.

Of course you can ask, "Well why can action at a distance occur?" You are back in the OP once again. Either there is a prior cause for this, or it simply happens without prior cause, and is evidenced by its own existence.

Proposing a cause to an effect, and having that proposed cause fail as an explanation for that effect, does not show that cause and effect does not exist. That's like saying, "Because a unicorn cannot be used as a cause for why it rains, we can conclude that rain destroys our notion of cause and effect".

Your argument therefore has a hole in it. You need to explain how your argument addresses the notion that there can be states which are not fully explained by priors — InPitzotl

As we can tell, my argument doesn't have a hole in this by your point. The conclusion points out it is logically necessary that such alphas must exist along the chain of causality.

There was no cause. If something has always been, then it was not caused to be. The idea that there MUST be a beginning seems logical but not necessarily true. — Present awareness

Then you agree with the OP.

quote="Gregory;620410"]Yes, but there may be true randomness and it would still remain casual.[/quote]

No. True randomness has no prior cause. The result of that randomness will be causal, but the production of the random result is completely unpredictable and without cause. Anything which has prior causality is not truly random, but caused by something else.

Hume didn't prove that there is no causes. All he seemed to prove is that that we don't know where the cause can be. — Gregory

For me, Hume's true genius was in realizing that our belief that cause and effect will be repeated in the future, or occurred in the distant past before humanity was around to observe, was an induction, and not a knowable fact. We take it on a matter of faith, and so far, it has held up. I cannot for the life of me refute Hume on this.

I would contend that a determined motion can cause a random effect

I would contend that a determined motion can cause a random effect — Gregory

While I have my own opinions on this, your viewpoint does not negate cause and effect, so to avoid going on a tangetnt, its fine if you hold it for the purposes of the OP. If you believe this somehow violates cause and effect, please show me why with a real world example, and I will address it.

There was no cause. If something has always been, then it was not caused to be. The idea that there MUST be a beginning seems logical but not necessarily true.
— Present awareness

Then you agree with the OP. — Philosophim

Since there was no first cause, a first cause is not necessary, so I disagree that a first cause is logically necessary.

Since there was no first cause, a first cause is not necessary, so I disagree that a first cause is logically necessary. — Present awareness

Why has existence always existed? What caused it to be that way?

While I have my own opinions on this, your viewpoint does not negate cause and effect, so to avoid going on a tangetnt, its fine if you hold it for the purposes of the OP. If you believe this somehow violates cause and effect, please show me why with a real world example, and I will address it. — Philosophim

I believe in caused and effect and am surprised that others reject it. A determined action can result in spirals that are random whose effects would then be determined. If cause and effect don't apply, then anything can pop into existence without reason and anything can happen. There is something about our reasoning we have to correct if Hume bothers us. You know when you type that your fingers are not controlled by Mars. How we know might be hard to pinpoint but we have to resists irrationality at all costs. You control your fingers, a car while moving controls the wheels, and all the rest is obvious. Philosophy itself can turn bad

Why has existence always existed? What caused it to be that way? — Philosophim

This is why I love philosophy! There are two main ways of looking at existence, it was either created or it was always there. If it was created, then where did the creator come from? If it was always there, why and how could it have been always there? The answers to these questions are just points of view, not facts by any means. Without any proof, I choose to believe that existence has always existed, but I don’t know how or why.

First, Bell's Theorem does not violate causality. Bell's Theorem lent credence to a theory that the idea of locality did not apply to entangled electrons. — Philosophim

That's kind of a narrative on Bell's Theorem. BT demonstrates that there can be no classical sufficient explanations of QM given certain "sane assumptions". Locality is simply a particular such sane assumption.

The observation was that — Philosophim

There's a prediction before the observation though. BT is based on the concept of Bell Inequalities, which are based on ordinary probability theory. Bell showed that QM makes predictions of probability that violate Bell Inequalities. That is the interesting thing here.

First, Bell's Theorem does not violate causality. — Philosophim

Okay...

Bell's Theorem lent credence to a theory that the idea of locality did not apply to entangled electrons. — Philosophim

...this is too restricted. Bell's Theorem is an argument against Hidden Variable Theories under certain assumptions (locality, realism, etc).

