Mageth

of course it does. time already exists. does the void have some kind of "rule" that says
"I only pop universii into existence when there is no time."

Yes.

Time didn't exist before some finite point in our universe's past. Using "as long as" to describe something before that point has no meaning.

A universe is what? I would say simply a contained volume of space where something exists that is changing.

Your definition may need a little work. First, we don't know if the universe (or any universe) is "contained". Second, I don't think it's a necessary attribute of a universe that "something exists that is changing."

If the void can pop into existence mass in the equivalent of 1 x 10 ^90 atoms (or thereabouts), then it can do it again....in fact, it can do it right here in our solar system.

Perhaps it can happen again; I don't think it's known if it can happen again. But it may be the case that universes pop into existence "all the time" (for lack of a better word; damn the limitations of a temporal brain and vocabulary). And if one did pop into existence "in our solar system", it would create its own spacetime so we would not even know it happened, and it would not be contingent on the time in our universe.

simian

Thanks to the great xian, I now see things in a new light. Previously, I wrongly believed that when a man and woman got married and had a full-term child prior to their being married for 9 months it was an implication that they had sex (or the bride had sex with somebody) prior to the wedding. Now I know I am wrongly assuming that just because any child after the first one takes 9 months to gestate, that the first one should take about that, too. Silly me for assuming the length of human gestation was predictable, based on my limited observations.

Simian

Tom Sawyer

xian,

Nobody actually knows what happened before the Big Bang. All we know is that it occurred.

It may be that it was the first uncaused event. It may be one in a long series of expansions and contractions. It may be due to a fluctuation in the void. It may be that God raised his hand and brought it into existence through the force of His will. Concepts such as time may exist independently of the universe and were around before it and will be around after it, or they could be properties of the universe so that ideas such "before the universe" are as meaningless as "longer than length".

At present, we don't know which it is. Human kind and every other race that ever has or ever will exist in this universe and any other may never know what happened. The only way that we are going to find out, though, is through scientific inquiry. There are many ideas about what caused the Big Bang and all but one of them (at most) are wrong. We can look at the available evidence and draw conclusions based on that evidence. We then draw other conclusions based on those conclusions until we get somewhere close to a description of what actually happened. Just saying that God did it and He is unknowable adds nothing to the debate and doesn't advance our understanding at all.

The hypothesis that God caused the Big Bang is as valid as any other, as far as I'm concerned. In order to call that a scientific theory instead of a philosophical one, though, that hypothesis has to be able to be subjected to the scientific method of testable predictions. Once the "unknowable" factor is added in, it immediately stops being science. Ideas such as quantum gravity, etc can potentially be tested, even though we can't do so now. Until we can, they remain interesting ideas that are not true, just like the Goddidit idea. That potential for testing gives them slightly more credibility but until someone comes up with something that can be tested no one can come up with a better answer than that we don't know right now and you have as much right to ridicule their ideas as they do to ridicule the idea that God made it happen.

Going back to causation, when we see an effect, we can assume that something caused that effect. When the effect fits an known quality and we know what causes that quality we can assume that the cause is the same until additional information develops to show that it is not the case. Until that additional information develops, though, we are correct in assuming that the cause of the previous effect applies in this case as well.

Psycho Economist

The Xian to Mageth to Xian to Feather to Xian exchange was classic. I'm thinking about putting it up on my door or something. You've made my day, y'all.

Next, I did have you confused with somebody else, xian. My bad.

Now for the play-by-play...

Not quite what's happening. You'll learn in a good astronomy class that galaxies are aparently moving away from each other because the universe itself is expanding... or if you'd get hung up on something infinite getting bigger, becoming less dense.

The big bang follows from extrapolating the expansive movement of distant galaxies back until masses get small enough and kinetic energy gets high enough that Newtonian mechanics breaks down.

This equivocates on the meaning of cause, and demonstrates a superficial understanding of the claims of evolution (and isn't terribly on-topic). Evolution is an attempt to explain the process of biological diversity (i.e. what causes it). Your line, "to propose evolution assumes causation," is the equivocation. I can't imagine a scientifically literate person saying "evolution is not the cause of biological diversity".

But what does it mean for "evolution to assume causation"?

Is there something that is necessary and sufficient to get self-replicating molecules from proteins? We're working on answering that one. It may turn out that there is an input that is necessary but not sufficient (e.g. there are multiple inputs, or a small number of inputs that yield self-replicating molecules with random success and failure.)

Is there something that's necessary but maybe not sufficient to get self-replicating molecules from protiens? Certainly.

And now for a totally loaded shade of meaning to "cause"... Must an agent have willfully intervened to create self-replecating molecules from proteins? Atheists, by definition of atheist, would say no.

I think it depends on what shade of meaning is meant by the writer, and is discerned by the reader when evolution and causation are put side-by-side. I hope this makes things clearer for you.

Huh?

Causation, in the scientific sense, does indeed imply predictability. Again, equivocating the word causation. You're trying to mess up the scientific definition of causation with causation by an agent, which isn't predictable to in the sense that the agent has to choose to make the causal action.

The way I set up the original example, B & !B are necessarily mutually exclusive, consequently so are C & D. If C & E are not mutually exclusive, it is indeed falacious to infer B or !B from the presence or absence of E. You're starting to catch on.

Any A, B, C and D... not All A, B, C and D.

Also depends on how specific A, B, C and D get.

If you constrain A1 and A2 by mass (e.g. .5kg and 5kg, respectively), B would also necessarily be related to the mass. A force of 1 Newton could move A1, but not A2, but a force of 100N would move both.

But this is specification to the point of absurdity.

