For every effect there must be a cause, except in parts of ithe universe where time has stopped (black holes?), or for a possible origin of spacetime (e.g. qubits), for which it makes little sense to assume a causal origin. — jkop
On the logic of a universal origin, my "viewpoint" is that it takes spacetime for origins to be possible, and the universe includes arguably not only spacetime but also a more fundamental domain in which there is no spacetime, but from which spacetime emerges, entanglement of particles etc. — jkop
First, what is a cause? A cause is a combination of factors which explain why a state of reality is the way it is. Why does a baseball exist? We can note physics, bonds, and materials. There is some existence that makes up the existence of the baseball in combination. We can then focus on the thread of a baseball and say, "What causes that thread to exist?" Then we can delve into its chemistry and physics, as well as its interaction with the world. — Philosophim
You seem to have neglected a very important aspect of causation ("why a state of reality is the way it is"), and that is "intention". — Metaphysician Undercover
But when a prior reason does not include an intelligent being, like sun rays traveling to Earth, there's no need to include it. — Philosophim
But when a prior reason does not include an intelligent being, like sun rays traveling to Earth, there's no need to include it. — Philosophim
Often, the purpose of an object, and even sometimes, that it was created for a purpose, does not become evident until after the object has existed for an extended time. When encountering an object, what principles would you apply to determine whether intention was involved as a cause or not? — Metaphysician Undercover
Take this as an example. On what principles do you conclude that the cause of the sun's rays travelling to earth does not involve intention? — Metaphysician Undercover
Well if we could trace its composition over time we would come to a being that had intention when making the object. — Philosophim
We need a consciousness for intention, and if the scope is the sun itself, it doesn't fit the criteria for being conscious. — Philosophim
I am not excluding intention, and I'm not understanding where you think it is. — Philosophim
Not necessarily. Think of something produced mechanically in a factory for example. We trace the composition of the thing, and the closest we get to the being with intention, is the factory. We would never know that there is intention behind the thing, and we would not necessarily see the need to trace the factory for intention. — Metaphysician Undercover
And even if we determine that the factory was built intentionally, we cannot answer "why the thing exists" until we determine the specific intent. — Metaphysician Undercover
And, a thing right off the production line will not fulfill its purpose until a much later time. This implies that we cannot know why the thing exists until sometime in the future. — Metaphysician Undercover
We do not necessarily need a consciousness for intention, as intention is defined by purpose, not consciousness. — Metaphysician Undercover
how this applies to what I've written — Philosophim
What you've written is about the meanings of 'scope', 'causal chain', 'limit' etc but there's little or nothing about cosmology, physics, or current research (e.g. quantum gravity) from which there is reason to suggest that spacetime is not fundamental — jkop
The Big Bang might be the origin of spacetime, but not the origin of the universe. — jkop
Are you claiming that intention is somehow separate? That intention cannot be explained over time and through the composition of the intelligent creature's state at those moments? If so can you explain how it does not fit in?
Because we lack a compelling "top-down" explanation for consciousness and intentional aims, fields such as neuroscience tend to default to "bottom-up" explanations. — Count Timothy von Icarus
What's the underlying assumption? All facts about anything can be wholly explained by facts about smaller composite parts? Prima facie, one could also assume that all facts about parts can only be wholly explained in terms of the whole. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Flight is not best understood through a chemical analysis of the cells in flying animals' wings, though no doubt such cells are a prerequisite for animal flight. The same might be said for intentional aims. To be sure, we need neurons to think, but it hardly seems that "goodness," "justice," "love," etc. shall be best known through a study of neurons. — Count Timothy von Icarus
You seem to dance between efficient and material causes, while even touching on formal causes, but then the notion of causality here also seems somewhat ambiguous. — Count Timothy von Icarus
But here too, questions of essence verses existence remain. Why does one universe exist and not others? — Count Timothy von Icarus
Weak notions of cause will be the target of causal eliminitivists, and those with a broader notion of causation alike. — Count Timothy von Icarus
There is no prior cause, so there is no reason. To posit a reason is to imply, "There is something else which exists which caused universe A to exist. That's a misunderstanding of the issue. U is the entire universe. You're asking, "What caused U?" Nothing caused U. U simply is
Yes, this is helpful. So the argument boils down to something like: "to have a reason or explanation is to have a cause and cause just means 'some prior state in time that determines some future state.'" — Count Timothy von Icarus
Why does the universe exist? A question of existence. And why is the universe the way it is? A question of essence or quiddity. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Everything is ultimately arbitrary. A problem? Perhaps. — Count Timothy von Icarus
I am neither arguing for or against spacetime as fundamental. — Philosophim
Tell you what, put what you're saying next to a quote of mine in the argument so I can see what you're referring to. — Philosophim
If ultimately there is no prior cause for existence, this means there is no prior meaning for existence. . . . 'Meaning' is development and purpose created and maintained within existence, not from outside of itself. — Philosophim
I am neither arguing for or against spacetime as fundamental.
