First Principles

[infotheorist]

Every academic discipline is based on a first principle (Aristotle). First principles are self evident truths upon which all knowledge is based. We should be able to inductively build theories on the first principles and universal laws without violating the first principles. Let me put the indisputables on the table, and then you submit the best theories that do not go against what we know to be true.

 

Cosmology/Cosmogony:

1) Principle of Causality -- All scientific knowledge is based on the principle of cause and effect. Every finite effect in the universe had a beginning and requires an equal or greater cause.

 

2) Principle of Analogy (Uniformity) -- This principle allows for the concept of forensic science. When we repeatedly observe empirical cause and effect relationships without exception, we can use the principle of analogy to apply what we know in the present to singularities in the past.

 

3) Second Law of Thermodynamics (Law of Decay) -- This is the foremost law of science. It is the most universally observable law in the universe. We can't escape it (my body is living proof).

 

Evidence:

Because the universe is subject to the second law of thermodynamics, it is running out of usable energy. It is a closed system where the usable energy is becoming unusable energy. Entropy is increasing. If nothing changes, the universe will die what is known as a heat death when the temperature reaches absolute zero (-273 C).

 

Einstein's general theory of relativity demonstrated a beginning to the universe. Up until 1917, Einstein assumed the universe was eternal. When his theory showed the universe was expanding, that meant if it was worked backwards, it had a beginning. Einstein did not like the concept of the universe having a beginning, so he plugged a cosmological constant into his equation to keep the universe infinite. It was later admittedly his biggest blunder (he divided by zero). Einstein's theory has been empirically proven several times.

 

The COBE (cosmic background explorer) satellite was launched in 1989 to measure the radiation echo left over from the Big Bang (if indeed it happened). In 1992, the data was analyzed and the COBE had successfully mapped out the picture of the cosmic background radiation caused by the initial explosion of the universe. Stephen Hawking called this discovery "the most important discovery of the century, if not all time."

 

Let's leave it there for now. Give me the best theory that supports the first principle, the most universal law of science, and all of the evidence. I look forward to reading your posts.

[R. S. Martin]

First principle of what? God's existence? That gravity causes objects to fall toward earth?

 

Regarding proof of God's existence via cause and effect. Look at how many times Christians say of coincidents that this is evidence of God's existence. They say things like "That could not have happened on its own," of "that has to be more than coincidenc," etc.

 

Also look at all the arguments for creationism and intelligent design. They are all supposed to be evidence of God's existence. These ideas hold as first principles until you apply cause and effect with very rigorous discipline.

 

The most convincing cause and effect principle for God's existence is feeling. Christians tend to feel a lot better when they think about God looking out for them and guiding all of life and its complexities to their advantage, either material or spiritual. When they're feeling scared, all they have to do to feel better is remind themselves of this, then they feel better again. That is pretty convincing.

 

People on this site are always accusing Christians of not thinking it through critically. I agree. Some can't and some won't. I did and I am no longer Christian. Same thing applies to a lot of folks on here.

[infotheorist]

First principle of what? God's existence?

 

Thanks for the reply, but the first principle being referred to was the first principle of science (causality). I didn't say anything about God. I just demonstrated the evidence of the universe having a beginning. I left it up to you to demonstrate a reasonable theory to account for the evidence. I am not really sure where feelings fit in.

[Ouroboros]

I wonder how Quantum Fluctuations fit in into a Contingent Universe? And doesn't the first principle of causality imply a deterministic universe? Can anyone explain this please?

 

--edit--

 

And I wonder also about Free Will vs Causality. What causes Free Will?

 

I had a question about vacuum energy, accelerated expansion of the universe and the laws of thermodynamics, but I forgot exactly what I tried to ask because my whole day I've been interrupted every 5 minutes (literally), and can't keep one thought together. I'll state it later.

 

--edit--

 

Okay, let's see if I get more than 5 minutes this time.

 

Does the newly found evidence that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating suggest the possibility that the Universe is not a closed system, but could potentially have infinite amount of energy? Where does this extra kinetic energy come from? One of the better explanations right now is this vacuum energy, which I have a hard time understanding. But what if the energy is "floating" in into our universe from a parallel universe? Wouldn't that make the second law of thermodynamics not applicable?

 

InfoTheorist, you said "Every finite effect in the universe had a beginning and requires an equal or greater cause", wouldn't that make the chain of cause-effect be an infinite regression of inifite larger and larger causes?

 

(Yay, I did it in 5 minutes!)

