Re: First Causes

From: Paul Victor Birke (nonlinear_at_rogers.com)
Date: 09/11/04 

Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:47:32 GMT

OK Lester, slowly absorbing your comments!

thanks

Paul

PS If I could just say you are arguing that a change is by definition a
difference and the first change as it were must therefore be a delta or
difference in its essential form. If this too crude a summary?

Paul

Lester Zick wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 13:36:10 GMT, Paul Victor Birke
> <nonlinear@rogers.com> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
>
>>Dear Alex
>>
>>Is not one of the >>theories of time<< that in fact everything exists
>>in some kind of >>now<<. In the >>now<< mix of everything you could
>>theorectically have the negation I suppose.
>>
>>Paul (Engineer)
>
>
> Hi Paul
>
> There seems to be something of a common misunderstanding here; so, I'm
> enclosing part of my reply to Alex here to see if we can clear it up.
>
> ----------------
>
> There seems to be a misconception here. It sounds to me like you are
> considering first causes in historical terms where I intended it more
> in the sense of omnipresent. Evolution is certainly considered an
> omnipresent cause as would be a prime mover unmoved or the god of
> classic religions.
>
> There is no first cause in historical terms. This is the chicken and
> egg problem I mention in my first reply to your post. Causes and
> consequences are always mixed up with one another in an ongoing
> sequence of interactions. Religion normally and science occasionally
> project original causes like creation or the big bang, but these are
> highly speculative and largely problematic in my estimation.
>
> A first cause in the sense of omnipresence is simply a mechanical
> reductio used as the driving cause of everything; and differences,
> negation, contradicition, not, etc. certainly fill that role. It isn't
> that there are no antecedent things between which differences exist.
> It's more that without differences no interactions are possible.
>
> Now, having cleared up the issue of historical versus omnipresent
> causation, you can still reasonably ask whether things or differences
> take precedence. This problem can be resolved by demonstration and
> proof. There is no thing or group or collection of things which can be
> proven universally the cause of differences, but differences can be
> proven universally the cause of all things.
>
> The proof is straightforward and simple. We just consider the nature
> of alternatives to differences. For the simplest case, let's consider
> that everything is the result of P "not" in the sense of negation or
> differences. Then alternatives to P "not" are cast in the inherently
> self contradictory form of Q "not not". And self contradiction is the
> cause of nothing.
>
> The same is true if we consider P "differences" or P "contradiction"
> as the omnipresent cause of everything. In either case Q "different
> from differences" or Q "contradiction of contradiction" is inherently
> self contradictory and P "differences" or P "contradiction" is proven
> the universal cause of everything, and no thing or things can be
> proven the universal cause of differences for the simple reason that
> there are always non self contradictory alternatives to every thing.
>
> The reason this is important is that identifying differences in the
> sense of contradiction or negation as the omnipresent cause of
> everything allows us to identify the categories which things can be in
> terms of the compounding of differences in terms of one another. For
> example, without going into a lot of explanatory rationale, I consider
> things defined in terms of one level differences to be material in
> nature and things defined in terms of compound levels of differences
> to be sentient in nature.
>
> What I'd like to stress here is that I'm not dealing in mere hyperbole
> and supposition. If there is some demonstrably universally omnipresent
> or first cause for everything, it can only be demonstrable through the
> universally self contradictory nature of alternatives. Which means in
> turn that any universally demonstrable first cause of everything
> itself must entail contradiction and cannot just entail any thing
> defined in terms of contradiction or differences.
>
> Regards - Lester

Relevant Pages

  • Re: First Causes
    ... On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:47:32 GMT, Paul Victor Birke ... of contradiction, negation, and not are the foundation of everything ... >> in the sense of omnipresent. ... We just consider the nature ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: First Causes
    ... on some moderated groups they will not allow ... > in the sense of omnipresent. ... > there are always non self contradictory alternatives to every thing. ... If the contradiction of P is all those things that are not P then the ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: First Causes
    ... >> difference in the sense of contradiction, negation, or not. ... in the sense of omnipresent. ... self contradictory form of Q "not not". ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: First Causes
    ... in the sense of omnipresent. ... negation, contradicition, not, etc. certainly fill that role. ... self contradictory form of Q "not not". ... from differences" or Q "contradiction of contradiction" is inherently ...
    (sci.cognitive)