• Philosophim
    2.8k
    This is a rewrite of X, which I wrote years ago. After reading several people's responses and confusion, I thought it better to rewrite it with those people in mind as I think the idea is incredibly useful to the discussion of Ontology. In it it will be logically concluded that there is no prior cause for the universe, and that regardless of whatever form that universe takes, meaning must be found from within, not without.

    Cause

    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.

    Scope

    When describing and discovering causes one must consider the 'scope'. The scope of a cause it how deep and detailed we are willing to look at something. I could look at the cause of the thread as being held by nylon and be done. Or I could then look at the chemical composition of nylon, then be done. Or I could continue down and then look at the atomic composition of its parts, its quarks, and so on. Thus I can do the molecular scope, atomic scope, or quark scope. Generally a scope does not capture the full picture of cause, but it does allow us to compartmentalize a cause into useful and manageable concepts. As long as those concepts are verified in reality and not merely theoretical, we know these causes apart from belief.

    While we may limit the scope of a cause for useful purposes, that does not mean that there is not cause to be found in more detail or depth. Sometimes there are limits of measurement or theory. For example, we may not know exactly what causes a quark to exist, let alone 'this' specific quark in the nylon string. But that doesn't mean that there isn't something that makes up that quark. The limits of knowledge are not the limits of reality.

    Another scope of cause is time. We might be able to break down the composition of the ball into its causal parts, but we can add a new dimension in by asking why the state of the ball is the way it is now opposed to one hour before. Perhaps the ball is currently flying through the air. The reason why its flying through the air is 2 seconds prior I threw it. 1 second prior the current state of the ball, its moving because it had velocity x. .5 second prior, it was velocity y. We can choose a starting scope depending on what we want to know.

    Causal Chains

    In both cases, we can chain scopes of causes. We can plot the scope of the flying ball over 2 seconds, and note its compositional state, and its prior state that necessarily lead to another state in time. Thus we can draw a line from my throwing the ball to its velocity, location, and composition 2 seconds later in the air. I like to describe this as a chain as there is a start and end with various possible points of scoped time and composition along this line that link the two together.

    A causal chain can also be scoped and may not involve everything that necessarily make the state at X time or Y level of composition. For example, air resistance may not be taken as a factor, even though air resistance would bring clarity and accuracy if we were to try to repeat the steps to make the ball be at the same location in 2 seconds. Thus a chain may explain something within a particular scope, but the introduction of a new scope may bring a fuller picture.

    Unlimited or Limited?
    With this all in mind, there comes the ultimate question and scope: Is there an origin to existence itself? This is as expansive of a scope as you can get, both compositionally and through time. Can we handle such a question? I think we can construct a rational conclusion using logical limits.

    First start with the the metaphor of a chain that captures this particular scoped question. The chain must encompass all sub-scope composition, and all time composition. When trying to include these scopes, one question remains. Are there a limited number of scopes, or unlimited number of scopes? Lets look.

    Its easiest to start with time. In some sense, yes there is an unlimited scope of time. I can take a second, and divide that second in half. Then divide that result in half, and so on infinitely. However, this does not eliminate the end point and the start point. The invention of scopes does not deny the reality of the existent end and beginning.

    The same goes for scope of composition. Lets say I see the combination of quarks, and I want to examine the one small part of the quark. In our current understanding of composition, when you break something down small enough, it usually is labeled some other form of matter. A molecule if looked at in enough detail becomes many atoms for example.

    This infinite division of a whole should not be confused that the limited whole is itself unlimited in its ability to be subdivided by 'cutting the inch in half infinitely'. The 'atom' is the whole. There is a beginning and end to it if we run a straight line across it. Eventually at some point there will be space or another atom. So in terms of composition we can divide something inward infinitely, but can we do the inverse and multiply something outward infinitely? Is there something beyond the atom that causes the atom to be?

