Thread: Minervas philosophy is your worst nightmare and you can't beat it.

Minerva, are you getting at the point that the universe has no beginning (or end)?

Nice post time on that last post...

3.11 GMT you mean?

Wait. Wouldn't it take a beginning cause to trigger an effect and begin the endless cycle and then stages in the cycle could thus be defined. I could be a retard though.

Originally Posted by Xei

3.11 GMT you mean?

Each person's reality is their own... and theirs alone...

Originally Posted by Abra

Minerva, are you getting at the point that the universe has no beginning (or end)?

I liken her explanation to infinity, but that's just me. Though it's difficult for me to understand, the concept of infinity seems to be everywhere: literature, psychology, philosophy, art, etc.

Take SolSkye's signature for example; the ouroboros.

Each person's reality is their own... and theirs alone...

Yes, arbitrary timezones have huge philosophical importance.

My point is that 1 in 60 posts on this forum can be 11.11 depending on which timezone you're in, so it's hardly a huge coincidence...

Originally Posted by trv333

Wait. Wouldn't it take a beginning cause to trigger an effect and begin the endless cycle and then stages in the cycle could thus be defined. I could be a retard though.

What do you mean you might be a retard? No, It just takes a cause to trigger an effect. It doesn't have to be a beginning cause. In fact a cause cannot create itself. That is not the rules of cause and effect. If there is no cause. No effect can happen. A first cause is illogical. All it takes is infinity and the finite to make an endless cycle that can be defined. Which is exactly what we have.

Time is development.

Development can be defined as cause, effect, evaluate, recause, etc...

Existence has been developing forever.

It will develop forever.

7:11...I have a craving for a slurpee

Things are not what they seem to be, nor are they otherwise.
-Lankavatara Sutra

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

What do you mean you might be a retard? No, It just takes a cause to trigger an effect. It doesn't have to be a beginning cause. In fact a cause cannot create itself. That is not the rules of cause and effect. If there is no cause. No effect can happen. A first cause is illogical. All it takes is infinity and the finite to make an endless cycle that can be defined. Which is exactly what we have.

Oh so what triggers the cause?

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

There can be no first cause of reality. If there was a first cause. It could only be every cause existing in an infinite chain of causes and effects. The effect would have to be the cause. And all those causes and effects would not be able to differ from the original cause. That is because nothing could be taken away or added to the original cause as it would be the only thing that could possibly exist. This means that you cannot define or conclude a cause or effect for anything as it will continually elude your intelligence.

Well it does depend a lot on your conception of causality. Perhaps the most widely accepted version of causality in current philosophy is Davidson's events model. Under this model, causality consists of a series of events, an event being [object+property+time+place]. Causality is usually seen as happening through the change of properties.

The problem remains of whether there can be a 'first mover' - this is quite a common debate in the philosophy of religion, with God being seen as a 'first mover.' The problem is that all events seem to derive their causal powers from the preceding event, so how could an event contain all of its own causal powers?

There are two possible ways to go here. Either the first event (call it E1) exists within the causal chain of events (E1 -->E2 -->E3 etc), or it somehow exists outside of the causal chain. The first option is problematic. Think of an analogy of a line of dominoes - how can dominoes start falling over by themselves? The first dominoe/event would have to have its effect built into it. The second option is also problematic. The analogy here (although not a very good one) would be a finger pushing the first domino over. The finger exists outside the causal chain, although by having an effect, it seems to be including itself in it, and therefore needing its own cause. The way to get around this is to propose a kind of substance dualism - ie. the finger isn't physical, so it doesn't need its own cause. The problem here is that of dualism itself - how can a nonphysical thing have any causal effect on a physical thing?

Drawing upon science, there is one possible solution. According to current big-bang theory, the physical laws of the universe did not fully form until one plank-time after the big-bang (plank time being the smalles unit of time, I'm not sure what the specific measure of it is, but it's small). So, the physical chain of causality extends from now backwards until one plank-time from the big bang, beyond that time, the physical laws of the universe break down, and so whatever happens before then does not have to conform to the same laws as now. It might be very possible for there to be a physical first-mover, although that's just a generalised view.

In other words... Big "I" said, "Let there be Light"


"Light in the absence of eyes, illuminates nothing.
Visible forms are not inherent in the world, but are granted by the act of seeing.
Though, the world and events do exist independant of mind, they obtain of no meaning in themselves.
None, that the mind is not guilty of imposing on them.
I bid my people follow, and like all good equations, they follow.
For full endowment of purpose they do submit.
In turn, they resign me to a role inhuman, impossible, and unaccountable..."

