The first idea in the mind of primitive man would have been the first concept. Impossible to narrow down from there. — jgill

Of course, in the absence of empirical evidence*1, it's scientifically impossible to specify the origin of ideas. But this is a philosophical forum, so I'm looking for informed speculations on how that emergence of sentience might have been possible in a world of evolving material forms & species. And I don't limit concepts to humans : animals may have pre-verbal ideas that they express behaviorally. Or to animals with brains : some brainless flatworms seem to have intentional behavior. No judging in this thread. Give it a free shot. :grin:

*1. Fossilization of brain, or other soft tissue, is possible however, and scientists can infer that the first brain structure appeared at least 521 million years ago, with fossil brain tissue present in sites of exceptional preservation. ____Wikipedia

If you want to continue the never-ending dialog about First Causes, please go back to the
A first cause is logically necessary thread : https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12098/a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary/p1

The topic of this thread is First Concept --- the original idea in a chain of material transformations --- which for the purposes of the OP, presumably occurred somewhere in the middle of the cosmic chain of causation, . . . . . . or perhaps at some point prior to the First Cause. :wink: ironic smilie

What empirical evidence could there be? Can anyone experience infinity?
It can be only conceived or deduced rationally. — Alkis Piskas

Infinity is not an empirical feature of reality. Like the concept of Zero, it is a sort of imaginary anti-reality. That's why scientists try to weed-out infinities in their calculations. It's also why I chose to eliminate discussions of unreal First Causes in this thread. The topic is First Concept. Do you have any philosophical bon mots to offer on that notion? :nerd:

Is infinity rational? :
If infinity were rational, it could be written in the form a/b, where a and b are integers. But, no matter what a and b are, a/b will always be finite. So, you could say infinity is irrational.
https://mathematics.science.narkive.com/jX1EK8QX/is-infinity-rational#:~:text=If%20infinity%20were%20rational%2C%20it,could%20say%20infinity%20is%20irrational.

But, as I showed, infinity is necessarily involved in the cause and effect chain. You cannot avoid it! — Alkis Piskas

I must have missed that showing. Probably because it is off-topic. But I'll accept that First Cause and Infinity/Eternity are related concepts, where FC defines a finite world of reason, and IE is an undefined imaginary notion beyond reason. :cool:

Infinity again. All roads lead to Infinity! — Alkis Piskas

Which is why forum threads about First Causes (infinity stoppers) inevitably lead to never-ending arguments about unknowable roads to nowhere, "world without end". :wink:

Do you mean that matter can be self-conscious? It is not even established that animals can be.
You really surprised me here, Gnomon! — Alkis Piskas

Now we're getting back to the topic of this thread! The implicit assumption of many posters --- not Gnomon --- is that Mind naturally evolved from Matter in accordance with the known laws of physics. If so, when, where & how did the First Concept emerge? :grin:

Aristotle thought the world was eternal in the past and future. A constant loop. But something kept the whole from falling into its parts or losing all its parts and hence ceasing. Some way the world can be understood rationally, however that is. But why does this imply there was a First reason or a Final reason for the whole? Again the loop. Reality keeps the world alive — Gregory

Yes. Aristotle, with no telescopes, had no reason to imagine a Big Bang beginning of the material world, so he assumed it was eternal. But then, his "substratum" (substance, matter) was known to be changeable & perishable. Hence, he concluded that it was not likely eternal itself, and must have been created from some sub-substratum (fundamental element). Anyway, he went on to postulate an un-caused First Cause to stop the infinite regression of causes.

But this thread is not about First Causes, or Final Effects. It's about the First Concept : the original light bulb in the chain of mindless material evolution. Do you have any ideas about when, where, & how that Initial Inkling emerged from Material Reality? :smile:


Eternal World vs First Cause :
Aristotle asserts that all things must come into existence from an underlying "substratum", which is a sort of essence of being. Then he argues that matter itself (the Aristotelian concept of matter) is the substratum of all things, so it must have either created itself, or been eternal.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/2281/how-well-did-aristotle-feel-his-belief-in-the-eternity-of-the-universe-was-estab

Assuming one accepts the law of causality --i.e. every effect has a cause-- trying to find the First Cause is simply a vain effort. The chain of cause and effect is infinite. And trying to find the start of infinity --or anything that infinite-- makes no sense. — Alkis Piskas

The premise that "the chain of Cause & Effect is infinite" is also an ungrounded assumption. Where's the empirical evidence for Infinity? "Vanity of vanities" : to count infinity on an abacus*1.

Anyway, the point of this thread is to avoid infinities, and to trace Cause & Effect only back to the First Concept within space-time. When & where & how did Matter become self-conscious enough to ask about its own origin? This is only a thought experiment, no material evidence required. :smile:


*1. Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher,
vanity of vanities! All is vanity.

What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done,
and there is nothing new under the sun.

Is there a thing of which it is said,
“See, this is new”?
It has been already
in the ages before us.

There is no remembrance of former things,
nor will there be any remembrance
of later things yet to be
among those who come after.
___Ecclesiastes 1:2-11

What empirical conclusion do you infer from the open-ended question of First Concept? — Gnomon
What do I infer? That lacking a lot of preliminary groundwork, mostly in establishing working definitions - though they be provisional and subject to change, pace Banno! - the question remains a non-sense question. That is, an attempt to make sense where there is no sense to be made. — tim wood

Are you inferring that there is no beginning or end to causation . . . or just to argumentation? On what basis? Did you participate in the First Cause thread referred to in the OP? Did you critique the "working definitions" that were presented there, to allow the postulators to make a change?

Are the causal assumptions of Empirical Science (natural laws) also non-sensical?*1 Are you assuming that a First Cause, at least 14B years before the invention of empirical Science, is an evidence-based, rather than reason-based question? If so, you missed the point of asking non-sensical hypothetical questions.

I agree with your assumption that First Cause is not a viable scientific question. But this is not a scientific forum. In any case, this thread is explicitly not about the First Cause question, but about the questioner. The one who conceives of such "open-ended" queries. :smile:


*1. The Assumptions on Which Causal Inferences Rest :
Statisticians commonly make causal inferences from the results of randomized experiments, but usually question causal inferences from observational studies on the grounds that untestable assumptions are required.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2346206

*2. Open-ended question :
An open-ended question is a question that cannot be answered with a "yes" or "no" response, or with a static response. Open-ended questions are phrased as a statement which requires a longer answer. They can be compared to closed questions which demand a “yes”/“no” or short answer. ___Wikipedia

Along with any reason for doing foolish philosophy. But one place a fool never sees a fool is in a mirror. I attest to this from my personal experience with mirrors. — tim wood

Who you callin a fool, fool? :joke:

Mirror reversal. That's why the famous philosopher Michael Jackson advised us to "talk to the man in the mirror". :cool:

Man in the Mirror
I'm starting with the man in the mirror
I'm asking him to change his ways
And no message could have been any clearer
If you wanna make the world a better place
Take a look at yourself and then make a change
https://genius.com/Michael-jackson-man-in-the-mirror-lyrics

Question: if the future need not resemble the past, why did you say a first cause needs a final cause. Your post seemed contradictory to me — Gregory

Not I, but the estimable David Hume*1, said that Cause & Effect is based on an unprovable assumption that there is a causal connection between Before & After. It's a non-empirical universal principle, that humans believe-in without hard proof, because past-experience-based-arguments allow philosophers & scientists to make predictions of the future, that would otherwise require prophetic powers. That faith in the reliable & predictable laws of causation is the basis of Aristotle's argument for a necessary First Cause. I'm pretty sure he was not aware of our 21st century notion of logical mathematical Natural Laws, but he seemed confident that Prior & Posterior are causally related. Are you?

However, Thomas Bayes showed that Past & Future are only Probabilistic related. So he devised a method for updating our beliefs with additional evidence*3. I suppose that we could now say that our Natural Laws are only statistically predictable within a margin of error :smile:

*1. Hume's Problem of Induction :
"A key issue concerning the plausibility of scientific arguments, which are inductive arguments (since they generate scientific laws from a limited number of observations) is whether we can prove the Future Will Resemble The Past Principle."
Philosophy Now magazine, feb-mar 2024.

