I don't know nearly enough to know whcih side is closer to 'correct' or whatever the actual case is - I'm just saying how it appears to someone in that position. — AmadeusD

In that case, the normal default is you side with the OP's accusation and expect the accused to answer it. If the OP is of course lying or unfairly accusing, feel free to point out where the OP's accusations fail. But it should be specifics, not general.

I would suggest that your 'Baffle Them....' assertion is likely unconscious projection. — AmadeusD

I would take that suggestion if you presented some evidence. I am very keen that there are people who want me to just be wrong. That colors a lot of the argumentation. Which is fine. And I'm also aware I'm human and can make the mistake that I'm accusing other of. But I would like a concrete example to be sure.

I have had to accept (with Banno, particularly) that I just dont get it — AmadeusD

This is fair and honest. If I'm not being clear enough, that's fine. I've already mentioned this was written two years ago, and if I were to rewrite it today it would be much clearer. Somehow the thread got kicked up again and here we are though. :D

Its really pretty simple:

If we don't know whether our universe has finite or infinite chains of causality A -> B -> C etc...
Lets say there's a finite chain of causality. What caused a finite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason, it simply is.
Lets say there's an infinite chain of causality. What caused an infinite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason, it simply is.

Thus in either case, we have something which has no prior reason for its existence, thus a first cause is logically necessary.

I think the humility to accept that someone in that kind of position is probably on to something is reasonably helpful. — AmadeusD

We shouldn't be concerned about the person, but the arguments. Having success in one area does not mean you'll be successful in another. If there is a particular point that was pointed out that you want me to address, I'll do so.

I am only speaking about your conduct, not your arguments. I simply do not see you addressing hte objections — AmadeusD

If my conduct is flawed or overly hostile, I'll try to do better. I try to keep neutral in the discussion, but I'm human and can fail. My point is that many of his objections are not objections, and he doesn't understand the OP. I could go through paragraph by paragraph and show why, but I did that on his previous post and he's still not getting it. At that point I've found a good way to move forward with honest debaters is to recenter and ask the person critiquing to demonstrate that they understand the OP. Otherwise it can become pages and pages of points and counter points over things that don't even matter to the idea. If he's honest, he'll give it a shot. If he just want to 'be right' and he's doing this for ego, he won't.

I appreciate the feedback btw.

Fwiw, I agree entirely with Christoffer. Do what you will with the information, but it seems patently clear you are not engaging with the objections and instead just rejecting that the person objecting understands you. — AmadeusD

Incorrect. I'm declaring a very real critique of his point. Look, throwing out a bunch of quantum physics references and going off on his own theories with a ton of paragraphs is not a good argument. That's just a "Baffle them with Bull!&*#" strategy. I'm not going to spend my time when I've already directed him to address particular points that he's ignoring, or he still demonstrates he doesn't understand the OP. Look at this here:

But the key point is that the density of the universe right at the event of Big Bang would mean dimensions having no meaning, therefor no causality can occur in that state. It is fundamentally random and therefor you cannot apply a deterministic causality logic to it. — Christoffer

You understand the OP, so you understand that this is the exact description of a first cause. A first cause is uncaused. And yes, something uncaused has no prior cause for its existence. That's the entire point.
This guy isn't getting that despite me trying to tell him a couple of times now. So he agrees with my point, as I've already told him, then he doubles down like he thinks he's saying something against my points. He doesn't understand. He's in his own world.

You still have the Penrose theories, and other cyclic interpretations that do not have a first cause as it's circular. There's no need for a first cause as the cycle, the loop causes itself. — Christoffer

I answer this directly with the summary I gave. He ignores this completely. He doesn't understand that the OP is addressing both finite regressive, as well as infinitely regressive and circular chains of causality and noting that at the end, there is no prior cause for their existence besides the fact of their being. What else can I say to him? You already mentioned in an earlier post that "We're both right". I get it, he can't seem to. :)

This is a lot of effort to avoid addressing the summary I put forth. Also a refusal to explain to me in your own words what I'm saying to show that you understand it.

You get so hung up on forcing people to understand you that you use others rejection of your argument as some evidence that you are right. But in doing so you ignore the objections being raised. — Christoffer

When the writer of the idea tells you that you're off, and tries to clarify it for you, listen. A straw man accusation is serious. And your statement is exactly what a person who uses a straw man does to keep using that logical fallacy. I posted the summary to indicate to you the point of the OP. That was your time to look at the summary and indicate how your point addresses that summary and my accusation was wrong. You did not do this. Meaning my accusation stands. It is not a flaw on my part to accuse you of this. It is a flaw on your part not to adequately answer this.

Nothing you are showing demonstrates that a first cause is not logically necessary by the OP's points and summary, and in many cases, you indicate you think its a very real possibility that first causes can exist. Trolling by going to chat GPT at this point is just silly.

Look, if you don't want to engage with me anymore, that's fine. I'm looking for arguments against the OP and that's all I care about. If you can't bother to address the point of the OP or clearly demonstrate that you are by referencing the OP or the summary, then the straw man accusation stands.

Just try to go into future threads with the intent to understand first before you critique.
— Philosophim

I don't have to, I understand the physics instead. — Christoffer

Have you ever heard of a logical fallacy called a "Straw man argument"?

A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.
One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I've listed an argument. If you say, "I don't have to understand it, I'm going to attack this thing instead," you're committing a fallacy. You're off in your own world over there. I can help you come to understand the OP's point if you want. This isn't to say you can't disprove the OP, you may very well be able to do so. But if you don't understand it, what are you talking about?

I'm going to sum to OP up so its easier to understand. Ask questions and seek to understand it first, then criticize it.

A first cause is something which exists that has no prior cause for its existence.
If we don't know whether our universe has finite or infinite chains of causality A -> B -> C etc...
Lets say there's a finite chain of causality. What caused a finite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason, it simply is.
Lets say there's an infinite chain of causality. What caused an infinite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason, it simply is.

Feel free to ask questions about this, refer to the OP, etc. Try to understand it first. When you show understanding, then critique. As it is, you're just not addressing what I've written and its a waste of both of our times.

OK. If the chain goes back to an origin lying outside of spacetime, that may be its first cause. If it continues back unbounded, possibly going outside spacetime, then the existence of the chain is its first cause. It looks like you cannot lose here. — jgill

Its not me. I'm irrelevant. Its something we can all rationally discover and use going forward.

Proving a negative like that is indeed difficult to impossible. So it looks as if your concept of the first cause is empty. It seems that it must take care of itself, without any assistance from us. There's not much fun in that. — Ludwig V

I wouldn't call it empty. Having a clear definition and distinction allows us to pull a first cause from a hypothetical into a testable distinction. Its something we can scientifically do, so is now outside the realm of faith.

What I find fun is thinking about not only what is, but what could have been. This leads validity to the idea of multiverse theory. This also lends one to think that anything is possible. If something is not possible, there must be a reason why its not possible. But if a think has no prior reason for its existence, it means it also has no limitations for its existence.

Impossible becomes "X as a first cause does not exist, simply because it did not form". But does that mean it can't in the future? I can't see why not. Are there several things that form self-explained that happen daily, we just don't notice them or they're too small to matter?

