OP: I'm very sorry about all of these posts unrelated to your work. I understand I've played a part in this, and if you'd like, just ask the moderators to remove or move anything that you feel is derailing your thread. Thanks for your understanding, and I apologize once again.

I have to disagree with this.

If he wants to publish a long tome on whatever topic, he can use the blogs. If he's going to post an "argument" in the metaphysics forum, and this argument is longer than Proust's Remembrance of Things Past, then it's ridiculous to expect forum members to read this entire thing in order to participate -- and frankly I reserve the right to critique it however I choose. It's a discussion forum. That's not derailing it.

Yet, you've critiqued absolutely nothing in his actual argument.

You're right, it's ridiculous to expect most members to read such a long post and offer intelligent criticism. But the ones who choose to do so can, and the ones who don't choose to do so can move along to another thread. What's so hard about this?... I'd suggest that if you aren't genuinely interested, or if it's too long for you to read, then just find another thread to post in. :sarcastic:

Shostakovich,

So philosophers don't put forth systems these days? I would contend that that is because we have a shortage of proper philosophers; keep up the good work!

I myself have been working on a system for almost three years now, and I'm very young so actually this represents a pretty significant fraction of my life. It can be a source of great pride and mind-numbing frustration. I can never be satisfied, not even with a paragraph: always editing and rearranging concepts. I wonder if you could tell us a bit about the process of creating this work of yours, and also the motivation behind it?

Thanks

Shostakovich,

To the Negative:

• If such could be called negative, again I'd say none of this is new. My personal assessment is that it is irrational for anyone to conclude, with absolute surety (i.e., try and argue), that no first-cause is possible at all. This, my initial impression (that of banality) stands.
  

Not sure exactly what this means. Are you with the impression that I am arguing against the possibiity of a First Cause. Actually, in the CA I am arguing for a First Cause. This is stipulated in the Causal Principle, defined by the A and B representations. The Absolute that is, is the First Cause, and what comes out of the causal process at the end of the series, driven by B in its movement and obtaining to A, is: An Absolute, Supreme Mind able to govern and shape the mass (X) that was generated through the operation of the series.


... As a parting thought, I'd like to share with you a thought that your argument did evoke. I offer this in the hopes that it does not divert from this thread's main purpose, only to share something it, itself, spawned:
[INDENT]Gather us at the same time and place, and let us point, look and discuss the immediate events taking place; that car, those birds, the sound of the water nearby and we'll likely agree. In that time and place we collectively have enough sensory and rational immediacy for great agreement. Then, let's turn and talk about yesterday about the house down the road - we're disconnected by time and distance. We might yet still come to some agreement on what was, over there, yet our available knowledge, ability to rationally know and epidemiological tank is drier. Once done, let's try what you did: Evaluate the 'what ifs' on a process/series of events that took place 14 billion years ago at a distance so vast, its beyond human comprehension.

How well might we do in mentally replicating what took place? How much might we agree? Further, what relevance/import might such a thing have on our lives in this time and in this place?
[/INDENT]This is the great difficulty, is it not?

Philosophers and those interested in philosophy (speaking of those who impose no limits on philosophy) provide the best possible forum for discussing such matters, however remote.

The argument provides a solution to Kant. You did not mention anything in this regard, but I am not sure how familiar you are with Kant. The CA provides a science of metaphysics in line with Kant's critical demands; and as such, it would be of primary interest to Kantians who do not think it is possible to answer Kant. As an a priori system of principles it is also unprecedented, even though familiar concepts like cause and effect are employed. In this argument they are employed differently in that an a priori relation between cause and effect is explained. It is not merely talk about a possible relation or an impossibiity of any such relation, it is a demonstration of such a relation. But it is still a philosophical argument to this effect ... and opponents/critics of the argument might base their refuation of their argument on attacking the claim that a priori proof of such a relation has been given.

If I were to look at the argument objectively, from the standpoint of someone who wanted to take the most critical view possible, I would aim my critique at the premise, and the notion that the B representation follows from the A representation; and I would argue, as has been argued elsewhere in this forum, that only nothing follows from nothing; and I would attack the use of the terms employed, or the definitions given.

Even from this standpoint however, I feel the argument is completely invincible. I am not basing the argument on the premise that 'nothing' existed in the beginning. I'm substituting a critical definition of the notion of the absolute in place of nothing, and beginning the argument from there; and this is where the idea of a First Cause comes into play.

The greatest obstacle of all is as you've pointed out above. How do we wrap our minds/intellect around something that might or might not have happened 15 billion years ago?

This is where the science of big bang cosmology enters the picture. If we credit science as having credible evidence for the big bang, then philosophers/metaphysicians can take this, and go one step further, and carry the regression of time backwards, all the way to its most logical beginning -and here is where Kant enters the picture with his first antinomy. The logic here is not too difficult to follow, even though this is speculation about what might have taken place 15 billion years ago.

