Why Couldn't the Universe Exist Without a Cause?

[inocente]

If all possible worlds did exist, they become part of the Universe (Creation), and universal laws would apply. Cause and effect is a universal law known by right logic and confirmed by objective reality. Right logic does dictate that there must be cause and effect in all possible worlds, creation. there is no possible world without being created-for all possible worlds to be possible means it has the capacity to be, but isn’t yet, has no being or existence. If it could exist without cause, it would be, and not be “possible” All possibilities must have a cause to exist, be. Only God, the Uncaused Cause needs no cause to exist. It’s His Nature.

In philosophy, world is another word for universe. So possible worlds are not parts of this universe but are alternative universes which could logically exist.

Put another way, God is omnipotent and so isn’t forced to make our universe as it is, He could have created one without any matter, or without time, or where time runs backwards, etc. He could have created a world (= an alternative universe to ours) in which there are no things and no time and no change, and so no cause and effect. Or He could have decided never to make a world, and so nothing would ever be caused and there would be no cause and effect.

Therefore it would seem we only know of cause and effect because God decided to make it a feature in our world (= this universe), rather than because logic forced it on omnipotent God.

btw what is a “right logic” - are there wrong logics?

 

[inocente]

Well, certainly, under certain conditions, the variation in the temperature can be correlated to the amount of energy that has been transferred to or from a system in the form of heat. Such amount of energy could be calculated, for example, using this equation:

Q = m Cv DT

Or with this other

Q = m Cp DT

Where

Q is the heat added or removed
m is the mass of the system
Cp is the heat capacity at constant pressure
Cv is the heat capacity at constant volume
DT is the temperature difference between the initial and the final state of the system.

However, it would be possible to have a process in which, for example, heat is added to a system whose temperature will not change. Therefore, nor temperature nor the change in temperature are a measure of the heat added or removed.

A couple of examples would be these:

An isothermal expansion of a gas.
A liquid-vapor phase change.

You began that with “certainly, under certain conditions” and then managed to ignore yourself. Yes, Newton’s law of gravity also has limits, so what? Human beings are not omniscient, we’re not perfect. And while you’re very welcome to combine laws to make models as complicated as you like, it does tend to obfuscate the principles and stop you seeing the wood for the trees.

What happens in a flight simulator? I press some buttons, move some levers, maneuver a wheel…; and this triggers the movement of electrons from a power supply along certain paths in some electrical circuits to produce determined effects on a screen or some other peripherals. A flight simulator is not a mathematical model.

It’s amazing how you can ignore the software, and all the knowledge encapsulated in the software, and reduce centuries of endeavor in obtaining that knowledge down to a bunch of electrons.

I had mentioned Leibniz in one of my previous posts. You probably know he was one of the inventors of Calculus. And he made some contributions to physics as well. In particular he made good proposals for the definition of the law of conservation of momentum (for example, when two bodies collide with each other). Naturally, he used equations to represent his ideas; but he thought that the processes in the universe do not involve any cause and effect interaction. So, this “cause-effect” interaction in which he did not believe was not represented in his mathematical models; but the order which he was able to observe was represented. In other words, causality is not the only order which there is in the universe. It doesn’t mean that Leibniz did not accept the principle of causality, because it was clear to him that God produced the universe. It only meant that he did not believe that one creature can act on another.

Not sure how this is relevant. Obviously we can’t point to a cause as a thing, as an object, as an agent, it’s a generalization. But that doesn’t stop us stating that whenever specific conditions apply a specific phenomenon occurs, which is the definition of a physical law.

You don’t appear to accept that definition. You keep arguing that because our knowledge isn’t perfection we can’t know anything. You appear to believe we can never use math to predict effect, in spite of all the computer systems worldwide which we rely on to do that everyday. I can’t convince you otherwise and we’re just repeating ourselves, so let’s give up on those topics.

 

[inocente]

inocente;13588563:

Again this seems to be based on your intuition. By only looking for a cause when you expect change, you ignore the causes of stability. A physical law doesn’t just tell us what causes a change, it says what’s involved in preventing or minimizing change.

Not really, Inocente, I am not ignoring the causes of stability. That is why I said:

**“If there is no change, we don’t look for a cause, *unless a change was expected ***(we will ask: “what is preventing the change?”)”

And also:

"So, change is part of the structure we call causality."

It’s still the case that as you wrote it, if you didn’t expect a change then you won’t look any further.

Division by zero is not defined in mathematics.

