OK. Demonstrate an uncaused cause, where you are certain some process begins. — jgill

Sure. An uncaused cause has no rules or restrictions on what it can, or cannot be. But lets keep it simple. A quark appears in the universe, then persists. That's it. It wasn't there, now it is there. It has no prior reason for its being there, besides the fact that it just started being there.

A quark appears in the universe, then persists — Philosophim

Not a disturbance of quantum fields? Sometimes by lab machinery? Are quantum fields uncaused causes? If so, how can you be sure?

Above my pay grade.

Not a disturbance of quantum fields? Sometimes by lab machinery? Are quantum fields uncaused causes? If so, how can you be sure? — jgill

Let me clarify. You asked me to give you an example of an uncaused cause. I'm not saying this actually exists. While an uncaused cause logically must exist, proving 'x' is an uncaused cause is ridiculously difficulty.

Lets go back to our quark example again. Remember how I said an uncaused cause has no limitations on its existence? If a quark appears, it can also appear with uncaused velocity. But from our viewpoint, we would think the quark had existed prior to its formation because we would assume something caused the velocity, we just couldn't find it.

The logic is not about saying, "This is an uncaused cause." The logic of the OP is noting that logically, there must be an uncaused cause in our universe. Chains of causality all reach a point in which there is no prior explanation for some things existence, besides that it exists.

This is very simple. Either you believe there is a first cause or you do not believe there is a first cause. It's a matter of belief, not reasoning. Sounds like theology to me. — jgill

I disagree with this. I think it is a matter of reasoning. Aristotle's so-called "cosmological argument" begins from the reality of change, and contingent being, which we experience at the present time, and proceeds to demonstrate logically the need to conclude the reality of what people call "a first cause". Because of this, I think that belief in the first cause is really, at its base, a matter of reasoned metaphysics, rather than religion.

The theologists have taken "the first cause" from the theoretical discipline of metaphysics, named it "God", and put it to work herding human beings in the practical field of religion. But theologists use many different tools in their practise, some even unethical, so this has created much dislike for religion. The backlash turns against "God" and ultimately the metaphysics which supports that conception. The problem is that the backlash against the metaphysics is generally irrational, being motivated by practises other than teaching the logical necessity of "the first cause", yet being directed at "the first cause"..

This has nothing to do with theological assertions jgill. Forget God. It floors me that I cannot get through to other atheists on this. Truly their fear of this being theological terrifies them to the point of being unable to think about it. I am an atheist. I wrote this. This is about base matter. Its very simple. Don't let fear prevent you from understanding it. — Philosophim

What makes you think that you can conceive of a first cause?

I can for example, conceive of, and indeed witness, a pencil line that has a beginning, and I can also start counting up from zero. But these so-called "first events" that occur in ordinary experience are only conceivable to me because i am able to witness or conceive of other events in time and space that occur earlier ...

In my experience of fellow atheists, they often harbor a peculiarly theological belief in "nothingness", in that they seem to reify the notion as a sort of anti-substance that they envisage as existing before and after substance, out of which they construct myths such as universe as having an objective "beginning",or of personal experience as having a subjective end. (They will deny these charges of course, in the usual spirit of "true believers"). But if we reject this ontological interpretation of nothingness as being nonsensical, then how else are we supposed to conceive of absolutely first (and last) events?

A first cause isn't necessary within a probabilistic function.

Causality, as in deterministic events, follows entropy only on scales above the Planck scale. Virtual particles, as understood right now, does not have a first cause, they are probabilistic random existences.

If the universe extended out from this Planck scale; in which determinism exists as an irrational system due to the absolute probabilistic chaos that exists there; then the first cause is basically defined as the first entities that acted upon another entity causing a chain reaction of events rather than randomness. In essence, once there was an absolute probabilistic chaos and then one such instance acted upon another causing a chain reaction of events forming our universe.

So, through quantum physics, a first cause isn't a necessity. It's only a necessity for that which solidifies out of an absolute probabilistic system when that system's random probabilities reach such high certainty as to fundamentally make any other probable outcome impossible due to not being able to affect neighboring events. At a certain scale, the governing constants of the universe (which themselves may be part of the initial probabilistic random outcome during the Big Bang), form an alignment for probabilistic outcomes and as such all other probable outcomes collapse into what is most deterministically probable.

Like drops on a surface, their surface tension conform them into large actions and systems; the merging two drops is a highly probable event based on the laws of physics, regardless of the chaotic nature of the substance and its elementary quantum randomness. All other probable outcomes becomes only probably on such small scales as to be overridden by the emerging properties of the whole set.

