First Cause and common refutations

[warpspeedpetey]

first cause. are there valid refutations? in the course of many discussions i have found few refutations based on firm rational grounds. I am interested in the common arguments for and against first cause.

i think first cause, properly stated, is a bulwark of rationalism. unassailable.

to wit:

nothing comes from nothing. 0+0=0, etc

 

[Spock]

first cause. are there valid refutations? in the course of many discussions i have found few refutations based on firm rational grounds. I am interested in the common arguments for and against first cause.

i think first cause, properly stated, is a bulwark of rationalism. unassailable.

to wit:

nothing comes from nothing. 0+0=0, etc

Ok. Let the fun begin.

My first question: “what is the causal structure of the universe?”.

The first possibility is one, uninterrupted causal chain. This would be a linear structure, where each event has exactly one antecedent and exactly one corollary. This is necessary to map the causes onto the sequence of positive integers, in other words to assign the values of “first”, “second”, etc… to the causes.

Or, would you say that the causal chains form a “tree” structure, where each event is the result of one previous cause, while that cause might have had several consequences. In this case one could say that there is a “first” cause (the root of the tree), but the other events cannot be mapped onto the consecutive numbers, that is it not possible to say that there was a “second” cause.

Or, would you say that an event might have had several causes, and might have had several consequences? In this case there is no necessary “first” cause at all. There might have been many “first” causes, therefore it is impossible to assign the value “first” to either one of them. Let’s call this a “bush-like” structure.

Or, do you think that there are many, independent causal chains, each forming a tree-like or bush-like structure?

Which one of these possibilities corresponds to the physical reality we call the universe?

\//

 

[mich2]

Ok. Let the fun begin.

My first question: “what is the causal structure of the universe?”.

The first possibility is one, uninterrupted causal chain. This would be a linear structure, where each event has exactly one antecedent and exactly one corollary. This is necessary to map the causes onto the sequence of positive integers, in other words to assign the values of “first”, “second”, etc… to the causes.

Or, would you say that the causal chains form a “tree” structure, where each event is the result of one previous cause, while that cause might have had several consequences. In this case one could say that there is a “first” cause (the root of the tree), but the other events cannot be mapped onto the consecutive numbers, that is it not possible to say that there was a “second” cause.

Or, would you say that an event might have had several causes, and might have had several consequences? In this case there is no necessary “first” cause at all. There might have been many “first” causes, therefore it is impossible to assign the value “first” to either one of them. Let’s call this a “bush-like” structure.

Or, do you think that there are many, independent causal chains, each forming a tree-like or bush-like structure?

Which one of these possibilities corresponds to the physical reality we call the universe?

\//

I personally would simply think of energy taking on different forms. All of your above examples would be valid potential scenarios. However, there can be only one reality. Since the observable universe is finite, an infinite process of dynamic energy states ought to be unacceptable (for this particular universe), so a first cause ought to exist.
The first causative agent need not to be one single
event, however, it ought to speak of at lleast a beginning of time as we understand time to be.
The Big Bang theory is a good First Cause event for the universe, however, I still personally believe the question “what caused the Big Bang” to be a valid question eventhough time as we understand it did not yet exist, since energy must have existed…maybe in a static form, or within God (I understand the latter case would not be a scientific explanation, but we are within a religious forum .

Andre

 

[JustHuman]

No one literally thinks that “something came from nothing”. That’s a total straw-man argument.

From my naturalistic standpoint, several things are possible:

There was no “before” the universe. This is not to say the universe came from nothing, but rather the question of asking what caused the universe is irrational to begin with.

The universe may have required a cause to come into existence. If this is the case, all we know about it is that it “caused the universe”. If this is true, I see no way of conclusively proving what characteristics this cause had.

 

[rossum]

first cause. are there valid refutations? in the course of many discussions i have found few refutations based on firm rational grounds. I am interested in the common arguments for and against first cause.

I can think of a few.

i think first cause, properly stated, is a bulwark of rationalism. unassailable.

Very few things are unassailable. All that is needed is to attack the axioms in which the argument is based. No axiom can be proved from inside any theory on which it is based. Change the axioms and you change the theory.

to wit: nothing comes from nothing. 0+0=0, etc

So, setting up a few counter arguments:

1 Yes, nothing does indeed come from nothing. If the universe is actually nothing then 0 => 0 is correct. Nothing does not need a cause.

1.1 The universe is a physical nothing. Adding up all the positive mass/energy in the universe and all the negative potential energy due to the separation of that mass against the force of gravity the total energy of the universe is precisely zero. Negative and positive cancel each other out. The universe is zero energy and so equals zero.

