Is Unity as 1 equivalent to Causality?
Is Unity as 1 equivalent to Causality?
I have learned that people do not like length arguments on forums for the increase in definition causes and increase in complexity synonymous to "incoherency" for some. In these respects, I will present a 7 step argument for the majority of my future posts.
Presented Argument
1) All Cause exists if and only if there exists an effect (α ↔ ≈α).
2) All effect is strictly an approximation of the original cause and in turn is cause for another effect (α → ≈α → ≈αx).
3) All effect therefore exists if and only if their is a cause (≈αx ↔ ≈α).
4) In this respect cause and effect are reflective structures. (α ≡ ≈α ≡ ≈αx) Effect is strictly a structural extension, as approximation, of cause that reflects both cause and further effects. In turn cause reflects itself as effect; therefore is self-reflective.
5) As self-reflective all cause and approximate cause (as effect) as strictly observation of reflective points in time-space. In this respect causality is the observation time structures as "wholes" with this whole being observed as "points" which form through a circular reflective symmetry.
6) As the observation of structures, causality is unifying median observe within the nature of time as a reflective symmetry. As a unifying median it "transcends" time as the nature of causality observes a circularity through the observation of points.
7) This circular nature, observed within and between causal structures, in turn reflects as an etherial point which is both stable and unitive. This "ethereal point" or "dimension of space" contains all and is all and any observation of a causal structure through time is strictly observing reflective points of the ether which unify under the ether as "1 point composed of infinite points". These infinite points inturn reflect as a unified whole as "1 point". In this respect causality as the point is synonymous to 1 as infinity for all are stable and symmetrical in nature.
Agree, disagree, don't know?
Presented Argument
1) All Cause exists if and only if there exists an effect (α ↔ ≈α).
2) All effect is strictly an approximation of the original cause and in turn is cause for another effect (α → ≈α → ≈αx).
3) All effect therefore exists if and only if their is a cause (≈αx ↔ ≈α).
4) In this respect cause and effect are reflective structures. (α ≡ ≈α ≡ ≈αx) Effect is strictly a structural extension, as approximation, of cause that reflects both cause and further effects. In turn cause reflects itself as effect; therefore is self-reflective.
5) As self-reflective all cause and approximate cause (as effect) as strictly observation of reflective points in time-space. In this respect causality is the observation time structures as "wholes" with this whole being observed as "points" which form through a circular reflective symmetry.
6) As the observation of structures, causality is unifying median observe within the nature of time as a reflective symmetry. As a unifying median it "transcends" time as the nature of causality observes a circularity through the observation of points.
7) This circular nature, observed within and between causal structures, in turn reflects as an etherial point which is both stable and unitive. This "ethereal point" or "dimension of space" contains all and is all and any observation of a causal structure through time is strictly observing reflective points of the ether which unify under the ether as "1 point composed of infinite points". These infinite points inturn reflect as a unified whole as "1 point". In this respect causality as the point is synonymous to 1 as infinity for all are stable and symmetrical in nature.
Agree, disagree, don't know?
Re: Is Unity as 1 equivalent to Causality?
It would be nice to see an actual, real world example of the above abstraction. Could you please provide at least one?
Re: Is Unity as 1 equivalent to Causality?
Okay.
1) All Cause exists if and only if there exists an effect (α ↔ ≈α).
ex: A plant exists from a single seed.
2) All effect is strictly an approximation of the original cause and in turn is cause for another effect (α → ≈α → ≈αx).
ex: The plant is the "effect" of the "seed" as cause. The plant containing both itself as effect and seed as cause and in this respect "cause and effect" are both "one".
3) All effect therefore exists if and only if their is a cause (≈αx ↔ ≈α).
ex: The plant and seed exist if and only if there is a plant and seed before it.
4) In this respect cause and effect are reflective structures. (α ≡ ≈α ≡ ≈αx) Effect is strictly a structural extension, as approximation, of cause that reflects both cause and further effects.
In turn cause reflects itself as effect; therefore is self-reflective.
ex: Considering the plant/seed exists both before and after the plant/seed, the plants/seeds both reflect eachother as "plant/seed".
5) As self-reflective all cause and approximate cause (as effect) as strictly observation of reflective points in time-space. In this respect causality is the observation time structures as "wholes" with this whole being observed as "points" which form through a circular reflective symmetry.
ex: What we observe as the cause and effect of the plant/seed is strictly the plant/seed reflecting across time and space as "plant/seed" or "one structure". The nature of the plant/seed existing across time/space through is simply multiple plants/seeds reflecting as "one".