[R. S. Martin]

First principle of what? God's existence?

 

Thanks for the reply, but the first principle being referred to was the first principle of science (causality).

 

You should have stated that.

 

I didn't say anything about God.

 

That's right. I didn't say you did.

 

I just demonstrated the evidence of the universe having a beginning.

 

You did? Wasn't obvious to me. Neither you nor I can demonstrate that the universe has a beginning because we don't know that. Nor can you or I demonstrate that the universe has an end because we don't know that, either. It's still here this morning. Hasn't ended yet. Nor can you prove/demonstrate that it did.

 

I left it up to you to demonstrate a reasonable theory to account for the evidence.

 

Again, evidence of what? You should have stated what you want to talk about. I'm not a mind reader. We need no evidence for the existence of the universe. The only reasonable concept for which we need evidence is God's existence. I provided the "evidence" some people claim and I stated very clearly my position on that. If you want to talk about something else I think you should explain exactly what it is that you want to talk about. You failed to do that.

 

I am not really sure where feelings fit in.

 

I explained very clearly where feelings fit in re the existence of God. I stated very clearly that I will assume that is what you are talking about. I also implied very clearly that I don't know if this is what you want to talk about. I don't think I deserved or earned that slap-in-the-face. In other words, your pretending not to understand where feelings fit in is not justified.

[infotheorist]

Great questions HanSolo! You really put the thinking cap on. I am certainly not an expert on quantum physics, so I want to look more into information regarding your questions. Maybe someone else can weigh in on that concept as well. I also have never seen anything that suggests because the universe is expanding it is not a closed isolated system. Again, I do want to look into that. I certainly want to be open and intellectually honest with the points you have raised. I appreciate it.

 

InfoTheorist, you said "Every finite effect in the universe had a beginning and requires an equal or greater cause", wouldn't that make the chain of cause-effect be an infinite regression of inifite larger and larger causes?

 

I think you hit the nail on the head with this question. If the cause of the universe was finite, then we keep getting pushed back to infinity with finite causes. To me, that violates the first principle of logic (and all knowledge), the Law of Noncontradiction. We would then be saying that the cause of the universe is finite and infinite. I don't think that helps us out. I do have a hard time getting around the need for an infinite first cause to the universe.

[infotheorist]

RubySera, I sincerely apologize for you taking my reply as a "slap in the face." It was certainly not intened to be that. I was simply pointing out that my original post had nothing to do with feelings, just academic thoughts on science and philosophy. I was just wanting people to weigh in on what science has told us. I was also not trying to imply that I discovered the evidence for the universe having a beginning. I was just recapping what guys like Albert Einstein, Sir Arthur Eddington, Arno Penzias, Robert Wilson, George Smoot, Stephen Hawking, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and others have said. So to say that they don't have any evidence for the universe being finite may be a little unfair. Again, I apologize for any misunderstanding. If you have anything to refute the second law of thermodynamics, the theory of relativity, expansion of the universe, or the radiation echo, I would be happy to look at it.

[Ouroboros]

Thanks IT,

 

To me our understanding of anything in this world will always be limited, since we're a limited being in both space and capacity, and will always fail to grasp infinity. We say the Big Bang was the beginning of the Universe, and it may be so, but there was something there to "bang" and this something, this singularity or whatever it was, existed before the beginning of the Universe, so where did that come from? But the problem here is that our thought of time is based on the physics of this world, which started at the Big Bang, so time didn't exist as we see it before the BB. So how can anything exist before? We can't really grasp what it means, unless we use higher math with imaginary variables and invent something like virtual time, or negative time, basically a time outside our time.

 

When it comes to causality we're also limited to understand this in a context of infinity. We could state, like you did, that anything finite has a cause, since finite means it has limits and one of the limits is the starting point of this finite thing we think about. At the same time, infinite can exist, but they're not the same and won't follow same the laws. It's just like the set of integers. It is infinite, but it consists of finite elements. The elements themselves are never infinite, but the set is. I imagine the Universe being one of those integers in the set, meaning we are one Universe in a infinite chain of universes. Does it make sense to you?

 

-edit-

 

I recently read that the new understanding of our world is that it is a giant fractal. Take Mandelbrots fractal and look at it and you can make out a picture of it, but you can keep on digging in into the geometry infinitely and find new images, and sometimes even repetitions of the large picture. One of those subsets or fractions of the fractal is a universe, or a person, or a car...

