The argument from necessity.

76 posts / 0 new
Last post
io_luca's picture
The claim that we cannot know

The claim that we cannot know for sure the cause or events prior to the big bang is, in my view, not correct, since, it seems to me, our limitations to see before then are physical not logical or conceptual. We can learn a lot about the universe via indirect observation. thus I do not see why this should not be possible about the big bang.

Even more simply put: if causality holds only at the physical level, before or after the big bang, then the cause for the universe also has to be physical.
If causality holds also at some non physical level, which I deem impossible, then, if the universe was caused by some non physical cause, such non physical cause would, in turn, need another cause, physical or non physical, since, per definition, causality no longer holds only at the physical level and it would then be logical to require a cause for the non physical cause for the universe.

io_luca's picture
Even more simply. Either the

Even more simply. Either the universe is all which is the case, and uncaused, or it is not.

A) the universe is all that is the case, and eternal and uncaused. Problem solved.

B) the universe is NOT all that is the case. Therefore:
B1) the universe has an external, eternal physical cause (i.e. a quantic multiverse),
or
B2) the universe has an external, non physical cause.

If B2, one would have to explain:

C) what it means that this cause is non physical
C1) how something non physical can produce or otherwise affect anything physical
C2) why would such a cause not need, in turn, a cause, meaning, why would causality only work among physical things, between a non physical thing and a physical thing, but NOT between two non physical things.

If we, in fact agree that causality only works within the realm of the physical, then there is no way that causality can hold between a non physical thing which produces a physical universe.

Thus, it seems to me, that the very notion of a necessary cause loses its meaning, and that in terms of ontological economy postulating a non physical realm amounts to simply a confession if ignorance.

I am all in favour for a physical cause for the universe, in turn, perhaps, eternal and uncaused.

Valiya's picture
@Luca

@Luca

Sorry for the delay. I got stuck with some work. Here are some quick responses to your posts.

If you are saying that the proposition that the universe has a cause is contingently true or false, then I agree.

Yes… it could be that. But I adhere to that position only out of agnosticism... because I don’t know about the reality before big bang, it could be just about anything or even nothing.

If you are saying that the universe surely has a cause, and such cause could be contingently physical or non physical, then I would ask you to wait, since, from the fact that the universe had a beginning does not follow, logically or empirically, that it had an external cause. This is, indeed, what we are trying to ascertain.

If the universe had a beginning, then there should be an external cause. Logically, something cannot cause itself.

"Empirically, if the oscillating theory is right, the universe might well be eternal and uncaused. Would you see any problem with such view? I do not.”

In the oscillating theory, you are invoking an infinite regress. Infinite regress is illogical. Because an event X can NEVER occur in an infinite regress. At any given point there aught to be an infinite number of regresses. For example, imagine that I have to borrow 1 dollar from the man behind me in order to buy a pass for the superbowl. But the man behind me has to borrow from the man behind him and so on till infinity. If this were the case, then the event of me buying a ticket will never take place. Any man anywhere in that infinite queue is equally away from getting the 1 dollar as me. It would be an endless wait for anybody in that queue, and nobody will ever get to watch the superbowl. Similarly, in an infinitely regressing universe, there would be no big bangs at all.

This is the reason that philosophers say that an eternal entity can never undergo changes. If it is there eternally, it has to be there as is, without having to move from condition A to condition B. Because A or B would never take place as what precedes them is infinity.

You Said: “Hawking's theory is one of many and, moreover, until now, we have not verified it empirically. Connected to this, I fail to see why we would be unable in principle to investigate the situation before the big bang. In fact, let us assume, for argument's sake, the big bang was caused by some physical cause which has left some traces in the universe. What would prevent us, at least in principle, to discover such traces and hence unveil the cause?”

As Hawkins puts it, all the laws breakdown at the point of singularity. If this is the case, then there is no way you can measure what was before the big bang. Say for example, the total mass of our universe is X. Can we therefore make any predictions about the mass before big bang? No. Why? Because when laws breakdown the law of conservation of mass would have also broken down. We can’t even say there was something called mass… it could have been a totally different property, because none of the laws are obeyed in that state. Therefore, by studying some traces in our universe it is impossible to arrive at any conclusions about realities before big bang.

“Thus we have 2 unwarranted claims on your side:
A) the universe cannot be eternal and cyclical.
B) what was before the big bang cannot be ever known, as a matter of principle.”

Both claims have been answered above.

You Said: “what is causality? Is it a relation holding ONLY at physical levels? Can it hold between a non physical thing and a physical thing? Can or should it hold between two non physical things?” I am simply anticipating your possible next step. If causality holds only at physical level, then I am all fine either with an eternal universe, or with a universe having a defined beginning, whose cause is also physical. The problem, as you see, is not empirical or scientific, but logical.”

Are you saying that causality holds only at physical levels? I would like you to shed some more light on it? I can think of several examples from our own universe where non-physical causes the physical and vice versa? Eg. … psychosomatic diseases where the cause is the non-physical mind. What about the cause that makes an electron appear at a particular location – the collapse of the probability wave – which is also non-physical.

You Said: “2) Is the universe all which is the case, and there is nothing else? If yes, we are done and the universe is eternal and uncaused. If not, I contend that, no matter what else is outside or around the universe, such reality can only be of a substance of sort, at least in principle quantifiable, for else, how would you account for something non physical to have an effect on something physical?”

Answered above.

You Said: “The claim that we cannot know for sure the cause or events prior to the big bang is, in my view, not correct, since, it seems to me, our limitations to see before then are physical not logical or conceptual.”

No. The limitation is logical and conceptual. This is the reason that I sent you the link about the limitations of our brain in understanding the universe. That’s not talking simply about physical limitations, but logical and conceptual limitations as well.

“We can learn a lot about the universe via indirect observation. thus I do not see why this should not be possible about the big bang.”

Indirect observations are possible only if there is a coherence between the fundamental laws governing your reality and that of the observed subject. If there is no way we can ascertain this coherence, we can only make assumptions and propose models. But there is no way we can verify them. The basic premise is still agnosticism. That is why I sent you the Stephen Hawkins link.

Nyarlathotep's picture
valiya - "Because an event X

valiya - "Because an event X can NEVER occur in an infinite regress. At any given point there aught to be an infinite number of regresses."

The problem is everything you have ever done contains an infinite regress. The distance you have to move a finger to press a key on your keyboard can be divided into an infinite number of gaps, and you must progress across each one before you can press the key. Yet you manage to push the keys over and over---without breaking a sweat---to type the message that an infinite regress isn't possible.

io_luca's picture
Hello valiya s sajjad, worry

Hello valiya s sajjad, worry not about the timing, philosophy is a pleasure, not a duty, and I am grateful about this exchange :)
Let me see a bit what you wrote.

"If you are saying that the proposition that the universe has a cause is contingently true or false, then I agree.

Yes… it could be that. But I adhere to that position only out of agnosticism... because I don’t know about the reality before big bang, it could be just about anything or even nothing.

If you are saying that the universe surely has a cause, and such cause could be contingently physical or non physical, then I would ask you to wait, since, from the fact that the universe had a beginning does not follow, logically or empirically, that it had an external cause. This is, indeed, what we are trying to ascertain.

If the universe had a beginning, then there should be an external cause. Logically, something cannot cause itself."

Again, we disagree here. You would be right under two conditions:
1) if by cause you mean a creation from nothing, which posits a set of problems.
2) if by external you mean something that is made of the same substance as the universe and, somehow, produces it, like a multiverse, which I would have no issues with.

Or, as I maintain, universe or multiverse could simply be eternal. But I think you will tackle this later.

The tree produces the apple, they are both made of organic matter, the energy in the apple comes from the tree.

"Empirically, if the oscillating theory is right, the universe might well be eternal and uncaused. Would you see any problem with such view? I do not.”

"In the oscillating theory, you are invoking an infinite regress."

No I am not, There is a universe which was never created in the first place, it simply is, a brute fact, and keeps moving back and forth. Where is he infinite regress here? The big bang is one of many re-births. Where is the empirical and logical problem with this? Am I missing something? I think this point is key, and I see no empirical nor logical problem with this.

"This is the reason that philosophers say that an eternal entity can never undergo changes. If it is there eternally, it has to be there as is, without having to move from condition A to condition B. Because A or B would never take place as what precedes them is infinity."

I think we are using concepts such as infinity and eternity in different ways. Time is, in my view, NOT a physical fact. It is a convention to account for change. Time exists only in that change exists. Imagine a universe which just is, and changes, then goes back, contracts, and then boom, again. It is a feasible theory.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/03/there-was-no-big-bang-unive...

"You Said: “Hawking's theory is one of many and, moreover, until now, we have not verified it empirically. Connected to this, I fail to see why we would be unable in principle to investigate the situation before the big bang. In fact, let us assume, for argument's sake, the big bang was caused by some physical cause which has left some traces in the universe. What would prevent us, at least in principle, to discover such traces and hence unveil the cause?”

As Hawkins puts it, all the laws breakdown at the point of singularity. If this is the case, then there is no way you can measure what was before the big bang. Say for example, the total mass of our universe is X. Can we therefore make any predictions about the mass before big bang? No. Why? Because when laws breakdown the law of conservation of mass would have also broken down. We can’t even say there was something called mass… it could have been a totally different property, because none of the laws are obeyed in that state. Therefore, by studying some traces in our universe it is impossible to arrive at any conclusions about realities before big bang."

No problem with different properties. However, we would still be in the realm of physical properties and, moreover, we might be able to postulate a pretty accurate set of rules governing reality before the big bang, in perhaps some indirect way. Of course I am speculating here, but first of all we do not even know if the big bang occurred, please check that link; secondly, even if it did, and we were agnostic as to how it all started, I am afraid this will do little in then trying and smuggling god into the framework :)
Sorry for anticipating.

“Thus we have 2 unwarranted claims on your side:
A) the universe cannot be eternal and cyclical.
B) what was before the big bang cannot be ever known, as a matter of principle.”

Both claims have been answered above.

I am afraid claim A) has not, as I have shown you. In order to defeat A) you would have to prove that empirically and/or logically an eternally oscillating universe is impossible, whereas both logic and astrophysics claim it is possible. The argument of the infinite regress does not apply here. In the dollar borrowing example you are arguing as if one universe causes another. In the same example the same guy would go in, watch the game, go back, get his dollar back, pay again, watch another game, etc. All perfectly possible.

To defeat claim B) you appeal to the fact that, since physical laws as we know them no longer hold at singularity level, we cannot ever know what the universe was like before. Well, what if we end up, some day, investigating black holes, actually learning what nature is like at singularity level. We do study black holes, so what is the issue, in principle, with us being able one day to uncover those laws? Therefore, it seems to me, claim B stands too.

"You Said: “what is causality? Is it a relation holding ONLY at physical levels? Can it hold between a non physical thing and a physical thing? Can or should it hold between two non physical things?” I am simply anticipating your possible next step. If causality holds only at physical level, then I am all fine either with an eternal universe, or with a universe having a defined beginning, whose cause is also physical. The problem, as you see, is not empirical or scientific, but logical.”

"Are you saying that causality holds only at physical levels? I would like you to shed some more light on it? I can think of several examples from our own universe where non-physical causes the physical and vice versa? Eg. … psychosomatic diseases where the cause is the non-physical mind. What about the cause that makes an electron appear at a particular location – the collapse of the probability wave – which is also non-physical."

Mine is only a question, of course I do not know. The psychosomatic disease case is not valid, since we do not even know whether the mind exists, brains do exist, however, the mind is, so far, just an abstraction. So introducing an abstract entity at this stage is risky, I think.
In the electron example you are confusing, I think, a theoretical model, man made, which describes electrons via their probability function, with the actual physical electron, which is influenced only by equally physical causes. If you think carefully, you will see that possibly nothing in our universe is caused by non physical causes.

"You Said: “2) Is the universe all which is the case, and there is nothing else? If yes, we are done and the universe is eternal and uncaused. If not, I contend that, no matter what else is outside or around the universe, such reality can only be of a substance of sort, at least in principle quantifiable, for else, how would you account for something non physical to have an effect on something physical?”

Answered above."

Well, afraid not anymore :) But it was a good try, just viced by folk psychology view.

"You Said: “The claim that we cannot know for sure the cause or events prior to the big bang is, in my view, not correct, since, it seems to me, our limitations to see before then are physical not logical or conceptual.”

No. The limitation is logical and conceptual. This is the reason that I sent you the link about the limitations of our brain in understanding the universe. That’s not talking simply about physical limitations, but logical and conceptual limitations as well."

Could you give me any specific example as to how my brain and conceptual powers would fail to understand the conditions before the big bang, since, as I explained, we are studtying black holes and, therefore, as a consequence, we are perfectly able, at least in principle, to find out about the physical rules governing singularities? How can you say that a problem which is clearly determined by physical limitations cannot be solved in principle? I would agree if you said: no matter what, we would never be able to count numbers until their end. This is a limitation of principle. But, since we can perfectly conceive to investigate different kinds of physical rules, then i do not see the limit. Example: weather on earth is very different from 3 billion years ago. However, via direct and indirect evidence we can perfectly build a model as to how climate was 3 billion years ago. Why should we not be able to do the same with the universe?

“We can learn a lot about the universe via indirect observation. thus I do not see why this should not be possible about the big bang.”

"Indirect observations are possible only if there is a coherence between the fundamental laws governing your reality and that of the observed subject. If there is no way we can ascertain this coherence, we can only make assumptions and propose models. But there is no way we can verify them. The basic premise is still agnosticism. That is why I sent you the Stephen Hawkins link."

Like I said, by studying black holes we can, in principle, infer what kind of laws governed reality before the big bang. And it is not even sure there was one, by the way.

Therefore my two main claims seem to stand I think:

A) the universe could be eternally oscillating back and forth, as some modern theories seem to suggest
B) by studying black holes we can, at least in principle, find out more about the different rules governing reality before the big bang. Moreover, from a logical point of view, I see no reason as to why even different physical laws could not be ever found out, since the very notion of different physical laws contains no logical limitation to our conceptual array. It is not like asking to describe a square circle.

Valiya's picture
Hi Luca, this is getting very

Hi Luca, this is getting very interesting. It’s really a pleasure engaging you.

“Again, we disagree here. You would be right under two conditions:
1) if by cause you mean a creation from nothing, which posits a set of problems.”

I am not saying it has to be that… but I am keeping even that idea open.

“2) if by external you mean something that is made of the same substance as the universe and, somehow, produces it, like a multiverse, which I would have no issues with.”

Why should it be the same substance, is my basic question. It could be the same… it could be different too. It will be further cleared as we go along.

“No I am not, There is a universe which was never created in the first place, it simply is, a brute fact, and keeps moving back and forth. Where is he infinite regress here? The big bang is one of many re-births. Where is the empirical and logical problem with this? Am I missing something? I think this point is key, and I see no empirical nor logical problem with this.”

It perhaps is NOT an infinite regress of matter. It’s an infinite regress of events. For big bang to occur, there should have been a big crunch. For that big crunch to occur, there should have been a big bang and so on. Therefore it is an infinite regress of events (bang…crunch…bang… crunch… ad infinitum). But since the series of events goes to infinity, none of those events will occur, because every event is equally away from all the events occurring before it.

“Time is, in my view, NOT a physical fact. It is a convention to account for change. Time exists only in that change exists. Imagine a universe which just is, and changes, then goes back, contracts, and then boom, again. It is a feasible theory.”

I think here we are skirting the borders of philosophy and if we go on at this tan of trying to define time, we will go ad infinitum (pun intended ;)

"No problem with different properties. However, we would still be in the realm of physical properties and, moreover, we might be able to postulate a pretty accurate set of rules governing reality before the big bang, in perhaps some indirect way. Of course I am speculating here, but first of all we do not even know if the big bang occurred, please check that link; secondly, even if it did, and we were agnostic as to how it all started, I am afraid this will do little in then trying and smuggling god into the framework :)
Sorry for anticipating.”

Firstly, I disagree with your insistence that the properties have to be physical. I think that’s more of a worldview than anything empirical (or is it, please clarify). Secondly, even if it is physical, when properties change, there is no way we can extrapolate that reality from our perspective.

“I am afraid claim A) has not, as I have shown you. In order to defeat. A) you would have to prove that empirically and/or logically an eternally oscillating universe is impossible, whereas both logic and astrophysics claim it is possible. The argument of the infinite regress does not apply here”

I have tried to answer it by saying that it’s an infinite regress of events.

“In the dollar borrowing example you are arguing as if one universe causes another. In the same example the same guy would go in, watch the game, go back, get his dollar back, pay again, watch another game, etc. All perfectly possible.”

If the event of the guy watching the game is contingent upon the event of him getting the dollar… but that event in turn is contingent upon the second guy getting the dollar from the man behind… and so on… it would be an infinite regress of events.

“To defeat claim B) you appeal to the fact that, since physical laws as we know them no longer hold at singularity level, we cannot ever know what the universe was like before. Well, what if we end up, some day, investigating black holes, actually learning what nature is like at singularity level. We do study black holes, so what is the issue, in principle, with us being able one day to uncover those laws? Therefore, it seems to me, claim B stands too.”

I think Stephen Hawkins feels otherwise. He doesn’t put it as if it’s some temporary physical limitation that we will overcome in future. But a real logical/conceptual/and empirical barrier we can’t cross. The Big Bang is a theory with a lot of purchase among the scientific community… it could be wrong and maybe there is another theory that could come up and change this fundamental notion. But until that comes, we can’t just wish it away. If we get into that mode, then you can dismiss any theory simply by saying that there will come a time when this will be disproved… hence not acceptable.

"Mine is only a question, of course I do not know. The psychosomatic disease case is not valid, since we do not even know whether the mind exists, brains do exist, however, the mind is, so far, just an abstraction. So introducing an abstract entity at this stage is risky, I think.”

First of all, I think IF there is such a thing as non-physical, it’s always going to be abstract to us. Therefore, in a discussion about the non-physical, to put the condition that we can’t have it abstract, would be unfair.

I think the moot point is in your wording “I do not know.” Yes, brain exists but that doesn’t explain the onset of psychosomatic diseases or for that matter placebo cures! That’s why we fall back on the abstract concept of mind. As you said, it could be a myth or it could be real and maybe someday we will uncover it, or maybe we will never know. I am not invoking the abstract concept to explain anything.

“In the electron example you are confusing, I think, a theoretical model, man made, which describes electrons via their probability function, with the actual physical electron, which is influenced only by equally physical causes. If you think carefully, you will see that possibly nothing in our universe is caused by non physical causes.”

Everything is a theoretical model, isn’t it? And all models are manmade. Isn’t the oscillation theory also a manmade theoretical model? Models are there to explain the physical realities in the best possible manner. According to this model, the best explanation for the physical appearance of an electron at a particular location is the collapse of the probability wave. The electron shows two properties of wave and particle (which is a physical reality as far as what we know). The cause of why it chooses to become a particle at a given time is the collapse of probability wave. Hence, a physical event has a non-physical cause. May be there are explanations for this phenomenon that is physical. But I am saying that the idea of something non-physical causing something physical is not alien to scientists.

"Could you give me any specific example as to how my brain and conceptual powers would fail to understand the conditions before the big bang, since, as I explained, we are studtying black holes and, therefore, as a consequence, we are perfectly able, at least in principle, to find out about the physical rules governing singularities? How can you say that a problem which is clearly determined by physical limitations cannot be solved in principle? I would agree if you said: no matter what, we would never be able to count numbers until their end. This is a limitation of principle. But, since we can perfectly conceive to investigate different kinds of physical rules, then i do not see the limit. Example: weather on earth is very different from 3 billion years ago. However, via direct and indirect evidence we can perfectly build a model as to how climate was 3 billion years ago. Why should we not be able to do the same with the universe?”

There is the UNcertainty principle, which says that you can NEVER observe any event without affecting it. If this is the case, then there is no way you can understand the universe in totality. Because to study the universe you have to observe it and when you observe it you change it. SO, what you are observing is not the reality you tried to understand, but an altered reality. This imposes a big limitation on our ability to understand anything even in our own universe… leave alone realities before big bang.

“B) by studying black holes we can, at least in principle, find out more about the different rules governing reality before the big bang. Moreover, from a logical point of view, I see no reason as to why even different physical laws could not be ever found out, since the very notion of different physical laws contains no logical limitation to our conceptual array. It is not like asking to describe a square circle.”

I think your notion that all realities have to be intelligible to us, and my notion that it need not be so are both basically just worldviews. The reason why I hold to that worldview is for the following reason.

There are far more people in the world who understand Newton’s concept of the universe than there are people who can understand Einstein’s universe based on relativity. And probably, even fewer people can understand Quantum physics. The reason is that conceptually one is more abstract than the other. Which means one concept requires more brain power to fathom than the other. If that’s case, why should the possibility of there being concepts so abstract that no human being can ever fathom them not exist? When my brain has limitations to understand what another human being has understood, it’s obvious that his brain too has a limitation, perhaps to understand some higher concept? Therefore, it’s only logical to concede that humanity’s brain power has limitations.

io_luca's picture
"Hi Luca, this is getting

"Hi Luca, this is getting very interesting. It’s really a pleasure engaging you."
It is indeed :) I shall remove, for brevity's sake, those parts which we agree upon.

“Again, we disagree here. You would be right under two conditions:
1) if by cause you mean a creation from nothing, which posits a set of problems.”
I am not saying it has to be that… but I am keeping even that idea open."
That is indeed where the problems will start :)

“2) if by external you mean something that is made of the same substance as the universe and, somehow, produces it, like a multiverse, which I would have no issues with.”
Why should it be the same substance, is my basic question. It could be the same… it could be different too. It will be further cleared as we go along."
Well, let's see how we mean "same" and "different".

ON REGRESS
"It perhaps is NOT an infinite regress of matter. It’s an infinite regress of events. For big bang to occur, there should have been a big crunch. For that big crunch to occur, there should have been a big bang and so on. Therefore it is an infinite regress of events (bang…crunch…bang… crunch… ad infinitum). But since the series of events goes to infinity, none of those events will occur, because every event is equally away from all the events occurring before it."

Well all I see is an infinite series of different, individual events, following one another. Why woul you say they never occurred? In mathematics, infinite regress is perfectly logical:
"We may consider what ideas come from mathematics to inform our ideas about whether logical causal chains are possible: mathematics is in effect our most intense testing grounds for logical consistency of ideas. Indeed, in modern mathematics, infinite forward-moving causal chains are common. The simplest example is Mathematical Induction, in which one proves that if some property P holds for 0, and if P(0) ⇒ P(1), and if P(1) ⇒ P(2), and so forth ad infinitum, then P holds of all whole numbers: one essentially completes an infinite chain of implications in one swoop. It is similarly common to build "upward towers" of containments: for example, sets A ∈ B ∈ C ∈ D ∈ ... However, it is unusual to consider chains of conditionals which reach "infinitely backwards", where ... ⇒ Q(3) ⇒ Q(2) ⇒ Q(1) ⇒ Q(0); and in most formulations of set theory, chains of the form ...∈ D ∈ C ∈ B ∈ A are expressly forbidden. We must not mistake this for logical impossibility, however."

So I can perfectly conceive an infinite regress. Maybe the brute fact is some universal substance which has always been there and only from some stage, say it was ripe, it started producing big bangs. There are many possibilities, if you do not like the infinite regress. It is however, logically possible.

ON PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
"Firstly, I disagree with your insistence that the properties have to be physical. I think that’s more of a worldview than anything empirical (or is it, please clarify). Secondly, even if it is physical, when properties change, there is no way we can extrapolate that reality from our perspective."

Well, if you claimed that reality before the big bang might NOT have physical properties, then you are left with the logical AND empirical problem to explain what something non physical is, what properties it has, and how it can create something physical, since we know causality to work for sure among physical things.

Second, even if it was true that the laws of physics, aka, the behaviour of reality was radically different BEFORE the big bang, at singularity level, we would still be dealing with some physical laws, which we do not know yet, which we might not easily discover, because of empirical limits.
However, since they produced a physical reality, induction tells us they most likely are also physical and, as such, they are, in principle, within our reach.
Thus your claim that they are in principle necessarily beyond our reach is, in my view, not correct. Remember the example of old Earth? I think it is the same. You would be right if you claimed that those properties are 100% non physical, in which case I would agree with you, however, this is what we are trying to find out, so this cannot be used as a premise.

“To defeat claim B) you appeal to the fact that, since physical laws as we know them no longer hold at singularity level, we cannot ever know what the universe was like before. Well, what if we end up, some day, investigating black holes, actually learning what nature is like at singularity level. We do study black holes, so what is the issue, in principle, with us being able one day to uncover those laws? Therefore, it seems to me, claim B stands too.”

"I think Stephen Hawkins feels otherwise. He doesn’t put it as if it’s some temporary physical limitation that we will overcome in future. But a real logical/conceptual/and empirical barrier we can’t cross. The Big Bang is a theory with a lot of purchase among the scientific community… it could be wrong and maybe there is another theory that could come up and change this fundamental notion. But until that comes, we can’t just wish it away. If we get into that mode, then you can dismiss any theory simply by saying that there will come a time when this will be disproved… hence not acceptable."

I am not claiming it the argument is not acceptable because the theory underlying it could be wrong. I am claiming that, since Hawking is NOT a philosopher, I fear he might be confusing empirical and logical impossibility. Besides, please read here:

""We believe — although it's not 100 percent proven — that spots that we see in the microwave map from when the universe was 389,000 years old were actually imposed on it when [the universe] was sub-microseconds old," Mather told SPACE.com. "There's an interpretive step there, but it's probably right." - See more at: http://www.space.com/22052-big-bang-technology-universe-history.html#sth..."

Finally, if the big bang was a singularity and black holes are too, and we can somehow study black holes, we can conclude that, at least in principle, the singularity which caused the big bang is, as different as it can be from our reality, still in principle within empirical reach for investigation.

"First of all, I think IF there is such a thing as non-physical, it’s always going to be abstract to us. Therefore, in a discussion about the non-physical, to put the condition that we can’t have it abstract, would be unfair."

The only non physical reality I admit in my ontology, which we can also call abstract, is what I define as the Logical Space of Reason. I have a separate argument for this.

I" think the moot point is in your wording “I do not know.” Yes, brain exists but that doesn’t explain the onset of psychosomatic diseases or for that matter placebo cures! That’s why we fall back on the abstract concept of mind. As you said, it could be a myth or it could be real and maybe someday we will uncover it, or maybe we will never know. I am not invoking the abstract concept to explain anything."

It is a good direction though, however, I am afraid it is not very conclusive as an example of something non physical affecting something physical. We might surely get into the mind-body problem another time.

“In the electron example you are confusing, I think, a theoretical model, man made, which describes electrons via their probability function, with the actual physical electron, which is influenced only by equally physical causes. If you think carefully, you will see that possibly nothing in our universe is caused by non physical causes.”

Everything is a theoretical model, isn’t it? And all models are manmade. Isn’t the oscillation theory also a manmade theoretical model? Models are there to explain the physical realities in the best possible manner. According to this model, the best explanation for the physical appearance of an electron at a particular location is the collapse of the probability wave. The electron shows two properties of wave and particle (which is a physical reality as far as what we know). The cause of why it chooses to become a particle at a given time is the collapse of probability wave. Hence, a physical event has a non-physical cause. May be there are explanations for this phenomenon that is physical. But I am saying that the idea of something non-physical causing something physical is not alien to scientists."

Except that then we are left with the problem as to whether the distinction physical/non phyiscal is a sound one. We might argue that ALL is just a construction, and that the distinction makes no sense; or we might, conversely, reduce ALL to physical sense data, and claim that even concepts can be reduced to neural activity. Both directions are dangerous :)

"Could you give me any specific example as to how my brain and conceptual powers would fail to understand the conditions before the big bang, since, as I explained, we are studtying black holes and, therefore, as a consequence, we are perfectly able, at least in principle, to find out about the physical rules governing singularities? How can you say that a problem which is clearly determined by physical limitations cannot be solved in principle? I would agree if you said: no matter what, we would never be able to count numbers until their end. This is a limitation of principle. But, since we can perfectly conceive to investigate different kinds of physical rules, then i do not see the limit. Example: weather on earth is very different from 3 billion years ago. However, via direct and indirect evidence we can perfectly build a model as to how climate was 3 billion years ago. Why should we not be able to do the same with the universe?”

"There is the UNcertainty principle, which says that you can NEVER observe any event without affecting it. If this is the case, then there is no way you can understand the universe in totality. Because to study the universe you have to observe it and when you observe it you change it. SO, what you are observing is not the reality you tried to understand, but an altered reality. This imposes a big limitation on our ability to understand anything even in our own universe… leave alone realities before big bang."

This principle, coming from quantum mechanics, has been largely debunked I am afraid.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/busting-the-myth-of-the-observer-t...
However, even if what you said was true, then no true proposition about reality could ever be uttered :) So I invite you, unless you have a taste for radical skepticism, not to use this argument :)

“B) by studying black holes we can, at least in principle, find out more about the different rules governing reality before the big bang. Moreover, from a logical point of view, I see no reason as to why even different physical laws could not be ever found out, since the very notion of different physical laws contains no logical limitation to our conceptual array. It is not like asking to describe a square circle.”

"I think your notion that all realities have to be intelligible to us, and my notion that it need not be so are both basically just worldviews. The reason why I hold to that worldview is for the following reason.
There are far more people in the world who understand Newton’s concept of the universe than there are people who can understand Einstein’s universe based on relativity. And probably, even fewer people can understand Quantum physics. The reason is that conceptually one is more abstract than the other. Which means one concept requires more brain power to fathom than the other. If that’s case, why should the possibility of there being concepts so abstract that no human being can ever fathom them not exist? When my brain has limitations to understand what another human being has understood, it’s obvious that his brain too has a limitation, perhaps to understand some higher concept? Therefore, it’s only logical to concede that humanity’s brain power has limitations."

I think that ALL people provided with right time and patience would understand quantum mechanics, maybe not in its maths but conceptually.

At any rate, we have no specific reasons to believe that whatever happened before the big bang should be something so damn complex or absurd that it necessarily is going to defeat our powers of understanding. So far, we have managed to produce theories for prety much everything, and our theories have been refined to accommodate new data, so I do not see why the limit about the big bang should be logical and not just empirical.

Valiya's picture
Hi Luca

Hi Luca

As I am little short on time, I am just answering the most crucial point in your post. Let me know if there is anything that you think is more important that needs to be addressed.

You Said: “Well all I see is an infinite series of different, individual events, following one another. Why woul you say they never occurred? In mathematics, infinite regress is perfectly logical:
"We may consider what ideas come from mathematics to inform our ideas about whether logical causal chains are possible: mathematics is in effect our most intense testing grounds for logical consistency of ideas. Indeed, in modern mathematics, infinite forward-moving causal chains are common. The simplest example is Mathematical Induction, in which one proves that if some property P holds for 0, and if P(0) ⇒ P(1), and if P(1) ⇒ P(2), and so forth ad infinitum, then P holds of all whole numbers: one essentially completes an infinite chain of implications in one swoop. It is similarly common to build "upward towers" of containments: for example, sets A ∈ B ∈ C ∈ D ∈ ... However, it is unusual to consider chains of conditionals which reach "infinitely backwards", where ... ⇒ Q(3) ⇒ Q(2) ⇒ Q(1) ⇒ Q(0); and in most formulations of set theory, chains of the form ...∈ D ∈ C ∈ B ∈ A are expressly forbidden. We must not mistake this for logical impossibility, however."

I agree math deals with infinity and at a conceptual level it is indeed a fact. However, it is only a potential fact… not a real fact. For example, the number series is infinite. But that does not mean it’s a physical reality. For example, the numerical 10 is only a potential concept until you actually count 10 physical objects. Let’s say there are never 10 objects in the world. Then this would not be a real concept. However, we would still be able to conceive this number mathematically and also make various constructs out of it. But they would all only be potential concepts. This is the case with infinity also. In math, two parallel lines are said to meet at infinity. But this is only a potential concept. Never have two parallel lines met in the real world, because physically infinity does not exist. Earlier in this thread, Nyarlthotep was showing how any distance can be divided up infinitely. But that once again is only a potential infinity. Not a real one.

You Said “So I can perfectly conceive an infinite regress. Maybe the brute fact is some universal substance which has always been there and only from some stage, say it was ripe, it started producing big bangs. There are many possibilities, if you do not like the infinite regress. It is however, logically possible.”

Here once again you are actually invoking infinite regress. You are talking about a substance that exited forever. However, at one moment in time, it turns ripe and explodes. If the substance existed forever, then the event of ripening and the subsequent event of explosion would never take place, because the substance has been continuing to exist for ever in a particular state.

Nyarlathotep's picture
valiya - "I agree math deals

valiya - "I agree math deals with infinity and at a conceptual level it is indeed a fact. However, it is only a potential fact… not a real fact."

Tell that to the clerk at your local store when they are calculating the amount of change to return to you after a purchase. You see; it is easy for the apologists to pay lip-service to rejecting mathematics. What would really impress me is if one of them actually did reject it by actually living their life that way (not using it).

Valiya's picture
@Nyarlthotep

@Nyarlthotep

"Tell that to the clerk at your local store when they are calculating the amount of change to return to you after a purchase. You see; it is easy for the apologists to pay lip-service to rejecting mathematics. What would really impress me is if one of them actually did reject it by actually living their life that way (not using it)."

I think I have explained it. Numbers are just concepts until you apply them on real objects. Let's say I am talking of a number called 'Quintillion' but if there is nothing in the real world that I can apply that number to, then its a concept, not a reality. It there is NO quintillion objects in the world, then the number will still exist as a concept. But in reality it does not exist. Likewise, the clerk giving me the change is applying the numbers (concept) on real objects (money).

Nyarlathotep's picture
valiya:

valiya:
Like so many other people who don't know enough math to shake a stick at, you like to cry about infinities. I got a news flash for you: infinities are hidden in many ordinary calculations. Want to calculate your instantaneous velocity of your car? That requires an infinity. Want to calculate the area of a circle, that has a hidden infinity. You depend on them every day in your life (without realized it), then try to tell us they aren't 'real' when you don't like the consequences. If you think infinities aren't 'real', stop using them!

io_luca's picture
Hallo, let us focus indeed on

Hallo, let us focus indeed on infinity and on reality before the big bang. Let me reply about infinity and yes, I am aware of the difference between numbers as concepts and actual physical quantities.

You seem to be saying that only what never changes can be eternal.
I actually fail to see why could there not be something eternal which can also change. Let us say that the universe is eternal and it eternally contracts and expands.
You say: "If the substance existed forever, then the event of ripening and the subsequent event of explosion would never take place, because the substance has been continuing to exist for ever in a particular state."

Forever means that if you have a moment T, this substance's existence goes infinitely back before T (infinitely -T), and infinitely after T (infinitely +T), and T can be a moment of being ripe. Are you saying that along an infinite length of time no individual events are possible? And, if not, why logically or empirically not?

thanks

Valiya's picture
Thanks for the post. Here is

Thanks for the post. Here is my reply.

You Said: You seem to be saying that only what never changes can be eternal.
I actually fail to see why could there not be something eternal which can also change. Let us say that the universe is eternal and it eternally contracts and expands.

Yes, I am saying that what is eternal can never undergo change. Because change indicates a particular moment in time. If the object is eternal, then any given moment in its existence is preceded by an infinite amount of time. Hence, the moment of change must also be preceded by infinite time, which means that that moment will never occur. If moment of change does occur, then it can be reasoned that the object is not eternal.

If you actually think of it, you can never give the attribute of eternity to any object that exists in time. Because flow of time in itself is change – from past to present to future.

For that moment to occur time must pass infinitely

You Said: “Forever means that if you have a moment T, this substance's existence goes infinitely back before T (infinitely -T), and infinitely after T (infinitely +T), and T can be a moment of being ripe. Are you saying that along an infinite length of time no individual events are possible? And, if not, why logically or empirically not?”

As explained above, if the substance goes infinitely back before T, then how did T occur in the first place? You used (-T) and (+T). Here you are indicating an addition and subtraction from infinite time. But you know that adding or subtracting anything from infinity does not change it. Which means that your substance’s time does not undergo any change no matter what you add to it or take off from it. If the substance’s time does not change, then the substance itself cannot undergo change, because change occurs only with progress of time.

Nyarlathotep's picture
valiya - "But you know that

valiya - "But you know that adding or subtracting anything from infinity does not change it."

False.

Vincent Paul Tran1's picture
We assume we understand

We assume we understand reality. that remains to be seen

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
The best answer is by far is

The best answer by far is that even IF everything has a cause, it doesn't mean at all that god is involved in it.

If I fart, the cause is that gasses are building up in my body and I needed to release some.

If I do not know why I needed to fart, I could do just like the argument of necessity.

"God cased me to fart because everything that exists has a cause."

Big god of the gaps argument at best.

___________________________________________________

2'nd best (my fav)

This argument is against god.

"Everything that exists has a cause" right?

God has no cause, therefor he doesn't exist. :)

(usually apologetics will change the argument as "Everything that BEGINS to exist", which is also flawed on many levels anyway, mainly that it assumes that there was a beginning as a fact which there is no evidence of it at all.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDdiCYTK160

Edit:

To make it worse, it puts the theists in a position of claiming that something that did not begin to exist, somehow exists.

Good luck with supporting that claim. lol

Instead of just claiming that the universe might always have existed(big bang being a cycle), they are claiming that the universe was created by a sloppy loving god and then that this loving creator somehow always existed.

Adding 3 or more unsupported assumptions does not make it more reasonable.

Really the gap is getting narrow by the seconds for their illogical god.

chimp3's picture
Philosophyers made the claim

Philosophers made the claim that a primary cause is a necessity. Why is it a necessity ? [Always ask why].

io_luca's picture
Usually they say that an

Usually they say that an infinite regress is something not desirable in nature nor in logic. Not that this argument convinces me much....

chimp3's picture
We primates are so provincial

We primates are so provincial. Who knows what natural laws and logic exist in another universe? It is possible that in another universe time flows backwards and the sentient beings there argue over the concept of infinite progression as irrational in respect to first cause. "Life has no meaning if we are just going to end up as a singularity Bob !"

Nyarlathotep's picture
Luca de Joanna - "Usually

Luca de Joanna - "Usually they say that an infinite regress is something not desirable in nature nor in logic. Not that this argument convinces me much...."

I think you really hit the nail on the head when you used the word "desirable" in the description of their argument.

io_luca's picture
Thanks Nyarlathotep :)

Thanks Nyarlathotep :)

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
Yea it is not desirable true

Yea it is not desirable true but history has proven us that nothing outside our comfort zone is desirable.

If the scientific community tries to find better ways of how to deal with infinities instead of closing them in some closet for decades humanity would benefit from it.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jeff - "If the scientific

Jeff - "If the scientific community tries to find better ways of how to deal with infinities instead of closing them in some closet for decades"

They are dealt with everyday Jeff, you should really learn some calculus.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
Note:

Note:
Nyarlathotep does not even know how to count and knows next to nothing about physics.

I tend to ignore such trolls but you are free to do what you wish.
Just to let you know.

Just to make my point more clear.

It is a well known fact that scientist have been avoiding to touch some aspects of General Relativity Theory proposed by Einstein which put forward the idea of infinite density for decades for many reasons, mostly because it is not a comfortable area.(like not popular, expensive, and hard to have enough evidence)

eg:
"I agree that GRT's predictions would imply the possibility of infinite density, a concept our minds can't fully comprehend and our mathematics cannot calculate. But couldn't it be that the failure lies in our minds and math rather than in GRT?"

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-prediction-of-infinite-density-inside-singu...

Nyarlathotep's picture
don't you ever get tired of

don't you ever get tired of arguing about math, with a mathematician?

Marwa's picture
For as long as I can remember

For as long as I can remember I believed that everything happens for a reason and when something happens that no one can explain they say God wants it that way just because the world exists that doesn't mean that there must be a God it's simple physics really “for every action there is a reaction”
And for that it's having a primary cause is a necessity, I don't really believe in that.

Nutmeg's picture
If you look at quantum

If you look at quantum physics you find that some things do not have a cause, in fact they occur randomly. An atom can decay or not decay, and you can't predict which is going to happen. Systems are based on probabilities, not causes.

moss134's picture
God is Love. Love requires no

God is Love. Love requires no cause but is the cause, in the sense of the ultimate source, of all things. The contingent must be contingent upon something else and in that sense 'caused'.

But the whole argument belongs to a lower level of attainment than humanity now has. The image of God as all knowing and all powerful belongs to the age when human beings are striving for intelligence. We have now achieved this and are moving into the age of (self-)consciousness.

The noblest image that a mere intelligence can conceive of as its maximum possible attainment is Absolute Wisdom - and its concommitant Absolute Power. But the noblest image that a consciousness can imagine within itself is Innocence. Innocence freely shares wisdom and power and utterly surpasses them. Innocence proclaims the nature of spirituality for our present age to be of the nature of the will. The Will both powers and allows. It re-asserts the feminine principle.

Unless ye become as little children, ye shall never enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Nutmeg's picture
God is love, right on, man:

God is love, right on, man:

“This is what the Lord Almighty says... ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3)

“Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us – he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” (Psalm 137:9)

“So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, ‘Get up; let’s go.’ But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.” (Judges 19:25-28)

moss134's picture
I agree. It is high time that

I agree. It is high time that the God of Old Testament was put behind us.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.