And I bet they still maintain this bit of advanced philosophical thought. — javra

They still lurk, but haven't posted in months.

It might be better to think of inches and dollars as something we do rather than something we contemplate.

They still lurk, but haven't posted in months. — Banno

One again wrong in your presumptions. Tis me (formerly "evolog" on the old website, don't you know).

It might be better to think of inches and dollars as something we do rather than something we contemplate. — Banno

Because contemplation is not something we do?

Does an inch exist on a ruler without someone looking at it? — jgill

A ruler has markings, it might say "inch", or it may not. I don't see the relevance, an act of measurement was required to produce that marking.

Long ago, one of the regulars here insisted that Mount Everest did not have a height until it was measured. The prognosis was advanced pragmatism, unfortunately incurable. — Banno

Reminds me of the time when I argued that a jar full of marbles does not have a number until counted.
But I'm in no way a pragmatist. This was in a thread about quantum mechanics, and it was an example of the point which a physicist (I believe it was Bell) had made about quantum measurement. Measurement, he explained, whether quantum, or any type of measurement, is fundamentally not what the average person thinks it is. The value which we assign is not there until it is assigned.

Edit: The last sentence ought to be revised, the value is never actually there in the thing, it's simply what we say about it.

Does an inch exist on a ruler without someone looking at it? — jgill

An inch no more exists without anyone contemplating it than does any word (such as the word “money”) exist without anyone contemplating it. — javra

I'm speaking of a ruler with inch markings sitting on the table in front of you. You turn away to ask your wife for a glass of wine, then turn back and look again at the ruler. Did it exist for that short period you glanced away? You know, Einstein and the moon.

Rabbit hole country.

Tis me — javra

It was @apokrisis I had in mind. But you may have made a similar error.

Because contemplation is not something we do? — javra

Because contemplation is passive. Measuring and spending are not passive.

You know, Einstein and the moon. — jgill

Ah shoot, gonna turn this thread into one about best understandings regarding an objective idealism ontology?

I'll pass on that for now. All the same, the piece of wood or metal can well occur were all humans to somehow disappear this very instant, as would the moon - as would also persist the signs we humans would leave behind, as in both a) lines representing the idealization of a perfect inch and b) the word "money". These physical things would yet occur but - in granting no other equally or more advanced intelligence in the cosmos - these physically occurrent things would be utterly devoid of the meaning we deem them to hold. They would be utterly meaningless to dogs, bacteria, etc. But again, I don't want to turn this thread into one regarding ontologies.

I don't want to turn this thread into one regarding ontologies. — javra

Does a causation chain have being? It does if there is a dog at its end.

Because contemplation is passive. — Banno

We inhabit two very different minds. I'm always active in what I contemplate. You claim not to be. OK.

Does a causation chain have being? It does if there is a dog at its end. — jgill

Yup, philosophical issues 101. Which some will doubtlessly want to be spelled backwards, no less.

How would you know if 101 was actually spelled backward or not? How would we know if all those people like Banno who appear to be looking backward aren't really looking forward?

This is getting wildly off topic now guys. Please refer to the OP. If you want to make another topic to discuss, feel free.

Got it. Just wanted to reply to with a :grin:

4. Alpha logic: An alpha cannot have any prior reasoning that explains why it came into existence. An Alpha's reason for its existence can never be defined by the Z's that follow it. If an Alpha exists, its own justification for existence, is itself. We could say, "The reversal of Z's causality logically lead up to this Alpha," But we cannot say "Z is the cause of why Alpha could, or could not exist." Plainly put, the rules concluded within a universe of causality cannot explain why an Alpha exists.

5. Infinitely prior, and infinitely looped causality, all have one final question of causality that needs answering. "Why would it be that there exists an infinite prior or infinitely looped causality in existence? These two terms will be combined into one, "Infinite causality. — Philosophim

So there are three supposed options:

1. A → B → C → ...
2. ... → A → B → C → ...
3. ... → A → B → C → ... → A → B → C → ...

In (4) you say that if (1) is true then A has no cause.

In (5) you ask "why is either (2) or (3) the case?".

Notice that these address different considerations. It is equally appropriate to ask "why is (1) the case?".

It may simply be a brute fact that there is no first cause. That explanations end somewhere isn't that causation starts somewhere.