When the matter pertains to the question of the ultimate origin of all things, we are necessarily driven to the furthest extreme, but we do have a valuable guide. Our logic and our reasoning, and our ability to dismiss that which makes no sense from that which appers to make sense.

However, I think the greatest obstacle is not the difficulty of finding the answers to such questions as: Where did the universe come from? I think the greatest obstacle of all is the preconceived/conditioned notion that's been driven into practically all of us: That the answer to such a question defies human reason and no one can possibly find the answer even if there is an answer. Hence, even if the answer might be staring us in the face (which I claim it is ... in the Causal Argument), these dark sunglasses that we've been conditioned to look through, will not allow us to see it.

Shost,

Maybe it is now time for a more simplified summary of what you are proposing is a proof of your thesis.

Can you somehow bring this into a summarized explanation that shows exactly how this proves what you claim and exactly what you say you have proven with it?

Quote:

so the First Cause is mind and the Effect is the thought and from there:

the Divergence Principle results in mass, space/time and that would be 'being'? A is mind, B is thought, so wouldnt X actually be mass, space/time, or as I would say 'being'?

X is the mass from which the universe has its concrete form, so it is not being, but matter.

Quote:

the principle of equal relation explains the movement from simple to complex and how it follows that it must go back again and I imagine it to be a perpetual state of flux or process going on

the principle of ER is simply the series reaches its extreme limit. At this point B (mind, intensified to its absolute limit) separates from X (mass). At this critical stage the two forces: mind and mass are equal in force.

Quote:

the principle of progressive design: so are you saying that X continues on while B goes back to A? not sure I can see how it follows that this would happen...sort of entropy or something? I think I may be getting lost here...this is what you use to support that there is a will or intention behind the thought?

In generating the series, B, in its movement to A, obtains to A, the Absolute (with which the series initially begins). But the difference is, a mass, equal in force to B, has been generated. As a pure, dynamic force of mind, B has the capacity to shape X according to its will. Hence, the design of the universe we see. The creative capacity of this dynamic force of mind has although I hate to use the word, evolved, over 15 billion years. We can call this dynamic force of mind, for want of a better term: God.

Quote:

so i think the best part is the beginning that ends the question once and for all what came first, the chicken or the egg controversy. but to me where it gets weak is towards the end when the matter of design comes in...unless i am not following it properly. and i would have to study kant to be able to comment on whether or not you are answering him, but maybe something i said will help...

As there is an equal relation between B and X, and B is immaterial, or pure in form (ie: pure spirit), then B has the capacity to infuse itself into X, and shape it, like a master potter shapes clay ... only in this case, B can actually infuse itself into matter and manipulate it at its most fundamental level.

---------- Post added 10-28-2009 at 08:19 PM ----------

Pathfinder;100260 wrote:

Quote:

I think salima is thinking along the right lines when she says where nothing is nothing thinks.

But I'm not beginning from nothing. Kant's first antinomy was grounded on this common sensed presumption, and I've substituted a critical definition of a total void, or an absolute state.

This beginning avoids the impasse of an infinite regress. Begin from some other state, necessarily more complex, and it begs the question: From where did this more complex state originate.

Hence, our logical, intuitive sense compels us to begin with a total void; but we must think of what it is we have in mind when we attempt to visualize such a void. I'm arguing that what we have in mind amounts to an absolute state because it has no arbitrary limitations that we can impose upon it.

Another point: We can call this the simplest of all possible states.

But, it does not amount to nothing. We must throw out the common, practical definition of nothing. It doesn't apply here. We're thinking about an ultimate beginning, and our practical sense must be replaced by critical thinking, critical imagination, or constructive imagination. We are attempting to think of what might have followed from this state; and the only thing I can think of is a simplest of all possibe states of consciousness -an awareness by the Absolute of its own existence; which then becomes a finite consciousness -an effect, which means change, which itself needs further explanation. What is the change?

Quote:

But isnt it a little too convenient for your thesis to simply devise a starting point for it, this Absolute, from where you begin to move your thesis forward.

I admit, it is convenient. But how can we avoid beginning then with a more complex condition that leads to the question of how that condition came to be?

We can't. We must begin with a total void and a total void is an absolute which is as stated above ...

Quote:

It seems that your whole claim is in considering the logic of the momentum from this state of absolute void, as though this state of absolute is the only logical conclusion to begin from, when in fact it is as much a speculative position as any other idea.

It's not as speculative as any other idea if every other idea begs the question: Where did it come from?

We can't avoid an infinite regress in our logic by beginning with certain more easy to explain states.

Quote:

And if I am obligated to offer my own thinking on the matter in order to be critical, I would simply suggest that my definition of void would not include a point in space or time where an event could occur because a void would have no space or time for anything to take place in. So I am just unclear as to what you mean when you devise this void in your mind.

The definition is that of the simplest of all possible states ... not nothing; but the closest approximation to an absolute nothing. The series begins at its simplest possible level and increases in intensity all the way to its inevitable end. Think of it this way then:

The Planck time is 10 to the minus -43 seconds. Since the Planck time, 15 billion years have passed. It's now easy to see what exists. We have the universe and ourselves. At 10 the minus -43 seconds, what was there? A primeval atom with a density approaching the infinite, in which spacetime was squeezed out of existence (a zero state of spacetime with infinite density, is the speculation as to what preceded the Planck time).

