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? — Bob Ross
The result means that it is philosophically impossible to conclude that any of these ideas are necessarily existent or impossible.
The only way to discover if something was infinitely or finitely regressive is to actually discover this using science.
Anything could have been possible, but what actually happened can only be discovered by looking at our universe and determining by fact how it did.
Why? I don't see how that follows from the OP. — Bob Ross
The scientific ontological argument is still on
Is it the big bang? A God that made a big bang? Etc.
The different is it requires evidence, reason, testing, and confirmation
Try it. Try to show that any particular origin is philosophically necessary if the OP is true and see if it works.
1. Ceteris paribus, it is correct that two or more things are equally probable if those things equally have no explanation for their existence; however, the probability of one or the other changes given our understanding of the universe. — Bob Ross
2. Philosophy does not engage in merely pure reason; and so ontology and metaphysics certainly is engaging in reasoning based off of empirical evidence (to some large extent) and this is perfectly valid for it to. — Bob Ross
Science can't determine if the universe is just an infinite relation of causality, has a first cause, etc. because in principle there is no scientific proof which can be afforded; — Bob Ross
The different is it requires evidence, reason, testing, and confirmation
This is true of the vast majority of philosophy. — Bob Ross
What do you mean by "philosophically necessary"? — Bob Ross
In my OP, e.g., I am considering actual impossibility as that modality relates to an infinite series of composition. — Bob Ross
Are you saying if a first cause, infinite series of causes, etc. cannot be proven to be logically necessary then it must be outside the purview of philosophy? — Bob Ross
Philosophy is more often then not the logical construction of concepts. Science is the test and application of those concepts
But there is no philosophical discovery at that point. There would be the discovery of whether there was a first cause, or infinite regress.
The only logical conclusion is that we cannot know.
If the OP is correct, then you cannot prove it to be impossible.
This would entail that science is philosophy at its core, but is a specific branch that expands on how to understand the nature of things; and so science vs. philosophy is a false dichotomy. — Bob Ross
We still have up for grabs whether or not an infinite regress of causes is absurd; whether a first cause is arbitrary; whether a self-cause is incoherent; whether …. — Bob Ross
the theist says there must be a first cause to explain the totality of these things which exist, and you come around and point out that God + those things is now the new totality which is uncaused—this is a mute point (by my lights). — Bob Ross
Ontology and metaphysics is largely not about a priori proofs; and so they have not been primarily about arguments from pure logic or reason. — Bob Ross
No, your OP does not entail that an infinite regress vs. a first cause of composition is equally probable: it demonstrates that irregardless of which one we think is most probable because the whole of things we posit (which includes that regress or first cause) cannot have a cause itself. — Bob Ross
My point stands that there can be no conclusion to what necessarily must be the origin of the universe without finding direct evidence.
By reason, the OP proves that none of them are absurd or incoherent. No prior cause means no limitations
…
Its not moot at all because I demonstrate that their claim to God is no longer necessary, and that it has no more reason to be the origin then any other origin someone else can think of.
The conclusions I've put forward are from pure logic and reason. Can you demonstrate at what point my conclusions aren't?
Again, try it. Put something forward that demonstrates a necessary origin and refutes the conclusions of the OP.
The more I think about it, I think you are right that this argument—if I am understanding it correctly—is an a priori style argument; for you are noting that reason dictates that irregardless of if there is a first cause, infinite causality, etc. that the totality of what is real must be uncaused. — Bob Ross
1. The totality of what exists could have a first cause, be self-caused, etc.
2. The totality of what exists, being such that nothing can exist outside of it, must be uncaused.
3. Therefore, whether or not the totality of what exists has a first cause, is self-caused, etc. are all equally probable. — Bob Ross
And if it cannot have a prior cause itself, what does that logically lead to next? The realization that no origin is necessary for existence or can be impossible. If I say, "X origin cannot be possible," there is a reason prior why it would be impossible. Is there anything prior which could make it impossible, then of course it would mean there was a prior cause. A cause not only tells us what is possible, but also impossible. — Philosophim
1. Per se contingent beings lack the power to exist themselves.
2. An infinite series of contingent beings all lack the power to exist themselves.
3. Therefore, it is impossible for the cosmos to be an infinite series of contingent beings.
4. Therefore, there must be at least one necessary being. — Bob Ross
First, I'm not using the phrase, "The totality of what exists" in the argument. I'm saying the entire scope of causality.
