Could the Universe have Created Itself?

[Oreoracle]

The existence of the universe is not a logical deduction from what the universe is. The universe isn’t anything over and above space, time, matter and energy.

The existence of the universe isn’t a deduction from anything at all. We assume it exists because of our sensory data.

Since all of these began to exist 13.7 billion years ago, existence isn’t integral to the universe. It could “not exist,” therefore it isn’t true that universe accounts for its own existence.

It could not exist, unless I define matter to be eternal, or metaphysically necessary, or maximally great, or whatever other trick theologians use to “prove” God’s existence. When God is defined to be maximally great in the ontological argument, for example, that is really a crucial assumption. To define something as maximally great is to assume its metaphysical necessity, which is to assume its existence.

Since existence is not logically entailed by anything about the universe there is no warrant for claiming it explains itself.

Again, list any properties you ascribe to God to infer his existence, and I can do the exact same thing by substituting “universe” in place of God.

An egg does not, of itself, explain the chicken because the egg itself needs to be explained. It is not sufficient to claim the egg is simpler than the chicken, so therefore Occam’s razor eliminates the heavy lifting required by the principle of sufficient reason by cutting out the need to explain anything.

Occam’s razor is only applied when both ideas explain something equally well. It’s a tie-breaker, basically. When all else is equal, the simplest should win.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The existence of the universe isn’t a deduction from anything at all. We assume it exists because of our sensory data.

It could not exist, unless I define matter to be eternal, or metaphysically necessary, or maximally great, or whatever other trick theologians use to “prove” God’s existence. When God is defined to be maximally great in the ontological argument, for example, that is really a crucial assumption. To define something as maximally great is to assume its metaphysical necessity, which is to assume its existence.

Again, list any properties you ascribe to God to infer his existence, and I can do the exact same thing by substituting “universe” in place of God.

Occam’s razor is only applied when both ideas explain something equally well. It’s a tie-breaker, basically. When all else is equal, the simplest should win.

The universe does not explain why it is the way it is, so it doesn’t explain itself.

How does the singularity explain the fine tuning of the laws of physics?

 

[Oreoracle]

The universe does not explain why it is the way it is, so it doesn’t explain itself.

Neither does God, and no one seems to have a problem with that. If you disagree, I reiterate my challenge to you: List any properties you ascribe to God to infer his existence, and I can do the exact same thing by substituting “universe” in place of God.

How does the singularity explain the fine tuning of the laws of physics?

I don’t agree that any fine tuning occurred. In particular, I don’t think our laws of physics are more special than other possible sets of laws. Sure, you could argue that other sets of laws may not allow for life, but they would allow for phenomena that are impossible in our universe. Why should the phenomena of life be any more special than other phenomena? Of course we think it is, since we are lifeforms, and therefore we are biased.

 

[Tomdstone]

According to Borde, Guthe and Valenkin:

How do you explain the paper of Valenkin: “Creation of Universes from Nothing” in which he says that the beginning of the universe is due to a quantum tunnelling effect where the symmetric vacuum state is destabilised by the quantum fluctuations of the Higgs field coupled to thermal or gravitational effects? It seems like this would not rule out a cyclical universe.
mukto-mona.com/science/physics/a_vilinkin/universe_from_nothing.pdf
Also, the BGV suggestion of causal geodiesics reaching a boundary of spacetime may be nullified by the time has no-boundary proposal of Stephen Hawking according to which time is finite but has no boundary. See The Grand Design (pg. 134-135).

 

[Tomdstone]

The universe does not explain why it is the way it is, so it doesn’t explain itself.

Why does the universe have to explain itself. Wouldn’t that presuppose causality? But physicists have ruled out causality as an explanation of some quantum effects so that if the beginning of the universe is due to a destabilization of quantum fluctuations, causality may not be the right explanation?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Neither does God, and no one seems to have a problem with that. If you disagree, I reiterate my challenge to you: List any properties you ascribe to God to infer his existence, and I can do the exact same thing by substituting “universe” in place of God.

I can do the same thing by substituting “teacup” in place of “universe” but that doesn’t mean I have established that a teacup necessitates its own existence.

Mere substitution of “universe” for “God” does not negate a claim that God does.