6) As the observation of structures, causality is unifying median observe within the nature of time as a reflective symmetry. As a unifying median it "transcends" time as the nature of causality observes a circularity
through the observation of points.
ex: In this respect the plant/seed is it's own "cause" as extension of a greater cause (earth, God, etc.). This plant/seed as a cause, which reflects times, not only manifests as cycles but in itself is a cycle of further causal structures (plant/seed as "one" point reflects "soil" as another causal point, water as another causal point, etc.) These causal points reflects as extensions of "the one" cause.
7) This circular nature, observed within and between causal structures, in turn reflects as an etherial point which is both stable and unitive. This "ethereal point" or "dimension of space" contains all and is all and any observation of a causal structure through time is strictly observing reflective points of the ether which unify under the ether as "1 point composed of infinite points". These infinite points inturn reflectas a unified whole as "1 point". In this respect causality as the point is synonymous to 1 as infinity for all are stable and symmetrical in nature.
ex: This "oneness" of cause and effect through the point is in itself "stable" space or "ethereal space" (that which maintains all reality as unity). This ethereal space, as composed of causal points, can be observed best as a "1" dimensional point which transcends all being and in doing maintains itself. It is in this unity that the ether is infinite.
(in this regard I am working on an equation, that many argue is "impossible", that 1 is proportional to infinity. I will post it as some other time near the "one is equal to infinity". Nothing is impossible, only "difficult". If the mathematical equation works, then it gives some evidence towards this metaphysics from a mathematical perspective.)
We have to keep in mind that when observing the nature of cause and effect in the natural world, it is striclty an observation of points, with the point never really being truly defined except as other points. These infinite causal points reflect as the "one point" of "all-being". The interpretation of cause and effect in time and space does not work as all points are strictly centers that transcend time. In this respect what we understand of cause and effect is strictly and extension of understanding the "one" through "extensional structures (or points)" of "the one".
A viewpoint conducive to Parmenides "oneness" is more conducive to understanding causality than a strictly one of flux found in the physical sciences (or Heraclitus, Anaximander, Aristotle).
A simple question we have all heard as kids would be: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Answer: A chicken with a male egg inside it.
Re: Is Unity as 1 equivalent to Causality?
Thanks, JohnDoe7, for this explanation. It revealed a lot that had been mystery previously, buried in jargon.
Your point is well made, and it makes sense. You call a number of things arbitrarily this or that, and I don't agree with that, but my disagreement does not take away from the beauty and elegance of your script.
Your point is well made, and it makes sense. You call a number of things arbitrarily this or that, and I don't agree with that, but my disagreement does not take away from the beauty and elegance of your script.
Re: Is Unity as 1 equivalent to Causality?
I am looking for the disagreement, not for the sake of strict debate, but to observe angles I may have missed. Do you see any contradictions?-1- wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:49 pm Thanks, JohnDoe7, for this explanation. It revealed a lot that had been mystery previously, buried in jargon.
Your point is well made, and it makes sense. You call a number of things arbitrarily this or that, and I don't agree with that, but my disagreement does not take away from the beauty and elegance of your script.
Re: Is Unity as 1 equivalent to Causality?
This answer is wrong because the creature that hatches out of the egg has to be the same one that grew inside the egg. A creature does not magically change from one species to another on hatching. You don't need to have a pure chicken to lay the egg that is a chicken, the creature can be almost but not quite a chicken. So the egg had to come first.
Re: Is Unity as 1 equivalent to Causality?
This is based on human experience and so far humans have observed nothing that does not follow this idea, but this idea is not guaranteed throughout the universe and there is no reason to believe that the universe will always behave according to human expectations.
Re: Is Unity as 1 equivalent to Causality?
thedoc wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:27 pmThis answer is wrong because the creature that hatches out of the egg has to be the same one that grew inside the egg. A creature does not magically change from one species to another on hatching. You don't need to have a pure chicken to lay the egg that is a chicken, the creature can be almost but not quite a chicken. So the egg had to come first.
A chicken has a fertile egg. The fertile egg is a peep, which is a young chicken. The peep and chicken are both the same species. Is there something I am missing?
The egg with a chicken inside it is still both the chicken and egg existing at the same time. Also the chicken will not be able to reproduce.
Last edited by Eodnhoj7 on Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Is Unity as 1 equivalent to Causality?
That observation is based upon human experience and contradicts itself as you claim humans cannot make a universal statement.thedoc wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:31 pmThis is based on human experience and so far humans have observed nothing that does not follow this idea, but this idea is not guaranteed throughout the universe and there is no reason to believe that the universe will always behave according to human expectations.
Anyhow you are saying an effect can exist without a cause? Do I read that correctly?
Re: Is Unity as 1 equivalent to Causality?
Yes, it is possible but has never been observed, to my knowledge.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:36 pmThat observation is based upon human experience and contradicts itself as you claim humans cannot make a universal statement.thedoc wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:31 pmThis is based on human experience and so far humans have observed nothing that does not follow this idea, but this idea is not guaranteed throughout the universe and there is no reason to believe that the universe will always behave according to human expectations.
