It may have “always” existed only because before the Big bang, there was no time. That makes yours a vapid statement. But more to the point, the Universe that is claimed to be predetermined may have been preceded by another condition.
Useful for anything. Not just for predictions.
anon -
I have been well. Hope you have been, too. I’m always happy when you show up on a thread.
I know that I don’t produce linear arguments. I mostly try to get people to think. And i pretty much try to use a perspectivist technique.
Uncaused causes. Well, perhaps anything can be a cause. Doesn’t mean that everything is caused. So, some random event may cause another event. I could put it another way. if there are uncaused events, that doesn’t mean that those events cannot cause other events.
Now, to your point about discrete causes or effects. That’s what complicates a more useful analysis. But here on this thread, I am reacting to a paradigm where causes are supposed to be more or less discrete. I don’t agree that causes are that simple, but that’s the context which I am speaking. I still think that there is one event, and that we parse it up in ways that are useful to us. Which is just what we do. Patterns that humans can recognize and use. It’s not only how we roll, but i can’t honestly see how we survive any other way.
Faust - I always enjoy your presence here as well. I had a major medical issue recently, which frankly really sucked, but I’ve been great. If that makes sense. It does to me.
I think a lot hinges on how strictly we define a “cause”. Yes?
And there’s the whole causal powers thing…
Yeah, there’s been a lot of work done on that over the last fifty years. it’s even possible that there are more than one type of cause…
Many of these concepts really belong on a spectrum and not in strict categories. I think that’s the biggest problem here.
Wyld, i have a question for you. Do points, planes, circles, length, width, depth and time all have physical or empirical existence? Do any of them?
What does “physical or empirical existence” mean? Is this supposed to be a subset of “existence”?
To a metaphysician it is. To everyone else, no.
I thought that was obvious.
I thought the first of my two questions was obvious too, yet you didn’t answer it.
Anon - precisely if there are no discrete objects, there must be a discrete cause; only one causal context can exist for any whole; and since everything is supposed here to be interconnected, a whole is implied. And a causal context is a first cause; the first cause of a thing is its possibility.
I know this gets arcane. But the discrete cause that exist is the fact that non-existence is impossible (‘possibility is not included in non-existence’, ‘no(-)thing does not exist’, ‘no(-)thing lacks the power to assert itself’, etc, etc).
Causality is a logic, and driven to its ultimate consequence, we see that if the world is causality, then either the world has always existed, or it has caused itself. In the second case, we have a discrete cause; a permanent causal ‘spirit’ one might say.
I’m trying to slow you down, Sparky. I thought that was obvious, too.
Here it is in a nutshell. There are a lot of analytical tools - measurements, you could call them, that humans use but that have no empirical or literal existence. Spatial dimensions, time and causation are some. No mathematician thinks that points, planes or length literally exist. Time, as a measurement of change, is like any other measurement, except for some reason, many people think it literally exists. Call it a lack of education. Causation - similar deal.
We all “believe in” time and length and in causation. But it is no more a physical feature of the universe than is width. It’s an analytical tool. Metaphysicians have been trying to reify stuff that doesn’t exist since the get-go. Metaphysics is always an error.
That was kind of a seriously dumb thing to say. “Before time” …???
There can be no beginning to change (time being the measure of change). Think about it before you respond.
No, think about it more.
Not at all dumb. If, before the big bang, for instance, there was a static unity, there could be no time. Of course there could be a beginning of change.
Give me a break.
No time = no change at all.
A beginning IS a CHANGE. Change had to already exist before it could have effect. And thus NO BEGINNING of the universe of changes.
The universe of changes exists currently. And it could never have begun,
Hence, it never began.
Hence, it always existed (as Aristotle proposed).
No change and then change. No time and then time. There is nothing difficult about that. Knowing that you are relying on Aristotle does not give me hope that you could understand this. Really? Aristotle?
You got an actual logical argument for why those things “have no empirical or literal existence”? Other than “metaphysics is an error” (another undefended assertion)?
I’m going to stop responding to you if you keep dodging my points and if you keep making un-argued assertions.
The one point you did make that I still need to respond to is where you said that just because we can ask “why?” of something doesn’t mean there is actually a “why?”. I’ll address this by pointing out that the meaning of “asking why” in this instance isn’t merely linguistically uttering a sentence or a sound, but the actual meaning behind those utterances – you’re attempt to reduce away that meaning under the linguistic utterance to the mere utterance itself is, again, disingenuous.
Yes IF the utterance in this case, the question “why” was merely empty words then you would have a point. But it isn’t empty words, in case you weren’t aware there is actually meaning underneath language. The meaning in this case is as Spinoza indicated: that to say “X exists” immediately necessitates the possibility of asking “why does X exist?” Why is that? Because you can always vary the particular X into some other different and seemingly possible alternate form and then ask why not that other X instead of X?
This is strictly logical, and I’m honestly surprised you are resistant to this. Take any example you want, why was it not something other than what it was? Why was the car red and not silver? Why was the flower here rather than over there? Why are humans on earth rather than on Venus? Why is a triangle not a square? Why is the color brown not the color white? Why doew a cow make the sound it does rather than a different one? Why does this movie suck while that other one is great? Even opinions break down into causes, specified historical, biological, neurological, emotional, situational causes all come together to create the “opinion” we have. Every single thing I just mentioned has a cause for why it was what it was and not something other than what it was.
Spinoza was making a very clear logical point, that WHAT IT MEANS TO EXIST immediately necessitates the fact that there are reasons why that rather than something different. You’re answer is “there is no cause for why X is X rather than different from X”, which makes no sense whatsoever and is completely irrational. It’s as if you value pretending you don’t even have a reasoning mind.
“No change and then change” means change. One cannot change a stagnate state without having change. Change must always exist for change to begin to exist because it is a change to begin to have change.
Try to imagine God existing before change existed. For how long would God wait before starting the changing that the universe is. God could not think or change his mind at any time because time does not exist. So what was God doing for all of the existence before time began? What caused God to change his mind and begin time? What could anything have been doing before time began? Doing itself could not exist. What could possibly have begun the changing that the universe is?
Faust I guess I’ll also point out that you haven’t offered a definition of what “physical” means. Is this the same as empirical as you defined as “taking measurements”, or at least that’s what I was able to glean from your post?
Wyld - I don’t have an argument for why a point is not a physical entity. Do I really need one?
Seriously?
As to the whys - there has been some progress since Spinoza. Nothing about his view is “strictly” logical. Stating that x exists just does not entail any question at all. It just doesn’t. Why is a triangle not square? Why is it not an invertebrate? That is a necessary question?
You’re pulling my leg, right?
Physical? How about a spatio-temporal object. Has mass. Same as empirical.
James - I can’t imagine god at all.