Is Causality Infinite?

[evolution]

Okay. But, AGAIN, what you wrote here has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with what I actually wrote, and which you actually quoted here.

If so, then thank you for answering my other two questions! Kind regards from GERMANY.

My pleasure, and your welcome.

Enjoy.

[psyreporter]

Value per se can be found in the simplest pattern, e.g. two dots, and the fact that a relation is possible (a qualitative differentiating factor).

These words are NOT clearing up and providing clarity, to 'me', of what you actually mean.

Value can, supposedly, be found in "two dots" by who or by what, EXACTLY?

I see and find absolutely NO value in 'two dots' AT ALL.

Other than nothing, implies value. The essence of any meaning implies value, which implies that valuing must have preceded it.

At question is the nature (origin) of valuing, that what precedes value or meaning.

Based on the mentioned simple logical truth, the origin of valuing cannot be a "who" or "what".

The following may provide an example of why value/valuing may be applicable with regard to causality and the existence of the Universe.

(2018) Is the Universe a conscious mind?
It turns out that, for life to be possible, the numbers in basic physics for example, the strength of gravity, or the mass of the electron must have values falling in a certain range. And that range is an incredibly narrow slice of all the possible values those numbers can have. It is therefore incredibly unlikely that a universe like ours would have the kind of numbers compatible with the existence of life. But, against all the odds, our Universe does.

Example: The strong nuclear force has a value of 0.007. If that value had been 0.006 or 0.008 life would not have been possible
https://aeon.co/essays/cosmopsychism-ex ... d-for-life

If valuing would be a choice between good and bad that would imply that good and bad would need to have been valued (it's value would need to be known before a choice is possible), which by the mentioned simple logical truth, is impossible. Therefor, one does not choose but value.

But it was 'you' who stated and claimed that:
it is established that the distinguish ability that valuing requires can originate only from what can be indicated as "good".

Which now appears to completely contradict your stated CLAIM that; "by the mentioned simple logical truth, IS IMPOSSIBLE".

Firstly, it was established that the origin of valuing cannot be valued itself. One is then to establish an indication of the origin of valuing on the basis of the nature of value. The definition for that aspect cannot be anything else than "good".

Valuing is an estimation, a reaching towards a finality within the context of a finality (the Universe, life, existence). If that finality would be a definition, it would need to have been valued, which is impossible. As such, the origin of valuing must be "good" in its essence.

Bad isn't of substance by itself. Without "good", no "bad". Bad is what lessens good (corruption of good).

But you stated; " that what valuing requires can originate ONLY from what can be indicated as "good" ".

I am just trying to work out WHY 'that' what valuing requires can NOT originate from what can be indicated as "bad" ALSO?

WHY can what you are CLAIMING here can originate ONLY from what can be indicated as "good"?

If the origin of valuing would be bad, its esteemed finality would be nothingness (pure corruption). It would presume that anything good to be corrupted existed beforehand, which by the mentioned simple logical truth, is impossible. Therefore, the origin of valuing must be "good".

Again, so that thee One and ONLY 'I' can bear witness to the beauty of what 'I' am Creating, which is JUST 'Creation in action', Itself, HERE-NOW, ALWAYS.

Do you mean that the existence of matter and space implies a purpose to have been observed?

[evolution]

These words are NOT clearing up and providing clarity, to 'me', of what you actually mean.

Value can, supposedly, be found in "two dots" by who or by what, EXACTLY?

I see and find absolutely NO value in 'two dots' AT ALL.

Other than nothing, implies value.

I agree. But, to me,something than nothing sounds more correct and thus implies more actual value. This is because the word 'other' here could deceptively be referring to 'other nothing' and therefore making the statement/value/claim NOT actually true nor real at all. But anyway.

The essence of any meaning implies value, which implies that valuing must have preceded it.

But it could also be said and argued that the essence of any valuing implies definition/meaning, which implies that definition/meaning must have preceded 'it' [valuing].

To me, the two value/meaning happen in about the exact same moment.

