After noon, and you are still waiting on Rich at the China City Buffet on Mason-Montgomery Road. You gave him a call and he was stuck in a meeting but will be on his way. Fine with you as you can do some work.
QM: Characteristic 3. No Link between Cause and Effect. You would have better stated this, no known link between cause and effect. If you remember your philosophy class and before in you own readings, First Cause.
I was doing some quick Google readings, as this is one of the oldest and most fun of arguments.
I’ll edit for consistency with my upcoming commentary. – Amorella
** **
(From: Wikipedia)
The cosmological argument is an argument for the existence of a First Cause (or instead, an Uncaused cause) to the universe, and by extension is often used as an argument for the existence of an "unconditioned" or "supreme" being, usually then identified as God. It is traditionally known as an argument from universal causation, an argument from first cause, the causal argument or the argument from existence. Whichever term is employed, there are three basic variants of the argument, each with subtle yet important distinctions: the arguments from in causa (causality), in esse (essentiality, in fieri (becoming), and the argument from contingency.
The basic premise of all of these is that something caused the Universe to exist, and this First Cause must be God. It has been used by various theologians and philosophers over the centuries, from the ancient Greek Plato and Aristotle to the medieval St. Thomas Aquinas and beyond. It is also applied by the Spiritist doctrine as the main argument for the existence of God.
Plato (c. 427–347 BC) and Aristotle (c. 384–322 BC) both posited first cause arguments, though each had certain notable caveats. Plato posited a basic argument (which Mostafa Dawoud disagrees with) in The Laws (Book X), in which he argued that motion in the world and the Cosmos was "imparted motion" that required some kind of "self-originated motion" to set it in motion and to maintain that motion.[1] Plato posited a "demiurge" of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the creator of the Cosmos in his work Timaeus.
Aristotle argued against the idea of a first cause, often confused with the idea of a “prime mover” or “unmovedmover” (πρῶτον κινοῦν ἀκίνητον or primus motor) in his Physics and Metaphysics. Aristotle's famous argument was contrary to the atomist’s depiction of a non-eternal cosmos which, he argued, would require an efficient first cause, a notion that Aristotle took to demonstrate a critical flaw in their reasoning. However, a non-eternal cosmos, with both a beginning and an end, would later come to reflect the prevalent theological beliefs in medieval Europe. By simply denying that an efficient first cause is problematic, being easily explained as the creative action of an omnipotent God, medieval theologians re-purposed and enhanced Aristotle's argument, as if the intention had been to prove God's existence. Like Plato, Aristotle believed in an eternal cosmos with no beginning and no end (which in turn follows Parmenides’ famous statement that “nothing comes from nothing”). In what he called "first philosophy" or metaphysics, Aristotle did intend a theological correspondence between the prime mover and deity (presumably Zeus), functionally however, he provided an explanation for the apparent motion of the “fixed stars” (now understood as the daily rotation of the Earth). According to his theses, immaterial unmoved movers are eternal unchangeable beings that constantly think about thinking, but being immaterial, they're incapable of interacting with the cosmos and have no knowledge of what transpires therein. From an "aspiration or desire", the celestial spheres, imitate that purely intellectual activity as best they can, by uniform circular motion. The unmoved movers inspiring the planetary spheres are no different in kind from the prime mover, they merely suffer a dependency of relation to the prime mover. Correspondingly, the motions of the planets are subordinate to the motion inspired by the prime mover in the sphere of fixed stars. Aristotle's natural theology admitted no creation or capriciousness from the immortal pantheon, but maintained a defense against dangerous charges of impiety. . . .
From: Wikipedia: First Cause
** **
Is there any need for a first cause?
by Nathaniel Branden [A former student and one-time romantic partner of novelist Ayn Rand, Branden had a prominent role in promoting Rand's philosophy, Objectivism.]
Question: Since everything in the universe requires a cause, must not the universe itself have a cause, which is god?
Answer: There are two basic fallacies in this argument. The first is the assumption that, if the universe required a casual explanation, the positing of a "god" would provide it. To posit god as the creator of the universe is only to push the problem back one step farther: Who then created god? Was there a still earlier god who created the god in question? We are thus led to an infinite regress - the very dilemma that the positing of a "god" was intended to solve. But if it is argued that no one created god, that god does not require a cause; that god has existed eternally - then on what grounds is it denied that the universe has existed eternally?
It is true that there cannot be an infinite series of antecedent causes. But recognition of this fact should lead one to reappraise the validity of the initial question, not to attempt to answer it by stepping outside the universe into some gratuitously invented supernatural dimension.
