Causal Determinism -Where has the begining gone?

[everymansmedium]

Hello friends:
Causal determinism is at the heart of all of our sciences.

Don't you find it very odd that no beginning can be found?
Who wrote these ideas originally?
What was the propose of this writing?

Don't you find it odd that there is no history?

Did the dilemma of free will erase all that led up to this
dilemma?

Here then is the story of cause and effect,
yet it has no cause.

So then it must be the only effect that has no cause.
Look and see. There is nothing.
I hope to be proved wrong.

John.

[everymansmedium]

This very same post will be put on every site that I can find.

So far:

I could hear a pin drop!

John

[Mohan.C]

Hello friends:
Causal determinism is at the heart of all of our sciences.

Don't you find it very odd that no beginning can be found?
Who wrote these ideas originally?
What was the propose of this writing?

Don't you find it odd that there is no history?

Did the dilemma of free will erase all that led up to this
dilemma?

Here then is the story of cause and effect,
yet it has no cause.

So then it must be the only effect that has no cause.
Look and see. There is nothing.
I hope to be proved wrong.

John.

And I hope, I could prove you wrong...

History is chronological, it began when time began...
But, when did time begin, it began with the first motion...
And what was the cause of the first motion?
Imbalance, probably...
Imbalance of what?
Energy, perhaps...
What is energy?
capacity to do work... lol ...(that's what we are taught in school)
And I think it does hold good...
Capacity is potential...
And how was there a potential?
Because there was nothing...
If there was nothing, and nothing is the potential, then how could there be an imbalance?
If there was no imbalance how could there be motion?
Then how did time originate?
Without time how is there history...

Sorry, the questions became cyclic...
In short, I've failed to answer your question!!!

I'll try again later, if I've not already given the answer.

[everymansmedium]

And I hope, I could prove you wrong...

History is chronological, it began when time began...
But, when did time begin, it began with the first motion...
And what was the cause of the first motion?
Imbalance, probably...
Imbalance of what?
Energy, perhaps...
What is energy?
capacity to do work... lol ...(that's what we are taught in school)
And I think it does hold good...
Capacity is potential...
And how was there a potential?
Because there was nothing...
If there was nothing, and nothing is the potential, then how could there be an imbalance?
If there was no imbalance how could there be motion?
Then how did time originate?
Without time how is there history...

Sorry, the questions became cyclic...
In short, I've failed to answer your question!!!

I'll try again later, if I've not already given the answer.

Hello Mohan:
First let me thank you for your participation here. To explain further what I am looking for.
I understand that this concept began by association to works done by Sir Isaac Newton.

I also understand the dilemma of free will, Likely more than most as it is at the heart of my TOE that has been ongoing for almost 40 years.

What is missing here is the Philosophical interpretation of the cause and effect as first indicated by Sir Isaac Newton
(I was going to use his initials but decided against that)
This description was a non mathematical description of cause and effect up to the dilemma of free will.

There is a great gap in our knowledge between Sir Isaac Newton and the multitude of writing on the dilemma of free will.

There is a Formal Philosophical Interpretation of what was initially touched upon by Sir Isaac Newton.

This is what is missing. Who did it? When was it done? Where can it be found?

The dilemma of free will is not properly described with out this document.

John

[Mohan.C]

Hello Mohan:
First let me thank you for your participation here. To explain further what I am looking for.
I understand that this concept began by association to works done by Sir Isaac Newton.

I also understand the dilemma of free will, Likely more than most as it is at the heart of my TOE that has been ongoing for almost 40 years.

What is missing here is the Philosophical interpretation of the cause and effect as first indicated by Sir Isaac Newton
(I was going to use his initials but decided against that)
This description was a non mathematical description of cause and effect up to the dilemma of free will.

There is a great gap in our knowledge between Sir Isaac Newton and the multitude of writing on the dilemma of free will.

There is a Formal Philosophical Interpretation of what was initially touched upon by Sir Isaac Newton.

This is what is missing. Who did it? When was it done? Where can it be found?

The dilemma of free will is not properly described with out this document.

John

I'll give my interpretation,
I think the questions we are asking are the wrong ones,
Because who, when and where means there should be existence before we ask them.
When dictates the existence of time,
Where dictates the existence of space,
and who dictates the existence of a person(power)...
Then how can these questions be asked for a 'before existence' scenario?

