Please explain how "scope" attached to "existence" differs from "scope" attached to "causality." — ucarr
When I introduce "uncaused" in the next sentence, I don't put the word into your mouth. I ask you a question about whether self-caused and uncaused are the same thing. — ucarr
I believe possibilities exist only as abstract thoughts within the mind of a thinker. I therefore think that with non-existence there are no thinkers and thus no possibilities. — ucarr
How did non-existence connect with existence if they have nothing in common? — ucarr
An eternal universe concept avoids this question because under its auspices, there has never been non-existence, nor has there ever been an origin of existence. — ucarr
I inadvertently mislead you due to a typo. As shown above with the strikethrough of "external" and "eternal" beside it, I show that my intention was to say "eternal" not "external." — ucarr
Time begins to exist when the universe begins to exist?
Time is non-physical in the sense of an emergent property of physical things in motion observed? — ucarr
This observation is an inhabitant of the abstract thinking of the mind? — ucarr
Given "It simply was not, then it was." how does the inception of universe reconcile itself with the symmetries of its physics and their conservation laws? This is a question asking how do mass, energy, motion, and space incept in the wake of non-existence. — ucarr
In our expanding universe, the symmetry of energy production/consumption alternates so that the total supply of energy of the universe stays balanced at zero. This means that the total supply of energy is conserved. The total volume of energy neither increases nor diminishes overall. — ucarr
At, X time
sec the big bang theory says no laws of physics exist. Does this mean there are no symmetries and conservation laws prohibiting expansion in the wake of non-existence? — ucarr
Those are rather sweeping statements. As it happens, I do believe that the grasp of, insight into, what is truly so is attainable and is the proper subject for philosophical contemplation. — Wayfarer
What is objective is understood to be just so, independent of your or my or anyone’s ideas about it. ‘Reality’, said Philip K. Dick, ‘is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.’ — Wayfarer
The point is, for all of its objective power, science also contains a fundamental lacuna, a gap or an absence, at its center. How, then, can we expect it reveal what is truly so? What kind of ‘truth’ are we left with, if we ourselves are not part of it? — Wayfarer
"There is a logical limitation as to the form of that which could have been, or can be, but there is no limitation to the number of forms that can be via emergence." — punos
What i am essentially saying is that reason (logic) is the basis for the universe in any form it takes. — punos
This primordial time had no cause, as it is the reason for cause. — punos
Language, which posits things performing actions, cannot apply to non-existence because it allows no language and its concepts. — ucarr
The not-doing of un-causation allows unlimited possibilities and therefore, we see logically that un-causation within non-existence devoid of causation is equivalent to no restrictions and unlimited possibility. Looking from the opposite direction, in symmetry with un-causation we see that where there is the doing of causation, there is restriction based upon the attributes of the things caused. For example, within our universe there is entropy such that operational systems go forward toward increasing disorder; things gradually fall apart over time. This is a restriction such that we don't see randomly increasing order. The dropped egg shatters into disordered parts; the shattered egg doesn't reverse direction and reassemble itself. Causation produces contingent things; in our world of contingent things with specific attributes, restrictions abound. — ucarr
What's pertinent to our debate is the fact that the unlimited possibilities of un-causation produces no actuation of those possibilities as real, operational things. Causation does that. The critical question posed to your theory is how causation enters the chain of events extending from non-existence to a causal universe filled with contingent things. — ucarr
Enclosing causation within the universe does nothing to solve the problem because un-causation logically prior to the universe has no power to actualize possibilities. — ucarr
"Uncaused" universe is just a word game that paints over the truth of "Uncaused" universe, another something-from-nothing argument. — ucarr
Repeatedly pulling a card from a deck over a large number of times with the jack appearing at a frequency predicted by the mathematically calculated probability distribution is a confirmation of the logic and the accuracy of the calculation. — ucarr
Therefore, saying "...if uncaused stands outside the causal universe, then likewise un-causation stands outside the causal universe." nonetheless keeps un-causation in application to both caused and uncaused. — ucarr
Our rule of No restrictions restricts us from restricting shoes to ones without cleats." — ucarr
I argued that description of a thing limits that thing to the specification of what it is. If someone describes you as being human, we know, without seeing you in person, that you're not one thousand feet tall because we know humans never attain to that height. This demonstrates that by describing you as being human, we apply limits to what your height can be. This, therefore, is a limit to what you are based upon the description of you. — ucarr
It's possible for no-design to be a design if a person intentionally allows a thing to be configured randomly. — ucarr
If there's unlimited potential, then that too can be construed as a design in the sense of an unlimited number of possible limits upon what universe emerges. — ucarr
Drawing an ace instead of a jack examples what happens based upon the total number of cards in the deck and the total number of each type of card. — ucarr
Someone's mind is required for the logical possibility to exist. — ucarr