Anyhow you are saying an effect can exist without a cause? Do I read that correctly?
Last edited by thedoc on Tue Oct 24, 2017 11:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Is Unity as 1 equivalent to Causality?
You said, (at least it was my understanding) that the chicken came first, or did you mean the chicken inside the egg.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:34 pmthedoc wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:27 pmThis answer is wrong because the creature that hatches out of the egg has to be the same one that grew inside the egg. A creature does not magically change from one species to another on hatching. You don't need to have a pure chicken to lay the egg that is a chicken, the creature can be almost but not quite a chicken. So the egg had to come first.
A chicken has a fertile egg. The fertile egg is a peep, which is a young chicken. The peep and chicken are both the same species. Is there something I am missing?
The egg with a chicken inside it is still both the chicken and egg existing at the same time. Also the chicken will not be able to reproduce.
Basically you don't need a chicken to lay a chicken egg, the creature could be a cross breed that is not quite a chicken, but the offspring in the egg will be the same creature that hatches out of the egg. Not all offspring need to be fertile but if some are the result will be chickens laying chicken eggs.
Why do you state that the chicken will not be able to reproduce?
Re: Is Unity as 1 equivalent to Causality?
Is it possible that an effect can exist without a cause? Considering that all effects in themselves are causes for other effect, they exist as approximate causes.thedoc wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:50 pmYes, it is possible but has never been observed, to my knowledge.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:36 pmThat observation is based upon human experience and contradicts itself as you claim humans cannot make a universal statement.thedoc wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:31 pm
This is based on human experience and so far humans have observed nothing that does not follow this idea, but this idea is not guaranteed throughout the universe and there is no reason to believe that the universe will always behave according to human expectations.
Anyhow you are saying an effect can exist without a cause? Do I read that correctly?
All cause and effects are simply observation of specific points in time. Trying to identify a specific cause or specific effect is simply observing a structural set of points. Disagree? If not, then an effect that exists without cause is in itself a cause and in this respect...I would argue...would be to equate it to the "One Cause" or "All Cause". All effects are striclty approximate causes and in this respect are causes.
Cause and effect is observing cause and approximate cause.
Re: Is Unity as 1 equivalent to Causality?
thedoc wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:58 pmYou said, (at least it was my understanding) that the chicken came first, or did you mean the chicken inside the egg.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:34 pmthedoc wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:27 pm
This answer is wrong because the creature that hatches out of the egg has to be the same one that grew inside the egg. A creature does not magically change from one species to another on hatching. You don't need to have a pure chicken to lay the egg that is a chicken, the creature can be almost but not quite a chicken. So the egg had to come first.
A chicken has a fertile egg. The fertile egg is a peep, which is a young chicken. The peep and chicken are both the same species. Is there something I am missing?
The egg with a chicken inside it is still both the chicken and egg existing at the same time. Also the chicken will not be able to reproduce.
It may have been my fault in how I worded it. The chicken, with a male peep/egg inside it, came first. This is metaphorical, however the point is the same.
Basically you don't need a chicken to lay a chicken egg,
Then it is not a chicken egg
the creature could be a cross breed that is not quite a chicken,
A cross breed is a breed between two different types of chickens.but the offspring in the egg will be the same creature that hatches out of the egg. Not all offspring need to be fertile but if some are the result will be chickens laying chicken eggs.
Why do you state that the chicken will not be able to reproduce?
If the egg came first and the chicken hatched from the egg, it would be the only chicken. If the chicken and egg came first, the chicken in the egg would grow up and both could reproduce.
Re: Is Unity as 1 equivalent to Causality?
How can an effect exist without a cause? And how can a cause be a cause without an effect? Everything we know of in this universe has a cause and effect relationship, except for maybe the mind and its operations, but even there there exists cause and effect relationships sometimes. To say that cause and effect doesn't exist but is something different also makes sense to me, but it would mean the universe has the semblance of a cause and effect relationship regardless.
Re: Is Unity as 1 equivalent to Causality?
The 'Big Bang' was an effect that we don't know the cause, perhaps there was one but it is so far, beyond the observation of science to find it.Viveka wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2017 11:21 pmHow can an effect exist without a cause? And how can a cause be a cause without an effect? Everything we know of in this universe has a cause and effect relationship, except for maybe the mind and its operations, but even there there exists cause and effect relationships sometimes. To say that cause and effect doesn't exist but is something different also makes sense to me, but it would mean the universe has the semblance of a cause and effect relationship regardless.
Also there is the concept of 'vacuum genesis' where matter comes into existence from nothing. Matter is the effect and the cause either doesn't exist or is unknown.