I don't follow your line of questioning, ucarr. What's your point?

don't follow your line of questioning, ucarr. What's your point? — 180 Proof

Suppose the Riemann hypothesis finds its solution in pure math. There it’s established all primes calculable by the zeta function locate themselves on the critical line of the complex number plane.

Now let’s blink out the natural world of physics. Pure math has no physical referents, no matter how far down the line you evaluate. What do we have? We have a system of signs denoting numerical relationships resting upon only the conventions of the signs themselves. The precedent for these conventions is, again, the signs themselves. This is a closed loop of circular reasoning grounded in nothing but its own circularity. This is why I say number is a physically real property of the natural world. Only there does math possess existentiality, meaning and usefulness.
————————————————————————————————————————-
As I read your lineout, I feel need to defend starting point of analysis as arbitrary because axioms, the necessary starting point of the scientific method, are pre-analytic, and thus arbitrary. Your no-beginning postulate necessitates arbitrary points of departure within its domain.

You seem to be backing up your line out with the claim maps, unlike their referents, have logical antecedents that constrain the methodology of their construction and thus the scope of their content. This ranges out ultimately to your separation of signs from their referents. I’m opposing this because my physicalist argument thoroughly entangles sign with referent so that maps do forever approach their referent terrain. There is no merger however.

The physicality of words and numbers makes them approach being bi-conditional with their physical referents.

All of this is to say, within a realm unbounded, finite and without beginning, everything is a map to another thing.

Your bifurcation of sign/referent is harder than mine.

Yes, which is to say that the base and the peak do not occupy the same position in space. The space between them is called distance. — Michael

This is a very misleading statement. To say there is distance between two objects is completely different from saying that there is space between two objects, yet you imply that the two are the same with "the space between them is called distance". What is between two objects, as the medium, could be air, water, or in the case of the example, the mountain; the mountain itself is between the base and the peak. Your use of "space" here is vulgar and improper for a philosophical discussion. Unless one is thinking of two objects separated by void, which is not the case in the mountain example, we would not consider that the distance between two objects consists of space. And what else could you mean with "The space between them is called distance"? Clearly what is between the base and the peak is the mountain itself, and not "space".

That there is distance between the base and the peak is measurement-independent. It's certainly not the case that the base and the peak are touching until we look at the mountain.

That this distance is described as being "8,000m" or as being "26,246.72 feet" is measurement- and language-dependent.

I'm not sure why you felt the need to explain the latter fact. I'm not sure how it's exactly relevant. — Michael

Do you see that "distance" in the first statement has a distinctly different meaning from "distance" in the second statement, so that when you say "this distance" in the second statement, suggesting that it is the same "distance" as the first statement, you equivocate? Of course "distance" must have two distinct meanings because the unmeasured "distance" is measurement-independent yet the measured "distance" is measurement-dependent.

The first use of "distance" is to signify that there is separation, remoteness between the two named things. They are not contiguous. The second use of "distance" indicates the measured length of this separation. Will you agree that "distance" refers to two distinct things, 1) the separation, and 2) the measured length of the separation. You've already stated that one is measurement- independent, and the other is measurement-dependent. So surely you will see that it is impossible that "distance" refers to the same thing in each case. Will you also recognize that if you say that "this distance" has a specific measured value of 8000m, you would equivocate? Therefore when you say "this distance is described as being '8,000m'" you equivocate. It is the measurement-dependent sense of "distance" which is said to be 8,000m, not the measurement-independent sense of "distance" which cannot be described as having a specific value.

"Distance" as a specific measured value (as in "the distance" or "a distance" for example), has not the same meaning as "distance" in the case of a general separation. So when you say "this distance is..." you equivocate because you give a specific measured value to the general use of "there is difference...".

To avoid the equivocation, I suggest we alter the first statement to read "there is a distance between the base and the peak". This would signify a specific measured value. However, we could not say then, that this distance is mind-independent. To refer to what is between the base and the peak we would have to use other terminology.

As a counterexample see my mathematical example. — jgill

Where?

But note that I specifically said that "an infinite sequence of events has no end". I didn't say that "an infinite series has no end". — Michael

Allow n to increase without bound (go to infinity) in the infinite composition (regression) ${{F}_{n}}(z)={{f}_{1}}\circ {{f}_{2}}\circ \cdots \circ {{f}_{n}}(z)$, which is an analogue of a cause/effect sequence. As n increases the value of this expression (the left hand end if you like) approaches a specific complex number.

