Can causality be infinite?

[average]

If we say that events are caused by prior events and that causality spreads back infinitely into the past, then how could this current event take place?

It would take forever for something to start. It would take forever for some event in the infinite past to have an effect on the present event. No?



If we say that causality had a beginning at some point, this would presuppose causality was already in effect in some sense, and that something caused causality. So this doesn't work either...

[Peter L]

I made a thread about the same issue. Here it is:

http://www.theabsolute.net/phpBB/viewto ... =10&t=4040

Does that give you an answer?;)

[average]

I made a thread about the same issue. Here it is:

http://www.theabsolute.net/phpBB/viewto ... =10&t=4040

Does that give you an answer?;)

no.

You said something about time being circular and repeating itself. I don't see how that solves anything. If causality were to infinitely regress a cause would take forever to have an effect, regardless of how you view its shape or flow, nothing would begin and so nothing would repeat.

Kevin said "When we're talking about infinite time, it doesn't actually mean anything to "traverse" it. You can only "traverse" something when you have beginning and end points." But this is just admitting that the chain of causality has to be finite in order for anything to occur, in order for all the previous causes to occur and produce the present effects.

Essentially, what is being said is that if causality were infinite, nothing would exist now. There would be no effects yet, because an infinite amount of causes would have to occur in order for this current effect (present) to take place. But an infinite amount of causes would require themselves an infinite amount of causes, and so on forever...so the first cause to produce the first effect would require an infinite amount of causes, so nothing would ever occur because an infinite requirement of causes can never be satisfied.

[Relo]

I assume the numbers started to role

[Peter L]

You said something about time being circular and repeating itself. I don't see how that solves anything. If causality were to infinitely regress a cause would take forever to have an effect, regardless of how you view its shape or flow, nothing would begin and so nothing would repeat.

I know.

Kevin said "When we're talking about infinite time, it doesn't actually mean anything to "traverse" it. You can only "traverse" something when you have beginning and end points." But this is just admitting that the chain of causality has to be finite in order for anything to occur, in order for all the previous causes to occur and produce the present effects.

I don't understand.

Essentially, what is being said is that if causality were infinite, nothing would exist now. There would be no effects yet, because an infinite amount of causes would have to occur in order for this current effect (present) to take place. But an infinite amount of causes would require themselves an infinite amount of causes, and so on forever...so the first cause to produce the first effect would require an infinite amount of causes, so nothing would ever occur because an infinite requirement of causes can never be satisfied.

...And yet here we are. Isn't that something?

Anyways, I've finally solved it! (Hint: the universe doesn't really exist:)).

[average]

that's not a way out, sorry.

I think what we would have to do is adopt some fuzzy new-agey idea of now that has no beginning and no end, instead of a sequential domino chain of cause and effect. But this would be pretty gay.

The infinite chain of causation would be similar to zeno's paradox of motion, no effect would take place because every effect would require an infinite amount of causes, and those causes wouldn't take place until an infinite amount of causes satisfied them...etc

If we think of it in a finite sense, then the first effect would have to be uncaused, which is like something coming out of nothing...not intuitive at all.

So....fuck?

[Trevor Salyzyn]

average: Is time caused or uncaused?

[average]

average: Is time caused or uncaused?

we could say time is change (cause and effect)

it can't be caused since that would presuppose it existed before it existed.

it can't be uncaused, unless you think something can come out of nothing.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

average,

it can't be caused since that would presuppose it existed before it existed.

it can't be uncaused, unless you think something can come out of nothing.

Since something cannot be both A and not-A without contradiction, are we not forced to use the exception? Namely, something can come out of nothing, and time is uncaused.

[David Quinn]

The issue is a fake one, similar to the fake issues that Zeno explored, such as, "How can a ball reach a wall when it has to traverse an infinite number of points?"

The division of the past into "discrete events" or "causes" is a conceptual contrivance, and it is this contrivance which generates the contrived problem raised by average.

