This is a lot of effort to avoid addressing the summary I put forth. — Philosophim

It's a lot of effort for trying to explain how I actually argued against you since you ignore engaging with the actual counter arguments and keep rejecting in ways like this:

When the writer of the idea tells you that you're off, and tries to clarify it for you, listen. — Philosophim

That you are the writer of the idea is not a foundation for the idea being solid.

A straw man accusation is serious. — Philosophim

Yet you ignore your own faults on display while praising your own writing?

Trolling by going to chat GPT at this point is just silly. — Philosophim

Is it? Or is the point that I've already addressed your argument and that you are still just praising your own writing as your form of defense, dismissing engagement with what's been actually written. Using GPT like this for a breakdown is primarily because you seem to not understand the criticism you get so you try to hide behind the same straw man that you falsely accuse others of doing. Let's do that again with what you wrote right now and maybe you'll see once again how problematic your reasoning is, starting at the argument in which you accuse me of a straw man:

Misapplication of the Straw Man Fallacy: The argument accuses Christoffer of committing a straw man fallacy. "I don't have to, I understand the physics instead." This statement by Christoffer does not necessarily constitute a straw man fallacy. A straw man fallacy involves misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack. Christoffer's statement could be interpreted as an assertion that his understanding of physics negates the need to engage with the argument, rather than misrepresenting the original argument.

Lack of Context: The counter-argument lacks context about what the original discussion was and what Christoffer's statement was addressing. Without this context, it's hard to determine whether his response was indeed a straw man or a relevant counterpoint.

Presumption of Misunderstanding: The counter-argument assumes that Christoffer does not understand the original point (OP), without providing evidence of this misunderstanding. This assumption may not be fair or accurate.

Condescending Tone: The tone of the counter-argument is somewhat condescending, particularly in the lines "I can help you come to understand the OP's point if you want" and "When you show understanding, then critique." This approach can be counterproductive in a logical discussion, as it might provoke defensiveness rather than constructive dialogue.

Lack of Direct Engagement with Christoffer’s Point: The counter-argument does not directly address Christoffer's claim about understanding physics. Instead, it diverts to explaining the straw man fallacy and summarizing the original argument. A more effective counter-argument might have directly addressed how Christoffer's understanding of physics relates to the original point.

Oversimplification of Complex Topics: The summary of the original argument about first causes and chains of causality simplifies complex philosophical and scientific topics. While simplification can be helpful for understanding, it risks omitting nuances that are crucial for a thorough discussion of such topics.

In summary, while the counter-argument attempts to point out a logical fallacy and guide the discussion back to the original topic,it has its own issues including a potential misapplication of the straw man fallacy, lack of context, presumptions about understanding, condescending tone, lack of direct engagement with the opposing point, and oversimplification of complex topics.

And further analysis of what you wrote now:

Accusation of Avoidance Without Directly Addressing Counterpoints: Philosophim accuses Christoffer of avoiding the main points of the original post (OP) without directly addressing the specific critiques raised by Christoffer. This can be seen as a way to deflect the conversation away from the substantive issues raised in the counter-argument.

Overemphasis on Understanding as Perceived by the Original Writer: Philosophim places significant emphasis on Christoffer showing an understanding of the argument in Philosophim's terms. While it's important for parties in a debate to understand each other's points, insisting on understanding as defined solely by one party can be problematic, especially if it disregards the other party's perspective or understanding.

Continued Focus on Straw Man Accusation: Philosophim continues to assert that Christoffer is committing a straw man fallacy. However, without directly engaging with the specific points of Christoffer's argument, this accusation seems more like a general dismissal rather than a response to the substance of Christoffer's critique.

Dismissal of AI Analysis as Trolling: Philosophim dismisses the use of an AI-generated analysis in Christoffer's argument as "trolling." This dismissal could be seen as avoiding engagement with the points raised by the AI, which Christoffer used to support his argument.

Failure to Address Specific Philosophical and Logical Flaws Pointed Out: Philosophim does not directly address the specific philosophical and logical flaws that Christoffer and the AI analysis have pointed out, such as the potential false dichotomy, circular reasoning, and the speculative nature of the conclusion.

Insistence on Direct Engagement with the OP’s Points Without Acknowledging Counter-Argument’s Merit: Philosophim insists that Christoffer directly engage with the points of the original argument while seemingly not acknowledging the potential merit or relevance of Christoffer's counterpoints.

Implying a Lack of Worthwhile Engagement: Philosophim suggests that if Christoffer cannot address the OP in a manner Philosophim deems acceptable, there's no point in continuing the discussion. This stance can limit the scope of the debate and potentially dismiss valid criticisms.

In summary, Philosophim's response focuses heavily on procedural aspects of the debate (such as the perceived failure to understand the OP and the straw man accusation) rather than substantively engaging with the critiques raised by Christoffer. This approach can hinder constructive dialogue and the exploration of the philosophical issues at hand.