*2. Natural Law :
Aristotle (384–322 bce) held that what was “just by nature” was not always the same as what was “just by law,” that there was a natural justice valid everywhere with the same force and “not existing by people's thinking this or that,” and that appeal could be made to it from positive law. . . . In contrast, the Stoics conceived of an entirely egalitarian law of nature in conformity with the logos (reason) inherent in the human mind.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/natural-law

*3. Bayesian Inference :
Bayesian inference . . . is a method of statistical inference in which Bayes' theorem is used to update the probability for a hypothesis as more evidence or information becomes available.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference

↪tim wood
:up: It is the classical drawing empirical conclusions from a priori premises.
Gnomon is asking what title should be affixed to this conversation. — ucarr
:chin: I guess the thread answered its own question? — Lionino

What empirical conclusion do you infer from the open-ended question of First Concept? Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to provide the empirical evidence to support your personal conclusion to the question of "where did ideas come from?". Did storks drop them down the chimney?

No, the title is still open to suggestions. I could have simply put a question mark in the Title register. But I can change the title if someone comes up with a better one. However, the question of "First Concept" is what I had in mind (a priori) for this discussion, as noted in my reply to Lionino above. Was there a First Idea, or was Ideation always a component of the material world? So many titles, so little time. :smile:

"What could we call it" refers to the first cause? First causes are typically called prime mover or unmoved mover in English. In Greek, it is/was typically called arhí (ἀρχή), meaning beggining, rule, even empire, and discussions about it predate Aristotle. — Lionino

No, "it" refers to the name of this thread. Don't overthink "it".

Aristotle's summation of causation was not presented as the first attempt to make sense of incessant change in the world. It was just an example of a well-reasoned approach to the metaphysical question of why the world just won't stand still. Reality might be easier to deal with if today was just like yesterday, no unexpected events to anticipate. But if there was no change from time to time, how did Philosophy Forum posters come to be? Are philosophical arguments eternal & infinite, as questioned in the OP?

After a long desultory dialog on the ancient First Cause question, I thought it might be fun (philosophically) to turn the reasoning around, and instead of assuming that there must be an original act of causation --- raising the possibility of an act of creation of something from nothing --- let's try to work backwards (timewise) from Now to the time-dated emergence of Sentience in a material world.

However you define physical Causal Evolution, follow the chain of Causation back, not to the absolute beginning of everything, but merely toward a reasonable explanation for the age-old Consciousness conundrum*1. Imagine a day without a thought, then due to some mechanical physical process, a day with an idea emerges. This tactic would avoid any supernatural "First" presumptions, by arbitrarily defining space-time as eternal & infinite. Hence, there would be no First, and no Final Cause, just consecutive differences in being, for no purpose that rational philosophy could reason out, but that empirical science can demonstrate.

Since the earlier FC thread, not the First or Last, had exhausted most arguments in favor of, or opposed to, the notion of a First Cause (creator?), maybe looking for a First Concept (knower) would give us a fresh angle of attack. That's why I entitled this thread "The First Concept", and not the First Act of Causation. If the primitive universe was totally mindless, at what point along the way did conceptual abstractions emerge from concrete reality? On the other hand, if Consciousness was intrinsic to the physical world from the beginning (Panpsychism), why did it take so long (14BY) for sentient beings to emerge?

Was the first Concept born in the brain of an upright ape, or was Awareness inherent in the universe from the beginning of Time (however you define that word)? Discuss amongst yourselves. :smile:


*1. The physical state of conscious conception :
The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining why any physical state is conscious rather than nonconscious.
https://iep.utm.edu/hard-problem-of-conciousness/

It has seemed to me that the effort involves supposing that an(y) artifact of language (e.g., about so-called first causes) has anything to do with physical reality. Recognize that it doesn't and the problem of reconciling irreconcilables evaporates. — tim wood

Along with any reason for doing philosophy. :smile:

a First Cause implies a Final Cause, produced by the operations of an Efficient Cause, working in the medium of a Material Cause — Gnomon
? — Lionino

Aristotle's Four Causes :
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/

Is there no end to dialogs about First Cause? Can these threads become infinite? — Gnomon
Ha ha! Its good to have a sense of humor about this. Always appreciate your contributions Gnomon. — Philosophim

Ho, ho, ho! Apparently, the answer to my rhetorical endless-dialog weary-query is "?". Some philosophical questions, once borne into being, just won't go away. I just found a new thread*1, on the same old timeless subject --- the beginning of beginnings --- asserting that the emergence of cause & effect space-time from Nothing (i.e. no space, no time) is logically impossible. But others take issue with that inductive*2 assumption, which Hume destructed. Some seem to postulate that the idea of "eternity-infinity" is thinkable, therefore logically plausible. So, brandishing our ironic swords, back to the cyclical-beginning we go again, once more, encore!

Since the assumption of incessant causation is of interest to posters on this forum, why not do like the astronomers in the 1950s did : from repeated observations of expanding space, they traced the evidence back to a point of no-further-evidence, leaving the Original Cause of expansion as an open question for feckless philosophers to waste spare-time on. So "once more unto the breach!", let's work backwards from the current observation of expanding-natural-sentience-into-artificial-intelligence, keeping our rational eyes peeled for evidence of the elusive space-time origin of thinking beings, from whatever source. Who wants to go first? :grin:

PS___I'm proposing a new thread with similar implications but different presumptions : a First Cause implies a Final Cause, produced by the operations of an Efficient Cause, working in the medium of a Material Cause. What could we call it? The First Concept? The god-who-shall-not-be-named inquiry?

*1. Creation from nothing is not possible :
This means that {in space-time} time is required for the act of creation. There is no time in nothing therefore the creation from nothing is impossible. {my bracket}
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14998/creation-from-nothing-is-not-possible

*2. Induction :
"assumes that the future will resemble the past"
Philosophy Magazine, Feb-Mar 2024

We might accept G.M D’Ariano's claim that particles are like "the shadows on the walls of Plato's cave," because universal fields and information have the ontological high ground, and still accept that these incredibly robust stabilities have a real ontic existence. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Plato's cave/shadow analogy distinguished between noumenal Ideality and phenomenal Reality, but some philosophers debate which is really real. Personally, I behave as-if the material reality (cave & shadows) is all around me, even as the mental realm (fire & illumination) is within me. Likewise, thanks to my BothAnd philosophy, I have no problem accepting the scientific evidence for an invisible universal mathematical field of potential (fire) that somehow engenders sub-atomic tangible particles of stuff that aggregate into the "real" milieu (cave) that allows me to "grasp" both things and ideas. :smile:

Correct. The series itself is not a first cause. The answer to the question, "What caused the infinite universe to exist?" is the first cause. Its, "Nothing". So once we reach that point, we've found our first cause. The infinite universe as a whole exists without something else causing it. — Philosophim

This is the old "Something-from-Nothing" argument. Raising the old "Why is there something instead of nothing?" head scratcher.

43 pages and counting. Is there no end to dialogs about First Cause? Can these threads become infinite? We can trace this particular thread back to an Original Post, but the Why Something? question must have pre-existed in human minds all the way back to ancient Greek philosopher's debates on "kinoúmenon"*1. Was that Initial Kinesis a phenomenon (thing) or noumenon (nothing)?

I don't have anything to add to this no-beginning-never-ending debate, except to give it an outlet to a side issue. I recently began reading Bernardo Kastrup's new book : Science Ideated, in which he defends his Analytic Idealism worldview (Panpsychism ; Cosmopsychism) against rival views, especially Materialism, e.g. "The “hard problem of Consciousness : The impossibility of explaining qualities in terms of quantities". Ironically, all these metaphysical conjectures about What Is Real?, ultimately raise the question about How Reality Began.

His cogently argued defense of an abstruse concept motivated me to look into Cosmopsychism, as an answer to Chalmer's challenge to Materialism. Thus inspired, I added a post to my blog. It begins with an enigma at the other end of the causal chain : How Does The Brain Create Mind?*2. But the reasoning about Reason eventually followed the logic of evolution back to the Big Bang. At which point Science is stumped, and Philosophy begins.

The blog post eventually gets back to the foundation of my own personal worldview : "Plato and Aristotle, in wrestling with the same essential questions, postulated several abstract entities : First Cause (creative agency), Logos (mind, reason), Prime Mover (energy, force), Form (design, structure), and Matter (that which receives Form)". So, why not combine all those hypothetical primordial forces into one universal agency of causation : the power to enform?