Originally Posted by trv333

Oh so what triggers the cause?

Once a cause triggers an effect the effect becomes a cause for something else. That is usually common knowledge but it doesn't stop there. What I am saying is that is not the foundation for how causes and effects interact. There is no argument whether a first cause actually exists. That is not the issue because we know the infinite and finite interact through fractals. The issue is how they interact.

"Do you like our owl?"

Ok, so Minervas you're saying that it is impossible to define something as either a cause or an effect because they are both a cause and an effect at the same time, or that the regression of the causal chain prevents this from happening. eg. a spark can be the cause of a fire, but it is also the effect of a match striking, and being able to pick a definite point is impossible. In effect, there is one continuous event, spanning from the orginal cause.

That's interesting... wouldn't it somehow be possible to include a time indexical into any definition? Something like: "At time t, the cause of event A is C and the effect of event A is E"?

Events would be seperated by a change of properties to an object. For example, the match-head with the property of 'burning' would be a seperate event from the match-head lacking this property. The effect of this event would be the event whose instantiation is sufficient for its cause. That is, if event A [matchhead sparking] occurs, event B [matchhead burning] has to occur because A is all it takes for B. C is the effect, indexically in relation to B, because B is all it takes for the instantiation of C.

What do you think?

SolSkye, with the vast variety of symbolically subjective pictures and videos you post, I'm going to just assume you think all is God.

Good call.

Tally ho old chap... Tally freaking ho...

Ok, so Minervas you're saying that it is impossible to define something as either a cause or an effect because they are both a cause and an effect at the same time, or that the regression of the causal chain prevents this from happening. eg. a spark can be the cause of a fire, but it is also the effect of a match striking, and being able to pick a definite point is impossible. In effect, there is one continuous event, spanning from the orginal cause.

You are getting closer than most people but it's not impossible to define it. That's the only thing you missed it is not just a regressional chain I am refering to. Other than that pretty much yes correct.

wouldn't it somehow be possible to include a time indexical into any definition? Something like: "At time t, the cause of event A is C and the effect of event A is E"?

You cannot even be sure that at time t the cause of event a was c. That is only a correlation because without the cause before cause c it would not be able to produce event a so it can't be the full definition of the cause.

Events would be seperated by a change of properties to an object. For example, the match-head with the property of 'burning' would be a seperate event from the match-head lacking this property.

A seperate event is only seperate due to relations to other things. Without the burning, Something lacking this property is not possible to be defined as 'not burning'.

The effect of this event would be the event whose instantiation is sufficient for its cause. That is, if event A [matchhead sparking] occurs, event B [matchhead burning] has to occur because A is all it takes for B. C is the effect, indexically in relation to B, because B is all it takes for the instantiation of C.

This is very good thinking but here is the next thing. Within event A is the potential cause to produce something entirely different. Since event A is a cumilation of other existing parts of the original cause it exists because of them therefore all potentials that made it exist could be known to be within Event A for it to exist. It is not if event A accurs event B has to accur. That at the most can only be a correlated observation between the events not a dependable thing. Sometimes a matchhead sparks and it does not light or burn at all.

This is the best response I can come up with at the top of my head so far I'll think about this some more later and see if I can add something more to this.

Minervas, interesting argument... but I think it might have a problem.

The very concept of cause and effect relies on frame of reference. In one frame of reference, Cause_1 produces Effect_1 and nothing more. In a second frame of reference perhaps, what had been Effect_1 in the previous setting is now Cause_2 that produces Effect_2. However, Cause_2 and Effect_1 cannot be freely interchanged because they are only applicable in their own specific frames of reference.

Essentially, reality is a frame of reference, and in this grand picture, there will be a Cause_Beginning and and Effect_End.

To step to the side of the time-line of reality and claim that Cause_Beginning is the effect of another cause is to step outside the confines you placed on your own argument.

Your failure to respond constitutes my win and the subsequent mutiny of the S.S. Minervas. Arrrrr! Prepare yeself fer mental-naval battle!

Originally Posted by bcomp

Minervas, interesting argument... but I think it might have a problem.

