Determinists

The big bang is a cosmological theory that describes the expansion of a universe from a very dense state 14 billion years ago.
There's no mention of a first cause there.

But the conditions of the event caused the matter to spread out at the speed it did, prior to that cause isn't even relevant as cause and effect are rules that resulted from the conditions of the big bang

>prior to that cause isn't even relevant as cause and effect are rules that resulted from the conditions of the big bang
You sure claim a lot of things. There are very different cosmological models for pre big bang physics, but I don't know of any that makes metaphysical claims about "cause and effect". Perhaps you can enlighten me.

Well explain to me how cause even exists prior to time even existing, causality is a factor of time

Determinism btfo

Nobody said that faggot
And newtons laws of causality still have an infinite regression

>prior to time even existing
Not every model requires time to be inexistent before the singularity.

Tfw I'm an actuary

Wait user are you using ad homenims against strangers on the Internet. We have a master debater here

>I'm an actuary
Oh reary?

But some models do, so the argument only works in selective cases, I'm not even a believer of determinism it's just foolish to write it off just 'because'

>But some models do
Well so what? Why are you trying to reach a conclusion based on ignorance?

Besides, even with models implying time starts at the big bang, it doesn't say anything about the causality chain.
Cause and effect can be simultaneous.

But you're trying to reach a conclusion based on ignorance as well, that's my point.

>But you're trying to reach a conclusion based on ignorance as well
I'm not? I didn't make any metaphysical claim about original cause.

You made the claim that there is no original cause, I offered a possible explanation that fits the view. How am I acting on ignorance when there are multiple models which you yourself admit?

>You made the claim that there is no original cause
No, I said the big bang isn't that. It's an expansion of space, not an original cause.

As for models that require time to not exist before the singularity, then it's hard to call the singularity an original cause, because in those models there is nothing AT the singularity, it is causally isolated from everything after it. In those models the start of time isn't like the start of a race track, where you put an arbitrary limit, and there's some road before and some road after. Think of it like the north pole, in a way that asking "what's north of the north pole" is meaningless by logical necessity.

cont
Or since you did study mathematics: in those models time is an open set at t=0.

But that's my problem with what you're saying, you're asking for a cause before cause was a thing. This is my issue with philosophy it's arguing technicalities without proving anything

>you're asking for a cause
I'm not asking for anything man, maybe you're confusing me with OP or something.

What I mean is isn't asking what's north of the north pole basically the same as saying what caused cause which is essentially asking what caused determinism? I'm not trying to make any claims just offer possible explainations, not that I believe any of them.

>What I mean is isn't asking what's north of the north pole basically the same as saying what caused cause which is essentially asking what caused determinism?
Uh no my point was that asking what's north of the north pole is a meaningless sequence of words.

>tfw when determinism is widely accepted in the future and all crimes i commit won't be my fault

dumb frogposters will be the first to die in the revolution

So determinists still btfo

Relying on vague rhetoric and attempting to discredit others through logical fallacies. Sad

Where is your math?

What are you talking about

Determinist fags and free will fags both base their belief off faith ultimately

Sorry you can't see different models of the world without being butt hurt

But quantum physics btfo both anyway regardless

Determinism is ultimately philosophical it is not so much based on faith but logical deductions which can't necessarily be proven.

>no math
ok

Infinite regression is logical?

2+2=4

You happy?

Is that what you learned in actuary school?

Infinite regression means you're talking about countable sets bruv. Care to substantiate that?

Causality which is the basis of determinism assumes you can find a cause and effect for everything

Nigga what????

Wether that everything is a finite number of countable sets or an infinite number.

Determinism is illogical senpai

Physical determinism is about physical values being linked together by systems of equations. Nowhere does it apply there has to be a countable set of causes and consequences.

Cause and consequences are metaphysical notions we use to explain stuff to dummies like you who can't get math.

*tips fedora*

Muh lady

Determinism is logical because???

>determinism relies on physical equations
>determinism doesn't rely on cause and effect
Kek

There is no such thing as cause and effect in the equations of the standard model, especially since, as you claim cause and effect are linked to the arrow of time, while the standard model isn't.

You'd understand all that if you went further in your studies than baby's first Newtonian physics.

>I'm gonna say a bunch of bullshit

Who says the standard model is the argument for determinism

If it's your argument please explain instead of

>muh you are not as well read as me and therefore inferior

What I'm trying to get through your thick skulls that you don't understand what the physical determinism included in physics is and your metaphysics is all retarded.

>muh you are not as well read as me and therefore inferior
One would think understanding physics would be a necessary condition before making a bunch of claims about what physicists believe.

Then explain and explain what you believe

I literally just explained what physical determinism is: physical values linked together by a system of equations.
None of that logically implies the existence of a discrete or even countable set of causes and consequences, without which a phrase such as "infinite regression" doesn't make the slightest amount of sense.