If these side-track questions are of interest to posters on this First Cause thread, I might be inspired to start a new thread on tracing Causation from First Spark down the evolutionary trail to the emergence of Inquiring Minds, who ask unverifiable open-ended questions ; taking the risk of sounding stupid or clever on a public forum. :smile:



*1. Unmoved Mover :
The unmoved mover (Ancient Greek: ὃ οὐ κινούμενον κινεῖ, romanized: ho ou kinoúmenon kineî, lit. 'that which moves without being moved') or prime mover (Latin: primum movens) is a concept advanced by Aristotle as a primary cause (or first uncaused cause) or "mover" of all the motion in the universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover

*2. How Does the Brain Create Mind? :
So, the “hard question” for Science is “how does it work?”. What are those special arrangements of matter that produce the experience of Qualia : e.g. Red or Pain? Can we take our experiences & feelings for granted, but deny their phenomenality ─ their knowable substance? What is the essence of experience? How do we produce imagery & feelings from a mechanical material brain?
http://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page14.html
Note -- Click where indicated by a pointer arrow to see hidden images.

Probability, not Certainty — Gnomon
So you are now saying Bayesian inference is only probably correct...? — Banno

Apparently, by snarky implication, you are trying to put words in my mouth. Below is my original reply to 's question. Do you have a better method for quantifying the feeling of "certainty" in an uncertain world? Empirical Science may be able to approach absolute Objectivity for physical questions. But it has no answer for moral dilemmas.

Obviously, the harsh answer to the OP is that we humans can never know anything with "100% certainty". But I took his question as a sincere search for something to assuage his feelings of trepidation, ambiguity & anxiety regarding the moral imperfections of the world. Perhaps, something to believe in. Hence the reference to Bayesian belief. Do you have a problem with Bayesian inference as a means to approach true belief for vexing questions? If so, tell it to TS. And quit trolling Gnomon. :joke:

from this thread :
Thank you for your reply "flannel jesus." How would I calculate what percentage of certainty I assign to things such as the objective existence of my body, other humans, non-human organisms, the Earth and the rest of the universe? — Truth Seeker
In the 18th century, Thomas Bayes developed a method for quantifying Certainty : it's called "Statistics". ---Gnomon

A Measurable Morality :
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14834/a-measurable-morality/p1

[quote="Truth Seeker;888964"]I cry about the fact that there is so much suffering, inequality, injustice, and death in the world. If I could, I would make all living things forever happy - including the dead ones and the never-born ones. I wish I could make all living things all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful then there would be no suffering, inequality, injustice and death.[/quote]
If you are a sensitive feeling person, I doubt that you will find comfort in Analytic Philosophy. And you are not likely to find the feeling of certainty in a Hegelian dialogue on fundamental questions, that has been going back & forth for ages. But maybe you can reach a resolution with the angst-inducing vagaries of the world in the aloof solace of Stoicism, or the self-reliant meaning of Existentialism, or the introspective mindfulness of Buddhism. :nerd:


Existentialism vs. Absurdism :
As Camus explains, individuals are able to gain a sense of satisfaction in life, in spite of its meaninglessness. Whereas existentialism accepts the possibility that we might create our own meaning through our goals and achievements, the absurdists deny that meaning can be found at the outcome of any rational endeavor.
https://www.culturefrontier.com/existentialism-vs-absurdism/

Thank you for the formula but how does that apply to my problems? — Truth Seeker

It's not a magic incantation. Bayes formula requires that you take the first step, with your best guess. Then you have to do the work of finding new evidence to support or deny your intuitive answer. It's pragmatic, not magic. It's subjective, not science.

Would you be satisfied with a statistical solution to your personal problems? As I said before, if you seek the feeling of certainty, Faith is the answer. Philosophy is not about certainty, but merely diminishing doubt. :smile:


Bayesian inference is a method of statistical inference in which Bayes' theorem is used to update the probability for a hypothesis as more evidence or information becomes available. Fundamentally, Bayesian inference uses prior knowledge, in the form of a prior distribution in order to estimate posterior probabilities. Bayesian inference is an important technique in statistics, and especially in mathematical statistics. Bayesian updating is particularly important in the dynamic analysis of a sequence of data. Bayesian inference has found application in a wide range of activities, including science, engineering, philosophy, medicine, sport, and law. In the philosophy of decision theory, Bayesian inference is closely related to subjective probability, often called "Bayesian probability".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference

↪Gnomon
So you are certain of that formula? — Banno

Because it begins with a subjective guess, the calculation will never produce 100% certainty. Here's Bayes' formula in the form of an equation — Gnomon

Probability, not Certainty :
Bayesian inference is a method of statistical inference in which Bayes' theorem is used to update the probability for a hypothesis as more evidence becomes available.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference

For an explanation supporting the reality of causation, I'm inclined to cite the second law of conservation: matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed. In conjunction with this, I'm inclined to propose that matter and energy are continually changing form and position via self-organizing dynamical systems across time and space. In a complicated way, causation is about shape-shifting. So, causation tells us our world is thoroughly networked. — ucarr

Your description of Causation sounds similar to my own thesis of Enformationism. It takes the Power to Transform (EnFormAction : energy + form + action) as the fundamental fact of the world. Physicists tend to refer to it as a Universal Quantum Field, from which all kinds of Matter may emerge. Like Energy though, EFA is not a material thing, but a dynamic Potential to cause changes in physical constitution and in metaphysical form : "changing form" ; "shape-shifting".

My unconventional notion of Causal Information can be traced back to quantum physicist J. A. Wheeler's "It from Bit" postulation. It's also indirectly related to Tegmark's Mathematical Universe hypothesis. In my blog posts, I often refer to EnFormAction (power to transform) as a "shape-shifter". And that concept of "changing form" is exemplified in Einstein's E=MC^2 equation of causal Energy with sensible mathematical Mass, which we experience as real tangible Matter.

This unorthodox mash-up of physics & metaphysics is hard to grasp, but once you get-it, that understanding of how the world is "net-worked" by Causation will explain a lot of philosophical mysteries. :smile:

Self Organization :
It is as though, as the universe gradually unfolds from its featureless origin, matter and energy are continually being presented with alternative pathways of development: the passive pathway that leads to simple, static, inert substance, well described by the Newtonian of thermodynamic paradigms, and the active pathway that transcends these paradigms and leads to unpredictable, evolving complexity and variety.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

The many forms of Information :
But the universal substance of reality might be called an Information Field, analogous to a Quantum field as an immaterial pool of potential.
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page29.html

The EnFormAction Hypothesis :
That neologism is an analysis and re-synthesis of the common word for the latent power of mental contents : “Information”. “En” stands for energy, the physical power to cause change; “Form” refers to Platonic Ideals that become real; “Action” is the meta-physical power of transformation, as exemplified in the amazing metamorphoses of physics, whereby one kind of thing becomes a new kind of thing, with novel properties.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

↪Gnomon
Can you show me the calculation, please? — Truth Seeker

The linked article in my post describes the procedure for calculating the statistical probability of a personal belief. Other than objective evidence or blind faith, that may be as close to "certainty" as you can get to logical truth. Because it begins with a subjective guess, the calculation will never produce 100% certainty. Here's Bayes' formula in the form of an equation. :smile:

Thank you for your reply "flannel jesus." How would I calculate what percentage of certainty I assign to things such as the objective existence of my body, other humans, non-human organisms, the Earth and the rest of the universe? — Truth Seeker

In the 18th century, Thomas Bayes developed a method for quantifying Certainty : it's called "Statistics". :smile:

Bayesian probability :
Broadly speaking, there are two interpretations of Bayesian probability. For objectivists, who interpret probability as an extension of logic, probability quantifies the reasonable expectation that everyone (even a "robot") who shares the same knowledge should share in accordance with the rules of Bayesian statistics, which can be justified by Cox's theorem.[3][10] For subjectivists, probability corresponds to a personal belief.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability

...as I've learned from Gnomon, causation is believed but not yet proven. — ucarr

I would questionwhat you mean by 'not proven'. Without causation all of science and reason goes out the window. If causation is gone, then I can't say you typed your reply to me. "You" didn't cause it. And that's absurd. — Philosophim

Perhaps Gnomon can elaborate so rules of inference governing formal proofs not yet satisfied by reasoning about causation. — ucarr

Hey, I'm just accepting David Hume's reasoning, about the universality of cause & effect. I'm not an expert in these matters, so you can argue with him.

