Greetings, /philosophy/
There can be no solution to the problem of the "prime mover" within our universe. We exist in a causal universe, therefore, nothing in that universe can be the "first" cause because it would violate the definition of our universe as causal.
Correct?
If so, then must we conclude that beyond our universe is a reality that is non-causal? And is it reasonable to assume that a causal universe could be "spawned" from a non-causal reality?
This is the only line of reasoning that solves the problem of the prime mover, in my opinion.
Your image distinguishes between input and output, you should too.
>>7669375
I'm not sure where you need the distinction made, but I'll try... The "prime mover," or the first thing that ever happened in this universe, would have to resemble the right half of the image. Just some output happening on its own, with no input. This universe is not capable of that, as far as we know, right?
>>7669367
the unmoved mover moves without being moved.
aristotle mentions the analogy of someone being loved. the loved one moves the loving one without being moved himself. he (or it) so to speak can't be causal. he just is.
>>7669385
It's an input happening without a prior output.
The input could just be the primordial state of the universe and its properties.
>>7669367
0/10 bait thread.
actually, you can have something that starts randomly without an apparent cause.
one example is a ball sitting on top of a certainly curved dome (i think its x^(3/2) or soemthing) but my googlefu ost strong enough to find it
>>7669665
>aristotle mentions the analogy
... therefore we live in a universe analogous to a causal universe?
>>7669367
there is no logical reason to believe we live in a causal universe. What does it even mean to say we "'spawned' from a non-causal reality? If there is a way universes can form in a non-causal way, then it could have been in the case with our universe and there is no reason to assume there exists another reality (whatever the fuck reality, universe etc are suppose to mean in a clearly non-scientific context)
We live in a universe that has both causal and probabilistic properties.
>>7669367
>>If so, then must we conclude that beyond our universe is a reality that is non-causal?
Why the FUCK must we conclude this?! You JUST said we didn't have to because our universe is causal.
>>7669676
That doesn't work because then you have to ask "where did the primordial state of the universe come from and who chose its properties?" That's the problem.
>>7669367
The universe is cyclical: it doesn't need a prime mover.
>>7669987
Nope.
http://youtu.be/IcxptIJS7kQ?t=38m20s
>>7669977
Mmmm no you don't
>>7669367
Causal is defined as
> 0 for t<0
your picture doesn't really make sense
>>7669676
Reminds me of stochastic resonance.
filthy causal