Analyzing in this way produces an objective analysis of your argument. Dismissing it for the sake of how the analysis is done rather than the points it brings up makes zero sense. You're just deflecting all criticism you get by cherry picking parts of a counter argument out if its context and making a straw man of it yourself, then calling out the other person for doing a straw man. I've countered your argument, I've engaged in further explanations for the objections you raised and yet you still act as if no one has countered your OP. It's dishonest. Your OP post has flaws in its reasoning, explained multiple times now, including an AI analysis in the attempt to making it more objective, yet you still praise your own logic and fail to engage in the discussion on the merits of discourse. Rather, you demand people to counter argue within the context that you want, not by the merits of your own reasoning, which has been clearly demonstrated to be flawed. There's no point in providing more arguments than I've already given because at this point you're just ignoring the counterpoints raised and tries to deflect through dishonest cherry picking.

Incorrect. I'm declaring a very real critique of his point. Look, throwing out a bunch of quantum physics references and going off on his own theories with a ton of paragraphs is not a good argument. — Philosophim

You falsely assume that your argument can solely rely on a logical argument and ignore the actual science which provides counters to it. The theories provided are there to show you how your logical reasoning isn't enough for the conclusions you made.

I'm not going to spend my time when I've already directed him to address particular points that he's ignoring — Philosophim

I've directed you to the problems of your reasoning, that's what's being ignored here. You're so biased towards your own argument that you value it like gold and any counter argument is straw manned by you. You're just projecting your own fallacies by dismissing and deflecting when calling out straw man's of other people, especially when you don't even use the accusation of straw man properly.

He doesn't understand. He's in his own world. — Philosophim

Again, projecting by describing yourself. You fail to simply understand that your argument of a first cause is just empty dislocated logic in face of the science actually decoding reality into a complexity beyond that use of logic. So it's you who live in your own world of your own logic out of a limited understanding of the science, and demand that everyone acknowledge how brilliant you are or else they are beneath you.

I answer this directly with the summary I gave. He ignores this completely. — Philosophim

Just reiterating your argument again is not a valid counter argument to any of the criticism. It is being ignored because your OP as already been addressed, in summery:

The OP simplifies things too much by saying everything either has a prior cause or there's a first cause, ignoring other possibilities. It also talks about this first cause (Alpha) without really explaining it well. It sticks to a traditional idea of cause and effect that might not hold up in complex areas like quantum mechanics. The way it defines "Alpha" is circular; like it's saying it exists because it has to, which isn't a strong argument. It also quickly dismisses other ideas about never-ending or looping causes without much reasoning. The argument doesn't differentiate between different kinds of causes and ends up with a speculative conclusion that a first cause must exist. It doesn't consider other theories about the universe that don't need a first cause. It has notable gaps that has been thoroughly pointed out, which you totally ignore.

And to drive the point further, here's a summery of an AI analysis of your deduction alone, without the fluff:

Overall, while the argument lays out a structured approach to discussing causality,it has limitations. It depends on specific assumptions about how causality works and doesn't fully explore or address alternative models, such as causality as a concept that may not be universally applicable or may operate differently at different scales or in different contexts (like in quantum mechanics).

If nothing of this is enough to point out that your OP is flawed, including everything that I've written prior, then you are simply not equipped to handle criticism and well only keep deflecting through self-praise.

In that case, the normal default is you side with the OP's accusation and expect the accused to answer it. If the OP is of course lying or unfairly accusing, feel free to point out where the OP's accusations fail. But it should be specifics, not general. — Philosophim

LOL

I'm afraid life has given me an inability to take OPs so seriously, on the basis of them being OPs.

I recognize Christoffer as having a lot of insight that can be learned from. I can understand you wanting the conversation to go the way you want it to go. However, to my mind that doesn't seem too relevant to whether Cristoffer's posts bring value to the thread.

Of course, I may have seen too many OPs claiming I was in league with the devil, and so it is just me thinking you are kind of control freaky.

Again, projecting by describing yourself. You fail to simply understand that your argument of a first cause is just empty dislocated logic in face of the science actually decoding reality into a complexity beyond that use of logic. — Christoffer

A first cause is that which has no prior explanation for its being. Have you proven that you've found something in physics which has been conclusively determined to have no prior cause for its existence? If you have, great, you've shown that my claim is valid. If not, then you're still talking about something that has a prior causation for its existence, and therefore is not a first cause.

