Is there a primary cause?

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Is there a primary cause?

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:57 am

Does A cause B? How do we determine that without going deeper? And then how do we determine that without going still deeper?

Maybe C causes A and B. Same questions of determination. Then you have to deal with time issues where you go back further and further through time where either you run out of time or you have an infinite amount of it.

Seems as if there's no starting point. But based on overwhelming evidence, the Big Bang Theory says there is a starting point which the scientific community agrees with. Are we getting closer to a primary cause?

PhilX

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Is there a primary cause?

Post by ken » Sun Jul 23, 2017 10:22 am

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:57 am
Does A cause B? How do we determine that without going deeper? And then how do we determine that without going still deeper?

Maybe C causes A and B. Same questions of determination. Then you have to deal with time issues where you go back further and further through time where either you run out of time or you have an infinite amount of it.

Seems as if there's no starting point. But based on overwhelming evidence, the Big Bang Theory says there is a starting point which the scientific community agrees with. Are we getting closer to a primary cause?

PhilX
The big bang is only said to be a starting point because most human beings are not yet able to see past that point.

The ONLY primary cause happens in the NOW, and always happens NOW. The past has always been and gone, so what happens NOW IS the primary cause of every thing that will happen.

osgart
Posts: 516
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 7:38 am

Re: Is there a primary cause?

Post by osgart » Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:03 pm

an eternal infinite regression of causes up until present cause and effect is what might be inferred from the big bang going backward in time. and our universe is the latest domino to fall. Yet what exists outside of the singularity at the time of the first moment in the universe. They say space itself was created but something existed outside of that space creation. space itself needs room to grow.

is it possible that there are no beginnings, and you can go infinitely backwArd in time with no end? hard to fathom because of are finitesmal existence.
while the universe has a beginning, existence itself may be eternal. if it is not eternal than what is the prime cause of it? is it a brute fact with no reason why? or is there an intelligent reason for not only the universe, but existence itself? are there other existences? the questions keep piling up.

prime cause has to be proved. I mean can you imagine the non existence of existence itself?

and what lies outside of the singularity? do we live in a pocket of space?

it's all speculation, and there are no guarantees it can be detected by science in the future.

when vast is small , infinity lies beyond.

User avatar
waechter418
Posts: 177
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2015 12:19 am
Location: Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Is there a primary cause?

Post by waechter418 » Tue Aug 08, 2017 5:39 pm

a primary cause might be reason - which is a function of the intellect - which is a feedback mechanism

Reflex
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:09 pm

Re: Is there a primary cause?

Post by Reflex » Wed Aug 09, 2017 6:09 am

If something exists, something exists that cannot not exist.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7985
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Jains Jungle

Re: Is there a primary cause?

Post by Dontaskme » Wed Aug 09, 2017 1:07 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:57 am
the Big Bang Theory says there is a starting point which the scientific community agrees with. Are we getting closer to a primary cause?

PhilX
The big bang points to a causer beyond that which caused the big bang. The answer to why the big bang is still banging cannot be answered.
You are the answer.
Last edited by Dontaskme on Wed Aug 09, 2017 1:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7985
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Jains Jungle

Re: Is there a primary cause?

Post by Dontaskme » Wed Aug 09, 2017 1:14 pm

Reflex wrote:
Wed Aug 09, 2017 6:09 am
If something exists, something exists that cannot not exist.
Image

Every thing is made out of the space it's sitting in.

.
Last edited by Dontaskme on Wed Aug 09, 2017 1:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7985
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Jains Jungle

Re: Is there a primary cause?

Post by Dontaskme » Wed Aug 09, 2017 1:18 pm

Image

A concept is known, but never seen.

.

The answer is not in the language.

.

thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Is there a primary cause?

Post by thedoc » Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:40 am

I think there is a primary cause to everything, but so far no-one knows for sure, and those who claim to know, are probably misinformed or lying.

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Is there a primary cause?

Post by ken » Thu Aug 10, 2017 4:57 am

thedoc wrote:
Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:40 am
I think there is a primary cause to everything, but so far no-one knows for sure, and those who claim to know, are probably misinformed or lying.
I think you mean no-one knows for sure, to the doc.

For all the doc knows there might be One who does know, and, who is informed and who is not lying.

Not all known things are shared as soon as they become known, and I am pretty sure the doc has not heard ALL things from ALL people. Therefore, it would be wrong to assume that some thing is not yet known for sure by any-one.

Further to this, not all people are able to understand straight away what is already known to others. When new knowledge is finally shared, galileo being just one example of this sharing of known for sure new knowledge, this in of itself does not mean that others will accept that the answers to are already known for sure.

Just because one person does not yet know some thing that does not mean no-one else knows.

Justintruth
Posts: 182
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 4:10 pm

Re: Is there a primary cause?

Post by Justintruth » Thu Aug 10, 2017 7:05 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:57 am
Does A cause B? How do we determine that without going deeper? And then how do we determine that without going still deeper?

Maybe C causes A and B. Same questions of determination. Then you have to deal with time issues where you go back further and further through time where either you run out of time or you have an infinite amount of it.

