The First Cause Argument

[McCulloch]

The First Cause Argument
Simply stated this argument asserts that everything in the universe has a cause, therefore there must be an ultimate cause. If the universe has a beginning then there must be something outside it that brought it into existence. This being outside the universe, this Creator, the first cause argument tells us, is God.
Is this a valid proof of the existence of God?

[harvey1]

what does "immaterial" mean, according to your definition ?

There's a proposition that tells us what the universe must do, but that proposition cannot be substituted by any thing that is in principle observable (i.e., has a kickable signature that a conceivable scientific experiment can detect).

[Bugmaster]

what does "immaterial" mean, according to your definition ?

There's a proposition that tells us what the universe must do, but that proposition cannot be substituted by any thing that is in principle observable (i.e., has a kickable signature that a conceivable scientific experiment can detect).

So, does "immaterial" mean "not observable in principle" ?

[harvey1]

So, does "immaterial" mean "not observable in principle"?

It means that the immaterial thing (e.g. proposition) is not observable in principle.

[QED]

If the rules are real, then how are they not immaterial?

What about Faraday's Law? Feynman gives this as an example in "The Character of Physical Law": the amount of material deposited in electrolysis is proportional to the magnitude of current and the time over which it flows. This simply expresses the fact that charge comes in discreet units and, for example, to deposit on atom might take one electron. He then gives us Newtons law of gravitation as a second example and shows a discredited attempt to explain the inverse square law as arising from pressure differentials due to the particle blocking properties of masses. Were this simple theory not wrong it would provide a reason for the Law of gravity as per Faraday's Law. But as yet we have no equivalent picture of what is going on -- so for the time being we revert to describing the law with mathematics. Does this necessarily make the "rules" the product of something immaterial? And anyway, isn't the divide between material and immaterial somewhat arbitrary in the first place?

[harvey1]

If the rules are real, then how are they not immaterial?

What about Faraday's Law? Feynman gives this as an example in "The Character of Physical Law": the amount of material deposited in electrolysis is proportional to the magnitude of current and the time over which it flows. This simply expresses the fact that charge comes in discreet units and, for example, to deposit on atom might take one electron. He then gives us Newtons law of gravitation as a second example and shows a discredited attempt to explain the inverse square law as arising from pressure differentials due to the particle blocking properties of masses. Were this simple theory not wrong it would provide a reason for the Law of gravity as per Faraday's Law. But as yet we have no equivalent picture of what is going on -- so for the time being we revert to describing the law with mathematics. Does this necessarily make the "rules" the product of something immaterial?

Yes, it does. What is missed in Faraday's law is that the explanation shifts from a purely mathematical relation (ooh, mysterious) to a purely logical relation (oh, darn it, that's boring). The arch materialist, however, isn't saying that the logical relation is the "way nature is and must be," on the contrary, if the arch materialist says such a thing then the immaterialist (me) comes along and says that nature is logical because it must be logical since logic is a prior to matter. That is, there are logico-mathematical axioms that nature must obey because there is a logico-mathematical requirement that exists. The arch materialist must reject that as a necessary truth but accept the "logical axioms" of nature as a contingent truth.

So, of course there is a logical explanation that exists for every mathematical formula. The logical explanation doesn't necessarily mean no action at a distance (in fact that's not the case at all with entanglement), but the logical explanation exists when nature considers other possibilities. Something logical exists that prevents nature from acting a certain way. So, for example, in the delay choice experiments that logical restriction (all nicely summed up in the equations of quantum entanglement) might be the rewriting of the past to avoid a logical paradox, or it might be a satisfaction relation between events on-going with the way the future must be, etc.. In any case, the logical explanation provides the reason for an event, whereas the mathematical explanation provides a different explanation in terms of why logical explanations are restricted from a mathematical point of view (a view which is not just restricted to logic). As it must turn out, they are always equivalent, but not necessarily exact translations of each other.

And anyway, isn't the divide between material and immaterial somewhat arbitrary in the first place?

As I'm trying to demonstrate to Grumpy, any attempt to restate all logico-mathematical restrictions (immaterial restrictions) in materialist terms is bound to failure. Materialist explanations are contingent explanations since nothing but nature's behavior can determine nature's behavior. If we introduce "intrinsic laws" as he is trying to do, then we only have to go to the source of these "laws." Is the "law" true because it is necessarily true, in which case there is something metaphysical that requires nature to act logical or mathematical, or is the "law" true because it is contingently true. If contingent, then it could change if the fact of the matter (i.e., nature's behavior) would suddenly change course because the contingently based "intrinsic laws" are no longer the same as they were a half second ago.

I think for you this separation is difficult because like other people on this forum, you are holding to two different and opposing premises as they suit you. When you are thinking in terms of what things next can occur in nature, it seems that you are holding to the premise that these "intrinsic laws" of nature are necessarily a result of how nature is (i.e., there is a necessary law that nature have restrictions in its behavior versus nature can do whatever just happens to happen). However, when you are thinking of what things nature is prohibited from doing because of some mathematical truth that exists, you are holding to the premise that these "mathematical truths" of nature are expressions of some contingent fact of matter. They are human constructs.