[NotBlinded]

I wonder how Quantum Fluctuations fit in into a Contingent Universe? And doesn't the first principle of causality imply a deterministic universe? Can anyone explain this please?

 

I'll give it a shot, but I'm no scientist!

 

Yes I think it does, on one level. But what is the determiner(?)?

 

 

The standard theory implies that at a quantum level, the universe is indeterministic. This implies that objective existence is determined only by an observer. I think this level here violates the principle of causality, hence, quantum fluctuations are seen to have no cause at all.

 

But, David Bohm states, ""it is quite possible that while the quantum theory, and with it the indeterminacy principle, are valid to a very high degree of approximation in a certain domain, they both cease to have relevance in new domains below that in which the current theory is applicable. Thus, the conclusion that there is no deeper level of causally determined motion is just a piece of circular reasoning, since it will follow only if we assume beforehand that no such level exists."

 

He takes this to another level. This tells me that the principle of causality still operates but on a different level. Quantum fluctuations here are still being caused, but on a level of some fundamental property of nature. (Can you see where I'm going Hans?)

 

Here is what this (David Pratt) website says about Bohm's interpretation:

 

Bohm's ontological interpretation of quantum physics rejects the assumption that the wave function gives the most complete description of reality possible, and thereby avoids the need to introduce the ill-defined and unsatisfactory notion of wave-function collapse (and all the paradoxes that go with it). Instead, it assumes the real existence of particles and fields: particles have a complex inner structure and are always accompanied by a quantum wave field; they are acted upon not only by classical electromagnetic forces but also by a subtler force, the quantum potential, determined by their quantum field, which obeys Schrödinger's equation. (Bohm & Hiley, 1993; Bohm & Peat, 1989; Hiley & Peat, 1991)

 

Here he states that the electromagnetic forces, a fundamental property of nature, and a sublter force; a quantum potential or a universal quantum field (implicate order), quantum vacuum or zero point field (from the same link) is also a fundamental property of nature and that both act on these particles and fields. He states also that this energy field is recognized, but not given consideration.

 

It would appear from this that the quantum fluctuations are caused by an " organizing influence of a superquantum potential" to which the quantum field is subject to. The superquantum field causes the fluctuations of waves that "produce particle-like behavior." With this understanding, an observer is not required. But, something else is...

 

Thus, although Bohm rejects the view that human consciousness brings quantum systems into existence, and does not believe that our minds normally have a significant effect on the outcome of a measurement (except in the sense that we choose the experimental setup), his interpretation opens the way for the operation of deeper, subtler, more mindlike levels of reality. He argues that consciousness is rooted deep in the implicate order, and is therefore present to some degree in all material forms. He suggests that there may be an infinite series of implicate orders, each having both a matter aspect and a consciousness aspect: "everything material is also mental and everything mental is also material, but there are many more infinitely subtle levels of matter than we are aware of" (Weber, 1990, p. 151). The concept of the implicate domain could be seen as an extended form of materialism, but, he says, "it could equally well be called idealism, spirit, consciousness. The separation of the two -- matter and spirit -- is an abstraction. The ground is always one." (Weber, 1990, p. 101)

(same link as above)

 

Back to the consciousness thread...consciousness here can be considered a fundamental part of reality. This is also the position that David Chalmers takes.

 

It seems one view projects a sort of understanding that reality is more or less an illusion that is created when we look at it and the other view can be seen as having a cause, but the cause being a fundamental part of reality. So, quantum fluctuation are caused or they are totally without cause.

 

I'm sure many people won't like the outcome no matter which direction it takes.

 

And I wonder also about Free Will vs Causality. What causes Free Will?

 

The above site also goes into this:

 

The position that everything has a cause, or rather many causes, does not necessarily imply that all events, including our own acts and choices, are rigidly predetermined by purely physical processes -- a standpoint sometimes called "hard determinism" (Thornton, 1989). The indeterminism at the quantum level provides an opening for creativity and free will. But if this indeterminism is interpreted to mean absolute chance, it would mean that our choices and actions just "pop up" in a totally random and arbitrary way, in which case they could hardly be said to be our choices and the expression of our own free will. Alternatively, quantum indeterminism could be interpreted as causation from subtler, nonphysical levels, so that our acts of free will are caused -- but by our own selfconscious minds. From this point of view -- sometimes called "soft determinism" -- free will involves active, selfconscious self-determination.

 

This seems to be saying just the opposite of what one would expect. If the quantum field is completely indeterminisitic, then the randomness of actions couldn't even be called our choices. To take the view that this indeterminism is actually caused, it would seem that our actions are caused...but by us. I think I like that one.

