The Most Basic Question...

[Mock Turtle]

The first cause is the start of the causal chain. The causal chain cannot go to infinity in the past or we would not be here yet.
Once you see that, then you should see that there is no cause to the first cause, and this first cause must be timeless, exist outside of time.

Well I would dispute your word 'must'. And this view is merely your belief.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I have never seen anything that exists which has been caused to exist. Everything I have witnessed has merely been a re-arrangement of what already existed. If you caused something to exist, you would violate the 1st law of thermodynamics, which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. This is because everything that exists is an arrangement of energy, so when we are "creating" or "destroying" something we are actually not creating or destroying anything but merely re-arranging energy.

Causation itself is also contingent upon time existing, because a cause is partially defined by the fact that it precedes its effect in time. A cause cannot happen simultaneously or after its effect. This is central to the laws of causation. All causes therefore must take place within a specific point in time which precedes its corresponding effect.

This is something we are all familiar with. A baseball will not fly into the air before you hit it with a bat; you must hit with the bat first in order for it to then fly away. Likewise, the ball is not already flying through the air when you hit it. The ball only begins flying after the momentum from the bat has been transferred into the ball.

Since a cause refers to a particular point in time, they require a timeline that they can exist as a point on. If you hit a baseball with a bat, then that happens at a specific time, such as August 1, 1934 at 4:02 p.m. The effect on the ball is a few nanoseconds later, "around" the same point in time but directly after it.

So at what point on a timeline could the cause of the timeline be? It can't be T=0 because then the cause would be simultaneous with its effect. It can't be T=-1 because that does not refer to a valid point in time. How can a cause be "before" time if "before" refers to a point in time preceding another point in time? The answer: it can't. It's literally impossible.

Our universe is composed of spacetime and the energy arranged within spacetime, so it includes all causes and effects within our timeline. As such, our universe cannot have been caused, because causes can only exist within the universe itself and you cannot have a cause without a universe.

Thus, there is no intelligent creator of the universe, because our universe cannot have been created. Therefore, God (when defined as the creator of the universe) is impossible. Therefore, we can say that we know with absolute certainty that there is no God.

Even if we take a non-linear view of time, and in so doing cast doubt on our understanding of cause and effect, we must still acknowledge the correlation of events in time and space. Indeed, if we take a Monist, or holistic view of the universe, we may observe that, while there are parts of the whole, there are no whole parts. Everything but the whole, is necessarily incomplete, and ultimately empty. Dharmic philosophers knew this millennia ago, Western scientific thought is just catching up.

Reductionist thinking tries to break the universe down into separate distinct parts, but when you get right down to it, the parts, it seems, are without substance. Everything is connected, to the extent that every phenomenon has qualities only in the manner of it’s relation to other phenomena, and to the entirety of existence.

And since all of existence is but a dream, emerging from a universal consciousness of which we ourselves are but illusory fragments, I can say with conviction to match your certainty that everything in the universe is a manifestation of the will of it’s creator

 

[Ella S.]

Even if we take a non-linear view of time, and in so doing cast doubt on our understanding of cause and effect, we must still acknowledge the correlation of events in time and space. Indeed, if we take a Monist, or holistic view of the universe, we may observe that, while there are parts of the whole, there are no whole parts. Everything but the whole, is necessarily incomplete, and ultimately empty. Dharmic philosophers knew this millennia ago, Western scientific thought is just catching up.

Reductionist thinking tries to break the universe down into separate distinct parts, but when you get right down to it, the parts, it seems, are without substance. Everything is connected, to the extent that every phenomenon has qualities only in the manner of it’s relation to other phenomena, and to the entirety of existence.

And since all of existence is but a dream, emerging from a universal consciousness of which we ourselves are but illusory fragments, I can say with conviction to match your certainty that everything in the universe is a manifestation of the will of it’s creator

I was with you up until you said that all of existence is a dream emerging from a universal consciousness.

I agree with you that a monist approach to the universe seems to be the most in line with the evidence. There is not a plurality of different things, but a quantum foam. There is not a duality of matter and mind, but a unity. However, we seem to be split on what this unity is.

