Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[Stranger]

Key to your question is that hierarchies of dependence trace to something in the universe that ultimately explains all the parts (contingent things) in the universe or you are suggesting a closed causal loop or set of closed causal loops.

I'm not suggesting anything, I'm trying to get you to back up your own claim. None of this hand-waving does that. If you cannot show that the universe has some external dependence on something else, your 'argument' becomes nothing but an assertion.

[Stranger]

Let's try a couple of hierarchies

Hierarchy of cosmological structures stars dependent on nebulae dependent on supernova dependent on early stars dependent on early universe  dependent on big bang dependent on?

Don't know it depends on anything. If time is finite in the past, it's finite in the past, that's just the shape of space-time.

Hierarchy 2 Bodies dependent on tissues dependent on cells dependent  on organelles dependent on molecules dependent on atoms dependent on subatomic particles dependent on?

Quantum fields.

The question should be...what is it that is observed and is not contingent on anything else?

The whole universe does not appear to have any external dependencies.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not suggesting anything, I'm trying to get you to back up your own claim. None of this hand-waving does that. If you cannot show that the universe has some external dependence on something else, your 'argument' becomes nothing but an assertion.

Of course we cannot physically demonstrate what is outside of physics.All we can say is all we observe is contingent which leaves the question "What is it all we observe ultimately contingent on?"
Infinite regression does not answer that, closed causal loops are absurd. A status quo of contingency only is absurd.

All we observe is contingent and we are entitled to ask on what is it contingent. Now all we know is that it is not contingent on anything we can observe or laws of nature.

It took ages for the penny to drop with you and Hillside that I wasn't suggesting that the universe was contingent because the parts were contingent...let's see how long this one takes.

[jeremyp]

Jeremy,

There are only so many ways I can explain this.

Just accept you are wrong.

[Stranger]

Of course we cannot physically demonstrate what is outside of physics.All we can say is all we observe is contingent which leaves the question "What is it all we observe ultimately contingent on?"

How can you claim that something depends on something else unless you can identify the something else that it depends on? Currently space-time and quantum fields are are regarded as fundamental, that is, they don't appear to depend on anything else. If some future 'theory of everything' emerges then we may be able to identify something that explains both but then we'd have the same situation in that there would be no obvious further dependency.

What is your justification for assuming something that goes beyond the universe?

Infinite regression does not answer that, closed causal loops are absurd. A status quo of contingency only is absurd.

And a 'necessary entity' is also absurd because it makes zero sense that something would cause a contradiction if it did not exist or was different.

All we observe is contingent and we are entitled to ask on what is it contingent. Now all we know is that it is not contingent on anything we can observe or laws of nature.

See above.

It took ages for the penny to drop with you and Hillside that I wasn't suggesting that the universe was contingent because the parts were contingent...let's see how long this one takes.

What on earth are you wittering about now? You spent ages telling us the the universe was 'contingent' merely because it had parts. It's taken you ages to get round to realising that that didn't make the parts contingent on anything else.

[jeremyp]

Of course we cannot physically demonstrate what is outside of physics.All we can say is all we observe is contingent which leaves the question "What is it all we observe ultimately contingent on?"
Infinite regression does not answer that

Actually, it does.

, closed causal loops are absurd.

Are they? Why?

A status quo of contingency only is absurd.

Again, why?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Actually, it does.

Your contention, your burden
It never answers the question. The argument from contingency though is still good for an infinite universe since time is not invoked.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Of course we cannot physically demonstrate what is outside of physics.All we can say is all we observe is contingent which leaves the question "What is it all we observe ultimately contingent on?"

No it doesn’t. What is does leave open though is the question, is “What is it all we observe ultimately contingent on?” a valid question at all?   

Infinite regression does not answer that, closed causal loops are absurd. A status quo of contingency only is absurd.

Just calling something “absurd” isn’t an argument.

All we observe is contingent and we are entitled to ask on what is it contingent. Now all we know is that it is not contingent on anything we can observe or laws of nature.