1.2 The universe is an illusion. It is not really there and so does not require any cause. All that we can be aware of is internal to ourselves - nerve impulses coming down our sensory nerves into our brains. Someone who is colour blind will not see (in the literal sense) the same universe as those who are not colour blind. Who is to say which, if either, of the two universes is real? How can we tell? A bee can see polarized light while we cannot. Is the bee’s universe real while ours is as unreal as that percieved by the colour blind person?

2 If you have causation, then you are already starting with more than “nothing”. To have a “first cause” you need to have causation. Without causation then there can be no cause; first, second or whatever.

2.1 Causation requires time. Without time then the cause and the effect cannot be separated. How can you tell which one came ‘before’ the other if there is no time in which to compare them? Since the cause must precede the effect then we must have time before we have any first cause. Hence the first cause is not itself independent but is itself dependent upon time; in the absence of time there can be no causation and in the absence of causation there can be no first cause. You have to explain the existence of time prior to the existence of the first cause.

2.2 In order to be a cause there must also be an effect. Someone cannot be a parent unless they have children. If there are no children then that person cannot be a parent. It is the same with causes; if the cause has not actually caused anything then it cannot be a cause. At most it can be a potential cause, waiting for the right conditions to become an actual cause.

In the absence of any effect then there cannot be a cause. Hence there cannot have been a first cause until there was also a first effect. In the absence of the first effect there can have been no first cause. The first cause is just as dependent on the universe as the universe is on the first cause. Your first cause argument does not solve anything since you cannot explain its existence separate from the existence of the universe.

3 Other arguments.

3.1 If we define that universe as “all that exists” then by definition there is nothing that exists outside the universe, so any proposed first cause is either inside the universe, and so ineligible to be the cause of the universe, or outside the universe, in which case it does not exist.

3.2 The universe is eternal and so does not require a cause. By the Kalaam argument anything that does not have a beginning does not need a cause.

3.2.1 The Big Bang was not a beginning but a change of state in an eternally existing universe, perhaps an oscillating universe of some sort going in a cycle from Big Bang to Big Crunch and back again.

3.2.2 Since time exists then time is also included inside the “all that exists” universe. Outside the universe there is no time, or to rephrase it, there is no time at which the universe does not exist. Hence the universe is eternal and does not need a cause.

While you probably do not agree with all of these arguments, and I know we have discussed some of them previously, they are all possible arguments. I am sure that there are others.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Ok. Let the fun begin.

My first question: “what is the causal structure of the universe?”.

The first possibility is one, uninterrupted causal chain. This would be a linear structure, where each event has exactly one antecedent and exactly one corollary. This is necessary to map the causes onto the sequence of positive integers, in other words to assign the values of “first”, “second”, etc… to the causes.

Or, would you say that the causal chains form a “tree” structure, where each event is the result of one previous cause, while that cause might have had several consequences. In this case one could say that there is a “first” cause (the root of the tree), but the other events cannot be mapped onto the consecutive numbers, that is it not possible to say that there was a “second” cause.

Or, would you say that an event might have had several causes, and might have had several consequences? In this case there is no necessary “first” cause at all. There might have been many “first” causes, therefore it is impossible to assign the value “first” to either one of them. Let’s call this a “bush-like” structure.

Or, do you think that there are many, independent causal chains, each forming a tree-like or bush-like structure?

Which one of these possibilities corresponds to the physical reality we call the universe?

\//

the causal structure of the universe doesnt matter other than to say that every effect needs a cause.

the configuration one uses to track the chain of causality is no more important to the map of boston is to the actual layout of boston

you may have a street map, a topographical map, a birds eye photomap, etc.

but no matter the way in which you represent it, its still boston.

in a similar way no matter the ‘map’ of causality you wish to use, the primary relationship of causality, is cause and effect. and does not change.

so to say anything more than every effect needs a cause, is to place artificial, arbitrary structure where none necessarily exists

in other words semantics don’t change the core relationship that

every effect has a cause.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No one literally thinks that “something came from nothing”. That’s a total straw-man argument.

From my naturalistic standpoint, several things are possible:

There was no “before” the universe. This is not to say the universe came from nothing, but rather the question of asking what caused the universe is irrational to begin with.

The universe may have required a cause to come into existence. If this is the case, all we know about it is that it “caused the universe”. If this is true, I see no way of conclusively proving what characteristics this cause had.

the same way we undertake any intellectual endeavor, reason and evidence.

in this case we can deduce that the nature of first cause is non-physical, why? because nothing physical can cause itself.

so there is the first characteristic of that cause.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

1 Yes, nothing does indeed come from nothing. If the universe is actually nothing then 0 => 0 is correct. Nothing does not need a cause.

im not making an argument concerning omega.

