So here's a question for ya. Assume for the moment that everything you say is correct. Does this have any bearing or influence on how I should live my life? — EricH

Not at all. Why would it?

I have presented another possibility (partially caused, partially uncaused). — InPitzotl

This still does not negate that "caused and uncaused exhausts all possibilities".

Please consider this:
1. An event is caused.
2. It is partially caused by another event and partially uncaused by some other event still.
3. The other part of the causes of the event are other causes and other parts of the uncaused whole are other uncausing events.
4. Therefore the event has been in its totality caused and uncaused (by distinct and discretely separate events or causes) and there is nothing in its post-caused behaviour therefore that is not caused and not uncaused.

It is partially caused by another event and partially uncaused by some other event still. — god must be atheist

I don't know what "uncaused by some other event" means.

1. An event is caused.
2. It is partially caused by another event and partially uncaused by some other event still.
3. The other part of the causes of the event are other causes and other parts of the uncaused whole are other uncausing events. — god must be atheist

2 and 3 refer to events that are... uncausing the event? An uncaused whole? Uncausing events?

4. Therefore the event has been in its totality caused and uncaused (by distinct and discretely separate events or causes) and there is nothing in its post-caused behaviour therefore that is not caused and not uncaused. — god must be atheist

I can't reach this conclusion, because I cannot make sense of an event uncausing another event. It sounds like gibberish to me. What does it mean for an event to uncause another event? 1 makes sense. I have no idea what 2 and 3 are. Can you illustrate what you mean by an example?

Can you illustrate what you mean by an example? — InPitzotl

I was just repeating what I gleaned from your earlier posts in conversation with others.

And that's where the possibilities diverge. We can have an event partially have a cause and partially be uncaused. So there's your other possibility. — InPitzotl

I have no clue what an uncausing is in relation to causality. But you used it, and I thought YOU knew what you were saying. Now you say that my saying "uncaused" has no meaning.

I can live with that. This is a nice example of uncaused reasoning caused by uncaused ununderstanding.

I have no clue what an uncausing is in relation to causality. But you used it, and I thought YOU knew what you were saying. — god must be atheist

I did no such thing. I mentioned a partially caused, partially uncaused event. I mentioned that causality isn't linear, but branches. But I didn't mention any "event uncausing another event" nonsense; that notion came entirely from you.

And that's where the possibilities diverge. We can have an event partially have a cause and partially be uncaused. So there's your other possibility. — InPitzotl

Yes. But let's break that conjunction apart. "Have a cause" is on the left; so there's an event that "has a cause"... that cause we could call an event, so this would be an event (the cause) causing an event (the effect). But on the right side of the conjunction, there's just "partially be uncaused". It's a "god must be atheist" invention that "be uncaused" means there's an event that is the uncauser, and that's kind of ridiculous. But that's the direction you took it.

I have no clue what an uncausing is in relation to causality. — god must be atheist

So let's go back to starting my car as an example. I put the key in the ignition and turn it, and the car starts up. Wonderful! But that's not the whole story. The car doesn't always start up when I turn the key. Turning the key is critical, but not sufficient. So we can say that turning the key causes it to start, but it's not the complete explanation. This is a partial cause. In this case, there are reasons why the car might not start if I turn the key... among those are: there's not enough gas to start, there isn't enough battery to crank it, and the spark plug is too gunked up to fire properly. For discussion purposes let's pretend this is complete. Then if we meet all of these prerequisites and the key is turned, the car will always start; collectively all of the causes are sufficient.

By contrast, we can have things such as the 217Pb atom I keep mentioning here, that during a particular 20 second period (span 1) does not decay, but during another (span 2) decays into a 217Bi atom. If we explore the cause of the existence of the 217Bi atom, that has an explanation; there's a prior 217Pb atom... and 217Pb's are known to decay into 217Bi's with a half life of about 20 seconds. So we can call this a cause. But it is not a sufficient cause, as proven by span 1. Not all 217Pb's decay into 217Bi's in a 20 second time span; about 50% of them do. But there need be no set of causes that collectively are sufficient to explain this decay; there need be no answer to the question of why the atom decayed in span 2 as opposed to not decaying in span 1.

