Why Couldn't the Universe Exist Without a Cause?

[Bradski]

My answer would be “It couldn’t.”

You appear to be basing this on logic. it would also appear for that to hold that logic would always give you the correct answer when it comes to science.

Do you believe that?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Nope. The temperature is a measure of the heat, and the heat is just a name for the jiggling of the atoms. Removing heat means reduce the jiggling, until at absolute zero it would stop (theoretically). Adding heat means increase the jiggling, until at some point the dance is so energetic that molecular bonds are broken, etc.

And importantly, even before having that explanation of temperature, it was known that whatever it represented is relevant, which is why it’s right there in the law, just as Newton had no backstory for gravity, but could still derive his law from observations.

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.

Consider a flight simulator. You sit there, increase “engine speed”, pull on the “elevators”, “take off”. Your actions cause (name removed by moderator)uts to a program which then outputs effects. The program uses the math of the physical laws (within such programs, that section is known as “the physics”). Even when simulating the world, the math is the handle on cause and effect. Otherwise, if you were correct and causality was so promiscuous it couldn’t be represented in the language of order, than causality would surely be a myth.

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.

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.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

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."

Your claim that there can be no change without time may also be your intuition, but for example the state change in quantum entanglement is instantaneous. There are also many differing philosophical views on time, presentism or block universe and so on. While interesting, these opinions would not appear to be a good foundation for knowledge. It would seem better to leave the question open and see where the evidence leads, rather than close our minds to all the alternatives.

Yes! We always need to be open to find out the real causes of what we see.

Re. your last paragraph: At t=0 the math doesn’t just product big numbers, it produces infinities, as in attempting to divide by zero. The biggest number you know - say a googolplex - isn’t even remotely close to infinity, no number can ever be. That’s why the math breaks down in the singularity. That indicates the theory is wrong at t=0, which indicates it starts to go wrong near t=0, so I’d have thought that must be fixed before anything like reliable predictions can be made. And going back to that Fenyman quote, it’s a bit difficult to make observations.

Division by zero is not defined in mathematics.

 

[ynotzap]

You appear to be basing this on logic. it would also appear for that to hold that logic would always give you the correct answer when it comes to science.

Do you believe that?

For any science based on actual facts , to advance would necessarily use the universal principle of cause and effect in its empirical endeavors, and even in its theoretical endeavors, and also has to be consistent in the application of the law of contradiction, logic which finds itself consistent with objective reality. It’s not a matter of belief, but understanding which can predispose one to believe what he doesn’t understand such as the supernatural. There are different kinds of logic, right logic and reasoning, and erroneous logic, and wrong reasoning, one based on objective reality, or one based on subjective reality

 

[JuanFlorencio]

That might be a neat way to form a tribe or a political party: keep out those who don’t share our intuitions on the grounds that there’s no way to convince them, but do let in those who share our intuitions, and whenever we later find the intuitions don’t match, settle it by gentleman’s agreement or split away and form a new tribe. Surely not a secure foundation for knowledge though.

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.

The laws of nature don’t depend on our intuitions or on what we think is reasonable. They don’t depend on us period. They depend on nature. The secure foundation of knowledge in science is summed up by Fenyman: “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”

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!”.

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.

 

[Bradski]

For any science based on actual facts , to advance would necessarily use the universal principle of cause and effect in its empirical endeavors, and even in its theoretical endeavors, and also has to be consistent in the application of the law of contradiction, logic which finds itself consistent with objective reality. It’s not a matter of belief, but understanding which can predispose one to believe what he doesn’t understand such as the supernatural. There are different kinds of logic, right logic and reasoning, and erroneous logic, and wrong reasoning, one based on objective reality, or one based on subjective reality

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.

 

[thinkandmull]

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.

This is rather ridiculous. Logic is truth, or at least true. We reason to true ideas too, like cause and effect. A bad syllogism isn’t in reality, unless you believe Hegel or Spinoza’s philosophies. But in that case you are basically a relativist. If so, are these discussions just games, or are you trying to learn maybe?

 

[Bradski]

This is rather ridiculous. Logic is truth, or at least true. We reason to true ideas too, like cause and effect. A bad syllogism isn’t in reality, unless you believe Hegel or Spinoza’s philosophies. But in that case you are basically a relativist. If so, are these discussions just games, or are you trying to learn maybe?

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.

 

[thinkandmull]

So only a handful of people know how cause and effect are illusions? Something can be in two places at one time, like saints when they bilocate. Something can express itself in two separate ways, like a wave and a particle at the same time. I don’t know what you mean by light receding from an observer, but that has to do with physical laws, not the basics which includes cause and effect. The fact that you think someone can be older than there parents shows that you are trying to make these things make sense, but all clarity is lost in what you started to say, and by the end of your post it became absurd. If there is no action going on “within” nothing, nothing will happen. This concept may have a subconscious correlate about not knowing what death is like, but it is on the flipside a concrete idea that is as true as any math

 

[Bradski]

You’re missing my point. Which is…

Things that appear to be illogical and therefore claimed to be impossible when looked at with our every day concepts of how the world works (one thing in two places etc) have shown to be possible. Shaking your head and muttering that it’s not logical, it’s not possible, it defies common sense, will do you no good. It IS illogical from our everyday intepretation of how the world works, but possible nevertheless.

So saying that something is not possible ONLY because it appears to be illogical is not a valid statement.

There are many areas when logic dictates an outcome beyond any doubt. Physics is not one of them.

 

[thinkandmull]

The only thing you’ve said that implies that physical laws can contradict what humans know to be true is the concept of two things gaining distance between themselves without either moving. Science should have some explanation for this. Just because a scientist says he thinks so-and-so happened under the microscope, it’s not infallible that it happened just so

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Perhaps, but all I’m concerned with is this question: Does logic dictate that there must be cause and effect in all possible worlds?

To answer yes, your proof must obviously exclude any reference to our world, since the proof can’t depend on contingencies but must be true in all logically possible worlds.

If it can’t be proved then logically our world can come into existence without a cause, since we only know of cause and effect within this world.

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.

 

[Bradski]

The only thing you’ve said that implies that physical laws can contradict what humans know to be true is the concept of two things gaining distance between themselves without either moving. Science should have some explanation for this. Just because a scientist says he thinks so-and-so happened under the microscope, it’s not infallible that it happened just so

There are very many things that appear illogical. I’ve mentioned 4 or 5. I’m sure that as you dig deeper into physics and quantum mechanics you’ll find quite a few more.

And it’s BECAUSE we have an explanation for these things we can say that DESPITE appearing illogical, they are possible.

A statement that says that something is impossible ONLY because it appears illogical carries no weight whatsoever. You’re going to need another reason.

 

[thinkandmull]

Bi-location is not against reason. Your position is that there is nothing that is impossible. You’re a Pirhonian (sp?)

 

[thinkandmull]

I’ve thought as you do now before as well. I have my moments. But the intellect is capable of pushing a little to see empirical experiences like causality to a transcendental state, and then the mind has understanding within it, know that it comes from something that makes sense

 

[Bradski]

Bi-location is not against reason. Your position is that there is nothing that is impossible. You’re a Pirhonian (sp?)

No…where did you get that from? It’s quite a simple argument.

In the realms of physics, if something appears to be illogical, then THAT ALONE is not sufficient to be able to say that it is impossible. It may well be impossible. But appearing to be illogical, with no other reason, is not enough to be able to make that claim.

You need another reason. If you haven’t got one, then just say so and we can move on.

 

[thinkandmull]

post 175

 

[thinkandmull]

Pyrrhonism

 

[Bradski]

I’ve thought as you do now before as well. I have my moments. But the intellect is capable of pushing a little to see empirical experiences like causality to a transcendental state, and then the mind has understanding within it, know that it comes from something that makes sense

You are saying that if something appears to be illogical, then by entering some ‘transcendental state’ you can tell if it’s possible or not.

Mmmm. OK. I think we can leave it there…

 

[thinkandmull]

I am not speaking of mysticism per se, but taking the mind to the point where it sees empirical laws in their transcendental state. You are stuck in a opposite polar state and the blank in the middle you are calling rational