A first cause is logically necessary
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/869311
. Because there are no other plausibilties to how causality functions, the only {logical} conclusion is that a causal chain will always lead to an Alpha, or first cause. — Philosophim
Pardon me for my audacious assumption. For clarity, I replaced your second "only" with "logical". Although the assertion would work as written, with "only-only" as an emphatic way of saying "no alternatives".
I doubt that ↪180 Proof can refute your reasoning, so he merely denies your conclusion. First Cause arguments open the door to inferences of Creator Gods, that 180's belief system explicitly excludes. Therefore, Atheistic worldviews must assume, as an implicit axiom, that the universe itself is eternal, without beginning or end. In which case, there is no need for a First Cause. As a hypothetical worldview, Einstein's Block Time Eternalism is static & acausal, and bears little resemblance to our incrementally-evolving ever-changing space-time reality, with something new every day. In which case our common sense notion of Time is a "persistent" illusion.
But if our increment of eternity is causal & sequential, 180's non-starter world must then be acausal & discontinuous. If so, his logic is circular, while yours is linear & reasonable : it begins with an either/or premise, and reaches an irrefutable logical conclusion. Unless, of course our world is a Block-time Universe, or one big random series of accidents : no logic, no reason, no direction, just "it is what it is". Atheistic scientists & philosophers are not embarrassed to fill the Causal Gap before the Big Bang with a tower of turtles Multiverse : causes stacked on top of each other, rather than sequential.
PS___"First Cause" arguments are literally & deliberately agnostic about the gap-filler.
A Causal Theory of Knowing :
A causal chain is described as a sequence of events for which one event in a chain causes the next. According to Goldman, these chains can only exist with the presence of an accepted fact, a belief in the fact, and a cause for the subject to believe the fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Causal_ ... of_Knowing
Note --- Since Plato, the First Cause argument has been an accepted premise for reasoning about causation. Of course, like a pool-shooter, the initial impetus (causal power) may not itself be a link in the space-time chain of bouncing balls.
IT'S TURTLES ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE ETERNAL TURTLE
Turtles%20all%20the%20way.png
WHERE'S THE FIRST CAUSE?
shooterspool-Diamond-Pro-Am-player-view.webp
TPF : First Cause arguments
Re: TPF : First Cause arguments
↪180 Proof
Is this a correct paraphrase of your response to Philosophim’s thesis: spacetime, an unbounded, finite, beginning-less phenomenon, requires an arbitrary starting point re: sequential processes. It can be considered a “working” starting point, but there’s no logical necessity guiding the choice of a particular starting point. — ucarr
Don't get me started . . . . . . . . . . . . :joke:
Metaphysical necessity :
In philosophy, metaphysical necessity, sometimes called broad logical necessity, is one of many different kinds of necessity, which sits between logical necessity and nomological (or physical) necessity, in the sense that logical necessity entails metaphysical necessity, but not vice versa, and metaphysical necessity entails physical necessity, but not vice versa. A proposition is said to be necessary if it could not have failed to be the case. Nomological necessity is necessity according to the laws of physics and logical necessity is necessity according to the laws of logic, while metaphysical necessities are necessary in the sense that the world could not possibly have been otherwise. What facts are metaphysically necessary, and on what basis we might view certain facts as metaphysically but not logically necessary are subjects of substantial discussion in contemporary philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_necessity
Is this a correct paraphrase of your response to Philosophim’s thesis: spacetime, an unbounded, finite, beginning-less phenomenon, requires an arbitrary starting point re: sequential processes. It can be considered a “working” starting point, but there’s no logical necessity guiding the choice of a particular starting point. — ucarr
Don't get me started . . . . . . . . . . . . :joke:
Metaphysical necessity :
In philosophy, metaphysical necessity, sometimes called broad logical necessity, is one of many different kinds of necessity, which sits between logical necessity and nomological (or physical) necessity, in the sense that logical necessity entails metaphysical necessity, but not vice versa, and metaphysical necessity entails physical necessity, but not vice versa. A proposition is said to be necessary if it could not have failed to be the case. Nomological necessity is necessity according to the laws of physics and logical necessity is necessity according to the laws of logic, while metaphysical necessities are necessary in the sense that the world could not possibly have been otherwise. What facts are metaphysically necessary, and on what basis we might view certain facts as metaphysically but not logically necessary are subjects of substantial discussion in contemporary philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_necessity
Re: TPF : First Cause arguments
My issue again is the assertion that because we can think of a possibility, that this somehow invalidates what we know today. — Philosophim
Coincidentally, the same day you posted that skeptical warning of the perils of un-grounded speculation beyond current evidence, I read in Skeptical Inquirer magazine (vol 48, issue 1) an article by philosopher Massimo Pigliucci on Pseudoscience. He includes a list of criteria*1 to "demarcate sense from nonsense". The items on that list were written down in Roman orator Cicero's On Divination circa 44BCE, in which he compared Astrology negatively to scientific Astronomy.
