Aquinas and Modern Physics

[lelinator]

What do you mean by reality. Like i said that which is not ontologically necessary can only be given reality and sustained in reality since it’s nature has no reality of it’s own. So when i speak of you being real it is necessarily different to the uncaused being real, because the uncaused cause is existence by nature, and we not.

And this is neccesarily true.

That doesn’t answer the question. Consciousness wouldn’t seem to be a necessary attribute of existence.

So the question is …why does it exist if its existence isn’t necessary?

The question isn’t …how do you know it exists?

 

[IWantGod]

That doesn’t answer the question.

It does answer what you said.

Consciousness wouldn’t seem to be a necessary attribute of existence.

Our consciousness is not a necessary attribute of reality.

So the question is …why does it exist if its existence isn’t necessary?

Because the uncaused cause which is existence gave it reality.

The question isn’t …how do you know it exists?

If i can know that it exists, then the rest follows necessarily whether you understand it or not.

 

[AlNg]

If nothing is permanent, and everything is changing, then science and knowledge would be impossible

To change means to acquire new properties that didn’t exist before.

Under your definition, this means that everything changes. Suppose a book is on the table at 1: 00. Let it stay there until 2: 00. It has then acquired a new value for its position in time. 2: 00 was in the future and the future did not exist in reality before at 1: 00. Its position in time is a property.
And of course, even though the book has not moved on the table, there are changes in the position of the book relative to the position of the sun.
So even though everything is changing, science and knowledge is still possible.

 

[lelinator]

Our consciousness is not a necessary attribute of reality.

As you know, the question wasn’t about Our consciousness, it was about a supposedly necessary consciousness, and how it wouldn’t in fact seem to be a necessary attribute of existence.

You’ve only given us top down arguments, but can you give us a bottom up argument as you did when you argued that something must exist, because “nothing” is impossible. Can you continue that line of reasoning to demonstrate why the necessary cause must be conscious?

Why does what exists…because nothing can’t exist…also need to be intelligent. Isn’t it possible that something could exist without being conscious?

 

[IWantGod]

it was about a supposedly necessary consciousness, and how it wouldn’t in fact seem to be a necessary attribute of existence.

We know that the uncaused cause has an intellect inductively and therefore necessarily. But we only know that because it has created something that by definition does not necessarily exist. We also know deductively that the uncuased cause would have to have an intellect in-order to create anything at all distinct from itself.

But we cannot know a-prior that existence should have an intellect. That’s only something we can reason to from the observance of other things or the impossibility of something else. We do not see the nature of the uncaused cause directly. For that matter, i only know that you have an intellect because you are producing information that i am not the cause of.

 

[Dovekin]

Can you determine that no time system existed before the BB and that the scenarios where time did exist before the BB are all not possible. Or is this just speculation ?

In the 2nd sentence of the article, it says “We only have a single observable universe…” I take that to mean everything we say about other universes is speculation. There can be more accurate speculation, but it is still speculation.

When discussing the large scale structures, it comes back to the issue:

Observers in the very far past of our universe will also detect an arrow of time, but one that will be reversed from ours with respect to some (completely unobservable) global time coordinate throughout the entire spacetime.

I am not an expert in this field, so I could be misunderstanding these things. Generally information does not travel past singularities, and I think they keep to that rule, except when proposing the reverse time of “the very far past.” I still have not quite figured out what they mean by that, but it could be the opposite of what I am saying.

 

[rom]

Under your definition, this means that everything changes. Suppose a book is on the table at 1: 00. Let it stay there until 2: 00. It has then acquired a new value for its position in time. 2: 00 was in the future and the future did not exist in reality before at 1: 00. Its position in time is a property.
And of course, even though the book has not moved on the table, there are changes in the position of the book relative to the position of the sun.
So even though everything is changing, science and knowledge is still possible.

If science exists, it is because not everything is changing. The accidental features of things, such as their position relative to one another, their weight, color, size, etc. may be changing. But the essences of things, which are the primary objects of human knowledge, are not always changing.

The accidental features of things (color, weight, size, etc.) are perceptible by the senses. They are often changing. But the essences of things (or that by which things are the kind of beings that they are) are not perceptible by the senses. However, they are understood and grasped by the mind in the act of knowledge. They are among the “intelligibles” that I spoke about in an earlier post (Post #128), and they are generally stable, which is why the mind can know them.