[Mohan.C]

The answer usually would be a 'higher power', but since I don't believe in that, I am answering this way. I hope you don't mind.

[austintorn@aol.com]

The Only Cause That Needs None Before

The first cause could not be of Mind Aware—
The complex composite’s parts precede.
So, think no more of things before the things,
But before existence and physical law.

All was open; everything was lawless,
Timeless, and formless; “nothing” could not prevail,
So, what needs no cause? Possibility;
For possibility needs but itself.

[analog]

Hello John,

I generally don't discuss such aspects of my paradigm as this due to the confusing nature of such conversations. A person would have to be very in tune to such a paradigm to make much sense of it, but I'll give it a shot being as I feel this pertains to what you're asking.

Give everything (even the abstract concepts of thought, emotion, life, etc.) a physical definition as internal constituent components of a physical substance merely interacting (as we have done with the rest of nature such as our planets, atoms, molecules, stars, etc.), and we find ourselves back to Newton's world, whereby our reality is understood in terms of universal evolution of a physical substance. Thus, emergence is nothing more than evolution at work at a more fundamental scale, whereby nothing truly emerges without cause, but all is evolved. We understand the motions of solar systems and such in terms of gravity and relativity, but the motions of life are what causes the confusion, as they appear to have no underlying cause, and thoughts are often considered emergent properties as the cause which has the effects of our motions, but with apparently no cause of their own. This merely represents our lack of understanding for what thoughts are in a physically interacting world rather than evidence of "free will".

At this point, you must go into the mechanics of such a substance whereby the universal entropy of evolution is established and the four acknowledged forces of science find there general unification. After which, we may find that the measurements of force and work we observe are merely pseudo forces of a more fundamental interaction as the entire volume moves as a whole. IMHO, it is at this point that we find that we merely have substance, motion, direction, and rate of change, as the apparent creation of a universe can be witnessed merely as an elastic collision whereby momentum is conserved and direction is established. We have thus taken Newton's work and not only acknowledged the conservation of energy and momentum, but have gone further to discover the mechanics of how this takes place in relation to the internal interactions of a substance in absolute motion, and the structures and resolutions that evolve and seemingly emerge to accomplish such.

Cause and effect are theoretically maintained throughout, but due to the limitations of our instruments and measurements, the quantum realm, as described by Quantum Mechanics, still appears 'uncertain', which implies that it has no causality. Only by our discovery of an ever present symmetry throughout will we ever be able to go past the limitations of our scientific measurements and observations whereby our final theory may be based on philosophy, but most importantly a scientific philosophy based on the discoveries we've made with our scientific methodology of measurment, observation and experimentation.

Infinity and eternity become more complex, but can be glimpsed at using this paradigm, whereby the macro motions are solved throughout the varying interactions of micro resolutions in an apparent finite time, but there will merely always be a resolution in motion for eternity due to the infinite scale to which these interactions resonate. We are merely currently within one macro resolution relative to us (i.e. our universe or place within eternity) as we hold witness to our micro quantum realm conserving energy and momentum at our little moment of infinity. Their interactions whereby they must conserve energy and momentum due to their autonomous nature could also require further internal mechanics, whereby they become the universe to an ever smaller scale, and our universe could find itself as being the quantum realm to an ever larger scale. We only have to acknowledge motion at some resolution for all time, to acknowledge infinity and eternity, along with a fundamental substance with the properties that define our observations, that has always been and has not the option to not be.

My point here is that, in my honest opinion, physical mechanics can account for everything we have currently defined and know as reality with absolute determinism throughout, but our inability to interact at the more fundamental quantum resolutions does imply uncertainty relative to us and our ability to know, but not relative to the absolute physically interacting world around us. It's our position within that causes the confusion as the 'observer' needs to be better understood in modern science before it makes many more advances towards a ToE.

Hope I haven't caused too much confusion.

later,

Tim

[austintorn@aol.com]

The option not to be is unavailable,
Since all is here versus not here at all.
That is the cause, the why of existence;
“How” is potential possibility.

[Graybeard]

This description was a non mathematical description of cause and effect up to the dilemma of free will.

There is a Formal Philosophical Interpretation of what was initially touched upon by Sir Isaac Newton.

This is what is missing. Who did it? When was it done? Where can it be found?

John ... are you saying this document exists and are you asking us to name it ??

cool bananas ... greg