In my own speculative thesis, the logical consistency*1a, will have to be judged by others, because we have difficulty seeing the errors in our own reasoning. Since Enformationism is a philosophical conjecture, about a topic with little or no empirical evidence*1b to date, confirmation of the postulation will have to wait for hard Science to catch up with soft Philosophy. The causal mechanisms*1c underlying Consciousness remain mysterious, but the thesis specifically postulates a primordial prototype of modern Energy as the First Cause. The evolutionary process that produced Mind from Matter is not arbitrary*1d, but its intermediate steps are currently unknown, just as material Phase Transitions (states of matter) remain opaque after centuries of study. Moreover, the thesis does rely on a community of experts*1e (e.g. Santa Fe Institute)*2, who are investigating the emergence of Consciousness and Complexity from Holistic physical mechanisms.
Regardless of compliance with Cicero's Criteria, and with Skeptical caution, the Enformationism thesis remains a philosophical conjecture, not a scientific fact. So, those more interested in Confirmation Bias may be able to point to my own concept of how Mind emerged from Matter, as confirmation of their personal pseudoscience inclinations. For example, the article mentions Deepak Chopra, who follows similar reasoning to the conclusion of what he calls "Quantum Mysticism"*3. Which Pigliucci thinks is pseudoscience : "there is no such thing". Although, Chopra did not intend to "invalidate what we know today" about Mental phenomena, but to explain such "hard problems" in meaningful modern and traditional philosophical terms. Although his views are Holistic, I don't follow Chopra as an "expert", because he too often goes beyond the metaphorical/mystical point that I am comfortable with.
↪180 Proof also classifies my thesis as "mystical woo", even though I make no "spiritual" claims or magical assertions, only philosophical interpretations of physical observations. He seems to think Philosophy began in the 17th century, after the Enlightenment, and trails behind Science picking up crumbs. I repectfully disagree.
*1. Cicero's Criteria for making sense
a. Internal logical consistency
b. Empirical confirmation
c. Specificity of proposed causal mechanisms
d. Degree of arbitrariness
e. Existence of a qualified community of experts
*2. What does the Santa Fe Institute actually research/study? :
The Santa Fe Institute was founded in 1984 by a man named George Cowan, with the help of Murray Gell-Mann who is a Nobel-prize physicist, Phil Anderson, another Nobel-prize physicist, Ken Arrow who won a Nobel prize in economics, and others. These guys all got together and decided to help found this thing, and ‘this thing’ was a new way of doing science… [they] said ‘let’s start looking at ways we can study the whole thing, instead of reducing things.’ And this came right at a moment when personal computers were coming into their own.
https://www.reddit.com/r/cormacmccarthy ... _actually/
Note --- 180 associates Holism with New Age woo
*3. Quantum mysticism
Quantum mysticism, sometimes referred pejoratively to as quantum quackery or quantum woo,[1] is a set of metaphysical beliefs and associated practices that seek to relate consciousness, intelligence, spirituality, or mystical worldviews to the ideas of quantum mechanics and its interpretations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism
Coincidentally, the same day you posted that skeptical warning of the perils of un-grounded speculation beyond current evidence, I read in Skeptical Inquirer magazine (vol 48, issue 1) an article by philosopher Massimo Pigliucci on Pseudoscience. He includes a list of criteria*1 to "demarcate sense from nonsense". The items on that list were written down in Roman orator Cicero's On Divination circa 44BCE, in which he compared Astrology negatively to scientific Astronomy.
In my own speculative thesis, the logical consistency*1a, will have to be judged by others, because we have difficulty seeing the errors in our own reasoning. Since Enformationism is a philosophical conjecture, about a topic with little or no empirical evidence*1b to date, confirmation of the postulation will have to wait for hard Science to catch up with soft Philosophy. The causal mechanisms*1c underlying Consciousness remain mysterious, but the thesis specifically postulates a primordial prototype of modern Energy as the First Cause. The evolutionary process that produced Mind from Matter is not arbitrary*1d, but its intermediate steps are currently unknown, just as material Phase Transitions (states of matter) remain opaque after centuries of study. Moreover, the thesis does rely on a community of experts*1e (e.g. Santa Fe Institute)*2, who are investigating the emergence of Consciousness and Complexity from Holistic physical mechanisms.