This isn't a situation of some other "event" "uncausing" the decay, whatever (if anything) that might mean. It's a situation of there being no other event that causally explains it. It's a situation where there are causal priors, but collectively they are insufficient to explain the event (i.e., were all causes present, the event would not always happen).

In the minds of many religious folks, the notion of a first cause is tied in with their religious beliefs. Yes, you've been saying that this discussion has nothing to do with god(s) or religion - but I was just double checking if something else was going on under the surface. So thanks for clearing that up.

I have no clue what an uncausing is in relation to causality. But you used it, and I thought YOU knew what you were saying.
— god must be atheist
I did no such thing. — InPitzotl

By saying that you did no such thing, you meant that you did not know what you were saying? You are negating your own action, but since I used two of your actions, and you did not reference which specific one we must apply your negation to, we are at liberty to apply it to either. Precision is lacking.

I am yanking your chain, of course, I am only joking. But you need to clear up your text, please, I think, you are at best ambiguous at most times, and at others, incomprehensible. Not your fault, your thoughts are most likely clear, but it's a special skill to write philosophy. You can't lead your audience astray, because then they will turn on you and bite you.

Even after several explanations I can't comprehend what you mean by uncausing. I let it be, please don't worry about it. You've given it your best shot, and I still stayed stupid and ignorant in comprehending it. I am a lost cause as far as uncausation is concerned, so please don't take it on your self to explain it yet a third time.

But you need to clear up your text, please, I think, you are at best ambiguous at most times, and at others, incomprehensible. Not your fault, your thoughts are most likely clear, but it's a special skill to write philosophy. — god must be atheist

I cry foul.

You didn't understand what I was saying. But instead of asking a question, you presumed to pretend you did understand, and tied me to some nonsense having nothing to do with what I said. When I corrected you, you started blaming me for not understanding. I'm being unclear. I'm being ambiguous. I'm being incomprehensible. The problem is, you could have chosen to just ask questions; I did that of Philosophim throughout this thread.

I don't buy your narrative that it's my fault you didn't understand. It looks to me like you're just posturing:

Even after several explanations I can't comprehend what you mean by uncausing. — god must be atheist

"Uncaused" means "not caused"; as in an event happens, and there isn't a cause for it. There is no such thing as "uncausing"... the act of not causing an event.

I am a lost cause as far as uncausation is concerned, so please don't take it on your self to explain it yet a third time. — god must be atheist

Okay, but it's okay to not understand something. I gave you an example of what I was talking about, and there's no "uncausing" happening there. There is no event "uncausing" another event there. There's just a part that has no cause; since it has no cause, we call it "uncaused". So don't pin your "uncausing" on me.

I cry foul. — InPitzotl

So do I. You can't deny you wrote this:

And that's where the possibilities diverge. We can have an event partially have a cause and partially be uncaused. So there's your other possibility. — InPitzotl

So explain what you mean by that, with special emphasis on the "be uncaused".

I did not want to continue this because it is tiresome to argue with you. But if you insist we go on, and you challenge me, I will not bend or break. Only under the weight of reason do I bend or break. But your statements have not shown anything but a bunch of self-contradictory claims.

In the following excerpt you set out to explain uncausing. But you did not. It was an entirely wasted effort. You put out words and you expect to be understood even when you say essentially nothing.

So let's go back to starting my car as an example. I put the key in the ignition and turn it, and the car starts up. Wonderful! But that's not the whole story. The car doesn't always start up when I turn the key. Turning the key is critical, but not sufficient. So we can say that turning the key causes it to start, but it's not the complete explanation. This is a partial cause. In this case, there are reasons why the car might not start if I turn the key... among those are: there's not enough gas to start, there isn't enough battery to crank it, and the spark plug is too gunked up to fire properly. For discussion purposes let's pretend this is complete. Then if we meet all of these prerequisites and the key is turned, the car will always start; collectively all of the causes are sufficient.

