A philosophical problem of the Big Bang theory

[rossum]

But what about a series that isn’t temporal? In which the cause doesn’t precede the effect. In fact, any theory that posits the existence of God is just such an atemporal series. Because the “ first ” cause…God, doesn’t precede the first effect, but is instead cotemporal with it.

There are further problems. If the series is atemporal, how do you distinguish between cause and effect? You cannot say “the cause came before the effect” because in the absence of time, “before” is meaningless. How else can you distinguish between “A caused B” and “B caused A”?

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

I am a defender of the Five Ways and other arguments that follow similarly. It should be noted, however, that St. Thomas basically rejects a form of the KCA in the Summa Theologica as he did not think it can be shown that an infinite regress in an accidentally ordered series is illogical. It’s why none of his Ways demonstrate that the universe has a beginning, nor do any of his Ways assume a beginning as a premise.

The difference between the KCA and the Ways is that the KCA focuses on the infinite regress of what we call an accidentally ordered causal series (also ordered per accidens or linearly ordered). The Ways on the other hand focus on and reject the possibility of of an essentially ordered causal series (also called ordered per se or hierarchical ordered series).

I’ve always thought that the First and the Second Ways were about per accidens series and the Third and the Fourth were about per se series. Well, I was wrong. However, on this point I disagree with Saint Thomas Aquinas. It is in no way apparent to me how per accidens infinite regresses could be possible.

 

[Wesrock]

itsjustme:

But what about a series that isn’t temporal? In which the cause doesn’t precede the effect. In fact, any theory that posits the existence of God is just such an atemporal series. Because the “ first ” cause…God, doesn’t precede the first effect, but is instead cotemporal with it.

There are further problems. If the series is atemporal, how do you distinguish between cause and effect? You cannot say “the cause came before the effect” because in the absence of time, “before” is meaningless. How else can you distinguish between “A caused B” and “B caused A”?

As an Aristotlean would see it, whether or not we could measure it, if the existence of our current cycle were dependent on one previous cycle (in this case I’d imagine we’d have to say it were an accidental relation) then it is an effect of the previous cycle. Temporal succession wouldn’t matter. One would be “prior” to the other in order of accidental dependence, not time.

 

[itsjustme]

if the existence of our current cycle were dependent on one previous cycle

Which is why I said that it’s a misnomer to call it cyclical. What’s really happening is that each iteration begins from a certain state, and then returns to that exact same state. Now those two states are going to look exactly the same for every iteration. So it’s impossible to determine a cycle. Thus it’s a misnomer to call it cyclical, or to determine any actual causal order at all.

And absent space and time, it would also be impossible to distinguish the beginning of one iteration from the beginning of any other iteration. So they would all appear to arise from the exact same cause, and at the exact same time.

People call it cyclical because that’s the way that they mistakenly envision it. But in fact, you can’t really distinguish any causal order at all. So you can’t say that this one was the cause of that one, even accidentally.

But what you can say…is that each iteration would appear to have the exact same cause. You could discern a cause for the iterations as a whole, but not between iterations.

The very concept of a causal cycle would be meaningless…therefore a misnomer.

 

[itsjustme]

But what you can say…is that each iteration would appear to have the exact same cause. You could discern a cause for the iterations as a whole, but not between iterations.

The very concept of a causal cycle would be meaningless…therefore a misnomer.

Which means that you no longer need a God that chooses to create this iteration instead of that iteration, because every iteration would exist. And some of Aquinas’ arguments would no longer be applicable.

(But not all of them)

 

[Wesrock]

itsjustme:

But what you can say…is that each iteration would appear to have the exact same cause. You could discern a cause for the iterations as a whole, but not between iterations.

The very concept of a causal cycle would be meaningless…therefore a misnomer.

Which means that you no longer need a God that chooses to create this iteration instead of that iteration, because every iteration would exist. And some of Aquinas’ arguments would no longer be applicable.

(But not all of them)

Well, no. All of the Five Ways would still apply here.

I suspect you misunderstand a few of the cosmological arguments if you think the bang/crunch “cycle” falls outside their premises (I won’t get into the separate argument of whether his conclusion follows from his premises). None of them attempt to demonstrate a beginning to the universe, and none of them use a beginning as any premise.

 

[itsjustme]

I’m not going to get into defending the Ways themselves here,

I don’t wish to get into such a discussion either. It’s almost as bad as starting an evolution thread. But when you consider teleology for example, you have to consider that if every iteration of reality actually exists, then it’s inevitable that there’ll be iterations that appear to be goal oriented, but there’d be no actual “design” or “intent” necessary, they would just be unintended consequences.

However…what if we’re living in an observer created reality, such that every iteration requires a conscious observer, then goal directed behavior would be a prerequisite, not an accident.

Just something to consider.

 

[Dan_Defender]

I agree with you Leonard. You point out one reason why the theory is problematic. I would add that scientists have observed that at their death, some stars become much smaller but much denser, so it is relatively easy to imagine that the whole universe was in its beginning a singular point of almost infinite density.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

I’m not going to get into defending the Ways themselves here,

I don’t wish to get into such a discussion either. It’s almost as bad as starting an evolution thread. But when you consider teleology for example, you have to consider that if every iteration of reality actually exists, then it’s inevitable that there’ll be iterations that appear to be goal oriented, but there’d be no actual “design” or “intent” necessary, they would just be unintended consequences.