It's almost like you assume logic is an expression of necessary behavior for nature, but you do not provide the same status for mathematics as an expression of necessary behavior for nature. However, mathematics is just as primitive as logic (some logicians put logic under mathematics). So, I think this is where you must correct your thinking by putting mathematics as equal to logic. Nature behaves logically because there are no other mathematically consistent worlds which would allow it behave any other way. If nature was Nothing in the beginning, then its evolution would be restricted to the logical implication of what mathematical relations exist that restrict it from staying as nothing. We could eliminate mathematical-talk by logical talk, but we could not eliminate both in favor of nothing-talk. In that case, you would still have nothing.

[Grumpy]

harvey1

Something logical exists that prevents nature from acting a certain way.

No it does not, nature only acts according to the properties in it's structure. It does not need anything to prevent"unnatural" actions, those are not ever possible.

So, for example, in the delay choice experiments that logical restriction (all nicely summed up in the equations of quantum entanglement) might be the rewriting of the past to avoid a logical paradox, or it might be a satisfaction relation between events on-going with the way the future must be, etc.. In any case, the logical explanation provides the reason for an event, whereas the mathematical explanation provides a different explanation in terms of why logical explanations are restricted from a mathematical point of view (a view which is not just restricted to logic). As it must turn out, they are always equivalent, but not necessarily exact translations of each other.

Here is your main error, logic can describe nature but it can never constrain it because in the real, material world that logic does not exist, nor can it have any effect. You keep trying to give material existence and effects to your immaterial thoughts, which have no existence outside of your mind.

In any case, the logical explanation provides the reason for an event,

No, it does not!!! The most it can do is provide US with an understanding of the event, it cannot cause it. Nature does not require logic, math or even your existence to do what the structure of the universe allows it to do. IT CAN DO NOTHING ELSE!!! No paradoxes, no miracles, no behaviors which it's intrinsic structure does not allow. Anything which appears to violate that "nature" is a failure of you(or us) to understand, not of nature to behave as it must.

As I'm trying to demonstrate to Grumpy, any attempt to restate all logico-mathematical restrictions (immaterial restrictions) in materialist terms is bound to failure. Materialist explanations are contingent explanations since nothing but nature's behavior can determine nature's behavior. If we introduce "intrinsic laws" as he is trying to do, then we only have to go to the source of these "laws." Is the "law" true because it is necessarily true, in which case there is something metaphysical that requires nature to act logical or mathematical, or is the "law" true because it is contingently true. If contingent, then it could change if the fact of the matter (i.e., nature's behavior) would suddenly change course because the contingently based "intrinsic laws" are no longer the same as they were a half second ago.

Contingent rules CANNOT suddenly change course, they are built into the structure of the entire universe(intrinsic rules). I am not trying to "introduce" anything, THEY ARE ALREADY THERE. These properties are part of what it means for the universe to exist.
Materialist explanations are contingent explanations since nothing but nature's PROPERTIES can determine nature's behavior. Nature really doesn't care whether you(through logic and/or math) formulate laws describing those properties, your logic and/or math EXIST ONLY IN YOUR MIND and have no way to affect the material universe.

It's almost like you assume logic is an expression of necessary behavior for nature, but you do not provide the same status for mathematics as an expression of necessary behavior for nature. However, mathematics is just as primitive as logic (some logicians put logic under mathematics). So, I think this is where you must correct your thinking by putting mathematics as equal to logic. Nature behaves logically because there are no other mathematically consistent worlds which would allow it behave any other way. If nature was Nothing in the beginning, then its evolution would be restricted to the logical implication of what mathematical relations exist that restrict it from staying as nothing. We could eliminate mathematical-talk by logical talk, but we could not eliminate both in favor of nothing-talk. In that case, you would still have nothing.

Both logic and math are constructs of our minds, though they may describe what nature does they do not affect what nature can or cannot do. The universe did not come from nothing, the energy(the only thing that existed in the first seconds of time) came from somewhere/something we do not yet understand and may never be able to. The properties of that s/s determined the properties of the universe through naturally intrinsic properties we are just now beginning to understand(high energy physics), the properties of our current universe were "caused" by the properties of that s/s, give us a few thousand years of study and we may be able to explain it all. But in the mean time, let's not jump to illogical conclusions such as an intelligent cause.

Grumpy 8)

[harvey1]

See here for original post:

The actual itrinsic properties of matter and energy are what determine how they behave.

Why must these intrinsic properties determine how they behave? Can't you have a situation where matter and energy behave indeterminantly?