At question is the nature (origin) of valuing, that what precedes value or meaning.

At the, original, question, of this thread; Is causality infinite? is the nature of 'causality', itself.

Arriving at the question is the nature (origin) of valuing was of YOUR doing. By the way the 'nature' of some 'thing' NOT necessarily has anything to do with whether there was an origin or not of that 'thing'. And, whether there was an actual 'origin' or not to 'causality', itself, is the main purpose and issue of this thread.

Based on the mentioned simple logical truth, the origin of valuing cannot be a "who" or "what".

If you say so, then okay. But does this infer that valuing is infinite?

If yes, then does this relate to causality being infinite as well?

But if no to the former question, then what does this actually infer?

The following may provide an example of why value/valuing may be applicable with regard to causality and the existence of the Universe.

Great.

(2018) Is the Universe a conscious mind?
It turns out that, for life to be possible, the numbers in basic physics for example, the strength of gravity, or the mass of the electron must have values falling in a certain range. And that range is an incredibly narrow slice of all the possible values those numbers can have. It is therefore incredibly unlikely that a universe like ours would have the kind of numbers compatible with the existence of life. But, against all the odds, our Universe does.

Example: The strong nuclear force has a value of 0.007. If that value had been 0.006 or 0.008 life would not have been possible
https://aeon.co/essays/cosmopsychism-ex ... d-for-life

Are you 'trying to' suggest here that 'life' just could NOT have been possibly, AT ALL, IN ANY OTHER WAY?

Also, thee Universe is ALIVE, and thus life, ALREADY.

Thee Universe is also made up of MANY different named and labeled 'things', and because of the Nature of thee Universe and of Life, Itself, EVERY one of these labeled 'things' is ALIVE and LIVING, and therefore 'life', itself.

But, then again, I do LOOK AT and SEE 'things' very differently than most people do, in the days of when this is being written.

Also, I am NOT sure what you have written here actually has to do with what I have been saying about how causality is infinite, or did NOT have 'a beginning'.

But it was 'you' who stated and claimed that:
it is established that the distinguish ability that valuing requires can originate only from what can be indicated as "good".

Which now appears to completely contradict your stated CLAIM that; "by the mentioned simple logical truth, IS IMPOSSIBLE".

Firstly, it was established that the origin of valuing cannot be valued itself. One is then to establish an indication of the origin of valuing on the basis of the nature of value. The definition for that aspect cannot be anything else than "good".

If you say so.

Valuing is an estimation, a reaching towards a finality within the context of a finality (the Universe, life, existence). If that finality would be a definition, it would need to have been valued, which is impossible. As such, the origin of valuing must be "good" in its essence.

Again, okay if you say so.

But you stated; " that what valuing requires can originate ONLY from what can be indicated as "good" ".

I am just trying to work out WHY 'that' what valuing requires can NOT originate from what can be indicated as "bad" ALSO?

WHY can what you are CLAIMING here can originate ONLY from what can be indicated as "good"?

If the origin of valuing would be bad, its esteemed finality would be nothingness (pure corruption). It would presume that anything good to be corrupted existed beforehand, which by the mentioned simple logical truth, is impossible. Therefore, the origin of valuing must be "good".

Okay.

Again, so that thee One and ONLY 'I' can bear witness to the beauty of what 'I' am Creating, which is JUST 'Creation in action', Itself, HERE-NOW, ALWAYS.

Do you mean that the existence of matter and space implies a purpose to have been observed?

'Purpose' is given or not given by 'you', human beings.

Just because 'matter' AND 'space' ALWAYS EXIST this does NOT imply absolutely ANY thing at all, including ANY purpose or NOT.

What 'space' AND 'matter' ALWAYS EXISTING just means is that a species has evolved into being and which is able to give or not give purpose to absolutely ANY thing.

The purpose I give to WHY 'space' AND 'matter' EXISTS is so that 'I' can bear witness to Creation, Itself. If Creation is 'just ugly' or is 'full of beauty' or anywhere in between, then this, as they say, is just in the 'eye of the beholder'. Just like ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing else IS. As I continually say;

Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer, (which obviously includes purpose, beauty, meaning, AND valuing/value, themselves).

