I’d like to know what everyone thinks is more logical out of the following two possibilities.
Every effect has a cause. An infinite regression of cause and effect exists.
There is a regression of cause and effect to one infinite cause. This cause just ‘is’ and is uncaused/infinite.
Both of these possibilities are quite un-intuitive and difficult to comprehend, but I would say most people would have a preference, one way or the other.
Are these the only two possibilities for the state of events? Are there any other possibilities?
Ive considered this one myself… and the conclusion I came to is actually not out of preferance, but logical, I would think. How do you like this explenation:
Both possibilities require the concept of infinity. Either causality is infinite, or theres one infinite cause. We have never experienced infinity, we probably never will (we are finite beings) and so we are reluctant to accept it. Its not empericly evident, and because its not empericly evident, it feels irrational. But this unbelievable concept is in both possibilities. The possibility of one infinite cause to all has another unbelievable concept. The idea of a stop to the chain of causality has never been experienced. Nothing has ever been found to happen for no reason. Everything has had a cause. So one infinite cause has the extra unbelievable concept, and so can be said to be more unbelievable, or less likely. Thus, I think the infinite causality option is more apropriate.
I agree, both feel irrational, but this is because as you said, we are finite beings. I’m not sure about your logical conclusion. Just because something has never been experienced in our finite timeline, does not necessarily mean that it cannot occur in the strange arena of the infinite. In fact, I don’t believe either of these possibilities can be discounted logically, so that is why I used the word “preference” in the original post.
Anything can happen in the strange arena of the infinite. Including the world blowing up tomorow. And yet you do not accept the world blowing up as rational possibility. Sure its possible, but its really unlikely. Its unlikely because there is no evidence to suggest it, no reason to accept it. Im not saying that one infinite cause is impossible. I couldn’t possibly prove that. But I am saying that it is far less likely than causality, seeing as how we see causality every day. And since infinity is a given in this context, since you began by offering two possibilities of which infinity was a part, I think that its safe to say that with the given premise of infinity, the possibility of 1 infinite cause is less likely than just infinite causality. We have seen no end to causality. We have no reason, or no good reasons to believe that there ever will be an end. We only know of one possibility, causality, as we have experienced it. To not accept the visible possibility as more likely than the merely conceptualized is irrational. What are you more likely to believe in, the horse standing in front of you, or the unicorn you imagine?
I think a better way of looking at time resolve these issues of infinites.
First, what is time? Time is the progression of causality, measured by counting successive events. Without events, time is meaningless. Therefore the first “infinite” cause were not infinite at all, but the very beginning of time. Not infinite, but zero. This avoids the problem of infinity as a real phenomenon. Infinity is only meaningful as a potential.
Then how did this first event come to be? The real question is: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Which to me is the most difficult question of philosophy, and will probably never be answered.
It might be worth mentioning induction here, as causality is hooked up with induction in a problematic way (as Hume discovered). Causality does seem more likely given our experience, but induction is such a compromised argument at this level of abstraction that it’s hard to commit. I guess this is why the original thread question has been such a hard one, it requires ‘thinking outside the box’ IMHO.
“Nothing” is what “is” or what “is not”, atoms occupy “nothing” or emptiness. I think you need to clarify your definition of “nothing” and “something”. I will first state mine, “something” being atoms, “nothing” being the space they occupy. WHat does “space” occupy you may ask, i reply; “space” itself is not a “thing”, only emptiness that can be occupied, are atoms eternal is the question you need ask? Could atoms have been somewhat created? What occupied emptiness before atoms did? Does any “thing” even need to occupy the emptiness?
So your question seems irrelevent since “nothing” is what is being occupied, “space” is nothing and only atoms exist and it is they that occupy the emptiness.
“Nothing”, as in the absense of anything. As in no universe, no time, no atoms. Why do these things exist in the first place? I’m not asking you to answer—I don’t think we ever can.
The entire point of my previous post were to propose that there were no “before atoms”. Events define time, so the first event were also the beginning of time. Thereby we avoid having to attribute infinity to realilty.
I understand your previous post clearly, i understand that you are lost in the traditional idea of “something” and “nothing”, what you now need to understand is that “nothing” and “something” are the same, “nothing” is as real as “something”.
The traditional idea’s that you are using to come to your conclusions are false, “nothing” does not mean the lack of spatial distance, the lack of spatial distance is infact “nothing”. If there were no “nothing” then where would atoms exist? If you say the atoms would then exist in “space” then where would “space” exist? My point is, there must be “nothing” in order for “something” to be, emptiness gives room and space for “something” or the atom to exist. Even if this “space” is in actual fact a “thing”, that still does not defeat my argument because this “thing” would ultimatley have to lie in emptiness.
Events do not define time, that is a different argument.
Once you understand that events are only rearranging of atoms then you will no longer believe that “events” themselfs mark time, there is no “moment”, “I” am who i was when iposted my previous post, the chair that i had seen 10years ago would still be that same chair as it were 10years ago, the moment i woke up is still the moment i am in now, time s only psychological.
What you don’t seem to realize is that “nothing” is a word, and means exactly what we define it to mean.
I agree with what you say here, but that does not conflict with my statements. You changed my definition of “nothing”, and thereby altered the meaning of my words. Let’s keep to my definition, ok?
Our experience of time is psychological, but our minds are physical—therefore psychological experiences are physical events. But I have the feeling you were trying to say something more profound, please clarify.
‘Nothing’ alters your perception of the “nothingness” and the emptiness that “IS”. it is no “thing” but how else do you expect me to point it out to you?
Your definition of “nothing” is tradtional, it has puzzled Philosophers for years but that is only because they have been puzzled by what “nothing” is. It is your definition of “nothing” that has you lost, not the idea of why “something” rather than “nothing”.
I do not “know” but i believe that time is only an illusion of being, “being” creates time, it creates an illusion of moments and passing. When you say that events mark time then you are also suggesting that there exist an infinte number of moments, what is it that is changing or flowing? If there is only “emptiness” and “something” occupies this emptiness, does it really matter what events take place amongst this emptiness? What is changing apart from the atoms and their formation?
It is thought that creates Time, being “aware” itself causes you to be illuded into believe that “moments” are passing.
If i have a piece of paper and i draw something onto it, then i erase the current picture and replace it with something else, is the paper any different during the first picture than it is on the second?
I don’t see the point in what you are pointing out as related to my statements.
I am not puzzeled by what “nothing” is. The “nothing” I speak of does not “exist”, I just wonder why (but that will never be known).
The now is flowing.
Nothing but the fundamental particles change, this change we percieve and measure as “time”. Time does not exist as a seperate property of the universe, time is a unit of measurement.
I agree, thought/memory creates time as experienced. Still, we measure atoms moving, and that is another form of “time”—the measurement of motion.
Essentially, no (except for minor changes in the atomic structure). I don’t understand why you are pointing these things out…I don’t think you understand my position.
My position is this, change and “passing” may or may not take place, it does not change the fact that the void “IS”. You are still puzzled as to why “nothing” does not exist, it is the wrong way to go about it because “nothing” already IS.
I understand that you are asking, why isn’t there such a thing as “nil”, no space, no distance and no “thing”, but that “nothing” of which you speak of already exists, the question you need to ask is why do atoms exist?
I think the problem here boys is that you are using diffirent definitions of “exist.” Another great example of how inadequate language is… Ive gotta read Witgenstein…