theory from pure observation

[HumbleBeauty]

they are synonyms

Exactly. If you have only one entity then which one comes before the other? It's an absurd notion. You're trying to define a causal relationship with just one entity and failing. Simply calling it self-causal is nothing more than carving out an exemption to reason by pure definition.

Reason tells us that:
 - Every observation of energy ever made has involved energy X causing energy Y per standard causation.
 - There are no observed instances of self-causal energy.
 - In fact, there are no instances of self-causation in any broader sense.

Also, it's important to note that "causal" and "deterministic" are not synonymous. They're different words meaning different, albeit related things. Using common dictionary definitions to squeeze them into the same set of jeans is nothing more than equivocation.

what happens when energy X causing energy Y causing energy X?

causal loops, are cybernetics

[Paleophyte]

Exactly. If you have only one entity then which one comes before the other? It's an absurd notion. You're trying to define a causal relationship with just one entity and failing. Simply calling it self-causal is nothing more than carving out an exemption to reason by pure definition.

Reason tells us that:
 - Every observation of energy ever made has involved energy X causing energy Y per standard causation.
 - There are no observed instances of self-causal energy.
 - In fact, there are no instances of self-causation in any broader sense.

Also, it's important to note that "causal" and "deterministic" are not synonymous. They're different words meaning different, albeit related things. Using common dictionary definitions to squeeze them into the same set of jeans is nothing more than equivocation.

what happens when energy X causing energy Y causing energy X?

causal loops, are cybernetics

Those are simple feedback loops, all temporally forward. X influences Y, which influences some future value of X. You never have Y popping back in time to cause X. There are no self-causal cybernetic loops. There is no self-causal whatsoever. It's an incoherent notion.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I find the idea that something can cause itself is odd. If it hasn't been caused, how is it extant in order to cause itself?

If I cause myself, but I didn't exist before, how am I around in order to cause myself?

"cause" and "caused" are not in the same declension as "causal"

Doesn't matter, given the cognate and the English language, which is what we're speaking here. I can't be causal to myself. I cannot have caused myself. I can't cause myself.

This is really simple. Words have meanings. Your appeal to declensions is irrelevant, even if it sounds a little brainy at first glance. It isn't.

[Cavebear]

"cause" and "caused" are not in the same declension as "causal"

Doesn't matter, given the cognate and the English language, which is what we're speaking here. I can't be causal to myself. I cannot have caused myself. I can't cause myself.

This is really simple. Words have meanings. Your appeal to declensions is irrelevant, even if it sounds a little brainy at first glance. It isn't.

Isn't that what HumbleBeauty said?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Doesn't matter, given the cognate and the English language, which is what we're speaking here. I can't be causal to myself. I cannot have caused myself. I can't cause myself.

This is really simple. Words have meanings. Your appeal to declensions is irrelevant, even if it sounds a little brainy at first glance. It isn't.

Isn't that what HumbleBeauty said?

No.

[Mancunian]

So the thing caused itself in order to create everything so that we could exist?
That's incredible!

Saying that, I have a slight criticism.
If I was the thing, I probably wouldn't have bothered with the rigmarole of evolution, but then again I'm not very patient,  I would have wanted little friends immediately.
Maybe that was the thing's problem with humanity, it waited so long for their arrival that it had set itself up for a fall, pardon the expression.

Anyway, back to sensible discussion.

[brewerb]

[Kim]

Dogwood is deciduous, therefore fido will loose his hair in the winter.

Yabut, White Oaks keep their leaves through the winter & lose them in spring to make way for new growth. Therefore, Oswald wasn't the only shooter.
Yep. I wrote that out loud.

[SYZ]

No, they're not.  Each term has a subtle conceptual
and philosophical difference.

feel free to explain

Sorry... I don't do other peoples' homework, or repeatedly feed trolls.   

[brewerb]

I'm pretty sure it's realted to this guy: Christopher Langan/CTMU

More on Chris, if you're interested. It also contains a critique.