The very concept of cause and effect relies on frame of reference. In one frame of reference, Cause_1 produces Effect_1 and nothing more. In a second frame of reference perhaps, what had been Effect_1 in the previous setting is now Cause_2 that produces Effect_2. However, Cause_2 and Effect_1 cannot be freely interchanged because they are only applicable in their own specific frames of reference.

Essentially, reality is a frame of reference, and in this grand picture, there will be a Cause_Beginning and and Effect_End.

To step to the side of the time-line of reality and claim that Cause_Beginning is the effect of another cause is to step outside the confines you placed on your own argument.

Your failure to respond constitutes my win and the subsequent mutiny of the S.S. Minervas. Arrrrr! Prepare yeself fer mental-naval battle!

Actually, it's all just effect-lemniscate_cause-moebiusstrip.

Originally Posted by ClouD

Actually, it's all just effect-lemniscate_cause-moebiusstrip.

wtf? lol

Originally Posted by bcomp

Cause_1 produces Effect_1.

That's amature to understand more than this you need to know why it is just a correlation and not a ultimate cause of it.

Originally Posted by bcomp

Effect_1 in the previous setting is now Cause_2 that produces Effect_2. However, Cause_2 and Effect_1 cannot be freely interchanged because they are only applicable in their own specific frames of reference.

They are applicable soon as you mention them. To be able to freely interchange the causes is not the same as what I was saying about them. In the frame of reference that you have now defined. Cause 2 and effect 1 depend on each other and have equal importance for the effects involved. Take away any cause from 1 onwards and you cannot have the effects either. I have already said this so I don't know why you are brining it up again maybe you didn't understand.

Originally Posted by bcomp

in this grand picture, there will be a Cause_Beginning and and Effect_End.

Yes but the nature of the causes/effects is what we are talking about not if it is existent.

Originally Posted by bcomp

To step to the side of the time-line of reality and claim that Cause_Beginning is the effect of another cause is to step outside the confines you placed on your own argument.

You are demonstrating my point perfectly. Whatever confines you make for yourself, whatever frame of reference you make when you do go beyond it you still will never be able to go beyond that initial frame of reference, even if you go beyond it infinitely. You will never exceed your initial frame of reference which brings us back to...

Originally Posted by MP

There can be no first cause of reality. If there was a first cause. It could only be every cause existing in an infinite chain of causes and effects. The effect would have to be the cause. And all those causes and effects would not be able to differ from the original cause. That is because nothing could be taken away or added to the original cause as it would be the only thing that could possibly exist. This means that you cannot define or conclude a cause or effect for anything as it will continually elude your intelligence.

Originally Posted by bcomp

Your failure to respond constitutes my win and the subsequent mutiny of the S.S. Minervas. Arrrrr! Prepare yeself fer mental-naval battle!

I will never fail to respond why do you think I have that childish title on this thread.

I think it's rollers turn now. On further reflection I don't need to add anything more to what I wrote in response.

Alright so you're debating the nature of the relationship between cause and effect. That wasn't very clear. Maybe you should work on your communication skills. And your English skills.

As for your argument, you claim cause and effect are not related, which is quite absurd. The reason your assertion is hard to challenge, simply because it's extremely ambiguous, though obviously flawed.

You say that the effect of the "first cause" could only be the "first cause," simply because there is nothing else; simply, the "first cause" would be the effect of the "first cause" would be the effect of the "first cause" and so on. However, this phenomenon would violate the idea of cause and effect, because cause and effect are never the same thing.

Imagine a line of dominoes. Obviously, pushing over the first domino - domino_1 - would be the "first cause." But what happens next? Domino_1 knocks over domino_2, then domino_2 knocks over domino_3 and so on. If "knocking over domino_1" is the cause, then "knocking over domino_1" cannot be the effect, because cause and effect cannot be the same event.

Saying that one event can be both a cause and an effect is like saying "1 = 2."

Even if the "first cause" could be both cause and effect, this would not result in an infinite chain reaction. Going back to the dominoes, if "knocking over domino_1" causes "knocking over domino_1," then the domino will only fall once, because while domino_1 is knocking over domino_1, it will also be knocking over domino_1 which will also be knocking over domino_1 and so on. So while that first domino falls, it is fulfilling all the effects and causes simulataneously. But obviously, since domino_1 is a single event, attempting to explain it as both a cause and effect of itself is pointless.

If you don't want to read all that:

A single event can only be either cause or effect. One event cannot be two. 1 is not equal to 2.

Even if a single event was both cause and effect, all causes and effects would be fulfilled simultaneously. There would be no infinite chain of identical causes.