Regardless of compliance with Cicero's Criteria, and with Skeptical caution, the Enformationism thesis remains a philosophical conjecture, not a scientific fact. So, those more interested in Confirmation Bias may be able to point to my own concept of how Mind emerged from Matter, as confirmation of their personal pseudoscience inclinations. For example, the article mentions Deepak Chopra, who follows similar reasoning to the conclusion of what he calls "Quantum Mysticism"*3. Which Pigliucci thinks is pseudoscience : "there is no such thing". Although, Chopra did not intend to "invalidate what we know today" about Mental phenomena, but to explain such "hard problems" in meaningful modern and traditional philosophical terms. Although his views are Holistic, I don't follow Chopra as an "expert", because he too often goes beyond the metaphorical/mystical point that I am comfortable with.
↪180 Proof also classifies my thesis as "mystical woo", even though I make no "spiritual" claims or magical assertions, only philosophical interpretations of physical observations. He seems to think Philosophy began in the 17th century, after the Enlightenment, and trails behind Science picking up crumbs. I repectfully disagree.
*1. Cicero's Criteria for making sense
a. Internal logical consistency
b. Empirical confirmation
c. Specificity of proposed causal mechanisms
d. Degree of arbitrariness
e. Existence of a qualified community of experts
*2. What does the Santa Fe Institute actually research/study? :
The Santa Fe Institute was founded in 1984 by a man named George Cowan, with the help of Murray Gell-Mann who is a Nobel-prize physicist, Phil Anderson, another Nobel-prize physicist, Ken Arrow who won a Nobel prize in economics, and others. These guys all got together and decided to help found this thing, and ‘this thing’ was a new way of doing science… [they] said ‘let’s start looking at ways we can study the whole thing, instead of reducing things.’ And this came right at a moment when personal computers were coming into their own.
https://www.reddit.com/r/cormacmccarthy ... _actually/
Note --- 180 associates Holism with New Age woo
*3. Quantum mysticism
Quantum mysticism, sometimes referred pejoratively to as quantum quackery or quantum woo,[1] is a set of metaphysical beliefs and associated practices that seek to relate consciousness, intelligence, spirituality, or mystical worldviews to the ideas of quantum mechanics and its interpretations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism
Re: TPF : First Cause arguments
One can maintain some respect for this thread if one sees it as ↪Philosophim attempting to phrase Fundamentality, in causal terms.
One might better understand what is being said if it is understood in terms of dependence rather than causation. The topic remains an opposition between infinitism and foundationalism, with Philosophim taking a foundationalist position. The alternative is an acceptance of infinite complexity, something that mathematicians may be more comfortable with than physicist — Banno
I was not aware of the philosophical notion of Fundamentality*1. But that is exactly what my un-orthodox personal worldview is based on. For philosophical, not scientific, purposes, I view Generic Information*2 as the fundamental essence of Reality. As Wheeler implied, the causal power to enform (Aristotelian Potential) is the logical precursor of actual Energy, Matter, and Mind.
I try to avoid "infinite complexity" by postulating a logically necessary First Cause (Zero) to get the cosmic ball rolling (Big Bang . . . .), but make no conjectures into unknowable Infinity. Just as Zero (Potential for all numbers) must precede One in a continuum, the First Cause is "ontologically independent and ungrounded". Just as Zero is immaterial, the hypothetical Cosmic Cause is more like the ethereal potential we commonly call "Energy". All origin theories (Big Bang ; Multiverse : Inflation) take Energy & Laws for granted, as fundamental necessities.
Like Physicalism, my thesis is a metaphysical posit, not a physical fact. It goes one step beyond the matter/energy elements of Physicalism to the predecessor or progenitor of those "its". Other than its logical necessity, we know nothing of the First Cause, but we can understand that everything real is dependent upon actualized Possibility (zero).
*1. Fundamentality :
The notion of fundamentality, as it is used in metaphysics, aims to capture the idea that there is something basic or primitive in the world. This metaphysical notion is related to the vernacular use of “fundamental”, but philosophers have also put forward various technical definitions of the notion. Among the most influential of these is the definition of absolute fundamentality in terms of ontological independence or ungroundedness.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fundamentality/
*2. Matter from Information :
Physicist John A. Wheeler's philosophical conjecture that information, not matter is fundamental.
"It from Bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses" ___JAW
https://www.themarginalian.org/2016/09/ ... t-wheeler/
↪Philosophim
ALL NUMBERS ARE DEPENDENT UPON ZERO
Fibonacci-sequence.png
One might better understand what is being said if it is understood in terms of dependence rather than causation. The topic remains an opposition between infinitism and foundationalism, with Philosophim taking a foundationalist position. The alternative is an acceptance of infinite complexity, something that mathematicians may be more comfortable with than physicist — Banno
I was not aware of the philosophical notion of Fundamentality*1. But that is exactly what my un-orthodox personal worldview is based on. For philosophical, not scientific, purposes, I view Generic Information*2 as the fundamental essence of Reality. As Wheeler implied, the causal power to enform (Aristotelian Potential) is the logical precursor of actual Energy, Matter, and Mind.