Tell you what, let’s play a game – let’s pretend the following:

1. Everything we’ve observed so far is contingent on something else – ie, let’s ignore the possibility of “true’ randomness as the quantum level; and

2. We’ve suddenly become omniscient so we know that everything we could observe would also be contingent on something else. That is, we now know that everything observable in the universe is contingent.

All good so far? Good. Now then – and without collapsing again into the fallacy of composition – how would you propose to use that knowledge to justify your unqualified next step of, “therefore the universe itself must be contingent on something else"?

How though?

It took ages for the penny to drop with you and Hillside that I wasn't suggesting that the universe was contingent because the parts were contingent...let's see how long this one takes.

There was no “penny drop” – just trying to follow your “thinking” such as it is as you re-define what you think you mean more often than you change your socks.

[Stranger]

The argument from contingency though is still good...

...for nothing. It involve the absurd claim that something exists that would cause a contradiction if it didn't or was different.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No it doesn’t. What is does leave open though is the question, is “What is it all we observe ultimately contingent on?” a valid question at all?   

Just calling something “absurd” isn’t an argument.

Tell you what, let’s play a game – let’s pretend the following:

1. Everything we’ve observed so far is contingent on something else – ie, let’s ignore the possibility of “true’ randomness as the quantum level; and

2. We’ve suddenly become omniscient so we know that everything we could observe would also be contingent on something else. That is, we now know that everything observable in the universe is contingent.

All good so far? Good. Now then – and without collapsing again into the fallacy of composition – how would you propose to use that knowledge to justify your unqualified next step of, “therefore the universe itself must be contingent on something else"?

How though?

There was no “penny drop” – just trying to follow your “thinking” such as it is as you re-define what you think you mean more often than you change your socks.

There is humbuggery here. Firstly you accepted Outriders claim that you can deduce an infinity from a part of the set. Fallacy of Composition writ large.

Secondly even if I detected plural contingent parts that still doesn’t affect the sum of contingent parts being composite or that the mere possession of parts, contingent or otherwise spells composition.

The absurdity is in a causal loop things end up causing themselves. You can’t. All you can be by way of existence is necessary .i.e. you are the reason for your own existence. In other words you are employing the very method that gives you precisely what you don’t want....

Have a nice day

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

There is humbuggery here. Firstly you accepted Outriders claim that you can deduce an infinity from a part of the set. Fallacy of Composition writ large.

I haven’t accepted or not accepted anything – I’ve just asked you a question (yet again) that you’ve avoided answering (yet again).

Secondly even if I detected plural contingent parts that still doesn’t affect the sum of contingent parts being composite or that the mere possession of parts, contingent or otherwise spells composition.

Irrelevant gibberish.

The absurdity is in a causal loop things end up causing themselves. You can’t. All you can be by way of existence is necessary .i.e. you are the reason for your own existence. In other words you are employing the very method that gives you precisely what you don’t want....

Have a nice day

Yeah yeah, is that the time already? OK, now you’ve spat the dummy as a diversionary tactic let’s try again:

Without collapsing again into the fallacy of composition, how would you propose to justify your unqualified assertion, “the universe is made of parts, therefore the universe must be contingent on something else"?

Something?

Anything?

Just a clue maybe?

Still nothing?

Oh well. 

[Stranger]

Secondly even if I detected plural contingent parts that still doesn’t affect the sum of contingent parts being composite or that the mere possession of parts, contingent or otherwise spells composition.

Did this mean something to you before you typed it out?

The absurdity is in a causal loop things end up causing themselves. You can’t. All you can be by way of existence is necessary .i.e. you are the reason for your own existence. In other words you are employing the very method that gives you precisely what you don’t want....

Who the hell do you think is suggesting a causal loop? You seem obsessed with building straw men about other people instead of defending the absurdity of a 'necessary entity' and your lack of an argument that gets you there.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Did this mean something to you before you typed it out?

Who the hell do you think is suggesting a causal loop? You seem obsessed with building straw men about other people instead of defending the absurdity of a 'necessary entity' and your lack of an argument that gets you there.

