Does everything physical need a cause?

[neophyte]

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?

You have postulated that we are at the terminus of an infinite series, which, by definition, is impossible.

 

[pocaracas]

pocaracas:

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?

Whatever that is, indeed…
But I’ve been talking about something different, space-time… whatever that is, too.
You’re the one who seems to keep bringing it into what I’m not talking about.

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?

It does not change in the grand scheme of things… energy is conserved and is always zero.
This space-time is not imaginary… There’s something called the Casimir Effect that demonstrates these fluctuations do have a representation in reality.
No to mention General relativity…

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?

Why are you talking about time and events again?
Space-time.

If you think that, in order to be in a particular point of space-time, one must traverse an infinity of points, then you’re not making sense.
I gave the more intuitive example of just looking at a 3D infinite space and being in a point of that space, without having to traverse the infinity of space. Sadly, I can’t speak in 4D-spaceleze, so… that’s as best as you can get out of me.

 

[IWantGod]

Why are you talking about time and events again?

Sorry, are there no events in space time? I didn’t realize i was saying something controversial.

I gave the more intuitive example of just looking at a 3D infinite space and being in a point of that space, without having to traverse the infinity of space. Sadly, I can’t speak in 4D-spaceleze, so… that’s as best as you can get out of me.

You don’t seem to be reading what i am saying since you are not answering the qeustion and you are putting words in my mouth… Will you answer the qeustion?

 

[IWantGod]

It does not change in the grand scheme of things…

So according to you it doesn’t change by definition. This is what you think. Which means there are no physical changes and therefore no processes.

 

[IWantGod]

This space-time is not imaginary… There’s something called the Casimir Effect that demonstrates these fluctuations do have a representation in reality.

No to mention General relativity…

I know what Quantum fluctuations are. You are talking about something else, something that doesn’t change, something that doesn’t move from potency to act, and labeling it a Quantum fluctuation.

 

[IWantGod]

This space-time is not imaginary…

Its more worse than imaginary. It has no definition let alone an argument in its defense. You have just strung to words together. Why would i consider this a cogent possibility?

Real Space time is something that is changing, expanding, moving from potential to actuality. Its a physical process. Quantum fluctuations are an intrinsic part of these changes.

I don’t know what you are talking about. It sounds like something you made up.

 

[BlackFriar]

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.

I agree, not sure why you thought I was talking of subsets.
In fact I consider CEN and SC (sub change) not only not intersecting sets…but not even in the same genus.

And CEN, if it is a set has only one element.

 

[pocaracas]

Sorry, are there no events in space time? I didn’t realize i was saying something controversial.

The Time bit of space-time is not a series of events.
Space-time can be thought of the framework on which events can happen.

I gave the more intuitive example of just looking at a 3D infinite space and being in a point of that space, without having to traverse the infinity of space. Sadly, I can’t speak in 4D-spaceleze, so… that’s as best as you can get out of me.

You don’t seem to be reading what i am saying since you are not answering the qeustion and you are putting words in my mouth… Will you answer the qeustion?

I think I have, to the best of my ability.

So according to you it doesn’t change by definition. This is what you think. Which means there are no physical changes and therefore no processes.

Does space-time change physically? What does that mean?

I know what Quantum fluctuations are. You are talking about something else, something that doesn’t change, something that doesn’t move from potency to act, and labeling it a Quantum fluctuation.

Space-time remains what it is.
Quantum fluctuations can account for the coming about of particles at some random point of space-time.

Its more worse than imaginary. It has no definition let alone an argument in its defense. You have just strung to words together. Why would i consider this a cogent possibility?

Don’t fret… I feel the same way about the “god” notion.

Real Space time is something that is changing, expanding, moving from potential to actuality. Its a physical process. Quantum fluctuations are an intrinsic part of these changes.

Space-time moving from potential to actuality?
Is there any transfer of energy from space-time to whatever else?

 

[IWantGod]

Space-time can be thought of the framework

That’s how you think of it.Yes particular events happen in space time, but in order for there to be events, there has to be a flow of time. We identify time by the fact of change. That’s where we get the concept of time from in the first place. Otherwise its just meaningless.