I try to avoid "infinite complexity" by postulating a logically necessary First Cause (Zero) to get the cosmic ball rolling (Big Bang . . . .), but make no conjectures into unknowable Infinity. Just as Zero (Potential for all numbers) must precede One in a continuum, the First Cause is "ontologically independent and ungrounded". Just as Zero is immaterial, the hypothetical Cosmic Cause is more like the ethereal potential we commonly call "Energy". All origin theories (Big Bang ; Multiverse : Inflation) take Energy & Laws for granted, as fundamental necessities.
Like Physicalism, my thesis is a metaphysical posit, not a physical fact. It goes one step beyond the matter/energy elements of Physicalism to the predecessor or progenitor of those "its". Other than its logical necessity, we know nothing of the First Cause, but we can understand that everything real is dependent upon actualized Possibility (zero).
*1. Fundamentality :
The notion of fundamentality, as it is used in metaphysics, aims to capture the idea that there is something basic or primitive in the world. This metaphysical notion is related to the vernacular use of “fundamental”, but philosophers have also put forward various technical definitions of the notion. Among the most influential of these is the definition of absolute fundamentality in terms of ontological independence or ungroundedness.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fundamentality/
*2. Matter from Information :
Physicist John A. Wheeler's philosophical conjecture that information, not matter is fundamental.
"It from Bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses" ___JAW
https://www.themarginalian.org/2016/09/ ... t-wheeler/
↪Philosophim
ALL NUMBERS ARE DEPENDENT UPON ZERO
Fibonacci-sequence.png
Re: TPF : First Cause arguments
What I have produced in mathematical terms is an actual chain - I can make it more specific with definitions of functions, etc. if you desire. Your actual chain is a complete abstraction. — jgill
They are both abstractions. While the math proof is nice, I'm still failing to see how it address the point. I still don't see anything in this other than talking about origins. For example, I could start my origin at 0, or start it at one when counting. But an origin is no the same as a full chain of causality that does not require an observer. — Philosophim
As you noted, ↪jgill's numerical chain is an abstract concept, not a perceptible "actual" thing. But he also doesn't seem to realize that the "First Cause" of his mathematical chain of abstractions was not "1" or "0" but his own imaginative mind. His chain would not exist in any sense, if he had not mentally pictured it in the first place.
It's easy to see that the First Cause of an abstract concept is an intentional Mind, but not so easy to accept that the First Cause of an actual physical evolutionary chain of creative events could originate in a creative Mind of some kind. In that sense, the Big Bang could be called a Conception, both literally (impregnation) and figuratively (creative idea). But the causal origin of that fetal conceptus had to exist, as a Potential, prior to the prime causal event (e.g. big bang). And its causal power had to be infinitely greater that that of any human intention.
Plato's First Cause was imagined as an abstract symbol of Causation, not a thing or being. His Logos was also an imaginary abstraction to represent the idea of a rational Principle responsible for the unique human ability to think logically, and to know that they are reasoning in accordance with the rules of Nature. So the First Cause/Logos was not a Real Thing --- because Reality had not yet been invented --- but merely the Potential to create real & thinking things.
"First" is a countable position in a sequence. But First Cause is the Origin or Genesis of the series from nothing : typically zero or infinity. Creative Causation is an immeasurable abstract idea, which implies an a priori Impetus or Force. And, an unreal non-physical Potential Origin of any physical series is a logical necessity to explain the emergence & existence of the Actual chain, from Potential no-chain. But, since we have no physical evidence of what existed prior to step "1", we can just call it "zero" or "infinity", or "god" --- all abstract concepts, with no instance in reality.
Intention : purpose ; to imagine a future state
Potential : capable of becoming real : possible.
Priority : the state or quality of being earlier in time or occurrence.
Generic : the cause of a whole genus (system of things & events)
Genesis : the origin or mode of formation of a thing or system.
Note --- My own Original Cause, of the chain of evolution, is what I call EnFormAction : the act of forming (manifesting) novelty. It's postulated as the precursor of Energy, Mind, and Matter. The origin of my own concept of generic causation was physicist John A. Wheeler's "it from bit" motif : a hypothetical conceit combining Quantum & Information theories into the kernel of a Theory of Everything.