I think the unity is nature, not mind. Rather than being conscious itself, consciousness is an emergent property that only exists through relationships with it. Consciousness, awareness, attention, wakefulness, mindfulness, in fact mind itself, is just as much a higher-level illusion based on the arrangement of energy within our brains. It's not a universal. I think neuroscience has shown this much for awhile now.

There are some dharmic philosophers that have pointed this out, too, so it isn't a new idea. I have in mind some particular interpretations of sunyata and its relationship with nibbana.

However, dharmic philosophers didn't really know the truth about the universe or anything like that. A ton of religions and philosophies made guesses about it and some dharmic ideas happened to be right (ETA: or, more accurately, similar enough to evoke the near-enough fallacy). It's not because they had a deeper knowledge of the universe than modern scientists.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I was with you up until you said that all of existence is a dream emerging from a universal consciousness.

I agree with you that a monist approach to the universe seems to be the most in line with the evidence. There is not a plurality of different things, but a quantum foam. There is not a duality of matter and mind, but a unity. However, we seem to be split on what this unity is.

I think the unity is nature, not mind. Rather than being conscious itself, consciousness is an emergent property that only exists through relationships with it. Consciousness, awareness, attention, wakefulness, mindfulness, in fact mind itself, is just as much a higher-level illusion based on the arrangement of energy within our brains. It's not a universal. I think neuroscience has shown this much for awhile now.

There are some dharmic philosophers that have pointed this out, too, so it isn't a new idea. I have in mind some particular interpretations of sunyata and its relationship with nibbana.

However, dharmic philosophers didn't really know the truth about the universe or anything like that. A ton of religions and philosophies made guesses about it and some dharmic ideas happened to be right (ETA: or, more accurately, similar enough to evoke the near-enough fallacy). It's not because they had a deeper knowledge of the universe than modern scientists.

Yes, I knew you’d rebel at the suggestion of universal consciousness. We may be coming from opposite directions, you and I, but we can still meet in the middle.

Are you familiar with philosopher David Chalmers, and neuroscientist Giulio Tononi, and their developing ideas about the hard problem of consciousness? That consciousness may be firstly fundamental - as intrinsic to the universe as time and space (See Berkeley and Kant) - and secondly, universal.

Tononi is developing what he calls Intergrated Information Theory; that consciousness and information are synonymous, and that wherever information is exchanged and processed, a fragment of consciousness exists there. The more complex and diverse the information processed within a system, the higher the level of consciousness. So that while a photon carries a quantum of consciousness, it’s certainly not self aware in the sense that something as infinitely complex as a human mind is self aware. The sheer volume, range and complexity of information our minds are bombarded with through the senses, accounts for our highly developed consciousness; and perhaps for the fact that we can access different levels, manifestations, and intensities of consciousness. Theoretical physicist Roger Penrose has been exploring similar territory through a slightly different paradigm, and has expressed the view that any full description of the universe, mathematical or ontological, will ultimately have to account for the role of consciousness.

Anyway, it’s certainly not the case that neuroscience has conclusively proven consciousness to be an emergent property of electrical impulses in a material brain. Correlation, between mind and body, does not imply causation. Nor can there be any full understanding of the relationship between mind and body, without accounting for spirit, as Karl Jung observed.

And one should never underestimate the wisdom of the ancients imo, nor succumb to the modernist hubris which proclaims the innate superiority of our post enlightenment thought.

 

[Ella S.]

Yes, I knew you’d rebel at the suggestion of universal consciousness. We may be coming from opposite directions, you and I, but we can still meet in the middle.

Are you familiar with philosopher David Chalmers, and neuroscientist Giulio Tononi, and their developing ideas about the hard problem of consciousness? That consciousness may be firstly fundamental - as intrinsic to the universe as time and space (See Berkeley and Kant) - and secondly, universal.

