I said the law of cause and effect contradicts itself, which is true if we assume that everything that happens must have been caused by something. Therefore, either you are arguing in favor of something that is illogical or you are using a different definition of causality all-together. Here are my objections.
Ok, I'm going to try to keep it as short as possible, for two reasons: first, I'm bored with you, and second I don't want to give you an excuse to not reply to my posts because they're too long. So here goes:
No, what I'm saying is that logic does not need to justify itself, since it is the language used in to justify other things inside the system where it is arbitrarilly used to determine correlations or interaction between the properties of the given system. Logic does not need to justify itself, because it is simply a rule-biased correlation between two given properties that interact in a system that is axiomatically closed. By this, I mean that the correlations are none-existant without you arbitrarilly determining that they will interact that way. The explanation is that description only exists with defintion, and thus, you cannot describe how a system will interact if you don't define the arbitrary pattern of interactions if you don't define a priori rules that the system must follow. Cause and effect determines only that two properties interact in a pre-determined way; it does not determine why the pattern is as such. For instance, if you throw an apple from a building, that's the cause that will cause the reactioin of it falling. But why doesen't it fall up? Logic predicts the reaction and the reaction indicates causality, but this is a concept that is arbitrary. My point is that, since logic explains effects of interactions inside systems arbitrarilly, it is arbitrary itself. Since deduction follows non-arbitrary, axiom-bound patterns of inferences to establish causality, the causality of logic cannot be infered because it is arbitrary "outside" the systm it is bound to explain. So, "outside" logic there is only pure abstrate an infinte potential, and the infinite possible logics that arise from that are arbitrarilly determined "perceptions" of how these potentials interact. Get it?
objection 1: some effects do not require a cause. Quantum mechanics tells us that particles at the sub-atomic level behave without causation. You claim something must be responsible.
No, I didn't say that something is responsible. What I'm saying is that cause-and-effect do not really exist "outside" the system that it is bound to explain, so your assertion that "cause and effect is not ecplained by logic" is ridiculous,
because it does not need to explain itself. For instance, you cannot explain numbers with mathematics; you can simply explain the interactions between numbers. And there are infinite mathematics possible based on slight changes in it's axioms. So logic cannot explain itself, because it is based on the a priori assumption of non-arbitrarity, but it is itself arbitrary. So, if there is no logic "outside" the system that it is bound to explain, than what is logic and what is the system? The answer is that the cause-and-effect rule that governs our physical reality is an arbitrary "perception" of potentials that are governed by meta-logic. Meta-logic is based on the assumption that, unlike specific logics, it cannot contradict itself, because contradiction results from a deviation of an arbitrarilly bound perception of something. In other words, contradictions are an illusion to meta-logic which creates logics that determine that everything is possible. So cause and effect does not really exist axcept as an arbitrary, a priori created language that describes these patterns of interactions, which are nonp-arbitrary "inside" the systmes that it rules, but which is arbitrary to meta-logic.
And speaking of quantum mechanics, not one knows why this discipline is incompatible with general relativity. The only explantion posssible is that restrictive releativity is an illusion, which arises from Einstein's attmeps to explain contradictions between physical laws by bending these rules. What he didn't underastand is that the rules do not need bending inside itself, because at the levels of quarks and other very smalle particels, the specific pattern of interaction that gives rise to out physical universe arises, and it is arbitrary because it is controlled by meta-logic! By the way, no one knows what the essence of reality is made of. What Immanuel Kant called "the thing into itself". It could be quarks, or super-strings, or whatever; it doesen't matter. If we embrass my theory, we could simply define the smallest particle possible as a "potential", and the infinte patterns of arbitrary interactions between these potential give rise to infinte realities, governed by infinite rules, or by no rules at all. So: logic = language = description = perception = defintion. "Definition", in this context, means that we assume the axiom of all axioms, that existence exists. This could also be untrue, and meta-logic, the creator of all definitions and of all perceptions, certainly is based on the a priori assumption that it does not require a priori assumprions to exist.
However, no evidence for sub-quantum forces has ever been found. The forces ARE the result of quantum particles (e.g. strong forces are caused by gluons, not vice versa).
But what causes the gluons? First they found protons, then electrons, then quarks, etc. Where does it end? And why is it even relevant, since, at the basest level, we could simply define the sammles particel possible as "potential", or, better yet, "definition". It could be that quantum mechanics is wrong altogether, and there is another arbitrary systmem beyond the quantum level that defines how particles interact. Regardless, it doesen't matter, because at the end it's all a matter of definition and perception: reality exists because there is a lowest, unknown definition of the potentials that create it, and infinte possible realities that transcend logic. I have refuted your claim that nothing cause and effect is not explained by logic by demonstrating that no explanation is needed, because logic itself is an illusion, an arbitrary perception of meta-reality that arises because you choose to describe it that way.
objection 2a: if everything that happens must have a cause, then each cause must have an earlier cause and so on. This means the chain of causes of your future actions extend backwards to before you were born. In essence, your whole life is predetermined and free will doesn't exist. If you object that any of these causes is an isolated event, then you are implying an uncaused cause which violates the "law of cause and effect."
Nothing of this negates free-will. Unless you assume that every cause has a
specific cause that preceeds it, in which case there is only one possible future. But this is not the case. Meta-reality is all inclusive of all possible realities, so there are infinite possibilities for the future. Volition is alreadyfactored in. It is based on the assumption that the causesu choose leads to the causes hat determine your future, and that your other possible futures contain you merely as a potential.
objection 2b: if everything that happens must have a cause, then each cause must have an earlier cause and so on. This chain of causes may be traced back to the first cause. A familiar paradox arises - what caused the first cause?
Nothing, because causes do not really exist, except as perceptions of arbitrary relationship between potentials. Hence, your premisse here is false: all causes are preceeded by causes inside the system where it was arbitrarilly chosen to rule over, but it does it was not, itself, caused by anything because causes are illusions of perception and definition. How many times I'll have to explain this to you?
According to the "law of cause and effect," every cause must be caused by something else. If we assume there is an uncaused cause, then its premise is violated and the whole argument fails.
But there doesn't need to exist a first cause! All that ther needs to be is for meta-logic to decide that there is a first cause, as an axiom, and all effects and causes will follow after that. What's so hard for you to understand?
objection 3: the "law of cause and effect" postulates that a specific cause always leads to a specific effect (i.e. there may be some attribute X which always leads to some attribute Y). However, we have never observed two instances of X which led to two instances of Y. Every X is different in some respect from every other X. Likewise, every Y is different from every other Y. If you object that we may infer the same outcome when each X is exactly the same, then you are creating a definition for cause and effect that cannot be falsified. Since all you would have to do whenever someone challenges you is propose additional 'unknown' causes, this is not really a valid argument. It would be like me claiming "the universe was created by a black hole. We just don't understand all the factors that were involved" no matter how many objections are raised. Although this argument can never be falsified, it doesn't necessarily follow that it's true.
By why does the original caue have to arise from anything at all? Again, you're trying to justify the existance of mathematics with numbers! Causes don't reallu exist, except if you define it as such and then perceive reality with it? Game over...again.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