In order to exist necessarily it would mean no other force or power could bring about the non-existence of an omnipotent being. Omniscience, together with omnipotence, would entail having deliberate control over all other forces and entities That would be a prima facie reason that these two traits would, minimally, be required. Aseity or the quality of having existence as an essential aspect of one’s essence would be a third.

I gave properties: omnipotence, omniscience and aseity logically entail necessary existence and sufficiency in terms of creation of the universe.

The universe is neither omniscient, omnipotent nor does it exist because of some property integral to it, therefore, the universe cannot explain how it might necessitate its own existence or keep itself in existence.

Show me either…

1. That omnipotence, omniscience and aseity do not entail necessary existence.
   Or
2. The universe necessitates its own existence.

Just saying, “I don’t agree,” is insufficient to do either so try something more substantial if you don’t mind.

I don’t agree that any fine tuning occurred. In particular, I don’t think our laws of physics are more special than other possible sets of laws. Sure, you could argue that other sets of laws may not allow for life, but they would allow for phenomena that are impossible in our universe. Why should the phenomena of life be any more special than other phenomena? Of course we think it is, since we are lifeforms, and therefore we are biased.

John Leslie

 

[Peter_Plato]

Why does the universe have to explain itself. Wouldn’t that presuppose causality? But physicists have ruled out causality as an explanation of some quantum effects so that if the beginning of the universe is due to a destabilization of quantum fluctuations, causality may not be the right explanation?

Why does “explain” presuppose causality?

Does a thought in my mind “cause” me to type on this keyboard?

How does it in any “physical” way?

 

[Peter_Plato]

How do you explain the paper of Valenkin: “Creation of Universes from Nothing” in which he says that the beginning of the universe is due to a quantum tunnelling effect where the symmetric vacuum state is destabilised by the quantum fluctuations of the Higgs field coupled to thermal or gravitational effects? It seems like this would not rule out a cyclical universe.
mukto-mona.com/science/physics/a_vilinkin/universe_from_nothing.pdf

Doesn’t require it, either, so the point is moot.

Also, the BGV suggestion of causal geodiesics reaching a boundary of spacetime may be nullified by the time has no-boundary proposal of Stephen Hawking according to which time is finite but has no boundary. See The Grand Design (pg. 134-135).

Time “wrapping” around an infinitely decreasing “curve” does not nullify a boundary, it merely reduces it infinitely.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Neither does God, and no one seems to have a problem with that. If you disagree, I reiterate my challenge to you: List any properties you ascribe to God to infer his existence, and I can do the exact same thing by substituting “universe” in place of God.

I don’t agree that any fine tuning occurred. In particular, I don’t think our laws of physics are more special than other possible sets of laws. Sure, you could argue that other sets of laws may not allow for life, but they would allow for phenomena that are impossible in our universe. Why should the phenomena of life be any more special than other phenomena? Of course we think it is, since we are lifeforms, and therefore we are biased.

So if no pre-designated fine tuning of the initial laws of the universe occurred, how did those laws get started? Did they design themselves? Did they all come together by accident.

You have to assume this, don’t you? It’s not persuasive. The reason we believe the universe was designed is that it appears to have been designed. That is a reasonable inference. If you were talking evolution you have have a case to make that many different forms of life developed by accident, even though they might appear to have been designed. You don’t have that luxury with respect to the Big Bang. So far as we know, there is only one Big Bang, once chance for those laws to come together simultaneously in order to create a universe that billions of years later, to us, would look like a miracle rather than a universe creating itself.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I would argue that your view of philosophy is incorrect. Science does all of those things; physics does all of those things. Philosophy only exists to answer abstract questions and I agree with Stephen Hawking that philosophy is dead. The laws of physics have made it so.

Stephen Hawking will be dead when philosophy is alive and kicking. That he even said what he said was a philosophical saying. Hawking and Richard Dawkins are victims of scientism, given to making silly statements about anything they don’t understand just for the attention they know they will get.

 

[Tomdstone]

So if no pre-designated fine tuning of the initial laws of the universe occurred, how did those laws get started? Did they design themselves? Did they all come together by accident.

You have to assume this, don’t you? It’s not persuasive. The reason we believe the universe was designed is that it appears to have been designed. That is a reasonable inference. If you were talking evolution you have have a case to make that many different forms of life developed by accident, even though they might appear to have been designed. You don’t have that luxury with respect to the Big Bang. So far as we know, there is only one Big Bang, once chance for those laws to come together simultaneously in order to create a universe that billions of years later, to us, would look like a miracle rather than a universe creating itself.

