Does everything physical need a cause?

[neophyte]

Second law of Thermodynamics - the Entropy in a closed system will always increase or, in a perfectly stable system, remain the same.

A side note that’s not relevant to the point being made: this is not an entirely accurate description of the Second Law. But let’s not derail the thread discussing why.

 

[IWantGod]

What does that mean?

When you say a space time that is a part or subset of an infinite space time. What does that even mean?

You are still dealing with change, regardless of how many islands of space and time there are. In what way does this infinite space time serve as an un-caused cause? What do you mean by infinite time and space? Are you saying there is a sequence of events that are actually infinite. What are you saying exactly?

 

[pocaracas]

Dodging the issue.

Non-composite is being without parts.

No spatial parts (spatial simplicity).

No temporal parts (temporal simplicity).

No sort of metaphysical complexity where different parts are distinct from the First Cause

This excerpt from Theology and Sanity might be useful on Trinitarianism: The Trinity: Three Persons in One Nature | Frank Sheed | From "Theology and Sanity" | Ignatius Insight

Very well… I fail to see how space-time does not comply with all that.
Or do you want to state that a part of space-time has a spatial part like a star is in space?
Or yet that it has a temporal part?

Remember that I said space-time is a framework upon which other things have spatial and temporal parts… and I dare to be so bold as to consider that ancient philosophers never considered it… .perhaps some more contemporary ones have… sadly, your link doesn’t address this.

A side note that’s not relevant to the point being made: this is not an entirely accurate description of the Second Law. But let’s not derail the thread discussing why.

True, I went by memory… I’m sure you all can check the wiki for a more complete version.

 

[pocaracas]

What does that mean?

When you say a space time that is a part or subset of an infinite space time. What does that even mean?

I honestly don’t know how else to say it.
Our words on this matter, sadly, top up at 3D.

You are still dealing with change, regardless of how many islands of space and time there are. In what way does this infinite space time serve as an un-caused cause? What do you mean by infinite time and space? Are you saying there is a sequence of events that are actually infinite. What are you saying exactly?

I’m saying that it’s plausible for an infinite space-time which is constantly going through random quantum fluctuations to, occasionally, sprout a Universe.

 

[Wesrock]

The link was only to speak to some specifics about Trinitarianism, not to address the cosmological arguments.

More to come later, I hope.

 

[IWantGod]

I’m saying that it’s plausible for an infinite space-time which is constantly going through random quantum fluctuations to, occasionally, sprout a Universe.

Is it plausible? What is infinite time according to you? Also, you are talking about something that is constantly changing. Are you saying there are an actually-infinite number of quantum fluctuations as opposed to a potentially infinite number? And if there is an infinite regress of change, why would this serve as an ultimate first cause?

Its all good and well asserting something. But you must explain what you mean otherwise we will simply dismiss it as being meaningless.

Also an effect might be random in terms of what its doing and the degree to which it is doing it, but in terms of it being something at all it still requires a cause. We are talking about cause and effect in a metaphysical sense, not the mechanistic sense that usually applies to macro objects

 

[Kei]

Yes, from nonbeing to being.

 

[BlackFriar]

The unvomed mover, the uncreated creator, the first cause is then chalked up to “simple” random space-time fluctuations. No conscious entity required. No plan required. No nothing required (actual philosophical nothing) - just space-time.

Now this requires a whole lot of unpacking. Agree with no conscious entity…but no entity…far from clear.
Random fluctuations in and out of material being requires an ever existing non material substratum to support the changes.
If that substratum is denied then the definition of “fluctuations” (ie change) is no longer valid and you may not use that word.

In which case I no longer understand what your asserted sentence really means.

 

[BlackFriar]

Aristotle is talking about change, which includes the change of “coming into being.”

Not quite. Aristotle speaks of “coming into (new) substance”.
He does not refer to the creation of being itself from my understanding of his works on change. He always posits the need for an abiding substratum when there is change.

That is Aquinas making analogical use of Aristotle’s understanding of change and cause/effect.

The leap in logic that principles of substantial change are the principles of creation ex nihilo (CEN) is unproven and unproveable it seems to me. It is certainly congruent though.
So assumptions re cause/effect may not be valid for CEN.

It is interesting Aquinas avoids calling CEN “change”. He does the same re the Eucharist.

Is creation from prime matter true “creation”?
Is prime matter “nothing”.
Can there be “prime spirit” to make souls and angels from…

Interesting issues re the fine line between change in being and change in substance, creation and substantial fluctuations.

 

[neophyte]

I’m saying that it’s plausible for an infinite space-time which is constantly going through random quantum fluctuations to, occasionally, sprout a Universe.

