Kalam?

[Alberti_Devoveo]

I’ve not fallen desperately in love with i or anything, but would think it has the same claim to be real as 0, 1,* e* and π, since they are all related by Euler’s Identity.

Except i is called imaginary for a reason…

Quantum theory introduces exponential terms with imaginary values for the simple fact that they allow wave-functions that are single valued:

e[sup]ix+i2π[/sup]=e[sup]ix[/sup]e[sup]i2π[/sup]=e[sup]ix[/sup]

If we drew a real-imaginary plane (real on the x-axis, imaginary on the y-axis), then in moving around on the unit circle, we should expect x+2π to give the same value as x, when dealing with QM (not so in complex analysis, but that is another story).

When dealing with measurement in quantum theory, the (possibly) complex wave-function is multiplied by its complex conjugate so as to remove the imaginary component, leaving only the real for the probability distribution. Most every introductory quantum theory text I have seen have a line in them (in some form) that states, “Measurements in quantum theory are real, they cannot have an imaginary component.”

 

[Serious]

Your reponse to 1 and 2 seem fairly weak. One is not primarily based on inductive support ,but on the metaphysical intuition that nothing comes from nothing. This is just common sense.

Do you really think that such intuitions come from “nothing”? Obviously they are the result of millions of observations. However, millions of observations sill do not lead to facts, they only lead to plausible hypotheses. In other words, to say that “nothing comes from nothing” is just as unsupported as saying: “we have never seen a black swan, therefore it is obvious that black swans cannot exist”. This is what the first assumption really means.

And common sense can be extremely misleading. Common sense tells us that if one has 24 randomly selected people in a room it is very unlikely that at least two of them would celebrate their birthday on the same day of the year - after all there are 366 days to “choose from”. Contrary to common sense, the chance of having at least one duplicate birthday is actually greater than 50%. This is how reliable “common sense” is.

It’s like saying that minds other than my own exist or the physical universe has existed for more than 5 minutes. It draws support from inductive observations, but if inductive observations were as weak as you claim, then science itself, which is based on inductive reasoning, would be impossible!

Nonsense. Observations are great, inductive reasoning is wonderful but they lead only to hypotheses, which - in and by themselves - do not constitute unshakable facts, they only present a road for further investigation. To stop with a common-sense “suggested” basis for a “proof” is poor thinking.

Your response to two shows a misunderstanding of Big Bang Cosmology,
"According to Sandage and Tammann, “Hence, we are forced to decide that . . . it seems inevitable that the Universe will expand forever”; they conclude, therefore, that “the Universe has happened only once.”
from: lan Sandage and G.A. Tammann, “Steps Toward the Hubble Constant. VII,” Astrophyscial Journal 210 (1976): 23, 7

That is just one opinion. There are other theories, which are all speculations.

1. is just an absurd caricature.

Ah, the old “caricature” argument. Which part of “an unknowable being using unknowable means made it magically happen” is incorrect?

The Kalam does not rely on God in the gaps reasoning, on the contrary, if time, space, and matter began to exist, then a scientific explanation (in terms of laws operating on initial conditions) of the universe is in principle impossible.

The universe is an existential primary. All explanations can occur within the framework of the universe. As such the universe itself is just as unexplainable as the basic axioms of a deductive system.

 

[inocente]

Except i is called imaginary for a reason…

Not a very good reason imho, as the one thing i is not is imaginable. Names are just names – the name “big bang” was invented by Fred Hoyle, who thought Lemaitre’s theory irrational.

*Quantum theory introduces exponential terms with imaginary values for the simple fact that they allow wave-functions that are single valued:

e[sup]ix+i2π[/sup]=e[sup]ix[/sup]e[sup]i2π[/sup]=e[sup]ix[/sup]

If we drew a real-imaginary plane (real on the x-axis, imaginary on the y-axis), then in moving around on the unit circle, we should expect x+2π to give the same value as x, when dealing with QM (not so in complex analysis, but that is another story).

When dealing with measurement in quantum theory, the (possibly) complex wave-function is multiplied by its complex conjugate so as to remove the imaginary component, leaving only the real for the probability distribution. Most every introductory quantum theory text I have seen have a line in them (in some form) that states, “Measurements in quantum theory are real, they cannot have an imaginary component.”*

All well and good except in Euler’s Identity i can’t just be factored out to avoid frightening the horses.

Feynman’s sum over histories treats time as a direction in space, and Hawking seems to be doing much the same, or at least up to the point where he swans off into his metaphysics.

My point is that kalam hands control of its fate to science, any plausible scientific explanation undermines the argument.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Not a very good reason imho, as the one thing i is not is imaginable. Names are just names – the name “big bang” was invented by Fred Hoyle, who thought Lemaitre’s theory irrational.

You missed the point. i is called imaginary because it is not real; the operation sqrt(-1) is not defined.

All well and good except in Euler’s Identity i can’t just be factored out to avoid frightening the horses.

It is “factored” out because eigenvalues must be real. It is nonsense to say that a measurement can be imaginary (i.e., have a component of i in it).

Feynman’s sum over histories treats time as a direction in space, and Hawking seems to be doing much the same, or at least up to the point where he swans off into his metaphysics.

Feynman’s path integrals are integrals over wave-functions. Once you complete the integral, you must take the complex conjugate to get the real probability.

My point is that kalam hands control of its fate to science, any plausible scientific explanation undermines the argument.

My point has only been that imaginary numbers are not physical, but mathematical tools that enable correct calculations. In order to relate the mathematical tool to the reality, one must eliminate the non-physical tools: i.

 

[JDaniel]

The objection I’ll raise to Kalam here has to do with the philosophy of time, not with theism or atheism. So, I hope this thread doesn’t turn into a discussion on either, pretty much anyone could lodge this objection against Kalam (Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Christians etc.)

On the A-theory of time, when something comes into being at time t, things are, at t, otherwise than they were before. That is, once something begins to exist, something changes: a new object comes into existence. This seems beyond reasonable dispute. How can x come into being at t if nothing changes when it does, as if it had always existed?

Perplexed:

Do you see the problem with your proposition? Why do you suppose Time and the beginning of the universe to be simultaneous? The beginning of the universe is an act of creation. But, so are the myriad acts of creation of new human beings. Why are they each not time ‘t’?

The creation, or beginning, of the universe is not the raison d’etre of ‘time’. It is assumed - perhaps by too many - that motion began at the BB. How can we know for sure that that is the case? The Creator is a creator. The Creator has been (our language) “creating” forever, more than likely. It would be contradictory to assume that prior to our universe/multiverse all the Creator had created was immobile being. One could with as much certitude as any speculative endeavor surmise that Time had been turned on or off multitudinous times - each time the Creator created mobile being.

But, this odd claim is exactly how we’d have to understand the universe’s beginning to exist on A-theory.

Your prior statement is incoherent (your para # 2).

I mean, if we agree with the mutakallim’s understanding of the universe’s beginning to exist anyways. That is, if there really was an absolute singularity: time itself along with matter and energy ‘begin’ at the universe’s earliest state, and we assume A-theory, we get an absurdity.

Re-think “Time,” then.

Each and every new soul is a beginning of existence. The grand scale of the universe does not separate the acts of creation from one another all that dramatically.

I think it’s clear why we’d be saying the former, and we’d be saying the latter because if time itself, along with matter and energy, are exactly the same age as the universe, then at every single point in time, the universe has existed: the universe is eternal (in the relevant sense).

Accordingly.

It strikes me as incoherent to say an eternal thing came into being at a certain time.

It strikes me as incoherent that you find that to be incoherent. The Creator “creates;” the Creator does not annihilate. The Creator has abilities that are, undoubtedly, far beyond ours.

But, we can easily make sense of the universe beginning to exist on B-theory: the earliest or first state of the universe is the beginning of the universe in the same way the first segment on a line is the beginning of that line. So, it seems to me that in order to make sense of the beginning of the universe, we need to adopt B-theory.

But, as Bill Craig says:

“From start to finish, the kalam cosmological argument is predicated upon the A-Theory of time. On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and, therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived. Although G.W.F. Leibniz’s question, Why is there (tenselessly) something rather than nothing?, should still rightly be asked, there would be no reason to look for a cause of the universe’s beginning to exist, since on tenseless theories of time the universe did not begin to exist in virtue of its having a first event anymore than a meter stick begins to exist in virtue of having a first centimeter.” - Craig, William Lane., and James Porter Moreland. The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. pp. 183-84.

Bill Craig has over-thought this thing.

Nobody really objects to Kalam on the grounds that B-theory is true 'cause the philosophy of time is just so speculative, what’s the point? That’s why this objection strikes me as pretty avant garde: not only is it using the philosophy of time against the Kalam, it’s using Kalam’s strength (its scientific appeals to the Big Bang) to do it!

Perhaps: if “time” fit neatly into certain people’s philosophies.

God bless,
jd

 

[inocente]

You missed the point. i is called imaginary because it is not real; the operation sqrt(-1) is not defined.

You missed the point , which was It got its unfortunate misnomer, the “imaginary number” as a result of a diatribe by Rene Descartes. Descartes was disgusted by it; he believed it was a phony artifact of sloppy algebra. He did not accept that it had any meaning at all: thus he termed it an “imaginary” number, as part of an attempt to discredit the concept. - scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/12/i_the_imaginary_number_classic.php

It is “factored” out because eigenvalues must be real. It is nonsense to say that a measurement can be imaginary (i.e., have a component of i in it).