Anyone saying the universe is the sum of it’s contingent parts and the source of the contingent parts is the universe has created a causal loop. If something is the reason for itself it is not contingent but necessary.You look as though you want your cake and eat it.

[Stranger]

Anyone saying the universe is the sum of it’s contingent parts and the source of the contingent parts is the universe has created a causal loop.

Who's talking about a 'source'? Who's talking about causality, for that matter (apart from you, that is)?

If something is the reason for itself it is not contingent but necessary.

Is is?

You look as though you want your cake and eat it.

You really do need to get it into your head that my answer to why there is something rather than nothing is "don't know". All I'm doing is pointing out the obvious gaping holes in your argument.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Still no news on how you'd propose (without collapsing again into the fallacy of composition) to justify your unqualified assertion, “the universe is made of parts, therefore the universe must be contingent on something else"?

Endlessly quoting what you consider to be the implausibilities in ideas about the character of the universe that no-one is making in any case is just evasive. How would you propose to justify your assertion about the supposedly necessary causation of the universe?

You do realise that if you keep running for long enough you'll likely just end up where you started right? Wouldn't it be less exhausting instead just to:

1. Try at least to answer the question; or

2. Concede that you have no argument and abandon the hopeless first cause drivel entirely?   

[jeremyp]

Your contention, your burden

It's self evident. If it's turtles all the way down, it definitely answers the question of what the elephants are standing on.

It never answers the question. The argument from contingency though is still good for an infinite universe since time is not invoked.

Time is implicit in the concept of cause and effect.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's self evident. If it's turtles all the way down, it definitely answers the question of what the elephants are standing on.

Time is implicit in the concept of cause and effect.

Infinite regression self evident?
Infinite regression suffers from what is known as explanatory failure namely it doesn’t actually answer the question. It assumes that everything has a cause. Something that doesn’t sit well with the concept of brute fact or the suggestion the universe doesn’t have a cause.

[jeremyp]

Infinite regression self evident?

Good try, but check back through the conversation. It's not the infinite regression that is self evident but something else.

Infinite regression suffers from what is known as explanatory failure namely it doesn’t actually answer the question.

Yes it does. It's just as explanatory as the magical being that you postulate and it doesn't require special pleading.

It assumes that everything has a cause. Something that doesn’t sit well with the concept of brute fact

That's funny. It is you who was claiming that everything (except your specially pled magical being) does have a cause.

or the suggestion the universe doesn’t have a cause.

It's true that, if the Universe doesn't have a cause, there's no need for an infinite regress. But that's OK with me, because there's also no need for the specially pled magical being.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Good try, but check back through the conversation. It's not the infinite regression that is self evident but something else.
Yes it does. It's just as explanatory as the magical being that you postulate and it doesn't require special pleading.
That's funny. It is you who was claiming that everything (except your specially pled magical being) does have a cause.

That obviously then isn’t everything is it Jeremy?

It's true that, if the Universe doesn't have a cause, there's no need for an infinite regress. But that's OK with me, because there's also no need for the specially pled magical being.

How are you defining universe here Jeremy? Contingent things? The sum of contingent things? Contingent things plus a special quality/ tu ne sais pas?

[jeremyp]

That obviously then isn’t everything is it Jeremy?

Can't you read?

How are you defining universe here Jeremy? Contingent things? The sum of contingent things? Contingent things plus a special quality/ tu ne sais pas?

I suggest you get a good dictionary if you don't know what the Universe is.

[Outrider]

Physical infinities and infinite regresses which don't actually answer the problem offered as an answer to the problem plausible? I'm afraid we will have to differ on that

An assertion and declining to make an argumment; I'll accept that as a concession.

But that isn't my argument Outrider. MY argument is it is contingent because it is a composite and would be whether it's parts were contingent or necessary.

So by the same argument your Christian God, comprising of three components, is a composite and must be contingent as well, no?