Tononi is developing what he calls Intergrated Information Theory; that consciousness and information are synonymous, and that wherever information is exchanged and processed, a fragment of consciousness exists there. The more complex and diverse the information processed within a system, the higher the level of consciousness. So that while a photon carries a quantum of consciousness, it’s certainly not self aware in the sense that something as infinitely complex as a human mind is self aware. The sheer volume, range and complexity of information our minds are bombarded with through the senses, accounts for our highly developed consciousness; and perhaps for the fact that we can access different levels, manifestations, and intensities of consciousness. Theoretical physicist Roger Penrose has been exploring similar territory through a slightly different paradigm, and has expressed the view that any full description of the universe, mathematical or ontological, will ultimately have to account for the role of consciousness.

Anyway, it’s certainly not the case that neuroscience has conclusively proven consciousness to be an emergent property of electrical impulses in a material brain. Correlation, between mind and body, does not imply causation. Nor can there be any full understanding of the relationship between mind and body, without accounting for spirit, as Karl Jung observed.

And one should never underestimate the wisdom of the ancients imo, nor succumb to the modernist hubris which proclaims the innate superiority of our post enlightenment thought.

I've heard of Integrated Information Theory. I've also heard of the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe, which is similar. I'm interested in their developments. I know they are often written off, but I think they represent respectable challenges to naturalism.

I certainly don't think naturalism has been proven to be an absolute truth or that we can know for total certainty that evidence will never overturn it. However, I do think it's where our current evidence leads to, but you're completely right. A wide number of experiments being conducted right now could potentially refute naturalism, or at least provide compelling evidence for contradictory philosophies.

I will say that I think you underestimate what neuroscience has demonstrated. Part of science is testing causative relationships and figuring out which correlations actually do constitute causation. I can say with reasonable surety that neuroscience hasn't just demonstrated a correlation between neural activity and mental states, but has actually repeatedly demonstrated outright causation through what I would call a proliferation of experimental evidence.

I also agree. I don't think we should underestimate the wisdom of the ancients, just their scientific knowledge. I myself draw heavily from Stoicism, a literally ancient philosophy, but much of its stances on physics and metaphysics have been outright wrong. That's the case with the vast majority of claims made by ancients. The only way we can figure out which ones hold water is by testing them with science, in my opinion.

I don't think that subtracts from their wisdom or brilliance, but our knowledge and understanding grow with time off of the foundations of previous knowledge. Scientists haven't rejected the ancients. Modern science is built off of the back of centuries of natural philosophy, itself in debt to a number of ancient philosophers and thinkers. Science is just further along in its development because it's had the time to grow.

 

[Heyo]

I don't cease to exist after I do a post, so God doesn't need to cease to exist after causing things to exist.

Who's talking about gods? We were talking about a cause. I won't let you get away with a bait-and-switch without you proving that one is identical to the other.
You never get a second chance to make a first impression and there is only one first cause. Everything subsequent is no longer a first cause.

 

[Brian2]

Well I would dispute your word 'must'. And this view is merely your belief.

If the first cause was always in time then the first cause and us and the argument would have the same problem as all the other caused things, we would not be here yet if we would need to go through an infinite length of time to be here.

 

[Brian2]

Who's talking about gods? We were talking about a cause. I won't let you get away with a bait-and-switch without you proving that one is identical to the other.
You never get a second chance to make a first impression and there is only one first cause. Everything subsequent is no longer a first cause.

That's true, the first cause is not God at this point and is not necessarily alive. I got ahead of myself. But a first cause can also cause other things imo. Why is it orderly for a first cause to only exist until it causes something else? Is that like life's purpose being to reproduce and then it can die?

 

[Heyo]

Why is it orderly for a first cause to only exist until it causes something else? Is that like life's purpose being to reproduce and then it can die?

Remember where the "first cause" argument came from?
Everything that begins to exist has a cause. You exist because your parents had sex. Your parents exist because your grandparents had sex. And so on. There is a chain of causes which goes back to one single cause (or ends in an infinite regress). Any additional later uncaused event would be 1. not orderly (i.e. magical) and 2. not a first cause.