Your still relying on causality though

You are out of the game, that's what you wanted.
I'll spend some of my energy to tell you a few things.
First, you are one adorable monkey to my eyes, a really stupid one, since what you just said is wrong, since you can talk about math using words, one plus one is two, and you can understand nature without understanding math, you drop an apple, it falls and so on :)
a small tiny lecture to you, understand it.

And since you are not in, you don't want to know how to.. for example know how to calculate how to get your dream job? Like I have.. or.. How to be the perfect father?
Those are all states of everything in existence, plausible ones.

And yes, I am aware this is waste of time, like trying to teach algebra to a dog, but to others here who don't get this, be humble, don't attack me, but the theories, we will never be finished, but we can use these for literally anything..

be smart, for once in your life at least.

Sure, but what you mean by causality has virtually nothing to do with what physicists mean.

And they mean?

Is this pasta?

>causality isnt implied by physics
wew

That an event A cannot affect an event B outside its cone of light.

What is pasta?
However, this is not an argument my cute little monkey.
be smart

Okay I wouldn't argue that but that also doesn't discredit the infinite regression that is found in determinism

You still haven't told how you derive the existence of a countable set of cause and effect from the equations of physics.
Please refrain from the using the word "regression" until you do.

Same thing, prove it.

Is the argument of free will the oldest meme?

Prove that causality is a thing?

Can't do that captain.
Are you done claiming you've found logical inconsistencies in physics?

Didnt claim anything here.

Just pointing out that causality is a fundamental principle in physics.

>Didnt claim anything here.
Bullshit, that's literally the whole point of the thread

What? To be clear, this was my first post itt:

Ok, then if you actually mean "causality" as in no it's not presupposed by physics, since nonlocal interpretations exist.
Or, as I suppose, you mean determinism, but the two words aren't interchangeable.

ITT: Nobody understands physics.

I mean causality. It is fucking fundamental. What are you even on about?

Nobody anywhere seems to understand it very well they just have memes

hey guys can we please stop discussing physics this is philosophy mkay thanks

>don'ttalktomeormywifeschildreneveragain.jpg

Causality is defined as Do you mean something else, if so define it.

The other guy ITT seemed to define causality as "there is a countable set of causes and consequences". This is a lesson of common sense, not physics.

Philosophy doesn't prove anything though

U know that's Obama right?

kek first "black" president

The post you quoted seems like a good little summary I guess.
Again, I mean causality (as used in physics).

How can Einsteinian causality be a necessary part of physics when we had physics before even knowing about it?

Because Newtonian physics are good enough to describe everyday life stuff that happens on earth

.... that didn't answer the question at all.
What is causality in Newtonian physics?

It did. Or are you implying the nature of the universe changes just because humanity made a new theory to desribe it?

>infinite space is ok
>infinite time is not
nice double standards

Please answer the question: define causality.

Presupposing something isn't the same thing than concluding it after investigation.
You are wearing my patience thin.

>Newtonian physics
>working outside very limited conditions

I said multiple times, that I mean causality, as in the classic conventional way it is used in physics. I dont have any fancy own definition that is different from how it is described in textbooks. I dont understand why you are so pedantic about this.

In physics, causation is the relation between two process A and B where A is the cause and B is the effect

From nowhere does it follow that "everything has a cause"

Try to follow the argument. How the fuck is Einstenian causality a sine qua non condition of doing physics when we did physics without it?

>I dont have any fancy own definition that is different from how it is described in textbooks.
What the fuck sort of physics textbook are you talking about? Seems like your idea of causality is taken from your everyday common sense, not from your physics lessons. I don't know any textbook definition of causality in physics other than Einstenian causality.

Stop making these threads.

That is all

>we did physics without it
we were doing it wrong, that's why they didn't work outside very limited conditions

Then it means it's a conclusion we arrived at, and not a necessary presupposition of physicists.

What thing is "a conclusion we arrived at"? Physics? Causality (as it's actually defined)? Causality as your made-up definition?

>What thing is "a conclusion we arrived at"?
Einsteinian causality, dumdum.

It does, when you actually think it through and understand the implications.

What the fuck are you talking about? You are strawmanning so hard that I dont even know what imagined definition you are arguing against.

I am pretty sure physics lesson and textbooks nowadays still share the concept that is described here for example:
arxiv.org/abs/0710.0428
philsci-archive.pitt.edu/4690/1/CausalFundam.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)

>arxiv.org/abs/0710.0428
>philsci-archive.pitt.edu/4690/1/CausalFundam.pdf
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)
... this is exactly what I've been arguing faggot. What physicists talk about when they talk about causality has nothing to do with the everyday causality notion of "everything has a cause and consequence", which leads to objections like "muh infinite recursion".

Notice nothing about the causality you are talking about implies any infinite recursion problem.
Also notice how it's not some necessary condition for physics but simply an element of the models.

fag

Great so you believe in free will then

Actually?

Actually read the links. Holy fuck. I am also not saying that it is needed to consider the whole causality to make working models. Do you know many examples of things in the universe that dont have cause and consequence?