— Philosophim
Hence I said that your paper says little or nothing about cosmology, physics etc. so I propose an approach to the logic of a universal origin from available science. — jkop
If ultimately there is no prior cause for existence, this means there is no prior meaning for existence. . . . 'Meaning' is development and purpose created and maintained within existence, not from outside of itself.
— Philosophim
Despite its apparent lack of a universal origin, the universe doesn't seem so incapable of creating and maintaining development and purpose (e.g. big bang, organic life, baseball). — jkop
It is because the argument does not require cosmology or physics. They are irrelevant to its point. — Philosophim
It seems like my point and yours coincide. Yes, meaning is found within the universe, not without. — Philosophim
This means that anything could have been — Philosophim
That's because we've limited the scope to that factory only. Increase the scope to the people who planned and built the factory and now we have intention. — Philosophim
Intention doesn't require the future to understand it. Intention is merely a 'What I'm hoping to result from this," action. We could build a factory with the intention of creating 5,000 jobs, and it creates more or less than that. That doesn't change the intention. — Philosophim
What is a purpose if not the intention of something? Perhaps consciousness isn't needed, I suppose intention can be an unconscious desire too. I'm still not seeing how this applies to the argument. Can you relate it somehow to the argument so I can better understand the point you're making against/for it? — Philosophim
A cause is a combination of factors which explain why a state of reality is the way it is.
...
If we understand the full abstract scope, then the solution becomes clear. First, in terms of composition, if we're talking about composition that caused the universe, this would requires something outside of the universe. But because we've encompassed 'the entire universe' there is nothing outside of the universe which could cause it. In terms of composition, the universes cause would simply be what it is, and nothing more.
The nature of something being uncaused by anything outside of itself is a new venue of exploration for Ontology.
If it formed, there would be no prior cause for why it formed, and no prior cause for what it should not have formed. Meaning it could form, or could not form
…
But if Y formed in 'that way' without a prior cause of X, then it is not necessary that Y formed in that way, it 'simply did'.
If we understand the full abstract scope, then the solution becomes clear. First, in terms of composition, if we're talking about composition that caused the universe, this would requires something outside of the universe. But because we've encompassed 'the entire universe' there is nothing outside of the universe which could cause it.
4. But what about a God?
Yes, it is logically possible that a God could exist
If your argument is not about the physical world, then what is it about? — jkop
I don't think it follows from an uncaused universe that anything could have been. — jkop
That's because we've limited the scope to that factory only. Increase the scope to the people who planned and built the factory and now we have intention.
— Philosophim
This doesn't really answer the question. Finding out that there was a being with intention involved in the creation of a thing doesn't provide "the intention". The question of "why" is answered by determining the specific intention, not by determining that there was intention, in a general way. — Metaphysician Undercover
So if you do not see the purpose, by watching the thing fulfil its function (in the future), how would you determine what the intentional being was "hoping to result from this"? — Metaphysician Undercover
'll go back to your example then, the suns rays traveling to earth. We've agreed that consciousness isn't a necessary feature of intention. — Metaphysician Undercover
I would like to clarify that, if you believe the the universe—as a whole—just is what it is with no explanation then the universe is not caused. It is not self-caused, it is not caused, and it is has no first cause. — Bob Ross
The nature of something being uncaused by anything outside of itself is a new venue of exploration for Ontology.
Just as a side note, this historically is false. Many different fields of philosophy have been analyzing the nature of a necessary being and arbitrarily existent beings—such as theology, metaphysics, and ontology. — Bob Ross
It sounds like you are claiming that the universe did begin to exist and yet its beginning to exist has no cause—is that right? — Bob Ross
In my mind, I thought originally you were claiming that the universe is just eternal and immutable itself with no cause. — Bob Ross
If you are claiming that the universe began to exist, then you cannot categorically encompass all of reality in the universe; unless you are saying it came from nothing—which I would say is just an absurdity (no offense). — Bob Ross
If you are claiming that the universe never began to exist (viz., never ‘formed’), then it has always been; and this would entail no first cause. — Bob Ross
Irregardless of which of the previous theses I mentioned you are going for, it is clear that God cannot exist in your view of the universe; for if the universe has no first cause then there are no necessary beings (which includes God) and if the universe just poofed into existence out of nothing then there cannot be any God which was prior to it which created it nor sustains it. — Bob Ross
No, that's not what I stated. I noted that cause can be in terms of composition, time, and scope. It is only after establishing what cause is, that I increase the scope of time and composition to everything that encompasses the universe. Re-read up through causal chains again and see if you have any questions.