I've countered your argument, I've engaged in further explanations for the objections you raised and yet you still act as if no one has countered your OP. — Christoffer

If you want to demonstrate how you've countered my argument, simply explain to me what my argument is Christopher. I'm telling you you don't understand it. Well prove me wrong! Just summarize that in your own words. Its one of the most reasonable requests a person can make, and the easiest way to counter an accusation that you're presenting a straw man. When you're over there beating an argument of your own imagination, there's really nothing else to discuss until you resolve the accusation.
I'm an honest person, I can take all the stuff you've already said and apply it to your summary. If you can't summarize the argument and tell me what I'm actually saying, then my accusation of you using a straw man fallacy is correct and none of your other points mean anything.

I recognize Christoffer as having a lot of insight that can be learned from. — wonderer1

Maybe he does. But right now I can't get him to summarize the argument in his own words after he confessed he didn't have to understand the argument. Such a person has nothing of value to add to the point.

Of course, I may have seen too many OPs claiming I was in league with the devil, and so it is just me thinking you are kind of control freaky. — wonderer1

I'm not claiming he's in the league with the devil. :) Its also not control freaky to guide a person back to the OP when the OP is presenting a very specific argument. This isn't a generic open ended discussion thread. There's a very clear point being made, and discussion needs to focus around that.

If you want to demonstrate how you've countered my argument, simply explain to me what my argument is Christopher. I'm telling you you don't understand it. — Philosophim

Your argument's conclusion is that there has to be a first cause, which is only one interpretation in physics. And through the explanations given, your logic of causality as a framework for beyond our reality does not function or becomes inconclusive since your reasoning is bound to this reality and do not compute with quantum mechanics. And seen as causality itself is in question even in our reality and isn't a defined constant, other than on the scales in which determinism operates, you cannot conclude your conclusions through the reasoning you provide.

that you're presenting a straw man. — Philosophim

You don't even seem to understand what a straw man is.

When you're over there beating an argument of your own imagination, there's really nothing else to discuss until you resolve the accusation. — Philosophim

You accusing others of fallacies does not resolve your own fallacies. That's deflection and projection. You ignore engaging with the criticism given and try to steer the argument into other directions by cherry picking out of context and accusing other's of fallacies that doesn't even fit the definition. There's no point in engaging any further with someone so deeply in love with their own argument that they are totally incapable of even understanding the criticism given, even on a surface level.

I can take all the stuff you've already said and apply it to your summary. If you can't summarize the argument and tell me what I'm actually saying — Philosophim

I have made plenty of summaries, but you ignore them. You want people to engage in a way that makes it easy for you to counter-argue, if you don't understand the criticism, you deflect in this way. This kind of demand for others to engage in the way you want in order to control the discussion is downright childish.

after he confessed he didn't have to understand the argument. Such a person has nothing of value to add to the point. — Philosophim

I didn't confess to that, I said that your flawed reasoning is at odds with quantum physics and I rely on that for the context of this topic. Get off your high horse.

Its also not control freaky to guide a person back to the OP — Philosophim

I don't need your guidance.

This isn't a generic open ended discussion thread. — Philosophim

You don't own how other people engage with you and I've stayed on topic, but you simply don't seem to understand how.

then my accusation of you using a straw man fallacy is correct and none of your other points mean anything. — Philosophim

This is is hilarious. You use a straw man wrong and if other's don't engage in the way you want them to, you use that deflection to ignore everything that's been said. Are you able to extrapolate any criticism from the huge amount of writing I've given your thread or are you gonna continue act like a 7-year old king of your sand castle?

I'm done with this low level discussion; you're not equipped to handle a philosophical discussion and so the discussion is pointless.

Your argument's conclusion is that there has to be a first cause, which is only one interpretation in physics. — Christoffer

But what is my definition of a first cause? Its that which has no prior cause for its existence.

And through the explanations given, your logic of causality as a framework for beyond our reality does not function or becomes inconclusive since your reasoning is bound to this reality and do not compute with quantum mechanics. — Christoffer

There is nothing beyond reality. Reality is what is. Physics is the investigation of the fundamentals of reality. A more apt description to describe what I think you're intending is that we have the laws of this universe, and you are proposing that there is another universe where the laws act differently. Reality is the totality of everything, even two universes with different laws.

Now, if you're stating that the origin of this universe was caused by another universe with different laws, then you're noting that this universe is caused by another. In which case there is the question, "What caused the universe of quantum mechanics to happen?" Either something caused it to happen, or nothing caused the universe of quantum mechanics to happen and it is a first cause.

If you are instead stating that this universe was not caused by another universe, then once again, we have the existence of this universe as a first cause. Do you understand? You have been describing situations that are first causes or involve prior causality, not countering the idea of a first cause.

And seen as causality itself is in question even in our reality and isn't a defined constant, other than on the scales in which determinism operates, you cannot conclude your conclusions through the reasoning you provide. — Christoffer

No, I clearly can because a first cause is not pre-determined, so its outside of determinism. There's no prior cause for a first cause right? That necessarily means that while it can of course determine other things, its existence is not pre-determined. A first cause can result in causality as it interacts with other things, but itself is not caused by something else.