1.1 The universe is a physical nothing. Adding up all the positive mass/energy in the universe and all the negative potential energy due to the separation of that mass against the force of gravity the total energy of the universe is precisely zero. .

semantics…

first they dont equal out without assuming dark matter and energy as a system, and they dont as in a locality because you and i are here to have the discussion

the universe is obviously something.

1.2 The universe is an illusion. It is not really there and so does not require any cause. A bee can see polarized light while we cannot. Is the bee’s universe real while ours is as unreal as that percieved by the colour blind person?

and yet they can both see the exact same version of ‘casablanca’
there are no versions of a uiniverse based on illusion.

either the entire universe is an illusion meaning we are as well, and there is no structure.

or

the universe is entirely composed of that structure which senses an illuision.

or the short way, either there is or is not a universe.

if you are here to sense an illusion then you are the universe

if your not here than there is no universe

as you are here to ask the question, there ia at a minimum a universe entirely composed of you.

therfore there is a universe. even if its just you

…i hope that made sense, but you know i will repaeat it if it didn’t

2 If you have causation, then you are already starting with more than “nothing”. To have a “first cause” you need to have causation.

which is why first cause must necessarily be non-physical

2.1

Causation requires time. Without time then the cause and the effect cannot be separated. How can you tell which one came ‘before’ the other if there is no time in which to compare them? Since the cause must precede the effect then we must have time before we have any first cause. Hence the first cause is not itself independent but is itself dependent upon time; in the absence of time there can be no causation and in the absence of causation there can be no first cause. You have to explain the existence of time prior to the existence of the first cause.

we need time to sort cause from effect, we need sight to seperate the earth from the sky, yet wether or not we can make the distiction, the earth and sky are seperate.

why do you think that causality is dependent on time?

the BB happened in the absence of time, obviously causality is not dependent then on time.

2.2

In order to be a cause there must also be an effect. Someone cannot be a parent unless they have children. If there are no children then that person cannot be a parent. It is the same with causes; if the cause has not actually caused anything then it cannot be a cause. At most it can be a potential cause, waiting for the right conditions to become an actual cause.

im not sure how you are getting from regression to potentiality, i need some clarification here

In the absence of any effect then there cannot be a cause. Hence there cannot have been a first cause until there was also a first effect. In the absence of the first effect there can have been no first cause. The first cause is just as dependent on the universe as the universe is on the first cause. Your first cause argument does not solve anything since you cannot explain its existence separate from the existence of the universe.

sure i can, as nothing physical can cause itself, the first cause is necessarily non-physical

you simply arguing that the first cause also needs a cause, bt=ut as its not physical, there is no reason to assume its not eternal, needing no cause

3 Other arguments.

3.1

If we define that universe as “all that exists” then by definition there is nothing that exists outside the universe, so any proposed first cause is either inside the universe, and so ineligible to be the cause of the universe, or outside the universe, in which case it does not exist.

thats not how the universe is defined. indeed it is generally accepted as the resultants of the BB.

3.2

The universe is eternal and so does not require a cause. By the Kalaam argument anything that does not have a beginning does not need a cause.

second law of thermodynamics, your a physicist, you know thats wrong

3.2.1

The Big Bang was not a beginning but a change of state in an eternally existing universe, perhaps an oscillating universe of some sort going in a cycle from Big Bang to Big Crunch and back again.

sure, where does the energy (name removed by moderator)ut come from to change state?

3.2.2

Since time exists then time is also included inside the “all that exists” universe. Outside the universe there is no time, or to rephrase it, there is no time at which the universe does not exist. Hence the universe is eternal and does not need a cause.

the all that exists universe is a conceptual definition, not what the normal definition is, and since your a physicist and know this its worse when you say it

While you probably do not agree with all of these arguments, and I know we have discussed some of them previously, they are all possible arguments. I am sure that there are others.

rossum

i think most of them are easily refutable, i like “The universe is a physical nothing” though its prima facia false.

though i am a little dissappointed that you pulled out some of the arguments no physicist should make, shame on you

 

[warpspeedpetey]

you know it occurs to me that if one doesn’t accept first cause, then one really has no reason to claim the BB wasn’t the act of creation.

hmmmm…if the universe doesn’t need a cause, then wouldn’t the BB creation?

 

[Spock]

the causal structure of the universe doesnt matter other than to say that every effect needs a cause.

the configuration one uses to track the chain of causality is no more important to the map of boston is to the actual layout of boston

you may have a street map, a topographical map, a birds eye photomap, etc.

but no matter the way in which you represent it, its still boston.

Well, I think that a proper model forming of any problem is already a significant accomplishment on the road to solve it. Model forming is the first step in all the sciences, isn’t it?

Your example is not correct in the sense that all the particular maps you mentioned are congruent since they all refer to the same object with different perspectives, but all of them describe Boston to a degree. (Is it possible that it describes a different city?)

