Thread: Start with Nothing

What would be the other possibility, if not a first cause?

eternal recycling idk lol

grrr, I addressed that.

That something eternal can have a first cause?

The possibility of an infinite regression of causes. I basically said that that infinite series would still be a 'something', and where did that come from? Then the series itself would be the first cause.

I'm not talking about an infinite regression of causes, just one eternal structure. You said it yourself, you eventually end up with something that has no cause, that is eternal, I'm wondering why you choose to call this 'the first cause' instead of just saying there is no cause in essence. I really don't think this matters, it really is just word games like Xei mentioned, but I think it's fun anyway lol

You don't have to call it the 'first cause'. What I was saying is that there is no cause. I don't care what terms are used.

Originally Posted by Xei

Knowledge is in fact just the recognition of a local pattern, and that is all it can ever be.

What does even that mean? Knowledge ultimately rests with truth itself; that is the a priori that cannot be wronged. That is a step further than "recognition".

Originally Posted by Dianeva

P1) For anything that exists, there are two options: either it has a cause, or it doesn't. (You agree with that, right? "A or not A" is a tautology.)
P2) If something doesn't have a cause, then it happened for no reason (arbitrarily).
P3) If there were an infinite series of causes, then that infinite series would be a thing that exists and is uncaused.
C1) Therefore, the causes of everything that exists now can be traced back to something that doesn't have a cause. I'm calling that thing that you can trace it back to the 'first cause'. So the final conclusion is basically there there is a first cause.

I think I generally understand what you mean (and to the OP), but I agree with Wayfaerer about instead labeling the "first cause" as "causeless" and/or "eternal." Also they way you are using "arbitrary" must not apply to the actual universe, but to reasoning itself. The universe itself is not ultimately arbitrary, but it is ultimately causeless or eternal, which exists before any arbitrary statement is possible.

I'll clarify:

The universe has causes only within reason, but at a point there will be no more causality applicable to existence; where no reason is applicable. At that point the whole structure can be said to be causeless; suspended in space and time. The conclusion "infinite series of causes" is meaningless, impossible and unsimplified (synonymous to "an infinite series of reasons" or "an infinite series of why?'s") compared to the positive statement that existence itself is causeless.

Causality and reason are limited by the describing, asserting, projecting of "causes" about the universe, for they are concepts that have no independent existence.

Therefore, to start by making any reason or assertion about the universe, by default one inevitably starts with nothing but that. That is the same as pushing reasoning to its limits and finding that nothing has preceded it; to mention "start with nothing" has little relevance to the reasoning process in itself.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

I actually do think I have a handle on the concepts. None of those definitions are difficult to grasp. I don't know why you think I or anyone else shouldn't have a handle on them.

Logic - deductive reasoning.
Arbitrary - it happened for no reason.
Nothing - the absence of anything including space, time, or any rules.

What I'm concluding is simple really. I'll try to explain it more concisely, in a different way.

P1) For anything that exists, there are two options: either it has a cause, or it doesn't. (You agree with that, right? "A or not A" is a tautology.)
P2) If something doesn't have a cause, then it happened for no reason (arbitrarily).
P3) If there were an infinite series of causes, then that infinite series would be a thing that exists and is uncaused.
C1) Therefore, the causes of everything that exists now can be traced back to something that doesn't have a cause. I'm calling that thing that you can trace it back to the 'first cause'. So the final conclusion is basically there there is a first cause.

I'm not entirely sure you do have a grasp. I don't say this to be offending, just that I've seen you repeatedly say that you think you have a grasp of the definitions of the words you are using and the concepts you are trying to convey, but that you don't understand why people don't get it, disagree, or think you don't have a grasp of your chosen vocabulary. How many people does it take for you to admit that they may be right? Everyone I've seen explain why they think you are wrong thus far you have rejected using the argument that you think you are right and that it is a simple concept, therefore they are the ones that are wrong. Truthfully that is not an argument, it isn't even a strong attempt to rationalize the situation. It's you willfully denying any viewpoint other than your own. Personally, I stand corrected to Xei. Speaking logically, I made the best argument I could. However, not being an avid aficionado of the study of more advanced physics/science dealing with space and newer discoveries, I am more inclined to believe what he said.

Concerning your use of the word cause, I am still having trouble with exactly which definition you are trying to use. Either you think it is appropriate to think that effect follows romantic cause rather than preceding action, actions, or acting forces; or, you cannot see the salience between the two definitions of the word. You cannot use the word in the sense of preceding action in one place throughout the argument and then change it to romantic cause in the same context later on, and I think your conclusion is fatally flawed if you meant the romantic cause from the start. Romantic cause, as far as anyone can tell, exists only in the sense that it guides beings or entities with the ability to act based on how they feel or see fit. It is an abstraction. Unless you mean to imply that the universe is conscious or that it was created by a conscious being, you cannot use romantic cause as any kind of argument. If the former is true, you need to elaborate on that, and good luck providing any evidence for either of those.