Do you believe there exist real things that are impossible? One conceivable example is a sign that shows a circular triangle. It expresses circular triangulation. Can you draw this sign and directly present it to me here? — ucarr
Do you believe the scope of causality equals existence that encapsulates everything that is? — ucarr
What is sensory input to you? — MoK
You are talking about consciousness here. How consciousness is possible if we accept that only the physical exists and the physical intrinsically unconscious? — MoK
The Hard Problem of consciousness is the philosophical question of how physical processes in the brain give rise to subjective experience. — MoK
That only means that there is a correlation between neural processes in the brain and experience. The correlation does not necessarily mean that the neural processes are the cause of experience. — MoK
According to physicalism physical process is governed by the laws of physics. — MoK
Are you saying that electrons, quarks, etc. can have experience? — MoK
How something can be an object and subject at the same time? — MoK
This quote shows you doubling down on unsupported declarations. You might argue that you're demonstrating the logic of a universe uncaused by anything outside of it. Critical to this demonstration by a chain of reasoning is the work of establishing logically the reality and efficacy of uncaused as an adjective attached to universe. — ucarr
For quite some time we've been debating my interpretation of your above quote as: a) unlimited possibility; b) a restriction on the nature of the universe. See below. — ucarr
I claim there cannot be only one thing, in a causal context. Ex nihilo nihil fit. If we want to maintain a principle of reason we cannot appeal to things created out of nothing. — JuanZu
From my point of view the causality of the universe is closed in its structure, since we cannot think of one thing in the absence of any causal relation with another thing, nor of things created out of nothing. Therefore causality has no end. — JuanZu
To me that is irrational. How is it possible for one thing to completely form another thing out of nothing? — JuanZu
No, the mind is a result of the brain, not equal to it.
— Philosophim
Could you please define the mind? — MoK
When we are talking about the mind we are also talking about consciousness. If we accept that the neural process is merely a physical process then no room is left for consciousness. — MoK
The computer is a weak emergence. There is no explanatory gap in understanding a computer and how it functions. — MoK
When it comes to consciousness, there is an explanatory gap, so-called the Hard Problem of consciousness. The problem is related to the fact that how something intrinsically is unconscious, electrons, quarks, atoms, molecules, etc. could become conscious when they form a brain. — MoK
Are you talking about weak or strong emergence here? Weak emergence is possible, but strong emergence is not possible. — MoK
Since you describe a change of state from non-existence to existence, how do you evaluate from the initial state to the final state? — ucarr
Your translation of my question is wrong. You say of state 1 "It simply was not..." You say of state 2 "then it was." I say explicitly "not from non-existence to the physics of the universe" - so I'm lining out something from nothing - and I say explicitly "not from causation..." - so I'm lining out causation - and finally I'm asking how do you evaluate from state 1 to state 2? — ucarr
The two clauses are not identical, so there is a change from first clause to second clause. If the change is due to random chance, then your statement has no chain of reasoning giving it philosophical force and meaning. — ucarr
In the peer reviews of theories such as we have here at TPF, "But we reach a point in which there is no causality." is a proposition that needs to be a conclusion arrived at by way of a correct evaluation of a chain of reasoning. — ucarr
"Scope of existence" equals "existence encapsulates everything that is."
"Plays within The universe" equals "Occurs within the universe." — ucarr
With these two statements you say the universe is caused by what it is and nothing else. — ucarr
Since non-existence precludes all that exists, how can there be possibilities within the mind of a thinker? — ucarr
Since non-existence precludes all that exists, how can there be anything that is? — ucarr
If my questions are pertinent to your conclusion, then an eternal universe undecidable as to causation seems to me favored over a universe that began without an external cause. — ucarr
An external universe appears to avoid the problematical question of common ground between non-existence and existence. — ucarr
Is "It simply was not, then it was." a continuity? Given non-existence as the initial state, there was no time so there's no temporal continuity from non-existence to existence. — ucarr
Eternal universe coupled with eternal time might be an axiomatic assumption that grounds physics. — ucarr
Your theory embraces an eternal universe. — ucarr
Within physicalism, the mind is equated to the brain or the brain process. What is the definition of mind to you and how could be caused by the brain? How the mind can affect the brain if it is caused by the brain? — MoK
I think it is the opposite. That is the philosophy that guides science to see what would be the subject of focus. — MoK
A definition defines a restriction, viz., the meaning of the word it defines. — ucarr
Is this an argument for someone claiming truthfully you're one thousand feet tall? — ucarr
If a universe is varied by design, why is that not a restriction blocking it from being unvaried? — ucarr
The logical possibility is an entailment that exists within your mind. — ucarr
What card you pull from a deck is directly related to what cards are in the deck you pull from. The cards in that deck add up to a number; each suit of each card adds up to a number, and those numbers determine mathematically the probability of each card being pulled. — ucarr
Possibility cannot be excluded from real things.