And if it cannot have a prior cause itself, what does that logically lead to next? The realization that no origin is necessary for existence or can be impossible. If I say, "X origin cannot be possible," there is a reason prior why it would be impossible. Is there anything prior which could make it impossible, then of course it would mean there was a prior cause. A cause not only tells us what is possible, but also impossible. — Philosophim
If anything could happen, and there is no cause which would make any one thing be more likely than the other to happen, then they all had equal chance of happening.
We can invent the concept of an infinite set of contingent beings. But that set is not contingent on anything else.
Well, that’s a huge difference! An argument that the totality of what exists has no cause is true (trivially) because any cause—be itself caused or not—would be included in such totality; however, that the totality of caused things has no cause does not follow these lines of thinking—for an uncaused thing would be outside of that totality. — Bob Ross
Either way, nothing is equally probable in the sense you described; for either the ultimate cause explains itself (viz., is contingent upon itself) or there is an infinite series of sufficient explanations. — Bob Ross
The set itself of contingent members is just a bunch of contingencies abstracted into a set: the set is not a necessary being. — Bob Ross
No, the uncaused thing would be the limit inside of that totality.
Anytime you get to a point in which there is something which has no prior causation for its being, then it is outside of causality.
I am glad you said this, because this was what I was going to point out in the other thread discussion we are having, as I wasn’t sure if you agreed or not. If there is a first cause, then it has no prior causation for its being; so, by your own logic, it resides outside of the totality of causal things (viz., outside of causality). Your argument in your OP you said is arguing that there is no cause for the totality of causal things and that a first cause would be in that totality; but this contradicts what you just said above.
Your argument in your OP you said is arguing that there is no cause for the totality of causal things and that a first cause would be in that totality; but this contradicts what you just said above.
Where am I wrong?
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...
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.
We're close. The point I'm making is the philosophical ontological argument is now complete. The only logical conclusion is that the entirety of existence has no prior reason for its existence, and therefore could have been anything. No philosophical proposal is necessary ontologically, therefore there is no more debate or consideration.
The scientific ontological argument is still on. Is it the big bang? A God that made a big bang? Etc. The different is it requires evidence, reason, testing, and confirmation. That is outside the realm of philosophy. Try it. Try to show that any particular origin is philosophically necessary if the OP is true and see if it works.
Arguments from brute facts in cosmology are almost always extremely ad hoc. Yours is no exception. — Count Timothy von Icarus
No doubt, if Penrose's hypothesis for why the entropy of the early universe was so low, or any of the others, was borne out by more evidence and became the consensus opinion of cosmologists, it would not make sense to rebut the new theory by stating: "no, it's just is. No explanation is possible." — Count Timothy von Icarus
Consider: if new stars appeared across the sky tonight that clearly spelled out "Allah is the greatest," would that be evidence of a creator? Well, on the brute fact view the emergence of the new stars, and the timing of their light reaching Earth, is all just the result of brute fact laws and initial conditions. If the advocates of such a view are consistent, they will declare: "We cannot assume that this happening is any more or less probable than anything else, since the laws and initial conditions just are, for no reason at all." — Count Timothy von Icarus
Do you not see how "well other people might not have logic and reason on their side, because people sometimes have irrational beliefs," is not a good response to: "We reject the premise of the univocity of being." — Count Timothy von Icarus
A. Cosmologists are in no way unanimous that the universe even has a begining. Cyclical theories are still posited. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Space and time do not exist prior to creation. God is not in space or time. God is not a being. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Sure, you are correct. Provided that we accept that "it just is, for no reason at all," is as good an explanation of things as any other, this would indeed render any other explanation "unnecessary," and imply that there "[should] be no more debate or consideration." After all, such an explanation can be proffered for literally anything we might inquire about. — Count Timothy von Icarus
U1 = A -> B -> C
U2 = infinite regress -> C
If there is a first cause, F, then it would be outside of the set of causality. — Bob Ross
If you were to say something like “why F has no reason for its existence: it is necessary”, then you would be correct; and there’s nothing about it that is similar to an infinite regress: a regress would entail that there is an infinite series of sufficient explanations. — Bob Ross
I think you think such an infinite series of sufficient explanations doesn’t have a sufficient explanation because you are invalidly abstracting out the entire series and treating it like an object. — Bob Ross
Considering the first cause would be the first part of causality, A -> B, isn't A part of the set of causality?
But what I'm doing is looking at the entire set. In the case of U1, the first cause is the first part of the set. So when I ask, "What caused U1?", the answer is that the first cause existed without prior causation, then caused other things
How is my abstraction invalid?
How is my abstraction invalid?
