uncaused cause

[Brown10985]

Is Aquinas’ uncaused cause argument for God’s existence really all that great? I mean, why couldn’t we have been created from another universe that isn’t limited by the physical laws that we have?

 

[RobedWithLight]

Because then we would have to answer the same old question: Where did “that” universe, with its own set of physical laws come from? It doesn’t provide a satisfactory answer to the question of ultimate origins, but merely delays it.

Gerry

 

[Brown10985]

Yes, though a universe without the same physical laws we do doesn’t have to go by cause and effect laws. The sky is the limit with what this other universe that could’ve caused our universe could do including creating itself.

 

[Strider]

So, you’re implying that this hypothetical other universe is the uncaused cause?

 

[Vincent]

You can’t cause something unless you exist in the first place.

 

[theMutant]

Brown10985:

Yes, though a universe without the same physical laws we do doesn’t have to go by cause and effect laws. The sky is the limit with what this other universe that could’ve caused our universe could do including creating itself.

However, you are missing the point of Thomas’s argument. This alternate universe of which you speak, which has a completely different set of laws of which we know nothing about cannot cause itself because it must exist in order to cause anything. You argue that it might have completely different physical laws than the universe in which we live, but you neglect to notice that phisical laws (even different ones) only apply to physical things that exist. If there was a time that it didn’t exist, then it couldn’t cause it’s own existence because to cause is to act. How can something that doesn’t exist act? How can something that doesn’t exist comply with physical laws in order to create itself? Additionally, if such a universe created itself, it could not have done so according to the laws of that universe unless they existed prior to universe being created. If the universe itself doesn’t exist, the laws that govern that universe also do not exist (unless, of course, God established those laws first). God is the uncaused cause because he is the being for whom existence is part of His very nature. There was never an instant that God did not exist, nor will there ever be one.

You can come up with endless alternate universes but you will still not eliminate the need for the ultimate uncaused cause of it all.

 

[hecd2]

theMutant:

However, you are missing the point of Thomas’s argument. This alternate universe of which you speak, which has a completely different set of laws of which we know nothing about cannot cause itself because it must exist in order to cause anything. You argue that it might have completely different physical laws than the universe in which we live, but you neglect to notice that phisical laws (even different ones) only apply to physical things that exist. If there was a time that it didn’t exist, then it couldn’t cause it’s own existence because to cause is to act. How can something that doesn’t exist act? How can something that doesn’t exist comply with physical laws in order to create itself? Additionally, if such a universe created itself, it could not have done so according to the laws of that universe unless they existed prior to universe being created. If the universe itself doesn’t exist, the laws that govern that universe also do not exist (unless, of course, God established those laws first). God is the uncaused cause because he is the being for whom existence is part of His very nature. There was never an instant that God did not exist, nor will there ever be one.

You can come up with endless alternate universes but you will still not eliminate the need for the ultimate uncaused cause of it all.

There are several flaws in this argument:

1. causation is what we observe in this universe. It is perfectly possible to conceive of another universe in which the concept of causation that we observe in this universe does not exist. (Indeed, the concept of causation, in the sense of deterministic contingency, is considerably weakened in this universe by the findings and principles of Quantum Mechanics). For example, spontaneous, ‘uncaused’ generation of particle/anti-particles pairs from the vacuum are a fundamental part of modern physics and are the basis for the Hawking radiation of black holes
2. There are several models for multiverse theory (particularly those posited by Andrei Linde and others) which credibly propose a temporally infinite universe
3. Even in the temporally finite universe, where models begin with the Big Bang, there are respectable hypotheses (for example those of Hawking and Hartle that rely on the Wick rotation to imaginary time) that have no boundary conditions
4. Logically if we are able to posit a Being that exists infinitely, the same logic would support a physical universe with the same properties. In our experience, physical realities pre-date and encompass ‘Beings’.

A knowledgeable analysis of the evidence seen in the context of ‘causation’ and ‘determinism’ as modified by our modern understanding of the quantum universe, is able to conclude logically in agreement with Laplace’s statement about why the concept of God did not appear in his work:

‘I had no need of that hypothesis.’

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Vincent]

hecd2:

For example, spontaneous, ‘uncaused’ generation of particle/anti-particles pairs from the vacuum are a fundamental part of modern physics and are the basis for the Hawking radiation of black holes

Spontaneous generation from nothing? To explain that you’d need a creative agency.