    An outward multiplication would be including something outside of the atom's composition as the cause. So at first we include the surrounding atoms. Then the surrounding molecules. And this can seemingly go on infinitely. However, we will eventually reach a point of scope in which we arrive at, "The entire universe". The question is whether 'the entire universe' is infinite or finite. We can't know the answer to that, but for the purposes of our scope it doesn't matter. That's because we've captured both concepts in the manageable term of 'the entire universe'. So whether we have an internal or external infinite scope of composition, this can all be captured in this one concept.

    The same applies to time. Whether the universe has existed eternally or had a specific starting point, this is simply encompassed in 'the entire existent time of the universe'. 'The entire universe' is the compilation of everything known and unknown. Composition, time, everything. With this understood we can now ask the question, "Is the entire universe caused or uncaused?"

    Is the universe caused or uncaused?

    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 same applies to time. Whether the universe has existed forever or not, there is nothing before the universe's existence which caused the entire time of the universe. "The entire universe" is everything. There cannot be something outside of everything that caused everything. Meaning that there was nothing before which caused the universe to exist both in time and composition.

    Thus the solution can only be the conclusion that 'the entire universe is uncaused by anything else'.

    Unpacking the conclusion - What does it logically mean to be uncaused by something else?

    While the conclusion to the origin of the universe is simple, what logically follows is not. The nature of something being uncaused by anything outside of itself is a new venue of exploration for Ontology. There are a few things we can logically conclude.

    1. There is no limitation as to what 'could' have been, or can be.

    If there is no ultimate cause for existence, then that means that there is no underlying rule of what had to be. This is not to be confused with 'the rule of what is'. The rule of what is, is what has transpired. And in that sense, 'it is, and we know it is because it happened.' But the rule of 'had to be' is that it could not have been anything but 'what is'. But if there is no underlying prior cause for why U 'the universe' exists, then there is also no prior cause for why U should not exist. Just because our universe is the U in this scenario, it doesn't mean another universe couldn't substitute for U as well.

    Imagine a universe which is composed only entire of rocks. 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. There is nothing to prevent nor necessitate that it does or does not form. Our U formed. But it didn't 'have' to form. That's because nothing outside of it caused it to form. Now that it is formed, its causality can be explained within it. But there is no prior causality which explains why it is to begin with, and thus did not 'have' to be.

    This might seem quaint at first, but this leads to another logical step:

    2. There is no limitation to what can be besides what is

    What do I mean by 'no limitation'? Prior causality is the discovery of some other state that necessarily lead to another state. If X didn't happen, Y would not form in that way. 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'. This also means that it could have 'simply not'. It did, but it wasn't necessary that it did. It necessarily is because it exists, but it didn't necessarily have to exist.

    This means that anything could have been, but more importantly, anything could still be. How so? If something can happen without prior cause, then that means its possible something could still happen at any moment without prior cause. Meaning that 1 second from now something could start to exist that did not exist prior, and nothing prior to its existence caused it to exist. If this is true, what does this mean for science? A fascinating thought.

    3. This means that there is no prior causal meaning in existence besides the fact that it exists.

    If ultimately there is no prior cause for existence, this means there is no prior meaning for existence. This is not to be confused with 'existence is meaningless'. 'Meaning' is development and purpose created and maintained within existence, not from outside of itself.

    Looking for an origin point to explain, “Why are we here?” does not lead any other answer besides, “Because we are.” Meaning instead should be focused on what an existence does, and what it will become.

    4. But what about a God?

    Yes, it is logically possible that a God could exist, but we would need evidence of its existence. There is logically no need for a God, and even if a God did exist, its meaning would be the same as anything else in the universe. It too would have to find its own meaning, and its own meaning would not necessitate that it is our meaning. Just as we may create new intelligence or life; it too would not have to follow our meaning for it, but its own.
  • jkop
    948


    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.
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    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

    How does this apply to the points of the paper? I feel like you just chimed in with your own viewpoint on something, but it would be great if you could compare it to the points I made showing why its either an agreement or disagreement with those points.
  • jkop
    948

    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.
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    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

    Which is fine, but I'm asking you how this applies to what I've written. Do you believe this counters the arguments of the OP, agrees with the arguments of the OP, or is it just a comment you wanted to make on your own feelings and it doesn't really have anything to do with what I wrote?
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    13.4k
    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". Why does a baseball exist? It was created artificially for the purpose of playing the game of baseball.