— ucarr
I don't know what you mean by this.
— Philosophim
Can you cite some real things that are impossible? — ucarr
You're saying the scope of causality is equal to the scope of existence? — ucarr
So how is there a change of state from nothing to the physics of the universe? — ucarr
Since we agree non-existence and existence are closed and cannot interact, how is there a change of state not from non-existence to the physics of the universe and not from causation but from... what? — ucarr
You're describing a change of state, so you're describing something that happened, a change. What is it that served the function of making the change of state from nothing to the physics of the universe? — ucarr
Consider: Joe was thirsty. Joe ran a glass of water from the tap and drank it. Joe quenched his thirst.
This example shows a change of state of Joe from dehydration to hydration. What served the function of making the change of state in Joe from dehydration to hydration? Joe himself served the function of making the change of state in Joe. — ucarr
If you jump to a conclusion without reasoning to it, and then, when queried about the "how" and the "why" of the conclusion, you double-down and repeat the conclusion as if its self-evident truth needing no further explanation — ucarr
Given that "Existence has no outside cause for its being." then, apart from existence, there is only non-existence as nothing extant stands outside of the set of existence, viz., nothing stands outside of the universe. — ucarr
Non-existence is so self-effacing it cannot even be itself. We cannot directly speak of non-existence. We can only speak at it through the faulty reification of language. — ucarr
When you say, "If something is not caused... where are the rules? Where are the restrictions?" you imply an absence of restrictions equals unlimited possibility. From here you reason to our universe to which you attribute unlimited possibilities including causeless existence. — ucarr
If the universe is closed and internally self-sufficient, then its identity is totally bound to what it is and this is the absolute restriction of identity, as in A≡A. The universe posited within the isolation with which you enclose it cannot be anything possible; it can only be what it is. — ucarr
As caused is to causation, so uncaused is to uncausation. From logic we know it's legitimate to conceptualize the negation of any existing thing, including abstract concepts. From this reasoning we see that if caused affords causation, the uncaused affords uncausation. — ucarr
Continuing in this line of reasoning, if uncaused stands outside the causal universe, then likewise uncausation stands outside the causal universe. — ucarr
Normally you slap someone twice to break them out of hypnosis... you know the meme of Batman Slapping the F out of Robin? — DifferentiatingEgg
↪That you're even focusing on Nietzsche is the mootest point ...A unicorn can say it... it doesn't matter... imagine your penis saying it:
Tom Storm trigger? More like yap on and on and on completely missing the fucking point... which is why you're probably crap with understanding Nietzsche.... — DifferentiatingEgg
If its a good one, yes.
— Philosophim
How would it rule that out? — frank
Would a science forum assure me that I'm not peeping into another universe when I'm asleep? — frank
Since you supply only phrases without context, I think your evidence is no less vague than that you ascribe to my words. — ucarr
When you say "There was nothing, then something." and then follow with "That's it. No inbetween. No cause. No non-existence going, "Whelp, time to start existing!" you make a declaration that you haven't evaluated. — ucarr
It's unsupported and is therefore unlike the evaluation of the expression 2+2 which, paired with = 4 creates an equation that evaluates the expression 2+2 down to one number 4. — ucarr
You have not done the work of evaluating by a chain of reasoning to the conclusion, "There was nothing, then something." All you have is what you believe to be a conclusion to a fundamental truth without the work of evaluating to it via a chain of reasoning. — ucarr
You are confusing the circularity of repeating an unproven conclusion with the justifiable repetition of a conclusion from a chain of reasoning to a fundamental truth. — ucarr
If it is a causal chain we cannot assume that it is one thing that existed alone and suddenly gave birth to a second thing. — JuanZu
Causality does not consist in creating things out of nothing (one thing creating a second thing out of nothing) but in creating things out of other various things (plural). That is why the idea of a first cause is so problematic. — JuanZu
Perhaps the problem is to understand causality in a linear and horizontal way and not in a vertical way in the order of coexistence. — JuanZu
Yes, it can be said that it is possible that only one thing exists. But then we could no longer speak of causal relationships, don't you think? — JuanZu
You don't use the words "scope of existence," but "existence encapsulates everything that is" means the same thing. — ucarr
you specifically relate the lesser scope of causality to the greater scope of existence. — ucarr
Moreover, I've never mis-represented you because I've always quoted what you wrote verbatim. — ucarr
About the scope of composition I have always wondered if when we reach the limit of composition we come to find something very different from composite things: A simple thing, without parts. I wonder likewise whether this simple thing is in a higher order of existence with respect to composite things. — JuanZu
This said in causal terms seems to indicate that there are always at least two and never a first cause. First there is relation in terms of ratio essendi. The relational aspect of things seems to be primary and determinative of the identity of things themselves. — JuanZu
...it feels like you're using ambiguous language...