By contrast, we can have things such as the 217Pb atom I keep mentioning here, that during a particular 20 second period (span 1) does not decay, but during another (span 2) decays into a 217Bi atom. If we explore the cause of the existence of the 217Bi atom, that has an explanation; there's a prior 217Pb atom... and 217Pb's are known to decay into 217Bi's with a half life of about 20 seconds. So we can call this a cause. But it is not a sufficient cause, as proven by span 1. Not all 217Pb's decay into 217Bi's in a 20 second time span; about 50% of them do. But there need be no set of causes that collectively are sufficient to explain this decay; there need be no answer to the question of why the atom decayed in span 2 as opposed to not decaying in span 1.

This isn't a situation of some other "event" "uncausing" the decay, whatever (if anything) that might mean. It's a situation of there being no other event that causally explains it. It's a situation where there are causal priors, but collectively they are insufficient to explain the event (i.e., were all causes present, the event would not always happen). — InPitzotl

This above was supposed to explain your position on "uncausing". Yet it did not. You can't do that to your audience.

You have used "uncausing" and "uncaused" prolifically before the discussion between you and me. You now deny that it means anything. That's another thing you can't do in normal discussion, let alone in a discussion where reason is trump.

In the minds of many religious folks, the notion of a first cause is tied in with their religious beliefs. — EricH

The religious first cause is too complex to be Fundamental, plus it also leads to a regress of the lesser having to ever come from the greater if they continue that template.

There is a Mandatory Permanent Continuous Simplest Non-Composite Fundamental Existent, X, as all there is, because it has no alternative or opposite to its being, for ‘Nonexistence’ can’t even be meant as something, much less be productive.

Why does X have to produce the temporary forms?

X cannot be still or naught would have become as the temporaries, thus, X is not still and so X is energetic and X ever moves.

How does X produce the temporary forms?

X has only itself available to constitute the temporary forms and so these have to be formed via arrangements of itself that can have some persistence as elementary units that have mobility.

What mobility?

X is everywhere and so the elementary units can travel about.

Why elementary?

X is the ultimate lightweight and so the first temporary forms as the elementaries must also be lightweights. The elementary units may then combine or interact to form composite elements, and we know the rest of that story from Science.

But how do we know the first part of the story from Science, as confirmation of the philosophical logic?

X would be the quanta vacuum with its overall quantum field as partless and continuous, as the simplest, mandatory, permanent existent.

A field is merely what has a value at every point, they having to fluctuate, given that there cannot be stillness. The points must tug on one another and so the field at large wavers, this wave nature leading to the necessity of the quantum aspect of stable excitation levels happening.

A model that proves to be correct in representing a field is one that has sums of the harmonic oscillations of the field points. The rather persistent elementaries occur at the stable rungs of energy excitation quanta and they are those quanta.

Wanna-be ‘elementaries’ that do not reach the right excitation level are the still real virtuals that come and go very quickly. We know these from the Casmir effect.

So do I. You can't deny you wrote this: — god must be atheist

This fails as a gotcha. I'm not denying I wrote that. What I'm denying is that it contains your unique brand of confusion about this:

2. It is partially caused by another event and partially uncaused by some other event still.
3. The other part of the causes of the event are other causes and other parts of the uncaused whole are other uncausing events. — god must be atheist

You are the first person I have ever heard of to suggest that "uncaused" requires an "uncauser" that is "uncausing" the events. To the rest of us, all "uncaused" means is that there isn't an antecedent cause.