Either all things have a prior cause for their existence — Philosophim

There are "things" which do not have a specific prior cause for their existence. When an atom decays radioactively from one element to another there is no prior event or cause for this to happen - it is completely random.

But maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

When an atom decays radioactively from one element to another there is no prior event or cause for this to happen - it is completely random. — EricH

No, it is random by statistics. It is not actually violating the laws of physics. :) To have something without a prior explanation means there were no rules forbidding or necessitating its creation. Something without prior cause exists, simply because it does. There is no prior reason.

No, it is random by statistics. It is not actually violating the laws of physics. — Philosophim

Well yes, that was my point. But just to be clear, the statistics only work in the aggregate level. Each individual atom that decays does so in the absence of any prior event.

Something without prior cause exists, simply because it does. There is no prior reason. — Philosophim

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

I'm clearly missing something. The conclusion that I get from reading these two statements is that there exists in the physical universe multiple "first causes". I.e., all those atoms that come into existence via radioactive decay have no prior cause for their creation, therefore they are all "first causes"?

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

3. This leads us to 3 plausibilities. — Philosophim

I don't know if this has been said because I am lazy and have not read comments, but..

I think a 4th option would be that you follow the chain of causation as far back as you can and then find out that the next causation source exists in a universe a layer above ours. Such a universe would not necessarily follow our laws of causation and could be rather unknowable.

. Because there are no other plausibilties to how causality functions, the only {logical} conclusion is that a causal chain will always lead to an Alpha, or first cause. — Philosophim

Pardon me for my audacious assumption. For clarity, I replaced your second "only" with "logical". Although the assertion would work as written, with "only-only" as an emphatic way of saying "no alternatives".

I doubt that can refute your reasoning, so he merely denies your conclusion. First Cause arguments open the door to inferences of Creator Gods, that 180's belief system explicitly excludes. Therefore, Atheistic worldviews must assume, as an implicit axiom, that the universe itself is eternal, without beginning or end. In which case, there is no need for a First Cause. As a hypothetical worldview, Einstein's Block Time Eternalism is static & acausal, and bears little resemblance to our incrementally-evolving ever-changing space-time reality, with something new every day. In which case our common sense notion of Time is a "persistent" illusion.

But if our increment of eternity is causal & sequential, 180's non-starter world must then be acausal & discontinuous. If so, his logic is circular, while yours is linear & reasonable : it begins with an either/or premise, and reaches an irrefutable logical conclusion. Unless, of course our world is a Block-time Universe, or one big random series of accidents : no logic, no reason, no direction, just "it is what it is". Atheistic scientists & philosophers are not embarrassed to fill the Causal Gap before the Big Bang with a tower of turtles Multiverse : causes stacked on top of each other, rather than sequential. :smile:

PS___"First Cause" arguments are literally & deliberately agnostic about the gap-filler.

A Causal Theory of Knowing :
A causal chain is described as a sequence of events for which one event in a chain causes the next. According to Goldman, these chains can only exist with the presence of an accepted fact, a belief in the fact, and a cause for the subject to believe the fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Causal_Theory_of_Knowing
Note --- Since Plato, the First Cause argument has been an accepted premise for reasoning about causation. Of course, like a pool-shooter, the initial impetus (causal power) may not itself be a link in the space-time chain of bouncing balls.

IT'S TURTLES ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE ETERNAL TURTLE


WHERE'S THE FIRST CAUSE?

↪180 Proof
Is this a correct paraphrase of your response to Philosophim’s thesis: spacetime, an unbounded, finite, beginning-less phenomenon, requires an arbitrary starting point re: sequential processes. It can be considered a “working” starting point, but there’s no logical necessity guiding the choice of a particular starting point. — ucarr

Don't get me started . . . . . . . . . . . . :joke:

Metaphysical necessity :
In philosophy, metaphysical necessity, sometimes called broad logical necessity, is one of many different kinds of necessity, which sits between logical necessity and nomological (or physical) necessity, in the sense that logical necessity entails metaphysical necessity, but not vice versa, and metaphysical necessity entails physical necessity, but not vice versa. A proposition is said to be necessary if it could not have failed to be the case. Nomological necessity is necessity according to the laws of physics and logical necessity is necessity according to the laws of logic, while metaphysical necessities are necessary in the sense that the world could not possibly have been otherwise. What facts are metaphysically necessary, and on what basis we might view certain facts as metaphysically but not logically necessary are subjects of substantial discussion in contemporary philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_necessity

When one forms a causal chain mathematically, one can assume that at each step a single causal function exists. But in the real world a host of causal "forces" may be in play at each step, and somehow they must average out to prolong the expansion. Here is an attempt to corral those forces in the simplest mathematical structures.

