Why?

[LiamOS]

This'll probably seem quite incoherent, but it could inspire some rather interesting discussion.

-What is the nature of the question 'why?' in this universe?
-Given its link to causality, must there be a first 'meaningful' cause for 'why?' to applicable in this universe?
-If causality is invalid, is to ask 'why?' objectively meaningless?

[cnorman18]

This'll probably seem quite incoherent, but it could inspire some rather interesting discussion.

-What is the nature of the question 'why?' in this universe?
-Given its link to causality, must there be a first 'meaningful' cause for 'why?' to applicable in this universe?
-If causality is invalid, is to ask 'why?' objectively meaningless?

Ancient college urban legend, dating at least back to the 60s:

Final exam in philosophy class. One essay question, which the professor writes on the board: "WHY?"

The class writes furiously in their bluebooks for the full two hours. The only student who passes is the one who writes "Because," and turns it in.

Alternate ending: "Why not?"

The REAL answer, it seems to me, would be to ask for further explication:

"Why WHAT?"

[Ragna]

-What is the nature of the question 'why?' in this universe?

In my opinion, the origin of "why?" is linked to biological evolution. Animals like us have developed a conscience and have to be ready to understand the world we live in. We are genetically determined to be able to detect patterns, and therefore also causality. We interpret the world searching for causes and effects so that we can use some causes to get the desired effects, or avoid them to avoid the undesired effects.

Finally, when human language developed, we needed a word to express this questioning the causes of the effects we saw. This is why "why?" appeared. In Spanish, why is composed of two words, "¿Por qué?", "por" being "for" and "qué" being "what?". This "For what?" does not refer to finality but to cause, more like "Because of what?". This reflects even more the causal nature of the question word.

-Given its link to causality, must there be a first 'meaningful' cause for 'why?' to applicable in this universe?

-If causality is invalid, is to ask 'why?' objectively meaningless?

I'll try to answer these two together. Where causality is invalid, "why?" is obviously meaningless, because there is no cause. I think this happens mainly in two situations: when asking the origin of the universe and in quantum physics. This is logically counter-intuitive, because our "why?" is a biological trait focused on biological matters (survival), not philosophical ones. So the cause for "why?" is a biological one.

If you are trying to know why causality works like it does, or why causality exists at all... well that's like asking why the universe exists, and I fear that there causality is not a correct form of reasoning.

I don't really know if this was the sort of answer you were asking for, so feel free to say if I have left some question unaddressed!

[Vince]

-What is the nature of the question 'why?' in this universe?

I think the nature of the question why is understanding, for evolutionary advantageous reasons as well as simple curiosity. (even though that may be just a byproduct of the evolutionary process)

-Given its link to causality, must there be a first 'meaningful' cause for 'why?' to applicable in this universe?

Could you extrapolate on what you mean here? Are you referring to the 'first cause' of the ontological argument?

-If causality is invalid, is to ask 'why?' objectively meaningless?

I don't think so. Causality appears to affect almost every aspect of our understanding, a discussion on the validity of causality could only be possible if there were something, real or imagined, that appeared to have no cause. However, asking 'why' is the only way to find out if something has no cause, and would therefore invalidate causality. So in a sense even if causality is invalid, we would not be able to find that out unless we found out what causes causality to be invalid.

[LiamOS]

Could you extrapolate on what you mean here? Are you referring to the 'first cause' of the ontological argument?

More so that of the Cosmological argument.

[Ragna]

More so that of the Cosmological argument.

I don't think the cosmological argument is based on a rational question, because I think asking "Why does the universe exist?" is illogical, for the causality restrictions I said above.

If you think of time as a line, then you interpret the beginning of time as a border point which has no points before it, and suppose it came "from nothing". That means there was no time before it, nothing before it. Asking what is the "cause" of the universe is a logically absurd extrapolation if you want to get as an answer something before or external to the universe that caused it as an effect. The universe is all that exists, everywhere it exists and always it has existed. So nothing external can causally interact with the universe, much less cause it.

I don't know if this means that the universe "caused itself" or not. The universe includes all causes and all effects, so all effects have their causes in the universe. But causes and effects work within the universe, so the beginning of the universe is not causally connected to anything outside the universe, it's just another point in space-time, though a special and mysterious one. We should try to understand time as borderless, just like the earth's surface.

[LiamOS]

I don't think the cosmological argument is based on a rational question, because I think asking "Why does the universe exist?" is illogical, for the causality restrictions I said above.

It does not need to be based on a question at all.
The Cosmological argument requires very little, and can be somewhat expressed as:

• Entities that exist have been caused to do so.
  Causal chains cannot be infinite is regress.
  Causal chains cannot loop.
  Therefore, there exists a first cause.

The question as to the legitimacy of any of these axioms is another debate in itself, and, as raised in the OP, the question being addressed becomes immediately inane if one of those axioms does not hold.