However, the different models I set up are not intechangable, they are contradictory. Only one of them can be correct. And not all of them has a “first” one in them, even theoretically. This is not mere semantics.

in a similar way no matter the ‘map’ of causality you wish to use, the primary relationship of causality, is cause and effect. and does not change.

so to say anything more than every effect needs a cause, is to place artificial, arbitrary structure where none necessarily exists

in other words semantics don’t change the core relationship that

every effect has a cause.

That is trivally true, but it is no help.

Indeed when one considers a cause-effect pair, there is one element we describe as “cause” and another one we describe as “effect”.

The question is: is this artificial pairing applicable to any and all events of the universe? For every event must there be a cause (are there uncaused events)? Does every event have an effect (does a causal chain stop somewhere)? In other words, how can you assert that causality is universal?

And another problem. Causation cannot be even defined in a meaningful manner to sets or collections of objects. There is no “cause” to the collection of all the books on Earth. And the universe is precisely that: a collection of all the objects and events. One cannot even define a “cause” for that.

It is the same kind of problem that we encounter when one attempts to posit something “outside” or “before” the universe. It is the same problem when someone wants to know: “just what resides to the north of the North Pole?”.

These are syntactically valid yet semantically meaningless questions.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well, I think that a proper model forming of any problem is already a significant accomplishment on the road to solve it. Model forming is the first step in all the sciences, isn’t it?

in the physical sciences yes, i just think the only applicable model here is the core relationship.

Your example is not correct in the sense that all the particular maps you mentioned are congruent since they all refer to the same object with different perspectives, but all of them describe Boston to a degree. (Is it possible that it describes a different city?)

i would think that since the relationship between the buildings, streets, landmarks etc remain the same, the degree of accuracy of the maps wouldnt matter

However, the different models I set up are not intechangable, they are contradictory. Only one of them can be correct. And not all of them has a “first” one in them, even theoretically. This is not mere semantics.

frankly, i think all are possible in terms of a way to view causality in part. they just fail to reflect it in toto

Indeed when one considers a cause-effect pair, there is one element we describe as “cause” and another one we describe as “effect”.

The question is: is this artificial pairing applicable to any and all events of the universe? For every event must there be a cause (are there uncaused events)? Does every event have an effect (does a causal chain stop somewhere)? In other words, how can you assert that causality is universal?

apparently so, we have no evidence of truly uncaused events.

the hypothesis of cauality is tested trillions of times a second, and we have yet to see an instance that it truly fails.

And another problem. Causation cannot be even defined in a meaningful manner to sets or collections of objects. There is no “cause” to the collection of all the books on Earth. And the universe is precisely that: a collection of all the objects and events. One cannot even define a “cause” for that.

as all these ‘collections’ can be observed coming from a single event, the BB, i dont think that would be a problem here

It is the same kind of problem that we encounter when one attempts to posit something “outside” or “before” the universe. It is the same problem when someone wants to know: “just what resides to the north of the North Pole?”.

These are syntactically valid yet semantically meaningless questions.

i dont see a problem with ‘outside’ or ‘before’, though i dont use those myself much, the universe is limited both spatially and temporally, so to me outside and before make sense.

yes i know that they should be meaningless in the absence of time or space, yet, anything that is finite as time and space are, has a border or edge

but like i said i tend not to use terms that would be problematic in that fashion, iat least i try not to.

 

[Spock]

in the physical sciences yes, i just think the only applicable model here is the core relationship.

Do you mean that the core relationship is “every effect has a cause”? I already conceded that this is a trivially true observation. Where the problem lies is the nature of “events”.

frankly, i think all are possible in terms of a way to view causality in part. they just fail to reflect it in toto

I am confused. The models I presented are contradictory and all inclusive. One of them must be the correct model.

apparently so, we have no evidence of truly uncaused events.

the hypothesis of cauality is tested trillions of times a second, and we have yet to see an instance that it truly fails.

Hmmm, even if this were true, that would be a variant of the “we have never seen a black swan, therefore it is reasonable to assume that there are no black swans” type of argument. I am afraid that is not convincing.

Besides, if we have free will, then there are uncaused events (our free decisions), in the sense that our free actions start a new causal chain. Now, I understand that the existence of free will cannot be demonstrated, it is a basic principle. I am also aware that not all people subscribe to it.

Also, according to QM, there are genuinely “fresh”, uncaused events. We cannot be certain, but it looks like that the principle of causality (every event must have an external cause) is not as strong as you presented.

as all these ‘collections’ can be observed coming from a single event, the BB, i dont think that would be a problem here

It is a huge problem. First, the BB is not one event. Second, there in no coherent definition of causality for a collection. That is the problem: the lack of a coherent definition. If one cannot even define what does it mean that a collection is “caused”, then how can it be asserted that a collection was “caused”?

