Physicists understood causality perfectly well and argued over it vehemently since the 30’s.
if they understood the basics of causality they would know that a contingent relationship infers a causal relationship. not one would put forth the possibilty of VP as a creative mechanism, as its commonly bandied about.
Later experiments built on top of the work of John Bell with entangled particles tend to corroborate the Copenhagen School. If there are hidden variables as EPR suggested, then they must somehow communicate faster than light speed. It’s certainly not impossible, but it is unnecessary to make the assumption of an unknown faster than light communication method unless we make the further assumption of causality.
again, all these theories are contingent on a pre existing vacuum and vacuum energy. the causal mechanism may not be known but the causal relationship can be inferred from the contingent relationship.
The big question is: What other than assumption necessitates causality in nature?
constant universal experience, the same as gravity, or any other physical law that we consistently experience.
Why would it be impossible for nature to operate on probability?
if it did, if causality were an illusion, i should not suspect this uniformity of existence we experience. things should happen randomly, from the causation of universes to the dissappearance of socks in the dryer… oh, wait.
Why should we expect that nature must operate only as our highly limited experiences lead us to expect?
we arent in a special place in the universe, we should be able to observe and experience the universal environment in part as a whole then.
This is wrong. Please refer to Hume’s Treatise on Human Nature starting on p86. Hume argued that no amount of observation could prove the uniformity of nature, and that human nature more or less settles on uniformity for practicality’s sake.
i assume i am wrong then, i read it the other day and now, have no idea where it went. my mistake.
if i find it i will attribute it properly.
Do you have proof that gravity existed, was not unified, and worked the same way in the early universe, particularly the Planck epoch?
no one has any evidence that anything physical existed prior to the planck epoch.
You’ve made this bald assertion time and again. Please explain in detail how you get from cosmic inflation back in time to creation ex nihilo.
it is the empirical evidence that our universe had a beginning, prior to the planck epoch we cannot assume that anything existed. unless you make that huge assumption, the BB looks like a beginning to me.
The events of early Big Bang are highly speculative. It is speculation on top of conjecture on top of hypothesis. Add to that the Big Bang theory does not address anything beyond this universe or anything that may or may not have existed prior.
yep, metaphysics past that.
You keep using the universe as a synonym for nature.
metaphysically the universe is a synonym for nature.
what do you think the difference is?
Once again you’re using universe as a synonym for nature. It’s simply not the case that no physicists take eternal nature seriously. In fact, all the major cosmological theories either predict an eternal nature or don’t deal with anything before the Planck epoch
.
which major theories are these? the ones that assume something prior to the planck epoch?
what makes that a valid assumptionm? why should we assume that anything existed prior to the planck epoch?
wait for it…
causality. they think there must be a natural cause for the universe. there just must be!
Fine… Let’s examine why these are problems for an eternal nature.
dictionary.reference.com/browse/eternal
- Metaphysics. existing outside all relations of time; not subject to change.
i hope the metphysical definition of eternal alone will be sufficient
