All concepts of change do in our universe. Such is the nature of change in our universe.
No, in reality (not on a number line), there would be a starting point and an inexorable chain of causes leading to the present that would out of necessity be finite. An infinite number of hypothetical chains may be possible, but only one occurs in reality. And, as begbert2 says, what started the first event?
I will readily concede that the retina issue is the deeper discussion - though honestly I can’t think of much original to add to the discussion. If I were more imaginative I might be able to think of some crazy-er-I-mean rational reason why part of the retina should be blocked by the optic nerve, but I’m afraid that I am failing miserably in that regard.
Though, there is one subject in this thread that I don’t think has been answered in sufficient depth:
No.
An infinite chain of causes, by definition, has no beginning.
I’m just pointing out that an infinite chain of causes can occur in finite time. So the argument that an infinite chain of causes is impossible because we’d never arrive at the present doesn’t hold water.
Such is the nature of change in any universe, because if there is no way to distinguish between ‘before’ and ‘after’ then there is no change.
Words have meanings, you know.
But, my question would be, do you actually have any reason to think that this is true?
I’d say that if the “reasonable” questions start to break down, then either they were not that reasonable after all, or they are only reasonable given certain assumptions: and in that limited context we can certainly ask them, but we shouldn’t suppose that “reasonableness” in a certain context is a value that means anything except to ourselves.
But it wouldn’t have to, in any case. If you have two endpoints with a finite distance between them, and you suppose that you can divide that distance into infinitely many non-zero units, then yes, you need an infinite series to have a finite sum. However, the very thing we are supposing is that there might not be an “initial” endpoint of the universe. In this case, there is no need for the series to have a finite sum – it could easily be infinite with no contradiction.
The idea that we somehow had to “get” here from “there” is incoherent because it is implicitly assuming the existence of a beginning point.
Actually, the argument against infinite negative timelines relies on first artificially segregating it into distinct days, which one is then unable to count all the way through. Switching to a chain of causes merely saves us that step - regardless of how they’re arranged in time, you can’t have competely iterated through an infinite chain of prior causes.
Yep - I’ve taken enough math to know where and when “infinity” actually starts to come into it. And guess what? It’s used in limits. And as best as I can tell, only there - since it’s not actually a normal number.
I’m not trying to be flip or glib, but those words mean what they do in our universe. We live in a universe constrained by time and space, composed of moved movers; and an infinite regression of moved movers is logically impossible. What are we to conclude, then? First, there must be an unmoved mover. But if such an entity were of the same nature as the moved movers, subject to the same universal constraints, then he cannot function as an unmoved mover. If, as you suggest, he is outside “our time,” but subject to his own, then it’s the same unresolvable paradox, once removed. We’d be back where we started. Who moved the previously-thought-to-be-unmoved mover? And who moved that entity? And so on…
I’m not trying to be flip or glib, but words’ meanings are not inherently dependent on what universe you’re in, and even if you did travel to a different universe, when you said “money” you would still mean “money” even if the locals called it “flibjub”.
In any universe, the things we call “change” and “anything at all happening ever” requre the stuff we call “time”. Period. Regardless of what the locals might call them.
Also, as for your ‘paradox’, the way the logical proof runs is merely that something must be an uncaused cause/unmoved mover. There’s nothing about the argument that specifies that it can’t exist in our universe - and in fact quantum physics reportedly observes apparently uncaused causes all the time.
And given that you have deftly proven that there must be at least one uncaused cause, my response is to point at the big bang and say “And there it is.”
But the first part of that system is a holdover from our system. If it isn’t constrained by the logic of our universe, then it isn’t constrained by that logic, not just on one particular issue. If the problem is that a situation cannot come about within a framework, and you bring in an outside force to resolve that problem that isn’t constrained by the framework, then you can’t pick and choose which issues apply to it and which don’t. By the nature of its existence, it is outside those rules. “The entity is capable of triggering movement” doesn’t make sense outside of this universes’s rules.
The argument, so far as I understand is this; we have a situation in our universe which requires illogicality, if it is entirely self-contained. We can’t have an illogicality in our universe; therefore, something which is illogical must exist outside the universe to cause the situation. However, “causing a situation” is itself a logical point. Existence of an entity is a logical point. That an entity is capable to acting is a logical point, and so on. Essentially, the argument takes up what is a problem in one plane and makes it the opposite problem on another plane; rather than demanding the existence of an illogical situation in a logical universe, it demands the existence of a logical situation in an illogical universe. The very reasoning why you feel there is a problem is the same reason why there’s a problem with your explanation.
Heh, hopefully it’s clear that I was joking about “hijacking” the thread; I think the retinal discussion is only a minuscule strain in what the thread has long since become about.
Oh, yeah, I forgot to address this.
No.
(I wanted to say a pithy “Only if you see everything through ‘intelligent designer’-tinted glasses”, but why buck the pithier trend?)
Infinite causal chains don’t require timelines.
We’re talking past each other. I wasn’t discussing semantics, I was discussing essential properties. Apparently we’re not going to see each other’s point.
Then our universe is NOT composed of unmoved movers, eh? Not completely? Do you have examples of a theoretically self-created event? I ask with real interest, not trying to be contentious…
There what is? The effect of the unmoved mover or the unmoved mover itself? What brought that matter into being?
Well, the argument here using them certainly does, since it relies on all the causes being prior causes. After all if causes could come afterwards, looking-glass-land style, then causal loops could explain everything quite handily. (Answer to everything: A time traver from the future did it.)
Independed of that, though, the argument against infinite causal chains doesn’t require timelines either, so I’m still good. I merely mentioned timelines since they were the point of discussion in the prior-referenced thread, and as noted they do still apply to the argument in this one.
That’s simply wrong. As has already been pointed out, quantum mechanics allows for uncaused events; in fact such events are extremely common. So, it’s not against our “universal constraints”. Nor is an infinite regression impossible.
Sorry, I’m just not following why that must be. Why can’t only certain issues or aspects be associated with this entity?
I’m stating that in any universe, for change to occur or anything at all to happen, that universe must be experiencing what we would call time. Universes where time does not occur might exist, but nothing could ever ever ever ever happen in them, and any entities that were so unfortunate as to exist in them would never ever ever ever ever do anthing at all.
That’s my point. What’s yours?
The big bang. Also, spontaneously appearing particle pairs.
The big bang is the uncaused cause. And nothing caused it.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
(Unless a time traveler caused it. But then he’d contradict your model too, wouldn’t he?)
I’m afraid I don’t follow you either - why can’t the rules be different in some places?
Though, the real problem here is that the whole “all causes have prior causes” thing is a pretty sketchy ‘rule’ in the first place - sure at a casual glance it looks like all causes have prior causes, but it’s not like that’s ever been definitively proven. It’s just an assumption. And when you’re doing a proof by contradition (as the first causes argument is), then any of the assumptions might be wrong…
You can have those aspects, but not if those aspects are already contradicted by the aspects it’s already required to have. And that issue is compounded by the problem that once we remove logic from a situation, it is nonsense to say anything at all about it.
In this case, for example, the issue is the apparent logical inability of having no prime mover. That’s the issue this conception is intended to solve, so by nature the answer must be something that is not constrained by cause and effect. But if something isn’t constrained by those principles of movement - must not be, in fact, to solve the problem - then we can’t also say that it is an entity, that it acts, that it acts and causes something, because we’ve already said it doesn’t have those aspects in order to solve the initial problem. And then we have the overarching issue that if something is not part of the universe, if it’s not constrained by logic, then it doesn’t even make any sense to talk about anything about it at all - the concept of an entity, of an action, just don’t work without logic.