Can anything be without a cause?

[tooyi]

average: its purely imaginary though, I hope people realize this...

If by imaginary you mean that not a thing quantifies to the level of word without a flaw, you are either right or wrong depending on your way of defining flaw. The narrow way of defining it will result one becoming a complete nihilist. The expanding way of defining it has the seed of understanding.

The empirical way of understanding causality is heavily influenced by narrative way of describing things along time. Logical causality is the basis for a fundamental understanding of causality where everything is necessarily timelessly caused. It is also statelessly caused. Any aspect of it involving a quantifiable state is just another way of constructing a narrative along which to fit the tools of language that have been cast from the mold of empirical experience. The logical understanding of the nature of causation is boundless in its reach as it is just a finger pointing but, as it points, it points without a flaw. Any understanding of a yet more fundamental nature is evaluating the expression too strictly; The only flaw in that line of reasoning is the obvious limit of a thing in mind being unable to become anything else, as it is bound by logic to not be so.

[TheChessPlayer]

no its quite simple.

[David Quinn]

average wrote:

causality doesn't work at all, strictly speaking, it is just a pragmatic way of looking at the world

its purely imaginary though, I hope people realize this...

It is imaginary in the same sense that things themselves are imaginary.

ultimately speaking there is no causality, everything just is, and if you think A caused B and B caused C, you are just playing a mental game with yourself, although it is a useful game pragmatically...not philosophically

I see it as a device to disentangle ourselves from the mental game that we are all forced to play in relation to things.

So it is indeed a pragmatic tool, one that is specifically designed for philosophic purposes.

-

[average]

It is imaginary in the same sense that things themselves are imaginary.

even more than that, its more like the idea or imagination of a Perfect City, as opposed to say...New York or Tokyo.
Both are imaginary in a sense, but the former is much more imaginary than the latter if you catch my drift -- which you probably wont.

Causality is purely a mental construct, although it does have pragmatic functionality, like (i) imaginary numbers in mathematics...but it has no direct connection to reality and obviously no philosophical merit, just like imaginary numbers are philosophically inert. Not because they are simply imaginary and fabrications of the mind superimposed on reality, but because they have no relevance to anything of importance that could be worth any philosophical thought.

Contemplating causality is like contemplating even numbers, or imaginary numbers, ya they are imaginary and do have functionality, but a real philosopher,( as opposed to a beginner, phil 100 student, or layman who has never had any serious academic experience), isn't going to waste his time thinking about even numbers or imaginary numbers or causality...much much too trivial. Leave that for the scientists, the mathematicians and the plumbers and other tradesmen worried about causes and effects...

:)
Oh well, simple things impress the simple minded.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

average,

Except of course for beginners, and those stuck with the beginner mentality, causality will always impress them...oh well

I agree. Aristotle, David Hume, and Immanuel Kant were stuck with the beginner mentality. They never managed to move on to anything deeper than causality. It would take a genuine expert like yourself to move on to... what? Shit, I realized that I'm a beginner as well. What did you move on to?

[average]

average,

Except of course for beginners, and those stuck with the beginner mentality, causality will always impress them...oh well

I agree. Aristotle, David Hume, and Immanuel Kant were stuck with the beginner mentality. They never managed to move on to anything deeper than causality. It would take a genuine expert like yourself to move on to... what? Shit, I realized that I'm a beginner as well. What did you move on to?

Yep I agree about those 3. Really didn't contribute anything significant, they all had very diluted thoughts...

In your case, if you have to ask then you aren't ready to move on and aren't ready to understand...

Its that simple.

[Pincho Paxton]

How about sentience is without a cause? I can touch my nose, blink my eyes. My sentience is causing things to happen, but really it is a pushing entity, like it is pushing a car. What is pushing my sentience?

I'm sure that you have answers to this, but I think that the answers can be broken apart.

[average]

How about sentience is without a cause? I can touch my nose, blink my eyes. My sentience is causing things to happen, but really it is a pushing entity, like it is pushing a car. What is pushing my sentience?

up to you,
you just created this whole imaginary process,
just invent something to explain your stupid question.

[Pincho Paxton]

How about sentience is without a cause? I can touch my nose, blink my eyes. My sentience is causing things to happen, but really it is a pushing entity, like it is pushing a car. What is pushing my sentience?

up to you,
you just created this whole imaginary process,
just invent something to explain your stupid question.

That doesn't even make sense. Are you sentient?

[average]

How about sentience is without a cause? I can touch my nose, blink my eyes. My sentience is causing things to happen, but really it is a pushing entity, like it is pushing a car. What is pushing my sentience?

up to you,
you just created this whole imaginary process,
just invent something to explain your stupid question.

That doesn't even make sense. Are you sentient?