 

[rossum]

I have added my earlier reference numbers to try to keep the different types of argument clear.

1

im not making an argument concerning omega.

How is the last letter of the greek alphabet relevant to this discussion. You need to define your meaning more clearly here.

1.1

first they dont equal out without assuming dark matter and energy as a system,

You cannot know that since we do not yet know how much dark matter there is in the universe and how much positive mass/energy and negative gravitational potential energy is tied up in it. The question is at the moment unanswerable.

the universe is obviously something.

Yes, but is it something real or something unreal? What is obvious may not be correct on a closer look.

1.2

and yet they can both see the exact same version of ‘casablanca’

How do you know that? You have never seen ‘Casablanca’ as I see it down my optic nerves, and I have never seen your version. How do you intend to establish both logically and philosophically that we both see exactly the same version of ‘Casablanca’?

As an example, when I was young, about six, I was badly frightened by a large Alsatian. Ever since then whenever I see a large dog my brain also generates an echo of that fear. The effect is worse when I see an Alsatian. In the universe that I percieve dogs are associated with fear. For other people dogs have different associations. How do you know that we both see the same ‘Casablanca’? We do not see the same dogs.

there are no versions of a uiniverse based on illusion.

See maya.

2

which is why first cause must necessarily be non-physical

That is irrelevant; causes and effects can both be non-physical. Causation needs to be present whether the cause and the effect are physical or not.

2.1

why do you think that causality is dependent on time?

Because the cause must precede the effect - if the cause is not present then it can have no effect. The cause must be active before the effect exists. With no time we can have no “before” so we are unable to tell the cause from the effect.

2.2

i need some clarification here

Sorry for not being clear. Zeus claims to be a creator of universes. We go up to Zeus and ask him, “How many universes have you created?”

Zeus looks embarassed and shuffles his feet. “Erm… Well… None actually.”

What do you think of Zeus’ claim to be a “creator of universes”? Is his claim correct? He cannot be a “creator of universes” unless and until he has created at least one universe.

To be a creator (= cause) there must have been something created (= effect). If Zeus has not actually created a universe than he cannot be called a creator of universes.

Now apply the same argument to your first cause and to the time before the origin of the universe. The same argument applies.

there is no reason to assume its not eternal, needing no cause

Nor is there any reason to assume that it is eternal. You may assume your conclusion if you want to, but the resulting argument will not convince many people. You have to prove it to us, not just assume it.

3
3.1

thats not how the universe is defined. indeed it is generally accepted as the resultants of the BB.

That is how I define the universe. If you don’t like the word “universe” then I can just switch to the “all-that-exists-iverse”, but that is rather clumsy.

3.2

second law of thermodynamics, your a physicist, you know thats wrong

When the Big Crunch goes through a singularity to emerge on the other side as a new Big Bang it is not at all sure that SLoT applies across the boundary. The conditions are so extreme that it would be dangerous to extrapolate what happens. We cannot even calculate the gravity yet because we lack a theory of quantum gravity and without that we are not able to calculate all the forces on the particles present.

3.2.1

sure, where does the energy (name removed by moderator)ut come from to change state?

You are assuming that the SLoT applies to conditions where it has never been tested and where the conditions cannot currently be calculated. Your assumption is just that, and a weak base on which to rest an argument.

3.2.2

the all that exists universe is a conceptual definition, not what the normal definition is,

It is a perfectly good philosophical definition and this is a philosophical discussion.

though i am a little dissappointed that you pulled out some of the arguments no physicist should make, shame on you

I am arguing more as a philosopher than as a physicist.

I do not support all of the suggestions that I made. I am just indicating that there are real philosophical arguments against Aquinas’ prime mover.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Do you mean that the core relationship is “every effect has a cause”? I already conceded that this is a trivially true observation. Where the problem lies is the nature of “events”.

thats just it the nature of the ‘events’ your speaking about is assigning them numbers. when the only thing that actual matters is that an effect needs a cause.

assigning them numbers and then, i assume, precedence is only semantics of the situation.

the assignations are artificial.

it need be no more complicated than cause follows effect. we are not interested in the nature of any event the structure of events, but only one event. first cause.

and one event is hardly enough information to on which to base entire systems.

especially as it is the only unique event that we know to have occured.