 

And...welcome infotheorist! I don't see Bohm's ideas violating these principles, although it might entail a constant that was present before the big bang and after the big bang. Maybe it's this quantum vacuum or superquantum field?

 

The 2nd law of thermodynamics may not be applicable to a state before the big bang. I'm with Hans on this.

[Ouroboros]

Thanks NNBTB, good points, and I think I like that Bohm.

 

Where I was going with the Free Will argument was that if the Free Will is self-caused or un-caused, then there is a "power" in the universe that is not part of the contingency from a first cause. If I decide to act one way or another, and it is some sort of freedom in that choice, that means my action is influencing or acting on the universe, and I'm doing this by a force outside of the sequence of cause-effect starting with the first cause. If Free Will doesn't have a cause to the choice it makes, i.e. the choice being the effect, then the posit that every effect in the Universe can be proven to have a cause is invalid. My opinion is that with a first principle argument we have to assume that the Free Will is deterministic and caused by yet another force and we're just slaves of this "other" force (be it the universe or something else). What I'm getting to is that if a First Cause argument is used to prove a God, we also have to accept determinism and Calvinism. We can't argue that everything we observe in the Universe is based on causality and yet observe things we claim to be self-caused or un-caused.

 

(I'll read the article later tonight and explore these ideas further. And I'll try to find more info about the Fractal Universe too.)

[infotheorist]

This is great! This is the kind of fun I was hoping we could have with this. You guys are super sharp. I only wish I was half as smart. We probalby lost 99% of the folks who wanted to get involved in this discussion. Quantum theory is philosophical in nature, so it could make your head spin. I also appreciate the way you guys are approaching this whole subject by leaving emotions out of it as much as possible.

 

You both have brought up great points. Let me put in my 2 cents (if it's worth that). Let me use Stephen Hawking as an example (A Brief History of Time). Hawking proposes a self-contained universe without limits. Using the uncertainty principle, he establishes a universe with imaginary time. Hawking's model rests on 2 assumptions: 1) It is credible to use imaginary time in a model that is used to describe a universe in real time 2) It is valid to employ the uncertainty principle at 10-43 seconds to avoid the beginning of the space-time universe. Hawking is careful to avoid violating the uncertainty principle at 10-43 seconds, but is not as careful with the second law of thermodynamics. If the laws of science don't apply at 10-43 seconds, then even the uncertainty principle would not apply (causality had to be assumed to even arrive at the uncertainty principle). Either all of the laws apply, or none of them do. Here again, we can't violate the law of noncontradiction. Also, Hawking arbitrarily chooses the uncertainty principle over the second law of thermodynamics, which is not consistent with established observation. That begs the question. Also, to believe that time is infinite is to commit a logical fallacy (category mistake). We cannot logically apply finite principles to the infinite. That is why it is also a violation of logic to say that an infinite uncaused first cause is bound by the principle of causality.

[chefranden]

I suggest that these "first principles" are less about how the universe is or must be than they are about how humans must perceive and relate to the universe given our limited sensing and understanding bodyminds.

 

Even with our new fangled sensing devices expanding the keyhole through which we are forced to peer, I doubt we are seeing very much of what happens. This puts the 2nd principle in doubt. For even though it appears self evident, the self that it is evident to is too limited to be sure. For example: If there is a dark energy and we had the eyes to sense it, I suspect that it would reveal that we were making judgments concerning nature (as we have throughout history) based on insufficient information.

[NotBlinded]

I recently read that the new understanding of our world is that it is a giant fractal. Take Mandelbrots fractal and look at it and you can make out a picture of it, but you can keep on digging in into the geometry infinitely and find new images, and sometimes even repetitions of the large picture. One of those subsets or fractions of the fractal is a universe, or a person, or a car...

Oh...is that something like the holographic images that are whole no matter how small you cut the film? I read that if you take a holographic film with an image on it and cut it in half and then take those halves and illuminate them with a laser (images not visible to the naked eye), the entire image can be seen in both halves. It says that you can keep cutting those pieces into smaller and smaller pieces and the original image will remain in all the little pieces.

[infotheorist]

Hey Chef, thanks for joining in on the conversation. Based on your points, that we are limited in our understanding, is there anything about which we can be certain? In other words, what is truth?

[Kuroikaze]

My personal take on this is that all "truth" is qualified.