Note that this looks at causal expansions starting at an original cause and moving forward through time.

If math is not your ticket, ignore the above. :cool:

Another take on multiple causation. A philosophical approach employing ideas from probability.

When one forms a causal chain mathematically, one can assume that at each step a single causal function exists. But in the real world a host of causal "forces" may be in play at each step, and somehow they must average out to prolong the expansion. — jgill

Not if one is considering the total universe at points of time. Where U_i is the universe at time i, it is true that U_i causes U_i+1

Error creeps in when we examine subsets of the universe, because everything in the universe is causally connected.

Where Ui is the universe at time i, it is true that Ui causes Ui+1 — Relativist

A little beyond my pay grade, but thanks. :smile:

Sorry for the delay in answering.

I'm clearly missing something. The conclusion that I get from reading these two statements is that there exists in the physical universe multiple "first causes". I.e., all those atoms that come into existence via radioactive decay have no prior cause for their creation, therefore they are all "first causes"? — EricH

If there truly was no prior cause, then yes. I'm fairly certain that radioactive decay has pretty clear causes though.

I think a 4th option would be that you follow the chain of causation as far back as you can and then find out that the next causation source exists in a universe a layer above ours. Such a universe would not necessarily follow our laws of causation and could be rather unknowable. — mentos987

That's part of the set of causation. Once we introduce a fourth universe, there's still the question of, "What caused that fourth universe?"

Look at it this way.

A = a finite set of causality. We go down a chain of causality until there's nothing prior.
B = a set of infinite regressive causality. It never ends.

What caused A? It just is, there's no prior explanation for it.
What caused B? It just is, there's no prior explanation for it.

First Cause arguments open the door to inferences of Creator Gods, that 180's belief system explicitly excludes. Therefore, Atheistic worldviews must assume, as an implicit axiom, that the universe itself is eternal, without beginning or end. In which case, there is no need for a First Cause. — Gnomon

Yes, I've seen this many times. Its incredibly limiting to thought as well. What atheists can realize is that an acausal universe may open God as one of infinite possibilities, but not a necessity. As such they're neglecting acausal possibilities that don't involve a God. Great post Gnomon!

But in the real world a host of causal "forces" may be in play at each step, and somehow they must average out to prolong the expansion. Here is an attempt to corral those forces in the simplest mathematical structures. — jgill

100% agree, and this does not violate that conclusion. In the case of infinite causality, there's still the question of, "What caused an infinite set of causality to be?" There's nothing prior to it, it simply is.

Once we introduce a fourth universe, there's still the question of, "What caused that fourth universe?" — Philosophim

Causation need not be a rule for the universe that is on a layer on top of ours. Time, gravity, individuals, energy and causation could all be concepts exclusive to our universe.

Causation need not be a rule for the universe that is on a layer on top of ours. Time, gravity, individuals, energy and causation could all be concepts exclusive to our universe. — mentos987

If nothing caused it, then it would be a first cause. A first cause has no prior explanation for its existence, it simply is. So you see, these suppositions don't change anything.

Seems I misunderstood your "Alpha" alternative. I agree with it. Within our universe, there must be a "first".

However, causality need not cover the entirety of existence. I'd argue that it probably does not.

If there truly was no prior cause, then yes. I'm fairly certain that radioactive decay has pretty clear causes though. — Philosophim

Over time radioactive decay behaves in a statistically predictable manner, but each event is completely random and uncaused. Going back to your OP, if Y is the decay of an atom at a particular point in time, then there is no specific X that caused Y.

Perhaps you are using a different definition of causality - but you need to clarify/explain your reasoning.

but each event is completely random and uncaused. — EricH

It behaves randomly in relation to us* Same with a coin toss or a dice roll.

If we know enough about the coin/die and all the surrounding, then we can calculate the outcome, the reason we can't do the same with decay is likely that we lack the data/knowledge to do so.

True randomness is not proven to exist. It is not proven one way or the other. The more we learn, the less random the universe appears.

“God does not play dice with the universe” --Albert Einstein

The steps in a dynamical system or causation chain occur at time intervals. Are there chains that display instant movement, like instant velocity? This involves smaller and smaller times between steps. Here
are comments related to instantaneous motion in causation chains.

If math is not your thing don't bother.