I am not seeing how causality is under question. Causality is simply noting that at any particular point, there was a prior combination of events and forces that lead to the current state. When you reach a point in which there are no prior combination of events and forces that lead to a state, you have a first cause. If you do not agree with this, please point out where this does not make sense.

I appreciate you summarizing and engaging. Really. Many people would just abandon the thread but you stuck to it. I've gone back through your previous points you believe I left unanswered that are relevant to the discussion and will try to answer them here.

But the key point is that the density of the universe right at the event of Big Bang would mean dimensions having no meaning, therefor no causality can occur in that state. It is fundamentally random and therefor you cannot apply a deterministic causality logic to it. — Christoffer

Do you see now that this is the exact description of a first cause? A first cause has no rules as to what it should be, that would be causality. Something removed from prior causality is only explained by the fact of its existence, nothing prior.

The first cause in that scenario is the first causal event to form out of the state in which causality has no meaning, which is a state that has mathematical and theoretical support in physics. But if your point is that "aha! see there's a first cause!" then you are just stating the obvious here and I don't know what your point really is? — Christoffer

My point is that a first cause is logically necessary using the summary I gave you earlier. You may have been overcomplicating the issue. Which is fair, I wrote this two years ago and would write it more cleanly now. Someone resurrected this thread a few weeks back so here we are now. :)

But it isn't conclusive. You still have the Penrose theories, and other cyclic interpretations that do not have a first cause as it's circular. There's no need for a first cause as the cycle, the loop causes itself. — Christoffer

And here is where you missed the entire point of the discussion. Let me post the summary 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.

My addressing infinite regression was the major point of the OP. My point is that even with infinite regression, there's still a first cause. Why is it an infinite loop instead of a finite regression? There is no prior cause for this, it simply is. Feel free to debate that point, but understand that that is the entire point.

So I question the reason for this argument as physics already provide one with more actual physics-based math behind it and I question the singular conclusion of first cause as it doesn't counter the other interpretations that exist. — Christoffer

As noted, the other interpretations do not remove us from the definition of what a first cause is, or prove that a first cause is not logically necessary. Feel free to take a stab at it again, but so far I'm not seeing it.

If there are any other previous critiques that are relevant to the OP that I've missed, please let me know.

In no real order, other than to make the conclusion sensible:

THIS is condescending. — Philosophim

It really, truly is not. I have noted exactly why it is a legitimate avenue to take. I'm unsure, again, how its possible you are still pretending that you're pointing out a flaw here.

I appreciate the discussion, but lets let him weigh in now if he chooses. — Philosophim

I see he has, and I shall (below) defer.

That's just ego talking, not an addressing of the points. — Philosophim

This is what I, and he, see you doing. Please, don't have such a blindness that you cannot apply this exact same thing to yourself. Because, the only evidence you have is in that direction.

I'm not interested in talking to a guy who after I've already pointed out he agrees with me on issues of the OP — Philosophim

He doesn't. Which he has explicitly stated, multiple times. I'm really, genuinely convinced you are way deep in a sunk-cost fallacy here.

There's one major difference. We're discussing the OP, not his theory. — Philosophim

*his objections. It is clear to me you are not open to an honest discussion of what's going on here and I don't think you're doing it on purpose, so no guff. But, I have done my part - I shall retreat. Good luck to both on not missing what could be a great discussion :)

AmadeusD, especially since Christoffer posted, I see no point in continuing to comment on this issue. He has answered my accusation of a straw man argument and I have responded to his points. That is all I asked of him and he has admirably done so. And, no offense, you've admitted already you weren't sure what the OP was yourself. When your criticism is that I'm accusing him of not addressing the OP, when you don't understand it yourself, its hard to take your criticism to heart.

Now, feel free to take his criticisms and assist him. If you feel he has adequately criticized the OP, feel free to point out where exactly that criticism hits and I have not responded to. Specifics and clear reasoning behind your accusations can be convincing. But anything else at this point is just personal opinion.

I see no point in continuing to comment on this issue — Philosophim

:ok: And not at all ironic. I agree fully, whether I'm wrong or not :)

True randomness has zero constraints or rules as to what can be. Limited randomness always has a constraint of some sort. "What causes that constraint?" means that we haven't gotten to a first cause cause. The appearance of a first cause is true randomness. Why? Because if it wasn't, there would be some thing causing one possible outcome to be more or less likely than the other. So is 'free will' truly random? I don't believe so. Humans are physical creatures with physical brains. Brains have rules they have to follow. Now are those rules so complex that measuring and predicting what a brain will do next with 100% certainty a current impossibility? Yes. So free will is not a first cause. — Philosophim

Ok, you agree with me then. The free will act I described appeared to be random, but really it was a "first cause".