From my perspective causality is infinite and thus without beginning nor ending. But 'you', and ANY one "else", are completely and absolutely FREE to SEE things in absolutely ANY way you like.

[Hans-Werner Hammen]

Causality is being uttered, asserted, proclaimed. IOW the assertion OF causality DOES exist, blatantly obviously.

Causality does not exist.
Not per se, not as such, not it-self, not on its own, not in its own right, not in its very essence...

Causality is (as is any other abstract object such as space and time) no-thing made up FROM/ABOUT -
some-thing = all that DOES exist.

I DEEM the ASSERTION - OF - [the abstract object called] "causality" to be: Globally-, universally-, Infinitely-applying.

SURE IS! By "Inifinitely" I do not symbolize/assert "infinitesimally back" iow: I do not exclude uncaused-first-causes - these would, HAD they existed - be qualifying for "creatorZ" or "godZ" - the conversion of them "unkown "godZ" would have effectuated the universe as we DO know it. IOW: The universe could, if this assertion applies, be called "godz" or just "god" ie the converted version thereof. This assertion is tantamount to a (version of a) Pan-theistic proclamation.

As regards god or gods - did you realize that our Theist friends implore the immutability of their respective god?
All that can be safely deemed immutable, it is an abstract object. it can and it will not change for the simple yet surprising reason that it does not exist.

Kind regards from GERMANY

[psyreporter]

But it could also be said and argued that the essence of any valuing implies definition/meaning, which implies that definition/meaning must have preceded 'it' [valuing].

To me, the two value/meaning happen in about the exact same moment.

The logic regarding the impossibility that value is the origin of valuing would be applicable on a fundamental level (pure theory).

In pure theory, value cannot be the origin of valuing. My footnote provides an explanation (good as it was = value).

In your example, value is perceived from the perspective of value (valuing as value). The observer is excluded from the consideration which results in the idea that valuing itself is an observable that requires value.

When considering the origin of an observer, one would need to imagine how it is possible to observe the observing while observing. It is impossible and thus the origin of observing cannot be value. It implies that the observer precedes value (because it cannot be a product of value) and that logically means that the observer is the origin of valuing.

The idea that meaning must exist before valuing results in what is perceived as morality or 'purpose of life'. It is what is denoted with "good".

Emotions such as pain provide evidence that "good" is real.

With regard to causality. When one considers that value cannot be the origin of value, a "First Cause" cannot exist.

[Hans-Werner Hammen]

observe the observing while observing

SURE IS!
There is a device, which enables us to perform this action. it is aka mirror.

With regard to causality. When one considers that value cannot be the origin of value, a "First Cause" cannot exist.

Indeed.
Value is (an example) of no-thing, iow value is not causal.
- A thing (some-thing, a Referent) or
- an assertion (some-thing, a symbol) for an example an assertion OF value
is (can be, individually that is) causal - at the elicitation of value (no-thing also called Reference)

Beware:
An assertion OF value merely symbolizes, that value is being asserted.
It does NOT symbolize. that value is the cause AT the effect "assertion OF value"
Any value and any other truth (symbolized as "Refernce") does not "need to exist" in order to be asserted.

The assertion, that any truth ought, should, must "somehow" exist in the first place -
SO you can even utter, proclaim, assert =symbol-IZE, object-ize, rei-fy any truth
it is a the core of Presuppositional Apologetics and a particular application thereof, called Transcendental Argument.

[Hans-Werner Hammen]

Any proclaimed value
any PROCLAIMED god

they are sharing that they are no-thing - being made up from/about some-thing.
those values and gods are opinions FROM/ABOUT the universe.

WHY did I put a (triple) emphasis on "proclaimed" in association with "god"?