You have used "uncausing" and "uncaused" prolifically before the discussion between you and me. You now deny that it means anything. — god must be atheist

Wrong. I have used "uncaused" before the discussion between you and me, but I've never used "uncausing". I've searched all 15 pages of this thread, and the first usage of the term "uncausing" (by anyone) was in this post. This uncausing idea is unique to you.

I will not bend or break. Only under the weight of reason do I bend or break. — god must be atheist

Apparently not. You're chasing windmills, Don Quixote.

So explain what you mean by that, with special emphasis on the "be uncaused". — god must be atheist

s/be uncaused/partially be uncaused/:

And that's where the possibilities diverge. We can have an event partially have a cause and partially be uncaused. So there's your other possibility. — InPitzotl

In the normal English speaking world, "uncaused" means "have no antecedent cause". A partial cause is something that brings about an effect, but is not sufficient to bring about an effect; that is, sometimes the effect occurs given the partial cause, and sometimes it doesn't. The insufficiency could be accounted for by other causes, such as in the car example. But it's not necessary that there be other causes; in the case that there are no other causes sufficient to explain the event (i.e., if given any set of causes, sometimes the event occurs, and sometimes it doesn't), then the event is partially uncaused (i.e., there's some aspect which cannot be explained by an antecedent cause).

I've drawn you a picture to help:

The correct answer here is C. There's no contradiction in saying C is the correct answer. Given C is the correct answer, we only have one more question to address... is there some other cause that we could shove into the quiz, to disambiguate this? Something to where we can answer if A or B happens? If you think there is, you're introducing an unproven premise (equivalent to presuming determinism). If there isn't, that's what it means for whatever does happen to be partially uncaused.

This above was supposed to explain your position on "uncausing". — god must be atheist

Nope. There's no such thing as uncausing; that thing you introduced in this post. What I explained there was what I meant by partially being uncaused; that thing I actually did talk about here:

And that's where the possibilities diverge. We can have an event partially have a cause and partially be uncaused. So there's your other possibility. — InPitzotl

You now deny that it means anything. — god must be atheist

There has never been a change in my position. I have never discussed uncausing. I never mentioned an event uncausing another event.

I mentioned an event partially being uncaused. And I gave that atom example a long, long time before you arrived. But you're not talking about anything in this example; you're instead trying your damndest to pin me to this uncauser thing you invented.

That's another thing you can't do in normal discussion, let alone in a discussion where reason is trump. — god must be atheist

Building straw men and playing gotcha is not reasoning. If we were having a real meaningful discussion, you would address what I actually did talk about. Let's try that. Tell me why, in the picture, C isn't the correct answer; or why there has to be something that tells you whether A is going to happen in 20 seconds or B is going to happen in 20 seconds. If you can do that, you've addressed what I actually talked about. Barring that, you're just chasing windmills.

In the following excerpt you set out to explain uncausing. — god must be atheist

Please forgive a possibly insulting question - are you a native English speaker? If not, then your confusion is understandable and I would be glad to help you. Otherwise

You have used "uncausing" and "uncaused" prolifically — god must be atheist

I double checked. @InPitzotl never used the word "uncausing".

We can have an event partially have a cause and partially be uncaused. — InPitzotl

You're right, "uncausing" was not used by InPitzotl. I stand corrected.

But in his explanation to me what he meant by "uncaused" he did not explain it. Sorry.

I took offence actually when you questioned my proficiency in English. If you can't tell who speaks and writes English correctly, then maybe the problem is not with my English.

Yes. I can expect another barrage of condescending explanation from you telling me the difference between "proficiency in English", "correct English" and "understanding nuances in English". I expect you wish to tell me that "proficiency in English" is a typical word used for gradations of English knowledge in non-native speakers of English. Please do and then I'll never speak to you again.

I don't know why people stoop so low on this site and resort to insult others here by pre-judging the others' abilities and ranking them low in a type of skill in which they certainly do not lack.

Let me be condescending now to you for a second, pointing out some peculiarities of the English language that may have passed you by. Not in order to insult you, but just to make you see how it feels.