Oh man....

[Trevor Salyzyn]

average, come on, don't play the tease! If there's anything deeper than causality, please present it. I don't want to think that you are withholding information! (I can't even begin to imagine that you might be bluffing in a philosophy forum.)

[Pincho Paxton]

Oh man....

Have I broken you somehow .. robot?

[Jamesh]

David:

It is imaginary in the same sense that things themselves are imaginary.

Rubbish - mystical shit if you ask me.

Causality is in fact all there is. On the other hand linear causality is sort of imaginary, in the same sense as things themselves are imaginary.

Not that things are really imaginary, the patterns of existence clearly exist, and what we individually are caused to limit by definition and then call "things", cannot be otherwise. Every concept utilised by the mind must use some form of thingness. Even the true concepts of non-inherency and interconnection that you use to define the reality of The Totality, is a caused thing in it's own right - and to be honest these concepts, if taken to be 100% the truth, are no more representative of reality than what you consider are the imaginary sensing of things by ordinary folk. It is simply not possible for 100% non-inherency and 100% interconnection to be "real" when one is speaking of other than everything as a totality. Such a situation would logically disqualify any form of causal flow. If something was 100% interconnected (infinitely connected in all ways) it would not be observable, as it would not allow the room or freedom for any external thing to infiltrate the perfect inteconnection. If something was 100% non-inherent, if it had none of its own nature, then it would have nothing that would be causal. It is not possible for anything to not have its own nature - its own nature is how it's fundamental parts are relative to everything else. Its fundamental parts, the causal duality of its content, have their permanent and inherent nature, however, the configuration of these parts relative to everything else has only a temporary flowing nature.

The only possibility for any form of existence of total non-inherency and total interconnection is within complete emptiness or complete fullness - both of which do exist, as only they when conceptualised as a togetherness, would allow for the existence of partial inherency and partial interconnection, as is seen and is required by the existence of things (differentiation).

[David Quinn]

average,

DQ: It is imaginary in the same sense that things themselves are imaginary.

A: even more than that, its more like the idea or imagination of a Perfect City, as opposed to say...New York or Tokyo.
Both are imaginary in a sense, but the former is much more imaginary than the latter if you catch my drift -- which you probably wont.

It is the opposite of how you are describing it. Causality is simply a tool which can be used to undermine all our imagined realities. Nothing more, nothing less.

Causality is purely a mental construct, although it does have pragmatic functionality, like (i) imaginary numbers in mathematics...but it has no direct connection to reality and obviously no philosophical merit, just like imaginary numbers are philosophically inert.

On the contrary, because it undermines our imagined realities, such as "things", it serves to connect us to reality. It reflects the truth that reality is a continuum and helps wipe away those deluded thought processes which assume that reality is comprised of discrete entities.

In other words, cause and effect isn't an imagined reality as such. It isn't a law or principle or anything like that. It is simply a corrosive device which eats into our deluded belief in "things".

Contemplating causality is like contemplating even numbers, or imaginary numbers, ya they are imaginary and do have functionality, but a real philosopher,( as opposed to a beginner, phil 100 student, or layman who has never had any serious academic experience), isn't going to waste his time thinking about even numbers or imaginary numbers or causality...much much too trivial. Leave that for the scientists, the mathematicians and the plumbers and other tradesmen worried about causes and effects...

You are not understanding it in the slightest.

-

[average]

True David, good point. Well almost. Not really.

First of all it can't undermine imagined realities because it is itself a highly superficial imaginary construct; one that gives rise to differentiation, and thus to the multiplicity of "imagined realities".

So after you chop up reality into a billion imaginary pieces, using an imaginary device called causality, you then wanna go back and stick all those pieces together using the same device.
And then you feel proud -- and then you say, "all is a continuum, all these things are unity"...

but that product, the "continuum" is just as imaginary as the "things" and "causality"...

So although, you might think this sort of mental game has some sort of significance, it really doesn't, you are just going in circles.

The funny thing is, well I'm not going to mention it, you are still stuck in the sandbox :/

[divine focus]

Check it,

can something exist without knowing it exists? If something is, that's a form of knowledge right there, right? The action of being is its own knowing. If it only makes sense that something is caused, how could it be before it was caused?

The "cause" could just be a revelation of existence. Whatever is before the revelation is the cause, the awareness of being afterward is the effect. In that way, something can exist before being caused.

[Ignis Fatuus]

Reminds me of the Coriolis Force. Ex. depending on your location on earth, the water when flushed in a toilet bowl seems to spin clockwise in the northern hemisphere and counterclockwise in the southern hemisphere. It's all a matter of perspective.

[average]

Check it,

can something exist without knowing it exists? If something is, that's a form of knowledge right there, right? The action of being is its own knowing. If it only makes sense that something is caused, how could it be before it was caused?

