First cause

[whirlingmerc]

No, not in the absolute sense.

Since the laws of thermo say usable energy is winding down that suggests there is something or someone outside the process of naturally created things.... else we would already be in a run down universe

 

[whirlingmerc]

so are you saying there is either a circular cause or a linear cause?


If there is a circular cause don't you already have a linear cause?

but with a linear cause you don't necessarily have a circular?

Thermodynamics suggest an infinite regress is unworkable...

 

[MNoBody]

except

 

[Polymath257]

Since the laws of thermo say usable energy is winding down that suggests there is something or someone outside the process of naturally created things.... else we would already be in a run down universe

Unless gravity is an essential aspect of the system. It turns out that in a gravitational field, entropy considerations get very strange and not at all as simple as 'random' versus 'ordered'.

Thermodynamics suggest an infinite regress is unworkable...

Not if you include gravitational effects. If you want to do cosmology and discuss entropy, you *have* to deal with gravity and how it affects entropy calculations.

Furthermore, entropy is a *statistical* law, not a fundamental one. In an *eternal* universe, the second law would be expected to be violated over time periods corresponding to Poincare recurrence.

 

[Fool]

except
View attachment 39037

Probably more like a Mobius strip

 

[MNoBody]

will you still need me
will you still feed me
when i'm 64

 

[atanu]

What's the significance of the first cause when everything is in the process of cause and affect (change, formation, etc)?

Change/formation of what?

 

[atanu]

Shrugs. Call me dumb. Maybe humans want to believe we create as an ego thing. Then, I'm more of an artist minded, so I can see originality in creation but on the other hand, we do use other things to create new ideas rather than claim we made it out of thin air. Origin of ideas not the tools to create them.

So. Do you imagine that the ability to know, feel, and imagine was also caused or created? If so, then why should you imagine that with a 'created tool' you can unravel the source of that creation?

 

[robocop (actually)]

If all things were, are, and will be "created" into being by cause and effect, why must there be a first cause?

Let me take a shot at it. It says in Judaism that God existed along with the Universe from the beginning. God was the causer and the rest was the effect.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Change/formation of what?

Like formation of stars and the earth. Everything is in constant change into one thing or another rather than created from nothing.

 

[Polymath257]

So. Do you imagine that the ability to know, feel, and imagine was also caused or created? If so, then why should you imagine that with a 'created tool' you can unravel the source of that creation?

Well, the ability evolved to be what we have now. In that sense it was 'caused', but that is a very general sense of causation. It sort of feels like asking if the ability to digest was caused. The question itself just doesn't feel right for some reason.

As to whether we can decipher causation of our own minds, the specific evolutionary forces and the specific mutations that allowed these abilities to develop may well be lost to the ravages of time. But to the extent that evidence remains, I don't see why we could not find it and interpret it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Let me take a shot at it. It says in Judaism that God existed along with the Universe from the beginning. God was the causer and the rest was the effect.

Hm. Existed separate from the Universe or the Universe as the cause interrelated with the effect?

For example, if you were forming wet clay into a statue, your hands would be the creator/what shapes the statue/creation into being. However, instead of them being separate entities, the continuous formation of the clay guides the hands (instead of being forced to be shaped a certain way) while the hands that form the clay cannot do so without the movement and formation of the clay. So, in that the clay/universe and the hands/creator work together insofar to separate them the other wouldn't "exist" into themselves.

I'd assume christians separate the creator from the creation. So, the creator shapes creation but creation doesn't shape the creator.

In Judaism, is the cause and affect one right after another like dominoes or are they interrelated like forming stars?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

So. Do you imagine that the ability to know, feel, and imagine was also caused or created? If so, then why should you imagine that with a 'created tool' you can unravel the source of that creation?

I read this a couple of times. I can't find the connection between the two questions.

The ability to know, feel, and imagine are both created and caused at the same time. Refer to my post #92. I don't know about the other question.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Hm. Existed separate from the Universe or the Universe as the cause interrelated with the effect?

For example, if you were forming wet clay into a statue, your hands would be the creator/what shapes the statue/creation into being. However, instead of them being separate entities, the continuous formation of the clay guides the hands (instead of being forced to be shaped a certain way) while the hands that form the clay cannot do so without the movement and formation of the clay. So, in that the clay/universe and the hands/creator work together insofar to separate them the other wouldn't "exist" into themselves.

I'd assume christians separate the creator from the creation. So, the creator shapes creation but creation doesn't shape the creator.

In Judaism, is the cause and affect one right after another like dominoes or are they interrelated like forming stars?

Sorry... I'm too tired to look at this. Will write a note in my phone to look at it tomorrow.

 

[atanu]

Like formation of stars and the earth. Everything is in constant change into one thing or another rather than created from nothing.

Yes. So I am asking "What is that which is continually transforming?' and "What is that which tracks of all these transformations?" These two: the material and the efficient causes cannot transform, in my opinion.

I read this a couple of times. I can't find the connection between the two questions.
The ability to know, feel, and imagine are both created and caused at the same time. Refer to my post #92. I don't know about the other question.

If the ability (to know, feel, and imagine) is created then what is the guarantee that you have the ability to know the truth? This is the basic characteristic of 'Nirvana'. Nirvana is unborn, unformed, and uncreated, because of which one discerns the state of freedom from the samsara -- freedom from the bondage of names and forms. Once the names and forms are discarded as 'anatta', how the name-form free realm will be known if the discernment is not prior to names-forms?

What I am hinting is that the 'discernment' is unborn -- going by Buddhas' description of Nirvana. And the similar is the teaching in all religions.

...

 

[MonkeyFire]

Remove the the zero and you will never see the other end of time, which is why time exist as a circle and is kept on a universal clock.

 

[PruePhillip]

The possibility of a cyclic universe is simply a possibility based on the present knowledge of science, and not begging the question.

If I ask someone "How did the universe begin?"
and they say "It just recycles endlessly."
I will say, "I don't need to know what it does, just how it began - and why it began."

 

[shunyadragon]

If I ask someone "How did the universe begin?"
and they say "It just recycles endlessly."
I will say, "I don't need to know what it does, just how it began - and why it began."

Based on what we know of the physics and Quantum Mechanics there is no known beginning of anything whether the universe is cyclic or it began as a singularity in an eternal Quantum World as one of many possible universes by Natural Law and Quantum Mechanics The Why? would be asked by those who poss a philosophical or theological question about origins. The Metaphysical Philosopher would say it simply exist for reasons of Natural Laws irrespective of human desires for a reason. The theist would proposed the reason why? in terms of which God(s) they believe in. Various other religious beliefs would express the reason why? in terms of their own beliefs, and all would be different, but science would remain predictable and consistent as to what?, how? and when?.

You may answer the reason why? just as many other conflicting and diverse beliefs do likewise.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It may well be that there are events with no cause.

Sure, chaos, uncertainty, probability.

 

[Aupmanyav]

If so, and the universe did have a starting point, would it not require a cause, and if it does, then would there not be a first cause, which would / could be that starting point - requiring no cause, since it would be eternal?

I think it can be of a switch on/switch off type. There are things like that, e.g., virtual particles. Not really cyclical, since that requires repetition at designated times. It can appear and disappear randomly. Some Hindu theories do not accept any creation at all.