They are both abstractions. While the math proof is nice, I'm still failing to see how it address the point. I still don't see anything in this other than talking about origins. For example, I could start my origin at 0, or start it at one when counting. But an origin is no the same as a full chain of causality that does not require an observer. — Philosophim
As you noted, ↪jgill's numerical chain is an abstract concept, not a perceptible "actual" thing. But he also doesn't seem to realize that the "First Cause" of his mathematical chain of abstractions was not "1" or "0" but his own imaginative mind. His chain would not exist in any sense, if he had not mentally pictured it in the first place.
It's easy to see that the First Cause of an abstract concept is an intentional Mind, but not so easy to accept that the First Cause of an actual physical evolutionary chain of creative events could originate in a creative Mind of some kind. In that sense, the Big Bang could be called a Conception, both literally (impregnation) and figuratively (creative idea). But the causal origin of that fetal conceptus had to exist, as a Potential, prior to the prime causal event (e.g. big bang). And its causal power had to be infinitely greater that that of any human intention.
Plato's First Cause was imagined as an abstract symbol of Causation, not a thing or being. His Logos was also an imaginary abstraction to represent the idea of a rational Principle responsible for the unique human ability to think logically, and to know that they are reasoning in accordance with the rules of Nature. So the First Cause/Logos was not a Real Thing --- because Reality had not yet been invented --- but merely the Potential to create real & thinking things.
"First" is a countable position in a sequence. But First Cause is the Origin or Genesis of the series from nothing : typically zero or infinity. Creative Causation is an immeasurable abstract idea, which implies an a priori Impetus or Force. And, an unreal non-physical Potential Origin of any physical series is a logical necessity to explain the emergence & existence of the Actual chain, from Potential no-chain. But, since we have no physical evidence of what existed prior to step "1", we can just call it "zero" or "infinity", or "god" --- all abstract concepts, with no instance in reality.
Intention : purpose ; to imagine a future state
Potential : capable of becoming real : possible.
Priority : the state or quality of being earlier in time or occurrence.
Generic : the cause of a whole genus (system of things & events)
Genesis : the origin or mode of formation of a thing or system.
Note --- My own Original Cause, of the chain of evolution, is what I call EnFormAction : the act of forming (manifesting) novelty. It's postulated as the precursor of Energy, Mind, and Matter. The origin of my own concept of generic causation was physicist John A. Wheeler's "it from bit" motif : a hypothetical conceit combining Quantum & Information theories into the kernel of a Theory of Everything.
Re: TPF : First Cause arguments
A first cause is logically necessary
In thinking on causality, I have concluded that the nature of existence necessitates a "first cause". The definition and justification of this conclusion are written below. This may be a little abstract for some at first, so please ask questions if certain portions need some clarity. I welcome all criticism! — Philosophim
I've skimmed the thread, and most of it is over my little pointy head. But one sticking point seems to be confusing a logical First Cause (of some resulting chain of events) with an objective Thing or God operating in space-time. But your responses sound like what you have in mind is much more abstract & subjective, and more like a First Principle*1. That's simply a philosophical/mathematical concept, as contrasted with a physical/material object. And a mereological distinction is that the hypothetical Cause is not a part of the system of secondary causes & effects. The analogy I like to use is a pool-shooter, who stands outside the table and bouncing balls.
*1. First Principle :
In philosophy and science, a first principle is a basic proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption. First principles in philosophy are from first cause attitudes and taught by Aristotelians, and nuanced versions of first principles are referred to as postulates by Kantians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_principle
In thinking on causality, I have concluded that the nature of existence necessitates a "first cause". The definition and justification of this conclusion are written below. This may be a little abstract for some at first, so please ask questions if certain portions need some clarity. I welcome all criticism! — Philosophim
I've skimmed the thread, and most of it is over my little pointy head. But one sticking point seems to be confusing a logical First Cause (of some resulting chain of events) with an objective Thing or God operating in space-time. But your responses sound like what you have in mind is much more abstract & subjective, and more like a First Principle*1. That's simply a philosophical/mathematical concept, as contrasted with a physical/material object. And a mereological distinction is that the hypothetical Cause is not a part of the system of secondary causes & effects. The analogy I like to use is a pool-shooter, who stands outside the table and bouncing balls.
*1. First Principle :
In philosophy and science, a first principle is a basic proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption. First principles in philosophy are from first cause attitudes and taught by Aristotelians, and nuanced versions of first principles are referred to as postulates by Kantians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_principle
Re: TPF : First Cause arguments
I'm only going to tweak this a bit for clarification. You may not be implying this, I just want to be clear that a first cause as proven here is not outside of our universe, but a necessary existent within our universe. The balls on the pool table are not separate from the pool shooter. The entirety of the interaction is part of the universe. — Philosophim
My Poolshooter analogy was intended to illustrate that the Initial Cause was a separate sub-System outside the sub-system affected. Not necessarily outside of the known universe. Unless, there are no other (isolated) physical sub-systems, in which case the causal effects would apply to the whole universe, without exception. And the First Cause would have to be Meta-Physical (i.e. not subject to physical laws).