Then think of what I'm saying with the series that I propose took place before the big bang ... it had to begin somewhere. It didn't begin with its critical stage, where its mass approached an infinite density, but it began with its most infinitesimal state, wherein its mass was next to non-existent. From there, it intensified through a series of stages. It's not necessary to speculate how many stages. It's just necessary to think of what the concept of an intensifying series suggests.

The criticism is obvious, and natural, because we are dealing with something that will lead us to think that we're dealing with nothing, as just mistakenly assumed by what I've read above. Here, our thinking needs to extend to the furthest possible extreme in order for us to attempt to comprehend the First Cause and the first effect arising from this First Cause. I chose to call it a dynamic force of mind, expanding outwards, towards the infinite. But even this concept requires further analysis.

Quote:

Maybe you need to be clearer on what you define as a absolute void.

The infinite state that exists outside of our universe, or for this matter, any other universes: That state to which we cannot set any arbitrary boundaries. It's an infinite expanse and we cannot think of it as being finite. It is this external Absolute, to which the universe is expanding, and it is expanding to the Absolute because it is driven to by the dynamic force of mind that initiated the series that preceded the big bang.

---------- Post added 10-28-2009 at 08:26 PM ----------

xris;100264 wrote:

Quote:

Quote:

Well i have tried and the concept escapes me , not completely, but what i fear is the conclusion, might not be what is intended. Those words keep returning to me, "In the beginning god was the word and the word was god".

Trying to convey the true meaning of nothing or a void and still refer to it as eternal, is or could be the stumbling block.

I can also see this as well. It's the first step to the whole argument, so it's the most difficult; but once taken, the rest of the argument necessarily follows.

What's the impetus for the first step?

The Absolute, as an infinite/eternal/unconditional first state, that always exists and will always continue to exist. The motivation for an intial first effect, to get the series underway, was infinite. Hence, the series was necessary. It could not help but begin, even though at an infinitesimal level.

My logic tells me the series had to be one that intensified from next to nothing (not nothing) and moved to an infinite degree of itensity.

I may be wrong but again my origin of everything from nothing is nearer to what Shosh is attempting to take one step further. If you can conclude that we never had nothing as nothing does not exist, then we only ever had something. That something should have started with something, the question is what was that something? If I have failed Shosh its not for the sake of trying.

It begins with Mind. Mind is the overriding mechanism that has created the concrete universe. We can say that the concrete universe is the physical manifestation and the concentrated essence of this Absolute Mind or Being or Spirit.

Following Pathfinder's request for clarification of what is meant by the Absolute ... how about this: The universe exists and has a form or substance, which, if reduced to its most fundamental, underlying essence, would yield some form that could no longer be divided ... it would be whole, or unified ... and this would constitute that same unified whole from which all things ultimately began ... call this then Absolute spirit, if you will. This is actually what Hegel calls it in his beginning.

This is a quote from Hegel's 'Science of Logic:'

"Whatever element of intellectual intuition is present at the beginning of the science, it cannot be anything but primary, immediate, and simple determination; or, if the object of such intuition is called the eternal or the divine or the absolute, the same applies to whatever of these elements is present in the beginning ... Hence in such a representation a beginning is not made with the concrete, but with the simple immediate when the movement starts. Further, [here is where Hegel addresses the problem of an infinite regress, or an unavoidable begging the question, if we should argue in favour of some more complex condition as our beginning] if a concrete thing is taken as the beginning, there is lacking the proof which is demanded by the complex of determinations contained in the concrete."

Hegel is saying that if we choose a more complex condition as our beginning we will always be driven to ask how that more complex condition itself came to be. What was its Cause? We cannot avoid the question by stating simply: Maybe it had no Cause. This is simply an attempt to evade the question.

Since I'm attempting to answer the question, rather than evade it ... can we then ask what peceded this total void which I argue, is the most logical beginning of all things?

The absolute cannot be said to have a cause. It just is. And it is simple. There are no complexity of determinations in it, but it is infinite. And it is this infinite characteristic that needs to be understood or grasped. How do we grasp it?

The Causal Argument provides the answer, puts it forth as the premise, and the whole argument that follows from this premise, follows necessarily, and a priori.

And in the process, Kant is answered, as per his challenge.

We are just vibrations, it started with a vibration and when the vibration stops we and the universe will cease to exist, now that's an incredible thought. It could be claimed that on another level this harmony of vibrations is our contact with each other.

We are just vibrations, it started with a vibration and when the vibration stops we and the universe will cease to exist, now that's an incredible thought. It could be claimed that on another level this harmony of vibrations is our contact with each other.

I can imagine the god jehovah and his giant hunting horn, blasting out a deep resonant note that vibrated the universe into existence. Our imagination, holds no barrier to this magnificent event.