Therefore, the universe is fundamentally probabilistic, but the likelihood of an event that overrides determinism in the universe is so low that it cannot happen during the entire timescale that the universe exist through. Like, for example, a drop of water splitting up into two parts by a reversal of the laws of physics governing that drop is on its large scale such an improbable event that it would take billions of times the timescale of our current universe lifetime for that to happen as a random event, and the deterministic outcomes would even then be insignificant to the universe as a whole.

Furthermore, spacetime singularities may be places in which matter and objects compress to such scales where they start to behave like pure probabilistic randomness, and since that produces a paradox in entropy, reality itself collapses into a feedback loop that becomes a "hole" in our reality as it cannot function together with the deterministic system outside of it.

Then there's the superposition of causal events that have the same outcomes regardless of which came first, and such an indefinite causal order. Although it doesn't change larger causal links.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-mischief-rewrites-the-laws-of-cause-and-effect-20210311/

What makes you think that you can conceive of a first cause? — sime

Conceiving things is the easy part. There is nothing, then, there is something. Its a binary issue. A current state is either caused by something prior, or it is not.

In my experience of fellow atheists, they often harbor a peculiarly theological belief in "nothingness" — sime

I only mentioned I was an atheist because jgill assumed this was a theistic argument and that was preventing him from thinking clearly about the argument. Other than that, we should not attribute arguments to atheists or theists. Please just note your point so we can stick with the logic.

But if we reject this ontological interpretation of nothingness as being nonsensical, then how else are we supposed to conceive of absolutely first (and last) events? — sime

Its an unnecessary concept to understand the logic. I show you through the OP that it doesn't matter whether you have a causal chain which leads to a finite start, or a causal chain that is infinitely regressive.

What caused the finite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason.
What caused the infinite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason.

It all boils down to the point that eventually in any chain of causality, infinite or finite, the causation of its existence will eventually have no prior explanation for its existence. Reality, at its core, simply is and has no prior reason for why it should be.

A first cause isn't necessary within a probabilistic function. — Christoffer

Yes it is. Let me explain what probability is. When you roll a six sided die, you know there are only six sides that can come up. Any side has a 1 out of 6 chance of occurring. What is chance? Chance is where we reach the limits of accountability in measurement or prediction. Its not actual randomness. The die will roll in a cup with a particular set of forces and will come out on its side in a perfectly predictable fashion if we could measure them perfectly. We can't. So we invented probability as a tool to compensate within a system that cannot be fully measured or known in other particular ways.

So yes, causality still exists in probability. The physics of the cup, the force of the shake, the bounce of the die off the table. All of this cause the outcome. Our inability to measure this ahead of time does not change this fact.

So, through quantum physics, a first cause isn't a necessity. — Christoffer

False. Quantum physics is not magic. It a series of very cleverly designed computations that handle outcomes where we do not have the tools or means to precisely manage or measure extremely tiny particles. That's it.

Virtual particles, as understood right now, does not have a first cause, they are probabilistic random existences. — Christoffer

Not knowing whether they have a first cause or not does not determine whether they have a first cause or not. I'm also not noting here that "x" is a first cause. I'm noting that logically, we will always end up in a situation where we find something that has no prior causality for what it exists. I'll sum it again.

If we don't know whether our universe has finite or infinite chains of causality A -> B -> C etc...
What caused a finite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason.
What caused an infinite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason.

A first cause is something which exists which has no prior reason for its existence. It simply is.

Yes it is. Let me explain what probability is. When you roll a six sided die, you know there are only six sides that can come up. Any side has a 1 out of 6 chance of occurring. What is chance? Chance is where we reach the limits of accountability in measurement or prediction. Its not actual randomness. The die will roll in a cup with a particular set of forces and will come out on its side in a perfectly predictable fashion if we could measure them perfectly. We can't. So we invented probability as a tool to compensate within a system that cannot be fully measured or known in other particular ways.

So yes, causality still exists in probability. The physics of the cup, the force of the shake, the bounce of the die off the table. All of this cause the outcome. Our inability to measure this ahead of time does not change this fact. — Philosophim

You didn't read what I actually wrote. I'm talking about the idea of a first cause, as in the cause that kickstarted all we see of determinism. And how there's no need for one if the universe expanded from the Planck scale. That determinism is underlying our reality is not what I was talking about.

False. Quantum physics is not magic. It a series of very cleverly designed computations that handle outcomes where we do not have the tools or means to precisely manage or measure extremely tiny particles. That's it. — Philosophim

No it's not. Maybe you should read up more on quantum mechanics. "Cleverly designed computations" is a nonsense description of it, and sounds more like religious talk. Quantum mechanics isn't magic, but it's not how you describe it here. We can absolutely measure it, but we run into the uncertainty principle and the reason may be located outside of reality or our ability to measure it due to limitations in our dimensional perception.