    Your discussion of scope, causal chains, and limits, does not even approach the true answer for "why does a baseball exist?". Do you not see that "intention" (it was produced for a specific purpose) provides the true answer here, and this is where you ought to be focusing your attention?
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    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

    That's simply included in the classification of composition and time. If part of the prior reason for an action included an intelligent being, then intention would be one of the part. But when a prior reason does not include an intelligent being, like sun rays traveling to Earth, there's no need to include it.

    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?
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    13.4k
    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?

    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

    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? I do not see how the classification of "composition and time" as you describe it, could provide adequate criteria.
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    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

    Well if we could trace its composition over time we would come to a being that had intention when making the object. That fits in fine with my argument.

    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

    We need a consciousness for intention, and if the scope is the sun itself, it doesn't fit the criteria for being conscious. Intention is part of a composition explanation. Why is the ball in the air? Because a few seconds ago I wanted to throw it. That's intention, and part of the causal explanation. I am not excluding intention, and I'm not understanding where you think it is.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    13.4k
    Well if we could trace its composition over time we would come to a being that had intention when making the object.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.

    And even if we determine that the factory was built intentionally, we cannot answer "why the thing exists" until we determine the specific intent. And this is the real problem with what you said about determining why a particular state exists. Anything created with intention requires that we determine the specific purpose of the thing, in order to know why it exists. 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.

    We need a consciousness for intention, and if the scope is the sun itself, it doesn't fit the criteria for being conscious.Philosophim

    We do not necessarily need a consciousness for intention, as intention is defined by purpose, not consciousness. And, we do not know whether or not there is purpose, or even some form of consciousness, behind the existence of the sun.

    I am not excluding intention, and I'm not understanding where you think it is.Philosophim

    I don't know where intention is, neither does anyone. But we do not deny the reality of it, even though we do not know how or why it exists. As is the case with specific "intentions", it's probably the same with the general "intention", that we will not know why it exists until sometime far in the future.
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    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

    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.

    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

    If your scope requires intent, then yes.

    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

    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.

    We do not necessarily need a consciousness for intention, as intention is defined by purpose, not consciousness.Metaphysician Undercover

    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?
  • jkop
    948
    how this applies to what I've writtenPhilosophim

    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, and therefore there is no universal origin. The Big Bang might be the origin of spacetime, but not the origin of the universe. Without spacetime it's meaningless to assume that the universe had an origin.
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    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 fundamentaljkop

    I am neither arguing for or against spacetime as fundamental. I don't understand the point.

    The Big Bang might be the origin of spacetime, but not the origin of the universe.jkop

    Right, I've never even mentioned the Big Bang. 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. Right now I don't understand where you are.
  • Count Timothy von Icarus
    3.2k


    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. Physicists do indeed make this claim, with some claiming that "fundamental" particles are only explainable in terms of wholly universal fields. Claims about information being ontologically basic often slide off in either direction, with either (q)bits themselves being "fundamental," or else only being information at all in virtue of a relation to the whole universe.

    Obviously, we might hope for a via media here as well, to avoid sliding to either extreme.

    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?

    "Cannot be explained" or perhaps "is not best explained" or maybe "is not wholly explained." We might suppose that more general principles explain things more fully than a reductionist appeal to composition. For instance, flight in flying machines and animals is well understood through the principle of lift and related principles. 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.

    Indeed, in physics at least, most of our best explanations involve "top-down" sorts of explanations. Because we lack a compelling "top-down" explanation for consciousness and intentional aims, fields such as neuroscience tend to default to "bottom-up" explanations. I believe this is why a commitment to reductionism tends to be stronger in some of the special sciences than in either they physical sciences or some of the social sciences.

    Anyhow, I think the most likely counter to is going to be that it relies on an impoverished notion of causation. 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. Some physicists hope to ground everything in formal causes, and this shows up the strongest in forms of ontic structural realism, where all efficient, material, and final causes are subsumed in the mathematical structure of what the universe (normally considered as a single object) is. But here too, questions of essence verses existence remain. Why does one universe exist and not others? Or do they all exist necessarily (e.g. the "Mathematical Universe Hypothesis")? This answer brings up all sorts of Boltzmann Brain type problems and problems of underdetermination.

