not go backwards

yes

i want to dial a number so i need a phone if i want a phone i need to buy one if i want to buy something i need money

so without money this all wouldnt have happened

okay cool

p3 If no member has independent mode of power in itself, then no member can transfer its mode of power to another
Do you now understand what is meant by premise 3? To transfer your mode of power to another, you must have it to begin with, but if you don't have it, you cannot transfer

I do get it now

i mean we are back at the start

because if you can always find something that caused the thing then you know

Ok so now since you agree with premise 3, you must also agree with premise 4, as in order to derive from another, that "another" must transfer something to begin with, but as nothing is being transferred, nothing can be derived, since derivation requires something being transferred

so essentially all youre saying is there has to be something higher in the hiearchy causing the next step in the hierarchy

i do agree

I dont understand what that means

but isnt that just what i said? if everything needs something higher in the hierarchy above it then everything does thus making the chain infinite??

What do you mean by "Higher"

so chain piece B is higher than C because B caused C to happen, while A caused B to happen which caused C to happen

thats what i mean by higher

so youre saying every chain piece needs a piece that caused it

By higher do you mean more fundamental?

basically yes

the phone is higher than the number dialing

the money is higher than the phone i bought with it

the money caused the phone the phone caused the number dialing

I don't like the phrasing "caused" since it implies that that has already transpired, and if B ceased to exist, C would continue to exist, lets use "is causing" since this phrasing is what is meant by hierarchical structure of change

so essentially everything is predetermined

what

so C wouldnt exist if B wouldnt exist either

B wouldnt without C

hmmmmmmmmm

well yes but that doesnt change much

this is really difficult

but i really get your point now

Why would B not exist if C doesn't exist? B would not exist only if A didn't exist

B cant exist if C doesnt because B caused C and if C wasnt caused (didnt exist) then B cant exist because if B existed then it would have caused C

The existence of B does not cause C per se, depending on the situation, since thats dependent on other seperate parts which enable B to cause C

well but they are all inside the same system

if B exists then C has to exist and if C exists then B has to exist

Right okay i understand what you're saying right now

Anyway we're getting off topic

Now that you understand this

Do you understand why each member deriving its mode of power from another is impossible? As nothing is being derived