InPotzli wrote,
We can have an event partially have a cause and partially be uncaused.

Normally, "be uncaused" to me means, not being the object of a causational effect. It can be semantically exchanged to "not be caused".

An event is affected by one or more causes. Let's say we call the resulting common drive of all these causes "a cause" just to stay consistent with InProtzli's claim. We can sum then all events that do not cause the event at hand a singular non-causing force, consisting of many unrelated events. How can that be only partially not effecting? If it starts to affect the event, then the affecting cause that is new and no longer in the set of unaffecting events, and is now the part of the set of events that cause the event, i.e. have an effect on the event. The sum of all events and forces and causes that do not act at all on an object to bring about an event of the object, can't be called, in their entirety, "partly unaffecting".

----------

For the other part: you accused me, and rightfully found me guilty of using "uncausing" as a quote by InPortzli. What you considered a mistake was that I had taken the liberty and I EXTRAPOLATED the lingual use of "be uncaused". "Be uncaused" is in the passive mode of the verb. All passive modes can be put into a direct mode, by changing the object noun with the subject noun. "The racket hit the ball" is the direct mode, "the ball was hit by the racket" is the passive mode. In the former, the racket is the subject of the sentence, the ball is the object. In the second example. the ball is the subject, and the predicate is using the passive mode.

I don't know if you mistook my using "uncausing" as an error in grammar, which would be, in your mind imagined, used by me as fully interchangable with "uncaused". You were probably vaguely thinking of "I am interesting in buying this car" in which sentence used by many immigrants they mix up the past participle with the present participle. I am sorry, but if this is what indicated to you that I was incapable in English, then you in fact insulted me.

When I used "uncausing" I used it in the form of present continuous indicative performed by the subject of the sentence, which subject has no effect on the event at hand. "Many events are uncausing the event at hand (i.e. have no effect on it), while some other events are causing the event at hand to happen."

I took offence actually when you questioned my proficiency in English. — god must be atheist

Please forgive a possibly insulting question - — EricH

No offense was given.

I am yanking your chain, of course, I am only joking. But you need to clear up your text, please, I think, you are at best ambiguous at most times, and at others, incomprehensible. Not your fault, your thoughts are most likely clear, but it's a special skill to write philosophy. You can't lead your audience astray, because then they will turn on you and bite you. — god must be atheist

...two posts later:

I don't know why people stoop so low on this site and resort to insult others here by pre-judging the others' abilities and ranking them low in a type of skill in which they certainly do not lack. — god must be atheist

I refer you to the following sites which explain why your usage is incorrect (there are many other):

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/when-un-isnt-negative
https://www.wordreference.com/definition/un-
https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/wordroutes/the-un-believable-un-verb/

Here is the key passage:

. . .the prefix "un" means "not" when used with adjectives & adverbs. But when used with verbs, the prefix "un" expresses "a reversal of some action or state, or removal, deprivation, release, etc.

So you can be be untying your shoelaces, since they were tied at some point in time in the past. Ditto for unlocking, unplugging, etc, etc, etc. I can think of many funny usages - Are you un-urinating?

So anyway, under standard usage the verb "uncausing" clearly means to reverse the action of some other cause or causes.

i

When I used "uncausing" I used it in the form of present continuous indicative performed by the subject of the sentence, — god must be atheist

I give you kudos for creativity & erudition on this one, never heard that one before. Talk about obscure. I googled the expression "present continuous indicative" and got exactly 40 hits.

I understand what you are saying. But that does not negate or undo or reverse the standard usage of the prefix.

Your final QED remains undone. Your unerring website, as correct as it is at explaining most instances of the UN prefix with verbs, has, I am afraid, erred this time. Uncaused: caused then undoing the causing? Are you sure of that? My interpretation of the use in the example was ACTIVELY NOT DOING ANY CAUSING; your friend Potzli used it as a "partly uncaused", that is, partly not doing any causing. You are either not causing, or causing. There is no partly "not causing".