Today, we associate the word "Energy" with physical changes in the world. Yet it is defined, not as a physical thing, but as an "ability" or "capacity" or "efficacy" or "potential" which are no more empirically provable than "causation". Personally, I take predictable physical determinism for granted, for pragmatic reasons, and make no attempt to prove it, logically or empirically. I assume that's what Hume meant by "certitude". :smile:

David Hume & the Theory of Causation :
Causation describes a cause-and-effect relationship, where one thing causes another to occur. However, Hume argued that causation is not always empirically sound because it cannot be proven because experiences are subjective and flawed.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/the-metaphysics-of-causation-humes-theory.html

David Hume: Causation
Once more, all we can come up with is an experienced constant conjunction. Of the common understanding of causality, Hume points out that we never have an impression of efficacy. Because of this, our notion of causal law seems to be a mere presentiment that the constant conjunction will continue to be constant, some certainty that this mysterious union will persist. Hume argues that we cannot conceive of any other connection between cause and effect, because there simply is no other impression to which our idea may be traced. This certitude is all that remains.
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-causation/

Is it ever possible to actually 'prove' causation? :
You can prove 'causation' with respect to one context and one event but never on a universal canvas of time where you can explain all things at the same time. You will necessarily make some assumptions. So proof of 'causation' will come with that baggage of unexplained assumptions.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-ever-possible-to-actually-prove-causation

What I presented comes from Deacon. — ucarr

The phrase --- "Do you reject the belief causation resides within dynamical systems of self-organization phase-shifted across ascending levels of organization towards effects?" --- is over my head. So I can't agree or deny. If you say so, I'll assume it makes sense to Deacon. :smile:

Is it correct to say you see causation -- structurally speaking -- as a generalization in parallel with the specific energy-and-change relationship with respect to an invisible agent that causes transformation from one state-of-being to another state-of-being? — ucarr

Again, above my pay grade. But yes, as I understand Causation, the agent of "transformation" is invisible, and is knowable only by inference from observations of state A (before) and state B (after) the physical changes noted. The "invisible agent" is called by various names by scientists : energy, inertia, mass, photon, potential, etc. When a cue ball hits a stack of billiard balls, some unseen something seems to have been transferred from the moving cue ball to the stationary eight ball. We still don't know what-it-is, in material terms, but we do know a lot about what it does, its physical actions & reactions.

In my personal thesis, I follow the implications of cutting-edge physics --- which is also over my head --- to draw philosophical inferences about Causation, Transformation, and Information. The term "information" originally applied only to ideas in a human mind. But now it is being used to describe all kinds of Transformations*1. Physicists tend to think of physical Energy as fundamental, but some philosophers view Information as the primitive of Causation*2. Studies of complex systems, such as biological entities, have been enhanced by treating Information as an analog of Energy*3. So you can call that "invisible agent of transformation" Energy or Causation or Information or Spirit, depending on the context, and your own proclivities. :nerd:


*1. Does Energy = Information? :
Energy is a mysterious force that causes things to move. Energy is not information but it is required to transfer information
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-nature-of-energy-a-philosophical-perspective.122587/

*2. What is information? :
Information philosophy extends that study to the communication of information content between material objects, including how it is changed by energetic interactions with the rest of the universe.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/

*3. Complexity, Entropy & the Physics of Information :
They connect the natural sciences to the science of computation, and they characterize the emergence of classical physics from the quantum realm in the early universe.
https://www.sfipress.org/news/complexity-entropy-and-the-physics-of-information

I'm recalling from memory you citing Hume re: causation. The gist of your point is that causation, in his view, is an inference from observed patterns of apparently connected changes in states of being within the world. His conclusion, as reported by you, states that the concept of causation stands upon empirically-derived impressions of the world. In closing, you said these impressions are generally understood to fall short of a proof of the concept of causation. — ucarr

I would prefer that you quote the assertions you are responding to. I don't remember exactly how I worded the comments on Hume's causation. But I wouldn't say that "the concept of causation stands on empirically-derived impressions". Empirical typically implies recorded & confirmed scientific evidence. But up until Hume's day, the notion of Causation (by some invisible entity) was taken-for-granted by most people, as a reasonable-but-untested inference from sensory observations. Therefore, Hume was philosophically & scientifically critical of that presumption.

The connection between sequential causal events (what we now call Energy) was invisible & intangible. There was no discernible difference between the putative "cause" and the presumed "effect". And 17th century Natural Philosophy had no formal concept of Energy, but the ancient notion of Spirit persisted. So he, not I, said the commonsense belief in Causation --- perhaps as a manifestation of heavenly Spirit acting in the world --- "falls short of" empirical proof. Where Kant spoke of "consult not experience", I'm guessing he was referring to what we now call Empirical Science. :smile:


David Hume & the Theory of Causation :
Hume's theory of causation states that causality is formed from the relationship between two impressions or ideas in the mind. However, because knowledge comes from experiences, assumptions of causality are intrinsically flawed and cannot be proven.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/the-metaphysics-of-causation-humes-theory.html

Kant and Hume on Causality :
And as the first imagination or invention of a particular effect, in all natural operations, is arbitrary, where we consult not experience; so must we also esteem the supposed tye or connexion between the cause and effect, which binds them together, and renders it impossible that any other effect could result from the operation of that cause. . . .
Thus, although Kant does not explicitly mention Hume in Dreams of a Spirit-Seer, the parallels with Hume’s Enquiry are striking indeed
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-hume-causality/

Do you reject the belief causation resides within dynamical systems of self-organization phase-shifted across ascending levels of organization towards effects? — ucarr

Could you rephrase that question in more conventional terms? Or explain your terms in more detail. For the record, I don't deny Causation; but I do think it's a mental inference, not a spiritual force, in the world. Instead, the term Energy now covers physical actions that used to be attributed to Spirits.

If we apply Hegel's idea to philosophy at large, it is not idle talk at all but the necessary ingredient for a dynamic development of ideas. — Pez

Yes, but not just ideas. The point of Hegel's (Plato's) dialectic is that logical & physical contradictions (competing ideas & forces) --- in isolation --- are not just false, but stagnant*1. Yet contradictions, when synthesized by physical stresses or social debate or philosophical dialogue, can be progressive. In fact, some thinkers have concluded that all emergent evolutionary processes are dialectic in method*2.

Physical evolution opposes Positive & Negative forces that push & pull on matter, resulting in adaptive changes in constitution. Likewise, Metaphysical evolution opposes contrary ideas & beliefs, in order to adapt them to new situations*3. Hence, in effect, synthetic Philosophy is metaphysical evolution, winnowing & harmonizing obsolete beliefs, in order to get us Closer to Truth*4. :smile:

*1. Dialectical Evolution of Truth :
Dialectic in Classical philosophy is denoted as a form of discussion that takes place between two entities; it is the logical reasoning and a form of a method through which the introduction of proposition and counter proposition is practised while the main aim of the debate remains the same, that is reaching an objective truth through this course. Much of the prestige and role is deserved by the classical philosophers Socrates and Plato in the evolution of the Dialectic method.
https://unacademy.com/content/upsc/study-material/philosophy/dialectical-method/

*2. Physical & Historical Evolution are Dialectical Processes :
Darwinism is Hegelian dialectics applied to biology — or you might say that Hegelian dialectics is Darwinism applied to history.
https://evolutionnews.org/2020/09/darwinism-as-hegelian-dialectics-applied-to-biology/

*3. Evolution of Truth :
Our understanding of the truth is constantly evolving.
https://evolutionoftruth.com/

*4. Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a more complete whole system.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

A first cause is self-existent though. I think that's the problem he has. He doesn't like the idea that there was nothing, then something. What I'm trying to show him is that an eternally self-existent thing is no different. There is nothing which explains its being. No limitations on what could have been besides the fact of its existence. — Philosophim

According to the worldview of Materialism, "nothing" is non-sense. And, since the physical world does exist, it must have always existed in some form or other. Also, how or why it came to be is not an empirical question, hence more non-sense. If there is nothing to explain its existence, then it's provenance is a matter of Faith, or Reason.