Then finally you agree that the math breaks down in the singularity.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

It’s still the case that as you wrote it, if you didn’t expect a change then you won’t look any further.

Unless a change was expected. This text is important too; that is why I wrote it.

Then finally you agree that the math breaks down in the singularity.

No. I just say that division by zero is not defined.

 

[inocente]

Well, there are tribes, clans and political parties. Perhaps from that standpoint what I said is just a description of what happens. What I said happens even among scientists; and if you don’t include mathematics within the category of “science”, then this happens among mathematicians too.

Still not a good foundation for knowledge.

We are part of nature. And I would like to add this to Feynman’s words: “If your theory agrees with experiment, how beautiful it is, and how smart you are!”.

Fenyman’s point is about objectivity, so adding that would muddy the water.

inocente;13588528:

And we can’t do experiments in other possible worlds.

I agree! Perhaps that is why I don’t tend to use those “possible worlds” in my comments.

Not considering other possibilities kills creativity, which would be a major handicap in forming hypotheses, but OK, have it your way.

Although you do agree we can’t do experiments on other worlds, which would include the purported singularity where we can’t even make predictions, let alone testable predictions. So that takes us neatly back to where we came in: Yes, the singularity could exist without a cause since you agree there’s no way to exclude that possibility. :curtsey:

 

[inocente]

If it is only “perhaps” I would be losing my time discussing Hume. I will assume then that your test has nothing to do with him. So, you would need to clarify the meaning of your position, because I don’t know your doctrine:

It seems that your objection takes this form:

1. 
   *]If a proof makes reference to this world then it does not hold for all possible worlds.
   *]The proof of the principle of causality makes reference to this world.
   *]Therefore, it does not hold for all possible worlds.
   
   However (regardless if there is or there is not a proof for the principle of causality),
   
   1. 
      *]If a world is real, then it is a possible world.
      *]Our world is real
      *]Therefore our world is a possible world.
      *]If a proof holds for all possible worlds, then it makes reference to our world.
      *]Therefore, some proofs which make reference to our world hold for all possible worlds.
      *]Therefore, it is not true that if a proof makes reference to this world then it does not hold for all possible worlds.

1. 1. 1. Therefore, the Madrid metro exists in all possible worlds.
      (Your “proof” can never be disproved)

 

[PRmerger]

But you didn’t answer the question.

You are saying that cause and effect are logical, therefore we can base scientific answers on that proposition. So do you believe that logic always give you the right answer?

If the answer is yes, we can investigate to see if it does. If no, then the claim that the universe must have had a cause (because, well, it’s just logical, isn’t it), does not stand.

Well, let’s go scientific and experiential here, rather than using logic.

Can you offer an example, in any other area of science or in your life, where: from nothing something came?

I’m pretty sure that it’s a Faith Based statement to say, “Sure, there might be some thing that came from nothing. Maybe it’s happened in the past. Maybe it’s going to happen in the future.”

 

[inocente]

inocente;13590759:

It’s still the case that as you wrote it, if you didn’t expect a change then you won’t look any further.

Unless a change was expected. This text is important too; that is why I wrote it.

As I said, when you don’t expect a change then you won’t look any further.

No. I just say that division by zero is not defined.

Don’t care how you say it, at that point the math breaks down and is unusable.

 

[PRmerger]

But you didn’t answer the question.

You are saying that cause and effect are logical, therefore we can base scientific answers on that proposition. So do you believe that logic always give you the right answer?

If the answer is yes, we can investigate to see if it does. If no, then the claim that the universe must have had a cause (because, well, it’s just logical, isn’t it), does not stand.

I would like to appeal to the Greeks and Romans here. Ancient Greeks. Ancient Romans. Good philosophers, they.

Parmenides argued from nothing, nothing ever comes.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/parmenides/

And there’s the Romans who said:

Ex nihilo nihil fit

That is,
Principium cuius hinc nobis exordia sumet,
nullam rem e nihilo gigni divinitus umquam

Translation:

But only Nature’s aspect and her law,

Which, teaching us, hath this exordium:

Nothing from nothing ever yet was born

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_comes_from_nothing

 

[JuanFlorencio]

1. Therefore, the Madrid metro exists in all possible worlds.

Your conclusion cannot be derived from my six propositions. You would need to add some extra propositions; otherwise your conclusion is absurd.

