1

Assumption 1: Existence has a cause(Causality)

Assumption 2: Causality exists

Because causality exists, there is a cause for causality to exist.

The cause of the existence of causality is also causality.

("existence has a cause" do exist(Assumption 1,2) because existence has a cause)

Therefore, the cause of causality is causality.

This is circular logic.

Therefore, the assumption must be denied

Dimer
  • 71
  • 7
  • Facts have a cause. Existence is not a "fact". – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Oct 17 '21 at 16:37
  • 1
    Objects exist; causality is not an object. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Oct 17 '21 at 16:37
  • Cats exist so they can eat mice. Mice exist so that cats have something to eat. This is circular, so neither cats nor mice exist. Is that your argument? – Conifold Oct 17 '21 at 20:34
  • @MauroALLEGRANZA. The following questions are not rhetorical. I'm genuinely curious. Can't 'existence' be caused? Or must something have always existed? Can't a phenomena or process (such as causality) theoretically be caused? Or must/can it explain itself? I'm confused now. – Futilitarian Oct 18 '21 at 04:37
  • Maybe useful [Causal Determinism](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/): "the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature." – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Oct 18 '21 at 06:40
  • 1
    As well as [The Metaphysics of Causation](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-metaphysics/): "What must a world be like, to host causal relations?" – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Oct 18 '21 at 06:41
  • 2
    Circular arguments do not support their conclusions, but that does not entail that their premises or conclusions are false. Only deriving a contradiction from the premises can do that. – Conifold Oct 18 '21 at 07:00
  • @Conifold If a cat is present, it eats mice. If mice are present, cats eat them. In order to eat rats, rats must exist. So, wouldn't it be summed up in one sentence: "Cats exist, and if there are mice, they eat mice"? – Dimer Oct 18 '21 at 07:02
  • @Conifold And isn't circular logic an error? – Dimer Oct 18 '21 at 07:05
  • Just as your "argument" can be summed up in a thesis: there is causality (whatever that is, you do not elaborate) and it causes its own existence, i.e. it is a [*causa sui*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causa_sui). Circular logic is an error, taking it as a refutation is another error. After all, one can create a circular argument for anything, so anything could be refuted if it worked that way. However, circular *causality*, or even self-causing, are not logically contradictory. – Conifold Oct 18 '21 at 07:09
  • @Conifold If circular logic is an error, isn't there a contradiction between circular logic and the real world because there is no error in the real world? – Dimer Oct 18 '21 at 07:46
  • 1
    "there is no error in the real world" maybe correct... but "logic" is not in the real world; it is human. You are trying to prove that causality does not exist using logic. Using logic you have derived a (purported) contradiction and with it you conclude that Assumption 2 is False. Maybe what is False is Assumption 1... – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Oct 18 '21 at 08:39
  • 1
    I'd suggest you can't begin such reasoning without thinking hard first about what causality is. And I'd suggest it is a heuristic explanatory layer, over the operation of conservation laws: 'Is the idea of a causal chain physical (or even scientific)?' https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/70930/is-the-idea-of-a-causal-chain-physical-or-even-scientific/72055#72055 Conformal Cyclic Cosmology suggests the conservation laws result from symmetry-breaking of a kind of groundstate, & even time itself only then appears as a symmetry relation. – CriglCragl Oct 18 '21 at 13:46

1 Answers1

2

Assumption 1: Existence has a cause(Causality)

Better assumption imho: Everything that exists has a cause (because that is what you use in your proof). You don't need to mention existence itself, it never comes up in your proof.

Assumption 2: Causality exists

Note that your "exists" here seems like it is not just physical existence, but metaphysical existence of concepts too (so, there is a cause for the existence of numbers according to your assumptions?!)

Because causality exists, there is a cause for causality to exist.

Fine

The cause of the existence of causality is also causality.

Questionable, and follows from nothing. We have established what causality means, but not that it causes anything. There is a cause for causality, according to your assumptions, but it's not necessarily causality itself. The fact that something causes causality is also causality.

("existence has a cause" do exist(Assumption 1,2) because existence has a cause)

Therefore, the cause of causality is causality.

This is circular logic.

Therefore, the assumption must be denied

Circular logic is not a contradiction. It just means you failed to prove anything, the statement as well as its negation. It's like in math when you transform equations to solve them, but in the end only end up with the original one. You didn't prove or disprove something, you simply failed in your proving process. In any case, you have two assumptions that are important to your proof, so even if you had a contradiction, there are three possible scenarios that might be true:

  1. Assumption 1 is wrong (your version of Existence has no cause, or alternatively not everything that exists has a cause, but causality still exists)

  2. Assumption 2 is wrong (Causality doesn't exist, but your version of existence still has a cause)

  3. Assumption 1 and 2 are wrong (your version of Existence has no cause and causality also doesn't exist)

kutschkem
  • 2,172
  • 10
  • 17
  • If circular logic is an error, isn't there a contradiction between circular logic and the real world because there is no error in the real world? – Dimer Oct 18 '21 at 07:55
  • 1
    @Dimer Circular logic is an error **of the proof**. It tells us nothing about the original assumptions. – kutschkem Oct 18 '21 at 08:42