Seems as if there's no starting point. But based on overwhelming evidence, the Big Bang Theory says there is a starting point which the scientific community agrees with. Are we getting closer to a primary cause?

PhilX
When you say deeper you mean a better understanding. You can just see it in the under of understanding. Better understanding comes by understanding your understanding hence going deeper.

Is there a limit. Yes. Finally we arrive at the ground floor and that final understanding understands it's finality. It is sometimes called the ground of Being. But that grounding requires a kind of permanent attentiveness and is not an explanation.

When you consider the universe you are only considering what is. But what is didn't need to be a universe. One can easily have imagined only the sight of red. One only sees red and there is no sense of turning around and looking elsewhere. One might think ones voice still. One might become angry or happy and develop thoughts of these that can be remembered. One even might hear the thoughts of others although one experiences nothing but red and no sense of touch to feel some object or feel any motion or turning.

But that is not what we experience. What we experience is our physical selves in a universe that had a Big Bang. And this is real. It's what we mean by real as opposed to pure red experiencing.

Now if you go deeper you realize that that is all what is. All a description of nature or the senses or physics.

But at any time you can understand a level deeper simply by considering that what is is. Now you are no longer considering nature - no longer considering what is but rather that it is. You realize that what is cannot be explained by tracing back in time to the Big Bang for all of that - all those laws - are physical, natural laws derived from sensation and the ideation of space and time by induction but you also realize that why it is that way is just because it is that way. It can't be that way because of what it is no matter what it is. It is that way just and only because it is. There is no other choice for reason for it to be the way it is. It just is that way.

The mystery is inherent and integral.

So when we think of being and understand it we realize that it means that it is for when I say the sun, or a law of physics are, I am not saying what it is at all. Rather I am rather saying that it is.

So that statement that it is is not a statement about the nature of what is but rather a statement about the fact that it is.

So all ideas of the Big Bang or the universe are understood to be natural statements about what is but the statement that it is, properly "under - stood" at the deepest level, is a realization of the inherent mystery of being for saying it is is no explanation at all of the fact but rather just a repeating of it. Understanding this foundation in inherent mystery is to know the final level as one realizes that there can be no understanding of why it is by referring to what it is and to say it just is is no explanation but rather a statement that it is a mystery why it is and one that is inherent. Saying we are here because of stardust does not say why we are here but just is saying the way what is has been to now. But it says nothing as to why it was that way.

So it seems we are at the ground if being.

But wait! There is one very surprising extra layer down. One more time we must further understand. Our bodies nervous system is doped with hormones and there is a kind of connection between our will to survive and our experience of being. Our survival is a desire to be fulfilled by the fact that we are. Not what we are but that we are. Understanding that it is, can become ecstatic,and we can fall in love and have our experience of being altered radically. Two people can experience themselves "in" love.

And then whole other ways of knowing occur - not explanation but knowing that is not explanation - sometimes voices and sometimes signs we see through different eyes. And it gets wrapped up in what is and we begin to consider what we must do.

That this happens cannot yet be derived but there is almost surely a natural explanation that involves neurology and hormones. That natural explanation will be true if I am right and it is found, but it will also only describe the nature of what is and will also be incapable of explaining why it is that it is that way. Only our previous understanding of the inherent nature of mystery in being - that it is at all and that it happens to be that way - will prevent us from suplanting the mystery with a false and not deeply understood experiencing.

So yes there are deeper levels to a point but no it has nothing to do with the Big Bang or any history of what is. It's just experiencing - really experiencing - the full potential of the mystery of that what is in this natural biology and universe is.

Justintruth
Posts: 182
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 4:10 pm

Re: Is there a primary cause?

Post by Justintruth » Thu Aug 10, 2017 7:40 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Wed Aug 09, 2017 1:18 pm
Image

A concept is known, but never seen.

.

The answer is not in the language.

.
Actually I think Wittgenstein was wrong on this for it fails to see the experiencing meaning.

In fact he should have realized that he cannot pull the ladder up behind him as that is distortion of the experiencing. That is an image of a dog plainly. He just believed that knowing was necessarily explanatory and he realized there could be no explanation. That this was not a matter for explanation. But he failed to see that some knowing is the realization at many levels of the fact of a lack of explanation. That lack of explanation need not prevent further understanding. His own realization in fact was sayable and to a large extent that is why people still read the Tractus because in it he said it in a sense.

Oh yea, I agree he was wrong but even latter Wittgenstein missed it.

Monk describes Wittgenstein considering a leaf near his death or at least when he was older and he threw it on the floor of a car and said "Impossible". I think it might have been milkweed. Carl Sagan made a living from that milkweed but he was a soap salesman.

But I think he (Wittgenstein) never made it out of the briar path and into the light fully. Wigtenstein is perhaps our most concentrated philosopher but he never really saw the consequences of the impasse he found himself at. Sometimes you sit in front of a wall a long time then suddenly you see it but sometimes you just sit in front of the wall frustrated and thinking that if you just concentrate a little more you will see.