 

[theMutant]

hecd2:

There are several flaws in this argument:

1. causation is what we observe in this universe. It is perfectly possible to conceive of another universe in which the concept of causation that we observe in this universe does not exist. (Indeed, the concept of causation, in the sense of deterministic contingency, is considerably weakened in this universe by the findings and principles of Quantum Mechanics). For example, spontaneous, ‘uncaused’ generation of particle/anti-particles pairs from the vacuum are a fundamental part of modern physics and are the basis for the Hawking radiation of black holes

I fail to see the difference between “caused” and “generated” in your example. If “generated” includes bringing into existence, then the two terms are synonymous. Therefore, either tell me what “generated” means or your argument fails. I have no problem with scientists discussing the “spontaneous generation” of particle/anti-particle pairs, but if they are going to say that that spontaneous generation is ‘uncaused’ they are going to have to explain how they can come into existence without being caused to do so.

hecd2:

1. There are several models for multiverse theory (particularly those posited by Andrei Linde and others) which credibly propose a temporally infinite universe

Theories abound but this one is facinating and makes me weep for the state of science in our supposedly advanced age. To think that a scientist cannot understand that the concept of “infinite” is incompatible with the supposed multiverse is just sad. What, exactly, is a “temporally infinite” universe? Literally, it would mean a universe of unlimitted time. The reason this doesn’t support your argument is that time is simply the measure of change and if there is change then there is causation because something has to cause change.

hecd2:

1. Even in the temporally finite universe, where models begin with the Big Bang, there are respectable hypotheses (for example those of Hawking and Hartle that rely on the Wick rotation to imaginary time) that have no boundary conditions

And yet, what would cause the Big Bang? From where did the matter come? If you examine the rest of Thomas’s arguments, you will see that matter does not have existence as part of its nature - because it can be destroyed - therefore, because nothing can transmit what it does not posess, there must be something which has existence as part of its very nature. Something which can never have not existed. Ergo, God.

hecd2:

1. Logically if we are able to posit a Being that exists infinitely, the same logic would support a physical universe with the same properties. In our experience, physical realities pre-date and encompass ‘Beings’.

This would be a good argument if the Being in question only had the quality of infinite existence. However, Thomas goes on to posit that the Universe reveals, omnicience, omnipotence, and eternity. If you posit that your supposed theoretical univers has all of these things, then you are simply applying a new label to the Being that is also called God. You have not disproven Thomas’s argument, you are simply giving his conclusion (God) a new name (universe).

hecd2:

A knowledgeable analysis of the evidence seen in the context of ‘causation’ and ‘determinism’ as modified by our modern understanding of the quantum universe, is able to conclude logically in agreement with Laplace’s statement about why the concept of God did not appear in his work:

‘I had no need of that hypothesis.’

I believe that I have already addressed this. He may have believed that he had no need for the hypothesis, but he sure seems to have borrowed heavily from it; even if he didn’t know it.

 

[hecd2]

Vincent:

Spontaneous generation from nothing? To explain that you’d need a creative agency.

Uh, no.

The uncertainty principle disallows the concept of a field with zero value and zero rate of change. Not only is the non-zero value of the scalar fields in ‘empty space’ from which spontaneous quantum generation of partcle/antiparticle pairs arise good theoretical physics - it also predicts empirically measurable phenomena. The detection of the Casimir effect to an error better than 5% demonstrates the fact of these quantum effects of spontanaeous ‘uncaused’ phenomena.

Many models of the universe have the total matter-energy equal to zero. In the early universe quarks and anti-quarks annihilate to form photons (the phptons of the CMB that we can still observe). The current extant ordinary matter results from an excess of quarks over anti-quarks of one part in a billion. A billion quark/antiquark pairs annihilate for every one quark that survives. Potential energy due to gravity, expansion of the universe, and the total mass of ordinary matter sum in many models to zero. The universe might well be a zero sum game.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[theMutant]

The more you post, the more you refute yourself (well, at least the theory you are supporting).

hecd2:

The uncertainty principle disallows the concept of a field with zero value and zero rate of change. Not only is the non-zero value of the scalar fields in ‘empty space’ from which spontaneous quantum generation of partcle/antiparticle pairs arise good theoretical physics - it also predicts empirically measurable phenomena. The detection of the Casimir effect to an error better than 5% demonstrates the fact of these quantum effects of spontanaeous ‘uncaused’ phenomena.

If the effect is predicted, on what basis is the prediction made? If a formula of certain conditions has been theorized which are required for this spontaneous generation to occur, then those conditions are the cause of that generation. Therefore, the generation may be spontaneous, but it is NOT uncaused! (And we haven’t even begun to discuss the matter of how those conditions came into existence!!!)

hecd2:

Many models of the universe have the total matter-energy equal to zero. In the early universe quarks and anti-quarks annihilate to form photons (the phptons of the CMB that we can still observe). The current extant ordinary matter results from an excess of quarks over anti-quarks of one part in a billion. A billion quark/antiquark pairs annihilate for every one quark that survives. Potential energy due to gravity, expansion of the universe, and the total mass of ordinary matter sum in many models to zero. The universe might well be a zero sum game.