In this case... electromagnetic energy (I assume, this example is a little vague) is sufficient, but not necessary. But now you're getting into quantum physics and we haven't quite fleshed out the rulebook here. Photons may even be massless, we don't know yet.

You want to talk gravity in Andromeda? Then let's keep to Newtonian mechanics, since Andromeda is massive enough and slow enough for Newtonian mechanics to overwhelm other rulesets of phyisics.

In Newtonian mechanics "force" and "no force" are mutually exclusive in any particular frame of reference. Stochastic quantum occurances are not relevant to Newtonian mechanics. You'll have to show me some other kind of "uncaused event" before you can put that back on the table.

Uncaused events are not relevant to Newtonian mechanics.

I'm not assuming whatever this "causal principle" is that you've mentioned. I'm assuming uniformity á la Hutton (thank you DT).

Hey, I don't think the present incarnation of the universe popped out of "nothingness", myself. I think we got here from a universe of quarks that cooled down enough for Strong and Weak Nuclear force to bind the quarks into atoms. What was there before the quarks? I doubt we'll ever have the physics to know, but again it doesn't necessitate a God, six days and a firmament.

xian

Oooooh!!!

Let the ad-hominem fly.

Lobstrosity posted a monstrosity.

*gets hands dirty*

time to fling some mud. THis is gonna be fun!!

at least when I throw the term around, it is being thrown...implying that the process of thought occured inside my brain, and caused the term to be thrown.....as opposed to just popping out of your mouth, uncaused, from a void.

says WHO? Since when did you know ALL THE TRUTH of the universe? Did Guth put you up to this? Prove it!
"excellent approximation" has no meaning since it is still fully false! And what do you know about gravity in the Andromeda galaxy? Are you saying that the movements of those stars need a cause? Are you telling me here and now that when you see those whirling stars in the center, that something unseen must be causing it? (ala supermassive blackhole)

i can see why you are so attached to uncaused events, space time foam, froth, inflations, and universii popping into existence Orville-redenbacker style....it's a bit scary to open your mind to the possibility that the universe itself needs a cause just like all its finite components, and I can completely understand why some mightt be reluctant to abandon reason and all practical science to lay hold of "something from nothing" which is the equivalent to professing the supernatural. I understand why you cry "NO CAUSE" when you cannot find one...it brings comfort to you thinking that finally that troubling thought of the universe needing a cause can be put to rest....so who needs to look for a cause anymore? Guth, the savior!

i'm sorry, but you've yet to show any reasonable argument how matter and energy can spontaneously arise from nothingness. An exceptional claim, lacking even mediocre evidence. 1 million bucks from James Randi awaits you if you can demonstrate something from nothing.

Please consider giving me half since I encouraged you to take his money

this is esepcially troubling for you when one notes that all atheistic book writers and forum posters w/o a degree in anything (and not necessarily the actual scientists themselves) conclude that causation is fiction in the microscopic world. And to those who stop looking for causes, the theists will take up the slack and find them.

to this date, nothing has been shown to be causeless. all the jibbering faith-filled dogma you have posted still does not prove such a claim.

You have tremendous faith, however. ANd for that, I am inspired.

you can say that it lacks "classical causation" in the form of ((A & !B) -> C), and ((A & B) -> D), but as I previously commented on that does not mean it lacks causation! Have you considered that causation may not be limited to one formula?

Or have you just skipped that possibility all together?

You ruled out communication faster than light? If so, how?
Have you ruled out an alternate reality we have not observed (but have observed its effects)? If so, how?
And lastly, how did you rule out the zero-point energy sea as a possible cause, or time itself as a causual agent?
And I can't forget....maybe there is simply something there that you superior atheists haven't thought of yet. Is that even possible? Or are you just THAT much of a demi-god?

quantum entaglement does not prove causation is violated. in fact, the exact oppositte. entaglement suggest affecting one component will effect another component...hence, a cause.

empirical evidence suggests that something popping into existence uncaused from nothing is a supernatural claim....far more supernatural than turning water into wine. Atheism has become a religion. A religion of a supernatural grandeur that is far beyond the likes of the entire indian subcontinent. Once you believe things can come into existence causeless from nothing, you open yourself up to every supernatural claim that has ever been uttered from the mouth of man.

The funny thing is that you are so deep into believing this religion, you cannot even see that it is religious to an extreme.


there has not been shown to exist...a single uncaused event.

despite what your blind faith tells you.

the problem is that uncaused events are supernatural events.

I retain causation at the microscopic level. Not necessarily according to the "classical" formula variation, but causation nontheless.

Here's the difference between you and me: when I see an event, I look for a cause. The scientists that do the same will be the ones that actually build things. All you will ever do is write books and be Guth types that sit around and theorize about Starbucks mugs of space-time foam, and frothy heresay, but actually do nothing. The scientists that look for causes will be the ones that build the spaceships and the machines.

Shadowy Man

Unfortunately, it didn't work out that way. In fact, when we looked at other galaxies and groups of galaxies we saw that they weren't acting as if they were under the force of gravity on the mass that we see there. Therefore we invented a massive particle that is undetectable in order to explain why our theories didn't work.

Feather

Nitpicker, eh? They aren't necessarily undetectable--we just can't see them.

Autonemesis

No, "we" didn't. Some researchers suggested a massive particle may explain it. Others suggest ordinary matter too dim to see may explain it. There are a great many reasons to expect that there is more to the universe than meets the CCD detector. What this extra stuff is or is not will be a prominent part of research in the new century.

The Lone Ranger

[Inigo Montoya]: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." [/Inigo Montoya]

Magus55

So you see this as a complete impossibility, yet Abiogenesis is completely feasible, considering it dwarfs the improbability you list above? Very hypocritical.