 

In other words, on one hand it is logically absurd for me doubt everything I think I know constantly, It would be impossible for me to function like that.

 

However, I also realize that there really ISN'T anything I can be 100% certain about. Personally I would rather just be honest enough to admit that I (as well as humanity as a whole) don't know everything. Having been a fundamentalist in the past, it seems to me the people who are least able to deal with reality (and the least compassionate to others) are the people who are blindly convinced that every thing they believe must be true.

[NotBlinded]

Ohhh...check out what Chef posted in the science thread:A New State of Matter

 

I'm going to have to read it again (and probably again) in order to see the implications...it takes me awhile!

[chefranden]

Hey Chef, thanks for joining in on the conversation. Based on your points, that we are limited in our understanding, is there anything about which we can be certain? In other words, what is truth?

 

Depends on what you mean by truth.

 

If it means absolute knowledge there is none

 

If you define it as knowledge good enough to serve a practical end, then there is plenty of it.

 

I can't see that the evolutionary process is or ever was interested in "truth". The process provided us with senses & understanding that were good enough to raise a child to sexual maturity. Anything that goes beyond that end is byproduct, a bonus from a human perspective.

 

I think we fool ourselves into believing the byproduct consisting of the ability to think philosophically is the pinnacle of evolution (or of creation if you have that bent). Evolution is no more about us and our thinking ability than it is about oysters and their filtering ability. Nor does or did evolution care if we ever find the answer to life, the universe, and everything. Therefore, I find it illogical to think that we are actually equipped to find, discover, or make up "the truth". That's not to say that there isn't some small chance that we are so equipped, but as for me I'd bet on winning the lotto before betting on that chance.

[infotheorist]

If it means absolute knowledge there is none

 

Thanks for offering your insight on truth chefranden. I am just a little confused by your statement. Maybe you can help me out. If there is no such thing as absolute knowledge, how do you absolutely know that?

 

I can't see that the evolutionary process is or ever was interested in "truth".

 

This is a great point. If we look at naturalism. It is limited to nature and natural laws (descriptions of what is). Using that context, what are thoughts anyway? How did they arrive?

[infotheorist]

My personal take on this is that all "truth" is qualified.

 

Kuroikaze, this is an interesting view of truth. If all truth is qualified, is that view of truth qualified? Would it be true then that you are not 100% certain about that view of truth? I am just trying to understand. Thanks for your help.

[Kuroikaze]

My personal take on this is that all "truth" is qualified.

 

Kuroikaze, this is an interesting view of truth. If all truth is qualified, is that view of truth qualified? Would it be true then that you are not 100% certain about that view of truth? I am just trying to understand. Thanks for your help.

 

This argument strikes me as a bit odd, it's somewhat similar to the argument that fundamentalist put forward on this same issue....I personally think it falls flat, essentially what you are saying is that if I am claiming truth is not absolute that in itself is an absolute which violates the law of non-contradiction.

 

but I'm not actually making a statement about "Truth" with a capital T (if you get my meaning) but about MY knowledge of truth. Neither am I claiming that there isn't absolutes....only that I can never know everything is 100% actuate.

 

Its not a matter of my view of truth being qualified, but my knowledge being incomplete.

 

Take an example, I am personally an atheist, but I do realize that with my limited knowledge of the universe that I could be wrong and there indeed could be a god out there somewhere.

 

However, with the available knowledge I have I conclude that it Highly unlikely that any of the gods that that humans have thought up are real....and indeed unlikely that ANY god exists at all.

 

I'll admit I could be wrong, but I don't see any point in waisting time on a remote possibility, so until I come across evidence to the contrary I make the "qualified" statement that there is no god.

 

 

hopefully that clears some things up for you, I actually DO believe in absolutes, I just don't believe we can ever be 100% certain that OUR knowledge is absolute. I guess you might say I'm more of an existentialist than a relativist.

[chefranden]

Thanks for offering your insight on truth chefranden. I am just a little confused by your statement. Maybe you can help me out. If there is no such thing as absolute knowledge, how do you absolutely know that?

 

Knowledge requires a knower. As far as humans go, no knower has the capacity for knowing absolutely. I'm not saying that there is nothing absolute. Whether there is or is not, humans, at least as they are presently constituted, won't know it.

 

This is a great point. If we look at naturalism. It is limited to nature and natural laws (descriptions of what is). Using that context, what are thoughts anyway? How did they arrive?

 

Everything is limited to nature and its properties if that is a limitation. Natural laws are descriptions of what happens not rules of some law giver.

