Why Couldn't the Universe Exist Without a Cause?

[Bradski]

But for us…it is not imaginable that an event can happen with nothing to cause it.

Perfectly correct. I would also suggest that it is impossible for you even to imagine deep time and vast distances (or even small distances and time). They are mathematical concepts and we are not built in a way that let’s us imagine them or even have any concept of them other than using maths.

To say: ‘It can’t have happened like that because I can’t imagine it’ is nonsensical.

 

[thinkandmull]

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.

"
Operant conditioning is a type of learning where behavior is controlled by consequences. Key concepts in operant conditioning are positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, positive punishment and negative punishment." Causes

 

[meltzerboy]

"
Operant conditioning is a type of learning where behavior is controlled by consequences. Key concepts in operant conditioning are positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, positive punishment and negative punishment." Causes

Yes, there is selection by consequences but only AFTER the respondent behavior is reinforced. Before the behavior is reinforced, however, there is operant behavior, which does NOT require a cause and has no goal, as opposed to respondent behavior. According to Skinner, we emit operant behavior (or operants) all the time. This is necessary for learning, based on reinforcement, to take place.

I teach this stuff. Take my Psychology of Learning class for more on Skinner’s theory.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Still not a good foundation for knowledge.

If you like! However, this is what there is. Don’t you notice it?

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

My point is about objectivity too!

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

Thank you! On your side, you can keep talking about possible worlds to feed your creativity, if you think it is a good method!

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:

So, your argument would be:

1. 
   *]If you agree that we can’t do experiments on other worlds then you agree that there is no way to exclude the possibility that they exist without a cause.
   *]The singularity was another world.
   *]Then, you agree that we can’t do experiments on the singularity.
   *]Therefore, you agree that that there is no way to exclude the possibility that the singularity existed without a cause.
   *]Therefore, the singularity could have existed without a cause.
   
   Very bad argument, Inocente! Very bad!
   
   All I say is this: we don’t obtain the principle of causality by means of an experiment.

 

[thinkandmull]

I got an A+ in psychology in college. Operant behavior doesn’t mean that the behavior isn’t based on biology. It is caused by something. Those who are saying that something can pop out of nothing without there being a cause are truly trying to look into nothingness, into that mystery, and perhaps are seeing themselves in a reflection; but look **behind **the nothingness, see the lack of cause, and then you will understand how there must be a God

 

[meltzerboy]

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’.

Please re-read my previous post. I am not disagreeing with you but I am relating physics to human cognitive motivation since our way of perceiving and thinking about the universe is connected to the physical reality of the universe.

 

[Bradski]

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 further away a galaxy is, the faster is the distance between us growing larger - the Hubble constant. That’s because the space between us is expanding. At some point (it’s happening right now), a galaxy will recede from us faster than the speed of light (it’s not moving faster than the speed of light so there’s no problem there) so the light it emits will be, from our relative position, be moving away from us. It

It would be like throwing a rock at someone off the back of a moving train. One the train is moving faster than you can throw the rock, the rock will appear to move away from the observer.

At that point, the galaxy leaves our observable universe never to be seen again. We are in the same position, moving away from distant galaxies and leaving* their* observable universe. There must be a lot of it out there. Some people say an infinity of it.

And surprisingly enough, the material from which a tree is made is obtained from the atmosphere. It takes in Carbon Dioxide and coverts it to carbon and oxygen. Keeps the carbon and releases the oxygen back into the atmosphere. It just takes in nutrients from the soil.

Ain’t nature wonderful…

 

[meltzerboy]

I got an A+ in psychology in college. Operant behavior doesn’t mean that the behavior isn’t based on biology. It is caused by something. Those who are saying that something can pop out of nothing without there being a cause are truly trying to look into nothingness, into that mystery, and perhaps are seeing themselves in a reflection; but look **behind **the nothingness, see the lack of cause, and then you will understand how there must be a God

I am talking about Skinner’s theory, not mine. Biology hardly factors into Skinner. His is a deterministic behaviorist theory of learning based on environmental contingencies, and the trigger is reinforcement. However, the initiation of the learning process, according to Skinner, is based on the emission of operants, which, according to him (not me or other psychologists), have no antecedents, whether internally biological or externally environmental. While Skinner did not absolutely deny antecedent causes, he was fine without searching for them, which is disturbing to most other psychologists as well as human beings in general.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

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.

What my argument shows is that your premise “If a proof makes reference to this world then it does not hold for all possible worlds”, is false. What can you do without it now?

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.

Let’s see it slowly then:

In the proposition “If there is no change, we don’t look for a cause, unless a change was expected” we can distinguish these propositions:

-P:There is no change
-Q: A change is not expected
-R: We don’t look for a cause

We can rewrite it as follows:

If (-P and -Q) then -R

And you wanted to exchange it by

If -Q then -R

which obviously is not the same thing. You take your time to get it.

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

By “no matter how much you don’t care” I am saying by all means be as superficial as you wish; but I am using a common way of talking about the math that you learn since secondary school.

 

[thinkandmull]

I am talking about Skinner’s theory, not mine. Biology hardly factors into Skinner. His is a deterministic behaviorist theory of learning based on environmental contingencies, and the trigger is reinforcement. However, the initiation of the learning process, according to Skinner, is based on the emission of operants, which, according to him (not me or other psychologists), have no antecedents, whether internally biological or externally environmental. While Skinner did not absolutely deny antecedent causes, he was fine without searching for them, which is disturbing to most other psychologists as well as human beings in general.

