motionless mover

**zelazny** · April 20th, 2003, 01:54 AM

I got into a chat today, about the start of it all, the nice postulated motionless mover that is supposed to be the start of the big chain of causality what we're in.

Now i don't like the idea of the motionless mover, people mis-use it to claim that a god exists, and it's not logical to say "everything has to be causual, except this guy".

So i wondered: If you take a normal causaul chain, (...a->, b-> c, c-> d.. etc), and extend it to infinity, wouldn't that solve it all? All of a sudden every element in the chain has a cause (because of infinity, this is satisfied) without breaking the system of 'everything follows causality'.

But some people seem to claim this is impossible, any thoughts on this? Because i wonder if i'm spouting nonsense now, or if i'm saying something that makes sense.

(i could just cheat and claim that it's stupid to think that causality exists before existence itself happens, but i think the infinite chain is a prettier explanation)

<font color="#ac0000" size="1">[ April 19, 2003 10:56 PM: Message edited by: zelazny ]</font>

**SHATOUSHKA** · April 21st, 2003, 01:46 AM

i have... and always have... had a problem with
the term 'infinity'... or 'infinite'.

call me a nay-sayer, but i just don't support
the idea that any one thing is infinite.

i believe that usage of 'infinity' or 'infinite'
is completely sloppy, not to mention a cop-out.
most people disregard my opinions on 'infinity'
and 'infinite' because they truly want to think
there is such a thing.

back to zela's post...
if it were not for that one premise, i think i'd
TOTALLY devote myself to C&E, simply because
its the most sure-footed theory (imo).
*if someone spanks my post because of this
comment... well.... i'll cry*

anyways... i know i'm making a new tangent,
but i almost can't help myself.

which of the following is necessary:

1) all things are finite.

2) all things are infinite.

**zelazny** · April 21st, 2003, 10:02 AM

the most important thing would be the being of the things, it doesn't really matter how long they are, infinite or not, as long as they are, i'd say.

[img]tongue.gif[/img]

And what is C&E ?

**Hannibal** · April 21st, 2003, 02:13 PM

i THINK c&E implies cause and effect, not sure though...
*your causal chain*

ya know, I would REALLY like to debate this peice, but I think my mind is better being silent at this juncture.
<--------- doesn't wanna make Shatzy cry [img]frown.gif[/img]

**zelazny** · April 21st, 2003, 02:43 PM

aah. in that case, what i mean is, if you take a cause and effect chain, and make it infinite, than all the effects have a cause, that's the trick, by applying infinity to the chain you have a consistent chain of cause and effect , even though it only consists out of cause and effects.
See my point?
I don't like the motionless mover, so i came up with the infinite chain, which in my eyes satisfies the need for creating a consistent system where every effect has a cause, and no silly 'extras' like gods or motionless movers have to be added to the system.

**SHATOUSHKA** · April 21st, 2003, 05:03 PM

even if you removed the idea of a motionless mover,
or an uncaused first cause... that would, imo,
create a circular pattern to C&E... making the
first effect being the last cause...

er....

what i mean is, the 'motionless mover' would
essentially be the last effect causing a first
cause.

and THAT, imo, makes it a paradox.

i hope you explain more, zela... cuz i think i'm
messing it all up. [img]frown.gif[/img]

**zelazny** · April 22nd, 2003, 12:22 AM

okay, think of it like this: You have an infinte line of little gnomes with red hats.
Hating gnomes, as we all do, you decide to jump on them. The only thing is, because the line is infinite, you might be able to jump on the nearest gnome, but you will never be able to reach the first gnome, because it is infinitely far away. Now the fun thing is, because the line is infinitely long, there is no first gnome, there is only a long line of gnomes that goes on for ever and ever, the whole concept of a 'start' does not apply to an infinite line of gnomes, so no matter how long you spend jumping on gnomes, you will never be able to reach the first one and squash him.

Er.. i've been reading too many comics again about jumping on gnomes, but basically, an infinte chain has no starting point. But it is still a chain where every link has a predecessor.

Kind of consfusing, but it is consistent for a chain without a start.