You are basically saying that nature only allows worlds which nature allows. Of course, that only begs the question on what could nature allow given that nature allows only what it allows. It suggests the possibility that a supernatural occurrence is not forbidden since there is nothing that determines what nature allows but it's own behavior.

That's a leap too far!!! Nature shows no need or ability to create anything outside of(super to) itself

If "the object will never act in any other way but the one allowed by it's intrinsic limits," then why are those intrinsic limits based on the restriction of what we have observed in the past? Or, why are those intrinsic limits based on nature's inability to act without logical reason altogether?

you have no evidence of that creation and, besides, nature behaves the way it does because of the properties of the matter and energy making up the universe, no intelligence required.

But, why do the properties of matter and energy restrict what can happen next with respect to matter and energy? Are you saying it is impossible for matter/energy to act without humans having laws to describe it? Why?

Contingent rules CANNOT suddenly change course, they are built into the structure of the entire universe(intrinsic rules).

Why can't contingent rules change? That's what it means to be contingent, there is nothing necessarily dictating their behavior.

I am not trying to "introduce" anything, THEY ARE ALREADY THERE. These properties are part of what it means for the universe to exist.

Sure, a contingent fact means that it exists, but why must a contingent fact continue with that particular property if the fact itself is contingent?

Materialist explanations are contingent explanations since nothing but nature's PROPERTIES can determine nature's behavior.

But, nature's properties are contingent, so why is it necessarily true by some kind of law that these properties cannot change if nature's intrinsic laws can be anything (since these intrinsic laws are either based on contingent properties, or contingent laws determine the properties)?

[Grumpy]

harvey1

harvey1

But, why do the properties of matter and energy restrict what can happen next with respect to matter and energy? Are you saying it is impossible for matter/energy to act without humans having laws to describe it? Why?

As usual, you get everything backwards!!! I am saying nature will behave according to it's properties whether humans exist and make laws or not. What is impossible is for those immaterial laws to change or cause nature's behavior, the best they can do is describe what nature does and give us tools to predict(but not dictate) what will happen next. Our understanding, or even cognizance, is not required for nature to do what it will do anyway.

If "the object will never act in any other way but the one allowed by it's intrinsic limits," then why are those intrinsic limits based on the restriction of what we have observed in the past? Or, why are those intrinsic limits based on nature's inability to act without logical reason altogether?

Because the intrinsic properties are the same now as they were in the past all the way back to the beginning of this universe. Natures behavior is constrained by the properties of the universe, not by logic or math. Nature never tries to do what is not possible because it has no means to violate it's properties, this would take intent, something nature does not have.

Why must these intrinsic properties determine how they behave? Can't you have a situation where matter and energy behave indeterminantly?

Because they are built in to the structure of the whole universe as an interlocking web of forces and particles, their uniformity a result of the fact that everything in the universe originated at a single point. A situation where any particle or force acts outside of those properties CANNOT occur, everything is caused by everything that has gone before. Matter and energy cannot act outside of their properties, period.

Grumpy 8)

What I actually answered, not harvey's chop job.

Grumpy 8)

[Bugmaster]

It means that the immaterial thing (e.g. proposition) is not observable in principle.

In that case, the laws that the Universe operates by are clearly material, since we have observed them in some capacity (gravity, electomagnetism, quantum tunneling, etc.)

[Bugmaster]

The arch materialist, however, isn't saying that the logical relation is the "way nature is and must be," on the contrary, if the arch materialist says such a thing then the immaterialist (me) comes along and says that nature is logical because it must be logical...

"You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means".

What do you mean by "nature is logical" ? Because, last time I checked, I couldn't weigh a proposition, or measure the temperature of a syllogism. I think you're making the jump from, "we think of nature in logical terms", to "nature is made out of logic", which is not necessarily true.

So, of course there is a logical explanation that exists for every mathematical formula. The logical explanation doesn't necessarily mean no action at a distance (in fact that's not the case at all with entanglement), but the logical explanation exists when nature considers other possibilities.

Firstly, nature doesn't consider anything; nature just is. Secondly, some mathematical formulae do not require any explanations; for example, the formula "sqrt(x^2) == x" does not require an additional explanation. I think what you meant to say was, "mathematical formulae that we invented in order to describe the laws of nature as we understand them require logical explanations", which may or may not be true, but I don't see how it proves your dualism true.

When you are thinking in terms of what things next can occur in nature, it seems that you are holding to the premise that these "intrinsic laws" of nature are necessarily a result of how nature is (i.e., there is a necessary law that nature have restrictions in its behavior versus nature can do whatever just happens to happen).

This is a category error on your part. Nature exists, it behaves in certain ways, and we build models to describe this behavior. The models are not the behavior. Now, why does nature behave in these ways and not others ? "Because God made it that way" is one possible answer (though not a very good one, because it doesn't answer anything). "I don't know yet" is another (it's marginally better because it allows room for study). However, "because our models say so" is not a valid answer at all, because, as you said, models (i.e., math and logic) are just something we made up.