Right, I answer both. There is no reason for the universe's existence. It is the way that it is, simply because it is.
I agree with Bob that you appear to be equivocating here, hence my confusion. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Now, like I said, the argument is stronger if it anticipates the counterarguments likely to be levied against it. Saying "there is no Fine Tuning Problem for me because I just posit that everything just is, for no reason at all," isn't a response to the Fine Tuning Problem, it's just ignoring it. — Count Timothy von Icarus
The part on God seems ancillary, but there the assumption seems to be: "if God exists God will "be" like everything else, a very powerful entity that exists within the universe, a part of the universe, an entity that can sit on a Porphyrian tree next to other beings. — Count Timothy von Icarus
But this is precisely what much theology and philosophy, e.g. Neoplatonism, the Islamic philosophers, much Jewish thought, and the dominant Orthodox and Catholic theology, explicitly deny. In particular, many of these are going to deny the univocity of being, and they will claim that "meaning and purpose" relate to Goodness, Beauty, and Truth as transcendentals. — Count Timothy von Icarus
The only thing is that the universe has no cause. I don't argue for a finite starting point, as time is only one aspect of cause. Its very plausible that an infinitely regressive universe has always existed. Why has it always existed? Did an X cause it to be that way? No, it simply does.
The universe did not come 'from nothing'. Nothing did not create anything. It doesn't come 'from' anything. It simply was not, then it was
It simply was not, then it was. Or its always been
The term 'first cause' in the previous paper was always to get attention to the topic when I was knew on these forums years ago, and really was a bending of the term to mean, "no cause". I rewrote this with the same conclusions without the attention getting terminology.
Incorrect. Most of us look at only one side of the point that the universe formed without limitations. We often think about what can, but then still have some notion that somehow there is a 'can't' Why can't it Bob? If there is no X -> U, then there is also no X -> ~U.
. There is nothing the prevents a God from existing, then that God creating the rest of the universe.
Why is there any more or less reason for a universe with an eternal God to exist then a universe with eternal rocks to exist? There isn't any
Because there is no outside reason for any of those possibilities to exist or not exist. If it exists, it simply does.
If you are claiming that the universe began to exist, then you cannot categorically encompass all of reality in the universe; unless you are saying it came from nothing—which I would say is just an absurdity (no offense).
Got it; but doesn’t this entail that you believe that there are existent things which exist outside of time and of which interact, to some degree, with temporal things; given that the death of a previous universe to “fuel” the big bang would require “moments” where there is no time? — Bob Ross
To be honest, I didn’t follow this at all. Can you reword it? What do you mean (X → U) → (X → !U)? I am not following the relevance of that statement. — Bob Ross
Yes there is under your view. The two options you have spelled out is that (1) the universe arbitrarily came into being (from nothing) or (2) the universe has always existed; and both entail that God cannot exist, since God is an unlimited being which creates the universe. — Bob Ross
God would simply not be God since this being would be some sort of limited being within the universe (if we assume traditional theism, which is widely accepted as the standard of what God is in a mono-theistic sense). — Bob Ross
Just briefly relating this to my OP, if one finds arguments convincing that God is required to explain the universe — Bob Ross
Yes, in principle any being or series which is necessary and brute has equally no explanation for its existence; but the burden is on your OP to demonstrate why we should believe that the universe came into existence out of nothing or always existed. — Bob Ross
Your argument in the OP seemed to be that we are just defining everything as in the universe; so there can’t be anything outside of it to cause it to exist. But this is just an equivocation: the universe usually refers to the natural world we live in and not the totality, per se, of existent things. — Bob Ross
A theist could easily piggy-back off of your point and say that the ‘universe’ as you mean it is really ‘reality’ and reality, which includes God, has no reason for its existence but it is not a necessary being since it is just the abstract representation of the whole of God and God’s creation. — Bob Ross
If this is what you mean by “the universe has no cause”—viz., reality has no cause—then that is true but trivially true and is detracts from any conversation about necessary beings. — Bob Ross
Likewise, this would sidestep my objections above because God would not be limited by reality, since reality is just God’s infinite nature in addition to what God created (namely the universe). — Bob Ross
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.