Is Causality Infinite?

[Hans-Werner Hammen]

Causes and effects are being demonstrated in this topic:
My assertion caused your assertion
Your assertion caused my assertion.
SURE IS!
The assertions above do not logically conduct to an assertion of "monocausality"
Any cause is not the cause at just one effect
and any effect is not caused by just one cause.
"Effects share causes, and causes share effects"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_o ... ngle_cause

[psyreporter]

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

What I intended to indicate is that, as in your example, the observer is excluded from the consideration. "Every" in your sentence implies a begin of a pattern and that begin originates from an observer.

[evolution]

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

What I intended to indicate is that, as in your example, the observer is excluded from the consideration. "Every" in your sentence implies a begin of a pattern and that begin originates from an observer.

Okay. But whether an 'observer' is included or excluded from the consideration, we both agree that causality did NOT begin, right?

[Sculptor1]

Causes and effects are being demonstrated in this topic:
My assertion caused your assertion
Your assertion caused my assertion.
SURE IS!
The assertions above do not logically conduct to an assertion of "monocausality"
Any cause is not the cause at just one effect
and any effect is not caused by just one cause.
"Effects share causes, and causes share effects"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_o ... ngle_cause

I think this particular allacy cen be at the root of many misconceptions of necessity.
I switch on a light.
A person observes that the movement of my finger makes the light appear.
But this is naive, because my entire life up to that moments causes the light from a genetic code growing no only my finger but the entire physiology that operates it the food I have for breakfast. On the other side there is the necessity of electricity generation from a (for example) a coal powered station which owes its existence to the sun shining on a tree 280 million years ago. The entire infrastructure of civilisation which has led to the moment of the manufacture of the light bulb, switch ad infinitem.
This causality is infinite.

[psyreporter]

Okay. But whether an 'observer' is included or excluded from the consideration, we both agree that causality did NOT begin, right?

Causality as a concept can only derive significance by considering a "begin" that is introduced by the observer. Without a begin, causality cannot be a valid concept. A begin provides significance to the concept causality. One can merely question: does causality span backwards into infinity (see topic title)? Causality as a concept originates from the idea of (the necessity of) a begin.

By considering the observer, the problem is solved, because logic shows that the observer must precede value (i.e. reality) because a 1) a begin implies a pattern and 2) a pattern is bound by observation.

[evolution]

Okay. But whether an 'observer' is included or excluded from the consideration, we both agree that causality did NOT begin, right?

Causality as a concept can only derive significance by considering a "begin" that is introduced by the observer.

If this was true, then so what?

Without a begin, causality cannot be a valid concept.

To me, all 'concepts' are 'valid' in and of themselves. If, however, they are a actual reflection of thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' or NOT, then this is another matter.

A begin provides significance to the concept causality. One can merely question: does causality span backwards into infinity (see topic title)? Causality as a concept originates from the idea of (the necessity of) a begin.

'Causality', here in regards to the topic title, as a 'concept' BEGAN when the topic title was written, or read. This, like EVERY other 'thing', is depended upon and relative to the observing/thinking being.

BUT AGAIN, so what?
WHAT 'problem'?

To me, there is, literally. NO 'problem'at all here to be solved.
ONCE MORE, so what?

By the way, I REALLY do wish that if responders are going to quote, copy and paste my words here, then they reply to the ACTUAL words I used.

Can you SEE the ACTUAL words I used, which you copied, pasted, and quoted here?

If yes, then can you SEE that it was posed in question form, and that sentence even had a question mark at the end of it?

If yes, then WHY did you NOT answer thee ACTUAL question posed to you?

[evolution]

Disregard the last part of my last post I am unable to correct it.

A begin provides significance to the concept causality. One can merely question: does causality span backwards into infinity (see topic title)? Causality as a concept originates from the idea of (the necessity of) a begin.

'Causality', here in regards to the topic title, as a 'concept' BEGAN when the topic title was written, or read. This, like EVERY other 'thing', is depended upon and relative to the observing/thinking being.

BUT AGAIN, so what?

By considering the observer, the problem is solved,

WHAT 'problem'?

To me, there is, literally. NO 'problem' at all here to be solved.

because logic shows that the observer must precede value (i.e. reality) because a 1) a begin implies a pattern and 2) a pattern is bound by observation.

ONCE MORE, so what?

By the way, I REALLY do wish that if responders are going to quote, copy and paste my words here, then they reply to the ACTUAL words I used.

Can you SEE the ACTUAL words I used, which you copied, pasted, and quoted here?

If yes, then can you SEE that it was posed in question form, and that that sentence even had a question mark at the end of it?

If yes, then WHY did you NOT answer thee ACTUAL question posed to you?

[psyreporter]

Causality as a concept can only derive significance by considering a "begin" that is introduced by the observer.

If this was true, then so what?

The nature of the concept causality is based on the idea of (the necessity of) a begin and the mentioned logic indicates that something precedes the concept begin of which it cannot be said that it has a begin because:

1) a begin implies a pattern
2) a pattern is bound by observation

Based on this logic, it is evident that a "first cause" is not possible by which the concept causality loses its significance.

Without a begin, causality cannot be a valid concept.

To me, all 'concepts' are 'valid' in and of themselves. If, however, they are a actual reflection of thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' or NOT, then this is another matter.

Valid as in "valid in the face of reason". Based on the preceding logic it has been shown that:

1) causality derives significance by the idea of (the necessity of) a begin
2) a begin is not possible by the mentioned logic above

A begin provides significance to the concept causality. One can merely question: does causality span backwards into infinity (see topic title)? Causality as a concept originates from the idea of (the necessity of) a begin.

'Causality', here in regards to the topic title, as a 'concept' BEGAN when the topic title was written, or read. This, like EVERY other 'thing', is depended upon and relative to the observing/thinking being.

BUT AGAIN, so what?

When it is made evident that a begin is not possible, perhaps ones quest into the nature of existence and the Universe should shift outside the scope of causality.

By considering the observer, the problem is solved,

WHAT 'problem'?

To me, there is, literally. NO 'problem' at all here to be solved.

The question in the OP investigates whether causality is infinite or not. By considering the observer and the mentioned logic by which an observer necessarily precedes a begin of a pattern, the problem that is addressed by the question in the topic is solved.

If yes, then WHY did you NOT answer thee ACTUAL question posed to you?

What question do you mean? Perhaps I missed it.

[evolution]

Causality as a concept can only derive significance by considering a "begin" that is introduced by the observer.

If this was true, then so what?

The nature of the concept causality is based on the idea of (the necessity of) a begin and the mentioned logic indicates that something precedes the concept begin of which it cannot be said that it has a begin because:

1) a begin implies a pattern
2) a pattern is bound by observation

Based on this logic, it is evident that a "first cause" is not possible by which the concept causality loses its significance.

Without a begin, causality cannot be a valid concept.

To me, all 'concepts' are 'valid' in and of themselves. If, however, they are a actual reflection of thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' or NOT, then this is another matter.

Valid as in "valid in the face of reason". Based on the preceding logic it has been shown that:

1) causality derives significance by the idea of (the necessity of) a begin
2) a begin is not possible by the mentioned logic above

But just like I pointed out that, to me, all 'concepts' are 'valid' in and of themselves, just like your concepts here are. If, however, your concepts are an actual reflection of thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' or NOT, is a completely WHOLE other matter.

Your 'concept' that causality derives significance by the idea of (the necessity of) a begin, do NOT FORGET is just YOUR 'concept' alone. And, if YOUR 'concept' here, which obviously came from YOUR "logic" and YOUR "reasoning" alone has any actual reflection of thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' or NOT is a completely OTHER matter.

Now, OBVIOUSLY 'causality' having this kind of significance is just YOUR OWN 'concept', YOUR OWN "logic", and of YOUR OWN "reasoning" here. So, this has NO actual REAL reflection NOR bearing on thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'. Is this understood?

As for if 'a begin' is possible or not, then YOUR OWN conclusion is based on YOUR OWN "logic" and "reasoning" here again. Which again has NO REAL ACTUAL bearing on what thee ACTUAL Truth IS. Understood?

A begin provides significance to the concept causality. One can merely question: does causality span backwards into infinity (see topic title)? Causality as a concept originates from the idea of (the necessity of) a begin.

'Causality', here in regards to the topic title, as a 'concept' BEGAN when the topic title was written, or read. This, like EVERY other 'thing', is depended upon and relative to the observing/thinking being.

BUT AGAIN, so what?

When it is made evident that a begin is not possible, perhaps ones quest into the nature of existence and the Universe should shift outside the scope of causality.

