Uncaused cause=Pantheism

[STT]

What part of it doesn’t make sense?

To me only the knowledge of options is required for a free decision. Of course each option is related to an end but that doesn’t mean that a decision is free always. A decision could be rational, you like vanilla ice cream and hate chocolate one, so you rationally choose vanilla one. That doesn’t mean that you cannot choose chocolate ice cream considering the fact that you are free.

STT:

Wesrock:

The error seems to be in trying to define free will as being “free from causes,” but that’s really not what anyone means by free will at all. We just mean that the decisions stem from intrinsic principles in us and we’re not moved about like puppets by gods or cosmological objects.

Free will of course depend on existence of options but it is free from cause. We in fact create a chain of causality when we decide freely.

It cannot be free from cause, otherwise it would not be . The hangup may be in the conception that the principle of causality states “B follows from A necessarily.” We deny that notion of causality, at least, we deny that it is descriptive of all cause and effect.
[/quote]

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

What part of it doesn’t make sense?

To me only the knowledge of options is required for a free decision. Of course each option is related to an end but that doesn’t mean that a decision is free always. A decision could be rational, you like vanilla ice cream and hate chocolate one, so you rationally choose vanilla one. That doesn’t mean that you cannot choose chocolate ice cream considering the fact that you are free.

Okay. That doesn’t explain what you found confusing about my other post, though, and in fact remains consistent with my other post.

 

[STT]

You are indicating mental perception as hallucination. However scientists have found that the brain is reflects what we are feeling, even if it is not what really happened. And our sensory apparatus does not have the acuity to directly detect the underlying laws of physics. However the laws of physics which operate are the illusion and this is real, i.e., it is a real illusion. Since God is the prime mover, all laws of physics are secondary causes.

What I am trying to say is that a hallucination cannot have free will.

 

[STT]

We could consider E to be A and B’s acts of existence. Or the actualization of a potential in general.

If neither A nor B are capable of explaining their own existence they’re incapable of explaining the other’s existence.

That is derived from the principle that you have accepted: Something which very existence depends on something else can cause the existence of something else. Moreover E is caused by A if I understand you correctly.

Both A and B have E derivatively, and E does not originate in either A or B. Therefore, E must originate from something else.

If E is act of existence for B then it is caused by A.

A and B are parts of system C. C has E but only in a derivative way. From what does C derive E?

From A.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

We could consider E to be A and B’s acts of existence. Or the actualization of a potential in general.

If neither A nor B are capable of explaining their own existence they’re incapable of explaining the other’s existence.

That is derived from the principle that you have accepted: Something which very existence depends on something else can cause the existence of something else. Moreover E is caused by A if I understand you correctly.

Both A and B have E derivatively, and E does not originate in either A or B. Therefore, E must originate from something else.

If E is act of existence for B then it is caused by A.

A and B are parts of system C. C has E but only in a derivative way. From what does C derive E?

From A.

No, it can’t be from A, at least not in its origin, as A does not have it in an underived fashion, meaning A got it from simething external to itself. And it can’t be from B, as B does not have it in an underived fashion, either.

I edited my last post to include an analogy example. I will copy it here.

Adam and Bob cannot print their own money. Each can only receive it from someone else. Adam gives Bob $20. Adam is able to give Bob $20 because he is given $20 by Bob. Bob is able to give Adam $20 because he is given $20 by Adam. Adam is able to give Bob $20 because he is given $20 by Bob. Bob is able to give Adam $20 because he is given $20 by Adam. None of this explains why Adam and Bob have $20 to begin with, or the origin of the $20 between them, even if I were to write it out an infinite number of times, since neither inherently had $20.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Umm… ok, then…?

So we are illusion.

Wait – I had objected that your proof was incomplete and needed to be fleshed out, and that’s the fleshing out you give? “we are an illusion”???

C’mon @STT… you can do better than that!

(Incidentally, my original example already rebutted this claim: the light that’s created when I ‘sustain’ the system is real, isn’t it? Even though it goes away if I cease sustaining the system, the light that had existed was real, not illusory!

 

[STT]

No, it can’t be from A, at least not in its origin, as A does not have it in an underived fashion, meaning A got it from simething external to itself. And it can’t be from B, as B does not have it in an underived fashion, either.

Could we agree on this: Something which very existence depends on something else can cause the existence of something else.