As a thought experiment I hypothetically concluded that if things form self-explained, they are likely smaller than larger. Its not because something large cannot form, its just that if all things are possible, and all things are equally likely to happen. Taken in a cube area of matter, its just there are a lot more possibilities per cube of matter that are extremely small vs large. By orders of magnitude per square space of existence, its more likely that something self explained would be extremely small. Within the infinite possibilities we can calculate what is more possible within a limited cube of space.

Thus an event like a big bang (if its actually a first cause) would be extremely rare by orders of magnitude. Its also why we don't see things like fully formed chairs appearing. Given the fact that anything could appear, the idea that it would appear in that cube instead of spread out among all space in the universe is very small. I can go into more details if you like, but I'm trying to summarize some fun ideas I've had.

It's your "line", not mine. I am happy to say causal chains have a first cause. But more on intuition than logic. — jgill

At this point you've made your own decision independent to countering the OP. That's your call. Good discussion.

If we don't know whether our universe has finite or infinite chains of causality A -> B -> C etc...
What caused a finite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason.
What caused an infinite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason. — Philosophim

Now we are considering a causal chain having an uncountable number of links. Even between two points close together on the line, an uncountable number of links. — jgill

And I have addressed this multiple times.

If we don't know whether our universe has finite or infinite chains of causality A -> B -> C etc...
What caused a finite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason.
What caused an infinite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason.

You have ignored this point, the point of the OP many times. Address this. Why is this wrong?

Its a shame philosophy is so riddled with sloppiness of language that sometimes arguments are sabotaged by examples to clarify. But that's life. — jgill

Its a shame you sloppily use math examples that don't properly address the philosophy. Seriously, knock yourself down a peg. We're all tempted to state how glorious our intellect is and how others are inferior to us. Don't fall into that poison trap that we're all tempted to.

Use math, but use it to address the points being made, not a straw man as you've done several times so far.

But that's stretching the meaning of "first" to the point of vacuity, for the concept of "first" is only meaningful in relation to a recognizable order with a distinguished bottom element. — sime

No, its simply pointing out that its a very exact and simple premise. "That which has no prior cause for its being." That's not vacuous or unclear.

In the absence of a well-defined order, the concept makes little sense, especially considering that a rejection of the causal order doesn't entail that postulated "first" causes can't have explanations in terms of other causes, but only that such explanations are incomplete, vague, ever changing, etc. — sime

There is no absence of a well defined order. There comes a point where we find something that has no prior explanation for its existence.

I'm a little confused by what you mean by including both a rejection of the causal order, and an inclusion of other causes. Can you clarify?

I am not rejecting a causal order. I'm just noting that logically, there must be at least one thing which has no prior causality for its existence. It exists purely because it does, not because of something else prior.

It depends what you mean by "true first cause". In certain traditions of philosophy, free will is the traditional cause of actions (as distinct from events); it is traditionally regarded as special - either as an uncaused cause or causa sui. — Ludwig V

A first cause is as simple as you can imagine. It has no prior explanation for its existence. You can claim free will is a first cause, but now you have to prove it. If people cannot prove free will is a first cause, then they cannot claim it to be. This applies to any first cause. Big bang, God, etc.

Indeed. Just as there must be a first cause, even if we don't know what it is yet (although the Big Bang occupied that space for a while), so there must be some brute facts. But that may only mean that we haven't formulated the question yet. — Ludwig V

Very true!

So we formulate a different, and incommensurable, theory which reaches past that point. But the concept of causality is changed in the process. Newton and others, redefined the subject matter of physics in order to mathematize it and introduced the concept of gravity because it was needed (a brute fact, if you like). That concept of time and space was undermined by relativity and quantum physics. Now, physicist/mathematicians are reaching past the Big Bang. But any explanation will involve changing the rules, since "before" the Big Bang, neither time nor space existed. "First cause" will change its meaning. — Ludwig V

No, I think the definition of a first cause is a constant. Causality also does not change. The difference is whether someone has proved that their claim of a first cause is actually a 'first cause'. Can they prove that there is nothing prior that caused it? If they cannot, then they have no proper claim to say that its a first cause. The Big Bang cannot be proven as a first cause, as we do not know if there was something prior that caused it. Even if we discovered a God, it must be proven as a first cause, as there's a question of whether something prior happened to form a God.

In other words Ludwig, no one has ever proven anything as a first cause. While logically necessary that at least one exist, it is extremely difficulty to prove that any particular existence is one.

So, let me make sure I am understanding: ‘material existence’ is really just ‘fundamental entities’. As an entity could exist ‘materially’ (in your sense of the term) but not materially (in the standard sense of being tangible), correct? E.g., a wave could exist ‘materially’. — Bob Ross

Yes, its fundamental entities. A wave isn't a fundamental entity however because its composed of fundamental entities. Its a combined identity, or the combination of the expressions of the fundamental entities grouped together.

My point in bringing it up was that you seem to imply that existence was a separate category altogether from material existence, but I think, if I am understanding correctly, it is just a broader type: a generic type. — Bob Ross

Correct. I'm classifying types of existence, but generically, its all existence.

I think you are trying to inadvertently drown me in calculations, when it is perfectly reasonable to infer the calculations generally from the example. Philosophim, no one can count the exact atoms in a mountain vs. a baby. — Bob Ross

Ha ha, no drowning intended. Remember, we're not on mountains or babies yet. I just want to make sure you understand the patterns at the base level before we move on. One thing that may help is I'm noting that an objective morality would exist without human beings. So we're examining what that morality would be like first without life.

Philosophim, you’ve twisted the example in your favor! (: I was talking about all else being equal. If we are factoring in, like you said, (1) the quantity of material existences, (2) the quantity of expressive existences, and (3) the total net potential for both; then a highly complex robot (like terminator) is factually morally better, and thusly preserved over, a 2 month-old (human) baby. No extra factors: all else being equal. — Bob Ross

It loses it’s moral meaningfulness and potency if we are talking about a mountain vs. a rock. — Bob Ross

It loses moral meaningfulness to us, yes. We're humans, we care about human things. We'll get there, but first we have to look at the idea of a morality where we are irrelevant. Its boring, but a necessary foundation before we move onto the things we personally care about.

The only thing I will say about this is that you are admitting the theory is counter-intuitive. This doesn’t mean it is wrong, just that virtually no one is going to agree that you should save a robot over a (human) baby. People generally hold life to be more sacred than non-life. — Bob Ross

Some people do, not all people Bob. Some people will sacrifice their lives for works of art for example. An objective morality is also free of our biases and desires. Like anything objective, its going to run counter to our personal beliefs. The test of a good objective measure is whether its logically consistent, and also has a good reason why it may run counter to our desires. Once again, we'll get there.

If its truly equal, then its a coin flip choice. If its not equal, then we take the situation with a higher expressed and potential existence. You're not really making it equal here. You're taking a clearly superior existence producing robot vs a baby. I'm making a very clear example so the concept is understood. Its just math. If the calculations demonstrate that both sides are equal, then it doesn't matter what you choose. Try to either demonstrate a situation in which the robot is clearly the superior existence, yet picking it would be clearly evil, or a situation in which there is calculate equality and it would be clearly evil to pick the robot. I think this would give credence to your argument. Without that, its really just something that makes you uncomfortable.