If you think of time as a line, then you interpret the beginning of time as a border point which has no points before it, and suppose it came "from nothing". That means there was no time before it, nothing before it. Asking what is the "cause" of the universe is a logically absurd extrapolation if you want to get as an answer something before or external to the universe that caused it as an effect. The universe is all that exists, everywhere it exists and always it has existed. So nothing external can causally interact with the universe, much less cause it.

But we need not ask what caused the universe; we must only inquire as to the nature of the first cause, which is not necessarily that which caused the universe.
Further, having defined the universe as the set of all existence entities, contemplating its cause or existence leads to a paradox.

I don't know if this means that the universe "caused itself" or not. The universe includes all causes and all effects, so all effects have their causes in the universe. But causes and effects work within the universe, so the beginning of the universe is not causally connected to anything outside the universe, it's just another point in space-time, though a special and mysterious one. We should try to understand time as borderless, just like the earth's surface.

We don't quite know this.
Also, I think coming to premature conclusions about the nature of space-time is inappropriate; we still don't really even know what time and space are.

[Ragna]

It does not need to be based on a question at all.
The Cosmological argument requires very little, and can be somewhat expressed as:

• Entities that exist have been caused to do so.
  Causal chains cannot be infinite is regress.
  Causal chains cannot loop.
  Therefore, there exists a first cause.

I think those axioms have a line-like interpretation of time, and I think that is why the reasoning is not quite accurate. That's why I said that causality does not hold to explain the beginning of the universe. In fact, "first" is a time order word that describes time as having a border-like beginning in the "first cause".

But we need not ask what caused the universe; we must only inquire as to the nature of the first cause, which is not necessarily that which caused the universe.

What can then the "first cause", as it is defined by the CA, cause if it didn't cause the universe? The cosmological arguments says an uncaused cause cannot normally happen within the universe, with an exception at the end of the causal chain, that is, the beginning, to break an eternal loop. If the first cause didn't cause the universe it would have happened within the universe, and therefore had a cause itself because of causality.

Further, having defined the universe as the set of all existence entities, contemplating its cause or existence leads to a paradox.

I cannot imagine how to define the universe otherwise. That is what I was pointing out, that the CA can be flawed because it applies causality where it shouldn't.

We don't quite know this.
Also, I think coming to premature conclusions about the nature of space-time is inappropriate; we still don't really even know what time and space are.

Yes, we don't really know what they are, but I think that we at least know what they are not. Time is not too different from space. Understanding time as borderless is quite useful to get rid of the problem of the first cause, and relativity seems like pointing towards this understanding. But this is far from being a conclusion, I can hardly imagine we will conclude something about the nature of time some day.

[LiamOS]

I think those axioms have a line-like interpretation of time, and I think that is why the reasoning is not quite accurate. That's why I said that causality does not hold to explain the beginning of the universe. In fact, "first" is a time order word that describes time as having a border-like beginning in the "first cause".

Here, we're not questioning whether or not causality is viable. the idea behind this thread was merely to explore what we can conclude about meaning and such based on different cases.

What can then the "first cause", as it is defined by the CA, cause if it didn't cause the universe?

Many things. Again, debating this isn't the aim here as there are other threads for such a debate. In fact, feel free to start one catering to the questions you find pertinent.

I cannot imagine how to define the universe otherwise. That is what I was pointing out, that the CA can be flawed because it applies causality where it shouldn't.

This is true, but that's not the concern here.

Yes, we don't really know what they are, but I think that we at least know what they are not. Time is not too different from space. Understanding time as borderless is quite useful to get rid of the problem of the first cause, and relativity seems like pointing towards this understanding.

It could be argued as arrogant to consider a 'first cause' to be a problem. I'm not of the opinion that one exists, but I can't yet discount the notion based on evidence alone.
Also, your motives for considering time as such do not appear to be logical; they appear to be based on what you would prefer.

[Ragna]

It could be argued as arrogant to consider a 'first cause' to be a problem. I'm not of the opinion that one exists, but I can't yet discount the notion based on evidence alone.

Sorry if this was not the point of the thread, I didn't notice, just answered. I call the first cause a problem only metaphorically, because of the paradox you yourself mentioned when it comes to find about the cause of "all that exists":

Further, having defined the universe as the set of all existence entities, contemplating its cause or existence leads to a paradox.

Why is it arrogant? I'm not a native speaker, but I didn't think the word problem had such connotations. I just mean that, from my point of view, which seems similar to yours, a "first cause" is not really logical.

Also, your motives for considering time as such do not appear to be logical; they appear to be based on what you would prefer.

They might appear, but not really. This is also the idea defended in the book The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking. Basically my vision of time is just a derivation of not seeing it line-like, which seems a respectable position because of relativity, quantum physics and how time and space are interwoven. Why considering time in the usual causal line-like fashion is less "based on what we prefer"? You would have to totally ignore quantum physics.