The nature of causation

What are these two things or two factors?

Are these two factors any two combinations of mass, energy, force, space, time or some other factors?

If something is to allow them to interact, what is this third factor?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is true that time is a continuum and one event causes another event.

But, what is the cause of very first event in time?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No cause for such a thing, had it been first.

Money is on Love, given its locking nature.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's a nonsensical question, since if you maintain that there was indeed a first event, then you have to declare it to be causeless (lest you defeat your own logic).

I favour the idea that somethingness is the only possible state of affairs, and that the idea of complete nothingness is an abstraction based on an inappropriate extrapolation of the concept of absence. In other words, it makes sense to talk about a particular object being present at or absent from a certain location, but it makes no sense to talk about the very foundation of reality itself being absent. When we try we always fall into conceptual errors, and when we don't realize that's what's happening, ridiculous and unnecessary philosophical conundrums result.

However, doesn't that leave us with a causal chain stretching back into a past of infinite extent, and isn't that an absurdity as well? Possibly. But certainly in this day and age it is reasonable to suggest that that time, as we know it, is probably not fundamental to whatever state the universe itself popped out of. Specifically, that while time may have a direction (see Arrow of time) in our universe, once upon a time time may have been a little different, if it was a feature even remotely resembling what we typically imagine it to be at all.

I tend to reject the notion of the complete absence of any principle resembling time though, since without it I don't think you can end up with it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Not so for causa sui ( http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/causa_sui.html ).

Only because you have not sufficiently examined the concept of absence. How do you recognize an absence? Have you ever attempted to answer that question with anything other than a tautology (using different words to say the same
thing)?

Incredulous speculation.

 

I think you are totally denying big-bang which is considered as the first event in time. If you believe in big-bang, what would be its cause?

What is this something?

 

Everyone knows you need gas and fire to make good bang. Aduh.

 

What is the particular object being present or absent before big-bang?



How do you visualize reality before big-bang?

 

I think things would have been vibrant and colorful from a early time, prior to the big bang.

Rythym, time, substance, would all be present undoubtably.

 

hansda, et al,

Yes, the question sounds so simple, at first.

(COMMENT)

What is the first cause? Spooky action?

v/r
R

 

Rocco, the first wasn't a cause, it wasn't an effect. The first think was a bonding agent, In Love!

Check: Love contains cause, and effect.

 

If we consider bigbang as the first event, what can be its cause?

Let us examine what was in existence at the time of bigbang or before that. 'What was in existence before bigbang', can be considered as the cause of bigbang.

It is believed that mass, energy, space, time, spacetime all observable objects of our universe was created at the time of bigbang. That means all these things were not in existence before bigbang.


So, what could exist before bigbang?

The only possibility is consciousness..

So, "consciousness" can be considered as the first cause.

 

Non sequituur.

There is no logical possibility of knowing what was before the BB, if indeed that was the origin of our universe.
Certainly one can speculate as to what was before the BB, and some speculate that there were branes, with our universe arising due to an interaction between such membranes.

But to state that "The only possibility is consciousness.." is merely an unsubstantiated argument from confidence with nothing to support it.o

Unless one holds to the scientific position that consciousness is merely an activity/state of the material brain.