Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 11, 2023 22:14:11 GMT
The nature of cause and effect is ambiguous in nature. A cause is the localization, within a continuum of actions, where a specific point is observed as means of change into something else. This “something else” is the effect. Yet this cause-effect chain has no rules for how it is to be observed thus leaving it groundless. Take for example a burnt hand. The person moves their hand from one position and places it over the stove and gets burnt. Now there are a series of actions of the hand moving prior to placing it over the stove and yet in the measurement of cause and effect the action of placing the hand over the stove is the focal point of change to where the hand gets burnt. The hand over the stove is the cause of the burn, from many points of view, and yet this is not fully true given any movements of the hand, prior to placing it over the stove, may be viewed as the cause which ended in the effect of the hand getting burned. Cause and effect, from this angle, is fundamentally grounded in a choice of placing the reason of the effect to one action within the course of many actions.
There is no rule in determining where this point of change begins or ends given the empirical nature of reality is in a constant flow. The constant flow of change necessitates cause as being fundamentally fluid and applicable to just about any and everything within a course of changes. In different words: this fluidity necessitates any and everything being a cause at some point or another dependent upon how the observation takes place. Cause as a localization of some point of change is cause as fundamentally an observation and is restricted to that which is conscious; cause is an act of consciousness and given consciousness is not fully understood then neither is cause fully understood. The reason for this absence of a full understanding of consciousness is paradoxical in nature given the nature of cause would be required to understand the movements of consciousness yet consciousness is intertwined with causality. In these respects a not fully understood consciousness is required to explain a not fully understood consciousness and a not fully understood cause would be required to understand a not fully understood cause.
This mystery of cause, grounded in the mystery of consciousness, leads to further contradiction upon further analysis given that the act of localization of a series of changes needs an act of localization of a series of changes to understand the act of localization of series of changes. In other terms a cause is required to understand a cause as a cause is required to understand the cause. This leads to an infinite regress where cause becomes indefinite in one respect while in another respect it becomes self-referential as the series of causes necessitates the nature of cause underlying everything thus leaving only cause as existing and comparable to nothing other than itself. Under these terms everything is effectively a cause and reality becomes one single act of cause itself; it is self-caused from this perspective.
The nature of everything being a cause reflects at the macro level of observation where everything effectively is the phenomenon of cause thus is self caused as only everything exists thus only cause exists. This self-cause leads to causality, as a phenomenon, as fundamentally obscure in the respect there is no comparison for it to contrast against. On one hand one may compare it to effect but this leads to issues as effect is just another name for cause and is fundamentally the same thing. Through a deeper analysis it is found that the effects which follow the cause are relative causes in themselves given a series of actions proceed from the effect. In these respects all effects are relative causes, all causes are relative effects, both of which are dependent upon the relative angle of observation from which cause and effect is measured or rather applied. Cause and effect are thus one and the same and only separated through the relativity of the observer. This is a paradox because the opposites of cause and effect are effectually the same, as said before. To add in steeper confusion, it is only through observation in which they differ, and yet this observation falls under the nature of cause and effect not only because observation can be observed but observation becomes its own cause and effect chain as the localization of the course of change within an observation is an observation. The paradoxical nature of cause and effect is the paradoxical nature of observation and its self-referentiality; it is one and the same.
The paradox of cause and effect is also a contradiction in another respect as the cause and effect chain necessitates a difference between cause and effect. Effect is just a cause which follows from another cause thus not only necessitating all effects as fundamentally causes after causes, as said before, but in another perspective leaves a single cause as uncaused in the course of the infinite regress. This uncaused cause is necessary in the respect that all actual causes are contained within a single uncaused finite cause; this allows for the difference between cause and effect as there is an uncaused caused and there are caused causes. This single finite cause is evidenced by the course of the infinite regress always having a single cause within the course of the chain that has only a potential cause beyond it, not actual cause. The single finite cause is the result of an infinite regress always being a finite number of things considering the infinite potential always leaves a finite phenomenon at the end of the ever-changing observed regress. The finite phenomenon at the end of the chain may always be changing because of infinite potential but in no way negates the fact it is finite and is the final uncaused cause. Only that which is finite is that which is actual as an infinite actuality is indefinite and means nothing. Finiteness is necessary for actuality as actuality is form and form requires finiteness for it to occur. In other terms actuality is finite and potentiality, as un-actualized, is infinite considering it is without form thus is changeless.
