The universe itself is not the laws/principles governing the universe, is it? The “laws of physics” or the actual “Unified Field Theory”, are not in themselves, the universe itself, are they?
Which causes the universe?
The principle(s) that govern all reality or the universe itself?
To say that there is no God is to say that there is no highest theory (“Unified Field Theory”), no highest principle, governing the physical universe (perhaps only smaller ones; “gods”).
Things occur > then > the principles relative to their behaviour exist. Before something acts in a given manner you cannot have the knowledge/information concerning that event, you can only possibly have information from the previous event.
Ontology; Principles don’t come first! Reality is first and it isn’t composed of principles before behaviours happen.
If i were to say something insane like e.g. The truth is that the little people are moving all the particles in the universe around, rather than that the particles move of their own volition, that would be crazy.
If we assume that there is anything et al which is ‘behind’ the universe and all its constituent parts, it would be the same in principle to the little people!
Except by predicting them. The certainty, the existence, of principles are what allows you to know of the occurrences BEFORE they occur.
There is no “before and after” concerning eternal things, such as principles and consequential behavior. The principles always existed as did their consequences.
You are merely arguing the complexity of what is behind the behavior, the complexity of the principles. In ancient times, those “principles” were referred to as the “gods”. People give anthropomorphic qualities to such things and not totally without merit.
The only point is the the principles that govern the physical universe are not the physical universe, but “above” it, "meta-physics, not the natural, but the “super-natural”.
Just because a lot of moronic people gave human-like characteristics to some relatively simple eternal things, doesn’t mean the eternal things do not exist as a governance of the physical - above it, separate (to a degree) from the universe - not the universe.
No, it’s not.
No, they’re not.
The universe causes itself.
Principles show the predictive and mimicking properties of behaviours, yes. However the forces pushing things are what manifests those behaviours.
Once you have xyz you can predict that by the principles in xyz, before you have xyz, you cannot ~ because the principle only exists after the reality/occurrence.
We are not speaking of eternal things [especially where principles representing the motion of events in the world are concerned].
How can a principle ‘exist’? Especially prior to existence or an existence. The eternal is the universe prior to and after [generally ‘beyond’] differentiation, and an existence, information or a principle is a composition of difference.
I was actually arguing the problem of having anything ‘behind’ in a causal universe!
Metaphysics can equally have ‘properties’ or ‘principles’, here i am suggesting that the former must come before the latter. things before principles.
_
Haha … 
First, there are no actual “forces” pushing things. And secondly, the principles ARE the “predictive and mimicking” properties of behaviors.
Ridiculus. You personally, cannot know before you witness, because you haven’t the brain. But whether you know or not, the objective reality is that physics behaved before you even existed. More importantly, a behavior cannot come to be without a principle actualizing it, generally called “causality”. By definition, the cause must always come before the event (the behavior).
The fact that you don’t observe it until later is totally irrelevant.
ALL “principles” are eternal. And due to the infinite vastness of the universe all consequences of said principles are also eternal in they at every moment said consequence is happening somewhere in the universe.
Anything that affects anything else exists. Principles, “laws of physics”, affect things, thus they exist.
How can you NOT have anything “behind” in a causal universe? Causality itself is the principle “behind” such a universe.
Meta-physics IS the set of principles.
And a “thing” IS its properties at a particular location in space. A thing doesn’t exist and then magically grow some properties (else its growth would be its property). A “thing” IS whatever the thing is doing, its behavior, its properties at a particular location in space. One cannot separate a thing from its properties. But one can separate the situation that brought about those behaviors into that particular location as the “cause” of it, which is always a “principle”.
James S Saint
Well yes, forces are simply the name given to the effect one thing has upon another and that in multiplicity. To the latter point; you have one set of behaviours followed by another, the first predicts the next, there are no third parties. One thing has an effect upon another thing and we can >then< attribute a principle to how those behaviours occur. That places principles AFTER behaviours! If you change the behaviours you change the principles.
One event follows/causes another = causality. If you change how that happens then you change the principle. That there exists change means the universe is constantly changing how that happens. Now if you consider e.g. probability and relativity ~ means there is never a complete set of changes working in synchronicity or unison, then you cannot have affecting principles. …they cannot correlate exactly to >all particles<.
Hmm Well if eternal = infinite, then that principles are compositions of cardinal divisions in meaning, then they cannot be eternal. I assume also that God’s will would not wish for principles which he couldn’t then undo, and so his will would be that which composes principles and changes them according to it. This would also mean that principles are not eternal in that sense.