I am confused. The models I presented are contradictory and all inclusive. One of them must be the correct model.

for instance, your first model claims one cause, one event. we know thats wrong, drop a glass…lots of effects

your second model claims you cant number any effects after the first one, why not? drop a glass in slow mo video, and there is clearly a definable order to events, even when they branch off.

the third model you talk about multiple first causes to one event, im curious as to how thats possible. unless all events happened in the same planck time, a near impossibility, we can map each event temporally. unless you mean something i dont know about.

and the fourth is just a variation requiring multiple first causes.

it seems much complication for a relatively simple situation.

each effect needs a cause

Hmmm, even if this were true, that would be a variant of the “we have never seen a black swan, therefore it is reasonable to assume that there are no black swans” type of argument. I am afraid that is not convincing.

and yet predictive power is the basis for how we use models to conduct science.

how well does the model predict reality?

a model where in causality is absolute seems to be almost perfectly predictive of reality.

so in a sense if you have seen trillions of white swans, you need a pretty good reason to say that the next swan you see will be black.

sure it may be, but thats not a reasonable basis to say that it is. or is even likely.

almost anything is possible. big deal, the question for me is do i have a reason to believe it to be so in this particular situation?

you are right, there may be a black swan, do you have reason to believe the next one we see will likely be black?

Besides, if we have free will, then there are uncaused events (our free decisions), in the sense that our free actions start a new causal chain. Now, I understand that the existence of free will cannot be demonstrated, it is a basic principle. I am also aware that not all people subscribe to it.

funny enough i actually have an argument from free will for the existence of G-d.

but from a purely deterministic empirical view of the matter, those decisions are not uncaused.

now i dont believe that myself, but if we believe only in a purely deterministic universe with no other (name removed by moderator)uts, then those interactions dont escape causality either.

dont go there, it will just leave you asking ‘whats the point of it all’?

Also, according to QM, there are genuinely “fresh”, uncaused events. We cannot be certain, but it looks like that the principle of causality (every event must have an external cause) is not as strong as you presented.

if you care to give the QM interpretation you are using i would be happy to discuss it, that is actually the bulk of the arguments presented here . that is the usual first strike from your side of the issue.

It is a huge problem. First, the BB is not one event. Second, there in no coherent definition of causality for a collection. That is the problem: the lack of a coherent definition. If one cannot even define what does it mean that a collection is “caused”, then how can it be asserted that a collection was “caused”?

how is it not one event? there was no collection of anything, if you accept the idea of a singularity, there was only one thing, a singularity smaller than one planck unit.

if you dont there was only energy at 1x10(-35).

i dont know where you are getting the idea of ‘collection’ from

 

[wasmit]

first cause. are there valid refutations? in the course of many discussions i have found few refutations based on firm rational grounds. I am interested in the common arguments for and against first cause.

i think first cause, properly stated, is a bulwark of rationalism. unassailable.

to wit:

nothing comes from nothing. 0+0=0, etc

I’m not sure what your exact argument is, but when discussing the cause of the big bang, the most resonable answer is “I don’t know”.

Also, the statement “everything has a cause” cannot be extrapolated back to the beginning of the universe. There may or may not have been uncaused events then. We don’t know.

Also, uncaused events can be seen at the moment, at the molecular level, with the examples of virtual particles and radioactive decay.

Also, even if one accepts that something caused the big bang, there is no basis to accept an intelligent creator over a natural process.

Further still, even if one accepts that an intelligent creator as the cause of the big bang, there is no basis to suggest that is is the christian god, as opposed to zeus, thor, brahma, etc…

Those are my main problems with the first cause argument.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

1

How is the last letter of the greek alphabet relevant to this discussion.

sorry, the form you used here 0 => 0 made me think you were making an argument concering the geometry of the universe, my bad.

1.1

You cannot know that since we do not yet know how much dark matter there is in the universe The question is at the moment unanswerable.

thats just my point you cant assume they equal out without assuming the correct proportions of dark matter/energy.

so you cant really make the universe is nothing argument.

Yes, but is it something real or something unreal? What is obvious may not be correct on a closer look.

do you have some evidence that leads us to seriously question if its real?

cogito ergo sum and all, even if the universe is just you, it is still real.

1.2

How do you know that? You have never seen ‘Casablanca’ as I see it down my optic nerves, and I have never seen your version. ?

casablanca was shot in black and white, whether you are colorblind or not you can recieve the same information. if your optics are wonky in handling that info, then you may see it differently, but it doesnt actually make the movie different.

As an example, when I was young, about six, I was badly frightened by a large Alsatian. For other people dogs have different associations. How do you know that we both see the same ‘Casablanca’? We do not see the same dogs.

actually my neighbors german shepherd bit the **** out of me quite regularly, i probably feel the same way you do.

and yet the universe remains the same for bioth of us regarless of perception.

G is 32 ft persecond persecond, for the blind or seeing, for the fat or thin. get it?

2

That is irrelevant; causes and effects can both be non-physical. Causation needs to be present whether the cause and the effect are physical or not.