 

[pocaracas]

That’s how you think of it.Yes particular events happen in space time, but in order for there to be events, there has to be a flow of time. We identify time by the fact of change. That’s where we get the concept of time from in the first place. Otherwise its just meaningless.

Our inability to properly define time is our own shortcoming.
Mathematically, it’s remarkably similar to any other dimension.

 

[IWantGod]

Our inability to properly define time is our own shortcoming.

Mathematically, it’s remarkably similar to any other dimension.

Another dimension. But what do you think scientists mean by term “dimension”, ontologically speaking? Because they certainly don’t mean a separate being that can exist by itself and just so happens to be attached to space. Why do you think they call it “space-time” and not “time and space”.

This is what we do know. We know that time exists because we have identified the fact of change. We may not fully understand it but that’s never going to change what it is. What you’re talking about is meaningless and bares no resemblance to reality… Its not even a hypothesis let alone a legitimate theory. Its your own personal philosophy and it is erroneous.

 

[pocaracas]

Another dimension. But what do you think scientists mean by dimension, ontologically speaking?

Straight from the wiki: “In physics and mathematics, the dimension of a mathematical space (or object) is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it.”

Oh wait, you mean ontologically? The framework upon which existence is possible.

Because they certainly don’t mean a separate being that can exist by itself and just so happens to be attached to space.

A being?!
Why would you consider a being?

 

[IWantGod]

Why would you consider a being?

Thanks for your time. I wish you the greatest good.

 

[pocaracas]

Thanks for your time. I wish you the greatest good.

Thank you.
I wish all the best for you, too!

 

[Kei]

It depends how we define creation.
For instance, if you believe in forms, then when you take something that is not a ball, say you take some rubber, and then you form it into a ball, you have made a ball wherein previously it was not there.

But the thing is, the argument is that which begins to exist has a cause. So, a ball has a cause.

However, it may not be so clear if you say that forms don’t exist, you just change things to other things without reason, yadda yadda.

But, the thing is, we don’t need to philosophize our way to the universe beginning. We can be reasonably sure based upon scientific advancements.
Then, the question is if effects need causes. I think it’s pretty easy to see that they do, and that things don’t happen without reason. Here’s where we take a “reality check”, and see that things do not occur without reason. Some may prefer the argument from motion to the Kalaam.

Personally, I don’t think “nothing” is a contingent possibility.

 

[AlNg]

the argument is that which begins to exist has a cause.

But suppose that nothing begins to exist but is already there at least potentially.

 

[Gorgias]

But suppose that nothing begins to exist but is already there at least potentially.

“Potentially” in a philosophical sense? It wouldn’t count: “coming into existence” speaks to actual existence, not potential existence… and therefore, falls under the category of things “which have a beginning.”

 

[BlackFriar]

But the thing is, the argument is that which begins to exist has a cause.

Sorry, I dont see how this has to apply to CEN.
With CEN there is no beginning to exist of a form as is always the case in accidental change. Even substantial change is a sudden change in form…even if we cannot know exactly at which point.

And CEN is not change in the Aristotelian analysis because a change in form requires an underlying substratum of matter which does not change for the analysis to validly work.

What is the underlying matter of a CEN change?

Therefore if the rules of change dont apply, cause and effect assumptions appear orphaned by Aristotelian analysis.

 

[Kei]

The forms don’t change, that’s not what I intended to imply at all.

I think you’re trying to treat the first notion as though it must be proven through reason alone, but I don’t think that such is its purpose.

 

[BlackFriar]

I dont think you well understand Aristotle’s hylomorphic principle?

All physical change involves a change in form…though some forms are accidental rather than substantial.

I believe accidental forms change slowly while substantial ones instantaneously.

Regardless, CEN is not a change in form according to Aristotelian principles. All change of form must occur in an unchanging substrate, matter.

There appears to be no substrate when we speak of CEN.
So Aristotle cause and effect principles no longer validly apply.

Unless we posit Prime Matter is involved in CEN.
But Aquinas seems to reject this.
What do you think?