Don't state something as false before leaving a description that isn't even close to how quantum physics are described. That's bias talking.

A first cause is something which exists which has no prior reason for its existence. It simply is. — Philosophim

A first cause is merely the first causal event and as I described it can simply be the first causal event out of the quantum fluctuations before the big bang. A dimensionless infinite probabilistic fluctuation would generate a something and still not be a first cause as it is a fundamental absolute probability. And even if it weren't it can also be explained by a loop system, infinitely cyclic like Penrose's theory.

You didn't read what I actually wrote. I'm talking about the idea of a first cause, as in the cause that kickstarted all we see of determinism. And how there's no need for one if the universe expanded from the Planck scale — Christoffer

Lets go with the theory that what caused the universe was its expansion from the Planck scale. What caused the Planck scale to exist? When you answer that, I'm going to ask, "What caused that to exist?" And eventually you come back to where I am. Is there a finite limitation to causality, or infinite regression? And as noted, in both cases the answer is that there is no prior reason for why there is a finite or infinite regression of causality, there simply is.

You didn't read what I actually wrote. I'm talking about the idea of a first cause, as in the cause that kickstarted all we see of determinism. — Christoffer

I never stated that there was one singular first cause. I stated that a first cause is necessary. There could be multiple. You are talking about a specific first cause. I am talking about the logical conclusion that there must be at least one first cause. Whether its your specific first cause, a quark simply appearing out of nothing, or a big bang, the logical conclusion is the same. Can you demonstrate how Planck scale escapes the notion I've put forward? I'm not seeing it. I did read what you wrote. My point is that it does not counter what I'm stating.

False. Quantum physics is not magic. It a series of very cleverly designed computations that handle outcomes where we do not have the tools or means to precisely manage or measure extremely tiny particles. That's it.
— Philosophim

No it's not. Maybe you should read up more on quantum mechanics. — Christoffer

If its not, demonstrate why. Saying, "Read up more" is an abandonment of the conversation. You have no idea how versed I am in quantum mechanics. If I'm wrong, show why, do not make it personal please.

And how there's no need for one if the universe expanded from the Planck scale. That determinism is underlying our reality is not what I was talking about. — Christoffer

What do you mean by need? A first cause doesn't care about our needs. Its not something we invent. It either exists, or it doesn't. Logically, it must exist. Until you can counter the logic I've put forward, you aren't making any headway.

A first cause is merely the first causal event and as I described it can simply be the first causal event out of the quantum fluctuations before the big bang. — Christoffer

No, it cannot. A first cause is by definition, uncaused. You are stating that a first cause is caused by the quantum fluctuations before the big bang. That's something prior. Meaning your claim of a first cause, is not a first cause.

Do not mistake a first cause for an 'origin'. An origin is a starting reference point we create as a tool, like a line graph with origin 0. A first cause is not a construct. It is something that has no prior explanation or reason for its existence.

A dimensionless infinite probabilistic fluctuation would generate a something and still not be a first cause as it is a fundamental absolute probability. — Christoffer

Its very simple. What caused it to be a fundamental absolute probability? Is there some prior reason for its existence, or does exist without a prior reason for its existence?

And even if it weren't it can also be explained by a loop system, infinitely cyclic like Penrose's theory. — Christoffer

Did you read the actual OP? I clearly go over this. Please note if my point about this in the OP is incorrect and why.

Nice icon.

The logic is not about saying, "This is an uncaused cause." The logic of the OP is noting that logically, there must be an uncaused cause in our universe — Philosophim

If there is one let's call it "God" for convenience. Then we can consider the nature of God or not.

Its an unnecessary concept to understand the logic — Philosophim

Logically, it must exist. — Philosophim

So far, all my mathematical causation chains have first causes and origins. I'm satisfied with that. The philosophy in this thread seems ethereal.

If there is one let's call it "God" for convenience. Then we can consider the nature of God or not. — jgill

No. The entire point of this thread is to think of about a first cause as part of the natural world, and think about how it would apply to our universe as it is today. While yes, a God could be a possible first cause, it is one of an infinite number of possibilities. Further, one would have to prove that such a first cause existed, it would not be a given. More likely things just happened.

So far, all my mathematical causation chains have first causes and origins. — jgill

Just origins. You've given no mathematical example of a first cause. An origin is a tool of measurement and does not represent a first cause. One can put an origin on the first cause of a chain of causality, but it is not our measurement of a first cause that makes a first cause, it is simply the fact that a first cause has no prior explanation for its existence.

I can start talking about atomic chemistry without talking about quarks. That doesn't mean quarks don't exist and make up an atom.