This leads to the second and more fundamental fallacy in this argument: the assumption that the universe as a whole requires a casual explanation. It does not. The universe is the total of which exists. Within the universe, the emergence of new entities can be explained in terms of the actions of entities that already exist: The cause of a tree is the seed of the parent tree; the cause of a machine is the purposeful reshaping of matter by men. All actions presuppose the existence of entities - and all emergences of new entities presuppose the existence of entities that caused their emergence. All causality presupposes the existence of something that acts as a cause. To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of the existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause. Nothing does not exist. Causality presupposes existence; existence does not presuppose causality. There can be no cause "outside" of existence or "anterior" to it. The forms of existence may change and evolve, but the fact of existence is the irreducible primary at the base of all casual chains. Existence -not "god" - is the First Cause.
From: www.wa4dsy.net/skeptic/firstcause.html
** **
Suffice to say, I see humor in both perspectives above.
You had a nap and awoke to see the bed is relatively full of clothes for the trip south.
Rich G. and I had a good lunch, lots of talk, humor and laughter. Reminds me of Bob P. and myself and our talks, though no poetry with Rich G. It is good to have old friends up and about. . . . You were talking of humor in terms of the First Cause reflections. I do not see it.
Let’s say First Cause is Existence as suggested by Nathanial Brandon. What need is there of a second or third cause, or seven billion causes for that matter? – Amorella.
There is no Effect to the Cause?
The Cause has to be completed to have an Effect.
A continuous creation?
No. The Cause is the whole of it. No Effect as of yet as Process (Existence) becomes self-fulfilling. Even the fictional Merlyn series suggests this. – Amorella
Perhaps you have it wrong, perhaps Effect is first.
That’s silly, how can you have an Effect without a Cause? How can you have a puddle without a substance puddled? Where’s the Grammar in that? Humans are good at naming of parts without thinking of themselves as a common part of the sentence. Post. – Amorella
I am not sure I am following you here.
You aren't following me, boy. I am not a Cause. – Amorella
Going on 2300 hours. Doug sent me a piece from TED and The Huffington Post:
** **
In this special year-end collaboration, TED and The Huffington Post are excited to count down 18 great ideas of 2011, featuring the full TEDTalk with original blog posts that we think will shape 2012. . . .
Watch MIT's Cognitive Machine group director Deb Roy's TEDTalk above and then explore his thoughts in this companion essay. . . .
[Below is the conclusion of Roy’s essay.]
. . . The juxtaposition of child language research and social TV analytics may seem jarring. But in fact the same basic principles are at play: linking language to context; studying communication feedback loops; gathering (lots of) observational data in the wild; using data visualization to see patterns in the data; and developing machine learning to model, predict, and -- ultimately -- shed light on how people communicate.
** **
This reminds me of what I am doing here, gathering lots of data; linking language to context; observing common patterns of thought; and learning how Amorella communicates and what appears to be important in her communication. In a way this makes no difference if Amorella is a spirit, an alien, or a separate [writing] personality of myself. I should learn something from this experience.
Is there a photograph I have that you take particular interest in, and if so, which photograph is it, and why is it of interest?
Several actually, however I can see your intent even if it is not clear to yourself at the moment. – Amorella
I have spent more than a half hour reflecting on old family photographs. I don’t know what you like and I guess I thought you would ‘tell’ me if I came up with one of your choosing. This was probably a dumb idea out of the blue. I have no idea what photo is of interest to you. Will you tell me and I will see if I can find it.
A model you made. Go to the models. – Amorella.
You found ‘b1c2Projection.T’ This stands for book one, chapter two – Projection. You also found the introduction of Grandma’s Story in Chapter Two of Braided Dreams. Here it is:
Grandma’s Story – Two
Grandma traces Eve’s DNA through various shamans of old. Why shamans? The shaman or storyteller understood what I call trancephysics. Any reader who finds herorhimself immersed in a good book or as a moviegoer discovers herorhimself immersed in a good film, understands what trancephysics is. Trancephysics is the vehicle Richard Graystone uses to place himself onto Captain Lamar’s ferryboat to ride into a past, a present, or a future.
** **
You created this image, this model of a projection of imagination into the future. I find it interesting because you have no idea what you were thinking when you cut it out and put it together. It is an example of pure intuitiveness, a free mind with nothing behind or within it. Ironically, You had no idea what ‘possessed’ you to create the image. Today, you assume you were possessed by your heartansoulanmind but your brain sees no references. This is an example of how removed your mind can be when you allow it to be free of your ‘earthly self’. That’s how I see it, and I find it an interesting part of your undiscoverable self. Place and post time is moving on to tomorrow. – Amorella
No comments:
Post a Comment