Show five different horses (different breed, different colors, different sizes, etc.) to a child, and tell him/her that these animals are “horses.” Then immediately the child forms a concept of what a horse is in his/her mind. The child does not have to see all the horses in the world, but the child understands what a horse is. The concept “horse” is nothing else but the universal essence of the horse as it exists in the mind of the knower. It is the same as the essence that exists in each horse, except it is universal rather than individual. Every horse has its own individual essence, and is the root of its operations, because everything acts according to its essence. The individual essence, considered as the root of its operations, is sometimes called the nature of the horse. The aim of all sciences is to get an understanding of the essences and natures of things.

When I say that the essences of material things are stable, I do not mean to say that material substances can’t change. Paper obviously loses its essence when burned. But in general essences are knowable because they are stable.

 

[rom]

I don’t think that there’s sufficient evidence to prove that I can ever cease to exist. In fact I think that it’s quite likely that I have always existed, and will always continue to exist.

Well, it’s Christmas. So, I’ll let you get away with that.

To change means to acquire an attribute that’s an inescapable consequence of the cause. Therefore the change is “ necessary ”. To argue that a change isn’t necessary is to argue that the cause isn’t necessary… And since everything can be traced back to the first cause, it would mean that the first cause isn’t necessary.

Is that what you’re suggesting?

No, it’s the opposite. A change is necessary when it must happen and cannot not-happen. But if changes must happen, and all things are changing, then no science would be possible. Since the sciences exist, then either changes do not necessarily have to happen or not all things happen to be changing. But, if changes do happen, knowing that they don’t necessarily have to happen, then there must be a cause of their happening. Now, does that happen to explain it?

 

[AlNg]

Generally information does not travel past singularities

It might depend on how singular the singularity is in reality. A singularity in mathematics is much sharper than what they might call a singularity in the real world.

In the 2nd sentence of the article

The article has a lot of opinions and speculations, but so what? I am only saying that it is conceivable that there is a parent universe and that our universe is a child of that parent universe with the birth occurring at the BB. .

 

[Gorgias]

There was no universe 13.9 billion years ago.
The universe began 13.8 billion years ago.

You’re making an error of conflating frameworks. It’s kinda like asking “what flavor of ice cream is ‘New York Yankee’?”

God created the universe outside of the temporal framework that exists only within the universe. Now, from within the universe, we count 13.8 billion years. So, the question you’re really asking is “why am I alive to ask this question now – that is, 13.8 billion years into the temporal framework of the universe – instead of 19 billion years into that temporal framework?”

It’s not a question whose answer is particularly relevant to the discussion at hand, is it?

I thought that God became man so that the human time frame did apply to Him when He became man.

In terms of His Incarnation? Yes. We can talk about Jesus inside of the framework of the universe.

rom:

God’s act of creation did not happen in time but in the eternal NOW, which is not measurable nor divisible into months and years.

How did you verify this?

For one, God revealed it.

But if the world began to exist 13.8 billion years ago, then God also began to exist 13.8 billion years ago.

No. God created the universe, so He is (metaphysically) prior to it. Not temporally prior (which is what you and @AlNg seem to be asserting).

Existing outside of time still doesn’t allow something to exist “ before ” time.

Agreed. That’s why we don’t talk about God existing “19 billion years ago”. That’s an invalid time within the framework of the universe. And, it also doesn’t apply outside that framework.

But God did live in time. First of all He was observed walking in a garden.

Figurative narrative.

Secondly, He came down from earth and became man.

Now you’re only talking about Jesus, not the Trinity as such.

Not exactly correct. If the BB was the beginning of time for our universe and the BB was the offspring of a parent universe which had existed before the BB, then the time of the parent universe would be before the time of the universe created at the moment of the BB.

OK. Then time t0 isn’t at BB, it’s at the first moment that creation existed.

 

[lelinator]

No. God created the universe, so He is (metaphysically) prior to it. Not temporally prior (which is what you and @AlNg seem to be asserting).

I don’t currently have time to keep two discussions going at once, so…

If Science Did Prove Intelligent Design, Would It Make Any Difference? Philosophy

But all that you’ve really done is create the ultimate God of the Gaps. Because no matter what physics proposes as the first cause, you can always ask…what caused that? For example, physics could propose that the quantum field is all-powerful, because it’s the ultimate cause of everything. Nothing can exist that the field doesn’t cause to exist. It’s also all-knowing because it’s the source of all that is, therefore it’s the source of all that can be known. And since it’s the cause of time, it…

I think both discussions boil own to the same point.