Adam and Bob cannot print their own money. Each can only receive it from someone else. Adam gives Bob $20. Adam is able to give Bob $20 because he is given $20 by Bob. Bob is able to give Adam $20 because he is given $20 by Adam. Adam is able to give Bob $20 because he is given $20 by Bob. Bob is able to give Adam $20 because he is given $20 by Adam. None of this explains why Adam and Bob have $20 to begin with, or the origin of the $20 between them, even if I were to write it out an infinite number of times, since neither inherently had $20.

There no beginning for such a system.

 

[STT]

Wait – I had objected that your proof was incomplete and needed to be fleshed out, and that’s the fleshing out you give? “we are an illusion”???

Do we vanish if God doesn’t sustain us? Yes. Therefore we are illusion.

C’mon @STT… you can do better than that!

C’mon @Gorgias… you can do better than that!

(Incidentally, my original example already rebutted this claim: the light that’s created when I ‘sustain’ the system is real , isn’t it? Even though it goes away if I cease sustaining the system, the light that had existed was real , not illusory !

The light doesn’t have any existence separate from you.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

No, it can’t be from A, at least not in its origin, as A does not have it in an underived fashion, meaning A got it from simething external to itself. And it can’t be from B, as B does not have it in an underived fashion, either.

Could we agree on this: Something which very existence depends on something else can cause the existence of something else.

In a sense, yes. A water molecule is dependent on the hydrogen and oxygen atoms for existence, but both the hydrogen and oxygen atoms are themselves dependent on their respective protons, neutrons, and electrons.

Wesrock:

Adam and Bob cannot print their own money. Each can only receive it from someone else. Adam gives Bob $20. Adam is able to give Bob $20 because he is given $20 by Bob. Bob is able to give Adam $20 because he is given $20 by Adam. Adam is able to give Bob $20 because he is given $20 by Bob. Bob is able to give Adam $20 because he is given $20 by Adam. None of this explains why Adam and Bob have $20 to begin with, or the origin of the $20 between them, even if I were to write it out an infinite number of times, since neither inherently had $20.

There no beginning for such a system.

Whether or not there is a beginning is irrelevant.

 

[Wesrock]

Gorgias:

Wait – I had objected that your proof was incomplete and needed to be fleshed out, and that’s the fleshing out you give? “we are an illusion”???

Do we vanish if God doesn’t sustain us? Yes. Therefore we are illusion.

What makes that an illusion?

 

[mrsdizzyd]

mrsdizzyd:

You are making a distinction without a difference. You are still talking about voluntary intrinsic acts based on reason. It’s still using reason to achieve a particular end. We could not use our reason in pursuit of a particular end unless we were free to do so.

I am saying that there are two type of decisions, rational and free. Rational is when the weight of options are different so we naturally pick up the option with higher weight. Free is when the weight of option are equal.

And, you are still making a distinction without a difference. Rational is not different from free. To talk of weighting some thing is only to talk about a process that remains governed by free choice.

We still had to use our reason to assign it a weight. This process is still motivated by free choice. Once a weight is assigned we can still choose the option with less weight if we want to. Again, free choice.

There is nothing within us that requires us to choose the most reasonable option. We always remain free to choose.

 

[STT]

Whether or not there is a beginning is irrelevant.

It is not. The question where the money comes from becomes irrelevant if system has not a beginning since money has been always there.

 

[STT]

What makes that an illusion?

The very fact that we vanishes if God doesn’t sustain us.

 

[STT]

And, you are still making a distinction without a difference. Rational is not different from free. To talk of weighting some thing is only to talk about a process that remains governed by free choice.

Of course rational decision is different from free one. I already illustrate the difference. In rational decision you choose the option with higher weight whereas in free decision the weight of options are equal.

We still had to use our reason to assign it a weight. This process is still motivated by free choice. Once a weight is assigned we can still choose the option with less weight if we want to. Again, free choice.

Yes, you can choose the option which has less weight first. Why? Because you want it. The fact that you want it change the situation.

There is nothing within us that requires us to choose the most reasonable option.

Yes, but we do this most of the times.

We always remain free to choose.

Yes, if there is anything such as free will.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Whether or not there is a beginning is irrelevant.

It is not. The question where the money comes from becomes irrelevant if system has not a beginning since money has been always there.

This is wrong for two reasons. Let’s leave the analogy of the money behind.

If neither A nor B have any intrinsic cause to exist (if they do not possess E intrinsically and in an underived way), and B has E only insofar as it derives it from A, and A has E only only insofar as it derives it from B, there’s no explanation for the system (or A or B individually) having E unless there is some other external cause imparting E to the system at each and every moment. A and B form system C, so it can simply be said that you’re proposing system C, which can only have E in a derivative way, has E. But from where?

