Why Couldn't the Universe Exist Without a Cause?

[JuanFlorencio]

Not sure why you’re being so coy about causality. In physics at least, all the important stuff is in the math, so if cause and effect were not to be found in the math then they would be inessential footnotes.

I have no doubt that mathematics is important to physical science, but…, surely you will agree that the following argument is not particularly strong:

1. 
   *]In physics, all the important stuff is in the math.
   *]Causality is an important stuff in physics.
   *]Therefore, causality is in the math.
   
   How would you argue?
   

   Suppose you firmly believe there’s a large elephant looking over your shoulder right now, along with a tub of butter, Genghis Khan wearing two square triangles, and a being from the seventy-fifth dimension. None of them are interacting with you in any way, but you say you’re still rational. Please explicate.

   I guess it was difficult for you to create such a beautiful example; however, I will explain myself without it: Let’s suppose we are studying the foundations of Arithmetic. There are no interactions involved, right? However, we are being rational in such effort.
   

   I’d have thought scientists try as hard as possible to retain existing theories. Stage magicians claim to possess all kinds of powers, and only by being skeptical can we discover the subterfuge. And surely lots of people still use Newton’s theory of gravity even though they know it doesn’t work in cases which don’t interest them. They know gravity is a curve in spacetime but still think of it as a force, and do so without any reification, because it still has explanatory power. This was after all a battle Newton had to fight - others said he must explain what gravity is, and he said no, “hypotheses non fingo = I contrive no hypotheses”, and that principle, that we must not invent occult qualities not justified by observation, is a founding principle of modern science.

   Yes, even though some people know that Newton’s physical model is not the only one that exists (they might know that Gravity has also been modeled as a curve in space time, as you suggest), they still use it sometimes to describe some physical phenomena. It certainly is useful.
   
   And yes again, if we want to describe a physical phenomena most probably we will need to define certain variables that we must be able to quantify somehow (sometimes through a direct measurement, as when we quantify a temperature; some other times through certain measurements plus some calculations, as when we determine the entropy of a system), and we will represent the relation between those defined variables by means of a mathematical model. So, in a certain way the variables which form integral parts of our equations must not be occult “qualities”; and, naturally, the described phenomenon must really be a phenomenon (you know the etymology).
   
   So?

 

[fisherman_carl]

Calls to mind a joke I often enjoy:

An atheist tells God, “Lookee here! Science has made you totally unnecessary, God! We’ve figured out the secrets of creation! We know how to create the universe from just a speck of dust. We don’t need you to be the explanation for it anymore!”

God responds, “Ok. Show me.”

Atheist gets a speck of dust and proceeds to show him the science.

God interrupts and says, “Wait a minute there, son. Get your own dust.”

Yes, nothing is nothing. Calls to mind a joke I recently heard here about eating donut holes. See youtube.com/watch?v=984VkHzXl8w

 

[fisherman_carl]

You just did it again, you just told God he must necessarily exist. (Unless by being you don’t mean God of course.)

I think you just made it worse. You say God must necessarily exist. Therefore every aspect of God must necessarily exist exactly as it is, and God is necessarily exactly whatever your logic says he must be. We wouldn’t need revelation, any competent logician could work out exactly what God must be.

But if I continue following your logic, you say God must necessarily exist, therefore every aspect of God must necessarily exist exactly as it is, and therefore God has no choice but to create everything as it is, and no choice but to continue creating everything exactly as it is. Is God a slave to logic? Can you prove his love by logic? Does logic dictate that Christ must die on the cross?

Or does God transcend logic? (“Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” - 1 Cor 1)

Nope. Natures, essences and so on are part of Aristotle’s hylomorphism, which isn’t taught or used in modern science.

I’m fairly certain the Pope’s not writing your posts.

You are just not understanding the argument. That’s okay. It can be difficult to understand. It took me awhile to understand it. But, it makes sense to me now. If you want to learn more about it I recommend watching Dr. William Lane Craig’s Defender 3 series that you can watch on reasonablefaith.org. I’m not going to argue with you about it because it is pointless from experience to do so. I’ve already explained myself a few times here. Just ask yourself why does anything at all exist. Perhaps, it will come to you eventually.

 

[fisherman_carl]

I’m fairly certain the Pope’s not writing your posts.

Fairly certain? But, not a 100%? Lol.

I’m not sure if that’s an insult or a compliment.

 

[inocente]

I have no doubt that mathematics is important to physical science, but…, surely you will agree that the following argument is not particularly strong:

1. 
   *]In physics, all the important stuff is in the math.
   *]Causality is an important stuff in physics.
   *]Therefore, causality is in the math.
   
   How would you argue?

1. 
   Easy, math describes order, wherever there is order we can describe it with math. Causality is part of the order of the natural world, so of course it’s visible in the math. Any equation can be arranged with cause on one side and effect on the other.
   
   I’m interested why you’re arguing this, can you give your reason?
   

   I guess it was difficult for you to create such a beautiful example; however, I will explain myself without it: Let’s suppose we are studying the foundations of Arithmetic. There are no interactions involved, right? However, we are being rational in such effort.

   Sure, there’s a priori knowledge. But can you use it to make a non-trivial statement about causality in the singularity?
   

   And yes again, if we want to describe a physical phenomena most probably we will need to define certain variables that we must be able to quantify somehow (sometimes through a direct measurement, as when we quantify a temperature; some other times through certain measurements plus some calculations, as when we determine the entropy of a system), and we will represent the relation between those defined variables by means of a mathematical model. So, in a certain way the variables which form integral parts of our equations must not be occult “qualities”; and, naturally, the described phenomenon must really be a phenomenon (you know the etymology).

   So?

   The phrase “occult qualities” is Newton’s. He didn’t have enough data to say what gravity is or how it is caused, and refused to invent occult qualities to “explain” it. He was fighting against supporters of Descartes, who wanted science to be based on a priori definitions and deduction, rather than on observation and induction. So it’s a very big point indeed, modern science wouldn’t be as it is without that battle:
   
   “But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phaenomena, and I frame no hypotheses. For whatever is not deduc’d from the phaenomena, is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferr’d from the phaenomena, and afterwards render’d general by induction.” - isaac-newton.org/general-scholium/

 

[inocente]

You are just not understanding the argument. That’s okay. It can be difficult to understand. It took me awhile to understand it. But, it makes sense to me now. If you want to learn more about it I recommend watching Dr. William Lane Craig’s Defender 3 series that you can watch on reasonablefaith.org. I’m not going to argue with you about it because it is pointless from experience to do so. I’ve already explained myself a few times here. Just ask yourself why does anything at all exist. Perhaps, it will come to you eventually.

You didn’t make an argument, you made a claim that there “must be a necessarily existing being for which existence is its very nature”, and gave no argument for that claim.

This is a philosophy forum, and you might consider that waving your arm at an entire series of videos, rather than writing out your argument so we can all see it, could give the impression you’re still a bit vague about the logic.

Otherwise you could just have said Anselm claims that necessarily existing is a perfection, and argues that God must have that attribute to be perfect. One sentence, job done. I don’t think that’s at all difficult to understand, but “I’m not going to argue with you about it because it is pointless from experience to do so”.

Fairly certain? But, not a 100%? Lol.

I’m not sure if that’s an insult or a compliment.

It was you who, referring to your own post, said “I’m sure the pope already knows all this”. I’m sure he knows Anselm’s argument, not so certain he knows yours. It’s for him to say whether he agrees with either of course.

 

[You]

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.

“Can you actually bend light?” - no, you can bounce it in straight lines off things and stuff.
“the distance between two static objects cannot increase.” yes, unless there is movement somewhere.
“That one object cannot be in two places at the same time. That something cannot be a particle and a wave simultaneously.” no, something isn’t a particle and a wave at the same time. probability of the particles position is a wave, when the particle is located it appears as a particle.
“That you cannot see something that doesn’t exist.” I’d say not, even dreams are real in your mind and brain.
“That you cannot be older than your father.” has never been demonstrated, something about having to stop and turn around befor returning.

 

[thinkandmull]

Easy, math describes order, wherever there is order we can describe it with math. Causality is part of the order of the natural world, so of course it’s visible in the math. Any equation can be arranged with cause on one side and effect on the other.

I’m interested why you’re arguing this, can you give your reason?

Sure, there’s a priori knowledge. But can you use it to make a non-trivial statement about causality in the singularity?

The phrase “occult qualities” is Newton’s. He didn’t have enough data to say what gravity is or how it is caused, and refused to invent occult qualities to “explain” it. He was fighting against supporters of Descartes, who wanted science to be based on a priori definitions and deduction, rather than on observation and induction. So it’s a very big point indeed, modern science wouldn’t be as it is without that battle:

“But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phaenomena, and I frame no hypotheses. For whatever is not deduc’d from the phaenomena, is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferr’d from the phaenomena, and afterwards render’d general by induction.” - isaac-newton.org/general-scholium/

Descartes actually said that nothing in nature is demonstrable in the sense that math’s propositions are, so he didn’t believe in induction, but was trying to find the most basic laws possible as the ground of understanding nature

 

[thinkandmull]

“Can you actually bend light?” - no, you can bounce it in straight lines off things and stuff.
“the distance between two static objects cannot increase.” yes, unless there is movement somewhere.
“That one object cannot be in two places at the same time. That something cannot be a particle and a wave simultaneously.” no, something isn’t a particle and a wave at the same time. probability of the particles position is a wave, when the particle is located it appears as a particle.
“That you cannot see something that doesn’t exist.” I’d say not, even dreams are real in your mind and brain.
“That you cannot be older than your father.” has never been demonstrated, something about having to stop and turn around befor returning.

Well, something being in two places at the same time is in Catholic tradition, it is called bi-location. Anyway, maybe Bradski can explain what science has to say about two static objects moving away from each other without moving

 

[ynotzap]

For the universe to exist without a Cause, it would have to have existence as it’s nature,-independent of all causes. To exist is to have being, to have existence as it’s nature it would have to have total being otherwise it would be dependent for the being it didn’t have therefore it would be dependent. If it has total being it would not experience change for change is movement towards total being. It would not be subject to time, for time is a measurement of change. As we know the Universe is in constant motion, and changing. Science acknowledges the physical law that for every action there is a reaction, this is another way of saying “for every effect there is a cause”. The Universe did not cause itself to exist, and existence is not it’s nature, therefore, necessarily it was caused, the effect of the Uncaused Cause

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Easy, math describes order, wherever there is order we can describe it with math. Causality is part of the order of the natural world, so of course it’s visible in the math. Any equation can be arranged with cause on one side and effect on the other.

I’m interested why you’re arguing this, can you give your reason?

So, your argument would be:

1. 
   *]Math describes order
   *]Causality is certain order
   *]Therefore, math describes causality.
   
   But this argument is no better than the other; do you think it is?
   
   Perhaps you know the ideal gas law, which sometimes is written this way:
   
   PV = nRT
   
   where
   
   P: Pressure
   V: Volume
   n: number of moles of the gas
   R: Universal constant of gases
   T: Temperature
   
   In your opinion, which variable is the effect and which one is the cause?
   
   I understand that there is a mathematical model which models the evolution of the universe starting from “the singularity of the Big Bang”. I have been told that near “the singularity” certain variables in the model take such big values that other models which we have established to describe certain regularities (physical laws or laws of nature) are no longer applicable. In other words, it is believed that the model which describes the evolution of the universe is applicable no matter how close to the singularity we are; and as a consequence of this belief, we have to believe also that any other model loses its “explanatory power” in that region. Well, at least to me, all this is problematic, though not absurd. Then, the question is asked: what if before the Big Bang there was no causality, in such a way that entities did exist but without a cause? And I ask: how can we think that? And the answer comes: because the mathematical model, which represents causality, does not work beyond the singularity. And my answer is: Causality is not represented in any mathematical model. This is how we came to this point, Inocente. I consider it relevant to clarify this point.
   

   Sure, there’s a priori knowledge. But can you use it to make a non-trivial statement about causality in the singularity?

   I don’t know if it is trivial or not to you, but here it goes: whenever and wherever there is a change, there is a cause of that change, be it in a “singularity” or not in a “singularity”.
   

   The phrase “occult qualities” is Newton’s. He didn’t have enough data to say what gravity is or how it is caused, and refused to invent occult qualities to “explain” it. He was fighting against supporters of Descartes, who wanted science to be based on a priori definitions and deduction, rather than on observation and induction. So it’s a very big point indeed, modern science wouldn’t be as it is without that battle:
   
   “But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phaenomena, and I frame no hypotheses. For whatever is not deduc’d from the phaenomena, is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferr’d from the phaenomena, and afterwards render’d general by induction.” - isaac-newton.org/general-scholium/

   It seems that Descartes pursued the ideal of deducing everything starting from some principles and definitions. Actually, he did not do that. He made some observations as well. But that was the master. Perhaps some of his followers wanted to proceed exclusively from Descartes writings. I have not investigated thoroughly Descartes’ followers, and therefore I couldn’t say. As for Newton, his Principia is full of definitions, theorems, corollaries and scholia. There is no doubt in my mind that he was fond of deductions, though certainly he also considered empirical data, just as Descartes did.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Hello everyone On page 6 and 7 of this topic people were discussing Albert Einstein. Since the following document was written by The New York Times then I must say that it is true because someone from Einstein’s family or Einstein himself would have given permission prior to publication.

I’ve placed a snippet from the below document.

April 19, 1955

OBITUARY
Dr. Albert Einstein Dies in Sleep at 76; World Mourns Loss of Great Scientist

By THE NEW YORK TIMES
. . . ]
[Please review online]
“In my life,” he said once, explaining his great love for music, “the artistically visionary plays no mean role. After all, the work of a research scientist germinates upon the soil of imagination, of vision. Just as an artist arrives at his conceptions partly by intuition, so a scientist must also have a certain amount of intuition.”

While he did not believe in a formal, dogmatic religion, Dr. Einstein, like all true mystics, was of a deeply religious nature. He referred to it as the cosmic religion, which he defined as a seeking on the part of the individual who feels it “to experience the totality of existence as a unity full of significance.”

“I assert,” he wrote for The New York Times on Nov. 9, 1930, “that the cosmic religious experience is the strongest and the noblest driving force behind scientific research. No one who does not appreciate the terrific exertions and, above all, the devotion without which pioneer creation in scientific thought cannot come into being can judge the strength of the feeling out of which alone such work turned away as it is from immediate, practical life, can grow.”

“The most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience,” he wrote "is the mystical. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. This insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, also has given rise to religion. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms–this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong in the ranks of devoutly religious men.

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own–a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human fraility. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism. It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe which we can dimly perceive, and to try humbly to comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested in nature.

“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.”

“The most incomprehensible thing about the world,” he said on another occasion, “is that it is comprehensible.”
nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0314.html

I will tell you this much, I’ve been to many a death bed in my lifetime. I lost my father when I was 5 years old and my mother when I was 17. Be glad to be alive. You never know when it is your time to go. Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter. May Einstein rest in peace. Thank you.

 

[inocente]

So, your argument would be:

1. 
   *]Math describes order
   *]Causality is certain order
   *]Therefore, math describes causality.
   
   But this argument is no better than the other; do you think it is?
   
   Perhaps you know the ideal gas law, which sometimes is written this way:
   
   PV = nRT
   
   where
   
   P: Pressure
   V: Volume
   n: number of moles of the gas
   R: Universal constant of gases
   T: Temperature
   
   In your opinion, which variable is the effect and which one is the cause?

1. 
   Now surely you can see that. As always, it depends on what you don’t change in a particular case. For instance, if you put the gas in a cylinder, such that V and n don’t change, then the math tells you that causing T to increase will have the effect of raising P.
   

   I understand that there is a mathematical model which models the evolution of the universe starting from “the singularity of the Big Bang”. I have been told that near “the singularity” certain variables in the model take such big values that other models which we have established to describe certain regularities (physical laws or laws of nature) are no longer applicable. In other words, it is believed that the model which describes the evolution of the universe is applicable no matter how close to the singularity we are; and as a consequence of this belief, we have to believe also that any other model loses its “explanatory power” in that region. Well, at least to me, all this is problematic, though not absurd. Then, the question is asked: what if before the Big Bang there was no causality, in such a way that entities did exist but without a cause? And I ask: how can we think that? And the answer comes: because the mathematical model, which represents causality, does not work beyond the singularity. And my answer is: Causality is not represented in any mathematical model. This is how we came to this point, Inocente. I consider it relevant to clarify this point.

   What you appear to be doing here is to draw a general conclusion from one currently poorly understood case, for which there are no measurements, while at the same time ignoring the entire remainder of the body of knowledge in physics.
   
   That’s the opposite of what Newton defines as science - “In this philosophy particular propositions are inferr’d from the phaenomena, and afterwards render’d general by induction”. The general case is that throughout physics, causality is visible in the math. That then tells us there’s something fishy about the singularity, not as you would have it that there’s something fishy about everything except the singularity. Science must be built on solid foundations, not on what we don’t (yet) know.
   

   I don’t know if it is trivial or not to you, but here it goes: whenever and wherever there is a change, there is a cause of that change, be it in a “singularity” or not in a “singularity”.

   But how do you know the highlighted proposition? Can you deduce it using a priori logic only, in other words without any reference to the world, such that your proposition must be true in all possible worlds?
   
   (And given your reluctance to see causality in math, how would you not be arguing against yourself if you say you can find causality in pure logic?)
   

   It seems that Descartes pursued the ideal of deducing everything starting from some principles and definitions. Actually, he did not do that. He made some observations as well. But that was the master. Perhaps some of his followers wanted to proceed exclusively from Descartes writings. I have not investigated thoroughly Descartes’ followers, and therefore I couldn’t say. As for Newton, his Principia is full of definitions, theorems, corollaries and scholia. There is no doubt in my mind that he was fond of deductions, though certainly he also considered empirical data, just as Descartes did.

   Nope, in science the definitions, theorems, etc. are a posteriori, based on observation, driven by the world not by logic alone.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Now surely you can see that. As always, it depends on what you don’t change in a particular case. For instance, if you put the gas in a cylinder, such that V and n don’t change, then the math tells you that causing T to increase will have the effect of raising P.

I know some techniques to increase the temperature of the gas. If I apply one of those techniques, the temperature will increase. So, the increase in the temperature will be an effect. And in the case you have described, the volume will increase a little bit, due to the thermal expansion of the cylinder; and that will be an effect as well. Third, the pressure will increase too; so, it too will be an effect of my action. But my causality is not represented in the equation. Can you see that?

 

[CompSciGuy]

Quite simply because the universe is in flux. Due to the fact that there are observable changes in the universe, it must therefore be that the universe had a beginning, otherwise it would not be possible for this present moment in time to have been reached, as there would have to have been an infinite number of steps between the non-existent “beginning” of time and now. Anything that is truly infinite must be eternal, unchanging, itself unaffected by the passage of time. To an eternal entity all of time must look like one big “now” that can be seen all at once.

If anything has a beginning, and proceeds to change throughout time, then these changes must be set in motion by something. Things don’t just “happen” for no reason at all. The big bang happened for a reason. There were a certain number of conditions that were met that made the big bang inevitable. Thus, the big bang was caused by something.

 

[inocente]

I know some techniques to increase the temperature of the gas. If I apply one of those techniques, the temperature will increase. So, the increase in the temperature will be an effect. And in the case you have described, the volume will increase a little bit, due to the thermal expansion of the cylinder; and that will be an effect as well. Third, the pressure will increase too; so, it too will be an effect of my action. But my causality is not represented in the equation. Can you see that?

There you go again, ignoring all that the ideal gas law tells you, and concentrating instead only on what it doesn’t tell you. Isn’t the lesson that the world is more complicated than one simple equation something learned from experimental science or engineering or sport or cooking or woodwork or being married or a thousand other things?

Your car manual will tell you to measure the pressure of your tires cold, because that’s how the safe values in the manual were obtained. Whereas after you’ve driven around a while, the temperature increases and raises the pressure. That’s the kind of thing the ideal gas law tells you. It doesn’t tell you the cause of the temperature increase, it doesn’t give predictions accurate to 120 decimal places, but nevertheless gives a valuable safety tip about cause and effect.

 

[fisherman_carl]

You didn’t make an argument, you made a claim that there “must be a necessarily existing being for which existence is its very nature”, and gave no argument for that claim.

This is a philosophy forum, and you might consider that waving your arm at an entire series of videos, rather than writing out your argument so we can all see it, could give the impression you’re still a bit vague about the logic.

Otherwise you could just have said Anselm claims that necessarily existing is a perfection, and argues that God must have that attribute to be perfect. One sentence, job done. I don’t think that’s at all difficult to understand, but “I’m not going to argue with you about it because it is pointless from experience to do so”.

It was you who, referring to your own post, said “I’m sure the pope already knows all this”. I’m sure he knows Anselm’s argument, not so certain he knows yours. It’s for him to say whether he agrees with either of course.

Like I said before no point arguing with you as you already know everything.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

There you go again, ignoring all that the ideal gas law tells you, and concentrating instead only on what it doesn’t tell you. Isn’t the lesson that the world is more complicated than one simple equation something learned from experimental science or engineering or sport or cooking or woodwork or being married or a thousand other things?

Your car manual will tell you to measure the pressure of your tires cold, because that’s how the safe values in the manual were obtained. Whereas after you’ve driven around a while, the temperature increases and raises the pressure. That’s the kind of thing the ideal gas law tells you. It doesn’t tell you the cause of the temperature increase, it doesn’t give predictions accurate to 120 decimal places, but nevertheless gives a valuable safety tip about cause and effect.

Good! Finally you could understand it!

 

[JuanFlorencio]

What you appear to be doing here is to draw a general conclusion from one currently poorly understood case, for which there are no measurements, while at the same time ignoring the entire remainder of the body of knowledge in physics.

That’s the opposite of what Newton defines as science - “In this philosophy particular propositions are inferr’d from the phaenomena, and afterwards render’d general by induction”. The general case is that throughout physics, causality is visible in the math. That then tells us there’s something fishy about the singularity, not as you would have it that there’s something fishy about everything except the singularity. Science must be built on solid foundations, not on what we don’t (yet) know.

I don’t know how poorly you and Pound Coolish understand the case, because it is both of you who wanted to rely on the darkness of the singularity to propose that “perhaps causality works only in our universe, but not in other “worlds”; then, maybe the singularity had no cause”. As for me, I have openly declared that I don’t know it and, as a consequence, I cannot say, as you seem to be saying, that the Big Bang cosmological model ignores the remainder of the body of knowledge of physics. Nevertheless -and fortunately now you understand it-, causality is nothing that can be represented in a mathematical model and, therefore, the “hypothesis” that Pound Coolish proposed in the OP, and which you supported, is not reasonable.

But how do you know the highlighted proposition? Can you deduce it using a priori logic only, in other words without any reference to the world, such that your proposition must be true in all possible worlds?

(And given your reluctance to see causality in math, how would you not be arguing against yourself if you say you can find causality in pure logic?)

I don’t mind repeating it once more: the principle of causality is not deduced from any set of axioms. How do I know this principle? In a way analogous to the way in which I know the truth of any axiom: by direct apprehension.

Nope, in science the definitions, theorems, etc. are a posteriori, based on observation, driven by the world not by logic alone.

Driven by the world? What do you mean?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Originally Posted by inocente View Post
There you go again, ignoring all that the ideal gas law tells you, and concentrating instead only on what it doesn’t tell you. Isn’t the lesson that the world is more complicated than one simple equation something learned from experimental science or engineering or sport or cooking or woodwork or being married or a thousand other things?

Your car manual will tell you to measure the pressure of your tires cold, because that’s how the safe values in the manual were obtained. Whereas after you’ve driven around a while, the temperature increases and raises the pressure. That’s the kind of thing the ideal gas law tells you. It doesn’t tell you the cause of the temperature increase, it doesn’t give predictions accurate to 120 decimal places, but nevertheless gives a valuable safety tip about cause and effect.

Good! Finally you could understand it!

Oh no!, you hadn’t understood… I had said that the change of temperature, the change of pressure and the change of volume were effects of the same cause, which is not represented in the equation; but here you come again, with your idea that the change of temperature causes the change of pressure; and you think that the ideal gas law is telling you that! If you force the equation to say it, of course it will say it! But in that case, it will be your causality which will produce your desired effect on the equation!

At least you accept that the temperature change is caused by another agent! That is an advantage! You might know there are other changes in the gas besides those of volume and pressure, like internal energy, enthalpy, entropy, specific heat, viscosity, etcetera. It is a fortune that the manual of your car doesn’t mention those physical properties; otherwise, I guess that, instead of thinking that all those changes are actually different aspects of the only change that takes place in the gas, you will think that they are effects of the temperature change.

If we put one of those instruments which we call “thermometers” in contact with the gas, we will observe a change in the instrument, and we associate such change with a defined variable which we call “temperature”. In a similar manner, if we put one of those instruments which we call “manometers” in contact with the same gas, we will observe a change in the instrument, and we associate this change with a defined variable which we call “pressure”. From where do you get the idea that the variable we call “temperature” has primacy over the variable we call “pressure” in such a way that one is the cause of the other?

I am not sure that being used to deal with mere generalities you are ready to understand these things.