The contrived problem is also constructed out of a contradiction - namely, a beginning point of the Universe located in the beginningless past. Because of this, the problem doesn't have any coherence and collapses in the asking.

-

[Matt Gregory]

For time to have had a beginning there would have to be a time before time where the present didn't exist. But how can there be time before time and how can the present not exist? It's silly.

[average]

The issue is a fake one, similar to the fake issues that Zeno explored, such as, "How can a ball reach a wall when it has to traverse an infinite number of points?"

The division of the past into "discrete events" or "causes" is a conceptual contrivance, and it is this contrivance which generates the contrived problem raised by average.

The contrived problem is also constructed out of a contradiction - namely, a beginning point of the Universe located in the beginningless past. Because of this, the problem doesn't have any coherence and collapses in the asking.

-

this would mean that causality is a fake conceptual contrivance.

and by extension anything that exists would be a fake conceptual contrivance, since to exist is to be caused.

And causes require other causes, and for something to exist a requirement of infinite causes must be satisfied, which is absurd.

thus for something to be what it is, the right conditions must be in place, but those conditions require other right conditions, and so forth...

so A can never equal A, unless an infinite amount of conditions are satisfied.
Which is like saying, I will be happy once I flick this light switch an infinite amount of times.


This doesn't just apply to past events, but the very nature of existence.

[David Quinn]

You're still framing the problem in an incoherent manner.

Asking how the present can be reached from the infinite past is not the same as, say, asking how the final moment in the infinite future can be reached from the present.

The present is a definite starting point from which we can imagine an infinite future and conclude that the final moment of this infinite future can never be reached. But there is no such starting point in the infinite past. Thus, the problem you are trying to bring to our attention can't be formulated, not coherently.

It is like a mirage. There seems to be an issue there, but when you actually look at it more closely it disappears.

-

[average]

Yea, I understand the problem, I was assuming a starting point in the infinite past. But if there has been an infinite series of events, then there are an infinite number of actual places we could have appeared in that series, up to and including now.



:]

[samadhi]

average,

You have hit upon the problem of treating causation literally in an ontological sense. It leads either to an infinite regress or something out of nothing. Neither one is a satisfying explanation to the mind. Causation should simply be treated as a view of how to relate events which are known and recognized, not as an ultimate explanation of the universe.

[Dave Toast]

Depends what you mean by universe. Your context sounds far too ontological for me.

[Ataraxia]

"Too ontological"--what does that mean Dave?

[Jamesh]

There are two ways to look at causality.

1. Causality as it relates to the interaction between things – Finite Causality
2. Causality actually being things – Infinite Causality.

In reality the entire content of things is causal and has no beginning or ending. What has beginnings or endings is simply the finite forms associated with causality, not the actual content of things.

Form is dependant on the makeup of the observer. If it were possible for a holistic God to exist then it would not observe form (so would be pretty darn ineffective ), as it could only observe everything.

Infinite Causality is what is always is, it never changes into something else and does not originate from something else, so is infinite. Infinite Causality causes form because reality is dualistic. Infinite Causality always has two opposite “sides”, and in being opposite, never the twain shall meet. Because perfect unity cannot arise, this by default creates the necessary “faultline” in something that would otherwise be perfect (infinity cannot be other than perfect), and this very imperfection, an imperfection that is part of all parts of all things, allows form to arise as the inequality creates opportunity for differing levels of causal resistance/non-resistance. It allows for fundamental causal differentiation on an infinite number of “levels” – and the “levels” themselves occur because the basic level differentiation is not finite – the differentiation itself is infinite, and as such it is not a case of single level binary or linear differentiation, but holistic non-linear differentiation. Non-linear causal differentiation provides the starting point of for the evolution of matter and forms of energy or matter.