About the initial cause being arbitrary, I guess I can agree with that. However, I agree with Wayfaerer as well. I don't understand how you arrived at the conclusion you did, or if I am misunderstanding, why you chose the wording you did. More than anything here I've just been confused about your conclusion because it seems like you're trying to say what's been common knowledge for a while: that something cannot arise from nothing. If you mean something other than the absence of existence, which it sounded like you did when replying to me, then I can't for the life of my see why you chose and still choose to label it as "nothing." Because to me, nothing means the absence of existence. The absence of existence cannot exist because for nothing to "exist", something obviously exists. I suppose I'm just arguing semantics, but I'm like that. I need someone to be clear on what they are meaning to say, or I don't feel like I can properly understand them and formulate any kind of argument against or for them. Ambiguity is the enemy here.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

The possibility of an infinite regression of causes. I basically said that that infinite series would still be a 'something', and where did that come from? Then the series itself would be the first cause.

Is this well defined?

Your rephrasing puts us in even greater trouble because you use the word 'exists'. What is the definition of exists? If the word is atomic, how did you as a human learn it? Thus, with a crucial emphasis on the epistemology of the word, what are we allowed to argue about it?

If you analyse it, I think there is a contradiction in the use of definitions; at the very least an incongruence:

You essentially deal with two exhaustive mutually exclusive cases: that X has a finite series of reasons (I will use the term 'reason' for convenience and clarity instead of the ambiguous 'cause'), or X has an infinite series of reasons. But then you assert that this infinite series of reasons can be also said to have a 'reason'. But surely this reason is a reason for X, contradicting the assumption that X can be unambiguously said to have an infinite series of reasons? I think assigning a finite (singular) reason, and moreover a reason with 'existence', to an infinite sequence of reasons, is dubious. And more importantly I think it's stretching human knowledge past breaking point.

Originally Posted by really

What does even that mean? Knowledge ultimately rests with truth itself; that is the a priori that cannot be wronged. That is a step further than "recognition".

What do you mean, 'what does that even mean'? I wrote a whole essay explaining it. Read it.

If you're defining knowledge to mean absolute certainty of 'truth itself', then we have no knowledge. So it's a pretty useless definition.

Originally Posted by snoop

Personally, I stand corrected to Xei. Speaking logically, I made the best argument I could. However, not being an avid aficionado of the study of more advanced physics/science dealing with space and newer discoveries, I am more inclined to believe what he said.

I hope I didn't force you into submission via my (layman's) knowledge of physics; those facts themselves really were irrelevant to the discussion at hand. What I am trying to say had been argued for four centuries, at least. It's just that only in the last hundred years or so have we understood our real place in the universe (thanks to Darwin) and the reason that our minds exist, and we've had access to such striking examples of its verisimilitude (thanks to examples like general relativity and quantum physics); they are just examples meant to bolster the central idea.

I think the fact that everybody (including Dianeva) is unable to clearly define the issues demonstrates that we're dealing with something that's beyond human comprehension. Seeing as we evolved in a universe, according to its principles, I think it's impossible for us to really understand anything beyond that universe - the combined effort of science haven't yet penetrated all the way to the moment of the Singularity - how can we be expected to make intelligent statements about it or anything "before" it? Personally I find it utterly impossible to meaningfully understand a complete lack of existence - I can picture black empty space, and the only way I can imagine no space is if there's solid matter there instead. Space to me is simply the lack of matter. I have no idea what else could possibly be there (see, the word there implies a place - I can't even speak about it properly).

Sorry to say it Dianeva, but I think you're trying to make definitive statements about the Unknowable.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

This sort of what I was driving at earlier with my point. What we term existence and non-existence actually comes with a lot of excess baggage, and this baggage simply isn't there without a universe.

Originally Posted by Xei

As far as I can tell most of this thread has essentially been meaningless nonsense, based on a misunderstanding (loosely an overestimation) of what words and knowledge are. Word games, in every sense.

Originally Posted by Xei

At every stage all you have is an assertion. You're expecting this process to somehow end up with something that explains itself, but it is obvious that this will never occur.

Originally Posted by Xei

We don't even know if the concept of 'nothing' makes sense. How do you define it; or if it's an atomic word, how did you learn what it meant? Certainly we don't have any intuitive grasp on its behaviour, and we can't make assertions like 'nothing begets nothing', if that even means anything.

Originally Posted by Xei

I think maybe you are missing my main message... I was trying in general to form a picture of knowledge and why discussions like these don't even have any meaning, or at least validity.

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

I really don't think this matters, it really is just word games like Xei mentioned, but I think it's fun anyway lol

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

I think the fact that everybody (including Dianeva) is unable to clearly define the issues demonstrates that we're dealing with something that's beyond human comprehension.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Personally I find it utterly impossible to meaningfully understand a complete lack of existence

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Sorry to say it Dianeva, but I think you're trying to make definitive statements about the Unknowable.

good points good points good points

Originally Posted by Xei

You essentially deal with two exhaustive mutually exclusive cases: that X has a finite series of reasons (I will use the term 'reason' for convenience and clarity instead of the ambiguous 'cause'), or X has an infinite series of reasons. But then you assert that this infinite series of reasons can be also said to have a 'reason'. But surely this reason is a reason for X, contradicting the assumption that X can be unambiguously said to have an infinite series of reasons?

That's the point. Since when is "have an infinite series of reasons" not a reason in itself? Furthermore why is it even worth considering as a final answer? Therefore the intellect has to arrive at the fact that it has no explicit "fact" for an infinite universe, despite that such a universe must exist. The famous "no beginning" to the universe is the humble answer that is more insightful than anything else.

What do you mean, 'what does that even mean'? I wrote a whole essay explaining it. Read it.

I asked rhetorically "What does even that mean?", not "what does that even mean". Which is to imply that your statement was incomplete or still carrying baggage. You shouldn't have to write me a big essay to make a simple statement of truth; I.e. That real knowledge rests with truth, or furthermore "knowledge is truth".

How can it be so hard to understand? It is constant, because even if that knowledge is wronged, it has become another truth. This is knowledge at its very roots, without which, not even a fallacious idea or "error" could be conceived. Even if the constant wasn't possible, you have made the contradiction by making a statement that you think is always true ("You are looking for some a priori explanation based on general principles, but there is no such thing.").

If you can give some insight how an a priori statement can be made at all, you should; "general principles" or not.

If you're defining knowledge to mean absolute certainty of 'truth itself', then we have no knowledge. So it's a pretty useless definition.

If there is no certainty then why is it called knowledge? There is a degree of certainty or truth, and that is fundamental in every instance it has, and behind whatever form it takes.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Sorry to say it Dianeva, but I think you're trying to make definitive statements about the Unknowable.

It is all ok if we are able to think about this more abstractly. For instance, speaking more about the limitations about the big questions, rather than looking at the answers only. Of course, either way it's easier if Dianeva elaborates on her definitions.

Truth = Objective

Knowledge = Subjective

Do you realize how ambiguous that is alone?

There is no such thing as truth that isn't known. How can something be true if it is non-existent?

Yeah, nice one really, humans never discover new things. Well thought out.

How is it possible to say that something is true before it is known? Well that's what discovery is for isn't it?

Originally Posted by really

How is it possible to say that something is true before it is known? Well that's what discovery is for isn't it?

Exactly, there are relative truths out there yet to be known.

I guess these short posts might not be as helpful to others as they actually could be. Everybody should elaborate their keywords if they want something it to flow smoothly.

I'm using "knowledge" and truth together because truth has no meaning outside our awareness of it, or our "knowledge" of it, or subjectivity. Since we always know something, something is always true on some relative level, but that is subject to change. The "unknown" truth (as you say, Wayfaerer) is the permanent truth that is unchanging and not explicable by the mind, but it is still known on a deeper level from which other truths arise. If it wasn't known on some level then there's no reason for it to be called truth.

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

Exactly, there are relative truths out there yet to be known.

But they're not truths "out there." They're better termed as "facts" that, only once been confirmed, can be said to have been (out there). Until it is known, it can be said to be true (experientially, knowledgeably). You can't say "there are truths awaiting discovery" with any great significance.

So then - what - the world wasn't truthfully round until we knew about it?

That would mean the discovery that the earth is actually round preceded the fact of it BEING round. Effect before cause.

Originally Posted by really

You can't say "there are [relative] truths awaiting discovery" with any great significance.

The way I define it I can. I use it in a much more objective sense than you do.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

So then - what - the world wasn't truthfully round until we knew about it?

That would mean the discovery that the earth is actually round preceded the fact of it BEING round. Effect before cause.

Let's say you are from the era when many believed the world was flat. That is what is true to you, according to your naive perception of the ground and sky etc. Is the earth truthfully round? No, because considering all of the former, it is truthfully flat. Truthfully - by what you know, I.e. relative truth. It is not the same as "factually round".

Until you know that, you have no reason to say it's truly round, or that it is in fact round.
Until you know otherwise, you can't say that it has in fact been round.

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

The way I define it I can. I use it in a much more objective sense than you do.

How do you define it? What is relative about it?

Originally Posted by really

Let's say you are from the era when many believed the world was flat. That is what is true to you, according to your naive perception of the ground and sky etc. Is the earth truthfully round? No, because considering all of the former, it is truthfully flat. Truthfully - by what you know, I.e. relative truth. It is not the same as "factually round".

So let me see if I get this straight - according to your definition - what we KNOW - that's truth, What's actually objectively TRUE whether we know it or not - that's knowledge. Um yeah...

Ok then, how about this - how many people have to know something in order for it to be true? What if ten people know that the earth is round and everybody else believes it's flat... what's actually true then?


You do understand that calling something true doesn't make it true, right?

I define relative truth as the latest theories relative to our previously accepted theories that weren't as adequate in explaining our observations. I also include the yet to be discovered theories that would be relatively true over our currently accepted theories with obvious inadequacies. There is an objective aspect in these because they are inevitable steps in the knowledge of humanity.