Oh and seriously, Minervas... learn English. Your fragmented sentence construction adds another layer of confusion to you already confusing ideas.

S.S. Minervas Status Report: She's takin' on water lads! Maybe she wasn't built so well after all! Arrrr....

Originally Posted by bcomp

Alright so you're debating the nature of the relationship between cause and effect. That wasn't very clear. Maybe you should work on your communication skills. And your English skills.

I am not debating the relationship between cause and effect no. The topic is the truth and cause and effect is part of that topic. If your understanding of the topic is lacking there is a good chance your entire response will contain errors.

Originally Posted by bcomp

As for your argument, you claim cause and effect are not related, which is quite absurd. The reason your assertion is hard to challenge, simply because it's extremely ambiguous, though obviously flawed.

I explained how a correlation IS present between them not an absence of a relation. Which brings us to the question of why I have to clarify myself to you in the first place.

Originally Posted by bcomp

You say that the effect of the "first cause" could only be the "first cause,"

I never EVER stated that the effect of the first cause is the first cause. There is a major difference between the infinite original cause and then a finite first cause. I have already stated it does not exist as finite only. I was only talking about original cause which is that which sustains everything from beginning to end as the one and only within all causes and effects.

Originally Posted by bcomp

the "first cause" would be the effect of the "first cause" would be the effect of the "first cause" and so on. However, this phenomenon would violate the idea of cause and effect

It's your idea I never suggested that's how it works. This is what it looks like when one goes off the rails into their own self complacent righteousness without contemplating what the other has really written.

Originally Posted by bcomp

Imagine a line of dominoes.

I don't need to imagine a line of dominoes because I didn't mean to express such concepts which you think are mine but are actually derived from your own imagination and have no real resemblance to much of what I have in mind at all.

Originally Posted by bcomp

Obviously, pushing over the first domino - domino_1 - would be the "first cause." But what happens next? Domino_1 knocks over domino_2, then domino_2 knocks over domino_3 and so on.

The finite first cause you have described as a beginning has a cause that must have initiated it. You cannot say it's a first cause. Besides this does not show anything other than the force which pushed the dominoes is correlated to the effect of the movement of the other dominoes. I am going the extra mile in clarifying this as I'm sure it's clear to all you have mistaken what I've written.

Originally Posted by bcomp

If "knocking over domino_1" is the cause, then "knocking over domino_1" cannot be the effect, because cause and effect cannot be the same event.

Very true and as I explained I never meant that domino 1 falling over is the same as the cause which pushed it. Strawman argument. What's more I'm not interested in any arguments but philosophy.

Originally Posted by bcomp

Saying that one event can be both a cause and an effect is like saying "1 = 2."

Numbers are an entirely different separate issue than the dimension of time and space in which the causes and effects interact with each other in a seamlessly connected way. We arn't talking about numbers but something which causes them. By introducing numbers as the main theme this eliminates the original theme and depth of the meaning reducing it to something more limited in a dimension below that which created it. This is like me talking about a cube and you suggesting the dimensions make the square as the creator of the cube. No the 3 dimensional space is what I am involved with not the 2 dimensional field with the square. In the same way numbers are not the cause of what I am referring to. The could be said to be a dimension below cause and effect.

Originally Posted by bcomp

Even if the "first cause" could be both cause and effect, this would not result in an infinite chain reaction.

Something from your own mind which we agree is impossible and here you say if it was possible and trying to attribute it to me and what I think. I agree it isn't possible and it still has no relation to an infinite chain reaction anyway. Which is again something I never defined as an absolute for a cause or an effect. The only thing you have correct here so far and basically the only thing mentioned is the concept of the cause existing independent of the effect. Even though it is the one thing you have understood fairly you assume that I didn't know about it. A very serious underestimating assumption since everyone knows an effect is different from a cause.

Originally Posted by bcomp

Going back to the dominoes

I cannot handle any more of this irrelevance. That is enough. It was a discussion between me and roller I was waiting for his next reply.

Lastly I don't need you to tell me I am confusing or that my English is bad and I need to learn this and that better etc. I didn't ask you what you thought about me it's rude.

I would normally thank you for your response except in this case it wasn't intended to help me so I'm not sure what to say to you other than please don't approach me with that attitude. You don't want to be like those others that post troll pictures in a juvenile stupor do you? Remain focused on the importance of listening carefully with respectful relevant feedback and you will do fine.