Real time is an outcome of infinite causality (Real time is the time that allows for causality to manifest), while observable time is an outcome of finite causality (times arrow – single forward direction). There is zero doubt that time exists, logically it must, but it is a chicken and egg scenario. Is time an outcome of something else, say the fundamental forces that must be involved in causality, or is everything including causality itself an outcome of time being a dualistic entity. I vote for the latter.

[David Quinn]

average,

You have hit upon the problem of treating causation literally in an ontological sense. It leads either to an infinite regress or something out of nothing. Neither one is a satisfying explanation to the mind.

The infinite regression you are talking about is merely imagined, a product of imagining that the Universe really is divided up into "events".

For those who are perceptive enough, causation points directly to the timelessness of the Universe, to its existence beyond life and death, which is immensely satisfying to know.

-

[Dave Toast]

average,

You have hit upon the problem of treating causation literally in an ontological sense. It leads either to an infinite regress or something out of nothing. Neither one is a satisfying explanation to the mind. Causation should simply be treated as a view of how to relate events which are known and recognized, not as an ultimate explanation of the universe.

Depends what you mean by universe. Your context sounds far too ontological for me.

"Too ontological"--what does that mean Dave?

Well, take a look at what sam wrote about 'treating causation literally in an ontological sense' in his first sentence. Then see how he 'treats universe literally in an ontological sense' in is last.

Causation isn't an 'ultimate explanation of the universe' if you 'treat universe literally in an ontological sense'.

As a seeker, the methodological solipsist wouldn't make such a mistake in understanding causation and universe as they would have a different conception of universe to relate the conception of 'causation as an ultimate explanation' to.

[average]

average,

You have hit upon the problem of treating causation literally in an ontological sense. It leads either to an infinite regress or something out of nothing. Neither one is a satisfying explanation to the mind.

The infinite regression you are talking about is merely imagined, a product of imagining that the Universe really is divided up into "events".

For those who are perceptive enough, causation points directly to the timelessness of the Universe, to its existence beyond life and death, which is immensely satisfying to know.

-

Causation is the infinite regress through the imagined division of events ad infinitum.

Causation becomes problematic like samadhi said, and upon close inspection you don't find beginnings and endings, borders and limits. So once causality collapses into itself as being an infinite regress or a fuzzy vague notion, then you look somewhere else.

The timelessness of the universe is seen once causality is let go of.

Or I guess through some logic you can see that causality occurs to the parts of the whole, but not to the whole itself. But this would only be a second hand sort of understanding, not a direct awareness.

[samadhi]

David,

For those who are perceptive enough, causation points directly to the timelessness of the Universe, to its existence beyond life and death, which is immensely satisfying to know.

Well, causation does not really fit in with timelessness since causation is linear within time.



DT,

As a seeker, the methodological solipsist wouldn't make such a mistake in understanding causation and universe as they would have a different conception of universe to relate the conception of 'causation as an ultimate explanation' to.

Okay, what universe are you talking about?

[brokenhead]

Well, causation does not really fit in with timelessness since causation is linear within time.

Samadhi, what do you mean by the phrase "linear within time"? That it moves in one direction, as cause/effect and NOT effect/cause?

[samadhi]

Sure. Cause and effect arise with time and occur in a linear fashion. Causation is meaningless in a timeless framework.

[David Quinn]

David,

For those who are perceptive enough, causation points directly to the timelessness of the Universe, to its existence beyond life and death, which is immensely satisfying to know.

Well, causation does not really fit in with timelessness since causation is linear within time.

That is a very narrow conception of causation. But even within the constraints of this narrow conception, it can be seen that the process of causation exists outside of time. While things unfold within time in accordance with cause and effect, the causal principle itself never changes. It never evolves, was never born, will never die, etc.

Cause and effect arise with time and occur in a linear fashion. Causation is meaningless in a timeless framework.

Causes and effects might arise within time, but the causal process itself does not. It is the timeless framework.

You're going to have to alter your own linear thinking on this issue, if you want to understand it.

-