I think I understand better where you were coming from now. Your complaint (about how solving the A and B vs. A-and-B issue doesn’t address the infinite regress issue) seems like it’s basically answered by TOD.
Except that you don’t need to substitute in something specific for “anything”, since it’s just the set of all things—including all those possible things he lists. This might be clearer if we said “everything” or “something”?
Talking about “the set of all things” can be quiteproblematic in itself! But brushing abstract set theory paradoxes aside, I think once you pin down “the set of all things” or “everything” or “something” tightly enough, you have effectively substituted in something specific: you’ve given me enough information to discern precisely what you’re asking about, and rendered the question well-posed. At that point TOD’s reply kicks in.
Yeah… dunno if they’re actually arguing that a First Cause must exist, or simply differentially focusing their attention on how to talk about the FC in cases where we somehow-or-other expect it does exist without spending time examining the “chain of turtles”,.
I don’t know about you, but I’ve mostly been thinking about cases where the universe is somehow infinitely old*, with no temporal “first cause” (and thus no bottom turtle, metaphorically speaking.)
Ah, thanks. I’ve already replied to that by now, but we’re still haggling over the details. I assume you were referring to this paragraph?
If I try to answer that question generally, I get “Everything that exists, exists as a consequence of the way everything that existed a moment earlier existed, and all of that stuff existed as a consequence of the way everything existed a moment before that, and so on and so on.” Which is unsatisfyingly general, as expected, but accurate enough. (Or, to quote Lorraine Hansberry: “Things as they are are as they are and have been and will be that way because they got that way because things were as they were in the first place!”)
I think I understand better where you were coming from now. Your complaint (about how solving the A and B vs. A-and-B issue doesn’t address the infinite regress issue) seems like it’s basically answered by TOD.
Talking about “the set of all things” can be quite problematic in itself! But brushing abstract set theory paradoxes aside, I think once you pin down “the set of all things” or “everything” or “something” tightly enough, you have effectively substituted in something specific: you’ve given me enough information to discern precisely what you’re asking about, and rendered the question well-posed. At that point TOD’s reply kicks in.
Sorry, I of course meant the set of all actual things.
I guess I’ll have to reply to that, then.
That link is to a list of all his comments. Could you point me at where he refuted me?
No problem.
Apologies, I meant to link to this specific comment.
Note that MugaSofer replied to that comment.
Indeed, and I think their line of argument is a reformulated cosmological argument. I’m still thinking on it, though.
Yeah… dunno if they’re actually arguing that a First Cause must exist, or simply differentially focusing their attention on how to talk about the FC in cases where we somehow-or-other expect it does exist without spending time examining the “chain of turtles”,.
I don’t know about you, but I’ve mostly been thinking about cases where the universe is somehow infinitely old*, with no temporal “first cause” (and thus no bottom turtle, metaphorically speaking.)
EDIT: *or in a causal loop.
Ah, thanks. I’ve already replied to that by now, but we’re still haggling over the details. I assume you were referring to this paragraph?
That paragraph and the one after it, yeah. But as you say, you’ve already replied to it. I’ll probably post a reply to your reply in a bit.