So, if we are assuming that the chain of causation applies everywhere in the interconnected universe, then your immanent Cause could be its own Effect. For example the Cue ball is on the table, and can be impacted by the 8 ball. That's why my unique First Cause, or Causal Principle, is assumed to be off the table, outside the system affected.
However, some have postulated that, in a Multiverse of multiple self-contained cause & effect systems, our local 'verse was impacted by another verse, causing the Effect we call the Big Bang. But of course, evidence for an eternal chain of 'verses is unavailable from inside our own system. So, I prefer not to specify where the imaginary Poolshooter is standing, and just call him an abstract-but-necessary Principle.
My Poolshooter analogy was intended to illustrate that the Initial Cause was a separate sub-System outside the sub-system affected. Not necessarily outside of the known universe. Unless, there are no other (isolated) physical sub-systems, in which case the causal effects would apply to the whole universe, without exception. And the First Cause would have to be Meta-Physical (i.e. not subject to physical laws).
So, if we are assuming that the chain of causation applies everywhere in the interconnected universe, then your immanent Cause could be its own Effect. For example the Cue ball is on the table, and can be impacted by the 8 ball. That's why my unique First Cause, or Causal Principle, is assumed to be off the table, outside the system affected.
However, some have postulated that, in a Multiverse of multiple self-contained cause & effect systems, our local 'verse was impacted by another verse, causing the Effect we call the Big Bang. But of course, evidence for an eternal chain of 'verses is unavailable from inside our own system. So, I prefer not to specify where the imaginary Poolshooter is standing, and just call him an abstract-but-necessary Principle.
Re: TPF : First Cause arguments
Are you saying unique First Cause is necessary to chain of causation it's outside of and affecting?
Can you elaborate additional details about the unspecified whereness -- positionally speaking relative to the whole -- of abstract-but-necessary Principle? — ucarr
Are you saying: a) the logical first cause has no material physicality; b) the logical first cause that has no material physicality exists within our universe? — ucarr
Yes. My understanding of a logically necessary First Cause is a philosophical conjecture, not a scientific observation. So there is no "whereness" to specify. You can call it simply a Philosophical Principle, or a god, as you wish ; but like all fundamental Principles, the Prime Cause is a theoretical Concept, an Idea with "no material physicality". However, the referent is not an anthro-morphic deity located in space-time, but more like the Abstract Rational Principle of the US founding fathers, and the European philosophers such as Leibniz and Thomas Paine*1.
You can find more "details" under the heading of The Cosmological Argument*2. Colloquially, Deism is known as the "God of the Philosophers". As I said in the previous post : "But one sticking point seems to be confusing a logical First Cause (of some resulting chain of events) with an objective Thing or God operating in space-time". Philosophically, that confusion could be called a conflation of concepts & objects, of Ideality and Reality.
The scientific Big Bang theory understandably avoided the philosophical question of where the Energy & Laws of Nature came from. That's because those logical necessities for a Chain of Causation are presumably Eternal & Everywhere. Once you have Potential & Algorithms, the manifestation of Matter is a sequential physical Effect of a singular metaphysical Cause. So, it would be less confusing to call the prerequisites for a physical causal world a universal Philosophical Principle instead of a particular Scientific Fact.
*1. What is the deism theory of God? :
Rather, deism is the belief in a sole creator god who set the universe in motion according to nature's laws and then left it to run on its own. The evidence of a creator is discernible through human reason and logic and has nothing to do with any scriptural authority, revelation, or miraculous events.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/deism- ... -quiz.html
*2. Cosmological Argument :
Though they often disagreed, one principle of philosophy on which Plato and Aristotle agreed was that existence and the universe required a First Cause or Prime Mover - a god of some kind. Their argument was basically as follows. Every finite and dependent being has a cause. . . . .
https://lah.elearningontario.ca/CMS/pub ... /_ld1.html
Can you elaborate additional details about the unspecified whereness -- positionally speaking relative to the whole -- of abstract-but-necessary Principle? — ucarr
Are you saying: a) the logical first cause has no material physicality; b) the logical first cause that has no material physicality exists within our universe? — ucarr
Yes. My understanding of a logically necessary First Cause is a philosophical conjecture, not a scientific observation. So there is no "whereness" to specify. You can call it simply a Philosophical Principle, or a god, as you wish ; but like all fundamental Principles, the Prime Cause is a theoretical Concept, an Idea with "no material physicality". However, the referent is not an anthro-morphic deity located in space-time, but more like the Abstract Rational Principle of the US founding fathers, and the European philosophers such as Leibniz and Thomas Paine*1.