In these respects there is an un-caused cause, which necessitates all other causes, but this contradicts the earlier argument of the phenomenon of causality being self-referential thus is self caused. Put under different terms; on one hand there is an uncaused cause and in the other hand there is a self-caused cause. Being is the result of an uncaused caused but only being results in itself thus is self-caused. The necessity of an uncaused cause, through a potential infinite regress, contradicts the necessity of a self-caused (thus caused) cause, through the ever presence of cause within everything. This is a contradiction in observation thus leaving causality as a phenomenon which is obscured upon deeper analysis.
This contradiction can be observed in the following argument:
1. There is always an uncaused cause at the ever-changing end of an infinite regress because of the potentiality, i.e. un-actuality, which is beyond the final cause. This potentiality, i.e. un-actuality, is nothingness as it is formless, i.e. un-actual, thus nothing is beyond the final finite actual cause leaving only the final finite actual cause as uncaused.
2. This ever changing, however finite, uncaused cause necessitates all phenomena as being uncaused causes at one point or another.
3. All phenomena as being uncaused causes, at one point or another, necessitates all phenomenon as being relative causes always from a much broader perspective.
4. All phenomena as relative causes necessitates all phenomenon being self-caused when viewing the totality of things as a single caused phenomenon to which there is no compare (otherwise there would be no totality if something existed beyond it). This is considering there is only cause and there being only cause makes the phenomenon of cause self-referential, i.e. the ‘cause’ of cause.
5. The totality is self-caused, as it is only cause, however it exists through an ever-changing finite uncaused-cause; this is a contradiction.
In conclusion, the nature of cause and effect is not only obscure but is fundamentally contradictory upon a deeper analysis. It is a bi-product of a very little understood consciousness with the absence of understanding of consciousness further mirroring itself in the phenomenon of cause itself and vice versa. The absence of self-referentiality and the presence of self-referentiality within the nature of cause leads to further contradiction and further senselessness. It is under these terms that the phenomena of cause and effect must be discussed with “a grain of salt”.
There is no rule in determining where this point of change begins or ends given the empirical nature of reality is in a constant flow. The constant flow of change necessitates cause as being fundamentally fluid and applicable to just about any and everything within a course of changes. In different words: this fluidity necessitates any and everything being a cause at some point or another dependent upon how the observation takes place. Cause as a localization of some point of change is cause as fundamentally an observation and is restricted to that which is conscious; cause is an act of consciousness and given consciousness is not fully understood then neither is cause fully understood. The reason for this absence of a full understanding of consciousness is paradoxical in nature given the nature of cause would be required to understand the movements of consciousness yet consciousness is intertwined with causality. In these respects a not fully understood consciousness is required to explain a not fully understood consciousness and a not fully understood cause would be required to understand a not fully understood cause.
This mystery of cause, grounded in the mystery of consciousness, leads to further contradiction upon further analysis given that the act of localization of a series of changes needs an act of localization of a series of changes to understand the act of localization of series of changes. In other terms a cause is required to understand a cause as a cause is required to understand the cause. This leads to an infinite regress where cause becomes indefinite in one respect while in another respect it becomes self-referential as the series of causes necessitates the nature of cause underlying everything thus leaving only cause as existing and comparable to nothing other than itself. Under these terms everything is effectively a cause and reality becomes one single act of cause itself; it is self-caused from this perspective.
