Years before the emergence of ChatGPT, the forum's question guidelines stated, "Asking is not a right; it's a privilege." Later, this phrase was removed.

Is it valid İdea?

Assuming this text presents a valid idea, we move on to examine the next idea.

Causality, according to this discussion does not lead to a paradox due to the causal relationship between two entities. Instead, it hinges on two conditions:

a) The causal graph/chain is not infinite.

b) The causal graph/chain lacks any loops.

These two conditions are classically added to the hypothesis of causality to deduce the existence of a "cause of causes" or an initial node in the causal graph/chain.

In other words, our ability to infer something about the "cause of causes" or the "effect of effects" from the concept of causality does not arise from the causal relationship itself but from the structural nature of the network of entities in which causality operates.

Thus, the problematic assumption for proving the "cause of causes" is not causality itself but the assumptions about the structure of the graph/chain of causally related entities. These assumptions are as follows:

a) The causal graph/chain is not sequentially infinite.

b) The causal graph/chain does not contain loops.

As mentioned, these assumptions are instrumental in proving the existence of a "cause of causes" or an initial node. However, they introduce a new issue: at the end of the chain or graph, one would reach a terminal node, which corresponds to the "effect of effects"—entities that exist but have no influence on anything else, apart from "null-effects." This conflicts with the established lemma, Lemma B:

Lemma B: An entity that has no effect on anything other than "null-effects" does not exist.

From the perspective of the structural architecture of the argument, we can reconsider the use of causality to prove the existence of a "cause of causes." Since this leads to the paradox of the "effect of effects," we can instead adopt a specific form of the causality hypothesis that avoids contradiction. This involves accepting the existence of loops in the causal graph/chain to ensure there is no terminal node or "effect of effects."

In this revised model, every causal chain ultimately concludes in a loop. Each loop consists of an entity or entities where each is the effect of something that—either directly or indirectly—itself caused.

Is it valid İdea?

Assuming this text presents a valid idea, we move on to examine the next idea.

Causality, according to this discussion does not lead to a paradox due to the causal relationship between two entities. Instead, it hinges on two conditions:

a) The causal graph/chain is not infinite.

b) The causal graph/chain lacks any loops.

These two conditions are classically added to the hypothesis of causality to deduce the existence of a "cause of causes" or an initial node in the causal graph/chain.

In other words, our ability to infer something about the "cause of causes" or the "effect of effects" from the concept of causality does not arise from the causal relationship itself but from the structural nature of the network of entities in which causality operates.

Thus, the problematic assumption for proving the "cause of causes" is not causality itself but the assumptions about the structure of the graph/chain of causally related entities. These assumptions are as follows:

a) The causal graph/chain is not sequentially infinite.

b) The causal graph/chain does not contain loops.

As mentioned, these assumptions are instrumental in proving the existence of a "cause of causes" or an initial node. However, they introduce a new issue: at the end of the chain or graph, one would reach a terminal node, which corresponds to the "effect of effects"—entities that exist but have no influence on anything else, apart from "null-effects." This conflicts with the established lemma, Lemma B:

Lemma B: An entity that has no effect on anything other than "null-effects" does not exist.

From the perspective of the structural architecture of the argument, we can reconsider the use of causality to prove the existence of a "cause of causes." Since this leads to the paradox of the "effect of effects," we can instead adopt a specific form of the causality hypothesis that avoids contradiction. This involves accepting the existence of loops in the causal graph/chain to ensure there is no terminal node or "effect of effects."

In this revised model, every causal chain ultimately concludes in a loop. Each loop consists of an entity or entities where each is the effect of something that—either directly or indirectly—itself caused.

Years before the emergence of ChatGPT, the forum's question guidelines stated, "Asking is not a right; it's a privilege." Later, this phrase was removed.