    Weak notions of cause will be the target of causal eliminitivists, and those with a broader notion of causation alike.

    The other issue is that some will no doubt object to the use of "logical" in the OP. I don't, I get what you mean. It is in some sense not only pedantic but question begging to assume that "logical" must apply to some system of formal logic.
  • Apustimelogist
    676
    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

    I don't think this is strictly true. The brain works on various different scales so you have to study it on various different scales, whilst bottom up explanations in terms of biology must coexist with more top-down explanations in terms of things like computation and information. Neither do embodied, enactive, extended, ecologocal perspectives neatly fit into a bottom-up view. One of the most in-vogue ideas in neuroscience, the free energy principle, is unambiguously a top-down, unifying principle akin to "top-down" explanations in physics. I have even heard the author of the theory use the phrase "downward causation" in an interview.
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    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

    No argument there.

    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

    All of these are questions of scope. You can explain emotions without neurons if that isn't within your scope. Include that as the scope however, and that because part of the causal chain. Flight in itself doesn't need the scope of the birds cells, but we can also increase that scope down to the birds wings. So far I'm not seeing an issue with what I've noted in the OP.

    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

    Seems, or is ambiguous? How exactly is it ambiguous so I can clarify if I've missed something.

    But here too, questions of essence verses existence remain. Why does one universe exist and not others?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. There is no X caused U, because U is everything. If you introduced X, X would be within U, and then the question would repeat, what caused X? This simplifies to "What caused U"? The answer is the same. Nothing. So I see no problem of underdetermination or Boltzmann Brain problems unless you can point out specifically why.

    Weak notions of cause will be the target of causal eliminitivists, and those with a broader notion of causation alike.Count Timothy von Icarus

    This is a statement, but I'm not sure how this applies to the argument.

    Thanks Timothy, I look forward to your follow up.
  • Count Timothy von Icarus
    3.2k


    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.'"

    But that definition of cause is precisely what people will reject, either the that all explanations and elucidations of "because" involve "causes," or that causes just involve temporal ordering (or both).

    Why can we only fully tile certain surfaces with certain equilateral shapes in certain patterns? Well, there seems to be a "because" here, and perhaps formal cause, but absolutely no notion of time is required. And some physicists like to explain physics in this sort of way. Time is just another dimension in a mathematical object.

    Likewise, whether a statue is a statue of our newly returned Augustus does not seem to be a relationship that is explained in terms of time, even if the causes of the actual physical statue involve time.

    Plus, many argue that time is just the dimension in which change occurs. No change, no time. But to then say that changes require time to exist is backwards. Time only exists because their are changes, and causes must explain change, which is at best simultaneous with time. That is, time is not a "container" that must first exist to contain changes.

    Then, on the eliminitivist side, they will say your notion of cause doesn't actually entail any sort of "because" at all. All you have is Humean constant conjunction. Yet if all explanations involve causes, and causes are just constant conjunction, then nothing is really explainable at all.

    Which maybe is where you might head anyhow, because there are two questions in play here. Why does the universe exist? A question of existence. And why is the universe the way it is? A question of essence or quiddity. It's the second question where problems like the Fine Tuning Problem(s) show up. A brute fact explanation for existence is one thing, but if it includes quiddity as well, then the ultimate explanation for everything, the Holocaust, baseballs, why anyone gets cancer, etc. is "it just is," plus or minus some potential quantum indeterminism. Everything is ultimately arbitrary. A problem? Perhaps.
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    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

    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.

    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

    Right, I answer both. There is no reason for the universe's existence. It is the way that it is, simply because it is. There is no fine tuning problem, unless you can point out specifically in the argument I make where that comes in.

    Everything is ultimately arbitrary. A problem? Perhaps.Count Timothy von Icarus

    Did you read the whole post Timothy? I go into meaning at the end and explain that no, everything is not arbitrary. Do you have an issue with the explanation I gave in the post?
  • jkop
    948
    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.