On this occasion, i will share what a friend of mine told me when she read my input and my previous questions:
She laughed and she said: Nobody will respond - they are rather materializing their opinion, namely "oh, this must absolutely be a snare"

So I will declare my question above for rhetorical and I will answer it:
There might be "entities around us" and we do not know them we do not even know how many - yet these entities could have created the universe. In other words, them entities would very well qualify for the symbol "gods".

[psyreporter]

observe the observing while observing

SURE IS!
There is a device, which enables us to perform this action. it is aka mirror.

The mirror is not an observer, it would provide a retro-perspective that is limited to what light can reveal to a complex biological process (eyes-brain-mind). One can merely assume that behind it all lays what can be considered an "observer".

When considered on a fundamental level (pure theory), the observer per se cannot observe the observer while observing.

It is here also considered that any value is by nature an observable and thus, that the origin of the observer per se cannot be value. This results in the simple logic that when an observer would be able to observe an observer while observing that the observer per se would need to have been valued, which is impossible.

Therefor, the observer must be the origin of value with the evidence being that if it would be possible for value to exist before an observer would potentially be capable of observing it, it would not have been an observable by nature, which is impossible because value implies a pattern and a pattern is bound by observation.

[Hans-Werner Hammen]

The mirror is not an observer.

SURE IS!
As my response above symbolized
- to ME but unfortunately
- not to you,
the human being is the observer.

[Hans-Werner Hammen]

value implies a pattern and a pattern is bound by observation.

(1) Any asserted value is a value (no-thing) OF some-thing = made up FROM/ABOUT some-thing via an observing-action
Any asserted pattern is a pattern (no-thing) OF some-thing = no-thing made up FROM/ABOUT some-thing via an observing-action

(2) any pattern and any value does NOT exist - NOT as such, NOT on its own NOT in its own right.
Each is merely asserted, object-IZED = reified or existified if you will.
In other words there IS (did emerge [=was created (invented) by a human being] and exists forth):
But an assertion OF a pattern, OF a value.

Do you realize that the "OF" in the first chapter symbolizes a causal connection, whereas in the second chapter it does NOT?!
Which is the reason that I favorize the "from/about" when it comes to symbolizing a causal connection.

[evolution]

But it could also be said and argued that the essence of any valuing implies definition/meaning, which implies that definition/meaning must have preceded 'it' [valuing].

To me, the two value/meaning happen in about the exact same moment.

The logic regarding the impossibility that value is the origin of valuing would be applicable on a fundamental level (pure theory).

But which ALSO has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with what I ACTUALLY said here.

In pure theory, value cannot be the origin of valuing. My footnote provides an explanation (good as it was = value).

Who REALLY cares?

In your example, value is perceived from the perspective of value (valuing as value).

NO it IS NOT and WAS NOT. And, NEVER WILL BE

The observer is excluded from the consideration which results in the idea that valuing itself is an observable that requires value.

So FAR OFF TRACK, this is beyond ridiculous now.

When considering the origin of an observer, one would need to imagine how it is possible to observe the observing while observing.

When 'one' is considering the origin of an 'observer', then I suggest they FIRST define who and what that 'observer' IS, EXACTLY. BEFORE imagining ANY such thing as what you said and wrote here.

Work out who and/or what the 'observer' is FIRST, EXACTLY, then the ANSWERS to ALL such questions and ideas become almost immediately KNOWN.

It is impossible and thus the origin of observing cannot be value.

OKAY. I NEVER said that it was. I NEVER suggest that it was. And, I NEVER even imagined that it was.

It implies that the observer precedes value (because it cannot be a product of value) and that logically means that the observer is the origin of valuing.

The idea that meaning must exist before valuing results in what is perceived as morality or 'purpose of life'. It is what is denoted with "good".

Emotions such as pain provide evidence that "good" is real.

With regard to causality. When one considers that value cannot be the origin of value, a "First Cause" cannot exist.

A, so called, "first cause", in relation to Everything, can NOT exist just for the VERY SIMPLE and PLAIN FACT that:
1. It has NOT YET been shown to even be logically possible of HOW ANY thing could even come from 'absolutely nothing'.
2. It has NOT YET been show that it could even be empirically impossible to show HOW ANY thing could come from 'absolutely nothing'.

