Is Causality Infinite?

[Drau]

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?

[EMTe]

whether causality itself has any limits

Yup. It ends at the tip of your tongue.

[Ktulu]

Watch where you point that post, it is loaded

I think you are talking about a number of different things in that posts and you are committing an equivocation fallacy with the term cause.

You are firstly referring to cause as the ability of change a given system to particles in a different arrangement. "And that something is so because of something else – another cause – and so on…"

Secondly you are referring to cause as creation, "Is it possible to arrive at something which is the last cause and there is nothing beyond it?". The obvious answer is no, of course you cannot. You always need a given set of "somethings" in order to "cause" that somethings to change configuration.

The second part appears as a mixture of the cosmological argument mixed with the transcendental argument... I can break those down individually if you want me to.

[Allinone]

You need something to cause an initial effect, but before energy has any qualitys, it causes no effects. So when energy behaves in such a way that produces the quality of mass and spatial dimension, cause and effect is possible. Before such a time, cause and effect is an abstract theory. So if we assume energy does have the ability to exist without the need to exist some where, then cause and effect began with the big bang, the first event. This all holds true as long as you apply known rules of cause an effect to the problem. If you want to take another approach you could ask how the emergence of conscious events alter and control the causes and effects that take place, I can think of only one thing that could exist without existing, with the potential for all things to take place contained within it, and that's unconsciousness. Maybe? Any how all this would make the last event the decision to sleep, and the last event a closing eye.

[Forswanked]

How do you identify a cause and separate it from its effect? By doing so, have you not separated the two by some moment of time? How do you bridge that moment? If time is continuous, there is no such moment, then there cannot be any separation between cause and effect. How can you identify a cause separate from its effect (and round and round)?

[Allinone]

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.

[Forswanked]

Allinone,

My thoughts are close to that. The difference would be in that for me there is no dormant, and the observation of qualities would be an ongoing interpretation rather than a real observation of separable qualities. The event is an interaction including sensing and activity - how could we ever put that into words. We can just use the understanding of the event - the activity of changing - but not duplicate it.

[Cronos988]

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.

[Alias]

How could a finite entity (especially one as pitifully finite as a hairless ape that savages its own young) know the beginning or end or edge or center of universal causation?

[psyreporter]

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

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.

(2020) Do Quantum Phenomena Require Conscious Observers?
“Experiments indicate that the everyday world we perceive does not exist until observed,” writes scientist Bernardo Kastrup and colleagues earlier this year on Scientific American, adding that this suggests “a primary role for mind in nature.”
https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/ar ... -observers

How observers create reality
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.06774.pdf

A recent study suggests that all identical particles in the universe are entangled by their identical nature.

(2020) Is nonlocality inherent in all identical particles in the universe?
The photon emitted by the monitor screen and the photon from the distant galaxy at the depths of the universe seem to be entangled only by their identical nature. This is a great mystery that science will soon confront.
https://phys.org/news/2020-03-nonlocali ... verse.html

If all particles of the same kind in the universe are entangled by their identical nature, it implies that the quality non-uniqueness is inherent in all particles in the universe.

It could be proof that the universe is infinite.

[evolution]

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?

Yes, but its cause is because of some 'thing' else. And, at the same time that thing is the last cause but its cause is because of that first pointed out last cause.

See, BOTH of these, contradictory worded, "last causes" actually cause the 'other'. And, these two 'things' coexist together, forever.

One cannot exist without the other and vice-versa. Each one HAS TO exist for the other one to exist, and because there is NO other way for Existence, Itself, both of these two 'things' HAVE TO ALWAYS exist.

In fact, it is because of both of these 'things' that 'cause and effect' or 'causality', itself, exists. Which, by the way, IS eternal (or infinite depending on how you want to look at this).

The reason WHY 'causality', itself, exists is because of these two ALWAYS EXISTING 'things', which are; 'matter' AND a 'distance' between matter, or better worded 'space', itself.

Because of 'space', which is just the completely empty distance between 'matter', itself matter is able to move about FREELY, which thus causes absolutely ANY and EVERY 'thing' else. At the most basic fundamental nature of the Universe, Itself, is 'matter' and 'space', with each one, in a sense, causing the other, but both together, ALWAYS EXISTING, causing, and creating, 'infinitely'.

Because every action causes a reaction, and every reaction is just another action causing another reaction, then this causes, or creates, Creation, itself. Which is just the action-reaction causing process, or causality, itself, and this is just the process that causes Evolution, itself, to happen and occur, eternally or infinitely, as well.