You can claim free will is a first cause, but now you have to prove it. If people cannot prove free will is a first cause, then they cannot claim it to be. — Philosophim

Doesn't my example of dropping the ball serve as proof. The act is either random or caused by free will. You showed how it is not truly random, so we can conclude free will.

It depends what you mean by "true first cause". In certain traditions of philosophy, free will is the traditional cause of actions (as distinct from events); it is traditionally regarded as special - either as an uncaused cause or causa sui. Neither concept makes much sense. But then, since explanations of actions qua actions are different in kind from causal explanations, they are regarded as belonging to a category different from causal explanations. In which case free will is not a cause at all. — Ludwig V

Sorry, I do not understand you Ludwig. Are you making a distinction between an action and an event? Why? Is it just for the purpose of stating that free will is not a cause?

Hi Metaphysician, good to see you again. :)

Doesn't my example of dropping the ball serve as proof. The act is either random or caused by free will. You showed how it is not truly random, so we can conclude free will. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think there was a misunderstanding. A first cause is uncaused. Meaning its existence is a purely random event that cannot be predicted. Free will is not purely random but has constraints and influences. As I noted earlier the brain is where human thought resides, and there is prior causality to the brain. A first cause has no prior causality, so free will cannot be a first cause either.

What you may be confusing is the idea of a first cause vs a measurement where we state, "OK, this is the starting, or origin of a causal system. Meaning we start with the hand releasing the ball as a measurement, but we're not denying that there is prior causality to why the hand is there, gravity, etc. A first cause is not a measurement by us. It is a fundamental reality that has no prior cause for its existence.

Hi Metaphysician, good to see you again. :) — Philosophim

Glad to be back Philosophim.

I think there was a misunderstanding. A first cause is uncaused. Meaning its existence is a purely random event that cannot be predicted. Free will is not purely random but has constraints and influences. As I noted earlier the brain is where human thought resides, and there is prior causality to the brain. A first cause has no prior causality, so free will cannot be a first cause either. — Philosophim

I don't quite understand this. An event which cannot be predicted is not necessarily purely random. I understand a freely willed event to be like this, it cannot be predicted yet it is not random. So the example of dropping the ball. The drop cannot be predicted, not even by the person dropping it or else that person does not adhere to the principles of the experiment. The person just (seemingly randomly) drops the ball at any moment. And we cannot say that the act is purely random as you describe, because there is a reason for it, the person wanted to.

That an event occurs within constraints does not necessitate the conclusion that it is a caused event. Suppose for example that there are events occurring within a human brain. If we broke down in analysis, these events, some may be uncaused. These uncaused events would be occurring within the constraints of the brain. There is no reason to believe that all of the events occurring within the brain must be caused. There could be uncaused events occurring all the time, at a small level, and as they occur they are constrained by surrounding caused events. The point, is that there clearly is prior causality to the brain, as you say, but this does not rule out uncaused events within the brain, which make us feel like we have free will.

What you may be confusing is the idea of a first cause vs a measurement where we state, "OK, this is the starting, or origin of a causal system. Meaning we start with the hand releasing the ball as a measurement, but we're not denying that there is prior causality to why the hand is there, gravity, etc. A first cause is not a measurement by us. It is a fundamental reality that has no prior cause for its existence. — Philosophim

I'm talking about "first cause" in the same sense as you, an event which has no prior cause. In the example it's not a question of why the hand is there, it's a question of why does the hand release the ball at the precise moment that it does. This act of release has a causal chain which we can follow back in time, to somewhere in the brain. But at some point the person holding the ball, simply decides "now", and releases it. This freely willed decision is the cause of that chain of events in the brain and nervous system which causes the ball to drop, but there is no cause of that decision of "now", at that point in time.

As a thought experiment I hypothetically concluded that if things form self-explained, — Philosophim

There's a puzzle. I don't think that idea of a cause that is self-explanatory makes much sense. It doesn't seem to fit with your idea of causality. Is that meant to be an example of a first cause?

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

So finding a first cause is just a reason for developing new ideas. It has happened before and no doubt it will happen again Whether one calls them causal or not really seems much less important.

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. — Philosophim

Yes, I take the point that there is a difference between the Big Bang and an arbitrarily chosen starting-point. The Big Bang is implicit in the framework of explanation. But then, there are these pesky people who ask questions which do not go away. And so we start developing new ideas, based on what we already know, but also going beyond them. Whether you call them causal or not is not really very interesting.

I let an AI break down the flaws of your OP. — Christoffer

I have to say that I trust your judhement about what an AI says way before I trust the AI. Why do you think that the AI can do that job? Mind you, I mostly agree with what you say.

The invention is the interpretation of reality that correlates to the real thing of 2 something. — Christoffer

H'm It's very tempting to think that way. But the question is always how we can "correlate" to a reality that exists independently of our interpretation. I'm not saying it can't be done. On the contrary, it must be done. So the criteria for "non-verbal" reality need to be built in to our interpretation.