(Your “proof” can never be disproved)

Do you need, for example, that mathematical proofs be disproved in order to accept them as true? I am using a logical argument to refute your objection. You need to refute me using a well constructed counterargument, if it is possible.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

As I said, when you don’t expect a change then you won’t look any further.unusable.

As I said: unless we expected a change.

Don’t care how you say it, at that point the math breaks down and is unusable.

No, the way something is said in mathematics is absolutely important; no matter how much you don’t care. There is no “there” where mathematics break down. Division by zero is not defined, and therefore that field is non-existent.

 

[PRmerger]

If no, then the claim that the universe must have had a cause (because, well, it’s just logical, isn’t it), does not stand.

This…this…it leaves me head scratching to see you consider the idea that something can come from nothing.

Have you ever seen this happen?

Have you ever seen a turnip materialize, from nothing, upon your plate?

Have you ever seen a baby appear in mid-air, presenting herself–<poof!>–without a cause?

Have you ever seen a book materialize without an author?

I just can’t even…

 

[inocente]

Your conclusion cannot be derived from my six propositions. You would need to add some extra propositions; otherwise your conclusion is absurd.

Do you need, for example, that mathematical proofs be disproved in order to accept them as true? I am using a logical argument to refute your objection. You need to refute me using a well constructed counterargument, if it is possible.

As stated, your logic can’t distinguish between something that is true in only our world, or only in some possible worlds, or in all possible worlds. I’m saying that as soon as you refer to the world, you lose the ability to distinguish between contingent and necessary properties. You can’t prove from one bachelor happening to have a beard that all bachelors necessarily have a beard. Your argument shows only that causality is a possible feature of other worlds, not a necessary property of every one of them.

As I said: unless we expected a change.

You wrote “If there is no change, we don’t look for a cause, unless a change was expected”.

So take the last two clauses: “we don’t look for a cause, unless a change was expected”.

All I did was swap the order: “when you don’t expect a change then you won’t look any further”.

Take it slowly.

No, the way something is said in mathematics is absolutely important; no matter how much you don’t care. There is no “there” where mathematics break down. Division by zero is not defined, and therefore that field is non-existent.

By “don’t care” I’m saying by all means be as pedantic as you wish, but I’m just using a common way of talking about the math in a theory not working, as in the title here: “The Breakdown of General Relativity?” - plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-singularities/#BreGenRel

 

[thinkandmull]

If you deny that God can create from nothing, how much more must you deny that something can come from nothing uncaused!

 

[ynotzap]

But you didn’t answer the question.

You are saying that cause and effect are logical, therefore we can base scientific answers on that proposition. So do you believe that logic always give you the right answer?

If the answer is yes, we can investigate to see if it does. If no, then the claim that the universe must have had a cause (because, well, it’s just logical, isn’t it), does not stand.

I thought I gave you the right answer, so I’ll give it another try to clarify what I mean. You can base scientific answers on the principal of cause and effect, they do it all the time. This does not mean that logic always gives you the right answer for the simple fact that logic is a tool to discover truth, or to discern whether a thing is true or false, IT IS NOT THE SOURCE OF TRUTH. Logic may erroneous if it is not consistent with objective fact (truth) It is not the logic that gives truth validity, but truth that gives logic validity. The Universe has a cause, this is discovered by apostori reasoning, from effect to cause, using metaphysical reasoning and objective reality found in human experience of the material world, and with universal principles can also be used to discern truth in the non- material world, the world of abstractions or the spiritual. Knowledge is not material.

 

[meltzerboy]

It also says, on the page which was linked:

‘The argument is basically very simple, natural, intuitive, and commonsensical.’

Can you actually bend light? It’s entirely natural, intuitive and commonsensical that you can’t. Just that it is entirely natural, intuitive and commonsensical that the distance between two static objects cannot increase. That one object cannot be in two places at the same time. That something cannot be a particle and a wave simultaneously. That you cannot see something that doesn’t exist. That you cannot be older than your father.

If all you are going to use is intuition and common sense to try to understand the universe, then you will come up short every time. To quote Haldane, the universe is not just stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we CAN imagine.