The philosophy in this thread seems ethereal. — jgill

I'm not sure what that means. I've given the examples as clearly as I can.

If we don't know whether our universe has finite or infinite chains of causality A -> B -> C etc...
What caused a finite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason.
What caused an infinite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason.

Its pretty simple isn't it?

What caused the Planck scale to exist? — Philosophim

Nothing caused it to exist, it's like asking why 2 + 2 = 4. The Planck scale is the scale at which measurements stop making sense as reality becomes fundamentally probabilistic. It's not a "thing" it's the fundamental smallest scale possible for reality, which in my point was that such a scale and such a function rhymes with the theoretical physics of how the universe began. So there's no "cause" to the Planck scale, you've entangled yourself in a web of your own thinking here with no regard for what these things that you address actually means.

demonstrate why. — Philosophim

What should I demonstrate?

You have no idea how versed I am in quantum mechanics. If I'm wrong, show why, do not make it personal please. — Philosophim

For one, your incorrect use of concepts like the Planck scale shows how versed you are. The lack of understanding of the uncertainty principle is another, especially since you claim that we "just don't have the tools to decode it". I'd just answer like Feynman did: "If you think you know quantum mechanics, you don't". I've given a run through of how causality can appear out of nothing at the point of Big Bang, something that's much closer to what scientists actually theorize. This is far from making it personal, I'm just pointing out that you mostly use bad reasoning here and back it up with "you don't know how versed I am in quantum mechanics.", which isn't saying anything, especially when you don't seem to show it.

What do you mean by need? A first cause doesn't care about our needs. Its not something we invent. It either exists, or it doesn't. Logically, it must exist. Until you can counter the logic I've put forward, you aren't making any headway. — Philosophim

Again, you don't understand what the Planck scale is. It is not an invention by us and I don't know why you keep implying that.

No, it cannot. A first cause is by definition, uncaused. You are stating that a first cause is caused by the quantum fluctuations before the big bang. That's something prior. Meaning your claim of a first cause, is not a first cause. — Philosophim

Do you know what these quantum fluctuations implies? It's a fundamental randomness of probabilities that do not act according to general relativity. The concept of spacetime, in essence, causality, breaks down and have no meaning at that point. Regardless of how we view the Big Bang, all projections starts the universe at such a dense point that it fundamentally becomes zero dimensional and there can be no such thing as a first cause before this since there's no spacetime in this state. Without dimensions, there's no causality and no cause. If we take the fact that quantum randomness and rogue probabilities increase in likelihood the smaller in scale you go, then at a scale so small it basically becomes dimensionless, there would be a singularity of probabilities. A probable event occurring, a fluctuation, in a state without spacetime, would instantly become. Without dimensions the only way to fit that fluctuation would be for it to expand "somewhere", producing the necessity for dimensions, and that causes a basically infinite density to expand into those dimensions.

You can't have spacetime at such a dense point, and without spacetime you have no causality, therefore you cannot find a first cause before it that aligns with how we view deterministic causality in our reality. You can only find a first cause after spacetime appears, after our dimensions formed.

What caused it to be a fundamental absolute probability? — Philosophim

How does anything without spacetime act as a causal event? A quantum probability doesn't need spacetime as it can exist in all states at once. If that state was because of a big crunch, a higher dimensional looping state that we leak out of or if it was a fundamental paradox of dimensionless nothingness that have no beginning, it still places our reality at a point in which no causality existed before it existed. So if you're looking for a first cause, I've already pointed at it; the first event of time and causality at the point of the big bang. That is the first cause and it has no prior cause due to no causality existing before it. It's the logical conclusion of the state of the universe at that point and the cosmological models support it.

Did you read the actual OP? I clearly go over this. Please note if my point about this in the OP is incorrect and why. — Philosophim

No, you clearly misunderstand everything into your own logic and you have become so obsessed with that logic that you believe the Planck scale is an invention and disregard how general relativity breaks down at a singularity point. If a star of defined mass produce a black hole where spacetime breaks down, then imagine a singularity or a Planck scale dense form of our entire universe. Then explain how causality would work in that state. You seem to forget that our laws of physics break down at that point and that our dimensions stop making sense. If causality breaks down, then you can have no causes before this event as there's no spacetime there to produce it. That's where logic takes you based on the current understanding of physics and quantum physics.

Fwiw, your response here sorted much out for me. Thanks mate

If there is one let's call it "God" for convenience. Then we can consider the nature of God or not. — jgill

No. The entire point of this thread is to think of about a first cause as part of the natural world, and think about how it would apply to our universe as it is today. While yes, a God could be a possible first cause, it is one of an infinite number of possibilities — Philosophim

I used the word "God" as an example of what to call the uncaused cause, not referring to religion. You are then inserting FC (first cause) into the "natural world", but it is ineffable.