? maybe our wires are crossed here, i am specifically speakingg about the first cause of the physical universe.

help me out here?

2.1

Because the cause must precede the effect - if the cause is not present then it can have no effect. The cause must be active before the effect exists. With no time we can have no “before” so we are unable to tell the cause from the effect.

once again, our ability to seperate cause from effect doesn’t make a difference. the semantics of ‘before’ are only that semantics. langauge that deals with the way that we measure causality in our little heads.

further, the BB happened so i have to believe that causality is not dependent on time.

2.2

Sorry for not being clear. Zeus claims to be a creator of universes. We go up to Zeus and ask him, “How many universes have you created?”

Zeus looks embarassed and shuffles his feet. “Erm… Well… None actually.”

What do you think of Zeus’ claim to be a “creator of universes”? Is his claim correct? He cannot be a “creator of universes” unless and until he has created at least one universe.

To be a creator (= cause) there must have been something created (= effect). If Zeus has not actually created a universe than he cannot be called a creator of universes.

Now apply the same argument to your first cause and to the time before the origin of the universe. The same argument applies.

so there couldn’t be a cause until ithere was an effect?

so if i dont do anything i dont exist?

Nor is there any reason to assume that it is eternal. You may assume your conclusion if you want to, but the resulting argument will not convince many people. You have to prove it to us, not just assume it.

sure, there was no time, unlike physical things, non-physical arent subject to physical laws, meaning that the default state of something in a timeless environment is to be eternal.

physical things cant be eternal, non-physical can be.

3
3.1

That is how I define the universe. If you don’t like the word “universe” then I can just switch to the “all-that-exists-iverse”, but that is rather clumsy.

if you care to use a private language, go ahead, it just wont be sensical to the subject.

3.2

When the Big Crunch goes through a singularity to emerge on the other side as a new Big Bang it is not at all sure that SLoT applies across the boundary. The conditions are so extreme that it would be dangerous to extrapolate what happens. We cannot even calculate the gravity yet because we lack a theory of quantum gravity and without that we are not able to calculate all the forces on the particles present.

3.2.1

You are assuming that the SLoT applies to conditions where it has never been tested and where the conditions cannot currently be calculated. Your assumption is just that, and a weak base on which to rest an argument.

your basing an argument on one side of that assumption, that the second law doesn’t apply, im sticking with the orthodox view of the matter. i dont cancel the basic laws without good reason.

3.2.2

It is a perfectly good philosophical definition and this is a philosophical discussion.

I am arguing more as a philosopher than as a physicist.

I do not support all of the suggestions that I made. I am just indicating that there are real philosophical arguments against Aquinas’ prime mover.

rossum

private definitions dont work. nobody else knows, lets stick with the most germane definition. semantics are unconvincing to me

yes, there are, they just dont withstand much scrutiny. thats the problem with them

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I’m not sure what your exact argument is, but when discussing the cause of the big bang, the most resonable answer is “I don’t know”.

why is that the most reasonable answer, we have the evidence and reason, those are the tools we use for any intellectual endeavor

Also, the statement “everything has a cause” cannot be extrapolated back to the beginning of the universe. There may or may not have been uncaused events then. We don’t know.

 

[JDaniel]

Ok. Let the fun begin.

My first question: “what is the causal structure of the universe?”.

Pardon the barge-in, but, five or six to one is tough odds even for someone who has warpspeed!

I would answer that, properly stated and understood, all of your ensuing “possibilites” are demonstrative of efficient causality in the universe.

The first possibility is one, uninterrupted causal chain. This would be a linear structure, where each event has exactly one antecedent and exactly one corollary. This is necessary to map the causes onto the sequence of positive integers, in other words to assign the values of “first”, “second”, etc… to the causes.

The definition of efficient causality, on which the First Cause argument depends, does itself not depend upon an “uninterrupted causal chain” for validity. Can there exist “uninterrupted causal chain(s)” subsequent to the First Cause? Of course there can. I am ssure you could describe one or two.

Or, would you say that the causal chains form a “tree” structure, where each event is the result of one previous cause, while that cause might have had several consequences. In this case one could say that there is a “first” cause (the root of the tree), but the other events cannot be mapped onto the consecutive numbers, that is it not possible to say that there was a “second” cause.

The word “or” is unnecessary. I would characterize a first cause, as Aquinas would, as the primordial instant of the first change or rest effect. The primordial instant of first change or rest might easily have had multiple effects. There exists no necessary requirement that there be but one effect.

Or, would you say that an event might have had several causes, and might have had several consequences? In this case there is no necessary “first” cause at all. There might have been many “first” causes, therefore it is impossible to assign the value “first” to either one of them. Let’s call this a “bush-like” structure.