However, quarks and anti-quarks are things which can be identified. The fact that they annihilate each other proves that they each have a form of existence of their own so, at this point, you are no longer talking about generation from nothing. Additionally, they are acting upon one another so they are the cause of this zero sum game of which you speak. And, by the way, from where, exactly, did these quarks and anti-quarks come?

 

[RobedWithLight]

Brown10985:

Yes, though a universe without the same physical laws we do doesn’t have to go by cause and effect laws. The sky is the limit with what this other universe that could’ve caused our universe could do including creating itself.

Self-creation involves a logical contradiction, since it implies that that which creates itself must necessarily pre-exist itself, existing before it even existed. Even another universe where the classical principle of causality is non-existent or suspended, even if it existed, would still have to answer the inevitable question of its own origin.

Gerry

 

[JimG]

I’m neither a physicist or a very good metaphysicist, but it seems to me that Aquinas dealt more with metaphysics than with physics.

He considers God a pure Spirit–that is, not having material components–because if God has parts, then He can come apart. Neither is he temporal, since if He exists in time, he is not fully in possession of Himself at any particular instant. (Human beings can relate to this problem.)

Aquinas considered that for any material being, necessity is not of its essence. That is, it could either exist or not exist. It didn’t *have * to exist. But he argues that a universe of purely contingent beings is not possible: there must exist one non-contingent being, whose essence is to exist.

Sorry, that has nothing whatever to do with what you were discussing. But to me, a temporally and even spatially infinite universe poses no problem for the existence of God, (any more than does empty space which is really teeming with the quantum foam.)

 

[theMutant]

JimG:

I’m neither a physicist or a very good metaphysicist, but it seems to me that Aquinas dealt more with metaphysics than with physics.
…
Aquinas considered that for any material being, necessity is not of its essence. That is, it could either exist or not exist. It didn’t *have * to exist. But he argues that a universe of purely contingent beings is not possible: there must exist one non-contingent being, whose essence is to exist.

Sorry, that has nothing whatever to do with what you were discussing. But to me, a temporally and even spatially infinite universe poses no problem for the existence of God, (any more than does empty space which is really teeming with the quantum foam.)

Actually, it is exactly what we are discussing and you have beautifully summarized what I have tried to explain.

 

[hecd2]

theMutant:

I fail to see the difference between “caused” and “generated” in your example. If “generated” includes bringing into existence, then the two terms are synonymous. Therefore, either tell me what “generated” means or your argument fails. I have no problem with scientists discussing the “spontaneous generation” of particle/anti-particle pairs, but if they are going to say that that spontaneous generation is ‘uncaused’ they are going to have to explain how they can come into existence without being caused to do so.

But they are not synonymous. The fundamental claim that all phenomena have specific causes represents a classical understanding that has had to be abandoned in the 20th century (along with the uniform passage of time, the infinite divisibility of space and time, and the idea that the universe is mapped in a Euclidean space.) Even in this universe, quantum phenomena are formally uncaused. Spontaneous generation of particle/antiparticle pairs from the vacuum are not contigent on any prior event. Don’t blame your inability to understand the physics on a flaw in the logic.

Theories abound but this one is facinating and makes me weep for the state of science in our supposedly advanced age. To think that a scientist cannot understand that the concept of “infinite” is incompatible with the supposed multiverse is just sad.

I see - you have read and understood Andrei Linde’s proposals presented in 209 formal refereed papers in sufficient detail that you can reject them and ‘weep’ for the state of science? That is hubris.

What, exactly, is a “temporally infinite” universe? Literally, it would mean a universe of unlimitted time. The reason this doesn’t support your argument is that time is simply the measure of change and if there is change then there is causation because something has to cause change.

An eternal universe. An eternal universe can exist in the total absence of time (indeed in the absence of time, the universe is, by definition, eternal). In GR, time is not an absolute dimension, and the time dimension is not predicated on change. But even if we accept your definition, change does not necessarily depend on causation. Yours is an a priori claim based on a pre20th century view of the cosmos. Routinely observed quantum phenomena *in this corner of the multiverse *demonstrate the prevalence of uncaused events. As for how the multiverse can be eternal, you’ll need to bone up on chaotic inflation:
Linde, Linde and Mezhlumian, Phys Rev D 49, 1783 (1994), ‘From the Big Bang to the theory of a stationary universe’, on-line here:

arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9306/9306035.pdf

continued%between%

 

[hecd2]

Continuation

And yet, what would cause the Big Bang? From where did the matter come? If you examine the rest of Thomas’s arguments, you will see that matter does not have existence as part of its nature - because it can be destroyed - therefore, because nothing can transmit what it does not posess, there must be something which has existence as part of its very nature. Something which can never have not existed. Ergo, God.