What caused an infinite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason. Its pretty simple isn't it? — Philosophim

Infinite causal chains go forward in time, also. I can easily write one down, and then I am a FC. I can also write one down going back in time, specifying FC.

I only mentioned I was an atheist because jgill assumed this was a theistic argument and that was preventing him from thinking clearly about the argument. — Philosophim

I admit. I can't think clearly about your argument. :roll:

Nothing caused it to exist, it's like asking why 2 + 2 = 4. — Christoffer

So then it is something which has no prior cause for its existence, or a first cause. That's my point. That which has no prior cause, is a first cause. Yes, there is a cause for 2+2 = 4. Human minds invented math with our ability to create discrete identities or 'ones'. Just like the reason we have a Plank scale is because it is the limit of our current measurements.

demonstrate why.
— Philosophim

What should I demonstrate? — Christoffer

No it's not. Maybe you should read up more on quantum mechanics.
— Christoffer

If its not, demonstrate why. — Philosophim

Don't insinuate someone doesn't know something, explain why they don't know something. Otherwise its a personal attack. Personal attacks are not about figuring out the solution to a discussion, they are ego for the self. You cannot reason with someone who cares only about their ego.

For one, your incorrect use of concepts like the Planck scale shows how versed you are. — Christoffer

No, I asked you what caused it to exist. You stated: " And how there's no need for one if the universe expanded from the Planck scale." You were claiming it came from the Planck scale, so I asked you what caused the Planck scale. This is not me asserting how the Planck scale works. But again, this is silly. You're commenting on me instead of the points. Keep to the points please.

I've given a run through of how causality can appear out of nothing at the point of Big Bang, something that's much closer to what scientists actually theorize. — Christoffer

And what caused the big bang? Did something prior to the big bang cause the big bang? Or is the big bang a first cause with no prior cause for its existence? You keep dodging around the basic point while trying to introduce quantum mechanics. Citing quantum mechanics alone does not address the major point.

Again, you don't understand what the Planck scale is. It is not an invention by us and I don't know why you keep implying that. — Christoffer

Yes, it is an invention by us. Its the limitation of our measuring tools before the observations using the tools begins affecting the outcome. Or, in more proper terms, "At the Planck scale, the predictions of the Standard Model, quantum field theory and general relativity are not expected to apply, and quantum effects of gravity are expected to dominate."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units

I'm not seeing how your citing plank length invalidates a first cause. Plank length is a limitation of measurements before we need other tools and math. How does "It expanded from the Planck scale" (Your words) explain anything?

Regardless of how we view the Big Bang, all projections starts the universe at such a dense point that it fundamentally becomes zero dimensional and there can be no such thing as a first cause before this since there's no spacetime in this state. Without dimensions, there's no causality and no cause. — Christoffer

No, if you're saying "Quantum fluctuations caused the big bang" then you have causality. To not have causality means, "Nothing prior caused X to happen". Now if you want to recant and state, "The big bang was not caused by anything," then the big bang is a first cause. So either way, you're proving my point, not going against it. You're seeking very hard to disprove what I'm saying, but perhaps you should make sure you understand what I'm saying first. I don't think you get it.

So if you're looking for a first cause, I've already pointed at it; the first event of time and causality at the point of the big bang. — Christoffer

Then you agree 100% with my OP. There's nothing else to discuss if you state this.

No, you clearly misunderstand everything into your own logic and you have become so obsessed with that logic that you believe the Planck scale is an invention and disregard how general relativity breaks down at a singularity point. — Christoffer

No man, relax. You're not the first person who's come in here without reading or understanding the OP with a crusade. :) Be it Planck scale, God, no God, or hatred of causality this thread is full of people who don't understand the OP. Its cool. Just try to go into future threads with the intent to understand first before you critique.

If causality breaks down, then you can have no causes before this event as there's no spacetime there to produce it. — Christoffer

So then we have something which has no prior explanation for its existence? A first cause? Again, I appreciate your agreement.

So then we have something which has no prior explanation for its existence? A first cause? Again, I appreciate your agreement. — Philosophim

I think what he thinks you're not getting is that the thing itself is not 'uncaused' anymore than an object which exists in a world without gravity is 'ungravitised' or whatever.

It came to be in a scenario where 'cause' was a not a factor. Only since it's inception is cause a factor - so to refer to it as a 'first cause' is erroneous. Its just the first thing - which enables a second thing, but doesn't cause it.

But I see (removing the snark, hehe) what you're getting it. It necessarily follows that it would be the first thing to cause anything. I think they can both be right.