— Philosophim
Can you quote my ambiguous language? — ucarr
With you saying directly above "My point is only that existence has no outside cause for its being," I ask again, "Why do you not think there is non-existence followed by the universe being caused [by] non-existence? — ucarr
When you describe the uncaused universe as "It simply was not, then it was," you present a sequence of non-existence followed by existence. For this change to happen, there has to be movement from non-existence to existence. — ucarr
This, therefore, is you implying that non-existence moved to existence, viz, non-existence caused existence. — ucarr
I understand you to be saying non-existence and existence are closed and cannot interact.
— ucarr
Thank you for confirming this, I won't mention it again then. — Philosophim
You acknowledge that something does not come from nothing. This is a restriction that invalidates "If something is not caused... where are the rules? Where are the restrictions?" when it is applied to "Existence has no outside cause for its being." — ucarr
This means, therefore, that uncausation, due to its logical priority, applies to everything that exists, and so it must also lie outside of the universe. — ucarr
You apply the restrictions when you try to deny them. No rules is a restriction. No restrictions is a restriction. "Since there is nothing that caused it, there is nothing that restricts it from forming either." is a restriction. — ucarr
You can't describe something without applying limits to what it is. Anything goes is unintelligible. — ucarr
You describe your uncaused universe in such a way that it becomes what you want to believe about it. — ucarr
You want to believe in a maximally versatile universe. That's a restriction because it's not allowed to be a narrowly defined and unvaried universe. — ucarr
If an uncaused existence entails a logical possibility, then, by the existence of the uncaused existence, the logical possibility also exists. — ucarr
Possibility cannot be excluded from real things. — ucarr
Why do you say you don't know what is the scope of existence given your earlier statement re-posted below: — ucarr
By your own projection... — DifferentiatingEgg
↪Philosophim lol, Mr. IS-OUGHT himself... — DifferentiatingEgg
Do you think the mathematical and logical precision of set theory is mis-applied to your theory? — ucarr
Why do you say you don't know what is the scope of existence given your earlier statement re-posted below:
I am saying that existence encapsulates everything that is. "Existences" are subdivided quantifications of existence. My note is that if you increase the scope of causality to its limit, there is no outside cause that creates existence, as whatever exists is part of existence. — ucarr
Why don't you care about the relationship between the scope of existence and the scope of causation? — ucarr
Is it true that the entire scope of causation plays within the universe? Does this agree with nothing caused the universe and nothing restricted what it could become? — ucarr
I understand you to be saying non-existence and existence are closed and cannot interact. — ucarr
then before existence there could only be non-existence, and thus the transition from, "It simply was not, then it was," could only be brought about by non-existence? — ucarr
Since you say, "...if there is no prior cause for something being, then there are no rules for why it should or should not be," why do you not think there being no rules governing being, not being and how to be amounts to unlimited possibility? — ucarr
Do you not agree that if possibility is necessary for a thing to happen, and if there are no restrictions on what that thing can be, then the possibility must be unlimited? — ucarr
Since existence encapsulates everything that is, that includes the entire scope of causality within the closed system of existence? — ucarr
If the entire scope of causation is a proper subset of the entire scope of existence, then proper subset cannot contain a cause beyond its superset, the entire scope of existence? — ucarr
So your theory has at it center the greater scope of existence with the lesser scope of causality inside of it? — ucarr
Are you saying that given a pre-existing universe, the uncaused beginning of the entire scope of causality must occur within the pre-existing universe? — ucarr
Are you now saying the universe did come from nothing? — ucarr
By saying, "Before the entirety of existence existed, the universe could have been anything," are you implying: a) unlimited possibility pre-dated the universe; b) unlimited possibility had a causal influence upon the universe? — ucarr
Why should I let you do such a thing? Let's start with that. — Arcane Sandwich
I don't think that's physically possible. Like, how would you even do it? Do you set up a sort of trap to catch it? — Arcane Sandwich
Are you saying that existence has no outside cause and that it has no outside at all? — ucarr
Is it true you're saying the entire scope of causality is the focal point of your argument? — ucarr
Are you saying the uncaused thing began inside of the universe? — ucarr
Are you saying your logic of a universal origin and meaning gives equal weight to the possibility of: a) an uncaused universe; b) an eternal universe? — ucarr
Are you saying that before the entirety of existence existed, the universe could have been anything? — ucarr
↪Philosophim Reality is what it is. Truth is why it is what it is. — EnPassant