But there is A BEGINNING. This was concluded from the nature of Existence, Itself, and from how the Universe, Itself, ACTUALLY works. Which, suffice to say, all comes from the knowledge that causality, itself, is infinite, and could NOT be ANY other way.

Is this understood?

I would recommend that if 'you', or ANY "other", is still searching for answers into the nature of existence and the Universe, then you and they REFRAIN from posting as though you or they ALREADY have and KNOW answers.

By considering the observer, the problem is solved,

WHAT 'problem'?

To me, there is, literally. NO 'problem' at all here to be solved.

The question in the OP investigates whether causality is infinite or not. By considering the observer and the mentioned logic by which an observer necessarily precedes a begin of a pattern, the problem that is addressed by the question in the topic is solved.

So, what is YOUR answer?

Is causality infinite or not?

If yes, then WHY did you NOT answer thee ACTUAL question posed to you?

What question do you mean? Perhaps I missed it.

This VERY SIMPLE question I previously ask you:

We both agree that causality did NOT begin, right?

[Hans-Werner Hammen]

Causality cannot begin, cannot end, is totally immutable for a very simople yet, in this context suerperising reasohn.

[Hans-Werner Hammen]

Causality cannot begin, cannot end, it is iow, totally immutable -
for a very simple yet surprising reason.
Does anyone know the reason?
And does anyone know how I can edit my posting?
Somehow I cannot find the respective "button"

[psyreporter]

My apologies for the late reply.

Valid as in "valid in the face of reason". Based on the preceding logic it has been shown that:

1) causality derives significance by the idea of (the necessity of) a begin
2) a begin is not possible by the mentioned logic above

Your 'concept' that causality derives significance by the idea of (the necessity of) a begin, do NOT FORGET is just YOUR 'concept' alone. And, if YOUR 'concept' here, which obviously came from YOUR "logic" and YOUR "reasoning" alone has any actual reflection of thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' or NOT is a completely OTHER matter.

Now, OBVIOUSLY 'causality' having this kind of significance is just YOUR OWN 'concept', YOUR OWN "logic", and of YOUR OWN "reasoning" here. So, this has NO actual REAL reflection NOR bearing on thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'. Is this understood?

I would disagree since it concerns 'reason' which as a concept derives significance not by another (mental) 'concept' but by what humans perceive as 'common sense'.

Therefor, the argument that causality derives significance by the idea of (the necessity of) a begin can be considered evident by reason.

As for if 'a begin' is possible or not, then YOUR OWN conclusion is based on YOUR OWN "logic" and "reasoning" here again. Which again has NO REAL ACTUAL bearing on what thee ACTUAL Truth IS. Understood?

Since it concerns a concept, any reason concerning that concept is bound to what one can argue to be 'truth' relative to that concept. From such a perspective, the term 'actual truth' can be considered applicable.

But there is A BEGINNING. This was concluded from the nature of Existence, Itself, and from how the Universe, Itself, ACTUALLY works. Which, suffice to say, all comes from the knowledge that causality, itself, is infinite, and could NOT be ANY other way.

Is this understood?

When you use the term 'the Universe' the beginning that is applicable originates in the mind (the observer) and is not tied to anything 'real'.

The question in the OP investigates whether causality is infinite or not. By considering the observer and the mentioned logic by which an observer necessarily precedes a begin of a pattern, the problem that is addressed by the question in the topic is solved.

So, what is YOUR answer?

Is causality infinite or not?

As mentioned by my logic, causality as a concept derives significance by the idea of a begin. The origin of causality is the mind (the observer) and that means that causality by itself isn't 'real'.

This VERY SIMPLE question I previously ask you:

We both agree that causality did NOT begin, right?

My argument is that causality has a begin that is introduced by the mind (the observer).

[evolution]

Causality cannot begin, cannot end, it is iow, totally immutable -
for a very simple yet surprising reason.
Does anyone know the reason?
And does anyone know how I can edit my posting?
Somehow I cannot find the respective "button"

We cannot edit in this forum.

What is the simple yet surprising reason why causality is immutable?

[evolution]

My apologies for the late reply.

Valid as in "valid in the face of reason". Based on the preceding logic it has been shown that:

1) causality derives significance by the idea of (the necessity of) a begin
2) a begin is not possible by the mentioned logic above

Your 'concept' that causality derives significance by the idea of (the necessity of) a begin, do NOT FORGET is just YOUR 'concept' alone. And, if YOUR 'concept' here, which obviously came from YOUR "logic" and YOUR "reasoning" alone has any actual reflection of thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' or NOT is a completely OTHER matter.