    My example, again, is that it takes spacetime for an origin to be possible, but if the universe includes a domain more fundamental than spacetime (i.e. from which spacetime emerges), then the universe is arguably without an origin.

    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

    So, compare what I'm saying above with what you're saying in this quote:
    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).
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    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

    It is because the argument does not require cosmology or physics. They are irrelevant to its point.

    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 seems like my point and yours coincide. Yes, meaning is found within the universe, not without.
  • jkop
    948
    It is because the argument does not require cosmology or physics. They are irrelevant to its point.Philosophim

    If your argument is not about the physical world, then what is it about?

    It seems like my point and yours coincide. Yes, meaning is found within the universe, not without.Philosophim

    Sure, meaning is found within the universe, but you also write that there is no prior causal meaning and:
    This means that anything could have beenPhilosophim

    I don't think it follows from an uncaused universe that anything could have been. Somehow spacetime, big bang, causal chains, organic life, flying baseballs etc emerge within a universe which is not caused by anything else. Unlike our juggling of words, there is relevant science which might eventually show us how that works.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    13.4k
    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.

    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

    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"?

    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

    I'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. On what principles would you decide whether there is intention behind this activity?
  • Bob Ross
    2k


    Hello again! I had some time to re-read the OP and give it the proper attention it deserves. Here’s my thoughts.

    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.

    I don’t have a problem with your definition of a cause; but the problem is you seem to equivocate it quite frequently. 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.

    Maybe I am misreading this OP, but I get the inkling that you are arguing—in various disparate spots—that the universe has no cause, it is self-caused, and it has a first cause. None of these are compatible with your claim that the universe just simply is.

    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.

    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'.

    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?

    In my mind, I thought originally you were claiming that the universe is just eternal and immutable itself with no cause.

    These are two very different conceptions.

    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.

    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).

    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.

    4. But what about a God?

    Yes, it is logically possible that a God could exist

    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.

    The only kind of God which would exist in your worldview here—dare I say—is a demi-god.
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    If your argument is not about the physical world, then what is it about?jkop

    Please indicate the part of the OP where you thought, "This is where cosmology and physics needs to be mentioned, even though the author never does." What was the idea that you got out of reading the OP? If I understand the conclusions you thought I was making first, then I can better answer your question.

    I don't think it follows from an uncaused universe that anything could have been.jkop

    I feel like I can answer this one. If something is uncaused, is there any reason for its existence? No. If something is uncaused, is there any reason for it not to exist? No. What outside of an uncaused universe would prevent that universe from existing? Implicit in your idea that, "An uncaused universe couldn't be anything," there is only one legitimate reason. That something outside of that universe would limit or prevent it from forming.

    You're still thinking in terms of caused universe. You're still thinking there is an X -> U, either through creation or restriction. There is no X. There is no creation, nor restriction. There is no push nor limitation. There simply is U. Can you think of an outside restriction on U that does not boil down to X restricts U? If you cannot, then there is no reason to believe in a restriction of what could have been.

    To also re-emphasize another point, there is a separation of understanding 'what is'. Once something is here, it is bound by what it is. If something forms with all the properties of an atom, its an atom. So things like the big bang are great studies of 'what is', but they can never explain anything as to why U exists at all. The only explanation that makes logical sense is that there is no explanation. We find meaning in terms of what is, not outside of what is.
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    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

    Then increase the scope to that. The specific intention of the people to build the factory was to build widgets. The point still stands.

    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

    By asking the being, looking at their notes, or listening to past recordings of conversations with others. I'm not sure why this is relevant however. Whether we personally know the intention or not does not make the intention that was actually involved in the creation any less real.

    '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'm saying its possible, but we need a reasonable example. I noted 'unconscious intention', but there's still a thinking entity behind it. The sun has no brain or thoughts. Sunrays are a byproduct of plasma in space. I don't think there is any intention from the sun, conscious or otherwise. Feel free to propose otherwise if you have a different thought. And still, if possible, I would like for you to explain why you think this is important to the OP's points. I haven't excluded or denied intention, only noted that it seems irrelevant to the point I've made. Can you point out where it seems relevant?
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    Thanks for visiting Bob! I know you'll give it a proper critique.