Or/ the laws of physics are representative! [I don’t mean just in terms of the mind or some such thing] There are no principles which can be shown to be affecting, there are only observers + events concerning their relative observations = behaviours. One event occurs and is observed, then that observation is the next event ~ there is nothing else involved.
I meant something else other than themselves i.e. No affecting third parties [as above].
Sure but ultimately there are no ‘things’. Do principles have thingness or not? No, so they to are in the category non-thing. if you give principles thingness they become properties or qualities.
You could not “attribute” it if it wasn’t already there. The behavior could not exist if not brought forth by an already existing principle and independent of any observer.
That principle has never changed, nor will it ever. Such principles are eternal.
All principles (actual principles, not supposed principles) are eternal.
There are the predictive principles that tell the observer of events that have not even happened yet. If the principle didn’t exist, how could it cause a person to accurately predict?
Causality is NOT the events taking place. Causality is a separate, abstract concept. It does not belong to any event. It is “above” the particular events that reflect it.
“There are no things”???
There goes your materialist perspective out the window.
There are two realms of existence (count them - “two”). There is the physical realm (the one you can’t seem to think beyond). And there is the “Conceptual Realm” historically called the “Realm of the Divine”, the realm of “things” like angels, gods, principles, ideas, strategies, and … “laws of physics”.
Do you propose that the laws of physics do not exist?
Do this two realms of existence interact with each other in such a way that somtehing of the first realm can become something of the second realm and something of the second realm can become something of the first realm? For example: Is it possible that an atom can become a word or an idea an electron? 
Then you are saying that a behaviour is caused by something and not by itself or another behaviour/observation upon it. So now you need to say what the cause is and how it is making affect/effect, but we don’t do that in causal considerations. There isn’t a principle >acting< first, otherwise we would be able to read what it is but we don’t do that. What we read is one event followed by another and those events have properties.
The universe the principle pertains to is not eternal. + if you agree the said principle is true then affecting principles aren’t true!
Name one? …an eternal or any principle which isn’t finite/limited in its composition.
Predicting events is done upon the basis of repetition. As long as strings of events follow a path of behaviours then the principle applies.
Causality specifically is events occurring, it’s abstract concept is merely a human construct pertaining to that fact.
Since when have i been a materialist? There are no things [because there are no absolutes] and there are thus no principles governing non-things. A relativistic event which in QM is not spatially located, is probabilistic etc, is not an object nor thing. It is a behaviour acting upon the ‘fabric’ of reality which is real and makes the behaviour real by virtue of a change being made to said reality.
Noting the above position, the realm of the concept is no different to the realm of behaviours. you are proposing a duality!!!?
Yes absolutely. They only apply while the conditions for them are true.
how can a law ‘exist’?
_
James, keep in mind the principles that govern all reality are part of the universe.
What do you think about the “unmoved mover”?
No, they actually are not, by conventional definition. The physical universe is made of the changing. The principles do not ever change. They are not a part of the physical universe, yet a part of “all reality”.
And the “unmoved mover” is also a concept of no changing and thus, by definition, not a part of the physical universe.
Yes, but my question was: What do you think about the “unmoved mover”? I guess that, according to RM:AO, it is a concept, thus a part of the conceptual realm. But is there any connection between the two realms - in the sense of my former question?
I disagree. The Wikipedia page for “Universe” states “The Universe is customarily defined as everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist…The Universe also encompasses all of life, all of history, and some philosophers and scientists even suggest that it encompasses ideas such as mathematics.” Since the principles exist, although they may never change, they are therefore by the customary definition of the Universe part of it.
I don’t know who’s “custom” that is, but it certainly is not common. They have words like “metaphysics”, “supernatural”, and “divine”, all referring to things considered not part of the physical universe. If the universe is supposed to be synonymous with “reality”, why bother having both words?
But if you are going to declare your usage of “universe” to include all that exists in any sense of exiting, then it is tautological that the universe causes the universe because you have defined that nothing else can exist.
But then if I declare that my usage of “woman” includes all humanoids, then nothing but women exist as the human species and you are a woman.
Not in the part I quoted.
I haven’t claimed the universe and reality are synonymous.
I haven’t claimed the universe includes all that exists in any sense of existing. The Wikipedia article suggests the universe includes all that exists in a single, fixed sense of existing.
Sorry, I had missed that post.
Yes, in RM:AO, the Unmoved Mover is a concept and thus eternal. And it also represents the one point where the two realms come together. The Unmoved Mover is Impossibility itself, never changing yet responsible for all changing/physicality - never moved, yet responsible for all movement - ever present, all powerful, never fooled.
Never mind!
Interesting thread (except some “special posts” 
).