The nature of everything being a cause reflects at the macro level of observation where everything effectively is the phenomenon of cause thus is self caused as only everything exists thus only cause exists. This self-cause leads to causality, as a phenomenon, as fundamentally obscure in the respect there is no comparison for it to contrast against. On one hand one may compare it to effect but this leads to issues as effect is just another name for cause and is fundamentally the same thing. Through a deeper analysis it is found that the effects which follow the cause are relative causes in themselves given a series of actions proceed from the effect. In these respects all effects are relative causes, all causes are relative effects, both of which are dependent upon the relative angle of observation from which cause and effect is measured or rather applied. Cause and effect are thus one and the same and only separated through the relativity of the observer. This is a paradox because the opposites of cause and effect are effectually the same, as said before. To add in steeper confusion, it is only through observation in which they differ, and yet this observation falls under the nature of cause and effect not only because observation can be observed but observation becomes its own cause and effect chain as the localization of the course of change within an observation is an observation. The paradoxical nature of cause and effect is the paradoxical nature of observation and its self-referentiality; it is one and the same.
The paradox of cause and effect is also a contradiction in another respect as the cause and effect chain necessitates a difference between cause and effect. Effect is just a cause which follows from another cause thus not only necessitating all effects as fundamentally causes after causes, as said before, but in another perspective leaves a single cause as uncaused in the course of the infinite regress. This uncaused cause is necessary in the respect that all actual causes are contained within a single uncaused finite cause; this allows for the difference between cause and effect as there is an uncaused caused and there are caused causes. This single finite cause is evidenced by the course of the infinite regress always having a single cause within the course of the chain that has only a potential cause beyond it, not actual cause. The single finite cause is the result of an infinite regress always being a finite number of things considering the infinite potential always leaves a finite phenomenon at the end of the ever-changing observed regress. The finite phenomenon at the end of the chain may always be changing because of infinite potential but in no way negates the fact it is finite and is the final uncaused cause. Only that which is finite is that which is actual as an infinite actuality is indefinite and means nothing. Finiteness is necessary for actuality as actuality is form and form requires finiteness for it to occur. In other terms actuality is finite and potentiality, as un-actualized, is infinite considering it is without form thus is changeless.
In these respects there is an un-caused cause, which necessitates all other causes, but this contradicts the earlier argument of the phenomenon of causality being self-referential thus is self caused. Put under different terms; on one hand there is an uncaused cause and in the other hand there is a self-caused cause. Being is the result of an uncaused caused but only being results in itself thus is self-caused. The necessity of an uncaused cause, through a potential infinite regress, contradicts the necessity of a self-caused (thus caused) cause, through the ever presence of cause within everything. This is a contradiction in observation thus leaving causality as a phenomenon which is obscured upon deeper analysis.
This contradiction can be observed in the following argument:
1. There is always an uncaused cause at the ever-changing end of an infinite regress because of the potentiality, i.e. un-actuality, which is beyond the final cause. This potentiality, i.e. un-actuality, is nothingness as it is formless, i.e. un-actual, thus nothing is beyond the final finite actual cause leaving only the final finite actual cause as uncaused.
2. This ever changing, however finite, uncaused cause necessitates all phenomena as being uncaused causes at one point or another.
3. All phenomena as being uncaused causes, at one point or another, necessitates all phenomenon as being relative causes always from a much broader perspective.
4. All phenomena as relative causes necessitates all phenomenon being self-caused when viewing the totality of things as a single caused phenomenon to which there is no compare (otherwise there would be no totality if something existed beyond it). This is considering there is only cause and there being only cause makes the phenomenon of cause self-referential, i.e. the ‘cause’ of cause.
5. The totality is self-caused, as it is only cause, however it exists through an ever-changing finite uncaused-cause; this is a contradiction.
In conclusion, the nature of cause and effect is not only obscure but is fundamentally contradictory upon a deeper analysis. It is a bi-product of a very little understood consciousness with the absence of understanding of consciousness further mirroring itself in the phenomenon of cause itself and vice versa. The absence of self-referentiality and the presence of self-referentiality within the nature of cause leads to further contradiction and further senselessness. It is under these terms that the phenomena of cause and effect must be discussed with “a grain of salt”.