Now, OBVIOUSLY 'causality' having this kind of significance is just YOUR OWN 'concept', YOUR OWN "logic", and of YOUR OWN "reasoning" here. So, this has NO actual REAL reflection NOR bearing on thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'. Is this understood?

I would disagree since it concerns 'reason' which as a concept derives significance not by another (mental) 'concept' but by what humans perceive as 'common sense'.

But what I perceive as 'common sense' is not necessarily what you perceive as 'common sense'.

And, in fact, it can be proven that what I perceive as 'common sense' will not be what you perceive as 'common sense'.

Therefor, the argument that causality derives significance by the idea of (the necessity of) a begin can be considered evident by reason.

But, by 'common sense', causality could not have a begin, ever nor at all. But you would beg to differ and to disagree, correct?

As for if 'a begin' is possible or not, then YOUR OWN conclusion is based on YOUR OWN "logic" and "reasoning" here again. Which again has NO REAL ACTUAL bearing on what thee ACTUAL Truth IS. Understood?

Since it concerns a concept, any reason concerning that concept is bound to what one can argue to be 'truth' relative to that concept.

Exactly.

From such a perspective, the term 'actual truth' can be considered applicable.

Yes.

And, are you able to 'reason' how causality could even begin and be an 'actual truth'?

If yes, then please do.

By the way, could your 'reason' or 'reasoning' be false, wrong or faulty in any way?

But there is A BEGINNING. This was concluded from the nature of Existence, Itself, and from how the Universe, Itself, ACTUALLY works. Which, suffice to say, all comes from the knowledge that causality, itself, is infinite, and could NOT be ANY other way.

Is this understood?

When you use the term 'the Universe' the beginning that is applicable originates in the mind (the observer) and is not tied to anything 'real'.

Is this from 'your' perspective?

Because, to 'me', the terms 'the Universe' and 'the beginning' were derived from what is actually Real and True.

'I', however, just use these terms in very different ways than most of 'you', human beings, do, in the days when this was written.

The question in the OP investigates whether causality is infinite or not. By considering the observer and the mentioned logic by which an observer necessarily precedes a begin of a pattern, the problem that is addressed by the question in the topic is solved.

So, what is YOUR answer?

Is causality infinite or not?

As mentioned by my logic, causality as a concept derives significance by the idea of a begin.

But this is certainly not how the concept of causality was derived within this body.

The origin of causality is the mind (the observer) and that means that causality by itself isn't 'real'.

But there is no 'origin of causality' concept at all within this body. Therefore, what 'you' are saying and claiming here is 'not real'.

To me, 'the Mind' is the Mind. 'The observer' is the observer, and the concept of an 'origin of causality' is just a false and misleading perception and premise. They are not one and the same as you have implied here.

To me, 'causality' also is 'real' in that the name/label 'causality' is just the word to describe 'effect and cause', which 'has to be' an infinite and eternal process. As can be and will be proved True and Correct.

This VERY SIMPLE question I previously ask you:

We both agree that causality did NOT begin, right?

My argument is that causality has a begin that is introduced by the mind (the observer).

That would be a 'conclusion' and not an 'argument'.

Are you here talking about the 'concept' of causality, and that that can only have a beginning, which can only be and is introduced by an observer?

Or, are you talking about the actual action/reaction process of 'causality', itself, which obviously had to be in existence before the observers known as human beings came into existence?

[psyreporter]

Are you here talking about the 'concept' of causality, and that that can only have a beginning, which can only be and is introduced by an observer?

Or, are you talking about the actual action/reaction process of 'causality', itself, which obviously had to be in existence before the observers known as human beings came into existence?

What is indicated is the concept causality and its (potential) applicability to reality. When it is indicated that causality can only derive significance by the idea of a begin that is introduced by the mind, this is not done to address the concept causality within the limited scope of a mental concept, but relative to how causality can actually find applicability to reality.

My logic has shown that an action (i.e. value) cannot precede an observer because a pattern can only derive significance by observation, i.e. a pattern is 'bound' by observation. Therefor, your argument that the action/reaction process necessarily precedes the observer is invalid.

When I mention an observer, I do not indicate an individual human, but the observer as a principle (observer per se).

Do you agree that what you indicate as an action/reaction process cannot precede 'the observer'?