Is causality infinite?

[Someone here]

For thousands of years people have been wondering whether there is a beginning and end of time, whether space has any limits, and can matter be divided into smaller and smaller particles indefinitely.

But another question is whether causality itself has any limits. If you look at a certain thing or phenomena, for the most part, it is so because of something – it has an underlying cause. And that something is so because of something else – another cause – and so on…

Is it possible to arrive at something which is the last cause and there is nothing beyond it? It’s like considering the universe to be finite, but if it is so, what is it enclosed into? And if there are many other universes contained in some superior multiverse, what is it enclosed into and so on…

Can something be just by itself and have nothing that caused it, itself being its own cause?

And if causality is infinite could we ever comprehend it because it would take a mind with an infinite conceptual ability, whereas our minds are, apparently, limited in their conceptual ability – can conceptual and logical causality be infinite?

Is God the ultimate cause of an infinite causality? – this statement seems to be paradoxical.

If there are rules and laws of things, where did they come from, do they have superior laws and so on?

[Carl-Richard]

Causality isn't even a thing. Natural laws don't exist.

[Someone here]

5 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Causality isn't even a thing.

What do you mean? 

[Tim R]

8 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Can something be just by itself and have nothing that caused it, itself being its own cause?

Yup. Being is causeless, because the cause would be.

1 minute ago, Someone here said:

7 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Causality isn't even a thing.

What do you mean? 

It's a concept.

[Someone here]

5 minutes ago, Tim R said:

Yup. Being is causeless, because the cause would be.

But isn't it being causeless the same as having an infinite causal chain?

[Carl-Richard]

37 minutes ago, Someone here said:

What do you mean? 

Natural laws don't exist (or they're not a "fact"). Natural laws rely on induction, which is a flawed process. Today's scientists are critical rationalists, not logical positivists: they try to test, critique and falsify their claims, not verify or justify them. You can't arrive at a natural law through falsification, because falsification is not about arriving at a final answer (e.g. "causality is a natural law"). It's about critiquing statements and eliminating the false ones. This is where some scientists get their humility from: "we're not saying we know anything for sure. We're just trying disprove our own theories."

[Someone here]

Well causality is a concept, a way to structure events that are related. Applying the terms "finite" or "infinite" to a concept is meaningless.

I think the question cannot be answered in any meaningfull way. Causality is something that can only be applied to relations. When looking at a so called "first cause" or "last effect" we are looking at events, not at relations. The concept of causality becomes meaningless in that sense

[Tim R]

1 hour ago, Someone here said:

But isn't it being causeless the same as having an infinite causal chain?

One process doesn't start another process. Where is the separation which would imply "one process" "causing" "another process"? 

Have you ever seen "two processes"? 

Sit by the river, look for causation. 

Listen to sound, try to hear their cause. 

Creation is now, spontaneous and without cause. 

 

"Cause" is an illusion born of memory. 

[Someone here]

3 hours ago, Tim R said:

One process doesn't start another process. Where is the separation which would imply "one process" "causing" "another process"? 

Have you ever seen "two processes"? 

Sit by the river, look for causation. 

Listen to sound, try to hear their cause. 

Creation is now, spontaneous and without cause. 

 

"Cause" is an illusion born of memory. 

Your quite right, as far as I know there is no definite edge to an event. So with this in mind there can only be one single event. The way I imagine it is, is that the beginning of the universe was the start of an event. That event was not the arrival of a substance, but rather the start of a change in something that can be both dormant and active, when it's active it displays its qualities rather than any thing quantifable, so what actually happens is just an energetic display. Just changes from one quality dominating to another different quality attaining dominance. One event, one big complex looking change from zero qualitys to universe, and (probably)back again

[Carl-Richard]

4 hours ago, Someone here said:

Well causality is a concept, a way to structure events that are related. Applying the terms "finite" or "infinite" to a concept is meaningless.

Even as a concept, it doesn't logically follow. This is what Hume discovered. If a law is a fact that is constant (not probabilistic), e.g. "all effects always have a cause", you're out of luck, because drawing upon a collection of observations and claiming a pattern (induction) is at best probabilistic (a good guess). It's a good guess that hitting a billiard ball head on will make it travel in a roughly straight line, but you can never be 100% sure.

[WokeBloke]

I think if you go back in the chain of events you would reach a first event. Prior to that event there was no experience. The uncaused expereincer caused/started/initiated experiencing. So ultimately you are the cause of everything.

 

Also since creation had a beginning I don't think causality is infinite. There was a clear-cut beginning to creation. 

Edited November 14, 2021 by WokeBloke

[Tim R]

36 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Your quite right, as far as I know there is no definite edge to an event. So with this in mind there can only be one single event. The way I imagine it is, is that the beginning of the universe was the start of an event. That event was not the arrival of a substance, but rather the start of a change in something that can be both dormant and active, when it's active it displays its qualities rather than any thing quantifable, so what actually happens is just an energetic display. Just changes from one quality dominating to another different quality attaining dominance. One event, one big complex looking change from zero qualitys to universe, and (probably)back again

Why make it so complicated?

[Someone here]

31 minutes ago, WokeBloke said:

I think if you go back in the chain of events you would reach a first event. Prior to that event there was no experience. The uncaused expereincer caused/started/initiated experiencing. So ultimately you are the cause of everything.

 

Also since creation had a beginning I don't think causality is infinite. There was a clear-cut beginning to creation. 

How do you know? 

[WokeBloke]

12 minutes ago, Someone here said:

How do you know? 

Well I don't. But if you regard this to be a creation then it must have had a beginning. You must agree you started experiencing right? Its not possible that you have been experiencing forever because you would never have made it here since you have to go back into the past infinitely and infinity is unreachable.

Edited November 14, 2021 by WokeBloke

[Someone here]

8 minutes ago, WokeBloke said:

Well I don't. But if you regard this to be a creation then it must have had a beginning. You must agree you started experiencing right? Its not possible that you have been experiencing forever because you would never have made it here since you have to go back into the past infinitely and infinity is unreachable.

Well.... It appears that the error is made to exclude the observer from the consideration.

A "First Cause" cannot logically exist because it implies a begin and a begin cannot precede an observer because a begin requires an observer.

Simple logic shows that the observer cannot have a cause or begin. A begin implies the start of a pattern and a pattern is bound by observation.

Recent scientific studies confirm that the observer precedes reality.

[Carl-Richard]

21 minutes ago, WokeBloke said:

You must agree you started experiencing right?

In your direct experience, point to a beginning or end in experience (something that is not an experience).

[Tim R]

50 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Simple logic shows that the observer cannot have a cause or begin. A begin implies the start of a pattern and a pattern is bound by observation.

@Someone here Then what is your question?

[WokeBloke]

1 hour ago, Someone here said:

Well.... It appears that the error is made to exclude the observer from the consideration.

A "First Cause" cannot logically exist because it implies a begin and a begin cannot precede an observer because a begin requires an observer.

Simple logic shows that the observer cannot have a cause or begin. A begin implies the start of a pattern and a pattern is bound by observation.

Recent scientific studies confirm that the observer precedes reality.

I'm not saying the creator had a beginning but that the creation had a beginning.

[WokeBloke]

55 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

In your direct experience, point to a beginning or end in experience (something that is not an experience).

I don't have memory of my first experience. Doesn't mean I didn't have a first experience.

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, WokeBloke said:

I don't have memory of my first experience. Doesn't mean I didn't have a first experience.

Don't go to a memory. Go to direct experience.