Infinite Regress of Causality

[realunoriginal]

I think my opinions would seem rather redundant on this topic, but yes, typical of this forum for the idiots to be incapable of any kind of philosophical argument. They are best-suited to bitch & moan about great men they never really-know anything about.

[kake]

People have a hard time accepting an infinite chain, because we are not an infinite animal. This is where the original idea of god came from, a beginning so that infinity didn't have to exist.

[kake]

I thought he was on to something with all the talk of "getting rid of bias thought", but then he didn't like the idea of the cycle of goats, weird.

[kake]

I do like the idea of goatism being a way to discuss things without bias,... but bias plays into things eventually anyway. ...Why a goat?...

Everyone is looking for their "alpha" male. We're not all the way out of our animalistic urges yet. Rose tinted glasses.

Are you well aware of string theory and what it says about multiple universes,(multiverse)?

[Banno]

There would seem to be three possibilities: and infinite regression, as apaosha suggests; an uncaused first cause; and a circle of causation.

But the underlying assumption is that events can be analyzed into linear chains of discreet events. Can they?

[kake]

Banno, would you mind explaining how they might not be? Just a little more detail as to what you're getting at?

[Banno]

I flicked the switch.
Sounds like a discrete event, no? but:

I flicked the switch, turning on the light.
I flicked the switch, turning on the light, alerting the burglar.

Did I do one thing, or three?

the event can be analyzed in the other direction, as well:

The muscles in my arm contracted, flicking the switch.
A signal traveled down my spine, contracting the muscles in my arm and flicking the switch

and so on.

The point at which some occurrence counts as a single event would appear to be rather arbitrary.

[PeterWes]

If causality is not an absolute, this implies The Beginning or The End, where an effect exists without being caused, or a cause exists without an effect. Which further implies that phenomena are capable of manifesting into and out of existence without instigation, or that phenomena can be their own cause; that phenomena can exist, before existing, in order to bring themselves into existence.

I find this nonsensical and regard the universe as being an infinite causal chain.

Opinions?

When you get down to the quantum level what appears nonsensical at our scale becomes the norm, ie, matter/energy spontaneously appearing/disappearing without cause or effect. Since the universe began on such a scale that would appear to solve the problem.

There is a still more remarkable possibility, which is the creation of matter from a state of zero energy. This possibility arises because energy can be both positive and negative. The energy of motion or the energy of mass is always positive, but the energy of attraction, such as that due to certain types of gravitational or electromagnetic field, is negative. Circumstances can arise in which the positive energy that goes to make up the mass of newly-created particles of matter is exactly offset by the negative energy of gravity of electromagnetism. For example, in the vicinity of an atomic nucleus the electric field is intense. If a nucleus containing 200 protons could be made (possible but difficult), then the system becomes unstable against the spontaneous production of electron-positron pairs, without any energy input at all. The reason is that the negative electric energy can exactly offset the energy of their masses.

In the gravitational case the situation is still more bizarre, for the gravitational field is only a spacewarp - curved space. The energy locked up in a spacewarp can be converted into particles of matter and antimatter. This occurs, for example, near a black hole, and was probably also the most important source of particles in the big bang. Thus, matter appears spontaneously out of empty space. The question then arises, did the primeval bang possess energy, or is the entire universe a state of zero energy, with the energy of all the material offset by negative energy of gravitational attraction?

It is possible to settle the issue by a simple calculation. Astronomers can measure the masses of galaxies, their average separation, and their speeds of recession. Putting these numbers into a formula yields a quantity which some physicists have interpreted as the total energy of the universe. The answer does indeed come out to be zero wihin the observational accuracy. The reason for this distinctive result has long been a source of puzzlement to cosmologists. Some have suggested that there is a deep cosmic principle at work which requires the universe to have exactly zero energy. If that is so the cosmos can follow the path of least resistance, coming into existence without requiring any input of matter or energy at all. (Davies, 1983, 31-32)

...the idea of a First Cause sounds somewhat fishy in light of the modern theory of quantum mechanics. According to the most commonly accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics, individual subatomic particles can behave in unpredictable ways and there are numerous random, uncaused events. (Morris, 1997, 19)

[realunoriginal]

...the idea of a First Cause sounds somewhat fishy in light of the modern theory of quantum mechanics. According to the most commonly accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics, individual subatomic particles can behave in unpredictable ways and there are numerous random, uncaused events. (Morris, 1997, 19)

Materialists cannot account for this QM discrepancy.

Thus the Causality argument lingers on.

[realunoriginal]

@realunoriginal:

Materialists cannot account for this QM discrepancy.

Thus the Causality argument lingers on.

I would prefer to regard this as ignorance, rather than an actual lack of causative processes.

Me too.

That is why I brought up Human Ignorance as relevant to the Causal-process in our earlier discourse.

I think that any 'infinitude' of a causal chain begins & ends with Human Knowledge, and its potential (to know anything).

[realunoriginal]

Hmm, well I don't find argument from ignorance to be particularily compelling.

Then how else can you account for breaks in an infinite, causal chain???

Would you not agree that the Christian is ignorant when he breaks this chain with God???

These are your own arguments talking.

[realunoriginal]

Ignorance with regard to the "causes" of quantum activity. Activity which appears random; probabilities instead of certainties.
It is my contention that this "randomness" is due to human ignorance.

With regard to the wave/particle duality, it seems that matter is in fact formed by energy organised into complex systems of electromagnetism. Or something.

So, again, what caused energy, if anything?

Hmmm .... if the energy constant of the universe is zero, then .... something from nothing? I think not.

Wild speculation on my part because I'm just getting into this knowledge, but interesting.

Unfortunately, Philosophers & Physicists are confounded by these exact questions. I invite you to begin your own inquiry.

I am currently working on solving for Logical Anomalies, adhering to Casual Law, that must account for Spatial Locality.

I do not have the definitions formed so I cannot answer these questions for you, nor would I even if I could.

You are reaching the end of the road between what people know (of Philosophy) and what they do not...good luck!