“Skinner did not absolutely deny antecedent causes” There you have it. He wasn’t a philosopher anyway

 

[fisherman_carl]

You didn’t say what your reasoning was, so I made a stab in the dark. I don’t agree with your reasoning though. My issue is that there are a number of logical traps in words like thing, nothing, being, existing.

For instance, nothing is no-thing, the absence of a thing. But only things can exist, so it makes no sense to talk of no-thing having existence. But if no-thing cannot exist, does that mean something must exist, in other words must there be something rather than nothing? Some people do make that argument, but is it really logical or just a play on words?

Then, if a no-thing cannot have existence and only a thing can, does it make sense to talk about non-existing things, aren’t they instead no-things? And so on. To me it seems only to be playing with language.

Even then, if we were to put all that aside and for a moment accept the notion of a necessarily existing being, surely that means that every aspect of that being must also necessarily exist, since otherwise, if it had optional properties, it wouldn’t exist necessarily, it could have been different. But if logic dictates that it couldn’t be different, wouldn’t logic then be more fundamental than God?

I think you’re over analyzing nothing here. (Or making much ado about nothing). If there was nothing then we wouldn’t exist. Since only nothing comes from nothing. Therefore there must be something that exists necessarily from which all contingent beings can derive their existence. It is something that exists eternally. This is as I have been saying is necessary. Not by some rule of logic. But by its very nature. But logic is what we can use to see that fact. Unless, you want to believe something can come from nothing.

As far as its properties existing necessarily I have said nothing. If you believe the universe is the necessarily existing being does that mean everything in the universe must necessarily exist? That’s not what I am talking about. What we are taking about is its existence is necessary. Now, other properties like it being timeless, changeless, transcendent, etc could be argued as necessary. But it is also capable of creating things and properties that aren’t necessary and are contingent. Like for instance, universes, people and dogs.

As well it could be argued that it must be a personal agent. Because only a personal agent can choose to bring a contingent universe into existence a finite time ago. If it was an impersonal agent like a force then that would not explain why the universe was brought into existence a finite time ago. For if the cause exists then the effect must necessarily exist as well. For example if the temperature is below freezing and there is water it will turn into ice. Even if it went back infinite time. As long as it was below freezing the effect would be the ice would freeze. The water wouldn’t wait until some finite time ago to freeze. Thus, as the cause exists the effect must necessarily also exist. And, if the necessarily existing cause of the universe was an impersonal force energy then the universe must also have also existed. As long as the cause existed. That is, unless the cause is a personal free agent that can choose to bring the universe into existence a finite time ago.

 

[fisherman_carl]

If you are an atheist you either have to believe that the universe is eternal and necessarily existing by its own nature or you have to believe that something can come from nothing.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Russell was so right to ask whether and why God should not have a cause. Questions open up areas of exploration.

Turnips and Madrid metros are well within a realm and don’t demonstrate the issues we are dealing with.

In an infinite “number” of dimensions, are continuums, from causing and less caused, to far more caused yet still causing.

I think it highly plausible that there may be gradations of “thing”. I think it’s important not to finnick about what “defines” “something”. In the case of turnips, maybe organic matter in the context of gravity as against a ceramic plate. In the context of both sub-atomic particles and supernovas, “thing” is something scientists provisionally and partially define, no more than that.

In the sense that “something can come from nothing”, many somethings do, but not the something that is God.

 

[Nixbits]

fisherman carl:

If you are an atheist you either have to believe that the universe is eternal and necessarily existing by its own nature or you have to believe that something can come from nothing.

No, those are not the only possibilities. One of the others is not believing that you know the answer.

 

[PRmerger]

Russell was so right to ask whether and why God should not have a cause. Questions open up areas of exploration.

In doing so, he demonstrated an impoverished understanding of God.

God cannot have a cause.

For then he is not God.

 

[PRmerger]

No, those are not the only possibilities. One of the others is not believing that you know the answer.

And that’s ok to not know the answer.

“I don’t know” is a perfectly valid answer…when one begins the journey.

However, no scientist, or lover of the intellectual life ever ends the journey with “I don’t know”.

So it is always curious to me to see atheists declare with such nonchalance, “We don’t know, and so what?”.

 

[Nixbits]

I more often hear or read atheists say: “We don’t know, but scientists are working on it. Perhaps one day we will have a better idea.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I more often hear or read atheists say: “We don’t know, but scientists are working on it. Perhaps one day we will have a better idea.”

Then again (but you rarely hear them say it) one day we realize we will never have a better understanding of it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And surprisingly enough, the material from which a tree is made is obtained from the atmosphere. It takes in Carbon Dioxide and coverts it to carbon and oxygen. Keeps the carbon and releases the oxygen back into the atmosphere. It just takes in nutrients from the soil.

Ain’t nature wonderful…

Yes, and some would say rather intelligently designed!

 

[PRmerger]

I more often hear or read atheists say: “We don’t know, but scientists are working on it. Perhaps one day we will have a better idea.”

I hope you are astute enough to tell the atheist, “Well, that’s nothing but Science of the Gaps thinking.”.