But the key point is that the density of the universe right at the event of Big Bang would mean dimensions having no meaning, therefor no causality can occur in that state. It is fundamentally random and therefor you cannot apply a deterministic causality logic to it. And since you can't do that, how can you ask any of the questions in the way you do? It's either cyclic in some form, or it is an event that has no causality as its state is without the dimensions required for causality to happen. — Christoffer

I read this as saying that when explanation reaches rock-bottom, in one sense, it ends, but in another sense requires a new conceptual framework. Which people are developing in the case of the Big Bang. For me, it was always obvious that would happen. It has happened before and no doubt it will happen again.

Ok, you agree with me then. The free will act I described appeared to be random, but really it was a "first cause". — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to say that free will is really a first cause. I meant to say only that that is the "traditional" view and as an example of what happens when you reach rock-bottom in a specific pattern of explanation. At that point, further explanation will require a categorial change in thinking. It was not a very good example. My own view is that actions by people are explained in a non-causal framework, by purposes, values and reasons. "Free will" is an umbrella for all the "springs of action" - convenient because it doesn't require us to consider all the complexities. Simplification can be useful - and misleading. It's a big topic and won't be helpful here.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to say that free will is really a first cause. — Ludwig V

That statement was addressed to Philosophim. To you i said I didn't understand you.

I meant to say only that that is the "traditional" view and as an example of what happens when you reach rock-bottom in a specific pattern of explanation. At that point, further explanation will require a categorial change in thinking. It was not a very good example. My own view is that actions by people are explained in a non-causal framework, by purposes, values and reasons. "Free will" is an umbrella for all the "springs of action" - convenient because it doesn't require us to consider all the complexities. Simplification can be useful - and misleading. It's a big topic and won't be helpful here. — Ludwig V

But don't you agree that what you call "springs of action" are first causes in a causal chain? A person makes a choice, springs to action, and this begins a causal chain. If, later, we look back at the causal chain which has progressed from a spring to action, we see the choice which was made as "the end" of the causal chain, or the "final cause" in that chain.

That statement was addressed to Philosophim. To you i said I didn't understand you. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm sorry for the confusion. I'm still working out how to deal with situations when several people are involved.

But don't you agree that what you call "springs of action" are first causes in a causal chain? A person makes a choice, springs to action, and this begins a causal chain. If, later, we look back at the causal chain which has progressed from a spring to action, we see the choice which was made as "the end" of the causal chain, or the "final cause" in that chain. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes and no. There are two modes of explanation involved and much difficulty about the relationship between the two. There is, presumably, a causal chain involved. There is also what is usually called a rational or purposive explanation involved. These two are in different categories or frameworks. We are finding out a good deal about the first kind. We use the second kind every day. We (well, philosophers,) are in a good deal of confusion about the relation between the two. It won't do to say that they are just different kinds of explanation and leave it at that - though that was popular a few decades ago. Nor will it do to "reduce" one to the other or identify one or other as the "real" explanation. How much more do you want? It would take us miles beyond this thread. Perhaps I should post that paragraph as the beginning of a discussion.

I don't quite understand this. An event which cannot be predicted is not necessarily purely random. I understand a freely willed event to be like this, it cannot be predicted yet it is not random. — Metaphysician Undercover

A random event is not about our current ability to measure to predict, it is about a hard logical limitation to predict. A first cause is something self-explained, there is nothing prior that causes it. Such a thing cannot be predicted to arise as there is absolutely nothing causing it.

The point I'm trying to make is that randomness due to lack of knowledge is not the same as randomness with even perfect omniscience could not predict.

The drop cannot be predicted, not even by the person dropping it or else that person does not adhere to the principles of the experiment. — Metaphysician Undercover

Its actually been determined that people can make unconscious decisions up to 11 second prior to them being aware of it. https://qz.com/1569158/neuroscientists-read-unconscious-brain-activity-to-predict-decisions

That an event occurs within constraints does not necessitate the conclusion that it is a caused event. — Metaphysician Undercover

A constraint is part of what causes an outcome. A first cause cannot have constraints or anything that would lead a particular outcome. Because that would 'cause' the first 'first cause' to be. Meaning its not really a first cause. A first cause is as simple as "No quark is there, not a quark is there." There is nothing that caused the quark. It exists purely because it does.

There could be uncaused events occurring all the time, at a small level, and as they occur they are constrained by surrounding caused events. The point, is that there clearly is prior causality to the brain, as you say, but this does not rule out uncaused events within the brain, which make us feel like we have free will. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, this is possible. But it is something which would need to be proven. So, cool idea!