This inquiry is not a question of when the system began. The system could have existed for infinite time. It’s a question of why C (the system of A and B) has E here and now if it does not have E in an underived way. E is not something that was given once sometime in the past, it’s something that is derived continuously at any given moment.

Another approach is that given the system A and B, why do we have A and B instead of A and T or even X and Y? There must be come cause for the arrangement of A and B instead of anything else, for A and B could not pre-exist themselves to determine themselves to such a state.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

What makes that an illusion?

The very fact that we vanishes if God doesn’t sustain us.

Okay. But why does that make us an illusion?

 

[Wesrock]

I would not make a distinction between “rational” and “free.” I’d make the distinction between necessary and contingent.

Necessary is a case where “B follows A necessarily.”

Contingent is a case where “Y follows X, but not necessarily.” X does not always produce Y.

Furthermore, we can make a further distinction between voluntary and involuntary, where involuntary is when Y does not knowledgeably move itself by intrinsic principles towards ends and voluntary where Y does knowledgeably move itself by intrinsic principles towards ends.

 

[STT]

This is wrong for two reasons. Let’s leave the analogy of the money behind.

If neither A nor B have any intrinsic cause to exist (if they do not possess E intrinsically and in an underived way), and B has E only insofar as it derives it from A, and A has E only only insofar as it derives it from B, there’s no explanation for the system (or A or B individually) having E unless there is some other external cause imparting E to the system at each and every moment. A and B form system C, so it can simply be said that you’re proposing system C, which can only have E in a derivative way, has E. But from where?

This inquiry is not a question of when the system began. The system could have existed for infinite time. It’s a question of why C (the system of A and B) has E here and now if it does not have E in an underived way. E is not something that was given once sometime in the past, it’s something that is derived continuously at any given moment.

There is no explanation needed for where E comes from if system does not have any beginning, in another words, its origin is minus infinity.

Another approach is that given the system A and B, why do we have A and B instead of A and T or even X and Y? There must be come cause for the arrangement of A and B instead of anything else, for A and B could not pre-exist themselves to determine themselves to such a state.

You can of course have another combination. Think of universe as a part support the existence of another part, etc.

 

[STT]

Okay. But why does that make us an illusion?

I am sincerely sorry but I already answered that. Perhaps I don’t understand what you are looking for. To me a thing which is sustained by another thing is an illusion by definition. You could have something which doesn’t need a sustainer which I call it real.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

This is wrong for two reasons. Let’s leave the analogy of the money behind.

If neither A nor B have any intrinsic cause to exist (if they do not possess E intrinsically and in an underived way), and B has E only insofar as it derives it from A, and A has E only only insofar as it derives it from B, there’s no explanation for the system (or A or B individually) having E unless there is some other external cause imparting E to the system at each and every moment. A and B form system C, so it can simply be said that you’re proposing system C, which can only have E in a derivative way, has E. But from where?

This inquiry is not a question of when the system began. The system could have existed for infinite time. It’s a question of why C (the system of A and B) has E here and now if it does not have E in an underived way. E is not something that was given once sometime in the past or if it was always thete, it’s something that is derived continuously at any given moment.

There is no explanation needed for where E comes from if system does not have any beginning, in another words, its origin is minus infinity.

No, it’s not a matter of origin at some point in the past. It’s from where it’s derived in any given moment. If I hang a chain of links from a ceiling and then cut the chain in the middle, the bottom half will fall. It doesn’t matter whether it was hung up at some distant origin in the past or if it was always there, it matters that it has no innate, underived ability on its own to hang here and now. Likewise, it doesn’t matter if A and B started to exist at some point in the past, neither has an innate, underived ability to actualize its own existence in the here and now.

I should clarify that this is not about being perfectly simultaneous, but of these causes in such an hierarchical series being instrumental causes, and the causal chain we are looking at is one in which the actualization of a potential remains derivative.

Wesrock:

Another approach is that given the system A and B, why do we have A and B instead of A and T or even X and Y? There must be come cause for the arrangement of A and B instead of anything else, for A and B could not pre-exist themselves to determine themselves to such a state.

You can of course have another combination. Think of universe as a part support the existence of another part, etc.

Yes, but what causes it to be A and B instead of X and Y or something else? What factors determine it to be this system instead of some other system?