Who's Calling, Please?

[Tetsugaku]

Actually we do have evidence of the nonphysical causing the physical. Your non-physical mind caused you to sit down and type this response. And we know that QM could not have caused the universe because QM requires an interval of our dimension of time in order to occur. Because at the Big bang our dimension of time = 0.

You have not proven that the mind is non-physical. And I didn't say that QM caused the universe. I said that it gives us a counterexample to the claim that all observed events are the effects of prior causes. The Big Bang starting at time=0 precludes any prior cause, and you've yet to show that we have any good grounds for positing a cause from a different dimension of time, as this is not something anyone has ever observed.

And we do have observational basis for the universe having a cause, our observations show that it has all the characteristics of being an effect, ie a beginning and/or change.

We are going around in circles because you are repeating points I've already addressed. Beginning and changing are the characteristics of an event. An effect requires the further characteristic of having a cause, which has not been observed for the universe at all.

 

[El Cid]

Exactly, even an infinite past of causes has the "disease" of contingency and needs something to "cure" it.

You've missed the entire point of my argument, which is that no such 'cure' is necessary because unexplained logical contingency is not a disease, but is rather an unavoidable part of any worldview. You're also conflating logical and ontological contingency again.

I am not referring to logical contingency. An infinite past of causes has the "disease" of ontological contingency. Anything that is determinate is ontologically contingent. The universe is determinate.

But there is also the problem that an infinite series of causes cannot exist because it would never come to the present. But we know that the present exists, therefore there is no infinite past of causes.

That doesn't follow either. There is no reason at all why you can't get to the present from an infinite series of past causes.

How?

No, with iii, the means are not contingent only the product is.

I considered both options, and either way you still end up with an unexplained logical contingency. So the PSR is proven false. This means there is no reason why the universe couldn't be logically contingent without being ontologically contingent, and that is why the argument from contingency fails.

No, see above about determinacy.

 

[Tetsugaku]

I am not referring to logical contingency. An infinite past of causes has the "disease" of ontological contingency. Anything that is determinate is ontologically contingent. The universe is determinate.

In an infinity of past causes, every event is ontologically contingent upon what came before, yet the infinite totality as a whole remains logically contingent and unexplained. My point was that no matter what your world view, something must always remain logically contingent without being explainable. The infinity of past causes was one option that still led to this conclusion. The rest of my argument showed how all other possibilities also lead to the same conclusion. So given that every world view has something that is logically contingent but not explainable, the PSR is false. And you have been relying on the PSR in making your argument that all logical contingencies must be ontologically contingent.

How?

One event after another, with no starting point, just as the negative integers move forwards to reach zero.

No, see above about determinacy.

See above to appreciate how my argument undercuts yours, which relied on the PSR which I have proven false.

 

[El Cid]

This doesn't address anything I said in #540. And you are again repeating the falsehood that people thought logic might not hold true in space.

Yes they did if you go back far enough. There scientists living even today that think that logic does not always apply even on the earth. Such as Hindu scientists and scientists that believe in transgenderism.

 

[Tetsugaku]

Yes they did if you go back far enough. There scientists living even today that think that logic does not always apply even on the earth. Such as Hindu scientists and scientists that believe in transgenderism.

Still waiting for you to quote any scientist from any point in history saying they don't know whether logic will hold true in space.

 

[El Cid]

Occam's Razor teaches us not to multiply things beyond necessity. In the absence of any good reason to think that the universe must depend upon something else to exist, the simpler and more reasonable position is that the universe just is. The burden of proof is on those who insist otherwise to make their case.

No, since the universe is determinate, then it must be ontologically contingent.

 

[Tetsugaku]

No, since the universe is determinate, then it must be ontologically contingent.

You will need an argument to support that claim, and one that doesn't presuppose the PSR which I refuted for you.

 

[El Cid]

My point is that You haven't proven that time is necessary for cause and effect events.

We don't have any experience of causation where causes do not precede their effects, so while some other kind of causation might conceivably be possible, such a suggestion further supports my point that we are dealing with a case radically different from anything we have experience of, or to which we could therefore reasonably extrapolate.

Contingency is not time dependent.

If time is just the relative positions of objects in space...

Again, it isn't. That's not what time is.

Ok what is time?

You dont really know that universe beginnings are radically different from beginnings that we do have experience with.

I believe I have more than adequately supported that point. We have no experience at all of universe beginnings, of beginnings of (vs in) time, of causation from other dimensions of time, or of causation without time. We have no experience of any of this, so we have no basis on which to extrapolate to it from what we have experienced.

Any inductive argument from observed beginnings to all events requiring causes can be matched with an equally strong inductive argument (from exactly the same number of observed cases) to all causes having to occur within the same dimension of time and prior to their effects. It is not consistent of you to appeal to induction when it supports you while ignoring it when it doesn't.

Ok what are those observed cases?

 

[El Cid]

Actually we do have evidence of the nonphysical causing the physical. Your non-physical mind caused you to sit down and type this response. And we know that QM could not have caused the universe because QM requires an interval of our dimension of time in order to occur. Because at the Big bang our dimension of time = 0.

You have not proven that the mind is non-physical.

Ok provide a picture or slice of mind.

And I didn't say that QM caused the universe. I said that it gives us a counterexample to the claim that all observed events are the effects of prior causes. The Big Bang starting at time=0 precludes any prior cause, and you've yet to show that we have any good grounds for positing a cause from a different dimension of time, as this is not something anyone has ever observed.

No, but we do have some evidence there may be a second dimension of time.

And we do have observational basis for the universe having a cause, our observations show that it has all the characteristics of being an effect, ie a beginning and/or change.

We are going around in circles because you are repeating points I've already addressed. Beginning and changing are the characteristics of an event. An effect requires the further characteristic of having a cause, which has not been observed for the universe at all.

What do you call something BEFORE you discover if it has a cause but has characteristics of something that is caused?

 

[Algor]

I'm just going to assume that your reason for not answering my question is due to reasons beyond my control. No big deal. I'm no longer interested..

Hi Stiggy. Just wanted to say that.
Be strong and all my love.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Hi Stiggy. Just wanted to say that.
Be strong and all my love.

 

[El Cid]

I am not referring to logical contingency. An infinite past of causes has the "disease" of ontological contingency. Anything that is determinate is ontologically contingent. The universe is determinate.

In an infinity of past causes, every event is ontologically contingent upon what came before, yet the infinite totality as a whole remains logically contingent and unexplained. My point was that no matter what your world view, something must always remain logically contingent without being explainable. The infinity of past causes was one option that still led to this conclusion. The rest of my argument showed how all other possibilities also lead to the same conclusion. So given that every world view has something that is logically contingent but not explainable, the PSR is false. And you have been relying on the PSR in making your argument that all logical contingencies must be ontologically contingent.

How can an infinity of past causes be logically contingent?

How?

One event after another, with no starting point, just as the negative integers move forwards to reach zero.

But they dont ever reach zero, just like the events never reach the present.

No, see above about determinacy.

See above to appreciate how my argument undercuts yours, which relied on the PSR which I have proven false.

You are ignoring determinacy.

 

[Tetsugaku]

Contingency is not time dependent.

I wasn't talking about contingency. I was responding to what you said about time and causation.

Ok what is time?

A dimension in which events are related by temporal order.

Ok what are those observed cases?

All observed cases of causation. Every case you've ever observed of an event occurring and having had a cause is also a case of involving a cause in the same dimension of time and occurring prior to its effect. So the inductive grounds for claiming all events must have causes is no stronger than the inductive grounds for claiming all causes must occur prior to and within the same dimension of time as their effects.

 

[Tetsugaku]

Ok provide a picture or slice of mind.

Provide a picture or slice of a quark. Or of a computer program.

No, but we do have some evidence there may be a second dimension of time.

Other dimensions of time may be a speculative possibility, but no-one's ever observed causation from one time dimension to another, so we have no basis in experience for postulating this. I can equally postulate that an uncaused universe may be possible.

What do you call something BEFORE you discover if it has a cause but has characteristics of something that is caused?

An event.

 

[Tetsugaku]

How can an infinity of past causes be logically contingent?

By being such that no contradiction is entailed by the non-existence of the entire infinite chain of causes/effects.

But they dont ever reach zero, just like the events never reach the present.

You are mistaken. Zero comes next in the sequence of integers: ...-3, -2, -1...

You are ignoring determinacy.

Please explain your point about determinacy. If you want to claim that a determinate universe must be ontologically contingent, then you will need an argument that doesn't rely on the false and disproven PSR.

 

[El Cid]

You will need an argument to support that claim, and one that doesn't presuppose the PSR which I refuted for you.

The universe has defined limits, therefore it is ontologically contingent. Why in every other situation in life, you dont deny the PSR? By denying it only when it is an argument for God, it appears to be some type of mental block, ie you dont want to believe in God so you deny something that you believe in all everyday situations.

 

[Tetsugaku]

The universe has defined limits, therefore it is ontologically contingent.

That doesn't follow. As I said, you need an argument for this, but all you've given me here is an assertion. Why should defined limits entail ontological contingency?

Why in every other situation in life, you dont deny the PSR? By denying it only when it is an argument for God, it appears to be some type of mental block, ie you dont want to believe in God so you deny something that you believe in all everyday situations.

I gave you my argument for why the PSR must be false in post #545 and it didn't mention God. What that argument showed is that every worldview will involve some unexplained logical contingencies, i.e. fundamental brute facts. Where should we expect to find them? At the most basic elements of reality - the fundamental particles/fields of physics, the fundamental laws of nature, and the boundary conditions of the universe.

 

[AV1611VET]

Give God a call.

His number is Jeremiah 333.

Jeremiah 33:3 Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and shew thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not.

 

[El Cid]

Contingency is not time dependent.

I wasn't talking about contingency. I was responding to what you said about time and causation.

Ok so you admit that the universe is probably contingent. And if it is contingent then its existence depends on something.

Ok what is time?

A dimension in which events are related by temporal order.

That doesnt explain what time is. You are just saying time is a dimension in which events are related by time. That doesnt explain what time is.

Ok what are those observed cases?

All observed cases of causation. Every case you've ever observed of an event occurring and having had a cause is also a case of involving a cause in the same dimension of time and occurring prior to its effect. So the inductive grounds for claiming all events must have causes is no stronger than the inductive grounds for claiming all causes must occur prior to and within the same dimension of time as their effects.

My claim is not that all events have causes. My claim is that all effects have causes. There is some evidence that some quantum events have causes that occur AFTER the effect.

 

[Tetsugaku]

Ok so you admit that the universe is probably contingent. And if it is contingent then its existence depends on something.

No, I'm saying that the universe could be logically contingent without being ontologically contingent.

That doesnt explain what time is. You are just saying time is a dimension in which events are related by time. That doesnt explain what time is.

The concept doesn't reduce to anything simpler, so that's as far as it can be explained.

My claim is not that all events have causes. My claim is that all effects have causes.

Well, then your claim is true by definition rather than being shown true by experience. It also doesn't get you to the universe needing a cause until you can first show that the universe is an effect in addition to being an event.

There is some evidence that some quantum events have causes that occur AFTER the effect.

I've not heard of this. Do you have a reference?