He saw a block - "That about which one cannot speak.." and latter "Language goes on a holiday... " but neither Wittgenstein had his mind engage his hormones enough to realize the significance bodily. For him it was all furtive couplings. Yes he was in love and in many ways he saw but he failed to experience the release that connects the dots through all of that to his philosophy. Why? Perhaps the arrogance of Russel or the whole Anglo tradition. Why? A few hundred years from now and a video of his whole life - especially his childhood and when he was in love and maybe some "explanation" may be gleaned but what would that be? Well something. Natural science. But only that. We still would not know why.

Still he was a wonderful man I think. Honest to a fault. Trying to focus and understand way more than most. In that we can emulate him but in hopes of an improved outcome.

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Is there a primary cause?

Post by ken » Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:05 am

Justintruth wrote:
Thu Aug 10, 2017 7:05 pm
Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:57 am
Does A cause B? How do we determine that without going deeper? And then how do we determine that without going still deeper?

Maybe C causes A and B. Same questions of determination. Then you have to deal with time issues where you go back further and further through time where either you run out of time or you have an infinite amount of it.

Seems as if there's no starting point. But based on overwhelming evidence, the Big Bang Theory says there is a starting point which the scientific community agrees with. Are we getting closer to a primary cause?

PhilX
When you say deeper you mean a better understanding. You can just see it in the under of understanding. Better understanding comes by understanding your understanding hence going deeper.

Is there a limit. Yes. Finally we arrive at the ground floor and that final understanding understands it's finality. It is sometimes called the ground of Being. But that grounding requires a kind of permanent attentiveness and is not an explanation.

When you consider the universe you are only considering what is. But what is didn't need to be a universe. One can easily have imagined only the sight of red. One only sees red and there is no sense of turning around and looking elsewhere. One might think ones voice still. One might become angry or happy and develop thoughts of these that can be remembered. One even might hear the thoughts of others although one experiences nothing but red and no sense of touch to feel some object or feel any motion or turning.

But that is not what we experience. What we experience is our physical selves in a universe that had a Big Bang. And this is real. It's what we mean by real as opposed to pure red experiencing.

Now if you go deeper you realize that that is all what is. All a description of nature or the senses or physics.

But at any time you can understand a level deeper simply by considering that what is is. Now you are no longer considering nature - no longer considering what is but rather that it is. You realize that what is cannot be explained by tracing back in time to the Big Bang for all of that - all those laws - are physical, natural laws derived from sensation and the ideation of space and time by induction but you also realize that why it is that way is just because it is that way. It can't be that way because of what it is no matter what it is. It is that way just and only because it is. There is no other choice for reason for it to be the way it is. It just is that way.

The mystery is inherent and integral.

So when we think of being and understand it we realize that it means that it is for when I say the sun, or a law of physics are, I am not saying what it is at all. Rather I am rather saying that it is.

So that statement that it is is not a statement about the nature of what is but rather a statement about the fact that it is.

So all ideas of the Big Bang or the universe are understood to be natural statements about what is but the statement that it is, properly "under - stood" at the deepest level, is a realization of the inherent mystery of being for saying it is is no explanation at all of the fact but rather just a repeating of it. Understanding this foundation in inherent mystery is to know the final level as one realizes that there can be no understanding of why it is by referring to what it is and to say it just is is no explanation but rather a statement that it is a mystery why it is and one that is inherent. Saying we are here because of stardust does not say why we are here but just is saying the way what is has been to now. But it says nothing as to why it was that way.

So it seems we are at the ground if being.

But wait! There is one very surprising extra layer down. One more time we must further understand. Our bodies nervous system is doped with hormones and there is a kind of connection between our will to survive and our experience of being. Our survival is a desire to be fulfilled by the fact that we are. Not what we are but that we are. Understanding that it is, can become ecstatic,and we can fall in love and have our experience of being altered radically. Two people can experience themselves "in" love.

And then whole other ways of knowing occur - not explanation but knowing that is not explanation - sometimes voices and sometimes signs we see through different eyes. And it gets wrapped up in what is and we begin to consider what we must do.

That this happens cannot yet be derived but there is almost surely a natural explanation that involves neurology and hormones. That natural explanation will be true if I am right and it is found, but it will also only describe the nature of what is and will also be incapable of explaining why it is that it is that way. Only our previous understanding of the inherent nature of mystery in being - that it is at all and that it happens to be that way - will prevent us from suplanting the mystery with a false and not deeply understood experiencing.

So yes there are deeper levels to a point but no it has nothing to do with the Big Bang or any history of what is. It's just experiencing - really experiencing - the full potential of the mystery of that what is in this natural biology and universe is.
And, if you go even deeper, then there is a level where human beings are capable of finding the explanation of WHY it is for, and of, every thing. At this level there are no mysteries as the answers to all of the previous mysteries to human beings are revealed, and thus also thoroughly understood.

Reflex
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:09 pm

Re: Is there a primary cause?

Post by Reflex » Sun Aug 13, 2017 9:52 am

thedoc wrote:
Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:40 am
I think there is a primary cause to everything, but so far no-one knows for sure, and those who claim to know, are probably misinformed or lying.
Instead of calling it a "primary cause," why not call it an "primary event"?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests