First cause

[Aupmanyav]

Yes. So I am asking "What is that which is continually transforming?' and "What is that which tracks of all these transformations?"

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.

You know Atanu, nothing is transforming - Brahman is changeless. Since no change, therefore no track as well. All that seems to have been created is but an illusion (of illusions), it has no 'atta' as you said, and it is 'anicca' too. Once the illusion understands that it is an illusion and not the reality, that is 'Nirvana'. Discernment is the natural state.

 

[sealchan]

That is all incorrect.

I explained it in this post:

I think most of the issues raised that suggest a need for a "first" or let's call it primal cause, still suggest a linear series of events whether time based or not. Cause and effect still have, as their basis in metaphor, the notion of the relationship between one thing and another and singling out one cause from the rest is inherently problematic because of th he problem of self-reference where rationality loops back on itself through the very meanings of words when one tries to be thoroughly comprehensive.

In systems we identify parts that interact with each other...but that is always misleading. Parts are all co-created by each other parts within a system such that there is no primal act that gives rise to a system...it all co-emerges out of an obscurity to the logic of the system itself.

If you take time out of the picture in any case you already step deeply into an obscure realm of strangeness which makes it hard to even contemplate the meaning of what is being said.

 

[Double Fine]

First Cause.

Also known as "The Cause".

Maybe the universe just felt like expanding.

 

[shunyadragon]

I think most of the issues raised that suggest a need for a "first" or let's call it primal cause, still suggest a linear series of events whether time based or not. Cause and effect still have, as their basis in metaphor, the notion of the relationship between one thing and another and singling out one cause from the rest is inherently problematic because of the problem of self-reference where rationality loops back on itself through the very meanings of words when one tries to be thoroughly comprehensive.

A primal cause does not necessarily suggest any need for something to happen 'first.'. From the scientific perspective of the eternal Laws of Nature and the Quantum World as the 'primal cause' there is no beginning.'

The Baha'i Faith shares this view in that our physical existence is eternal in Creation with God reflecting the attributes of God.

In systems we identify parts that interact with each other...but that is always misleading. Parts are all co-created by each other parts within a system such that there is no primal act that gives rise to a system...it all co-emerges out of an obscurity to the logic of the system itself.

From the scientific view there is no primal act that gives rise to a system. There are event within the greater cosmos that give ris to our universe and all possible universes.

If you take time out of the picture in any case you already step deeply into an obscure realm of strangeness which makes it hard to even contemplate the meaning of what is being said.

Taking time out of the picture is not 'an obscure realm of strangeness' you end up with an eternal Quantum World beyond our space/time macro world of our universe.

 

[Polymath257]

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."

And their answer is that it didn't begin: it cycles.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

False extreme misrepresentation of the laws of thermodynamics based on an ancient religious agenda. It is obvious that you are living in ancient world of Newtonian Physics. You have to consider all the laws of thermodynamics in their context. First it has been determined that Quantum Mechanics has its own rules and the Laws of Thermodynamics are emergent from the Quantum World.

Quantum thermodynamics - Wikipedia

Quantum thermodynamics [1][2] is the study of the relations between two independent physical theories: thermodynamics and quantum mechanics. The two independent theories address the physical phenomena of light and matter. In 1905 Einstein argued that the requirement of consistency between thermodynamics and electromagnetism[3] leads to the conclusion that light is quantized obtaining the relation {\displaystyle E=h\nu }

. This paper is the dawn of quantum theory. In a few decades quantum theory became established with an independent set of rules.[4] Currently quantum thermodynamics addresses the emergence of thermodynamic laws from quantum mechanics. It differs from quantum statistical mechanics in the emphasis on dynamical processes out of equilibrium. In addition there is a quest for the theory to be relevant for a single individual quantum system.



If you do Usable energy winding down? Our universe is billions of years old, and likely will last billions of years.

The something outside our universe is the eternal laws of nature and Quantum Mechanics

 

[Polymath257]

False extreme misrepresentation of the laws of thermodynamics based on an ancient religious agenda. It is obvious that you are living in ancient world of Newtonian Physics. You have to consider all the laws of thermodynamics in their context. First it has been determined that Quantum Mechanics has its own rules and the Laws of Thermodynamics are emergent from the Quantum World.