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t currently have time to keep two discussions going at once, so…

Sadly, “God of the Gaps” is a phrase that’s often misused these days. It seems, from the post you cite, that you’re misusing it, as well. What’s fascinating is that you seem to be misusing it in a way that completely misses the point of what the notion of a “god of the gaps” attempts to describe!

Here’s the thing: you’re right that any material object that you propose as a ‘first cause’ will lead to the response, “ok, then… what caused that material object?” That’s not an unfair objection – it’s requesting you to provide a case that this thing that you propose as “first cause” is indeed a first cause, and not a caused cause. My apologies if that’s inconvenient and time-consuming for you.

So physics could propose the existence of some natural phenomenon that possesses all the necessary attributes of a first cause

Your claim is erroneous. A “natural phenomenon” cannot, by definition, “possess all the necessary attributes of a first cause.” That’s why the question will always come back, “ok… what caused it, though.”

 

[lelinator]

Here’s the thing: you’re right that any material object that you propose as a ‘first cause’ will lead to the response, “ok, then… what caused that material object?”

But you really need to define what you mean by “material”. Is a quantum field actually material, because it doesn’t obey any of the classical laws that govern the behavior of material things.

Or is it simply because the field is the cause and sustaining power behind material things that you put it in the category of material things. If so, then it would seem that God could also be placed in the category of material things.

If however, the quantum field gives rise to material things, without changing in any way, then it’s a source of material things, but not a part of those material things.

 

[Dovekin]

I am only saying that it is conceivable that there is a parent universe and that our universe is a child of that parent universe with the birth occurring at the BB. .

Two things here. As @Gorgias has said, if time from the parent universe is continuous with our time, the the parent universe is our universe.
Our universe = our spacetime, and you are just setting it back a generation. (Or really, a creation)

The other point is that inflation is what establishes spacetime. If you propose that time comes from the parent universe, then inflation becomes superfluous. The BB can become the BB without inflation. And that is largely what the article meant to avoid, the idea that the initial conditions for the BB can be established.

Personally, I have always thought that the universe could have been created 11 billion years ago, oerhaps in continuity with a “prior” universe, maybe not. Or 72 billion years ago. The BB is a description of our universe where the structure is generated by the structure itself. If we examine that structure, we discover there is a point where the structure no longer works. That point is the BB.

 

[Gorgias]

Is a quantum field actually material, because it doesn’t obey any of the classical laws that govern the behavior of material things.

Yes. It is a feature of the material universe.

Or is it simply because the field is the cause and sustaining power behind material things that you put it in the category of material things. If so, then it would seem that God could also be placed in the category of material things.

No. The quantum field exists because the universe exists. If the universe did not exist, neither would quantum fields.

If however, the quantum field gives rise to material things, without changing in any way, then it’s a source of material things, but not a part of those material things.

It’s part of the universe.

I get what you’re attempting to claim, but positing it as if it were not part of the universe – and thus, able to be positioned as a “first cause” – doesn’t hold up.

 

[lelinator]

Yes. It is a feature of the material universe.

Why, you can’t see it. You can’t measure it. You can’t change it. All that you can do is create a mathematical representation of it’s attributes.

No. The quantum field exists because the universe exists. If the universe did not exist, neither would quantum fields.

I’m pretty sure that if you trace ANY causal series backwards towards its source, you’ll eventually reach a quantum field as… if not the first cause…then something that looks eerily similar to your proposed first cause.

I get what you’re attempting to claim, but positing it as if it were not part of the universe – and thus, able to be positioned as a “first cause” – doesn’t hold up.

In what manner can the quantum field be said to be part of the universe, that couldn’t also be said of some supernatural first cause?

 

[HarryStotle]

But if the world began to exist 13.8 billion years ago, then God also began to exist 13.8 billion years ago. Existing outside of time still doesn’t allow something to exist “before” time. Before time is a reference frame that simply cannot exist. You can exist for all time, but not before time.

So if the world/the universe/reality had a beginning, then so did God.

You are assuming that space time is and can only be the one enduring reality.