We don't have to use any math to understand it. — Philosophim

I blatantly disagree. If you don't understand the math, you have no clue what I'm talking about. It's not that hard, so here it is again.

Assuming there's some classical fact of the matter as to what the cards are before you turn them over, then there are only 8 possible arrangements of said cards: BBB, BBR, BRB, BRR, RBB, RBR, RRB, or RRR. If you turn over two of the cards in each of these arrangements, the probability they would match are respectively 1, 1/3, 1/3, 1/3, 1/3, 1/3, 1/3, and 1. Given any possible scenario where there would be some classical fact of the matter as to what the cards are before you turn them over, the probability you get a match must be at least 1/3. QM predicts this probability to be 1/4. Experiment demonstrates that the probability is in fact 1/4. Therefore, there is no classical fact of the matter as to what the cards are before you flip them over.

There is an effect, and one cause was proposed. Assuming that locality was true, one proposal was to place an unknown variable within consideration. — Philosophim

Sure.

I'm no advanced physicist, but I don't have to understand the equation completely. — Philosophim

But you do have to understand the problem; else you cannot comment on it.

I only have to understand one thing, this was an attempt to provide a cause for a consistent, and repeatable observed effect. — Philosophim

Okay, sure.

So what causes the electrons to respond over large distances? The cause that is proposed is that it is a non-local influence. — Philosophim

But you're arguing for logical necessity, so you cannot add assumptions. If therefore you are to propose something, to meet your burden, you must derive your proposition. So if you want to propose the underlined thing, you need to show it's logically necessary. Failing that, you failed to demonstrate your argument is logically necessary.

But I'm not asking about electrons responding over large distances anyway. I'm asking about an atom decaying in a particular time span of duration x, after having not decayed in a previous time span of duration x.

What I'm asking about is how you account for a state that cannot be fully accounted for from priors. I can logically entertain theories of physics that have such states. If your analysis holds under such theories, it should describe them. If it does not hold, you should explain why it's logically impossible to hold such theories; otherwise, you did not demonstrate logical necessity.

Action at a distance is not new in physics. Newton proposed that gravity violated locality as well. — Philosophim

Again, this is not meeting your burden. I can logically entertain local theories. Apply the same criteria as above.

Incidentally I'm still trying to boil down your concept of causality, but it's specifically a question about states that are not completely explained by their priors (i.e.., it could have been another way given the same priors).

In thinking on causality, I have concluded that the nature of existence necessitates a "first cause". — Philosophim

Causation is eternal. It never began.

It's plain that the leap from "this has a cause" to "everything has a cause" is unjustified.

Causation is eternal. It never began. — Miller

Yes, although I would phrase it as that there has to be a Base Existent as a Single Simple Permanent Eternal Existent with no beginning as the basis of all the temporaries come forth because 'Nothing' cannot be in place of it as an alternative, or have given birth to it, that is, the Base Existent is mandatory, having. no option not to be, with no opposite state having being.

Indeed there is something, which is the same as saying that a lack of anything could not be the case; so, the something that we have about us had to have a basis, which basis as the Base Existent could not have an infinite regress beneath it nor have come from the impossible 'Nothing',not able to become from parts that would be more fundamental than it, and so there we have identified the Base Existent as having to be so.

The Base Existent must then be partless and continuous, and thus the simplest state, unmakeable and unbreakable, and thus eternal, as Permanent, it only means of forming temporaries being rearrangements of itself that must occur because it could not have been still or else it just would have sat there, inert and unable to form anything.

So, our universe is temporary, and the Permanent Existent has to be there before our universe, still here now during our universe, and still there after the universe and all its temporaries have gone away.

The simple partlesss, continuous, energetic quantum vacuum with its overall quantum field matches the criteria above, it giving rise to all of physics, which works beyond our wildest dreams.

Time, space, distance, speed, direction, size, are all relative, and the play of the one eternal infinite substance.

Time, space, distance, speed, direction, size, are all relative, . — Miller

Yes, and as an aside Rovelli uses this 'relativeness' as trying to show relationism…

and the play of the one eternal infinite substance — Miller

It writes the story of our universe on the bookshelf of the Library of Babel as well as all the books.

The answers to these questions are just points of view, not facts by any means. Without any proof, I choose to believe that existence has always existed, but I don’t know how or why. — Present awareness

I understand your joy of philosophy! You may hold that without debate. What I'm asking is can your view point avoid what the OP is stating? If its always existed, then there is no prior reason for its existence. Thus the reason things have always existed is the fact of its existence. That's the first cause. I'm stating that no matter what we can envision in a chain of causality, it will always logically end up to end at a first cause.

There's a prediction before the observation though. — InPitzotl

But that doesn't negate cause and effect. That's the only thing that matters right now. I'm not here to argue whether BT is correct or not. I'm here to see if BT negates cause and effect. A prediction before an observation does not.

Bell's Theorem lent credence to a theory that the idea of locality did not apply to entangled electrons.
— Philosophim
...this is too restricted. Bell's Theorem is an argument against Hidden Variable Theories under certain assumptions (locality, realism, etc). — InPitzotl

Stating that hidden variables cannot exist as the cause of an effect is not a refutation of cause and effect.

We don't have to use any math to understand it.
— Philosophim
I blatantly disagree. If you don't understand the math, you have no clue what I'm talking about. — InPitzotl

I have all I need to know for the purposes of this argument. I'm not interested in debating BT. I'm interested in knowing whether it violates cause and effect. A science experiment that had odds one way under assumptions, but found the odds to be different means the assumptions were wrong. That's not complicated, nor does it violate C&E. If results of your experiment result in different odds then you were expecting, then that means you lack a full understanding of the causes underlying the reality of the experiment. You predicted causes would result in the effect of a particular odds. When they do not, you need to re-evaluate that the effect you predicted was wrong. That means something is wrong with what you think is causing the effect.

That resulted in removing the cause of locality.

But you're arguing for logical necessity, so you cannot add assumptions. If therefore you are to propose something, to meet your burden, you must derive your proposition. — InPitzotl

I'm not arguing for logical necessity that any one cause and effect must be true. I'm arguing that in any chain of causality, it is logically necessary that it results in a first cause.

What I'm asking about is how you account for a state that cannot be fully accounted for from priors. I can logically entertain theories of physics that have such states. If your analysis holds under such theories, it should describe them. If it does not hold, you should explain why it's logically impossible to hold such theories; otherwise, you did not demonstrate logical necessity. — InPitzotl

I think you might have forgotten the original argument. (Its been a while, no worry!) The first statement of the above quote is the conclusion of the OP. It is logically necessary that first causes exist. A first cause has no prior explanation for its existence. If you posit that there are known entities that have no prior explanation for your existence, you're not countering the OP, you are affirming its logical necessity with its existence in reality.

What I would question though is whether your theory really is a first cause. it is not any one theory in particular, it is any theory that assumes it has found a first cause. Proving a first cause an be extremely difficult to do. First, there is the question of whether you've found a first cause, or whether we don't have the tools or understanding yet to observe or understand a prior cause that we don't know about yet.

Second, when a first cause incepts into reality, everything that follows from it is within causality. Meaning after its here, everything after is part of cause and effect. Thus, we could develop rules up to its cause and effect chain, and conclude there must be something prior. For example, an alpha could appear spinning in place at 3 rotations a second. We could establish the rules of this alpha, then predict something must have set it into motion. Of course, it just appeared that way, but our rules would imply there is something prior that set it into motion.

While a first cause is logically necessary, I cannot honestly say that even if we found it, proving it is a first cause would be easy, or even possible.

In thinking on causality, I have concluded that the nature of existence necessitates a "first cause".
— Philosophim

Causation is eternal. It never began. — Miller

See a few posts up above. I'm thinking of putting this mention in the OP because I've seen it a few times now.

quote="Banno;620484"]↪Philosophim It's plain that the leap from "this has a cause" to "everything has a cause" is unjustified.[/quote]

But that's not what I assume at all Banno. The first very first statement is:

Banno, does a first cause have a cause? Of course not.

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

Would it help if I reshaped it to say:

Either everything has a prior cause for existence, or there are things that have no prior cause for existence. A thing which has no prior cause for existence will be a "first cause". It is called a first cause, because it is within existence, and part of causality. But as for why it exists in particular is not because of some prior cause, but by the fact of its existence.