If you are erring, then unerring is not undoing the erring. If you cause something, then uncausing is not undoing the causing. It is, instead,

The whole thing is a huge red unherring.

Your argument ought to have been that uncausing is not accepted by the English language. It is not found in any dictionary. (I've checked them all.) It is a neologism by me.

What I really resented was your insinuation of my not speaking, understanding and reading-writing in English at the native speaker's level. Well, you are no language pathologist, either.

My interpretation of the use in the example was ACTIVELY NOT DOING ANY CAUSING; your friend Potzli used it as a "partly uncaused", that is, partly not doing any causing. You are either not causing, or causing. — god must be atheist

As @InPitzotl has pointed out, your interpretation is incorrect. I'll try one more time, then I give up.

• For simplicity let's work with an example. We have an event A occurring at time T.
• You said that A is either caused or uncaused. To be clear, in this discussion we are not dealing with any subsequent events that A may effect - we are only interested in how event A came about.
• Potzil pointed out that your list did not exhaust all the possibilities - namely that event A could be partly caused and partly uncaused.
• So for the sake of simplicity, let's say that event A is partly caused by B and partly uncaused.
• In other words, every other event in the entire universe that occurred before T had no effect on event A. Call this set of events U.
• You are saying (or seem to be saying) that every event in U uncaused A. Poyzli and I are saying that (at best) this is very poorly expressed. Are you right now un-causing the results of tonight's basketball game between Toronto & Indiana? Are you right now un-causing a dust storm on Mars?

Your argument ought to have been that uncausing is not accepted by the English language. It is not found in any dictionary. (I've checked them all.) — god must be atheist

And the reason for this is that by attaching the prefix "un" to the verb "caused" you're creating an oxymorom. It makes no sense based on the clear standard usage of the prefix "un" with verbs - for which I gave you more than ample documentation - namely that it involves a reversal of the verb - not simply a passive "not doing that verb". Are you un-urinating right now?

It is a neologism by me. — god must be atheist

Are you saying that every event in U "un-caused" event A? If yes, then, umm, OK - but that is a very strange way of putting it and you will have to cut the rest of us some slack that we didn't get your creative definition. But it would be so much more understandable to simply say that no event in U caused event A.

What I really resented was your insinuation of my not speaking, — god must be atheist

You're still on that? I apologized in advance of making that statement - and by your own admission you invented a new word.

You said you'd give me a shorter, simpler explanation. Then almost immediately you went into "You said, he said, InPotzl said, I say, T, A..." this is referencing a whole bunch of stuff. I have no inclination, time, patience and interest in going back to read the entire thread to hunt for these references.

This is not simple. At all. And not because of the thought's complexity -- you are explaining it in its chronological development, while a SIMPLE explanation of how an uncausation (?Is this a word? I don't want to start another argument, for crying out loud) can be partial is what I wish to see.

That's all I need. Someone said, something to the effect, "Caused and uncaused exhausts all possibilities." To which InPotzl replied: "We can have an event partially have a cause and partially be uncaused."

This is what you could explain to me. Not that uncausing is not a word. That's fine, you win there. But please explain how something can be partially uncaused. (Not a verb, but an adjective.)

The simpler the explanation, the better. No references. Just the straight goods. No A's and T's and X's. Just real life examples. Exactly what InPotzl actually meant.

Thanks.

There, you could do me a service and to InPontl too, if you explained that how a causation can be undone (uncaused) partially. Since you so eloquently explained that the un prefix is not a negation, but a reapplication of an action in reverse.

if you explained that how a causation can be undone (uncaused) partially. — god must be atheist

That's not what InPotzl and I are saying - and furthermore that sentence makes no sense. I'm sorry, but I don't have the time / energy to continue this discussion.

Thank you for wasting my time.