Ancient Materialism (e.g. Atomism) was a hypothetical solution to a philosophical question. But sensible modern Materialism seems to be primarily an alternative to religious answers to "Why?" questions*1. Apparently, it assumes that philosophy is impotent (decorative) to answer any questions about Reality. Hence Ideal notions, such as "something from nothing", are literally nonsensical, since we cannot sense nothingness. And from the perspective of modern Materialism, non-sensible is non-sensical.

Although you seem to be trying to evade the implication of "spiritual beings", by limiting the discussion to logical reasoning, not religious doctrine, even your First Cause is --- by definition of Materialism --- un-real, and non-sensible, therefore implausible. In Materialism, what is Real, is what is sensible*2.

Ironically, modern science postulates several causal features of reality that are logical inferences instead of sensory observations. For example Energy is the universal cause of all changes in the world, but we never detect the Energy per se, we only infer its logically-necessary existence from after-effects in material objects. Likewise, the notion of electric or quantum Fields is a logical inference from observation of changes in the material world*3. How that universal or local field came to be --- "popped into existence" --- is irrelevant for pragmatic Science : it just is, and it works.

Those invisible and intangible features of Reality, are accepted because they allow us to predict physical behavior. But most of those predictions are logical extrapolations from known rules of Nature. And how do we know those regulations of physical behavior? By rational inference, as expressed in terms of a> philosophical Epistemology, or b> scientific Natural Laws, or c> religious Supernatural beliefs. None of which are empirical observations, but unlike First Cause, some do have practical applications in the Real world.

The First Cause is simply another inference from logical necessity. But is it Real? Of course not. It's Ideal. A belief, not a fact; just like an unexplainable quantum Field --- Scientists like to think it's a fact, "because it works". The Prime Mover only works in the beginning of world-making, not during its mundane operations. Like Plato's world-creating Craftsman, the First Cause does its work, then disappears into the work itself as ongoing Causation : e.g. Energy. :smile:


*1. What is the metaphysical theory of materialism?
In general, the metaphysical theory of materialism entails the denial of the reality of spiritual beings, consciousness and mental or psychic states or processes, as ontologically distinct from, or independent of, material changes or processes.
https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/materialism/v-1

*2. Sensible :
a> based on or acting on good judgment and practical ideas or understanding
b> practical and functional rather than decorative.

*3. Is the Quantum Field real? :
For generations, physicists argued whether those quantum fields were actually real, or whether they were simply calculational tools. Nearly a full century later, we're certain that they're real for one unambiguous reason: they carry energy.
Note --- Both QF and Energy are logical inferences, not observations

Provenance :
a> the place of origin or earliest known history of something.
b> the beginning of something's existence; something's origin.

A lot here but very interesting. It does remind of Hume's argument that we do not observe causation, just a sequence of events, but we impose it on to the experience, more or less conceptually. — Gary Venter

Gravity (pulling action without material connection) was a mystery to Newton, and a mathematical/logical concept to Einstein. His immaterial notion of causation may be related to his incredulous "spooky action at a distance" characterization of quantum entanglement, which involves sharing Information. In the 21st century, scientists have correlated Causal Energy with Knowable Information*1. :smile:

*1. A proposed experimental test for the mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
A recent conjecture, called the mass-energy-information equivalence principle, proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy and exists as a separate state of matter.
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/sci/article/2022/9/091111/2849001/A-proposed-experimental-test-for-the-mass-energy

Physics has no theory of how matter can warp space-time. . . . the quantum field is what is fundamental and that in itself actually creates space through informational effects. — Gary Venter

What is warped by Gravity is not just space, but Space-Time, which seems to include everything in the universe ( Space : matter ; Time : energy ). The quantum fields (17 types???) are not material objects, but Mathematical/Logical relationships between infinite "quantum oscillators" --- whatever that is. For my own philosophical purposes, I imagine the Quantum Field as Aristotle's eternal Potential, which when Actualized into space & time (matter & energy) becomes everything in the world that we can sense (i.e. Reality). :nerd:

a lump of matter is built up from something pretty non-material. . . . they are waves of information — Gary Venter

Einstein's E=MC^2 equation related invisible Energy and mathematical Mass to a dimensionless logical constant, which together we humans experience as Matter. Plato also related "rational principles" (Forms) with the creation of physical matter. Was he on to something, that took centuries to be expressed in a simple T-shirt equation? :joke:

conscious potential . . . the essential nature of matter and consciousness are the same — Gary Venter

Your comments remind me of my own Information-based philosophical worldview. We seem to be thinking along the same lines.

My personal thesis, Enformationism, postulates that the essence of physical Matter & Energy, and of metaphysical Consciousness, is the Principle of Potential that I call EnFormAction (power to give form to the formless). That's similar to Plato's First Cause (Form), and Aristotle's Prime Mover (Energy).

I'd like to compare notes, to see where you got your ideas about Quantum Physics & Information. Mine probably originated in John A. Wheeler's 1989 "it from bit" conjecture. :grin:

Let me give you an example. Lets say that space has always existed. What caused space to always exist? Nothing. Therefore space is a first cause. It is something within causality that itself was not caused. So no, an eternal universe does not preclude a first cause. Why is the universe eternal opposed to not? What caused it to be that way? Nothing. — Philosophim

seems to be reasoning from the assumption that the physical universe --- space-time, matter, energy --- could possibly be self-existent, hence no need for a First Cause or Creator. If so, the postulated Multiverse would be either infinite in parallel, in the sense of Many Worlds, or a serial re-incarnation of a single self-existent 'Verse.

On the other hand, ancient thinkers, such as Plato, Aristotle, Taoists, and Torah writers, seemed to assume that a perishable world (Death follows Life) of serial causation could not be self-existent*1. Even Plato's less-than-perfect workman --- demiurge --- follows a pre-existing plan. So, they reasoned that some non-perishable outside force or principle was necessary to jump-start the world of cycling causes & effects*2. Some postulations for The Eternal Creative Principle were : Forms, Logos, Tao, and the nameless eternal creator of Genesis*3. :smile:


*1. Craftsman vs Creator :
‘The nature of things’ examines Plato's understanding of the natural world. In the Timaeus, Plato describes the creation of the world as work done by a divine Craftsman, who does the job by reference to a model — a system of rational principles. The real world is not, as we uncritically take it to be, the world around us that our senses report to us; it is rather what we grasp in thought when exercising our minds in abstract philosophical argument, in particular arguments which lead to what Plato calls Forms — the Forms which function as patterns for the Craftsman as he makes our world. . . .
Plato's God is a workman who does the best he can with the materials he has to work with; he creates order from chaos, but he does not create the original materials from nothing.
https://academic.oup.com/book/391/chapter-abstract/135200895?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Note --- In this scenario the demiurge obtained his materials from the principle of Chaos, which was merely Generalized Potential (Causality), but not organized into Matter or Energy. So the Prime Cause must include both Potential (power, energy) and Plan (laws, designs). Neither of which correspond to the mundane energy & matter of the physical world.

*2. On the First Cause :
"Our Stoic philosophers, as you know, declare that there are two things in the universe which are the source of everything — namely, cause and matter. Matter lies sluggish, a substance ready for any use, but sure to remain unemployed if no one sets it in motion. Cause, however, by which we mean reason, moulds matter and turns it in whatever direction it will, producing thereby various concrete results. Accordingly, there must be, in the case of each thing, that from which it is made, and, next, an agent by which it is made. The former is its material, the latter its cause." ___Seneca, Stoic philosopher
https://monadnock.net/seneca/65.html

*3. Nameless First Cause :
The Tao [Way] that can be told of is not the eternal Tao; The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The Nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth; The Named is the mother of all things.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780191826719.001.0001/q-oro-ed4-00006490

I'm not sure about the universe as a whole, but physics is giving up on causation in the physical sense - a lot now is more like logical causation. In general relativity, a big mass, like the Earth, curves space, and that gives the illusion of a force of gravity, but there is no such force in physics anymore. And there is no mechanism for how the mass manages to curve space. Similarly in quantum mechanics, the Schrodinger wave equation does not let the electrons in an atom collapse into the protons in the nucleus, even though no force is created to oppose the electrical attraction pulling them in. How does an equation accomplish that? Sounds more like logical causation to me. — Gary Venter

Exactly! What we call "Causation" is not a physical or mechanical Force, but a logical inference from observation of sequential physical changes.