It’s like considering the universe to be finite, but if it is so, what is it enclosed into?

ANY one can "consider" the Universe to be finite, but if and when they do, then they will fall into the trap of NEVER being able to come up with a CORRECT VIEW nor a CORRECT CONCLUSION.

And if there are many other universes contained in some superior multiverse, what is it enclosed into and so on…

If the word 'Universe' is just left to mean and encapsulate Everything or ALL-THERE-IS, which it once used to mean, then you will NOT fall down and into this trap here.

If, for example, what is called "this universe" started and had a beginning with what is called a big bang, then OBVIOUSLY this "bang" came from some 'thing'. Now, if we like to imagine that this "bang" came from 'singularity', which is defined as being an 'infinite compression of matter', then OBVIOUSLY some 'thing' else triggered this "bang", and expansion, and for an expansion of infinitely compressed matter to occur, then there MUST OF BEEN an 'empty distance' for the matter to spread out and expand. And, an 'empty distance', by definition, is infinite and without boundary, itself.

Now, this may well have happened, and ALL that matter MIGHT spread out/expand and return again to one singular piece of infinitely compressed matter, surrounded by an infinite empty space/distance. But either way ALL that matter IS, either (infinitely) spread out matter, or (infinitely) compressed, whatever way ALL-OF-THIS/Everything IS is the way the Universe, Itself IS. Therefore, there is and could be NO 'other universe'.

But let us now imagine that there was still a, so called, "big bang", again from singularity but this time this singularity was just the infinitely compressed matter laying at the end of from say, a black hole. Now, OBVIOUSLY there is a direct link between this 'area' where this singularity is laying/sitting and that other area which had the opening of the black hole and where all of that matter has been sucked in from. And, if we stick with the definition for the word 'Universe' as Everything or ALL-THERE-IS, then there still is and could be NO 'other universe'.

There would also be NO wondering of who or what started/began the confusingly worded "this universe". When LOOKED AT this way what can be CLEARLY SEEN and KNOWN IS thee One and ONLY Universe is ALWAYS EXISTING. ALWAYS has been and ALWAYS will be.

When LOOKED AT this way there is also NO issue with when nor how 'causality', itself, could have and did 'start/begin'. Causality, just like the Universe, Itself, WHERE 'causality' exists and works is INFINITE and/or ETERNAL.

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

The ANSWER to this is a VERY RESOUNDING, YES.

Thee Universe, Itself, is just by Itself, causing AND Creating Its Self, ALWAYS (and in ALL ways some also say).

And if causality is infinite could we ever comprehend it

The ANSWER to this is ALSO a VERY RESOUNDING YES.

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?

Just like the word 'Universe' and the 'Universe', Itself, have NOT been LOOKED AT properly AND correctly previously, so to has the word 'Mind' and the 'Mind', Itself, NOT been LOOKED AT properly AND correctly prior either.

See, there is ONLY One Mind, and there is NOT the, so called, "our minds". To FULLY understand this I could go on for hours, but ask "your" 'self' the question; What could limited a Truly OPEN Mind? And then ANSWER that question Honestly.

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

Even the word 'paradoxical' and what it can mean has NOT YET been LOOKED AT and INTO FULLY by most people. As the word itself is LITERALLY a 'paradox', itself. But anyway I will NOT go into that here now, and just point out that when the word 'God' is defined properly AND correctly, then what is found is that the word 'God' fits in PERFECTLY with EVERY thing else, and which forms One PERFECTLY Unified 'picture' of ALL-THERE-IS.

See, to me, the word 'God' is in reference to two things, that what can be seen with the physical eyes and that what can NOT be seen with the physical eyes.
'God', in the visible sense, is ALL the physical matter in, or better worded of, the Universe. And, it is because of ALL the physical matter being able to move COMPLETELY FREELY about and so interacting with "other" matter, which is Itself, then this is HOW EVERY thing is Created. Matter is Creating or forming Itself into the manifestation that is OBSERVED.

'God', in the non visible sense, is the Truly OPEN Mind, which is the ACTUAL 'Thing' that has and does ALLOW human beings to Create ABSOLUTELY ALL of the 'things', which were ALL once seen as being IMPOSSIBLE.

What is the 'Thing', and the name given to that 'Thing' that can ACTUALLY Create ANY and EVERY thing, can ACTUALLY DO ANY and EVERY thing, and can ACTUALLY KNOW ANY and EVERY thing.