You are then inserting FC (first cause) into the "natural world", but it is ineffable. — jgill

Not really. Something which has no prior reason for its being was either always there, or not there, then there. Why is that hard to understand?

Infinite causal chains go forward in time, also. I can easily write one down, and then I am a FC. I can also write one down going back in time, specifying FC. — jgill

What caused you to exist though? You are not a first cause. You are an origin by which we may demarcate a 'start' within a causal chain. But you have prior reasons for why you exist and wrote the chain, so are part of the full causal chain. There is a difference between an origin, and an actual start to a line. I can move the origin anywhere on the line. That doesn't mean its the start of the line.

I admit. I can't think clearly about your argument. :roll: — jgill

You insist on thinking this is about origins when I've clearly told you several times that a first cause is not an origin. You are making an amateur mistake both in philosophy and math. You and I well know that you can make an origin any set of numbers you want. That is not the same as the beginning of a line. Either you are willfully ignoring this fact because you don't want to address the issue, or you've made a mistake in understanding the issue. Either way, your example about origins are wrong. If you have nothing but sass and eyerolls to add, just let the reply go so we have a nice end to the conversation instead of a back and forth over pointless ego.

But I see (removing the snark, hehe) what you're getting it. It necessarily follows that it would be the first thing to cause anything. I think they can both be right. — AmadeusD

Yes, I hope he understands that he's not arguing against my point. Just silly there has to be snark in there to begin with. :)

You are then inserting FC (first cause) into the "natural world", but it is ineffable. — jgill

Not really. Something which has no prior reason for its being was either always there, or not there, then there. Why is that hard to understand? — Philosophim

So it is an effable feature of nature. Then tell us about it. Or don't bother.

I have no problem with you saying there is a first cause. What difference does it make? If you choose to believe that, that's fine with me. But the discussion seems to me like an exercise in medieval scholasticism.

You insist on thinking this is about origins when I've clearly told you several times that a first cause is not an origin. You are making an amateur mistake both in philosophy and math. You and I well know that you can make an origin any set of numbers you want. That is not the same as the beginning of a line. — Philosophim

So the beginning of a line is a first cause? So if I perceive my imaginary line beginning at zero on the imaginary axis and have it extend up indefinitely I have violated your rule. I am confused.

You are making an amateur mistake ... in ... math.

I get this all the time from MU. :smile:

So it is an effable feature of nature. Then tell us about it. Or don't bother.

I have no problem with you saying there is a first cause. What difference does it make? — jgill

It makes plenty of difference. Lets go over a few.

1. A God is not necessary. The universe can have just formed on its own without intelligent life. This is not by a belief, but a logical conclusion. Meaning yes, a stopwatch could be found in the forest and no one made it. Metaphorically of course.

2. The consequence of a first cause existing means there were no rules or limitations as to what could form. This includes size, shape, complexity, and also time. Meaning that its logically plausible that something self explained formed five seconds ago somewhere in the universe.

While yes, a God is not impossible, neither is any other plausibility you can imagine. Complex things are unlikely of course due to math which I covered in another post with Timothy. I think you were there. We cannot look to ontology to tell us what specific origins caused the universe, or even if it was just one. In fact, it could be that it was multiple self explained existences that came into being that resulted in our universe today, and it may be ongoing at a very small level.

3. If the logic holds, this is a final debate on the matter. Its a solution, done, finished. Now instead of debating this tired subject, we can move onto new debates. What does the fact that there is a first cause entail? Can we work out probabilities of things forming? What does that tell us of the nature of the universe? Do we continue to look for explanations to things, or is it reasonable to reach a point where it doesn't matter anymore?

So the beginning of a line is a first cause? So if I start my line at zero on the imaginary axis and have it extend up indefinitely I have violated your rule. I am confused. — jgill

No. I'm just trying to communicate to you in a way that you understand as you like math. The line represents a chain of causality. Each link represents the step in the chain. Can we have multiple chains that link together? Of course. But the first link is the start.

Now put the chain somewhere on a graph. The 'line''s many points are simply the links in the chain. The first link is the beginning of the line, the first point is the beginning of the line. It doesn't matter where the origin is right? I can make my origin 0,0, 1,1, etc. It doesn't matter where I put my chain on the graph either. Put the chain's start at 5,4, its irrelevant. An origin is merely what base we use to examine the line. The origin does not affect the chain's structure no matter where we put it on the graph. We are
examining the chain's structure, not the graph we decide to put it on. If you want to look at the middle of the line and say, "I'm looking here as a mathematical origin" you're missing the literal point. Where you start is irrelevant. That's what I'm trying to show you.

So now that you understand a mathematical origin does not apply, you're left with the points and solution I gave. A first cause is a logical necessity where causality exists.