 

Thoughts are the product of brain activity. No brain no thought, at least for humans. Maybe there is an alien that has thought deriving from a different sort of organ, but I find it difficult to imagine what that might be.

 

...That is why it is also a violation of logic to say that an infinite uncaused first cause is bound by the principle of causality.

 

I'm starting to smell presuppositionalist here or perhaps a neoplatonist? If you are a presuppositionalist, you are a very polite one.

[Ouroboros]

...That is why it is also a violation of logic to say that an infinite uncaused first cause is bound by the principle of causality.

 

I'm starting to smell presuppositionalist here or perhaps a neoplatonist? If you are a presuppositionalist, you are a very polite one.

Chef, so very true.

 

IT,

Only if infinite uncaused first causes exists can they be unleashed from the bounds of causality. But since everything that is finite and caused must be caused by something else finite that is caused, an infinite causation can not be a cause and hence can't exist.

 

Or in simpler terms, if all that we observe and if logic points to that the finite "must" have a cause, we also know by observation and logic that this "causator" is also finite. Can you prove to me that the infinite causator can cause a finite? I guess not, since you never have observed it or can argue from logic nor math for this to be the case. The only reason to leap to the "inifinite" is because the thought of an infinite regression (or chain) of finite causes is too scary, it's easier to create a null-point which is definied is infinite. Take the infinite sequence of integers again, but go back as far as you can to its beginning. If you assume that Zero is the beginning I must disappoint you that I also include the negative integers in my sequence. So 'tis the infinite sequence of no beginning and no end, and yet the integers exists. But observe, there's no "infinite" that starts the sequence.

 

And when it comes to truth, yes, the absolute truth exists, but it is unattainable for any being.

 

I'd like to say: "I exists, therefore I think" instead of the traditional version.

[infotheorist]

Thanks for clarifying your statement kuroikaze. As you noticed, I simply turned your statement of truth on itself because I assumed you believed it to be true. It seemed to embrace a contradiction.

 

Take an example, I am personally an atheist, but I do realize that with my limited knowledge of the universe that I could be wrong and there indeed could be a god out there somewhere.

I totally agree with you on the fact that none of us have exhaustive knowledge. No one knows everything there is to know about everything. That is obviously why neither of us can prove with absolute certainty that there is or is not a god. But do you agree that there are things that we can know with 100% certainty?

[infotheorist]

Chef, again I do sincerely appreciate you trying to help me better understand your view of truth. It is always good to fully know where someone is coming from without making unsubstantiated accusations. It is from these foundations that all of your conclusions in life will be based. Thanks again.

 

Knowledge requires a knower. As far as humans go, no knower has the capacity for knowing absolutely.

 

I am really not trying to be difficult, but I am still having a hard time understanding your position, so bear with me. You are still saying that people do not have a capacity to know anything absolutely, but yet you seem to know that fairly absolutely. I am sorry, I still don't get it. I apologize.

 

Everything is limited to nature and its properties if that is a limitation. Natural laws are descriptions of what happens not rules of some law giver.

 

Thoughts are the product of brain activity. No brain no thought, at least for humans. Maybe there is an alien that has thought deriving from a different sort of organ, but I find it difficult to imagine what that might be.

I agree about naturalism just being descriptive. How do we get from physical brain chemistry to the metaphysical?

[infotheorist]

IT,

Only if infinite uncaused first causes exists can they be unleashed from the bounds of causality. But since everything that is finite and caused must be caused by something else finite that is caused, an infinite causation can not be a cause and hence can't exist.

 

Or in simpler terms, if all that we observe and if logic points to that the finite "must" have a cause, we also know by observation and logic that this "causator" is also finite. Can you prove to me that the infinite causator can cause a finite? I guess not, since you never have observed it or can argue from logic nor math for this to be the case. The only reason to leap to the "inifinite" is because the thought of an infinite regression (or chain) of finite causes is too scary, it's easier to create a null-point which is definied is infinite. Take the infinite sequence of integers again, but go back as far as you can to its beginning. If you assume that Zero is the beginning I must disappoint you that I also include the negative integers in my sequence. So 'tis the infinite sequence of no beginning and no end, and yet the integers exists. But observe, there's no "infinite" that starts the sequence.

 

And when it comes to truth, yes, the absolute truth exists, but it is unattainable for any being.

 

I'd like to say: "I exists, therefore I think" instead of the traditional version.

I have to get to work. I will respond when I have time. Thanks for your patience.