However…what if we’re living in an observer created reality, such that every iteration requires a conscious observer, then goal directed behavior would be a prerequisite, not an accident.

Just something to consider.

The Fifth Way, when properly understood, demonstrates that any tendency in any thing from an organism down to a fundamental particle or quantum field requires a… “First Director” (I can’t think of an official like word such as Prime Mover or First Cause). Just because we can propose an unintelligible universe doesn’t mean such a thing is coherently conceivable or possible.

 

[PetraG]

This would cause an infinite regress, wich is logically impossible.

One thing we know about physics is that what is possible is not bounded by what those with logic think is possible. The world is far stranger than logic would ever allow it to be.

 

[PetraG]

I agree with you Leonard. You point out one reason why the theory is problematic. I would add that scientists have observed that at their death, some stars become much smaller but much denser, so it is relatively easy to imagine that the whole universe was in its beginning a singular point of almost infinite density.

If I’m not mistaken, I think they now believe there is a supermassive black hole at the center of every galaxy. Who knew that could be possible, let alone ubiquitous?

We live in a physical universe that only gets more strange the better we understand it. I have learned not to worry myself too much about philosophical conundrums. Science has had a long history of them. These problems come from ignorance. They have this way of working themselves out. They ought to be considered exciting possibilities, because you never can tell if the answer to the conundrum will enhance the current scientific story or upend it altogether. How fun is that?

 

[Dan_Defender]

I think they now believe there is a supermassive black hole at the center of every galaxy. Who knew that could be possible, let alone ubiquitous?

Yes there is evidence of that. Not only that, but they have discovered that the universe keeps accelerating in its expansion, which is not physically possible without tearing itself apart. So they have come up with new elements called dark energy and dark matter to explain this one away. However, the nature and interaction of these elements are a mystery.

 

[itsjustme]

The Fifth Way, when properly understood, demonstrates that any tendency in any thing from an organism down to a fundamental particle or quantum field requires a… “First Director” (I can’t think of an official like word such as Prime Mover or First Cause). Just because we can propose an unintelligible universe doesn’t mean such a thing is coherently conceivable or possible.

Which is why I have often said that there are three things that I can be certain exist…consciousness, context, and cause. To me, “To be” is to have all three. And the goal for me is to figure out the relationship between them, and what exactly it means to say "I am".

This would be so much easier to keep track of if I didn’t keep getting suspended. You never know who I’m going to be next.

 

[PetraG]

Yes there is evidence of that. Not only that, but they have discovered that the universe keeps accelerating in its expansion, which is not physically possible without tearing itself apart. So they have come up with new elements called dark energy and dark matter to explain this one away. However, the nature and interaction of these elements are a mystery.

Philosophical problems and observational anomolies keep teaching us how much we still have to learn. Science does not deliver tidy packages. The philosophical desire to have them is what keeps scientists coming to work, though!! (Scientists are a lot like baseball players that way.)

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

One thing we know about physics is that what is possible is not bounded by what those with logic think is possible. The world is far stranger than logic would ever allow it to be.

I’ve never noticed any physical fact that invalidates, for example, the Law of Non-Contradiction (properly understood ), wich is a fundamental principle of logic and a necessary truth of reality.

 

[PetraG]

I’ve never noticed any physical fact that invalidates, for example, the Law of Non-Contradiction (properly understood ), wich is a fundamental principle of logic and a necessary truth of reality.

Ah–but they seem to! That is what makes scientists look more closely at reality. They don’t have to worry for a minute that reality actually contradicts itself, but they also cannot assume they just know how paradoxes escape actually being that kind of contradiction. They have to look for how seemingly paradoxical situations really operate. That’s where most of the fun and excitement is in science!

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

Ah–but they seem to! That is what makes scientists look more closely at reality. They don’t have to worry for a minute that reality actually contradicts itself, but they also cannot assume they just know how paradoxes escape actually being that kind of contradiction. They have to look for how seemingly paradoxical situations really operate. That’s where most of the fun and excitement is in science!

Now I understand what you are saying. Yes, there are no real logical contradictions in reality (because it’s just impossible ), but the fact that there are apparent contradictions makes us look more carefully at reality. It’s like something Saint Augustine said about Holy Scripture: God allowed apparent errors and contradictions so that man would look more carefully at His creation and understand it better!

 

[rossum]

As an Aristotlean would see it…

I prefer Nargajuna to Aristotle.

 

[po18guy]

Over-thinking? Nothingness is not indivisible into two “half-notihngnesses”

 

[rossum]

I’ve never noticed any physical fact that invalidates, for example, the Law of Non-Contradiction (properly understood ), w[h]ich is a fundamental principle of logic and a necessary truth of reality.

You need to look more closely at quantum mechanics. An electron can be in many different places simultaneously. Schrödinger’s cat can be both alive and dead simultaneously.

Standard logic works at macroscopic scales; at quantum scales things are different.

Upon what premises do you base your claim of a “necessary” truth? Are those premises themselves necessary premises? If not then how can you derive a necessary truth from them? If they are necessary, then you need to prove that they are indeed necessary. From what premises do you derive the necessity of your necessary premises?