“God does not play dice with the universe” --Albert Einstein — mentos987

Einstein got it wrong. EPR supposedly showed flaws in quantum mechanics. But . . .

The more we learn, the less random the universe appears. — mentos987

It's the opposite. Bell's theorem showed that there are no hidden local variables.

the reason we can't do the same with decay is likely that we lack the data/knowledge to do so. — mentos987

The lack of data/knowledge is a key feature of quantum mechanics. That's how the universe works.

Per the OP there needs to be a specific X that "causes" Y. But perhaps the OP is using a different definition of causality.

I would add that radioactive decay is only one of many phenomena at the quantum level that are random. Double slit experiment, etc, etc

Bell's theorem assumes that free will already exist, it used that to prove that true randomness exist. I'm with Einstein on this one.

Lack of free will would be depressing so we choose to have faith that it exist.

I have no proof either way, it is all speculations.

You may be right that OPs version of causality requires determinism.

Bell's theorem assumes that free will already exist, it used that to prove that true randomness exist. I'm with Einstein on this one. — mentos987

We cannot logically rule out superdeterminism but as a fact based person I go with the evidence. And as it says in the WIkipedia article, 'any hypothetical superdeterministic theory "would be about as plausible, and appealing, as belief in ubiquitous alien mind-control"'.

You may be right that OPs version of causality requires determinism. — mentos987

Agree.

Over time radioactive decay behaves in a statistically predictable manner, but each event is completely random and uncaused. — EricH

This is a misunderstanding of statistics. It is not truly random and uncaused. We know the causes of radioactive decay. The use of statistics and chance is to give us an approximation of general decay over time when we cannot measure each nucleus individually. Just like a dice roll is not truly random. Its the combination of many forces we do not have the capability to calculate. But we do know it can only be 1 of six outcomes, and that the variation of even one of these forces can result in a different outcome.

True randomness would be me rolling some dice and them turning into Santa Clause. True randomness has absolutely no limitation or law that states, "This must be or is more inclined to happen".

You may be right that OPs version of causality requires determinism.
— mentos987
Agree. — EricH

No, it does not. When something is a first cause, it is an uncaused thing which then enters into causality. There is no limitation as to what a first cause could be, as it has no prior explanation for its being. It is unlinked from determinism as to why it exists. However, once it exists, its interactions with other existences then involve causality, or determinism. Determinism is 100% the result of anything which has laws or limitations. Determinism does not exist to cause a first cause to be.

appealing — EricH

I think this is the real reason. We want there to be free will. Any other notion is very unappealing, so we resist.

A similar problem that a Christian faces when considering being an atheist: I want there to be a heaven.

True randomness would be me rolling some dice and them turning into Santa Clause. — Philosophim

This was random enough to make me smile.

There is no limitation as to what a first cause could be — Philosophim

If true randomness exist and we are subjected to it constantly, would there not be new "first causes" being created all the time?

If we can trace back different happenings back to a true randomness, and there are an infinite amount of true randomness. Would that not mean that there is an infinite amount of "first causes"?

True randomness would be me rolling some dice and them turning into Santa Clause.
— Philosophim
This was random enough to make me smile. — mentos987

Ha ha! I'm glad. Philosophy should be fun too. :)

If true randomness exist and we are subjected to it constantly, would there not be new "first causes" being created all the time? — mentos987

There could be, absolutely. There is nothing that indicates that it would suddenly end. One such randomness is that some or many first causes happen, then nothing happens for centuries. Or it could be that there are first causes happening here and all over the universe, but they're so small, short lived, ineffectual, or so outside of our location that we don't notice them.

If we can trace back different happenings back to a true randomness, and there are an infinite amount of true randomness. Would that not mean that there is an infinite amount of "first causes"? — mentos987

Its one of an infinite possibilities. Assuming that a first cause has no reason for its being, we can assume that anything could happen. We can also conclude that no one thing has a greater chance of happening than another, because that would imply some rule or limitation. Meaning all things could happen, and all would have an equal chance of being.

So we could have a universe in which infinite first causes happen over infinite time. Or a universe where there's no first causes for centuries, then one thing explodes into existence. Or...add your imagination. All have an equal chance of happening, so there's no certainty that any one would necessarily happen. All we can do is look at our universe as it is today to see what happened, and keep an eye out for events that are unexplained as its definitely plausible that first causes can still happen today.

Fair, but the whole concept would be less messy if you also assumed determinism.

If you add enough randomness, the causes will get blurry.