Although I do agree that a first cause seems to make the most sense.

@180 Proof referenced a "first number" as a reductio ad absurdum against the claim that there must be a first cause. I think a more appropriate consideration is a first counted number. Counting has to start somewhere, and each second of passed time is a type of counting.

If the past is infinite then the present is the end of an infinite sequence of events. An infinite sequence of events has no end. Therefore, the past is not infinite.

Although this is perhaps only true if an A series concept of time is correct (e.g. presentism or the growing block universe). If a B series concept is correct (e.g. eternalism) then the above reasoning may not hold.

I think a more appropriate consideration is a first counted number. Counting has to start somewhere, and each second of passed time is a type of counting. — Michael

This is why, in metaphysics, it is important to understand that a thing must have actually been measured in order to have a measurement. As in the examples above, the mountain is commonly assumed to have a "height" prior to being measured, and the jar full of marbles is commonly assumed to have a "quantity" prior to being counted. But both of these, the height and the quantity are actually products of the act of measurement, therefore it is incorrect to assume that they exist prior to being determined by that act which determines them. Common assumptions are produced to facilitate common mundane actions, and are therefore not necessarily consistent with good metaphysics.

The reason why it is important to understand this is that metaphysics is logically prior to epistemology, meaning that principles of epistemology are supported by principles of metaphysics. And if we do not properly account for the fact that the quantitative value assigned to the physical world is a product of the act of measurement rather than something which inheres within an independent physical reality, we lose the required principles for understanding the true nature of mistake.

It appears like we, as human beings have become so confident in our techniques of measurement, that when we correctly determine the measured value, we believe that we are correct in the sense of having determined something which inheres within the thing itself, and therefore a correct judgement could not possibly be other than the value determined. But this attitude toward the measurement practice conceals the fact that the technique which produces the correct answer, according to the rules of the system applied, may not be the best possible technique. "Correctness" is determined by properly applying the rules of the measurement system to the thing being measured. However, if the measurement system is in some way inadequate for measurement of the thing it is being applied to, the correct measurement would still be in that way, a mistaken measurement.

If we turn to the classical distinction between theory and practise, this is the difference between mistakes in practise, and mistakes in theory. Mistaken practise is relatively easy to determine, being a matter of following rules. Mistaken theory is much more difficult to determine because we must allow our minds to go beyond the rules of correctness, and find further principles to support our judgements. That's why the scientific method was developed, as a sort of direction for testing theory.

In relation to the op, the type of theory which produces an infinite regress, infinity in the act of measurement, has been demonstrated to be a defective type of theory. It is defective because it designates the independent thing which we are trying to measure as unmeasurable (the thing we are trying to count is designated as uncountable). Any theory of measurement which designates the thing which it is trying to measure as unmeasurable is a self-defeating theory, and by that principle it is a defective theory. In other words, the measurement system which produces an infinite regress in its application, is inadequate for measuring the thing which it is being applied to.

Its nice to see someone actually addressing the OP.

In (4) you say that if (1) is true then A has no cause.

In (5) you ask "why is either (2) or (3) the case?".

Notice that these address different considerations. It is equally appropriate to ask "why is (1) the case?". — Michael

I ask the same question about 1. Why is there a finite limit to causality? The answer cannot be found by looking to something prior. So the answer is that 'It simply is.' Its the same answer in each case. Essentially the question is, "What caused existence?" And in all cases, there is no prior explanation. The first cause is, "It simply is."

There is no a priori reason as to why the past should be either finite or infinite, for the past might be potentially infinite and grow in response to present and future observations. For there isn't a means of determining that past exists prior to, and independently of, the discovery of historical evidence.

I ask the same question about 1. Why is there a finite limit to causality? The answer cannot be found by looking to something prior. So the answer is that 'It simply is.' Its the same answer in each case. Essentially the question is, "What caused existence?" And in all cases, there is no prior explanation. The first cause is, "It simply is." — Philosophim

As I also said in that post:

It may simply be a brute fact that there is no first cause. That explanations end somewhere isn't that causation starts somewhere. — Michael

In other words, it could be that "it simply is" the case that causality is infinite.

This is why, in metaphysics, it is important to understand that a thing must have actually been measured in order to have a measurement. As in the examples above, the mountain is commonly assumed to have a "height" prior to being measured, and the jar full of marbles is commonly assumed to have a "quantity" prior to being counted. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is very ambiguous.