Quantum thermodynamics - Wikipedia

Quantum thermodynamics [1][2] is the study of the relations between two independent physical theories: thermodynamics and quantum mechanics. The two independent theories address the physical phenomena of light and matter. In 1905 Einstein argued that the requirement of consistency between thermodynamics and electromagnetism[3] leads to the conclusion that light is quantized obtaining the relation {\displaystyle E=h\nu }

. This paper is the dawn of quantum theory. In a few decades quantum theory became established with an independent set of rules.[4] Currently quantum thermodynamics addresses the emergence of thermodynamic laws from quantum mechanics. It differs from quantum statistical mechanics in the emphasis on dynamical processes out of equilibrium. In addition there is a quest for the theory to be relevant for a single individual quantum system.

If you do Usable energy winding down? Our universe is billions of years old, and likely will last billions of years.

The something outside our universe is the eternal laws of nature and Quantum Mechanics

Also, even under classcal mechanics (and even more so under quantum mechanics), the second law is a *statistical* law, not a fundamental one.

There are *known* violations of the second law in small systems (whiere the probability of deviation is higher). For larger systems (like the air in a room), there is a notion of the Poincare recurrence time, which is, in essence, the amount of time it takes for a system to cycle. It is *expected* that the second law would be violated in the long term. And we can even give an estimate of the time scale on which violations are expected.

And that means that ALL arguments against an infinite regress in time based on the second law are fundamentally misguided: they assume the second law is a fundamental law and not a statistical one based on the more fundamental laws.

 

[Double Fine]

Also, even under classcal mechanics (and even more so under quantum mechanics), the second law is a *statistical* law, not a fundamental one.

There are *known* violations of the second law in small systems (whiere the probability of deviation is higher). For larger systems (like the air in a room), there is a notion of the Poincare recurrence time, which is, in essence, the amount of time it takes for a system to cycle. It is *expected* that the second law would be violated in the long term. And we can even give an estimate of the time scale on which violations are expected.

And that means that ALL arguments against an infinite regress in time based on the second law are fundamentally misguided: they assume the second law is a fundamental law and not a statistical one based on the more fundamental laws.

Heyyy Poly!!

I'm a bit late to the party, sorry. But at least I arrived!

 

[Polymath257]

Heyyy Poly!!

I'm a bit late to the party, sorry. But at least I arrived!

Hello! Quite a few people made the transition, by the way. I'm sure you will see them.

 

[Double Fine]

Hello! Quite a few people made the transition, by the way. I'm sure you will see them.

I've got Christine, I've got Dan and now I've got you.

I was told Buck Crick wasn't here. I am deeply saddened. His theory of infinite donut was a thing of beauty.

Really good to see you, man! I hope you and yours are keeping safe in these unprecedented times.

 

[izzy88]

I think most of the issues raised that suggest a need for a "first" or let's call it primal cause, still suggest a linear series of events whether time based or not. Cause and effect still have, as their basis in metaphor, the notion of the relationship between one thing and another and singling out one cause from the rest is inherently problematic because of th he problem of self-reference where rationality loops back on itself through the very meanings of words when one tries to be thoroughly comprehensive.

In systems we identify parts that interact with each other...but that is always misleading. Parts are all co-created by each other parts within a system such that there is no primal act that gives rise to a system...it all co-emerges out of an obscurity to the logic of the system itself.

If you take time out of the picture in any case you already step deeply into an obscure realm of strangeness which makes it hard to even contemplate the meaning of what is being said.

I've been finding that a lot of people seem to really get tripped up on the word "cause" and insist that it requires time or a linear series of events.

Instead, substitute the notion of cause for the notion of dependence and see if it makes sense that way - everything is dependent on something else for its existence in this current moment and at any given moment. The argument is talking about cause in the sense that if you have chain links hanging from the ceiling, each link is causing the link below it to be suspended in the air at any given moment. No succession of events, no time. Without the link above it, each link could not currently be suspended in the air; but without a ceiling, none of the links could be suspended. If you simply have a bunch of chain links (contingent things) which all depend on something else to suspend them in the air (exist) then none of them will actually be suspended in the air (exist); there must necessarily be a ceiling (a non-contingent thing) which isn't dependent on something else to be 'in the air' (exist) but is rather the foundation of whatever is suspended in the air (exists).