Your post metaphysically caused me to question how Matter can produce the sensed Effect we call "Gravity". Einstein's E=MC^2 formulation implies that the Energy constituting a physical object can be transformed (somehow) into intangible mathematical Mass, which we sensibly experience as Gravity. Similarly, the Brain (somehow) processes neural Energy into the metaphysical Experience we call "Mind". Chalmers was posing an equivalent question of Causation in asking how a lump of matter could produce the intangible-but-sensible*1 effect (feeling) we call "Mind". Is it magic, or physics, or metaphysics?

For the same reason, I conclude that the First Cause of the on-going changes in our world is not a physical force, but a metaphysical Potential with Actual physical effects. Aristotle provided a philosophical definition of the "Potential" principle*2. :smile:


*1. Sensible :
Sensible heat is literally the heat that can be felt.
https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Sensible_heat

*2. Aristotle's Potential Principle :
Matter is the potential factor, form the actualizing factor. (Aristotle further posited the existence of a prime mover, or unmoved mover, i.e., pure form separate from matter, eternal and immutable.)
https://www.britannica.com/topic/potentiality
Note --- Today we might call that "actualizing factor" of Causation the Power to Enform, i.e. Information. Matter is the substance acted upon, but EnFormAction is the cause of all changes.

I'm asking if work towards finding a proof is more appropriate for the philosopher than for the scientist. — ucarr

What kind of "proof" --- for a "metaphysical issue" --- would you expect to find, as a philosopher? Can we send a philosophical space-probe back in time to find the empirical First Cause of the Cosmos? Can a valid logical argument prove the truth (existence/reality) of a metaphysical belief?

Mathematical "proof" is simply logical consistency (derived from true premises), and Empirical "proof" is based on abundance of non-contradictory physical evidence. Philosophical "proof", though, is a logical argument that is accepted as true in a convinced mind. But when two philosophers argue, the discussion can go-on indefinitely, without reaching a mutually satisfactory conclusion. So, I would say that finding slam-dunk proof --- for a Prime Mover --- is in-appropriate for mathematicians & scientists & philosophers.

For example, in Science Ideated, Bernardo Kastrup argues with two philosophers on the metaphysical existence of Consciousness : a process or qualia, not a physical thing. One argues that "consciousness doesn't happen, it's a mistaken construct", And the other says, "our introspective systems monitor these neural processes but misrepresent them as a simple quality". Have any of these thinkers proven anything? Is your belief or disbelief in your own personal Awareness based on objective evidence, or on personal experience --- the very non-thing in question? :smile:

PS___ First Cause arguments are mathematical/logical in that they are true only if the premises are true. Unfortunately, in this special case of reasoning, the First Cause is also the Premise in question.


Can you prove anything in philosophy?
It's a common misconception that you can prove whatever you like in philosophy. In reality, it's hard to find completely convincing arguments which conclusively establish some conclusion.
https://www.quora.com/Can-you-prove-anything-in-philosophy

Is it ever possible to really prove anything in philosophy? :
Richard Rorty saw philosophy as a tool that you used to solve problems. He agreed that you couldn't definitively prove things in philosophy
https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/12rjpo9/is_it_ever_possible_to_really_prove_anything_in/

What is the best evidence or proof for metaphysics? :
Metaphysics means what is “after” or “beyond” physics. So almost by definition, is outside the domain of physical evidence.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-best-evidence-or-proof-for-the-existence-of-metaphysics

Do you assess this lack of proof as a metaphysical issue? — ucarr

Only if it leads to false beliefs. Most of the time, correlation is "close enough for government work". But technically, in logic and statistics, conflation of correlation with causation is a fallacy. In complex situations, other factors may disguise the "true" cause {see stork/baby image}. :smile:

Gnomon Reply to LFranc in this thread :
"Therefore, in this thread, we are ultimately arguing about a metaphysical principle*2 to explain all changes in the world. So, if we track all physical changes back to the Big Bang, and stop, we have merely defined the First Effect, not the First Cause."

Correlation often, but not always, implies Causation :
It is certain, that not only in philosophy, but even in common life,we may attain the knowledge of a particular cause merely by one experiment, provided it be made with judgment, and after a careful removal of all foreign and superfluous circumstances. Now as after one experiment of this kind, the mind, upon the appearance either of the cause or the effect, can draw an inference concerning the existence of its correlative; and as a habit can never be acquired merely by one instance; it may be thought, that belief cannot in this case be esteemed the effect of custom. ___David Hume
https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/551312/who-first-coined-the-phrase-correlation-does-not-imply-causation

I think you missed the point of my philosophical distinction between inferred Belief (certitude) in a Cause, and a scientifically-proven Fact of the Agent (bacteria) of an Effect (meningitis). The footnote gave the context*1. David Hume defined the concept of Causation as an inferred mental relationship, not a physical thing*2. — Gnomon


You and Hume characterize causation as deduction? — ucarr

Well, technically, Deduction from data*1 is just one way to understand Change in the world. It begins with observation of a general principle ((transformation ; metamorphosis) and subtracts (abstracts) everything that is not consistently associated with observed Effects. When Induction and Abduction also agree on the Deduction, we can be pretty sure that the Cause and Effect are correlated by some transformational Principle, that we call "Causation" --- or in some cases "Agency". And yet, due to the limitations of data and reasoning, mere Correlation of variables does not prove Causation. We could be missing something.

Aristotle called that agent of change "Morphe" (form). Other ancient thinkers used the term "Spirit" to label that invisible causal Agency, but moderns tend to use the term "Energy" or "Power". Now, in the 21st century, another term has been applied to describe physical Transformation : Information*2 --- or as I call it in my thesis : EnFormAction*3 (the power to transform). The bottom line here, is that Causation is not something we can see or touch or dissect physically. But we can analyze it by means of Reason. Hence, the agency of transformation must be rationally inferred or deduced. :smile:

*1. Deduction of Causation :
There are three types of causal reasoning: deduction, induction, and abduction. Deduction is the use of data and arguments to come to a guaranteed conclusion. Induction is when conclusions are drawn based on a limited set of data.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/causal-reasoning-definition-examples.html

*2. Energy :
Scientists define “energy” as the ability to do work, but don't know what energy is. They assume it's an eternal causative force that existed prior to the Big Bang, along with mathematical laws. Energy is a positive or negative relationship between things, and physical Laws are limitations on the push & pull of those forces. So, all they know is what Energy does, which is to transform material objects in various ways. Energy itself is amorphous & immaterial. So if you reduce energy to its essence of information, it seems more akin to mind than matter.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*3. EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

I prefer the Hartle-Hawking No Boundary Conjecture² instead. — 180 Proof

I can see why Hawking's spherical universe "conjecture" fits your Immanent belief system better than the Big Bang theory's exploding pin-point (Singularity) imagery. To each his own.

I suspect Hawking was merely echoing Einstein's god-like description of the universe --- as seen from outside --- imagined as a four-dimensional sphere : "finite" in volume, but "unbounded" in topology. That imagery suited his mathematical purposes, just as the counter-intuitive Block Time (eternalism) model illustrated his concept that our perception of dualistic Space (matter) & Time (energy) is merely a common-sense interpretation of monistic Space-Time. But, my layman's philosophical purpose & preference is different from Einstein's genius mathematical intention. :smile:

GOD'S {and Einstein's} VIEW OF HIS FINITE BUT UNBOUNDED CREATION


COSMOLOGIST'S MODEL OF BIG BANG

After going to the doctor with mild symptoms, you're told your spinal column is infected with pneumococci bacteria. Since it's believed this infection causes spinal meningitis, you're advised to immediately undergo an aggressive program of antibiotics within the intensive care unit. Explain why you wouldn't dismiss this diagnosis as uncertain causal-belief-not-fact and go home untreated, or would you go home? Would you go home untreated, betting on fact-based-mind-over-uncertain causal-belief? — ucarr

I think you missed the point of my philosophical distinction between inferred Belief (certitude) in a Cause, and a scientifically-proven Fact of the Agent (bacteria) of an Effect (meningitis). The footnote gave the context*1. David Hume defined the concept of Causation as an inferred mental relationship, not a physical thing*2. Correlation does not prove Causation. If you don't agree, you can argue with Hume. From that philosophical perspective, the First Cause is an abstract concept, not a white-haired old Deity with a magic touch. :smile:


*1. What does Hume say about causality? :
Hume argues that we cannot conceive of any other connection between cause and effect, because there simply is no other impression to which our idea may be traced. This certitude is all that remains. For Hume, the necessary connection invoked by causation is nothing more than this certainty.
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-causation/

*2. Causation is a relation between objects that we employ in our reasoning in order to yield less than demonstrative knowledge of the world beyond our immediate impressions.
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-causation/

First, we should point out that, not only the first cause but any cause is supposed to be necessary.
But this necessity kills causality itself: it's actually a problem in Spinoza's works that you probably already heard of. Since the cause cannot not produce the effect, it means the effect already lies in the cause somehow (and it means that time is a kind of illusion for Spinoza but that's another matter).
But then: how can the cause produce an effect, since the effect already exists?
Therefore, nothing can really be produced, and this kills causality. Or rather, it shows that causality is contradictory: causality can exist thanks to the absence of causality, and vice versa. That, of course, is a very short presentation of this subject (source: Brief Solutions to Philosophical Problems Using a Hegelian Method, Solution 10) — LFranc

David Hume addressed the philosophical Causation Problem by noting that, in Physics there is no Causation, only Change*1. Yet, the human mind attributes the Power of Causation (potential) to some unseen force. By the same reasoning, there are no Laws or Logic in the physical world. But the human mind seems to inherently "conceive" of consecutive Change as the effect of some prior physical input of Energy. It's a Belief, not a Fact.

Hence, for both Physicists and Philosophers, Causation is logically "supposed to be necessary" --- to explain an observed Difference --- even when the original impetus is not empirically observable : e.g. First Cause of all change in the world. Therefore, I suppose that "the Effect lies in the Cause" in the sense of Aristotle's Potential. Which again, is a metaphysical concept, not a physical force or object. Likewise, Einstein's "space warped by gravity" is a metaphysical concept, which some imagine to be an empirical observation. Consequently, philosophers need not expect to have their belief about Causation confirmed by empirical evidence. We can only argue about the plausibility of the logical inference from difference, n'est ce pas?

Therefore, in this thread, we are ultimately arguing about a metaphysical principle*2 to explain all changes in the world. So, if we track all physical changes back to the Big Bang, and stop, we have merely defined the First Effect, not the First Cause. :smile:


*1. What does Hume say about causality?
Hume argues that we cannot conceive of any other connection between cause and effect, because there simply is no other impression to which our idea may be traced. This certitude is all that remains. For Hume, the necessary connection invoked by causation is nothing more than this certainty.
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-causation/

*2. Metaphysical Primacy :
Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the fundamental nature of reality. This includes studies of the first principles of: being or existence, identity, change, consciousness, space and time, necessity, actuality, and possibility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

↪180 Proof indicates his prejudicial opinion that there can be nothing outside of space-time. {how do he know?} — Gnomon

I did not claim or imply this.

As I've stated in several of our exchanges, Gnomon, my metaphysical position more or less agrees with Spinoza's: there is no "outside of space-time" (or "beyond" with "possibilities") insofar as nature is unbounded in all directions (i.e. natura naturans is eternal and infinite) ... just as there is no edge of the Earth off of which one can fall, no north of the North Pole, etc.

Stop making up sh*t. :sweat: — 180 Proof

OK. I'll let you speak for yourself. Contrary to my interpretation, you're saying that "there can be something outside of spacetime?" Yes or No? After you have corrected my understanding of your metaphysical position on space-time vs eternity question, please answer the questions below.

If I mis-interpreted your Immanentism position on the all-inclusive, no exceptions, expanse of space-time, I will apologize in this thread. But you would have to either reject the Big Bang theory outright, or explain the obvious implication of a time before space-time --- i.e. beyond the scope of scientific evidence. Unfortunately, unless you have slam-dunk & drop the mike evidence or argument, that discussion might require a new thread of its own. In any case, your earthbound "north of north pole" argument*1 is irrelevant to modern philosophical & cosmological conceptions of Space-Time.

Do you think Stephen Hawking was "making up sh*t" when he said that "Time . . . had a beginning"*2? Do you accept that a sequence with a beginning must have an end --- not to mention a First Cause? Do you agree that beginnings & endings are set boundaries, that logically imply possibilities beyond the boundaries*3? Was Hawking spreading "woo-woo"?

My metaphysical position also generally agrees with Spinoza . . . but with one scientific objection : in the 17th century, he plausibly assumed that "deus sive natura" was eternal, hence unbounded. But 20th century science found evidence to contradict that presumption*4. Which concept of "space-time" is compatible with your "metaphysical position" : 17th or 20th century? Again, I ask {how do he know?} :smile:


*1. How valid is "What is North of North Pole?" argument? :
"It is not an argument. It is an (imperfect, as always) analogy." ___Victor Toth
https://www.quora.com/How-valid-is-What-is-North-of-North-Pole-argument

*2. The Beginning of Time :
The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. ___Stephen Hawking
https://www.hawking.org.uk/in-words/lectures/the-beginning-of-time

*3. Did spacetime start with the Big bang? :
In particular Roger Penrose has developed a view that the period since the Big Bang should be called an aeon, and that there were earlier aeons each infinitely long. This makes the Big Bang a kind of transition period between two aeons.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5150/did-spacetime-start-with-the-big-bang
Note --- This is not my view. Simply an expert's opinion/conjecture that the BB had a precursor. He may be "making up sh*t", but he has pristine math to back it up.

*4. Immanence in Space & Time :
As a prime example of a transcendent conception of space in this paper, Isaac Newton’s theories of space will be discussed as well as the mathematical framework within which Newton developed his physics: Euclidean space. On the other hand, as a role model for an immanent conception of space, Einstein’s general relativity will be analyzed as well as the geometry that lies behind this theory: Riemann’s differential geometry. . . .
Unlike transcendent conceptions of space, in which space provides a super-structure for the organization of bodies and events that change over time, immanent conceptions of space do not rely on the presumption that space exists prior to bodies.
https://www.performancephilosophy.org/journal/article/view/146/262

This is what I think 180 Proof failed to understand. He's an intelligent person, but I believe was convinced the argument was trying to say something it wasn't. The major struggle I've had in this OP was getting people break free of the"first cause is a God" argument that has been locked in debate for decades. It can be hard to shake for some. My hopes were to get both atheists and theists to see that we're missing an incredible point in the midst of the overwhelming concern about proving/disproving deities. — Philosophim

In his smirking reply to my post above --- "possibilities that go beyond space-time" --- indicates his prejudicial opinion that there can be nothing outside of space-time. {how do he know?} That working hypothesis may be necessary for the purposes of Empirical science, but it is self-limiting for the explorations of theoretical Philosophy. That would be like Columbus assuming the conventional belief of the era, that there is nothing over the horizon to the west of Europe.

That space-time-is-all presumption may be a convenient position for a confirmed Immanentist, but may also be a self-imposed blindfold for someone who is not so sure that what-you-see-is-all-there-is. Ironically, what 180 is missing, due to his no-god prejudice, is that the OP says nothing about going beyond the bounds of space-time to find a First Cause. It even specifically warns against "Infinite causality", which some might identify with a biblical god. So, I'd be interested in his astute argument for-or-against the notion of a logically necessary First Cause, for a chain-of-events that is integral-with and directly-connected to the physical sequences of space-time*1. In other words, a Self-Caused sequence, or Spontaneous Generation. Did our world have a First Cause or merely a First Step?*3

Many cosmologists have concluded that our bubble of space-time is bounded by a mysterious energetic beginning and an evanescent entropic ending*2. Some have postulated that the Big Bang was not an explosion from nothing into something, but merely an expansion of some pre-existing matter squished into a dimensionless mathematical Singularity. So, the experts disagree on the necessity for a First Cause, versus a resurrection from a previous incarnation of an un-caused (self-existent) eternally-cycling Multiverse. The M-verse has some basic characteristics of a traditional god, but presumably it's merely a cosmic mechanism without Consciousness or Entention. Sort of like a driverless taxi.

Is it possible to ontologically understand the Big Bang theory without considering a context of "possibilities that go beyond space-time"? :smile:



*1. Big Bang Self-Caused?
The Big Bang was the moment 13.8 billion years ago when the universe began as a tiny, dense, fireball that exploded. Most astronomers use the Big Bang theory to explain how the universe began. But what caused this explosion in the first place is still a mystery.
https://www.amnh.org/explore/ology/astronomy/how-did-the-universe-begin

*2. Beginning of Time :
The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. ___ Steven Hawking
https://www.hawking.org.uk/in-words/lectures/the-beginning-of-time

*3. Space & Time are Matter & Energy :
That makes Matter = Energy; Energy = Space; Space = Time. Therefore matter, energy, space and time are all interchangeable characteristics, which implies strongly that they are all forms of one thing.
https://alasdairf.medium.com/are-matter-energy-time-space-all-interchangeable-e2dbf7d411e5
Note --- Space-time is not a real thing, but the concept entails both Matter and Energy. Without Matter, there is no Space. Without Change, there is no Time.

Handshakes across the aisle. — ucarr

Thanks. Speaking of philosophical aisles :

It seems to me your argument misses a significant distinction: 'that there is first cause' & 'what the first cause is'; "there is no limitation on what the first cause is', not in reference to 'that there was a first cause'. — 180 Proof
I'm now expressing big gratitude to 180 Proof. He's done a superb job fulfilling my request. I now believe his statement above detects a fatal flaw in my argument. Philosophim has claimed there is no limitation on what a first cause can be. At the opposite end of the spectrum, he has claimed there is a conclusive limitation on that a first cause can be: logical necessity. — ucarr

is much more knowledgeable of Philosophy than I am. But his worldview & belief system (Immanentism ; p-Naturalism) has an inherent limit that precludes consideration of some logical possibilities that go beyond space-time : his "conclusive limitation". I suspect that you might agree with that physical barrier, while disagreeing with the implied logical limitation : Abstract Reason can go (in imaginary scenarios) where no material body can go. The human Mind can project (fantasy or logic) into the Future and into the Past, in order to learn about otherwise unknowable possibilities : e.g. Arthur C. Clarke, 2001 A Space Odyssey*1.

In this thread, I never got the impression that you were arguing for any specific kind of First Cause (What), but merely reasoning about the logical necessity for something to kick-start the chain of Causation (That). The OP poses the question in generic (X or Y) & abstract (infinite prior causality) terms. So, I don't think 180's "distinction" really applies to this thread. He may be filling-in the "X" with a god-model of his own imagination.

When says that there is "no limit" on what the Cause of Being might be {see PS below}, he's merely admitting that we are speculating about a state & event that is empirically unverifiable (no known rules), but logically plausible (rules of reasoning) : for example -- the Multiverse conjecture tries to have it both ways : Eternal Laws of Nature, and Unlimited Causal Energy (i.e. no Entropy).

Nevertheless, for the purposes of an amateur forum, we can reasonably conclude that a contingent world (big bang beginning) requires a prior Cause of some kind (infinite ; recursive?), without taking the next step of identifying specific characteristics (loving, merciful?) of that Cosmic Causal Potential*2. However, space-time does place physical limits on "how causality functions". So, most causal conjectures are eventually forced to go beyond the physical barrier into the realm of Pure Reason .

Some anti-first-cause arguments attempt to refute "Logical Necessity" and Metaphysical Necessity with alternative definitions and modalities. But Philosophim also offers Mathematical Necessity. So, take your choice : Physical Limits, Logical Limits, Mathematical Limits, or anything goes. All human reasoning has inherent limits, beginning with our physical senses and motives. :smile:


*1. 8 predictions Arthur C. Clarke got right decades ago
https://www.cnet.com/pictures/8-predictions-arthur-c-clarke-got-right-decades-ago-pictures/3/

*2. "Because there are no other plausibilties to how causality functions, the only {logical} conclusion is that a causal chain will always lead to an Alpha, or first cause". — Philosophim

*3. "I'm a p-naturalist¹ and thereby speculatively assume that aspects of nature are only explained within – immanently to – nature itself by using other aspects of nature, which includes "consciousness" as an attribute of at least one natural species." ___180 Proof
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/867837
Note --- The First Cause speculation is not about any particular "aspect" of Nature, but about all aspects of Nature : the Cosmos as a whole living (dynamic, if you prefer) system that was born and is fated to die. Who or What caused this system of Causation?


PS___ 2 years ago : If a first cause is necessary
" Understood, but my argument counters that. If a first cause is logically necessary, it is not necessary that it be a God, because a first cause is not bound by any prior rules of causality for its existence." — Philosophim
I agree. That's why I refer to the philosophical Principle of First Cause or Necessary Being by various alternative names, including "BEING". But most people would equate those names with their own notion of "God". Which is why, for a while I spelled it "G*D", in order to indicate that it's not your preacher's notion of deity. Instead, it's what Blaise Pascal dismissively called "the god of the philosophers". Others call it simply "the god of Reason". That's what's left when you strip Religion of its traditional mythology & social regulations & emotional commitments. The power-to-exist is essential to living beings & non-living things, and is fundamental to philosophical discourse. It's the unstated premise of every assertion about what-is. So, I try to deal with the elephant-in-the-room head-on, instead of pretending it doesn't "exist" in conventional reality. ___Gnomon

You have said: "... before first cause, nothing."
How do your descriptions of the inception of first cause have anything to work with other than nothing? — ucarr

I think you are sincerely trying to grasp an Idealistic worldview*1 that is radically different from your own Materialistic worldview*2. {pardon the pigeon-holing} Both are Metaphysical concepts created in philosophical Minds. Each perspective has developed a peculiar vocabulary of its own. So, you may think that Gnomon's worldview is Idealistic (no thing), and in direct opposition to Materialism (no thought). But my Enformationism worldview is not so easy to pigeonhole, because it is moderated by the Holistic BothAnd approach to understanding the Things of Reality and the Non-Things of Ideality.

Application of the BothAnd Principle*3 requires one to look at both sides of any Either/Or argument as-if they are merely qualitative aspects of an inclusive holistic comprehensive worldview. But it doesn't mean that you have to ultimately accept one side or another. Instead, its goal is 3D stereoscopic vision : attempting to approximate a god-like understanding of Everything Everywhere All-At-Once, yet without the power of omniscience. So, that ballpark conjecture may appear to straddle the conceptual gap between the polar opposites, like the Colossus of Rhodes.

For example : I just read this passage in Bernardo Kastrup's Science Ideated : "What seems to be beyond Coyne's ability to comprehend is that the dualism between mind and matter he implicitly relies on . . . . doesn't exist. To an idealist like me, there is no brain or matter outside or independent of mind. Instead, the 'material' brain is merely the extrinsic appearance, in some mind, of the inner mentation of (some other) mind." I understand the words, but I cannot imagine that bodies & brains are imaginary --- unless the image is in the Mind of God, which is itself a recursive idea in my mini-mind. So, it's also beyond my ability to imagine a world in which my own body is imaginary*4. My power of abstraction is not that omniscient.

Therefore, I can't grok Exclusionary Materialism (no mind) or Absolute Idealism (no matter). My body & brain seem to automatically "see" the world in terms of material phenomena. Yet, my brain-functions are able to Abstract the matter away, and to treat its logical structure (noumena) as-if it is a real thing. So, I can only make sense of that Metaphysical Duality by reminding myself that the "Map is not the Terrain". From that perspective, I can enjoy the pristine idea of a Mind, and the messy reality of a Brain. And I can imagine an abstract-logic First Cause, without leaving my idea-causing Brain behind. :smile:

Note --- The hypothetical "as-if" means an imaginary situation or a situation that may not be true but that is considered likely or possible.

*1. Idealism :
As an analytic idealist, Kastrup proposes that consciousness is the ontological primitive, the foundation of reality.
https://danielpinchbeck.substack.com/p/analytic-idealism-a-revolutionary

*2. Materialism :
Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions of material things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

*3. Both/And Principle :
# My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
# The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to offset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system. In a philosophical sense, all opposites in this world (e.g. space/time, good/evil) are ultimately reconciled in Enfernity (eternity & infinity).
# Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.
# This principle is also similar to the concept of Superposition in sub-atomic physics. In this ambiguous state a particle has no fixed identity until “observed” by an outside system. For example, in a Quantum Computer, a Qubit has a value of all possible fractions between 1 & 0. Therefore, you could say that it is both 1 and 0.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

*4. Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person believes in two contradictory things at the same time.

IS IT POSSIBLE TO BELIEVE (dueling) IMPOSSIBLE (incompatible) CONCEPTS?