I was referring to not being able to factor it out of Euler’s identity rather than measurements.

*One of the most frequently mentioned equations was Euler’s equation, *e[sup]iπ[/sup] + 1 = 0. Respondents called it “the most profound mathematical statement ever written”; “uncanny and sublime”; “filled with cosmic beauty”; and “mind-blowing”. Another asked: “What could be more mystical than an imaginary number interacting with real numbers to produce nothing?” The equation contains nine basic concepts of mathematics — once and only once — in a single expression. These are: e (the base of natural logarithms); the exponent operation; π; plus (or minus, depending on how you write it); multiplication; imaginary numbers; equals; one; and zero. - Robert P. Crease, in “The greatest equations ever” at PhysicsWeb (October 2004)

My point has only been that imaginary numbers are not physical, but mathematical tools that enable correct calculations. In order to relate the mathematical tool to the reality, one must eliminate the non-physical tools: i.

No disrespect, and I’m not about to swoon at Hawking’s feet or anything, but methinks you’ll have to take it up with him … One might think this means that imaginary numbers are just a mathematical game having nothing to do with the real world. From the viewpoint of positivist philosophy, however, one cannot determine what is real. All one can do is find which mathematical models describe the universe we live in. It turns out that a mathematical model involving imaginary time predicts not only effects we have already observed but also effects we have not been able to measure yet nevertheless believe in for other reasons. So what is real and what is imaginary? Is the distinction just in our minds? - The Universe in a Nutshell, p. 59 (2001)

 

[danserr]

Do you really think that such intuitions come from “nothing”? Obviously they are the result of millions of observations.

This statement is easy to disprove. Consider, I said “the idea that nothing comes from nothing is primarily a metaphysical intuition, like that minds other than my own exist or the physical universe has existed for more than 5 minutes.”

Now these latter two claims are obviously not the result of observation or evidence. Our observations support just as well the claim that no minds exist other than my own or that the physical universe was created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age. Hence, they are not rooted in observation. Likewise that nothing comes from nothing.

Observations are great, inductive reasoning is wonderful but they lead only to hypotheses, which - in and by themselves - do not constitute unshakable facts, they only present a road for further investigation. To stop with a common-sense “suggested” basis for a “proof” is poor thinking.

Now even though the causal principal is rooted primarily in our deep metaphysical intuition that nothing comes from nothing, it does have additional support in that it is continually confirmed in our experience.

Your want to ridicule this experience by claiming that inductive reasoning leads only to hypotheses and that we cannot trust conclusions that result from inductive reasoning. This is obviously absurd, since if I were to take this idea seriously, then science itself (which works largely by inductive reasoning) would be impossible!

Originally Posted by danserr View Post
Your response to two shows a misunderstanding of Big Bang Cosmology,
"According to Sandage and Tammann, “Hence, we are forced to decide that . . . it seems inevitable that the Universe will expand forever”; they conclude, therefore, that “the Universe has happened only once.”
from: lan Sandage and G.A. Tammann, “Steps Toward the Hubble Constant. VII,” Astrophyscial Journal 210 (1976): 23, 7

That is just one opinion. There are other theories, which are all speculations.

That is an intellectually lazy response, since no matter how many authors I gave you, you could always claim "that is just x people’s opinions, they don’t speak for everyone.

Which part of “an unknowable being using unknowable means made it magically happen” is incorrect?

rhetorical puffery. I appeal to no god-in-the-gaps, rather I explain precisely why a personal creator is probably given the success of the Kalam argument.

Originally Posted by danserr View Post
The Kalam does not rely on God in the gaps reasoning, on the contrary, if time, space, and matter began to exist, then a scientific explanation (in terms of laws operating on initial conditions) of the universe is in principle impossible.

The universe is an existential primary. All explanations can occur within the framework of the universe. As such the universe itself is just as unexplainable as the basic axioms of a deductive system.

This is vague and ignores the point, so I will be more explicit. If the universe had a beginning, ie, if time space, and matter began to exist, then a scientific explanation of the universe is in principle impossible. Scientific explanations work in terms of laws operating on initial conditions, but if the universe began to exist than an explanation of this sort is impossible. Given, the truth of the causal premise, that the universe began, and that this beginning is best explained by a personal explanation, there is no reason the universe is inexplicable.

As such the universe itself is just as unexplainable as the basic axioms of a deductive system

Could you clarify here? Are you actually claiming that the universe exists necessarily? If the universe is inexplicable, what is your basis for this claim? Are you saying scientists or philosophers should not seek an explanation of it?

 

[LtPoultry]

So I’m a bit confused about how causal events would be treated in B-theory. If you have and event C and an event D, in order for C to have caused D wouldn’t C need to have occurred prior to D? If this is so, then how can one make a claim, using either A-theory or B-theory, that C caused D when D is the beginning of the universe, of which there are no events prior.