People are continuing to straw man the argument and see something that isn't there. The only thing I think could have been said against it is, "There is no cause to anything," which of course you agree is bunk. If I can show that even one cause exists, the proposition stands within reason.

The universe doesn't give a damn if it follows our logic or not. — Manuel

:up:

I understand your joy of philosophy! You may hold that without debate. What I'm asking is can your view point avoid what the OP is stating? If its always existed, then there is no prior reason for its existence. Thus the reason things have always existed is the fact of its existence. That's the first cause. I'm stating that no matter what we can envision in a chain of causality, it will always logically end up to end at a first cause. — Philosophim

I understand what you are saying and it does make logical sense. However, something which has always been, in one form or another, does not have a beginning. Without a beginning, there would not be a first cause, only a continuously changing cause.

Take your own personal physical form for example, at what point could you say that you came into being? Was it at birth, or conception and what about when you were a separate sperm and egg cell living in two separate bodies? You were always here in potential, otherwise you would not be here now, it’s just that your previous forms were different from your current form. They say our universe was born with a Big Bang some 13.7 billion years ago, but I see that as a local event in an infinite universe. There could be other Big Bangs so distant from us that the light won’t reach us for another 10 billion years.

Suppose something, say x, is possible. Then x becomes actual. There's a transition from the possible to the actual and this, in the existing paradigm, requires a cause. After all, if nothing brought x about, how come it went from possible to actual?

Replace x with universe and we have a first cause argument. Call this first cause w. It's obvious that w too underwent a transformation from possible to actual. Hence, another cause is necessary that effected this. Reiterate this line of reasoning ad infinitum, ad nauseum and we're quickly face to face with another thorn in our side viz. infinity. The problem has doubled and we're nowhere near a solution.

However, just as one poster remarked a long time ago on the old forum, paraphrasing, "I'm not in the least bit bothered by whether God had a creator or not; all I want to prove is that this universe had one!" Case closed!

But that doesn't negate cause and effect. — Philosophim

We've been over this Philosophim; it was in the previous post again. That's not what our interchanges are about. I'm asking you about your concept of cause and effect.

I'm not here to argue whether BT is correct or not. — Philosophim

That's not the issue. The issue isn't whether BT is correct or not; the issue is what BT is. It is that your description of atomic decay conflated QM probability with classical probability games (you started to lecture me about what probability was about; remember?)

This leaves your initial response in default. You owe me a description of this.

Stating that hidden variables cannot exist as the cause of an effect is not a refutation of cause and effect. — Philosophim

It's not meant to be, but buddy, we've just been over this. You are biting off of the apple of logical necessity. You don't seem to grasp what burden this demands of you. You're burden is "I'm necessarily not wrong", not "I'm not necessarily wrong". If I were trying to refute you, I need not demonstrate something correct; it suffices to simply demonstrate something is logically possible.

BT isn't presented for you to debate; it's presented for you to understand the question and why you defaulted on it. You owe me an explanation.

A first cause has no prior explanation for its existence. If you posit that there are known entities that have no prior explanation for your existence, you're not countering the OP, you are affirming its logical necessity with its existence in reality. — Philosophim

Okay, but that still does not answer the question. Does the atomic decay in time span 2 as opposed to the lack of atomic decay in time span 1 have an explanation for its existence?

In order for that atom to decay, there must be a prior... the atom must exist. At the same time, there is no explanation for why it decayed versus did not decay; any explanation given for why it decayed in time span 2 would have to describe why it didn't decay in time span 1. And according to BT, there really isn't a "fact of the matter", at least classically, at least under some "sane assumptions", that would explain the decay in span 2 (and I'm actually agnostic on those sane assumptions; but you're biting off logical necessity, so you had better be consistent with any set of sane assumptions).

So which is it? Is this atomic decay an alpha, or part of a chain of causes? It doesn't appear to me to be either; it partially requires a prior, but partially has no explanation. But this is your concept. So you explain it to me.

The universe doesn't give a damn if it follows our logic or not. — Manuel

Of course. But that can be said about anything, and isn't an argument. The entirety of physics could be wrong. We could all be brains in vats. Doubting something because you can think, "Of course our logic could be wrong," doesn't make the logic wrong.