    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

    Correct.

    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

    They all argue for it, but have never rationally settled it. I argue for its logical certainty. Meaning after this, the debate is over, and we can think about what that means for our universe.

    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

    Almost. 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.

    In my mind, I thought originally you were claiming that the universe is just eternal and immutable itself with no cause.Bob Ross

    This is one of infinite possibilities, yes.

    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

    You can. U = a -> b ->c Why does it matter if the chain is really long? U = a -> b -> c -> a Why does it matter if the chain loops? U = infinite letters -> a -> b -> c -> infinite letters Why does it matter if it captures infinite?

    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. Or its always been. Either way, nothing made it into being or restricted what could have come into being. That is the only logical conclusion.

    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

    Correct. 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.

    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

    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.

    The only thing a God can't be is the prior cause of its own existence. Which if you think about it, makes sense right? If a God eternally existed, there is no outside reason why that God existed. There is no outer meaning for it. 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.
  • Count Timothy von Icarus
    3.2k


    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.

    I agree with Bob that you appear to be equivocating here, hence my confusion.



    Right, I answer both. There is no reason for the universe's existence. It is the way that it is, simply because it is.

    Right, that's exactly what I mean by "arbitrary."

    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.

    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. 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.

    This is probably ancillary, as I said though.
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    I agree with Bob that you appear to be equivocating here, hence my confusion.Count Timothy von Icarus

    How exactly am I equivocating in the argument? I don't see it from my viewpoint, and I can't see it from your viewpoint unless you point out where I'm doing it.

    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

    Its not ignoring it at all. Please point out in the post where the fine tuning problem comes in. If everything just is, and there's no reason for anything to have been or not been, there is no fine tuning problem. The fine tuning problem only comes about because there is a belief that there has to be some outside law or cause that would lead to a particular result. That without that law or cause, that event could not happen. If there is no outside causality for why the universe exists, then if it exists tuned as it is, that's what happened. Where am I wrong?

    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

    Of course. That's what it is to exist. The Universe is everything. It doesn't mean that there can't be other dimensions, or that it exists in a way that is currently foreign to us. But you can't exist and be outside of existence. Perhaps there are other 'universes' or things that exist separately from the total causality of our pocket of reality. But if the two ever met, then they would intertwine in causality. A God, if it ever interacts with this universe, is part of this universe.

    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

    People say a lot of things. If they have logic and reason on their side, great. But a lot of things that are said and believed do not have logic and reason on their side. A history or large number of people who hold such beliefs do not lend any more weight to their truth.
  • Bob Ross
    2k


    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.

    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? Also, if time is reduced to a real entity in the universe (like the big bang theory does), then wouldn’t there have to be aspects to the universe which transcend it (or at least are on par with it)?

    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

    This is incoherent. Either the universe arbitrarily came into being—which is what it sounds like you are saying here—and it came from nothing or it has always been: those are the two options for the position that the universe has no cause.

    If it “simply was not, then it was”, then you are saying—to be clear—that it there was nothing and then there was something; which is exactly to say that it poofed into existence from nothing. The reason most people won’t get on board with this is because it is absurd. Something cannot just poof into existence from nothing: there cannot be nothing and then magically something out of nothing.

    It simply was not, then it was. Or its always been

    Which one are you arguing for? These are two incompatible claims.

    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.

    Fair enough.

    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.

    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.

    . There is nothing the prevents a God from existing, then that God creating the rest of the universe.

    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. In #1, God wouldn’t be creating the universe; and in #2 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). In #2, only a demi-god could exist as a mere being among beings in the universe, who may have much greater being than we do.

    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

    That’s going to depend on your theological commitments. Just briefly relating this to my OP, if one finds arguments convincing that God is required to explain the universe, then there are better reasons, all else being equal, to believe God exists as the necessary and eternal being than positing the universe itself.

    Because there is no outside reason for any of those possibilities to exist or not exist. If it exists, it simply does.

    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. I am not sure what the argument is here. Going back to what I said earlier:

    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).

    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.

    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.

    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. No matter if the universe, in the standard sense, needs a cause or not; it will still be true that the totality of things has no cause itself—irregardless if there’s an infinite series of causes or a finite series that bottoms out at God. 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).
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    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

    Its one of many possibilities, but not a necessity. Just as something can exist without prior cause, so can it eventually end and another thing later exist without prior cause.

    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

    Oh, no problem! There is no prior cause which leads to a universe existing, so there is no prior cause which would lead to a universe not existing either.

    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

    No, there's nothing that entails that a God cannot exist. If a God exists, then it is part of the universe, but it could be that prior to the rest of the universe existing only a God existed. From there a God created the rest of the universe. But can a God be outside of the scope of everything? No. That's just a consequence of categories.

    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

    If you're describing a limited being as something that could create all the existence we are and experience, then what are we? =D A God would still be necessary in that universe for the rest of the universe to exist, as God would be part of the chain of causality. But even theists could never escape the question, "What created God then?" If you say, "There was nothing prior that created God, then you're in line with my point. The issue is that God is not separate from the scope of everything, and not necessary for the scope of everything to be, nothing is.

    Just briefly relating this to my OP, if one finds arguments convincing that God is required to explain the universeBob Ross

    Again, if a God is part of the causal necessity that explains the rest of existence, that's fine. But that has to be proven with facts and evidence, not philosophy. Because as I've noted here, a God is only one of limitless possibilities for the rest of existence. It could be a divine mortal being, or simply a big bang that appeared without prior cause.

    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

    I am not arguing that the universe had a finite or infinite starting point. I'm noting that it doesn't matter. In either scenario, if you increase the scope out to everything that exists U = finite or U = infinite regress and ask, "What caused this to exist?" you cannot find a cause outside of itself. Meaning that there is ultimately no necessary cause that there is existence at all.

    Any meaning or causality must be found within existence itself. There is no meaning or causality outside of existence that caused existence to be. That is the only logical conclusion we can philosophically conclude about the origin of all of existence.

    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

    Its not an equivocation, its a solid definition. Call it the capital U Universe or 'all of existence'. I felt I was pretty clear about expanding the scope to include everything, not just a part.

    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

    A theist? I'm not a theist and I already did! Its also just as likely that the Universe has no God and exists as it is as well. In terms of philosophical ontology, there is no way to prove any particular origin of our universe once this argument is understood. At that point, the only way to prove something like a God exists is with evidence within the universe itself. That has standards, can be questioned, and ultimately must be proved instead of believed.

    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

    Its not trivial at all. It reveals there are no necessary beings for a universal origin.
    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

    Sure, that is one out of an infinite number of possible origins. But its not philosophically necessary. That's the point. No origin can be philosophically proven as necessary, as it has just been proven that nothing is necessary.
  • Bob Ross
    2k


    I see what you are going for, but this entirely sidesteps the discussion of causality in metaphysics and ontology. When philosophers discuss whether all these things that exist are just infinitely causally related, self-caused, or have a first cause (or first causes); they are discussing the totality of what exists and how to explain them. You are jumping in noting something trivial, which is that irregardless of which philosopher is right the totality of existent things has no cause because that would include the first cause, self-caused things, or the infinite causality. No one disputes this, and this does not help further the discussion on whether or not causality is infinite, there are self-caused things, there are arbitrarily existent things, or/and there are first causes.

    For example, taking my OP, my argument for a first cause---assuming for a second it is valid---is equally compatible with your idea that reality itself is uncaused just as much as a person who believes that causality is infinite.

    EDIT: all your OP does, then, as far as I can tell, is forces the philosopher to be more precise with what they mean by the "reality" that one is trying to explain.

    I guess my question would be: how does this help resolve any of the debates about first causes, infinite causality, arbitrary causes, and the like? Is there something about this that I am missing?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.

×
We use cookies and similar methods to recognize visitors and remember their preferences.