 

[Brian2]

Remember where the "first cause" argument came from?
Everything that begins to exist has a cause. You exist because your parents had sex. Your parents exist because your grandparents had sex. And so on. There is a chain of causes which goes back to one single cause (or ends in an infinite regress). Any additional later uncaused event would be 1. not orderly (i.e. magical) and 2. not a first cause.

So are you saying that if the first cause were a god then 1) it would have to be a deist variety and would just start things off because it would be untidy to do anything else and people might have to start believing in the supernatural (instead of just science with natural answers) and 2) it would not be a deistic god if it did anything else.

 

[Heyo]

So are you saying that if the first cause were a god then 1) it would have to be a deist variety and would just start things off because it would be untidy to do anything else and people might have to start believing in the supernatural (instead of just science with natural answers) and 2) it would not be a deistic god if it did anything else.

I'm saying that "god" is not a cause, at least not if god is anything else than a cause. If we assume, just as an example, the Judeo-Christian-Muslim image of god(s), they created the universe by a magic spell. In that case, the universe was caused by a magic spell, not by gods.
We have to distinguish between an action and the actor. Just as your parents are not the cause of you, but the action of having sex.

 

[viole]

I've heard tell that the most "basic question" that we can try to answer is "why is there something rather than nothing?" (Other's might think the most basic question is "why won't my willie let me alone," but let's ignore that one for this discussion.)

That question is unanswerable. On pure logical grounds. The very fact that it assumes an ontological dichotomy between “nothing” and “something” undermines any possible answers we can give.

in fact, let us suppose that X is an answer. Because of the dichotomy, either X is nothing, or it is something.

case 1: X is nothing. In this case the explanation is: there is something instead of nothing because of nothing. Which is a clear logical contradiction

case 2: X is something. In this case the explanation is: there is something instead of something because of something. Which clearly does not answer the question.

Therefore, for all possible answers, either the answer is contradictory, or it is no answer. IOW: the set of possible answers is empty, and the question is unanswerable.

ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

We could theorise causes going back ad infinitum. A problem with that would be that there could not be an infinite number of causes or we would not be at this particular cause yet.
That tells us that there had to have been a first cause, something that existed without a cause.
This seems to tell us that this first cause is of a different nature to us and everything that has a cause.

I don’t think this argument obtains. Even though I think the concept of causality is applicable only with a macroscopic universe already in place (rendering thereby any cosmological argument based on causality totally futile), I do not see any problem with infinite regress. At least prima facie.

for starters, it is possible to have infinite regress that takes finite time. i can easily construct a possible universe that is not older than one hour, based on infinite regress of causes. So, it is not clear to me what logical objection can really kill infinite regress as a logically, but not necessarily nomological, possible explanation.

ciao

- viole

 

[Nakosis]

I've heard tell that the most "basic question" that we can try to answer is "why is there something rather than nothing?" (Other's might think the most basic question is "why won't my willie let me alone," but let's ignore that one for this discussion.)

It seems that many people cannot understand why there is a universe at all (I'm in that group -- I accept it, but don't understand it).

Everyone, as I understand it, agrees that "nothing comes from nothing." (I'm not sure, but I think that makes some kind of sense...but

Yet, here we are, and all we curious humans want to know why and how we got here.

How do you approach this? Most of humanity (on the numbers, I'd say "virtually all" of humanity) has decided that there must be something "outside," something "not this," that caused our existence.

But on what basis do you suppose that? Is it wrong to ask, if our universe, our existence is impossible, "what makes an outside cause possible?" Where did it come from, why does it exist, what kind of thing is it that existed and plotted creation when there was -- literally -- nothing but it?

The question I am trying to ask -- for anyone who would like to try actually "philosophising," is simply this: "why can't something exist without something to cause it to exist, and yet the cause can exist without a cause?"

This is an exercise in philosophy. Do your best.

So, I'm not being critical of the question.
However, for myself, I'm pretty sure I will never know the answer so why make something up.

That is mostly how I see philosophy. Taking questions we'll never have the answer for and making something up.