Now, these two do NOT prove WHOLLY that an 'origin' to Everything is NOT possible.

But, if every action causes a reaction is true, then there could NOT be a "first cause" nor an "origin" for nor to Everything.

From what I have observed AND experienced, so far, for EVERY reaction there was an action.

So, just going on this alone is sufficient, well to 'me' anyway, that there is NOT an 'origin' nor 'first cause' to the Universe/Everything. This view far OUTWEIGHS any view that there was an 'origin', or 'first cause'.

Therefore, causality IS infinite, to 'me', hitherto.

This thread topic is about; Is causality infinite (or not)? So, 'values', 'meanings', 'observers', and other things are REALLY off topic to 'me' here.

Now, you might want to be using 'value' and your view on how there was an observer BEFORE value, and if that ends up being proof that causality is infinite, then all well and good. We have arrived at the same place, just in different ways.

However, if your view of 'valuing' leads to PROVING that causality is, in fact, finite, then please proceed.

[evolution]

observe the observing while observing

SURE IS!
There is a device, which enables us to perform this action. it is aka mirror.

With regard to causality. When one considers that value cannot be the origin of value, a "First Cause" cannot exist.

Indeed.
Value is (an example) of no-thing, iow value is not causal.

What books have you been reading or what people have you been listening to and/or reading that leads you to term 'no-thing'?

- A thing (some-thing, a Referent) or

By your OWN definition here a 'thing' is some 'thing', which, besides the absurd and ludicrous way of defining some 'thing' by its OWN 'self', you are also CONTRADICTING "your" OWN 'self' here.

As seen and PROVEN below.

- an assertion (some-thing, a symbol) for an example an assertion OF value
is (can be, individually that is) causal - at the elicitation of value (no-thing also called Reference)

But if ANY 'thing' is some 'thing', then by your OWN definition it is A 'thing'. And, OBVIOUSLY EVERY 'thing' is some 'thing', which is A 'thing', which can NOT be no-'thing'.

Even 'nothing' is some 'thing', as it is and can be used or seen in reference to some 'thing' ELSE, and therefore even 'nothing' is some 'thing' or A 'thing', and thus NOT no-'thing'.

There is, literally, ABSOLUTELY NO 'thing' that is nor even could be no-'thing' or not a 'thing'.

ABSOLUTELY EVERY 'thing' is some 'thing', and together which makes up the WHOLE Everything. EVERY thing, however, are just in different ways, shapes, and/or forms.

Unless, OF COURSE, ANY 'one' can PROVE otherwise.

Beware:
An assertion OF value merely symbolizes, that value is being asserted.
It does NOT symbolize. that value is the cause AT the effect "assertion OF value"
Any value and any other truth (symbolized as "Refernce") does not "need to exist" in order to be asserted.

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING else 'NEEDS' to exist besides for 'matter' AND 'space', but EVERY 'thing' else obviously does ALREADY exist, in one way or another.

The assertion, that any truth ought, should, must "somehow" exist in the first place -
SO you can even utter, proclaim, assert =symbol-IZE, object-ize, rei-fy any truth

But ANY person CAN 'utter' whatever they so CHOOSE to 'utter'.

As PROVEN by EVERY human being who has 'uttered' some 'thing' from birth to, so called, "death".

it is a the core of Presuppositional Apologetics and a particular application thereof, called Transcendental Argument.

Do you REALLY BELIEVE what you say here?

[evolution]

Any proclaimed value
any PROCLAIMED god

they are sharing that they are no-thing - being made up from/about some-thing.

How do you overcome and explain the CONTRADICTION when you propose; "They are NO-thing, but which is ACTUALLY made up from, or is about, some-'thing'?

If there is A 'thing', which has come from, or is about SOME 'thing', then HOW could THAT 'thing' POSSIBLY be NO 'thing', or NOT A 'thing'?