You can find more "details" under the heading of The Cosmological Argument*2. Colloquially, Deism is known as the "God of the Philosophers". As I said in the previous post : "But one sticking point seems to be confusing a logical First Cause (of some resulting chain of events) with an objective Thing or God operating in space-time". Philosophically, that confusion could be called a conflation of concepts & objects, of Ideality and Reality.
The scientific Big Bang theory understandably avoided the philosophical question of where the Energy & Laws of Nature came from. That's because those logical necessities for a Chain of Causation are presumably Eternal & Everywhere. Once you have Potential & Algorithms, the manifestation of Matter is a sequential physical Effect of a singular metaphysical Cause. So, it would be less confusing to call the prerequisites for a physical causal world a universal Philosophical Principle instead of a particular Scientific Fact.
*1. What is the deism theory of God? :
Rather, deism is the belief in a sole creator god who set the universe in motion according to nature's laws and then left it to run on its own. The evidence of a creator is discernible through human reason and logic and has nothing to do with any scriptural authority, revelation, or miraculous events.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/deism- ... -quiz.html
*2. Cosmological Argument :
Though they often disagreed, one principle of philosophy on which Plato and Aristotle agreed was that existence and the universe required a First Cause or Prime Mover - a god of some kind. Their argument was basically as follows. Every finite and dependent being has a cause. . . . .
https://lah.elearningontario.ca/CMS/pub ... /_ld1.html
Re: TPF : First Cause arguments
So, our world is an eternal following-causal-chain in the sense that its origin, Prime Cause, is an eternal logical necessity. — ucarr
I could agree with that statement, except that the "eternal" adjectives could be mis-interpreted. AFAIK the "causal chain" is spatial & temporal, not eternal : AFAIK, space-time began with a bang. The "logical necessity" is a concept in my mind, to explain the existence of the space-time world. It may be "eternal", but all I'm saying is that it is necessarily pre-big-bang.
I could agree with that statement, except that the "eternal" adjectives could be mis-interpreted. AFAIK the "causal chain" is spatial & temporal, not eternal : AFAIK, space-time began with a bang. The "logical necessity" is a concept in my mind, to explain the existence of the space-time world. It may be "eternal", but all I'm saying is that it is necessarily pre-big-bang.
Re: TPF : First Cause arguments
Have you not agreed with Gnomon (above) that immaterial yet real concepts -- as distinguished from matter -- are useful for correctly understanding your thesis, and therefore pertinent to it? — ucarr
Ha! Gnomon is not conspiring with ↪Philosophim to get our "story" straight. We just happen to view the First Cause postulate as a plausible philosophical explanation for the existence of a contingent & sequential Reality, in which a new thing or event necessarily follows from a previous event. The prior thing or event is what we call the "Cause"*1 of the subsequent thing or event. How we articulate that notion may vary. But in general we both seem to agree with the reasoning of Plato and Aristotle. If that sounds like Idealism to you, then so be it.
*1. What is Hume's theory of cause and effect? :
Hume saw causation as a relationship between two impressions or ideas in the mind. He argued that because causation is defined by experience, any cause-and-effect relationship could be incorrect because thoughts are subjective and therefore causality cannot be proven.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/the-me ... heory.html
By immaterial existence I mean an abstract concept -- or some such entity -- that inhabits the mind apart from matter. Have you not agreed with Gnomon (below) that concepts are immaterial and real? — ucarr
I suspect that the term "immaterial"*2 may mean something different to you than to Gnomon & Philosophim. For example : concepts & ideas are not "real" but ideal. We are not trying to say what an abstraction is "made of", because it's not a material object, and is not "made of" any physical substance.
I know that conceptual abstractions, such as Souls or Selves*3, do not fit neatly into the worldview of Materialism. But, regardless of their "true nature", they are useful concepts for philosophical understanding. And abstractions are essential for material technology*4. For example the imaginary (as-if) notion of an Electrical or Quantum Field has allowed engineers to build cellular communication systems that work well, even though we don't know the "true nature" of the invisible mathematical relationships that constitute the so-called "Field".
*2. On the Meaning of "Immaterial" :
Things we think of as immaterial, such as consciousness and soul, are material phenomena that we think must be immaterial because we do not yet know their true nature. To claim that something is immaterial implies it does not exist. Consciousness surely exists, and there are many good reasons to think souls do too.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... immaterial
Note --- I don't agree with this materialistic concept of "existence". Objects and Concepts "exist" in different "senses" : one is objective (sensory) and the other is subjective (ideational).
