I do see that, though I think an understanding of (and reliance on) persistent cause-and-effect is sufficient to see that "First Cause did it". But you seem to think Cause-and-effect is not persistent, pervasive. --I don't know what to say to that except to say that to me it seems the math has taken the minds of the mathematicians past logic to intuition or worse. They seem to illogically equate improbability with impossibility.
But do these not imply both logic and system/principle by which the whole history operates? I ask, what set that principle in place?
I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying.
Your assertion that a 'first cause did it' is opaque and unsubstantiated - and why the capitalisation? it doesn't make the words any more interesting or important.
I've already said that cause and effect appears to be an emergent macro-scale phenomenon, dependent on an arrow of time, which is itself an emergent macro-scale phenomenon.
Your comment about mathematicians is a non-sequitur, and I'd be astonished if
any mathematician would equate improbability with impossibility.
"Brute fact" unless caused, is First Cause. The fact that we don't know what caused Brute Fact does not negate that it was caused, if it is not First Cause.
A brute fact is simply something that has no explanation, that cannot be explained, i.e. it just
is. Whether it can be considered a first cause of anything is moot. Again, the capitalisation is inappropriate (as are the scare quotes).
I admit to much ignorance concerning quantum physics, but I find it ridiculous to say that something is only cause in and of itself, if it is not First Cause.
I don't know what you're saying here. I also find it ridiculous to say that something 'is only cause in and of itself', because it doesn't seem to make sense - and in what way do you think knowledge or ignorance of quantum physics may be relevant?
My statement, "Existence begs explanation", may have been incomplete. But to say that First Cause exists, does not mean that First Cause is subject to our use of the term "existence" --that is, it does not mean that First Cause's existence is of the same sort to which meaning all other things belong. (I'm not meaning to say we totally understand their existence either, but that is beside the point (For all I know, it could be said that existence too is unfalsifiable like logic or math.).) If the existence of First Cause begs explanation, it does not mean it is unexplained, just by definition uncaused . The logical, that is, the philosophical, or maybe better, rhetorical, cause of the existence of First Cause is self-existence (ok, still question-begging). Logically, as I think I have said before, there can be only one first cause, because "multiple first causes" implies an overriding principle applying to all of them (except perhaps one --and to me, that implies that one is First Cause --the rest are not.) If First Cause is subject to a principle from outside itself, it is not first cause (this at least, I hope you can agree with).
I asked you if God exists, not an unspecified first cause. But if there was a first cause, it seems parsimonious to suppose it was the state at the big bang itself, because the big bang started the macro-scale arrow of time in this universe.
As I already described there are plenty of models for the origin of the universe, both temporally finite and temporally infinite that do not involve a beginning of time - in some of which our observable universe is a 'bubble' or 'pocket' universe, so the choice of a 'first cause' depends on the scope you're considering, i.e. there may be multiple arrows of time in the greater universe (multiverse), each of which has a first cause. If you restrict the scope to the arrow of time of our observable universe, the big bang, or whatever caused it, would seem to be it.
My predilection is for a state that is unbounded in time (i.e. temporally infinite) from which our universe emerged, with its own arrow of time - as, possibly, have countless others - but that's just an amusing speculation. What might be considered to be a first cause seems arbitrary in such a model.
I rather imagine your protests to this will draw from Quantum Physics for support --if so, it seems to me incumbent on you to show I have misunderstood the nature of the calculations you mention above, or to say that I categorically don't know what I am talking about concerning Quantum Physics (which granted, may be true) and, perhaps, that it is too much trouble to educate me (which also I grant may be true.)
You admitted to much ignorance of quantum physics, but said nothing about it, and I haven't said anything about it (beyond that we don't claim to have a physical explanation for it), so I have no reason to invoke it, and nothing substantial to invoke it on.
(I'm wondering if you read and enjoyed Douglas Adams as much as I did. This conversation makes me smile again about the spaceship's Infinite Improbability Drive.)
Sure, I read it and enjoyed it as much as the sperm whale above Magrathea.
I don't think we're making progress in this discussion - I'm seeing unsubstantiated assertions, arguments from incredulity, claims of logic without explanation, a lot of apparent word-salad with unexplained capitalisation, you also seem to think I've said things I haven't, and I've asked a few simple questions and received no coherent response. You may have a clear idea of what you're trying to say, but it's not coming across in a form I can make sense of, so I'll stop here.