Thomas didn’t really get quantum physics and modern cosmology did he? Actually, Thomas’s ideas about matter are literally mediaeval. His science is constrained by the Age in which he lived and insofar as his metaphysics relied on his physics (as it does here) it is equally unrefined. The thing that has existence as part of its very nature could be the multiverse.

This would be a good argument if the Being in question only had the quality of infinite existence. However, Thomas goes on to posit that the Universe reveals, omnicience, omnipotence, and eternity. If you posit that your supposed theoretical univers has all of these things, then you are simply applying a new label to the Being that is also called God. You have not disproven Thomas’s argument, you are simply giving his conclusion (God) a new name (universe).

Quite so. If an uncaused Being can exist, so can an uncaused universe without the need of such a Being. It could BE the BEING. Except that the universe is a non-personal entity and does not, therefore, fulfill the Christian conception of God.

Alec

evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

RobedWithLight:

Self-creation involves a logical contradiction, since it implies that that which creates itself must necessarily pre-exist itself, existing before it even existed. Even another universe where the classical principle of causality is non-existent or suspended, even if it existed, would still have to answer the inevitable question of its own origin.

Gerry

Why? If the classical principle of causality is flawed in this universe (as it is) and we can sensibly posit a universe in which causality as we understand it does not apply, then all you are doing is persistently applying causality and contingency in that universe where we have already concluded that it need not apply.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

JimG:

I’m neither a physicist or a very good metaphysicist, but it seems to me that Aquinas dealt more with metaphysics than with physics.

He considers God a pure Spirit–that is, not having material components–because if God has parts, then He can come apart. Neither is he temporal, since if He exists in time, he is not fully in possession of Himself at any particular instant. (Human beings can relate to this problem.)

Aquinas considered that for any material being, necessity is not of its essence. That is, it could either exist or not exist. It didn’t *have *to exist. But he argues that a universe of purely contingent beings is not possible: there must exist one non-contingent being, whose essence is to exist.

Sorry, that has nothing whatever to do with what you were discussing. But to me, a temporally and even spatially infinite universe poses no problem for the existence of God, (any more than does empty space which is really teeming with the quantum foam.)

Indeed, a temporally or spatially infinite universe poses no problem for the existence of God. God can logically exist in any hypothetical cosmology that I have ever seen. Hoewever, God is not NECESSARY in some cosmologies. I’ve posted some examples of states where God is not necessary. Linde, Hawking and Hartle do not publish evidence for God’s non-existence - they merely show that he is not a necessary hypthesis.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[jimmy]

hecd2,

can you show me some of the proof for these theories? How can they prove that matter is spontaniously generated when they can’t even locate the exact position of an electron. They can’t even see an atom, but they can prove that matter quarks, which are probably billions of times smaller, can spontaniously generate themselves out of nothing?

 

[john_doran]

hecd2:

Indeed, a temporally or spatially infinite universe poses no problem for the existence of God. God can logically exist in any hypothetical cosmology that I have ever seen. Hoewever, God is not NECESSARY in some cosmologies. I’ve posted some examples of states where God is not necessary. Linde, Hawking and Hartle do not publish evidence for God’s non-existence - they merely show that he is not a necessary hypthesis.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

well, that’s not really true; linde makes the concession in the paper for which you posted the link that his inflatonary model doesn’t actually eliminate the initial singularity, but only relegates it to the indefinite past.

and therein lies the rub: aquinas’ point is that if it has a beginning, then it must have been caused. and i there’s an initial singularity, then there’s a (putative) beginning.

what’s more, linde’s position seems to involve the insoluble problem of postulating an actually infinite set of past events intervening between now and the “indefinitely” past initial singularity; some interpretations of cantorian set theory to the contrary notwithstanding, an actually infinite set cannot be generated by successive addition.

but whatever. where the rubber hits the road on this (as any other issue), it’s all about a comparison of the relative strengths of the competing propositions: do you believe more strongly in the principle of causality or (what you take to be) the incompatible mathematical formalism of linde’s inflationary model? or the hawking-hartle model?

for my part, it strikes me as enormously more certain that whatever begins to exist has a cause than that anything linde might say is correct. and don’t get me started on imaginary time…

for you, alec, perhaps not so much.