Do you disagree with this as a function of measurement?

I believe you stated before that we use whatever time frame we want: I disagree with that. If you aren’t saying that, then what time frame, in your calculations (for whatever it is you are contemplating), are you using? You can’t seem to give a definite answer to that. This is not contingent on analyzing the moral worth of life. — Bob Ross

See this is the level we should currently be at in this conversation! Carefully looking at the base in which we're building something from. Let me clarify what I'm talking about here. We're talking at the abstract level.

I'm just noting how the math functions work. In algebra for example we can add or subtract as much as we want from both sides of the equation and X stays the same.

x = 1
x-1 = 1=1

The point I'm making is that when setting up a moral calculation, you can objectively set whatever time you want.

existence * 1 second
existence * 1 minute

That's all. I'm asking you whether taking the total existence and multiplying it by time is a good measure of calculating existence over that course of time. We're not talking about, "Should we evaluate the existence of a person in terms of seconds, minutes, or hours in Y particular situation?" Just noting whether the basic building blocks of what we're doing here have any logical issues or concerns at a functional level.

Correct. My point is you just bit a bullet. No one is going to agree with you that we should preserve a hurricane over saving someone’s life; let alone that we should preserve a hurricane at all. — Bob Ross

I don't think we should speak for everyone. This argument is the same given to Copernicus when he said the Earth revolved around the Sun. "But look, I can look into the sky and clearly see it revolving around us!" Objectivity does not care what others personally think. The thing is, its about an objective calculation, not a feeling. Meaning that only IF it was found this particular hurricane was objectively more moral than a baby, would it be more moral to preserve the hurricane. Don't let the thought experiments forget that part. Just because we can imagine an outcome it does not mean its an applicable outcome.

The difference is that hurricanes are always bad, and there is no reasonably foreseeable consequence that would make keeping a hurricane good. — Bob Ross

Then you are not thinking in terms of the theory, but your own opinion. If the hurricane is always calculated as being bad, then yes, its always bad. If the hurricane is calculated at being good, then it is good. Our opinions are irrelevant.

You are saying that in the case that the hurricane has significantly more material and expressive existence, as well as more potential for both, than the two people; then, all else being, equal, the hurricane should be preserved. — Bob Ross

Yes. But again, you have no calculations which is why you are resistant to it. You're still working in terms of a human centric benefit model, not an objective moral model. Yes, we're definitely part of morality, but we alone are not the only moral things in this universe that demand all else be sacrificed for us. At least, not by my estimates. Are we incredibly moral? VERY. But you won't understand that if you don't understand and agree to the base level of what we're doing first.

You need to clearly distinguish spatio-temporal causality from your murkier concept of meta-causality. — sime

This has been noted before and I don't agree. Let me sum it up like this.

A universe has finite causality. What caused this universe to have finite causality over infinite causality? It just is, there's no prior explanation.
A universe has infinite causality. What caused this universe to have infinite causality over finite causality? It just is, there's no prior explanation.

Another possibility you are overlooking, is the possibility that the very existence of the past and its historical content might not transcend the ever-changing state of the present. In which case, the past is open and indeterminate like the future and there isn't a universal causal order. — sime

If you think about what you're saying, then you also agree with me. If something appears or happens that has no prior reason for its existence, its a first cause. Notice the title says 'a' not 'the' first cause. There is no reason preventing our universe from having multiple first causes in the past, the present, or the future. A first cause has no reason why it should or should not happen. It simply does.

The catch is that whatever caused the Big Bang (or whatever else you identify as a first cause) requires that you think differently. — Ludwig V

I just want to clarify A first cause is not caused. If the big bang is a first cause, nothing caused it. It exists simply because it does with no prior explanation. If a first cause is a logical necessity, then the line of questioning should be, "What does that entail for the cosmology of our universe?" For example, if a first cause is possible, can it not happen any time? Is it not unlimited in to what it could be? Could a quark simply appear somewhere in the universe than vanish out five seconds later, all without a prior cause?

We can attribute a starting point anywhere in a chain of causality.
— Philosophim
That's why I call it contextual. — Ludwig V

We limit sections of the chain as a mathematical origin to think about things, but that doesn't mean we're at the start of the chain. The start of the chain is the start of the chain. That's the only first cause. Everything else is caused by something else.

BTW. Don't you think that the idea of the chain of causality is a bit misleading? We can identify many chains of causality, depending on what questions we are asking, and we see those chains intersecting and overlapping. Wouldn't it be better to think of causality as a web, from which we can select specific chains depending on our needs at the time? — Ludwig V

Because even using the simple example of a chain, many people are having a very difficult time grasping the concept. I'm starting very simple then when someone like you who seems to understand asks a question like this I can say, "Yes, you can view it that way." :)

The only part of confusion I might see here is that you seem to think where we pick as a starting point on this web is a first cause. Its not. When you reach the end of one of the threads, that's a first cause. And there is no spider that made it.

Do you accept a free will act as a true first cause? Take your ball example. Imagine that you are holding the ball intent on letting it drop at some point. After a duration of time you drop it. There is no determinable "cause" for the drop at the moment it was dropped because the time was randomly selected in your mind. Therefore this freely willed action appears to be a first cause, no apparent cause of the dropping. — Metaphysician Undercover

First, lets address randomness vs true randomness. First, randomness. When you roll a six sided die, you know there are only six sides that can come up. Any side has a 1 out of 6 chance of occurring. What is 'randomness'? Randomness is where we reach the limits of accountability in measurement or prediction. Its not actual randomness. The die will roll in a cup with a particular set of forces and will come out on its side in a perfectly predictable fashion if we could measure them perfectly. We can't. So we invented probability as a tool to compensate within a system that cannot be fully measured or known in other particular ways.

Randomness has clear limits. And when there are limits, there are reasons for those limits. You say it was random when you dropped the ball, but was it random like a die, or true randomness which I'll go into now.

True randomness has zero constraints or rules as to what can be. Limited randomness always has a constraint of some sort. "What causes that constraint?" means that we haven't gotten to a first cause cause. The appearance of a first cause is true randomness. Why? Because if it wasn't, there would be some thing causing one possible outcome to be more or less likely than the other. So is 'free will' truly random? I don't believe so. Humans are physical creatures with physical brains. Brains have rules they have to follow. Now are those rules so complex that measuring and predicting what a brain will do next with 100% certainty a current impossibility? Yes. So free will is not a first cause.

As for ruling out infinite causality, its irrelevant. Instead of trying to prove that infinite regressive causality was possible/impossible, I just asked what the logical consequence was if they existed. And it turns out, there's still a first cause.

I interpret this as saying that causality is contextual. We can post any convenient starting-point for a causal system. I agree with that understanding. — Ludwig V

We can attribute a starting point anywhere in a chain of causality. For example, when explaining why a ball falls when I let go of it, I don't have to address quantum physics. Does that mean that quantum physics and a whole host of other things are not part of the causality of the ball falling? No. It just means we don't look at it creating a mathematical origin or starting point.

A first cause is a logical necessity where causality exists.
— Philosophim
And since causality requires time and time and space are not absolute, but relative, then surely causality must be relative. Surely? — Ludwig V

No. A first cause is absolute. It is something which exists without a prior cause. It is not that we chose that as a starting point, it means that there comes a point in exploring the chain where there is no prior cause for its existence. It will exist, simply because it does. The logic points out this occurs whether the chain of causality is infinite or finite.

While yes, a God is not impossible, neither is any other plausibility you can imagine.
— Philosophim
On the face of it, that's not particularly re-assuring. There will be people who assign the name "God" to whatever the first cause is. — Ludwig V

People will do that with anything. And I didn't come up with the logic to make a point, I looked at the logic to see what point it would lead to.

The point here is that while they can logically do so, they have no reason which necessitates it be God or 'it just happened'. If we don't know what a first cause in a causality chain is, it could be anything. To claim it is a specific thing, you must justify why it is that specific thing over any other idea out of the infinite possibilities available to the imagination. There is no justification alone which necessitates a God be a first cause, so it must be proven. While a first cause has no prior explanation for its being, it enters into the causal chain of the rest of existence. Meaning there must be solid proof which demonstrates any claim of a first cause, is in fact, a first cause.

You are right, of course. But you've just demonstrated that any first cause will generate new questions - especially the last one. That's not a problem. — Ludwig V

I find new questions to be fun and exciting to think about! I'm glad you do as well. :)

You have patiently spelled out your logic. You are the origin of this thread, but clearly not the first cause. — jgill

Correct! I hope that's cleared things up a bit jgill. I appreciate you sticking with me through it.

So it is an effable feature of nature. Then tell us about it. Or don't bother.

I have no problem with you saying there is a first cause. What difference does it make? — jgill

It makes plenty of difference. Lets go over a few.

1. A God is not necessary. The universe can have just formed on its own without intelligent life. This is not by a belief, but a logical conclusion. Meaning yes, a stopwatch could be found in the forest and no one made it. Metaphorically of course.

2. The consequence of a first cause existing means there were no rules or limitations as to what could form. This includes size, shape, complexity, and also time. Meaning that its logically plausible that something self explained formed five seconds ago somewhere in the universe.

While yes, a God is not impossible, neither is any other plausibility you can imagine. Complex things are unlikely of course due to math which I covered in another post with Timothy. I think you were there. We cannot look to ontology to tell us what specific origins caused the universe, or even if it was just one. In fact, it could be that it was multiple self explained existences that came into being that resulted in our universe today, and it may be ongoing at a very small level.

3. If the logic holds, this is a final debate on the matter. Its a solution, done, finished. Now instead of debating this tired subject, we can move onto new debates. What does the fact that there is a first cause entail? Can we work out probabilities of things forming? What does that tell us of the nature of the universe? Do we continue to look for explanations to things, or is it reasonable to reach a point where it doesn't matter anymore?

So the beginning of a line is a first cause? So if I start my line at zero on the imaginary axis and have it extend up indefinitely I have violated your rule. I am confused. — jgill

No. I'm just trying to communicate to you in a way that you understand as you like math. The line represents a chain of causality. Each link represents the step in the chain. Can we have multiple chains that link together? Of course. But the first link is the start.

Now put the chain somewhere on a graph. The 'line''s many points are simply the links in the chain. The first link is the beginning of the line, the first point is the beginning of the line. It doesn't matter where the origin is right? I can make my origin 0,0, 1,1, etc. It doesn't matter where I put my chain on the graph either. Put the chain's start at 5,4, its irrelevant. An origin is merely what base we use to examine the line. The origin does not affect the chain's structure no matter where we put it on the graph. We are
examining the chain's structure, not the graph we decide to put it on. If you want to look at the middle of the line and say, "I'm looking here as a mathematical origin" you're missing the literal point. Where you start is irrelevant. That's what I'm trying to show you.

So now that you understand a mathematical origin does not apply, you're left with the points and solution I gave. A first cause is a logical necessity where causality exists.

But I see (removing the snark, hehe) what you're getting it. It necessarily follows that it would be the first thing to cause anything. I think they can both be right. — AmadeusD

Yes, I hope he understands that he's not arguing against my point. Just silly there has to be snark in there to begin with. :)

You are then inserting FC (first cause) into the "natural world", but it is ineffable. — jgill

Not really. Something which has no prior reason for its being was either always there, or not there, then there. Why is that hard to understand?

Infinite causal chains go forward in time, also. I can easily write one down, and then I am a FC. I can also write one down going back in time, specifying FC. — jgill

What caused you to exist though? You are not a first cause. You are an origin by which we may demarcate a 'start' within a causal chain. But you have prior reasons for why you exist and wrote the chain, so are part of the full causal chain. There is a difference between an origin, and an actual start to a line. I can move the origin anywhere on the line. That doesn't mean its the start of the line.

I admit. I can't think clearly about your argument. :roll: — jgill

You insist on thinking this is about origins when I've clearly told you several times that a first cause is not an origin. You are making an amateur mistake both in philosophy and math. You and I well know that you can make an origin any set of numbers you want. That is not the same as the beginning of a line. Either you are willfully ignoring this fact because you don't want to address the issue, or you've made a mistake in understanding the issue. Either way, your example about origins are wrong. If you have nothing but sass and eyerolls to add, just let the reply go so we have a nice end to the conversation instead of a back and forth over pointless ego.

Nothing caused it to exist, it's like asking why 2 + 2 = 4. — Christoffer

So then it is something which has no prior cause for its existence, or a first cause. That's my point. That which has no prior cause, is a first cause. Yes, there is a cause for 2+2 = 4. Human minds invented math with our ability to create discrete identities or 'ones'. Just like the reason we have a Plank scale is because it is the limit of our current measurements.

demonstrate why.
— Philosophim

What should I demonstrate? — Christoffer

No it's not. Maybe you should read up more on quantum mechanics.
— Christoffer

If its not, demonstrate why. — Philosophim

Don't insinuate someone doesn't know something, explain why they don't know something. Otherwise its a personal attack. Personal attacks are not about figuring out the solution to a discussion, they are ego for the self. You cannot reason with someone who cares only about their ego.

For one, your incorrect use of concepts like the Planck scale shows how versed you are. — Christoffer

No, I asked you what caused it to exist. You stated: " And how there's no need for one if the universe expanded from the Planck scale." You were claiming it came from the Planck scale, so I asked you what caused the Planck scale. This is not me asserting how the Planck scale works. But again, this is silly. You're commenting on me instead of the points. Keep to the points please.

I've given a run through of how causality can appear out of nothing at the point of Big Bang, something that's much closer to what scientists actually theorize. — Christoffer

And what caused the big bang? Did something prior to the big bang cause the big bang? Or is the big bang a first cause with no prior cause for its existence? You keep dodging around the basic point while trying to introduce quantum mechanics. Citing quantum mechanics alone does not address the major point.

Again, you don't understand what the Planck scale is. It is not an invention by us and I don't know why you keep implying that. — Christoffer

Yes, it is an invention by us. Its the limitation of our measuring tools before the observations using the tools begins affecting the outcome. Or, in more proper terms, "At the Planck scale, the predictions of the Standard Model, quantum field theory and general relativity are not expected to apply, and quantum effects of gravity are expected to dominate."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units

I'm not seeing how your citing plank length invalidates a first cause. Plank length is a limitation of measurements before we need other tools and math. How does "It expanded from the Planck scale" (Your words) explain anything?

Regardless of how we view the Big Bang, all projections starts the universe at such a dense point that it fundamentally becomes zero dimensional and there can be no such thing as a first cause before this since there's no spacetime in this state. Without dimensions, there's no causality and no cause. — Christoffer

No, if you're saying "Quantum fluctuations caused the big bang" then you have causality. To not have causality means, "Nothing prior caused X to happen". Now if you want to recant and state, "The big bang was not caused by anything," then the big bang is a first cause. So either way, you're proving my point, not going against it. You're seeking very hard to disprove what I'm saying, but perhaps you should make sure you understand what I'm saying first. I don't think you get it.

So if you're looking for a first cause, I've already pointed at it; the first event of time and causality at the point of the big bang. — Christoffer

Then you agree 100% with my OP. There's nothing else to discuss if you state this.

No, you clearly misunderstand everything into your own logic and you have become so obsessed with that logic that you believe the Planck scale is an invention and disregard how general relativity breaks down at a singularity point. — Christoffer

No man, relax. You're not the first person who's come in here without reading or understanding the OP with a crusade. :) Be it Planck scale, God, no God, or hatred of causality this thread is full of people who don't understand the OP. Its cool. Just try to go into future threads with the intent to understand first before you critique.

If causality breaks down, then you can have no causes before this event as there's no spacetime there to produce it. — Christoffer

So then we have something which has no prior explanation for its existence? A first cause? Again, I appreciate your agreement.

If there is one let's call it "God" for convenience. Then we can consider the nature of God or not. — jgill

No. The entire point of this thread is to think of about a first cause as part of the natural world, and think about how it would apply to our universe as it is today. While yes, a God could be a possible first cause, it is one of an infinite number of possibilities. Further, one would have to prove that such a first cause existed, it would not be a given. More likely things just happened.

So far, all my mathematical causation chains have first causes and origins. — jgill

Just origins. You've given no mathematical example of a first cause. An origin is a tool of measurement and does not represent a first cause. One can put an origin on the first cause of a chain of causality, but it is not our measurement of a first cause that makes a first cause, it is simply the fact that a first cause has no prior explanation for its existence.

I can start talking about atomic chemistry without talking about quarks. That doesn't mean quarks don't exist and make up an atom.

The philosophy in this thread seems ethereal. — jgill

I'm not sure what that means. I've given the examples as clearly as I can.

If we don't know whether our universe has finite or infinite chains of causality A -> B -> C etc...
What caused a finite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason.
What caused an infinite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason.

Its pretty simple isn't it?

You didn't read what I actually wrote. I'm talking about the idea of a first cause, as in the cause that kickstarted all we see of determinism. And how there's no need for one if the universe expanded from the Planck scale — Christoffer

Lets go with the theory that what caused the universe was its expansion from the Planck scale. What caused the Planck scale to exist? When you answer that, I'm going to ask, "What caused that to exist?" And eventually you come back to where I am. Is there a finite limitation to causality, or infinite regression? And as noted, in both cases the answer is that there is no prior reason for why there is a finite or infinite regression of causality, there simply is.

You didn't read what I actually wrote. I'm talking about the idea of a first cause, as in the cause that kickstarted all we see of determinism. — Christoffer

I never stated that there was one singular first cause. I stated that a first cause is necessary. There could be multiple. You are talking about a specific first cause. I am talking about the logical conclusion that there must be at least one first cause. Whether its your specific first cause, a quark simply appearing out of nothing, or a big bang, the logical conclusion is the same. Can you demonstrate how Planck scale escapes the notion I've put forward? I'm not seeing it. I did read what you wrote. My point is that it does not counter what I'm stating.

False. Quantum physics is not magic. It a series of very cleverly designed computations that handle outcomes where we do not have the tools or means to precisely manage or measure extremely tiny particles. That's it.
— Philosophim

No it's not. Maybe you should read up more on quantum mechanics. — Christoffer

If its not, demonstrate why. Saying, "Read up more" is an abandonment of the conversation. You have no idea how versed I am in quantum mechanics. If I'm wrong, show why, do not make it personal please.

And how there's no need for one if the universe expanded from the Planck scale. That determinism is underlying our reality is not what I was talking about. — Christoffer

What do you mean by need? A first cause doesn't care about our needs. Its not something we invent. It either exists, or it doesn't. Logically, it must exist. Until you can counter the logic I've put forward, you aren't making any headway.

A first cause is merely the first causal event and as I described it can simply be the first causal event out of the quantum fluctuations before the big bang. — Christoffer

No, it cannot. A first cause is by definition, uncaused. You are stating that a first cause is caused by the quantum fluctuations before the big bang. That's something prior. Meaning your claim of a first cause, is not a first cause.

Do not mistake a first cause for an 'origin'. An origin is a starting reference point we create as a tool, like a line graph with origin 0. A first cause is not a construct. It is something that has no prior explanation or reason for its existence.

A dimensionless infinite probabilistic fluctuation would generate a something and still not be a first cause as it is a fundamental absolute probability. — Christoffer

Its very simple. What caused it to be a fundamental absolute probability? Is there some prior reason for its existence, or does exist without a prior reason for its existence?

And even if it weren't it can also be explained by a loop system, infinitely cyclic like Penrose's theory. — Christoffer

Did you read the actual OP? I clearly go over this. Please note if my point about this in the OP is incorrect and why.

A first cause isn't necessary within a probabilistic function. — Christoffer

Yes it is. Let me explain what probability is. When you roll a six sided die, you know there are only six sides that can come up. Any side has a 1 out of 6 chance of occurring. What is chance? Chance is where we reach the limits of accountability in measurement or prediction. Its not actual randomness. The die will roll in a cup with a particular set of forces and will come out on its side in a perfectly predictable fashion if we could measure them perfectly. We can't. So we invented probability as a tool to compensate within a system that cannot be fully measured or known in other particular ways.

So yes, causality still exists in probability. The physics of the cup, the force of the shake, the bounce of the die off the table. All of this cause the outcome. Our inability to measure this ahead of time does not change this fact.

So, through quantum physics, a first cause isn't a necessity. — Christoffer

False. Quantum physics is not magic. It a series of very cleverly designed computations that handle outcomes where we do not have the tools or means to precisely manage or measure extremely tiny particles. That's it.

Virtual particles, as understood right now, does not have a first cause, they are probabilistic random existences. — Christoffer

Not knowing whether they have a first cause or not does not determine whether they have a first cause or not. I'm also not noting here that "x" is a first cause. I'm noting that logically, we will always end up in a situation where we find something that has no prior causality for what it exists. I'll sum it again.

If we don't know whether our universe has finite or infinite chains of causality A -> B -> C etc...
What caused a finite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason.
What caused an infinite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason.

A first cause is something which exists which has no prior reason for its existence. It simply is.

What makes you think that you can conceive of a first cause? — sime

Conceiving things is the easy part. There is nothing, then, there is something. Its a binary issue. A current state is either caused by something prior, or it is not.

In my experience of fellow atheists, they often harbor a peculiarly theological belief in "nothingness" — sime

I only mentioned I was an atheist because jgill assumed this was a theistic argument and that was preventing him from thinking clearly about the argument. Other than that, we should not attribute arguments to atheists or theists. Please just note your point so we can stick with the logic.

But if we reject this ontological interpretation of nothingness as being nonsensical, then how else are we supposed to conceive of absolutely first (and last) events? — sime

Its an unnecessary concept to understand the logic. I show you through the OP that it doesn't matter whether you have a causal chain which leads to a finite start, or a causal chain that is infinitely regressive.

What caused the finite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason.
What caused the infinite causal chain to exist instead of something else? There is no prior reason.

It all boils down to the point that eventually in any chain of causality, infinite or finite, the causation of its existence will eventually have no prior explanation for its existence. Reality, at its core, simply is and has no prior reason for why it should be.

Not a disturbance of quantum fields? Sometimes by lab machinery? Are quantum fields uncaused causes? If so, how can you be sure? — jgill

Let me clarify. You asked me to give you an example of an uncaused cause. I'm not saying this actually exists. While an uncaused cause logically must exist, proving 'x' is an uncaused cause is ridiculously difficulty.

Lets go back to our quark example again. Remember how I said an uncaused cause has no limitations on its existence? If a quark appears, it can also appear with uncaused velocity. But from our viewpoint, we would think the quark had existed prior to its formation because we would assume something caused the velocity, we just couldn't find it.

The logic is not about saying, "This is an uncaused cause." The logic of the OP is noting that logically, there must be an uncaused cause in our universe. Chains of causality all reach a point in which there is no prior explanation for some things existence, besides that it exists.

OK. Demonstrate an uncaused cause, where you are certain some process begins. — jgill

Sure. An uncaused cause has no rules or restrictions on what it can, or cannot be. But lets keep it simple. A quark appears in the universe, then persists. That's it. It wasn't there, now it is there. It has no prior reason for its being there, besides the fact that it just started being there.

:lol: Sorry, but I had to work off the terror! I'm still shaking. — jgill

Sorry for my anger earlier, you seem smart and I get frustrated when smart people come up with irrational arguments for and against points more because they don't like what the solution implies, then whether the solution is right or not. Its not stupidity, so I know its some other type of emotion like disgust, arrogance, hubris, etc. Why can't smart people shove those things aside for a conversation?

Its not 'you' its just I have had this conversation for years with people, and the pattern happens again, and again. Let me show you an example of it below.

This is very simple. Either you believe there is a first cause or you do not believe there is a first cause. It's a matter of belief, not reasoning. — jgill

See, this is a complete dismissal of the OP and the points made in here several times. None of which had anything to do with belief or faith. Its dishonest. Its emotional vomit when a person no longer wants to discuss the issue. Take the reasoning and demonstrate it is a belief. Its actually a lot more fun than indulging in the other negative emotions.

I read your OP from 2 years ago. — Ø implies everything

If you would like to discuss there, I gladly will. I make a rule not to derail other people's threads. However, I did take this as an invitation to read your OP, which I did!

If absolute nothingness is a thing, it would entail its own non-existence, which would mean absolute nothingness would be true and untrue at the same time: a contradiction. — Ø implies everything

I like this approach. However, isn't logic the best assessment of reality that we have? Absolute nothingness itself is not impossible. Logic is a tool we use to grasp reality. If there were absolute nothingness, there would be no logic, thus no contradictions to reality.

Fortunately, as long as there are thinking things like us, there is logic, and we can definitely assert that there is something, because if there wasn't, we wouldn't be here to claim it. As to whether its possible that one day there might be absolutely nothing, who knows? No one will be around to find out what its like.

I think my argument can be simplified to this:

Absolute nothingness is impossible, but it would not be impossible if it were not for the existence of something. — Ø implies everything

We can say that right now, absolute nothingness is not the state of reality. But it says nothing about whether it could or could not be in the future. Nice post.

The Empty set is where things begin in mathematical set theory. Here, I'm saying unless a specific first cause can be determined the set of first causes is empty, there are none. I see this thread as revolving around a theological assertion. — jgill

This has nothing to do with theological assertions jgill. Forget God. It floors me that I cannot get through to other atheists on this. Truly their fear of this being theological terrifies them to the point of being unable to think about it. I am an atheist. I wrote this. This is about base matter. Its very simple. Don't let fear prevent you from understanding it.

I apologize, I must have misunderstood you then. — Bob Ross

Not a worry Bob! Again, it may have been that I wasn't clear in my writing as well.

What is the difference between ‘existence’ and ‘material’: I thought the latter was a sub-type of the former. Same with expressed vs. existence. — Bob Ross

That's very fair, and honestly where I thought the questioning would go first. The material existence is an atomic existence which is the combination of all possible expressions it can manifest when met with another material existence. An expression is the manifestation of a material existence in a unique way based on its situation and difference with another state. This state could be itself (Perhaps a singular existence has a bit of a warp or vibration to it over time) or what we can actually observe, its relation to another material existence.

This is still counter-intuitive: it is entirely possible that the maximal expressed and material existences is entities which are not alive. — Bob Ross

True. Sometimes the calculation works out like that. To see if its unintuitive, why don't you create an example that you're thinking of try to calculate it out. The problem is you're trying to intuit some complex math. You can't. Its well documented that we suck at it as human beings. What I've found is that after calculating a situation, it often is surprising against what I initially thought the outcome would be.

For example, it is entirely possible that when forced to choose between saving a robot and a baby, you will have to save the robot (because the material and expressed existences is higher in the former over the latter). — Bob Ross

While I am still loath to discuss this aspect of higher intelligence yet as I fear it will just keep you from getting to the base level first, I also want to keep the conversation engaging. But really, remove ALL ideas of intelligence and especially human morality now, because you have to learn the base calculations first. When we get to intelligence and humanity, then feel free to give feedback if something is unintuitive. But for now, I'll answer this one in a way where you can see yes, sometimes saving the robot would be better.

Humanity is facing a crisis that cannot be solved with human minds alone. In 51 years, humanity will be wiped out if it isn't solved. So they created a robot that has spent the last 50 years calculating a solution to their problem. It has done it! With this it will save humanity. Unfortunately the building its in is on fire, and wouldn't you know it, someone left their baby there too. You have just enough time to save either the robot or the baby. The moral choice is clear. By saving the robot, you save humanity. By saving the baby, you doom humanity. Saving the robot results in more overall existence.

But lets leave that example there. Do not include society, sacrifice, etc. because we aren't there yet! Pretend you don't know we're going to humanity yet, just like a person learning addition does not know calculus is on the horizon. Or a person who doesn't understand that the 8 binary logic gates we have can be combined into a computer. Lose your intuitions about the advanced use of basic things. Lets just focus on logic and see where it takes us.

Likewise, so far you seem to be saying we can just make up a time frame to use for their comparisons, but then it becomes utterly arbitrary. — Bob Ross

Again, you're getting ahead. What I'm doing is showing you how to do the math. We can set up any time frame we want to compare. What we haven't covered yet is, "What time frame should we use as intelligent creatures when trying to solve a moral dilemma?" The current point I'm trying to get across is this is how we can measure morality in a limited scope when life does not exist. Do you disagree with this as a function of measurement?

Likewise, if you consider potential expressed and material existences, then this also has weird consequences; e.g., a hurricane may end up, if it runs its full course, producing much more expressed and material existences than a newborn baby--but obviously everyone is going to say that we should stop hurricanes and preserve the rights of babies. Yours would choose to preserver the hurricane over the baby (if in conflict). — Bob Ross

People are notoriously bad with complex math and long term thinking. They also think that what we want or feel we should do is often times right. Morality is not about our feelings or what we intuit. If morality is objective, and it can be shown as such, it would be about the objective results. We can simplify this even without doing calculations.

1. Assume we have an objective morality, and it is a fact that a particular hurricane is worth more than a babies' life.
2. We're put in a situation in which we can't just save the child, but the child must die.
3.We have a magic gun that can stop the hurricane in its tracks. But doing so will cause horrible things to happen.
4. I want to save the baby despite all of this.

Does my want make it moral to save the baby? Of course not.

Objectively, it would be wrong to end the hurricane to save the baby. This isn't unintuitive either. We send people all the time to die in wars to preserve entire countries. Men will shield women and children from danger. The idea of sacrificing for something greater than yourself is a universal theme in all of humanity across cultures.

Mainlander, and the Gnostics would dispute this metaphysical claim. — schopenhauer1

What would they present to dispute this? I'm not interested in someone's general non-related claims as I'm sure you can understand. Where in the logic and build up would they disagree?

I think we are both missing each others points, so let me slow down and ask one question: are you not saying that, in principle, the entity with more atoms is (morally) prioritized higher over one with less? — Bob Ross

No. I'm talking about a system with the greatest existence, material, expressed, and potential would be considered the more moral reality.

Take a scenario with 5 atoms that cannot form a new identity vs four atoms that can.

Eliminate that which is identical within the potential existence. So 4 atoms can bump into each other on both, which leads 5 individual 'bumps' 4 atoms can move anywhere, so we have one 'can move anywhere' set.

So 4 basic interactions, one move anywhere set for the atom.

Now compare to the four atoms that can potentially combine into molecules. Disregarding what is equal to the five molecules, we have 1 formation into a 2 atom molecule, and each individual atom bumping into that molecule and each other. 3*2*1 = 6. Multiply this four times as each atom can combine into a molecule, so 24. We can have the potential of two molecules forming out of the four, so 2 existence molecules, and one potential bump between them * four atom combinations = 12

So we've already gained more potential existence in basic interactions. to be 36, or nine times more potential interactions than the five single atoms. As for the infinite movement set, you have 4 atoms then the two molecule identities that could move around, for a total of six infinite movement sets.

But why do you see it as wrong?

You have not given a clear analysis of what the property of goodness is (i.e., what is good?) nor why it is objective. — Bob Ross

Hm, I may have lost you then. I've gone over it several times at this point and I'm not sure what else to tell you. I need something more specific Bob. What about what I've written is unclear? What is good is what should be right? If you're not with me at this point, then it might be a lost cause.

You just seem to be noting I can do all of them, but I want to know, in your formula, are you determine the right thing to be based off of a span of 1 year, 1 minute, most forseeable future, etc.? — Bob Ross

Ok, this would be human morality. We'll get there soon.

It isn’t, though: I am talking about the formula used for non-life and life here. — Bob Ross

I've noted several times its the time span that we decide to look at. So you could determine the total existence after 1 minute or 1 hour.

An atom-to-atom comparison is not going to land you with life > non-life. E.g., a 1,000,000 ton rock has more atoms than a single-cell life and a (human) baby—so your conclusion would then be, when in conflict, to preserve the rock over the baby. — Bob Ross

No, you don't understand the theory. I see no reference to material, expressed, or potential existence. You're not calculating, you're just expressing. I seem to have lost you completely.

Something I've been noting is you seem to be using morality as a means of comparative elimination.

I am using comparisons and counter-factual examples to demonstrate how the conclusions of this theory are severely morally counter-intuitive. — Bob Ross

No, you are not showing me any calculations or the thoughts or vocabulary of the theory itself. We aren't on the same page.

Does this mean all single cell life should become multicellular? No. Just like the possibility of atoms forming into molecules doesn't mean all atoms should form into molecules

Why not? You seem to be saying it is objectively right/good for more identifiable entities to exist, and ‘upgrading’ from a single-cell to multi-cell seems better relative to that. — Bob Ross

Go back to the calculations I did comparing atoms that cannot combine into a molecule vs atoms that can combine into a molecule. I believe I've mentioned already that a world in which all atoms combined into molecules permanently would be less potential existence then one in which there can still be a breakdown and interactivity between atoms and molecules.

Likewise, it doesn’t make sense to say you are maximizing existence when you also believe that that matter is all that exists and cannot be created or destroyed: that entails existence itself is always equal—rather, what it exists as changes. — Bob Ross

Please go back and look at expressed and potential existence. I've noted this a few times already and me repeating it here will not add anything more to it.

But if you are just doing an atom-for-atom comparison, it may turn out that a big sheep may need to be preserved over a small, feeble wolf. — Bob Ross

This is true. When we take an individual comparison we may find this to be the case. It depends on the results of the calculation. If the small and feeble wolf cannot hunt easily and will die in a year vs a big healthy sheep that would live for ten years, it would be more moral for the sheep to live in this particular limited calculation.

Likewise, if you are considering how to maximize how many existent entities are there, then you would have to do more than an atom-to-atom comparison and consider the foreseeable consequences of keeping the sheep vs. the wolf and pick the one that seems to maximize your goal here. — Bob Ross

Correct. As we increase the scale beyond the atomic in comparisons, atoms become an insignificant digit in our calculation. What is important is to understand the fundamentals of the atomic comparison so that we can continue to apply the patterns going forward.

I'm afraid I'm losing you here Bob. It may very well be that I haven't communicated clearly, but you're also missing quite a few points I've gone over. I will work harder to be more clear, but I can also see a problem you may be doing that is preventing you from understanding the issue.

1. You're working backwards from human morality down to this. You won't understand it that way. We have to start from the basics of "Should there be existence" and work our way up without looking ahead.

2. Don't worry about whether its subjective or objective for now. You seem so concerned about seeing it as subjective that you're missing the idea itself. Just go with the assumption, "There should be existence" is the base objective morality and go from there.

If you can't or don't want to do that Bob, then we probably can't continue. Which is fine by the way, not all ideas are open to discussion between people depending on where they are at the moment. I have had several exciting and fun conversations while talking about this to a few people, so maybe something is getting lost in the written word here. But as of this moment I feel like everything I've said before just isn't being grasped, and I am at a loss as to how to clarify this when you aren't referring to many of the points I've already made.

You just seem to be noting I can do all of them, but I want to know, in your formula, are you determine the right thing to be based off of a span of 1 year, 1 minute, most forseeable future, etc.? — Bob Ross

Ok, this would be human morality. We'll get there soon.

I would say, in this case, you have just setup a moral framework where the most entities existing is best and your conclusions aren’t that particularly off; it is the idea that this is objective that is wrong, but I have been granting it for the sake of seeing where this goes. — Bob Ross

But why do you see it as wrong? The way to take it is to assume that no life exists, but morality still would. What would morality look like without life? This question must be answered, because life is technically still just atoms and molecules cobbled together a particular way. We are not separate from the rest of the universe, we are made up of it.

I would say, in this case, you have just setup a moral framework where the most entities existing is best and your conclusions aren’t that particularly off — Bob Ross

If you are ok with what has been noted here so far, then I will continue. We may need to return, but we'll see.

To understand life, we first need to understand chemical reactions. Chemical reactions are typically a flurry of interactions over a short period of time that eventually end once the material for the chemical reaction is used up. There is a high concentration of existence here, however it comes to an end.

Life is interesting in the fact that it is a series of chemical interactions that continually seek to extend these chemical reactions as long as possible. Even to the point of creating a new life, or set of chemical reactions, that will continue on once the original can no longer renew itself. Comparing a single cell to a rock, we can see just in the internals alone how much existence there is. We have cytoplasm, organelles, and a cell wall. Not to mention we have mobility, as well as reproduction. Life is a high concentration of existence and considered more moral in comparison to an equivalent number of atoms in a rock.

Something I've been noting is you seem to be using morality as a means of comparative elimination. In all cases, it is more moral to have both the rock and the life instead of either the life or the rock. Now in a case in which the rock would be destroyed or the one cell would live, in this comparison alone the life would be considered more moral and should continue to exist over the rock. But getting into eliminative morality should only be a consideration when there is an absolute choice between the two and no means of compromise.

Of course, what's more existent than single cell life? Multicellular. This is the same exact pattern as atoms and molecules. Does this mean all single cell life should become multicellular? No. Just like the possibility of atoms forming into molecules doesn't mean all atoms should form into molecules.

With this, we see the pattern of moral existence continues. What is most moral is an environment in which life and non-life can co-exist. Why life is particularly special is that it needs to sustain its own chemical reactions. This at time may put it into conflict with other lives. Ideally, two cells should be able to coexist. But there may be reasons why they cannot. Both cells may need the parts of the other cell to survive, and if neither of them eat the other, both will die. But in all cases, it should only be that one cell destroy the other only if it is necessarily more existence for it to do so. It is not about what the cell feels or wants (if it could feel such things) it is again a calculated outcome of existence.

Can we have an evil cell then? Yes. Lets say we have a cell that kills every other cell it comes across. It does not eat the other cell or use it in anyway. The other cells are no threat to it. It just kills the other cell because it can. At this point, such a cell should either be contained from other cells, or be eliminated from existence. Its expressed existence is one that lowers the potential and actual existence around itself overall compared to a good cell.

Multicellular life follows the same pattern once again. Instead of cells co-existing, its sheep and wolves. Ideally, both would be able to co-exist without killing one another. But, a wolf must eat meat to live. Further, simple multicellular life has no check on itself for its multiplication beyond available resources. If a population multiplies too much and burns through all of its resources, it can no longer renew itself and dies out entirely. Wolves serve as a check to ensure too many sheep do not form, eat all the grass and plants in an area, and result in a mass extinction event.

Ok, take a look at what I've noted for life and see if you have any issues. Once you're good here, we'll move onto humans.

Do multiple causation chains spring into being with first causes or first cause? — jgill

Possibly. Once something begins, it immediately has relations with anything around it. Something small or large could appear and its gravity would suddenly now be an influence on other things, as well as itself may be influenced by other things. It could be as simple as an uncaused helium atom entering the world and then existing within it. Once an uncaused thing is within the rest of the interplay of existence, it is no more special than anything else.

There is no limitation as to what a first cause could be
— Philosophim

It is limited to things uncaused, surely. — AmadeusD

Ha ha! Of course. :)

@Gnomon Well said.

If I am understanding correctly, then it sounds like you are just calculating total net 'identities' in reality over time — Bob Ross

Ah good. I had hesitated to use that word as I wasn't sure it fit. I've been trying to pare this down as basic as possible. I view an identity as a section of existence which has a unique capability to interact with another existence. Even two similar identities are never identical as they exist in different locations.

where preferably it is calculable closest to the last point in time. — Bob Ross

Its an option based on what we're trying to accomplish. Time is a component of calculation. We could use seconds, minutes, hours, or years. While the smallest time tick would be the most accurate, it may be impractical to do so. For one, in the time it would take to calculate the total existence in the next tick, several ticks would have passed and we'll never catch up.

This doesn't seem moral to me and there are plenty of examples where this is just morally counter-intuitive and immoral. — Bob Ross

Based on, 'Existence should be," do you have something in our approach so far that doesn't seem moral. Moral intuitions should be thrown away for now. We have a start, and from that start we've set the next step. Is this logical? Are there problems with it now? All life is gone in the universe, and this is all that remains. Are we wrong in our approach? We'll move on after as it all builds up from here.

In other words your are asking if there is (or was) an original plan for the creation of the Universe. — Alkis Piskas

No, I'm actually not. I don't think it requires an intelligence for there to be a morality, only an intelligence to comprehend a morality. This is not a morality that is human centric, but universal.

Still, you don't define what you consider as "moral". This makes it difficult to engage in a quest on the subject of existence. For one thing, it raises the question, "Moral in what sense and for whom"? — Alkis Piskas

Morality is simply the question of, "What should be?" That's it. It doesn't require you or I. It doesn't require a God. Its the very simple question of whether there should, or should not be anything first, then building up from there.

They mean the same. 'Should there be?' is just another way of asking 'is there a reason for?' — Wayfarer

No, and here's why. I can explain the reason why we have pollution. Should there be pollution? I can explain the reason why a criminal stole from the bank. Should the criminal have stolen from the bank?

Here we are, trying to re-invent philosophy on the basis of hair-splitting distinctions. — Wayfarer

We're really not. What about the rest of the summary Wayfarer?

Where should we search for that? Morality is a broad term: it can mean conformity to a set of rules of right conduct. — Alkis Piskas

I did not summarize everything in the OP, though perhaps I should have. As defined in the OP, morality is "what should be".

Now, about your logical scheme ... I have some difficulty following it. What does "everything should not exist" --or its opposite for that matter, "everything should exist"-- mean? How and where can this be applied to? And what does this have to do with morality? (Morality comes in only in step (4).) — Alkis Piskas

The point is that all moral questions will eventually require this question, "Should there be existence?". "Why should we help people?" must answer the question, "Why should there be people?" which eventually must answer the question, "Why should there be anything at all?"

Isn't that another way of asking 'is there a reason for existence?' — Wayfarer

No, its really just asking the question, "Should there be existence?" Check my reply above to Alkis, you're both on a similar line of questioning.

Nice topic! Are you able to follow what's going on here? I just posted a little summary for Wayfarer above. I would love to hear your opinions if you're interested.

Do you have any famous philosophers in mind here, or just the hoi polloi? — Joshs

Just the general industry. Famous philosophers are typically famous for a good reason.

I disagree. There is no word in any language that expresses "epiphenomenalism". From this fact, it is evident that there is a need for new words to be coined. Those new words quickly become jargon. — Lionino

I'm more going by George Orwell's six point of writing.

Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
Never use a long word where a short one will do.
If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
Never use the passive where you can use the active.
Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

If epiphenomenalism is the the most clear and simple way of communicating an idea, use it. I'm not stating use of vocabulary should be restricted. It should be used as needed for clarity, not to pad a sentence with jargon when it could be stated more simply.