I think you just withdrew because you can't face the fact that you were defending something nonsensical. You were all eager to explain to me what "uncaused" means, but when I nailed you you just elegantly withdrew. Well, that's not nice.

Be a man and defend what you stand for, by explaining in terms that can be understood, what the dickens you and InPotzl actually meant. Your withdrawal means you can't explain. Because what InPotzl said is nonsense.

The simpler the explanation, the better. — god must be atheist

Okay. You're the immigrant.

But I think we need a tad bit more explanation than that.

your friend Potzli used it as a "partly uncaused", that is, partly not doing any causing. — god must be atheist

Wrong... those are completely different... let's talk about the immigrant:

You were probably vaguely thinking of "I am interesting in buying this car" in which sentence used by many immigrants they mix up the past participle with the present participle. — god must be atheist

Wrong:
I am interesting in buying the car.

Right:
I am interested in buying the car.

But why?:

The car is what does the interesting (active voice):
The car interests the immigrant.

We flip this with passive voice:
The immigrant is interested in the car.

And that's why interested works above when interesting doesn't. The immigrant is the object of "to interest"; so we need passive voice. The past form of a verb is used to convey passive tense both directly and in participles.

X causes Y. X is the cause; Y is the effect.

X is doing the causing of Y.
But:
Y is caused by X.
Y is caused.

"Partly caused" means being Y-like, not X-like. Y is partly caused because there's an X that causes Y. "Partly uncaused" means there's a Y-like role for which there's no X. For example, "There's nothing you can add in your box along with the 217Pb atom to make it decay into a 217Bi in the next 20 seconds."

Because what InPotzl said is nonsense. — god must be atheist

The "gmba's the immigrant" theory works much better than the "everyone's fault but gmba" theory here:

your friend Potzli used it as a "partly uncaused", that is, partly not doing any causing. — god must be atheist

Partly uncaused is talking about Y's that have some aspect that cannot be explained by an X that makes them exist (cf the OP). That's what I said, that's what EricH said, and that's even what you said (at least, it's what you said when you were talking about cars interesting immigrants). So that explains why all three of us are correct. Your misphrasing of this as if it had to do with partly not causing had to do with your poor mastery of English; and there is exactly the -ing versus the -ed forms that you whined about regarding the immigrant showing up right there in your confusion.

If an infinite regress of prior causes leads to a contradiction, then there has to be a first cause.

What about causa sui? The PSR remains intact.

The real perfect reversible clock at the singularity (when the irreversible didn't exist yet) doesn’t need a first cause. Causes are radiating from it, thereby causing it to turn into the irreversible where the real clock has turned imaginary. The effect causes the cause.

All subjective experience is caused by consciousness, but consciousness does not give birth to itself (not an illusion). Does this make consciousness the first cause?

All subjective experience is caused by consciousness, but consciousness does not give birth to itself (not an illusion). Does this make consciousness the first cause? — pfirefry

Consciousness=charge.
Virtual charge= Virtual Consciousness
Virtual charges=negative curvature
Negative curvature=Causing power

Thus...Consciousness (virtual not to be confused with not real; potentially real) is first cause.

Mind describing what you personally mean by causa sui? A wikipedia article doesn't flesh out what you intended by it,

The real perfect reversible clock at the singularity (when the irreversible didn't exist yet) doesn’t need a first cause. Causes are radiating from it, thereby causing it to turn into the irreversible where the real clock has turned imaginary. The effect causes the cause. — Raymond

Can you clarify this? I don't know what a reversible clock is, or what you mean by a singularity.

All subjective experience is caused by consciousness, but consciousness does not give birth to itself (not an illusion). Does this make consciousness the first cause? — pfirefry

You have to prove that nothing causes consciousness. That's a very tall order. Proving that any one thing is self-explained has an incredibly high burden of proof, and arguably may be impossible. I will flesh this out more if needed. First, try to show that consciousness is uncaused. We'll discuss more in depth after.