Not only is our intuitive thinking based on common sense limited, but our logical thinking is as well. Both intuitively and logically, we humans tend to think in terms of causal relationships, or cause and effect. When the behavioral psychologist B. F. Skinner formulated his learning theory, which begins with the concept of operant behavior, behavior without a cause (antecedent) or motivation (goal), other psychologists were perplexed. This is because it was assumed that EVERYTHING must have a cause, whether it be external or internal, and NOTHING can just happen by itself. It is the logical way we think in the course of our cognitive development and is also intuitive for normal adult cognition. Another example, in medicine, is if one gets sick, there must be a cause; one cannot just change from healthy to ill (or the reverse) without a reason. From a motivational perspective, if we did not think in causal terms, we would believe ourselves at the mercy of sheer chance, which we would find intolerable.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Although you do agree we can’t do experiments on other worlds, which would include the purported singularity where we can’t even make predictions, let alone testable predictions. So that takes us neatly back to where we came in: Yes, the singularity could exist without a cause since you agree **there’s no way to exclude that possibility. **:curtsey:

This remark is incomplete until you add there is also no way to include the possibility.

Perhaps we have missed something in all this?

If we distinguish creation from causation, we know they are radically different.

Creation cannot be the same as causation, because when the universe was created the principle of causation was created with it. It is possible for God to create from nothing, since for God all things are possible. But for us (bound as we are in the chain of causality God created) it is not imaginable that an event can happen with nothing to cause it.

If we say that God caused the singularity, what we really mean is that God created the singularity, from which did spring the principle of causality.

Creation is a mystery. Causality is not.

This is why Bertrand Russell was so wrong-headed when he asked why God should not have a cause. Why would the Creator of causality have a cause?

 

[thinkandmull]

Logic is true. But we need to differentiate between what is logical and what appears to be logical.

An effect having a cause appears to be logical. But then so does saying that it is impossible for one thing to be in two places at one time. Or something can be a wave and a particle at the same time. Or that light can recede from an observer. Or that a woman can be older than her father.

Newtons Laws are just fine used in everyday situations. Just like Euclidian geometry. All very logical. But we are not talking of everyday situations. It would seem that the deeper into physics we delve, the less useful are our everyday concepts of how the world should work.

Anyone who tosses around comments such as ‘Well, it’s obvious…any fool can see…it’s pretty logical that…’ when it comes to physics that only a handful of people really understand is exhibiting chutzpah of the highest order.

It would be neat if you would elaborate on what you mean by light receding from an observer. Light has strange qualities anyway. Take a redwood tree. Where does it’s matter come from? The soil? The roots might have absorbed the matter in the soil and taken it’s place, but what about the trunk and branches? Where is the big hole in the ground from where the material use to be? Is a tree make up of light’s material? Physics can be a mystery, but there is certain laws that we know to be true because it is irrational to deny them

 

[JuanFlorencio]

You began that with “certainly, under certain conditions” and then managed to ignore yourself. Yes, Newton’s law of gravity also has limits, so what? Human beings are not omniscient, we’re not perfect. And while you’re very welcome to combine laws to make models as complicated as you like, it does tend to obfuscate the principles and stop you seeing the wood for the trees.

In other words what I said was this: Inocente, your generalization is wrong.

The models I have presented are those you learn in an introductory course on thermodynamics. If you don’t know the basics (because all I have presented is basic stuff) you won’t be able to see nor the wood nor the trees, nor the animals, nor…

It’s amazing how you can ignore the software, and all the knowledge encapsulated in the software, and reduce centuries of endeavor in obtaining that knowledge down to a bunch of electrons.

But a highly organized bunch they are! And such organization was the effect of many years of intellectual endeavor.

Not sure how this is relevant. Obviously we can’t point to a cause as a thing, as an object, as an agent, it’s a generalization. But that doesn’t stop us stating that whenever specific conditions apply a specific phenomenon occurs, which is the definition of a physical law.

You don’t appear to accept that definition. You keep arguing that because our knowledge isn’t perfection we can’t know anything. You appear to believe we can never use math to predict effect, in spite of all the computer systems worldwide which we rely on to do that everyday. I can’t convince you otherwise and we’re just repeating ourselves, so let’s give up on those topics.

I don’t remember I mentioned “perfection”, did I?.. But anyway, if you can’t offer good arguments to support your opinions, I think it is a wise decision to stop the discussion.

 

[Bradski]

It is the logical way we think in the course of our cognitive development and is also intuitive for normal adult cognition.

This is obviously true. But then we are not talking about cognitive development or normal adult cognition. We are talking seriously complex physics. The same rules do not necessarily apply.

So it is with the ‘something from nothing’ argument. It seems logical, but then so do many things that have been shown to be possible. Again, if that is the only argument against it, then it fails. You need another reason.

‘It cannot have happened that way because…’

One needs to fill that gap in with something other than ‘…it appears to be illogical’.