The "cause" could just be a revelation of existence. Whatever is before the revelation is the cause, the awareness of being afterward is the effect. In that way, something can exist before being caused.

so basically...if one makes up a sufficiently incoherent sentence they can conclude whatever they like at the end.

[David Quinn]

Average,

First of all it can't undermine imagined realities because it is itself a highly superficial imaginary construct; one that gives rise to differentiation, and thus to the multiplicity of "imagined realities".

So after you chop up reality into a billion imaginary pieces, using an imaginary device called causality, you then wanna go back and stick all those pieces together using the same device.

The situation, as I see it, is that we are all conditioned from birth into believing that things really exist, including our own selves - which, in turn, causes us to be emotional and act irrationally and violently. Thus, it is important to break down this conditioning through tools such as cause and effect.

Such tools wouldn't work, however, unless they reflected reality to a very high degree. The tool of cause and effect, of example, reflects the reality that things don't really begin or end.

And then you feel proud -- and then you say, "all is a continuum, all these things are unity"...

but that product, the "continuum" is just as imaginary as the "things" and "causality"...

It is imaginary, but like causality it reflects reality to a very high degree. It reflects the reality that there is only one fundamental nature and that things don't really exist.

So although, you might think this sort of mental game has some sort of significance, it really doesn't, you are just going in circles.

I'm sorry that you are unable to see where all this is pointing to. Seriously.

-

[average]

I'm sorry you cherish a delusion more than its worth.

[Pincho Paxton]

Check it,

can something exist without knowing it exists? If something is, that's a form of knowledge right there, right? The action of being is its own knowing. If it only makes sense that something is caused, how could it be before it was caused?

The "cause" could just be a revelation of existence. Whatever is before the revelation is the cause, the awareness of being afterward is the effect. In that way, something can exist before being caused.

Before you can move your arm, you need to want to move your arm. the movement is all down to brain cells, but the want is based on observation. Observation is a substance that uses no energy. Therefore observation is self induced perpetual motion. Self induced perpetual motion does not require a cause. It is like a clock that winds itself. You can make a particle spin just by observing it, but you passed no energy to the particle.

This makes perfect sense. This is sentience, and it has no cause. It is not an incoherent sentence like Average says. Average has a low capacity to see the truth in a situation. That is why he uses small sentences, and gets upset easily.

Average, just to say that something is nonesense, and imaginary is not how a genius explains something. A genius explains why this is imaginary. And if you explain this by including brain cells in your explenation then you have still missed the point, because brain cells use energy, but observation does not.

[Imadrongo]

David,

The situation, as I see it, is that we are all conditioned from birth into believing that things really exist, including our own selves - which, in turn, causes us to be emotional and act irrationally and violently. Thus, it is important to break down this conditioning through tools such as cause and effect.

The way I see it is that we are conditioned from birth to believe that words/concepts are really accurate descriptions of these things that we believe exist -- we are essentially raised to believe that concepts are of the "mind" rather than of the "body". As we grow up some of us realize concepts are just categories that we slot empirical observations into for practical purposes. At this point some of us make the mistake of turning to logic and metaphysics as though abstract concepts are any better than these practical concepts that we have lost faith in. We forget, in doing so, that abstract concepts are no more "truthful" than any other concepts. We forget that, at bottom, all concepts are limited and evolved by human experience.

[Pincho Paxton]

The way I see it is that we are conditioned from birth to believe that words/concepts are really accurate descriptions of these things that we believe exist -- we are essentially raised to believe that concepts are of the "mind" rather than of the "body". As we grow up some of us realize concepts are just categories that we slot empirical observations into for practical purposes. At this point some of us make the mistake of turning to logic and metaphysics as though abstract concepts are any better than these practical concepts that we have lost faith in. We forget, in doing so, that abstract concepts are no more "truthful" than any other concepts. We forget that, at bottom, all concepts are limited and evolved by human experience.

Is it even worth posting this message then?

You are using words, and concepts to passify your requirement for entertainment. We crave on entertainment.

[Imadrongo]

We live on something whether it be absolute truth, entertainment, God, helping others, sex, enlightenment, whatever.

[daybrown]

Where does chaos theory fit in? No 2 fractles are identical, yet any 2 of a given class are recognized as such. If you run a fractle program on this screen, and blow it up, you will find the same pattern. You can keep on blowing it up repeatedly, and you keep seeing the same fractle pattern. But then suddenly, at some point, one more iteration, and the screen is just snow. Total randomness. Yet, iterate that randomness for a while, and then suddenly there is the original fractle class again.

What is the cause of this? And why is it that you cannot make a fractle that iterates as it zooms without random numbers?