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

There is an UNCONSCIOUS 'lore' about what is Right and what is Wrong in Life, Itself, laying 'dormant' within ALL human beings just waiting to be EXPRESSED and REVEALED, by, and to, those who are READY and are (or better worded have been) PREPARED.

This 'lore' has not necessarily come from anyway, but has just ALWAYS been HERE.

'Rules' and 'laws', however, are just human being made up concepts and constructs. They came from human beings, themselves, from their own previous experiences, and YES, there IS FAR SUPERIOR KNOWLEDGE above these 'rules' and 'laws'.

This is only a TINY snippet of what there is to SHARE. ALL of which can be backed up AND supported with ACTUAL PROOF or EVIDENCE, and can be CLARIFIED and EXPLAINED FULLY if ANY one is Truly interested.

[evolution]

Watch where you point that post, it is loaded

I think you are talking about a number of different things in that posts and you are committing an equivocation fallacy with the term cause.

You are firstly referring to cause as the ability of change a given system to particles in a different arrangement. "And that something is so because of something else – another cause – and so on…"

Secondly you are referring to cause as creation, "Is it possible to arrive at something which is the last cause and there is nothing beyond it?". The obvious answer is no, of course you cannot.

When 'you' use the 'you' word here are you referring the the one who wrote the opening post only, or to both 'you' and 'them', or to a larger group, or to EVERY one of 'you', human beings?

By saying, "the obvious answer is no, of course you cannot", are you just talking about the people in the days of when this is being written or are you talking about FOREVER MORE, and for EVERY one?

BECAUSE if you are referring to the latter, then you are sadly MISTAKEN and WRONG.

As I have ALREADY SHOWN in the my last post in this thread it is POSSIBLE to arrive at the very 'things', which are the last cause.

You always need a given set of "somethings" in order to "cause" that somethings to change configuration.

The second part appears as a mixture of the cosmological argument mixed with the transcendental argument... I can break those down individually if you want me to.

[evolution]

You need something to cause an initial effect, but before energy has any qualitys, it causes no effects.

To ASSUME that there was an 'initial effect' only DISTORTS one's ability to SEE what IS ACTUALLY occurring and happening.

So when energy behaves in such a way that produces the quality of mass and spatial dimension, cause and effect is possible. Before such a time, cause and effect is an abstract theory.

So, what caused energy to start behaving, in such a way?

So if we assume energy does have the ability to exist without the need to exist some where, then cause and effect began with the big bang, the first event.

BUT, the next OBVIOUS question would BE; What caused energy to have the ability to exist BEFORE the, so called, "big bang"?

This all holds true as long as you apply known rules of cause an effect to the problem.

From my perspective NOT until you can EXPLAIN HOW energy was existing BEFORE supposedly Everything came into existence, then this will NOT hold true at all. In fact the illogicality of this is PROVING that this does NOT hold true at all.

If you want to take another approach you could ask how the emergence of conscious events alter and control the causes and effects that take place, I can think of only one thing that could exist without existing, with the potential for all things to take place contained within it, and that's unconsciousness. Maybe?

There is probably MORE TRUTH in this than you just realized YET.

Any how all this would make the last event the decision to sleep, and the last event a closing eye.

But the EVENT never actually stops. So, there is NO ACTUAL 'last event'.

[evolution]

How do you identify a cause and separate it from its effect?

By duration. The 'cause' is the BEFORE, and the 'effect' is the AFTER.

By doing so, have you not separated the two by some moment of time?

No, you have ACTUALLY by identifying 'cause' and 'effect' is ACTUALLY done through and by some form of conceptualized separation, and which is what is ACTUALLY needed for human beings to be ABLE to discover, learn, understand, and make sense of the Universe, Itself.

How do you bridge that moment?

By just KNOWING that there is NO ACTUAL 'separation'. VERY EASY and SIMPLE REALLY.

If time is continuous, there is no such moment, then there cannot be any separation between cause and effect. How can you identify a cause separate from its effect (and round and round)?

As I said above.

[evolution]

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.

And which there ONLY IS, in ACTUALITY.

But, of course, in concepts or perceptions there can be countless 'events'.

The way I imagine it is, is that the beginning of the universe was the start of an event.

LOL AND 'what' COULD POSSIBLY start AN EVENT like this One?

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.

But A CHANGE of some DORMANT thing could NOT be the start of the Universe, Itself. Unless, of course, you want to define the word 'Universe' to ONLY MEAN 'that' AFTER 'a change' of some 'thing' has occurred.

If there was say, "A 'thing' laying dormant for ANY perceived amount of duration', then that would just be HOW the Universe IS, and WAS, for that particular duration.