Which would mean that we are now at the terminus of an infinite series of temporal events. But by definition it’s impossible to arrive at such a terminus.

 

[BlackFriar]

That is not change by my reading of Aristotle on substance and accidents.

All physical change requires an underlying substratum that itself does not change.

What is the underlying substratum for creation ex nihilo?
Prime matter?
Is that nothing?

 

[Kei]

We have to define our terms. You simply asked me if going from nothing to something was a change. Indeed it would be in the common sense of the word, as there is a difference between the before and after. In this way, it is a change as it is not the same as before.

This is separate from what you meant to ask, so sorry for misunderstanding.

This is an interesting topic that delves into what it means to exist. As such, it gets a little iffy to give definitive answers here. But, I would hold that nothing to something is not a physcial change.

 

[pocaracas]

Is it plausible?

It is.

What is infinite time according to you?

Let me make something up on the spot: Infinite space-time is an eternal framework upon which things can happen.

Also, you are talking about something that is constantly changing.

Yes and no?.. zero energy means that no change actually happens.

Are you saying there are an actually-infinite number of quantum fluctuations as opposed to a potentially infinite number? And if there is an infinite regress of change, why would this serve as an ultimate first cause?

In an infinite space-time, there should be infinite fluctuations, I guess… just like I mentioned that there could be infinite other Universes.

And it would serve as a first cause for all Universes, being itself uncaused…

Random fluctuations in and out of material being requires an ever existing non material substratum to support the changes.

Wouldn’t that substratum be space-time itself?

Which would mean that we are now at the terminus of an infinite series of temporal events. But by definition it’s impossible to arrive at such a terminus.

Imagine only space as infinite… if you are at a particular point of this infinite space, does it take you an infinite span of space to reach it? Why would it be any different for time?

 

[catholic1seeks]

Just my 2 cents.

When someone says God is infinite, that is very different than saying the Universe or time or space is infinite.

With God, it just means lack of restrictions. With space or time or anything physical, it would mean an endless set of something quantifiable.

Many question whether it even makes sense to talk about the Universe or space or time existing for infinity. An actual infinite may be sensible with numbers, but an actual infinite of items cannot really exist.

 

[IWantGod]

Let me make something up on the spot:

That’s the problem

 

[IWantGod]

Yes and no?.. zero energy means that no change actually happens.

So according to you a zero-energy universe, being that it has zero sum energy, doesn’t change by definition. This is what you think. Which means there are no physical changes and therefore no physical processes. And so this infinite space-time doesn’t change at all in any respect in which case you are no longer talking about time in any meaningful sense.

So what are you talking about? What do you mean by infinite in relation to time; what ever that is?

 

[IWantGod]

In an infinite space-time, there should be infinite fluctuations, I guess…

Why would there be any events in a “space-time” (as you put it) that does not change? How can something move from potential to act in your imaginary space-time.

What are you talking about?

 

[IWantGod]

Imagine only space as infinite… if you are at a particular point of this infinite space, does it take you an infinite span of space to reach it? Why would it be any different for time?

If there is an actually infinite number of events before this moment it would mean that one has to transgress an actually infinite number of events in order to reach this moment. Would you not agree that this would involve a contradiction?.

A finite amount of something can never add up to an actual infinite no-matter how much you add to it, so how can an actual infinite be made up of finite amounts?

 

[BlackFriar]

But, I would hold that nothing to something is not a physcial change.

I agree.
And herein lies the epistemological problem.

We only come to certainty re philosophical principles (eg every effect has a cause) by reasoning on physical change.

How can it be valid to apply those principles to a “change” that is not really in the same category as “physical change” from which those principles were inducted by reason?

Sure, CEN is very analogous to substantial or accidental physical change principles of cause and effect. But that still involves a loss of logical certainty.

Creation is really quite opaque to human reasoning because the principles we try to use are based on physical change.

 

[Gorgias]

Not quite. Aristotle speaks of “coming into (new) substance”.

He does not refer to the creation of being itself from my understanding of his works on change. He always posits the need for an abiding substratum when there is change.

Well, to be fair, Aristotle would never agree with CEN. So, if we want to use his thought in a Christian framework, I think it would be fair to apply his thoughts on “coming into existence” in terms of “coming into being.” I see what you’re saying about Aquinas, though.

The leap in logic that principles of substantial change are the principles of creation ex nihilo (CEN) is unproven and unproveable it seems to me. It is certainly congruent though.

I don’t think that I’d go so far as to classify CEN as a subset of “subset of substantial change”, especially since it’s a one-time event. Yet, I don’t think it strains the imagination to call the coming into being at the CEN as substantial change – even though there’s no subsequent substantial change in the universe that we would say is that precise type of substantial change.