Our attempt at trying to find design in the universe may be somewhat illusory. For example, before Kepler, many astronomers thought that they had found the design of the solar system by epicycles, which today is regarded as wrong.

 

[Oreoracle]

I can do the same thing by substituting “teacup” in place of “universe” but that doesn’t mean I have established that a teacup necessitates its own existence.

The fact that you can do that should suggest that that form of argument is weak. If you argue for the existence of X, and the argument is such that X could be anything, the argument is tautological.

Mere substitution of “universe” for “God” does not negate a claim that God does.

No, but it establishes that the argument is tautological.

I gave properties: omnipotence, omniscience and aseity logically entail necessary existence and sufficiency in terms of creation of the universe.

Excellent. I define the universe to be omnipotent, omniscient and to have aseity, just as you define God to have those properties. Therefore the universe is necessary. Dang, that was easy, huh?

Incidentally, assuming aseity effectively assumes the conclusion of your argument, since “aseity” is the property of existing in a self-sustaining manner. So your argument is circular.

The universe is neither omniscient, omnipotent nor does it exist because of some property integral to it, therefore, the universe cannot explain how it might necessitate its own existence or keep itself in existence.

As my argument above illustrates, you’re using the wrong definition of “universe”. Use my newer, sleeker definition. Definitions are arbitrary, since words are merely labels. That’s why metaphysicians love semantics so much.

John Leslie

As I said, I concede that life is unlikely. With different sets of laws, life would likely not be possible. But with different sets of laws, other phenomena that are impossible in our universe would be possible. Why is life a special phenomenon? Maybe some other phenomena that can’t happen in our universe are really the “special” ones, which would make this universe mundane.

 

[Tomdstone]

So far as we know, there is only one Big Bang, …

Penrose is a proponent of the cyclical nature of the universe -A Big Bang and then a Big Crunch, repeating indefinitely: Here is a lecture entitled: “Aeons Before the Big Bang”
youtube.com/watch?v=OutKE3tyG94

 

[Tomdstone]

Time “wrapping” around an infinitely decreasing “curve” does not nullify a boundary, it merely reduces it infinitely.

A spherical surface with a constant radius will not reduce indefinitely and it has no boundary.

 

[oldcelt]

I would argue that your view of philosophy is incorrect. Science does all of those things; physics does all of those things. Philosophy only exists to answer abstract questions and I agree with Stephen Hawking that philosophy is dead. The laws of physics have made it so.

My choice is not based on faith; it is based on science. The two are mutually exclusive by their very definition.

I will think about it.

Welcome Emperor…you get tired of the News forum too?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Excellent. I define the universe to be omnipotent, omniscient and to have aseity, just as you define God to have those properties. Therefore the universe is necessary. Dang, that was easy, huh?

Except for one small detail. The universe clearly isn’t necessary.

Omnipotence, omniscience and aseity are coherent concepts. Since the universe isn’t necessary - it’s non-existence is a coherent possibility - then the requisite characteristics for necessity do not belong to it.

The fact that it was easy means that you didn’t actually do what you claimed to have done.

 

[Phil_Marinus]

This thread just won’t get out of the gobbledygook mud patch will it…

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Welcome Emperor…you get tired of the News forum too?

Hey oldcelt. Yeah, thought I’d explore the rest of the forum

 

[Oreoracle]

Except for one small detail. The universe clearly isn’t necessary.

Of course it is! I just defined it to be, weren’t you paying attention?

If the metaphysicians can get away with defining God to be necessary, why can’t I do the same with the universe? Again, it’s not a matter of arguing in favor of necessity. We are simply talking about how we’re allowed to define terms. If you are allowed to define something, such as God, as necessary, you can prove anything, as my example with the universe illustrated.

Definitions are not deduced, they are axiomatic.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Of course it is! I just defined it to be, weren’t you paying attention?

If the metaphysicians can get away with defining God to be necessary, why can’t I do the same with the universe? Again, it’s not a matter of arguing in favor of necessity. We are simply talking about how we’re allowed to define terms. If you are allowed to define something, such as God, as necessary, you can prove anything, as my example with the universe illustrated.

Definitions are not deduced, they are axiomatic.

Feel free then to carry on with your axiomatic definition of “universe” which means “necessary” to you.