A first cause is a logical necessity where causality exists — Philosophim

You have patiently spelled out your logic. You are the origin of this thread, but clearly not the first cause.

You have patiently spelled out your logic. You are the origin of this thread, but clearly not the first cause. — jgill

Correct! I hope that's cleared things up a bit jgill. I appreciate you sticking with me through it.

Correct! I hope that's cleared things up a bit jgill. I appreciate you sticking with me through it. — Philosophim

I seem to have happened on this thread at a moment of agreement. Congratulations to both of you. Can I just check that I've understood correctly?

Now put the chain somewhere on a graph. The 'line''s many points are simply the links in the chain. The first link is the beginning of the line, the first point is the beginning of the line. It doesn't matter where the origin is right? — Philosophim

I interpret this as saying that causality is contextual. We can post any convenient starting-point for a causal system. I agree with that understanding.

A first cause is a logical necessity where causality exists. — Philosophim

And since causality requires time and time and space are not absolute, but relative, then surely causality must be relative. Surely?

While yes, a God is not impossible, neither is any other plausibility you can imagine. — Philosophim

On the face of it, that's not particularly re-assuring. There will be people who assign the name "God" to whatever the first cause is. That will be less attractive to them if we clearly identify causality as relative. In addition, of course, God as first cause would be a god of the philosophers, not a god of faith.

3. If the logic holds, this is a final debate on the matter. Its a solution, done, finished. Now instead of debating this tired subject, we can move onto new debates. What does the fact that there is a first cause entail? Can we work out probabilities of things forming? What does that tell us of the nature of the universe? Do we continue to look for explanations to things, or is it reasonable to reach a point where it doesn't matter anymore? — Philosophim

You are right, of course. But you've just demonstrated that any first cause will generate new questions - especially the last one. That's not a problem.

I interpret this as saying that causality is contextual. We can post any convenient starting-point for a causal system. I agree with that understanding. — Ludwig V

We can attribute a starting point anywhere in a chain of causality. For example, when explaining why a ball falls when I let go of it, I don't have to address quantum physics. Does that mean that quantum physics and a whole host of other things are not part of the causality of the ball falling? No. It just means we don't look at it creating a mathematical origin or starting point.

A first cause is a logical necessity where causality exists.
— Philosophim
And since causality requires time and time and space are not absolute, but relative, then surely causality must be relative. Surely? — Ludwig V

No. A first cause is absolute. It is something which exists without a prior cause. It is not that we chose that as a starting point, it means that there comes a point in exploring the chain where there is no prior cause for its existence. It will exist, simply because it does. The logic points out this occurs whether the chain of causality is infinite or finite.

While yes, a God is not impossible, neither is any other plausibility you can imagine.
— Philosophim
On the face of it, that's not particularly re-assuring. There will be people who assign the name "God" to whatever the first cause is. — Ludwig V

People will do that with anything. And I didn't come up with the logic to make a point, I looked at the logic to see what point it would lead to.

The point here is that while they can logically do so, they have no reason which necessitates it be God or 'it just happened'. If we don't know what a first cause in a causality chain is, it could be anything. To claim it is a specific thing, you must justify why it is that specific thing over any other idea out of the infinite possibilities available to the imagination. There is no justification alone which necessitates a God be a first cause, so it must be proven. While a first cause has no prior explanation for its being, it enters into the causal chain of the rest of existence. Meaning there must be solid proof which demonstrates any claim of a first cause, is in fact, a first cause.

You are right, of course. But you've just demonstrated that any first cause will generate new questions - especially the last one. That's not a problem. — Ludwig V

I find new questions to be fun and exciting to think about! I'm glad you do as well. :)

I find new questions to be fun and exciting to think about! I'm glad you do as well. — Philosophim

Quite so. That's why some of the thinking that's going on in the depths of physics, beginning to open up the inevitable and obvious questions around the Big Bang is so exciting - and puzzling and incomprehensible - to me, at least. And there's the paradox. Identify a first cause and you open up new questions. That's one reason why I classify a causal chain as contextual.

The catch is that whatever caused the Big Bang (or whatever else you identify as a first cause) requires that you think differently. As happened in the step from Aristotelian physics to Newton, from alchemy to molecular theory - and then beyond. The same thing happened with Relativity. Both of which seem normal (sort of) now.

We can attribute a starting point anywhere in a chain of causality. — Philosophim

That's why I call it contextual. To be sure, we explain why your ball falls from the point you let go of it. But then we can identify a new starting-point, before you let go of it, and find additional explanations which graft on to your original starting-point. Alternatively, if you ask "Why did you let go of the ball?" you may find yourself changing gear and answering in terms of actions, purposes and reasons - in a different categorial framework. But even if you stick to traditional physics, in the end, you find that you have to change gear and think about the nature of time and space, which requires new thinking, which opens up relativity and quantum physics.