There is a distance between the base of a mountain and its peak even if we never measure it. And this distance can be less than the distance between the base and peak of some other mountain even if we never measure either.

That the distance of one mountain is given the label "8,849 m" is a consequence of our measurement.

Unless you want to argue that space itself is some sort of "mental fabrication"? An idealist might agree with you. A materialist (or dualist) won't.

It may simply be a brute fact that there is no first cause. That explanations end somewhere isn't that causation starts somewhere.
— Michael

In other words, it could be that "it simply is" the case that causality is infinite. — Michael

We are actually talking about the same thing. :) Where explanations end is the start of causation. A first cause has no prior explanation for its existence, "it simply is". That base, "X simply is" is a first cause from which other causes can happen. My point is that whether the universe has an finite or infinitely regressive causality, the reason why it is one way over the reason that it isn't another way is, "It simply is." There is no prior explanation or reason for its existence.

We are actually talking about the same thing. :) Where explanations end is the start of causation. A first cause has no prior explanation for its existence, "it simply is". That base, "X simply is" is a first cause from which other causes can happen. My point is that whether the universe has an finite or infinitely regressive causality, the reason why it is one way over the reason that it isn't another way is, "It simply is." There is no prior explanation or reason for its existence. — Philosophim

You misunderstand. Given one of these options:

1. A → B → C → ...
2. ... → A → B → C → ...
3. ... → A → B → C → ... → A → B → C → ...

I'm suggesting that "it simply is" the case that (2) is correct or that "it simply is" the case that (3) is correct.

So, "it simply is" the case that there is no first cause.

Where explanations end is the start of causation. — Philosophim

The explanation might end with "there is no first cause". This explanatory end isn't itself a first cause.

I'm suggesting that "it simply is" the case that (2) is correct or that "it simply is" the case that (3) is the case.

So, "it simply is" the case that there is no first cause. — Michael

"It simply is" is the first cause.

"It simply is" is the first cause. — Philosophim

The explanation might end with "there is no first cause". This explanatory end isn't itself a first cause. — Michael

It makes no sense to say that "there is no first cause" is the first cause.

Perhaps it is not logic but the very nature of the human brain itself that requires everything it encounters to conform to the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Just an extremely abstract form of anthropomorphism.

This isn't anthroprmorphism though. I'm not stating there is any consciousness or intent behind a first cause. I'm just logically pointing out that no matter the type of causality, infinite or finite, we still arrive at a point where the cause for existence taken in total has no prior explanation, or cause, for why it exists. At then end of the day, the first cause is, "It simply is."

It makes no sense to say that "there is no first cause" is the first cause. — Michael

Correct. Which is why when we reach a point in any chain of causality where there is no prior causality for its existence, 'it simply is', that we've reached the first cause from which the rest of the chain or set follows.

Correct. Which is why when we reach a point in any chain of causality where there is no prior causality for its existence, 'it simply is', that we've reached the first cause from which the rest of the chain or set follows — Philosophim

I'm not sure you're even reading what I'm writing.

If the past is infinite then the present is the end of an infinite sequence of events. An infinite sequence of events has no end. Therefore, the past is not infinite. — Michael

If (post-Newtonian) spacetime describes an unbounded, finite magnitude like the surface of the Earth (or torus, Klein bottle, Möbius loop, etc) – does not have edges or end-points – then the tenses of events (i.e. inertial reference-frames) are relative and not absolute (e.g. "the past" "the present"). It is "logically necessary" to "begin counting" somewhere in a beginning-less sequence just as it is to be standing somewhere on the Earth's surface. Thus, beginnings, or "first causes", are demonstrably not "logically necessary" in ontology (topology or cosmology) though, of course, they are possible.

"It simply is" is the first cause. — Philosophim

:roll:

If (post-Newtonian) spacetime describes an unbounded, finite magnitude like the surface of the Earth (or torus, Klein bottle, Möbius loop, etc) – does not have edges or end-points – then the tenses of events (i.e. inertial reference-frames) are relative and not absolute (e.g. "the past" "the present"). — 180 Proof

This would be the B series concept of time that I mentioned in my comment?

I don't think so. IMO, spacetime =/= time sequence (A or B).