 

By definition the universe the universe is not contingent? If it is composed of stuff and not a single substance then it is definitionally a contingent

Why? That something can be broken down does mean that it is contingent upon those things.

What are you trying to say? The universe is not contingent things?

The universe may well be full of contingent things, but the thing upon which they are contingent could be the universe itself. Your presumption is that the universe is made up of things upon which it is contingent, but the universe could be the source of those things, the relationship could operate the other way round.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why? That something can be broken down does mean that it is contingent upon those things.

But without those components could the thing actually exist? God cannot be broken down, and the necessary entity cannot be broken down.

The universe may well be full of contingent things, but the thing upon which they are contingent could be the universe itself.

If you are saying that contingent things are contingent on something else then we agree. Questions arise though why you call this thing the universe. Surely contingent things are part of the universe. Since nothing is contingent on itself i.e. it is contingent on something else or exists necessarily then in order not to fall into absurdity you would have to propose a non contingent entity from which all contingent things arose

Your presumption is that the universe is made up of things upon which it is contingent, but the universe could be the source of those things, the relationship could operate the other way round.

Again to avoid absurdity we must avoid circular contingency. Here you seem to be suggesting that there is a separate entity from which contingent things arise and I have no beef with that

[jeremyp]

But without those components could the thing actually exist?

Without the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, could God exist?

God cannot be broken down

The Christian god can. You break it down into three parts all the time.

and the necessary entity cannot be broken down.

Why not?

If you are saying that contingent things are contingent on something else then we agree. Questions arise though why you call this thing the universe. Surely contingent things are part of the universe. Since nothing is contingent on itself i.e. it is contingent on something else or exists necessarily then in order not to fall into absurdity you would have to propose a non contingent entity from which all contingent things aroseAgain to avoid absurdity we must avoid circular contingency. Here you seem to be suggesting that there is a separate entity from which contingent things arise and I have no beef with that

Why do you describe a circular contingency as absurd?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Without the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, could God exist?

Without Ice, steam and water could H2O exist?

The Christian god can. You break it down into three parts all the time.

I break H2O down into 3 states all the time as I do with God

Why do you describe a circular contingency as absurd?

Because something existing before it exists is pretty absurd. And something that only exists because it exists isn’t contingency.

[Outrider]

But without those components could the thing actually exist?

In the example of the universe - possibly. A universe empty of matter and energy could possibly exist.

God cannot be broken down, and the necessary entity cannot be broken down.

Jeremy beat me to it, but the paradoxical nature of the Trinity suggests that the Christian conventional view is that God can, and often is, broken down. You counter with the notion:

Without Ice, steam and water could H2O exist?

Notwithstanding the sophistry of things like other states of matter, the point is that water is broken down and some of it can be ice whilst some of it is steam and other bits are liquid. For a period, if you accept Christian dogma, part of 'god' was manifest on Earth as a physical human being ('The Son') - if that was the whole of God, was there no 'Holy Ghost' or 'Father' at that time, or can God be broken down?

Surely contingent things are part of the universe.

Maybe, maybe not. Contingency requires time, but time as we understand came into being with the universe, so the whole concept of the universe being contingent or otherwise may be nonsensical. Given how time appears to work, existence is a four-dimensional array, and whilst within the universe we can assess an idea of contingency as a description of the shape of the universe at a given point, the universe is the whole of space-time - time itself is one of those components of the universe, and therefore contingency of the universe itself is at best complicated, and at worst meaningless.

Since nothing is contingent on itself i.e. it is contingent on something else or exists necessarily then in order not to fall into absurdity you would have to propose a non contingent entity from which all contingent things arose

Again, no. I'm still awaiting any sort of rational explanation for why an infinite regress is problematic.

Again to avoid absurdity we must avoid circular contingency. Here you seem to be suggesting that there is a separate entity from which contingent things arise and I have no beef with that

To be clear, I don't see that an 'unmoved mover' is necessary, but given that you've posited one I'm highlighting possibilities that seem to call your assumptions into question.

O.