Just the same, if all we see in this world are contingent things - things which do not cause their own sustained existence in any given moment, things that depend on something outside of themselves to exist - then it follows that there must necessarily be something at the foundation of reality which is non-contingent, which does not depend on anything outside of itself for its existence, and which exists necessarily, because its essence is existence.

That's all the First Cause Argument is saying, nothing more.

 

[Polymath257]

I've got Christine, I've got Dan and now I've got you.

I was told Buck Crick wasn't here. I am deeply saddened. His theory of infinite donut was a thing of beauty.

Really good to see you, man! I hope you and yours are keeping safe in these unprecedented times.

@It Aint Necessarily So is also here, but doesn't post as regularly as I would like.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Heyyy Poly!!

I'm a bit late to the party, sorry. But at least I arrived!

Welcome aboard, @Double Fine. Yeah, no Buck Crick, RiversideRedneck, or clearwater. You'll like this site better. More civil and better software. Two pages that you'll want to refer to frequently are "alerts" (it's where I saw Polymath's reference to me, also who has responded to one of your posts, etc..) < https://www.religiousforums.com/account/alerts > and "trending," the list of active threads : < Trending Topics | Religious Forums >

Thanks for the kind words, @Polymath257 .

 

[Double Fine]

Welcome aboard, @Double Fine. Yeah, no Buck Crick, RiversideRedneck, or clearwater. You'll like this site better. More civil and better software.

Thanks for the kind words, @Polymath257 .

My goodness, the old crew is back!

Honestly good to see you. How are you keeping? I've not heard much about the lockdown regulations in your neck of the woods. Are you guys doing okay?

Please tell me we have at least a Dave Nelson here. I have missed Uncle Dave's Ramblings!

 

[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?

There are always things to act and things to be acted upon. The time-fringes of the Universe are the same.

 

[shunyadragon]

I've got Christine, I've got Dan and now I've got you.

I was told Buck Crick wasn't here. I am deeply saddened. His theory of infinite donut was a thing of beauty.

Really good to see you, man! I hope you and yours are keeping safe in these unprecedented times.

How about an infinite number of infinite donuts,

 

[shunyadragon]

There are always things to act and things to be acted upon. The time-fringes of the Universe are the same.

No, Natural Laws and Quantum Mechanics are not known to be acted upon.

 

[robocop (actually)]

No, Natural Laws and Quantum Mechanics are not known to be acted upon.

I would say humans can act on things. I'm using intuition though, not science, to say that.

 

[Double Fine]

How about an infinite number of infinite donuts,

That sounds very much like him!

What was your name on Topix? I don't recognise you.

It may be the beard.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How are you keeping? I've not heard much about the lockdown regulations in your neck of the woods. Are you guys doing okay?

We're fine so far, thank you, but the virus hasn't made it to our part of Mexico yet, or if it has, it just has, and I'm still unaware of it.

We have a forced lockdown, but it's not very effective due to a small government with relatively little to spend on governing. Our neighbors do what they want. Here's a recent video of a couple of local expats like us out on the streets without masks on (her mask doesn't stay on long), coughing, and defying the law. The street I live on has people on it, but the video was of the downtown region of the village, which is patrolled.

Please tell me we have at least a Dave Nelson here. I have missed Uncle Dave's Ramblings!

I thought I remembered being told he had passed away before that other site collapsed.

Incidentally, he can answer for himself, but I believe that @shunyadragon wasn't ever at that other site.

The infinite donut, as you may recall, was a strawman intended to rebut with ridicule. You may recall that the other poster was claiming that nothing can be infinite in reality, and I told him that a circular path was infinite, as in if an ant began walking around the top of a donut, it would never run out of track. It would never find the end. The path was unbounded going clockwise or counterclockwise around the donut, and therefore infinite. Rather than actually address that, he change infinite path to infinite donut and began ridiculing the idea.

Can't say I miss him.