Let’s call the set of caused things C, the set of all things A, a first cause to C F, an infinite circularity O, a self-cause of C S, a necessary cause of C N, and an infinite regression R. — Bob Ross
The debate in metaphysics, ontology, which your OP claims to solve, is about C not A. — Bob Ross
What you are doing is conflating A with C. You are noting that irregardless of who is right about how causality works, the totality, A, of all things is uncaused; and this is trivially true and has nothing to do with the debate. — Bob Ross
A being that is uncaused is something which is real and lacks any explanation for its existence; whereas a set of real things is not itself real and lacks the ability to require any explanation in the first place — Bob Ross
Thusly, if we say that R is A — Bob Ross
You didn't need to introduce a new set, as everything was in the U1 and U2 sets.
…
U1 = A -> B -> C
U2 = infinite regress -> C
…
This is the set of all causal relations in the the universe Bob, not set of all things.
I'm noting that if you extend the causality to its entire scope, you will reach a point where it is inevitably uncaused
A set of infinitely regressive causality could itself be just as real and lack any explanation for its existence as a set of finite regressive causality.
But I am not saying R is A, so I don't think this applies. Remove A from the notion, which I am not including, and I'm not sure my abstraction is invalid. Try again without A being involved and see if your claim still holds.
Your idea of U just muddies the waters, since you are trying to argue that ontologically we can determine that all causal things are uncaused by way of abstraction of the totality of caused things (C). — Bob Ross
A set of infinitely regressive causality could itself be just as real and lack any explanation for its existence as a set of finite regressive causality.
The members would be real, the set would not; and your argument depends on the set itself being treated as real like its members. Again, and to which you never responded, the members sufficiently explaining each other makes the entire set sufficiently explained; and, thusly, the set itself is not uncaused in the sense of causing the members. — Bob Ross
The knowledge of the infinite regress does not make the entire set of causality sufficiently explained. What caused that particular set of infinite regresses?
Sometimes you say you are talking about the totality of caused things, and then say it is the totality of what exists. Which is it? — Bob Ross
EDIT: in other words, asking "is C caused?" presupposes that C could be a caused thing which would entail it is not C but rather a member of C (viz., it is not the set of caused things but, rather, a caused thing that is in that set). — Bob Ross
I am talking about the scope of causality that encompasses all things. You cannot talk about the totality of call causes without the totality of all existence
In the case of an infinite regress of causality, the scope would be capturing everything causally
In a finite set we ask, "What caused A to be?" and there is no prior causality
Another way to answer this is, "The first cause is explained by itself." "An infinite set of causality is explained by itself."
Again I think the infinite set is the only issue you have. Lets say we have one universe A that is a set of causal interactions between diamonds.
'C' is the scope of all causality. And yes, when you extend the scope of causality out, we ask the last question, "What caused all of this other causality to exist apart from what we can discover?" And the answer IS inside of C
So, is your answer that you are talking about A and A = C? — Bob Ross
In the case of an infinite regress of causality, the scope would be capturing everything causally
But this isn’t true for a first cause, F, of C; such that if there is a first cause then C != A. — Bob Ross
In a finite set we ask, "What caused A to be?" and there is no prior causality
This “A” that you refer to here—which is an existent thing and not a set—cannot be a member of C if it is uncaused. — Bob Ross
Sets are not caused—ever. The members of the sets may be caused. Again, you are conflating sets with real things. Sets are not real. — Bob Ross
1. The Gem God would not be a member D; nor is the Cobalt God a member of T. — Bob Ross
There is no situation in this case where anything that exists is uncaused. Your response is: “but what about the set itself?”. The set isn’t real. It is not a real thing which is caused or uncaused. — Bob Ross
E.g., if T is an infinite regression of caused cobalt, then the reason each cobalt exists is explained by the previous leaving no room to need to explain anything else. — Bob Ross
It can’t be the case that F causes C and that F is a member of C — Bob Ross
You're the one who introduced A, not me. :)
The scope captures everything causally because C != A. I've never claimed that it was equal.
Yes it can, because one of the answers to something causally is that it is uncaused. You seem to be putting this answer outside of causality, when I'm noting its one of the answers.
We're in complete agreement that sets aren't real. I'm just using it to give a better understanding of what I was trying to get across
"What caused existence period?"
They are part of the causality of that universe, therefore they are part of the scope of causality in that universe.
"What caused existence at all?" Can you answer that question Bob?
What caused universe 1 to exist instead of universe 2 once you go up the causal chain within that universe?
The answer is not that F causes C. Its that C is uncaused.
"What caused existence?" You didn't reply to this very specific question from the last post Bob, so I think you're avoiding it to refocus on the sets that I've already told you are just a tool to convey this notion
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
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. — Philosophim
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. — Philosophim
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. — Philosophim
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.