BTW. Don't you think that the idea of the chain of causality is a bit misleading? We can identify many chains of causality, depending on what questions we are asking, and we see those chains intersecting and overlapping. Wouldn't it be better to think of causality as a web, from which we can select specific chains depending on our needs at the time? That's another reason why I classify a specific causal chain as contextual.

We can attribute a starting point anywhere in a chain of causality. For example, when explaining why a ball falls when I let go of it, I don't have to address quantum physics. Does that mean that quantum physics and a whole host of other things are not part of the causality of the ball falling? No. It just means we don't look at it creating a mathematical origin or starting point. — Philosophim

Do you accept a free will act as a true first cause? Take your ball example. Imagine that you are holding the ball intent on letting it drop at some point. After a duration of time you drop it. There is no determinable "cause" for the drop at the moment it was dropped because the time was randomly selected in your mind. Therefore this freely willed action appears to be a first cause, no apparent cause of the dropping.

In that situation we cannot appeal to the picking up of the ball as the cause of it dropping, because of the time gap in between, when the ball is being held. So every moment that the ball is held, the holding of the ball is a free will act, an uncaused cause acting on the ball, which produces a gap in the causal chain between picking the ball up, and dropping the ball.

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.

6. If there exists an X which explains the reason why any infinite causality exists, then its not truly infinite causality, as it is something outside of the infinite causality chain. That X then becomes another Y with the same 3 plausibilities of prior causality. Therefore, the existence of a prior causality is actually an Alpha, or first cause. — Philosophim

Aristotle used a different technique for denying the infinite loop (eternal circular motion). First, he allowed that eternal circular motion is logically possible. There is nothing within the conception of it which would deny it, such as self-contradiction, or any other logical flaw. However, he pointed out that for there to be an eternal circular motion there must be something, a material body, which is moving in that circular way. And, he showed that by the very nature of "matter", such a body is necessarily generated and also corruptible. Therefore that body moving in a circular motion must have had a beginning, and being "corruptible" implies that it will decay if given enough time, so it will also have an end. Therefore the eternal circular motion is physically impossible, based on the science of material things.

The infinite regression of causality, the infinite chain of causes is ruled out in a slightly different way. The infinite regress is described as fundamentally repugnant to the intellect. This is because it renders the thing which is described as "infinite" as having an unintelligible aspect. The aspect which produces the infinite regress is fundamentally unintelligible, because the cause of it cannot be apprehended, being obscured by the infinite regress.

This is similar to what you say when you say that there must be a reason for the infinite regress, except that when someone designates something as infinite in this way, they are actually stipulating that there is no reason for it. That's what the assertion of infinite regress does, it stipulates that the reason cannot be apprehended because there is no reason. The intellect however has the basic desire to know, and to stipulate something as having no reason (to violate the law of sufficient reason), is to assert that it is unintelligible, and this is contrary to the nature of the intellect. It is self-defeating for an intellect to say this. Therefore the assertion of infinite regress is an act which impedes the process of the intellect, and so it is said to be repugnant to the intellect, and must be rejected as counterproductive to the intellectual process of understanding.

@Banno
Feed that last post to GP, you'll probably cause him to have a heart attack.

@Banno
GP is an interesting character, very elusive and careful not to take a stand on any issue which might be controversial. I think it uses a sort of unbiased confirmation bias, to produce the appearance of an unbiased approach. So for example notice that the more you questioned it on the subject of identity, the further it moved away from giving you a decisive answer.

In the first post it clearly stated "It's a fundamental aspect of arithmetic and mathematical notation that "=" often represents equality, not identity", as if it recognized a clear distinction between the two. However, it leaves ambiguity with the word "often", and in the other paragraph it used "typically". "In mathematical terms, '=' typically denotes equality, not identity."

As you proceeded to question it though, it moved further and further from taking a stance on the issue. It then said the meaning of "identity" is "context-dependent", and "context-specific". When asked about this, it moved even further away from taking a stance by describing what it meant by "context-specific", with terms of "nuanced" and "variability", stating that this does not necessarily imply inconsistency. As you can see, it moved itself further and further away from being useful, refusing to say anything decisive.

So, when I referred back to the first post, where it had said something decisive, where it had expressed a clear distinction between equality and identity in mathematics, it simply did not answer, only saying that it is important to ask such questions. It appears like it recognized that saying something decisive in the first place, was a mistake to its unbiased confirmation bias, so that it would not go back and reconsider how it could have made such a mistake.