Again, the word “or” is unnecessary. I would answer that while there exists the possibility, and moreover, the probability, that an effect may have multiple causes, that in the order of efficient causality, that is not what we see. Further, and by the way, the First Cause defined by Aquinas is not dependent upon an arbitrary numerical system imposed by someone. It is merely called a First Cause because it is the First Cause understood by the reality presented by the logic of the impossibility of infinite regression, and, by Petey’s arguments from Physics and QM.

Or, do you think that there are many, independent causal chains, each forming a tree-like or bush-like structure?

Once more, the word “or” is unnecessary. I would answer that there are no “independent causal chains” of the type and species you are herein suggesting. Every “independent causal chain” can be thought through and found to have been an effect that goes back to a previous singular cause, which was an effect, etc. That being said, since the “look-back” cannot go back to infinity, for a number of really valid reasons, we ultimately come to exactly that: an ultimate First Cause.

Which one of these possibilities corresponds to the physical reality we call the universe?

As they are not mutually exclusive, you can answer your own question. Now.

jd

 

[wasmit]

I’m not sure what your exact argument is, but when discussing the cause of the big bang, the most resonable answer is “I don’t know”.

There are many hypotheses for the cause of the big bang. There is no evidence for any of them. If you can provide some evidence to favour one hypothesis over the rest, I would be keen to look at it.

Also, the statement “everything has a cause” cannot be extrapolated back to the beginning of the universe. There may or may not have been uncaused events then. We don’t know.

do we have any reason to suspect that causality just stops smewhere between the BB and here?

Yes. The explanation is within the field of quantum physics. You can find it if you look. Here is an interesting article which discusses this same issue.

science-spirit.org/article_detail.php?article_id=142

Also, uncaused events can be seen at the moment, at the molecular level, with the examples of virtual particles and radioactive decay.

you mean we dont know the cause. which is a far cry from they have no cause.

The consequential implications of a background cause are inconsistent with current knowledge.

Also, even if one accepts that something caused the big bang, there is no basis to accept an intelligent creator over a natural process.

sure there is.

a random act would have a 1:infinity chance of creating this particular universe, from all the equally probable universes.

though possible, it makes those arguments pretty hard to buy.

an independant actor could simply choose this universe

This is a false choice - It doesn’t capture the situation accurately

also, I assume you are talking about the parsimonious nature of the universal constants? If so, no-one knows the possible values for these constants. There may be only one, or two, or a trillion possbile values.

Further still, even if one accepts that an intelligent creator as the cause of the big bang, there is no basis to suggest that is is the christian god, as opposed to zeus, thor, brahma, etc…

other than the mathematically precise nature of messianic prophecy, you mean.

that is a unique claim to Christianity, that lends it a mathematical validity, no other faith has.

That’s an interesting claim. can you provide your reasons for saying this? (links, documents, etc.)

 

[warpspeedpetey]

There are many hypotheses for the cause of the big bang. There is no evidence for any of them. If you can provide some evidence to favour one hypothesis over the rest, I would be keen to look at it.

i dont know of any reason to think tht the BB wasn’t the act of creation. thats my favored hypothesis

Yes. The explanation is within the field of quantum physics. You can find it if you look. Here is an interesting article which discusses this same issue.

science-spirit.org/article_detail.php?article_id=142

i really dont have time to read articles, just give me the arguemnt you wish to use and i will give the refutation.

QM is the most common argument. its likely ive already heard it.

The consequential implications of a background cause are inconsistent with current knowledge.

im sorry but i dont understand what you mean here. are you saying because we dont know the cause they are unlikely to have a cause?

if so i would wonder why in light of the universal applicability of causality in every other facet of the universe.

it would seem strange if we were to have some causeless events, somehow seperatee from the causal chains in which the rest of reality seem wrapped.

im afraid i would need a great deal of evidence to accept that.

but as ‘current knowledge’ continually changes, i think the only reasonable position is the ‘we dont know the cause’ aas opposed to seperating those events from causality with no furhter evidence.

i.e. occams razor, the simplest explanation given what wwe knoe is that we simply dont know or understand the method of causation.

This is a false choice - It doesn’t capture the situation accurately

also, I assume you are talking about the parsimonious nature of the universal constants? If so, no-one knows the possible values for these constants. There may be only one, or two, or a trillion possbile values.

no it doesnt matter the physical constants. you may think i am making a protestant creationist arguement. any particular universe will do.

and that inffinite value of physical parameters is the point. long odds for a random act to create any particualar universe. much less one where we wind up having this conversation.

its a likelyhood arguemnt, not a ‘must be’ argument

That’s an interesting claim. can you provide your reasons for saying this? (links, documents, etc.)

sure, google ‘messianic prophecies.’

that would be a good start.