 

[Brian2]

I'm saying that "god" is not a cause, at least not if god is anything else than a cause. If we assume, just as an example, the Judeo-Christian-Muslim image of god(s), they created the universe by a magic spell. In that case, the universe was caused by a magic spell, not by gods.
We have to distinguish between an action and the actor. Just as your parents are not the cause of you, but the action of having sex.

And God is the cause of the magic spell.
And the magic spell causes something else, and that causes something else etc and eventually the universe is the effect.
And having sex isn't the cause of me it is the sperm and egg uniting.

 

[Brian2]

I don’t think this argument obtains. Even though I think the concept of causality is applicable only with a macroscopic universe already in place (rendering thereby any cosmological argument based on causality totally futile), I do not see any problem with infinite regress. At least prima facie.

for starters, it is possible to have infinite regress that takes finite time. i can easily construct a possible universe that is not older than one hour, based on infinite regress of causes. So, it is not clear to me what logical objection can really kill infinite regress as a logically, but not necessarily nomological, possible explanation.

ciao

- viole

Since we are talking infinite time I don't think your possible universe is relevant.
With the wonders of theoretical mathematics I can move my hand through an infinite number of points in a split second, but that has nothing to do with infinite time into the past either.
Infinite time into the past takes infinite time to traverse.
Logically time could not have traversed that and so infinity into the past is logically impossible.

 

[Heyo]

And God is the cause of the magic spell.
And the magic spell causes something else, and that causes something else etc and eventually the universe is the effect.
And having sex isn't the cause of me it is the sperm and egg uniting.

Yes, but is it the first cause? As you see, it is complicated.

 

[Heyo]

Logically time could not have traversed that and so infinity into the past is logically impossible.

Take a number, any number. For example 2023. It is the number after 2022, which in turn is preceded by 2021. Every whole number has a predecessor. But as it would take infinite time to get to minus infinity, numbers can't logically exist.

Infinity is even more complicated than beginnings.

By the way, do you believe in a god that is eternal? I.e. it existed for an infinite time in the past? If so, how do you explain that after an infinite time had passed (contradiction!) it decided to create the universe?

If that god did not exist an infinite time in the past, it had a beginning and everything that has a beginning needs a cause ...

No matter how you turn it, unless you stop thinking at a convenient time, you run into a paradox. Existence is paradoxical.

 

[viole]

Since we are talking infinite time I don't think your possible universe is relevant.
With the wonders of theoretical mathematics I can move my hand through an infinite number of points in a split second, but that has nothing to do with infinite time into the past either.
Infinite time into the past takes infinite time to traverse.
Logically time could not have traversed that and so infinity into the past is logically impossible.

i never talked of infinite time.

infinite regress does not entail infinite time in the past at all. You seem to confuse the two.

ciao

- viole

 

[icehorse]

I've heard tell that the most "basic question" that we can try to answer is "why is there something rather than nothing?" (Other's might think the most basic question is "why won't my willie let me alone," but let's ignore that one for this discussion.)

It seems that many people cannot understand why there is a universe at all (I'm in that group -- I accept it, but don't understand it).

Everyone, as I understand it, agrees that "nothing comes from nothing." (I'm not sure, but I think that makes some kind of sense...but

Yet, here we are, and all we curious humans want to know why and how we got here.

How do you approach this? Most of humanity (on the numbers, I'd say "virtually all" of humanity) has decided that there must be something "outside," something "not this," that caused our existence.

But on what basis do you suppose that? Is it wrong to ask, if our universe, our existence is impossible, "what makes an outside cause possible?" Where did it come from, why does it exist, what kind of thing is it that existed and plotted creation when there was -- literally -- nothing but it?

The question I am trying to ask -- for anyone who would like to try actually "philosophising," is simply this: "why can't something exist without something to cause it to exist, and yet the cause can exist without a cause?"

This is an exercise in philosophy. Do your best.

I think we're at the very, very beginning of the journey to understand the universe. I suspect that as we "peel the onion" of understanding, our minds are going to get blown, over and over again.

In other words, who friggin knows?