*3. The Soul is a Self-concept :
Self-concept is an overarching idea we have about who we are—physically, emotionally, socially, spiritually, and in terms of any other aspects that make up who we are.
https://positivepsychology.com/self-concept/
Note : I tend to use the secular concept of a "Self" to replace the religious concept of a "Soul". Neither is a material object, but a summation of all properties & qualities of a "Person", which is another abstraction. Hence, one abstraction can be a "component" of another concept, but you can't make anything physical from a pile of abstractions.
*4. Abstractions in Science & Technology :
Abstraction is an integral part of computational thinking and problem solving. It is also one of the most difficult parts of computational thinking to conceptualize. Much of this difficulty has to do with the semantics of the word “abstraction,” which is often inferred to mean unclear or vague. However, the more relevant definition of abstraction as it pertains to computer science is “the summary of something” or “the extraction from something.” . . . .
Abstraction, as used in computer science, is a simplified expression of a series of tasks or attributes that allow for a more defined, accessible representation of data or systems. In computer programming, abstraction is often considered a means of “hiding” additional details, external processes and internal technicalities to succinctly and efficiently define, replicate and execute a process.
https://www.learning.com/blog/examples- ... yday-life/
Ha! Gnomon is not conspiring with ↪Philosophim to get our "story" straight. We just happen to view the First Cause postulate as a plausible philosophical explanation for the existence of a contingent & sequential Reality, in which a new thing or event necessarily follows from a previous event. The prior thing or event is what we call the "Cause"*1 of the subsequent thing or event. How we articulate that notion may vary. But in general we both seem to agree with the reasoning of Plato and Aristotle. If that sounds like Idealism to you, then so be it.
*1. What is Hume's theory of cause and effect? :
Hume saw causation as a relationship between two impressions or ideas in the mind. He argued that because causation is defined by experience, any cause-and-effect relationship could be incorrect because thoughts are subjective and therefore causality cannot be proven.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/the-me ... heory.html
By immaterial existence I mean an abstract concept -- or some such entity -- that inhabits the mind apart from matter. Have you not agreed with Gnomon (below) that concepts are immaterial and real? — ucarr
I suspect that the term "immaterial"*2 may mean something different to you than to Gnomon & Philosophim. For example : concepts & ideas are not "real" but ideal. We are not trying to say what an abstraction is "made of", because it's not a material object, and is not "made of" any physical substance.
I know that conceptual abstractions, such as Souls or Selves*3, do not fit neatly into the worldview of Materialism. But, regardless of their "true nature", they are useful concepts for philosophical understanding. And abstractions are essential for material technology*4. For example the imaginary (as-if) notion of an Electrical or Quantum Field has allowed engineers to build cellular communication systems that work well, even though we don't know the "true nature" of the invisible mathematical relationships that constitute the so-called "Field".
*2. On the Meaning of "Immaterial" :
Things we think of as immaterial, such as consciousness and soul, are material phenomena that we think must be immaterial because we do not yet know their true nature. To claim that something is immaterial implies it does not exist. Consciousness surely exists, and there are many good reasons to think souls do too.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... immaterial
Note --- I don't agree with this materialistic concept of "existence". Objects and Concepts "exist" in different "senses" : one is objective (sensory) and the other is subjective (ideational).
*3. The Soul is a Self-concept :
Self-concept is an overarching idea we have about who we are—physically, emotionally, socially, spiritually, and in terms of any other aspects that make up who we are.
https://positivepsychology.com/self-concept/
Note : I tend to use the secular concept of a "Self" to replace the religious concept of a "Soul". Neither is a material object, but a summation of all properties & qualities of a "Person", which is another abstraction. Hence, one abstraction can be a "component" of another concept, but you can't make anything physical from a pile of abstractions.
*4. Abstractions in Science & Technology :
Abstraction is an integral part of computational thinking and problem solving. It is also one of the most difficult parts of computational thinking to conceptualize. Much of this difficulty has to do with the semantics of the word “abstraction,” which is often inferred to mean unclear or vague. However, the more relevant definition of abstraction as it pertains to computer science is “the summary of something” or “the extraction from something.” . . . .
Abstraction, as used in computer science, is a simplified expression of a series of tasks or attributes that allow for a more defined, accessible representation of data or systems. In computer programming, abstraction is often considered a means of “hiding” additional details, external processes and internal technicalities to succinctly and efficiently define, replicate and execute a process.
https://www.learning.com/blog/examples- ... yday-life/
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests