Lilwabbit

Cripes!  I turn my back for a second and there's five yards of post to catch up on.  I'll do that later.  Meanwhile -

1.

Hatcher says self-creation is B → B (B is the cause of B).

In other words, B^LHS starts to exist instantaneously (in the identical durationless point in time) with its effect B^RHS.  Thus (says the statement) an uncaused B (B^LHS) then causes itself (B^RSH). 

However, once you have B^LHS, there's nothing left to do, because B^LHS ≡ B^RSH.

So the correct statement is, B is uncaused, no?

2.

In A → B, must the cause exist earlier in time than the effect?

If the cause and the effect can be simultaneous, how do we tell -

(a) that a cause-and-effect occurrence happened at all, and

(b) which element is the cause and which is the effect?

Howdy Blü,

Great to have you back.

Oct 3, 2011 -- 7:30AM, Blü wrote:

Lilwabbit

Cripes!  I turn my back for a second and there's five yards of post to catch up on.  I'll do that later.

I think some of your points were already addressed in the five yards of post that you need to scramble through. :)

Oct 3, 2011 -- 7:30AM, Blü wrote:

Hatcher says self-creation is B → B (B is the cause of B).

Correct, but he only identifies one entity G (member of V) that is necessarily self-caused and explains why its logically impossible for there to be others, provided we accept his premises.

Oct 3, 2011 -- 7:30AM, Blü wrote:

In other words, B^LHS starts to exist in the identical durationless point in time as its effect B^RHS.  Thus (says the statement) an uncaused B (B^LHS) then causes itself (B^RSH). 

However, once you have B^LHS, there's nothing left to do, because B^LHS ≡ B^RSH.

So the correct statement is, B is uncaused, no?

You are still mixing the predicate of time into Hatcher's concept of causation which is more generic than that. There is no "point in time" at which G "starts" to exist as G is regarded as the very cause of time along with all the other phenomena within V. G precedes time, causally. In the words of another philosopher, there are two kinds of pre-existence: pre-existence in time and essential pre-existence. G represents essential pre-existence. So do the physical laws in relation to the phenomena they affect. Hatcher's schematic (in his own words) is consistent with almost any kind of imaginable universe, including a universe consisting of an infinitely descending chain of events in time. There need not be a first cause of a linear causal chain for there to be a first cause of the entire causal chain, infinite though such a chain may be. In the words of Bahá'u'lláh himself (the founder of the Bahá'í Faith to which both Hatcher and I belong):

"Creation has neither beginning nor end, and none hath ever unravelled its mystery.... The world of existence is contingent, inasmuch as it is preceded by a cause, while essential pre-existence hath ever been, and shall remain, confined to God, magnified be His glory. This statement is being made lest one be inclined to conclude from the earlier assertion, namely that creation hath no beginning and no end, that it is pre-existent. True and essential pre-existence is exclusively reserved to God, while the pre-existence of the world is secondary and relative." (revealed in Arabic in the year 1858, "Tabernacle of Unity")

In other words, Bahá'u'lláh anticipates the intellectual confusion that arises when the universe is regarded as beginningless while still preceded by a First Cause, God. He explains both assertions to be true and, indeed, logically the simultaneity of both assertions is unproblematic if a hierarchy of existence (levels of existence) is postulated. A hierarchy of existence is logically implicit in Hatcher's proof since V (all existing entities) would have to consist of time and space among the entities caused by G. Hence, G is independent of time while time is dependent on G. The Bahá'í position sharply disagrees with the Christian position of a creation ex nihilo in time. The universe has always existed and will always exist. Yet, it is created. In the Bahá'í theology God is the unknowable absolute that transcends all human concepts, even the most extraordinary ones such as "infinity" or "eternity" which are ultimately mere projections of human imagination. All of these are mere created attributes, mere mental imageries. Bahá'u'lláh asserts that even the notion of God's "eternity" does not describe God positively but represents a mere "creation" for us humans to imagine His greatness, no matter how inadequately:

"O Son of Man! My eternity is My creation, I have created it for thee." (Arabic Hidden Words)

Indeed, if God be ever accepted by an atheist, the only logical and meaningful concept of God is something along these lines. By stating this I am not assuming anyone to accept it.

With kind regards,

LilWabbit

Lilwabbit

There is no "point in time" at which G "starts" to exist as G is regarded as the very cause of time along with all the other phenomena within V. G precedes time, causally.

If time didn't exist in whatever place or state G was existing in, then G couldn't change - and unless G changed, G couldn't cause anything, no?

Hatcher says his argument should be acceptable to materialists, as I understand it, so the views of Bahá'u'lláh, however otherwise estimable, don't really cut it here. 

So how does Hatcher explain change without time, and how does he know?

Have you also dealt with point 2? -

In A → B, must the cause exist earlier in time than the effect?

If the cause and the effect can be simultaneous, how do we tell -

(a) that a cause-and-effect occurrence happened at all, and

(b) which element is the cause and which is the effect?

Grateful if you can refer me to the answer.


And if you answered the earlier question about the nature of G, given that G is physical but can't be a system, grateful if you can refer me to that answer too.

Oct 3, 2011 -- 3:50AM, Lilwabbit wrote:

Owing to the reasons explained in the foregoing, I will now restrict all further responses to the select few posters that have proven their understanding of Hatcher's language, and to comments on the substance that, in my view, have not been properly addressed as yet. I hope nobody will take this personally. My intention is only to keep the discussion focused and my personal time well-managed.

No worries. Maybe you could be so kind to get back to the rest of us if/when you can express the "proof" in plain words. You wouldn't want to restrict such an important discovery to the elite few, would you?

Oct 3, 2011 -- 11:04AM, redshifted wrote:

No worries. Maybe you could be so kind to get back to the rest of us if/when you can express the "proof" in plain words. You wouldn't want to restrict such an important discovery to the elite few, would you?

I second this request!  Any "proof" of this sort can usefully have a plain worded explanation for the sake of improved communication.  It really should have had this to begin with.

eudaimonia,

Mark