This freely willed decision is the cause of that chain of events in the brain and nervous system which causes the ball to drop, but there is no cause of that decision of "now", at that point in time. — Metaphysician Undercover

This again would need to be proven. I don't think science points that way. I think its pretty clear the brain has a sense of timing and it can be traced through causality. But, as I noted earlier, you have an interesting idea that could be tested.

There's a puzzle. I don't think that idea of a cause that is self-explanatory makes much sense. It doesn't seem to fit with your idea of causality. Is that meant to be an example of a first cause? — Ludwig V

Yes, a first cause is that which is not caused by something else. It may be difficult to comprehend, but it is logically necessary.

So finding a first cause is just a reason for developing new ideas. It has happened before and no doubt it will happen again Whether one calls them causal or not really seems much less important. — Ludwig V

No, its just a logical consequence. You're looking for a reason beyond trying to solve the puzzle first. Its a consequence, not why I tried to solve the puzzle! The reason I tried to solve the puzzle was because I thought the back and forth between God and no God was missing a glaring point. Is there a first cause somewhere in causality? Its not an opinion, its a logical conclusion that there must be.

Yes, I take the point that there is a difference between the Big Bang and an arbitrarily chosen starting-point. The Big Bang is implicit in the framework of explanation. But then, there are these pesky people who ask questions which do not go away. And so we start developing new ideas, based on what we already know, but also going beyond them. Whether you call them causal or not is not really very interesting. — Ludwig V

With the understanding that there must be at least one first cause (there is no limitation of course) we have a very clear definition of what a first cause entails. This lets us do something great: require proof. While its logically necessary that first causes exist, saying, "X is a first cause" is a high bar of proof that is falsifiable. Thus we can propose ideas or have faith, but none of it has teeth without evidence.

Appreciate the contribution Ludwig.

For example, if a first cause is possible, can it not happen any time? Is it not unlimited in to what it could be? Could a quark simply appear somewhere in the universe than vanish out five seconds later, all without a prior cause? — Philosophim

I asked you this before and never got a response, so I'll try again. Using your terminology from the OP, let Y be an atom radioactively decaying into another atom. Is there an X that caused this Y?

I asked you this before and never got a response, so I'll try again. Using your terminology from the OP, let Y be an atom radioactively decaying into another atom. Is there an X that caused this Y? — EricH

My apologies if I missed an earlier reply! Here's a quick summary of how radioactivity works. https://www.arpansa.gov.au/understanding-radiation/what-is-radiation/ionising-radiation/radioactivity#:~:text=What%20causes%20atoms%20to%20be,an%20excess%20of%20internal%20energy.

In layman's terms, when there is too much internal energy within an atom due to a proton, electron imbalance, there is not enough force to keep the atom together. Over time, the internal structure sends out parts of the atom which when separated, are referred to as energy or photons. So yes.

Perhaps I'm not following you, but it seems to me that you're not addressing the random nature of these events.

there is too much internal energy within an atom due to a proton, electron imbalance, there is not enough force to keep the atom together. — Philosophim

This describes the necessary conditions for decay to occur, but what is the specific event/cause X that causes the specific Y at that specific time?

Could a quark simply appear somewhere in the universe than vanish out five seconds later, all without a prior cause? — Philosophim

What's your answer? Yes or no?

With the understanding that there must be at least one first cause (there is no limitation of course) we have a very clear definition of what a first cause entails. This lets us do something great: require proof. While its logically necessary that first causes exist, saying, "X is a first cause" is a high bar of proof that is falsifiable. Thus we can propose ideas or have faith, but none of it has teeth without evidence. — Philosophim

I must have missed something. I thought you were saying that while first causes must exist, there were no existing examples.

I accept that there are first causes in pragmatic applications of an existing causal framework. Call them pragmatic. There are also first causes inherent, defined by, any causal framework - even if only as conceptually possible. But the concept of a cause outside a framework of definition and explanation, is meaningless. Hence any actual causal explanation is relative to its framework.

there is too much internal energy within an atom due to a proton, electron imbalance, there is not enough force to keep the atom together.
— Philosophim

This describes the necessary conditions for decay to occur, but what is the specific event/cause X that causes the specific Y at that specific time? — EricH

Oh, I see what you're asking for now. Let me give you your answer and then a bit more. First, I'm not a physicist which is why I linked you the material to read. But I think what you're looking for is that we either do not know the exact mechanisms or we are unable to know after the fact. Our lack of knowledge or inability is of course not enough to declare it as a first cause however. That's because we've clearly defined what a first cause is so can easily identify it.

First, a first cause has no prior causality for its existence. This means that there is nothing which directs it, shapes it, or limits it outside of itself. To claim something is a first cause, this must be proven. We cannot say, "We don't understand or can currently measure something, therefore its a first cause." It must be demonstrated without a doubt that there is nothing prior which made that existence.

Second, a first cause does not entail that it is separate from causality once formed. For example, a photon could form without prior cause, but once it is formed, if it enters into direct play with anything else, it is now part of a causal chain. Meaning the first cause for the photon in this instance would be its formation. Its interaction with another atom would not be a first cause, but a next step in causality.

Could a quark simply appear somewhere in the universe than vanish out five seconds later, all without a prior cause?
— Philosophim
What's your answer? Yes or no? — EricH

So, if a first cause has no prior explanation for its existence, then it has no reason why it should be. This also entails that there is not a reason that anything could not simply be either. Why? If there is a lean or limitation towards a particular first cause, there is a reason behind this limitation. Meaning our purported 'first cause' is in fact, not a first cause. The first cause would be the lean or limitation. Meaning that a first cause has no limitations, reasons, or necessary things it must be or do besides the fact that nothing prior to it caused it to be.

So, is it plausible? Sure. If we consider that first causes are necessary in any causal chain, and think about what that entails, it means a first cause could appear as anything at any time. Again however, if we are to claim "This X is a first cause," it must be shown with proof. Thus any causal chain must be followed to its first cause. We cannot invent a first cause that is imaginary or separate from the causal chain. Meaning that in your atom example, we work backwards from physics until we get to the point where we can predict a stable probability of atomic decay. This consistency is evidence of something stable and limited. For example, atomic decay does not random spawn an elephant or cookies, but radiation without fail. What is causing this? That question must be answered with proof.

I must have missed something. I thought you were saying that while first causes must exist, there were no existing examples. — Ludwig V

I meant that there are no existing proven discoveries of anything that is a first cause. No one to my mind, has ever conclusively proven that any "x" exists without something prior causing it to be. A belief or limitation in current capabilities is not evidence of a first cause. We must have the tools and evidence to conclusively demonstrate something is a first cause.

I accept that there are first causes in pragmatic applications of an existing causal framework. Call them pragmatic. — Ludwig V

I am not talking about pragmatism, origin creation, or a 'starting point' that we pick. I'm talking about a factual, inalienable, provable first cause that exists regardless of our current capabilities or awareness. A first cause does not depend on our observation, it simply is.

But the concept of a cause outside a framework of definition and explanation, is meaningless. — Ludwig V

See my above reply for what a first cause entails. I'll be happy to dive in further if required.

If a well-defined causal chain extending back in time has no beginning or has arbitrary beginnings, does it have a first cause? Would you say the definitions constitute a first cause?

If a well-defined causal chain extending back in time has no beginning or has arbitrary beginnings, does it have a first cause? — jgill

Yes, the first cause is its existence. What is the reason why this infinitely regressive chain of causality exists? There is no prior cause for it, it simply is. One way I've tried communicating it is you can view it as the set of all causality. What caused the set of all causality? Nothing else caused the set of all causality.

Would you say the definitions constitute a first cause? — jgill

I don't quite understand the question. Lets say there's a rock that exists which we haven't defined yet. Does our ability to define it mean it doesn't exist? No. It exists despite our definitions. The interaction of our minds and identities is the cause of definitions, so we can conclusively say definitions are not first causes.

Would you say the definitions constitute a first cause? — jgill

I don't quite understand the question — Philosophim

Suppose it is possible to prescribe each link in the chain. Is this description a first cause of the chain? It coincides with existence. Precedes it, actually.

Suppose it is possible to describe each link in the chain. Is this description a first cause of the chain? It coincides with existence. Precedes it, actually. — jgill

No. What causes the description? The interaction between a human and the link. The chain exists despite our ability or inability to define it. If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, it still vibrates the air. :)

The chain exists despite our ability or inability to define it. — Philosophim

Suppose I create the chain. Am I the FC? Or are electro-chemical processes in the brain FCs?

Let's consider chains that originate in the human mind. How does FC differ from physical chains observed in nature?

Suppose I create the chain. Am I the FC? Or are electro-chemical processes in the brain FCs? — jgill

We don't get to create the chain. We are not first causes. We can extend the chain into different branches. but we are not existences that formed without some prior causality. As you noted we are caused by other things such as a brain and body. Further, humans were caused by other things such as evolution. We aren't even close to the beginning of the chain.

Edit in case you reply before I finish:

Perhaps what you're asking is, "What would the necessary requirements be for a human to be a first cause?" Very simply you would not need to exist, then through no cause from anything else, appear whole as you are. From then on, you would be within causality, limited by what you are with the rest of the world around you.

In another case, its possible that you exist, and a photon appears in your body without any prior causality. That would be a first cause that then enters into the rest of the causal system within you. But you yourself would not be a first cause.

We aren't even close to the beginning of the chain — Philosophim

Of course not. Suppose instead we observe such a chain in nature, imbedding it in our minds. It now exists in two realms. Does an act of "measurement" affect FC?