In other words, HOW could it POSSIBLY be the case that A thing, which is obviously an actual 'thing', ALSO be a NO thing?

those values and gods are opinions FROM/ABOUT the universe.

Saying, "those 'values', 'gods', 'opinions' ... is making the DISTINCTION and ALSO POINTING OUT that they are ACTUALLY 'things'. They just happen to be the 'things' named, labeled, and known as "values", "gods", and "opinions". Of which they are OBVIOUSLY 'things', themselves, as it has been 'YOU" who has been talking about 'THEM' and 'REFERRING', to them.

And, what I have ALSO OBVIOUSLY ALREADY POINTED OUT and MADE CLEAR is that they are NOT necessarily PHYSICAL (nor concrete) 'things', which one can observe with the physical eyes, nor that one can touch with the physical hands. BUT, they are OBVIOUSLY STILL 'things' in one way or another.

WHY did I put a (triple) emphasis on "proclaimed" in association with "god"?

On this occasion, i will share what a friend of mine told me when she read my input and my previous questions:
She laughed and she said: Nobody will respond - they are rather materializing their opinion, namely "oh, this must absolutely be a snare"

So I will declare my question above for rhetorical and I will answer it:
There might be "entities around us" and we do not know them we do not even know how many - yet these entities could have created the universe.

This COULD BE true, but then again so COULD ABSOLUTELY ANY thing else, correct?

But, if 'you' want to LOOK AT what COULD BE true, then I will suggest to 'you' that this WILL DETRACT 'you' from LOOKING AT and SEEING what IS ACTUALLY TRUE.

But please feel FREE to do whatever you want to do.

In other words, them entities would very well qualify for the symbol "gods".

If you say so.

But following on from and according to your OWN, so called, "logic" these "gods" would be 'no-thing' anyway.

[evolution]

SURE IS!
There is a device, which enables us to perform this action. it is aka mirror.

The mirror is not an observer, it would provide a retro-perspective that is limited to what light can reveal to a complex biological process (eyes-brain-mind). One can merely assume that behind it all lays what can be considered an "observer".

But face two mirrors together and then it is NOT what lays 'behind' it, it is what lays in the middle of it ALL, which IS the True Observer. Which, by the way, leads to who and/or what is observing and to discovering just how much (limited or unlimited) can ACTUALLY be observed and SEEN.

When considered on a fundamental level (pure theory), the observer per se cannot observe the observer while observing.

This is only what is SEEN, and BELIEVED, from the very limited human being perspective.

But, thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' is VERY DIFFERENT.

It is here also considered that any value is by nature an observable and thus, that the origin of the observer per se cannot be value. This results in the simple logic that when an observer would be able to observe an observer while observing that the observer per se would need to have been valued, which is impossible.

If 'I' was 'you', then I would NOT JUMP so quickly to such a CONCLUSION.

Therefor, the observer must be the origin of value with the evidence being that if it would be possible for value to exist before an observer would potentially be capable of observing it, it would not have been an observable by nature, which is impossible because value implies a pattern and a pattern is bound by observation.

This appears to just be a BELIEF of 'yours' rather than based on ANY actual PROOF.

Although the actual conclusion may well be ACTUALLY True, Right, and Correct the words you are using here are NOT YET backing up NOR supporting your CLAIM here FULLY, well to 'me' YET anyway.

But, there is, however, the RIGHT words, which when used CORRECTLY, can and WILL back up and support this view or belief of yours here now. These words WILL SHOW and WILL REVEAL, once and for all, HOW what you say here is TRUE, and thus be FINALLY PROVEN True. But, we just have some way to go still.

[evolution]

The mirror is not an observer.

SURE IS!
As my response above symbolized
- to ME but unfortunately
- not to you,
the human being is the observer.

And, when observing from the adult human being perspective, then what is SEEN is limited and blurred.

But, when observing from thee True and Right perspective, then what is SEEN is thee ACTUAL Truth and is also CRYSTAL CLEAR.