On what grounds – besides that you are unable to comprehend anything else – are you insisting that if the world began to exist 13.8 billion years ago, THEN God also began to exist at that point?

What is your logical argument that necessitates that God could only exist when and if the universe did?

Seems a tad illogical given that God is proposed as the explanation for the universe, that he could only exist when and if it does. How does such an insufficient explanation for the universe actually explain the universe?

I mean besides the fact that you have to maintain that insistence in your brain to continue to think that the universe must be self-existent and self-sufficient as an explanation.

Unfortunately, current Big Bang cosmology supports the universe having a beginning. Mere skepticism doesn’t function to disprove Standard Big Bang theory, despite that you want it to.

 

[HarryStotle]

Existing outside of time still doesn’t allow something to exist “before” time. Before time is a reference frame that simply cannot exist. You can exist for all time, but not before time.

You are making several claims here that are mere assertions. You do not know that time, as we experience it is an all-encompassing reality. You might think of it that way, but your viewing it as such does not make it so. When you dream, the dream world that you live in comes with its own “space” and sense of duration. That doesn’t make it real purely because it is the only experience you are having at that moment.

You cannot logically confine the reference frame of time to the limited view that you have of it, currently. You do not know that there could not be an eternal (timeless or “other time”) reality that is constrained to time as we experience it. The only grounds you have for insisting that is that possibility doesn’t suit your view and that you cannot make sense of it unless it does.

Your understanding of reality and time, isn’t what dictates to reality what its nature, relative to time, MUST be.

 

[HarryStotle]

IWantGod:

We know that the uncaused cause is intelligent because that which changes is not an ontologically necessary reality by definition.

But since reality isn’t necessary, an intelligent creator isn’t necessary either. So why does intelligence/consciousness exist if it doesn’t exist necessarily?

That would be the crux of the contingency argument. Could something, anything, exist if nothing were necessary. The problem then becomes how does something begin to exist, at some point, out of nothing?

Otherwise stated, the question is: Why is there something rather than nothing.

Different versions of the cosmological argument address this, for example, Avicenna’s argument from contingency (as laid out by Edward Feser):

1. Something exists.
2. Whatever exists is either possible or necessary.
3. If that something which exists is necessary, then there is a necessary existent.
4. Whatever is possible has a cause.
5. So if that something which exists is possible, then it has a cause.

Let’s pause briefly. You might expect that after step (5), Avicenna’s strategy would be to argue that we must rule out an infinite regress of causes. But that is not his approach. Instead he turns his attention to the metaphysical status of the totality of possible things (where the question of whether this totality is infinitely large or not is not in view here). Returning to the argument:

1. The totality of possible things is either necessary in itself or possible in itself.
2. The totality cannot be necessary in itself since it exists only through the existence of its members.
3. So the totality of possible things is possible in itself.
4. So the totality of possible things has a cause.
5. This cause is either internal to the totality or external to it.
6. If it is internal to the totality, then it is either necessary or possible.
7. But it cannot in that case be necessary, because the totality is comprised of possible things.
8. And it also cannot in that case be possible, since as the cause of all possible things it would in that case be its own cause, which would make it necessary and not possible after all, which is a contradiction.
9. So the cause of the totality of possible things is not internal to that totality, but external to it.
10. But if it is outside the totality of possible things, then it is necessary.
11. So there is a necessary existent.

 

[Dovekin]

You cannot logically confine the reference frame of time to the limited view that you have of it, currently. You do not know that there could not be an eternal (timeless or “other time”) reality that is constrained to time as we experience it. The only grounds you have for insisting that is that possibility doesn’t suit your view and that you cannot make sense of it unless it does.

Actually, he can do exactly that. Einstein’s relativity theorems tied time to space, and examination of physical data suggests that spacetime goes back to the Planck Epoch:

the Planck epoch or Planck era is the earliest stage of the Big Bang, before the time passed was equal to the Planck time, t P, or approximately 10−43seconds. There is no currently available physical theory to describe such short times, and it is not clear in what sense the concept of time is meaningful for values smaller than the Planck time.

So given our observations of the world, 13.8 billion years ago was when time and space began. There is no logical reason to think our imaginative vision of time as lasting longer has any basis in reality. 13.7 billion years ago describes an historical time, about which we can speculate; 15 billion years ago is sheer fantasy.