E_muse

Existence cannot have a cause.

O.K. Let me first look at your definition.

According to yourself, universe simply means, "everything that exists" - and indeed the word has been defined this way.

I think that this definition can cause problems however, as each person's view of 'everything that exists' can be different and is informed by different philisophical outlooks, making the term very idiosyncratic. We could both be using the term universe and both applying very different things to it. Even if I could accept your definition, I would have to argue that we reword it as, 'everything that is known to exist without doubt' but of course, even that has its problems. That is why I am using the following definition:

This would be the definition of 'universe' used by cosmologists and important when looking at issues such as string theory and quantum gravity. If your definition of 'universe' is the only valid one, then Einstein could not have asked the following question:

According to your definition, Einstein is suggesting that God is outside of all existence creating himself as a part of all that exists. Of course this is absurd.

Even Hawking states:

Obviously, if your definition is the only one allowed then we must interpret this to means that God was responsible for his own creation as he is stated as a possible creator of the universe - everything that exists, including himself.

Obviously neither Einstein nor Hawking would be guilty of such logical absurdity and their use of the term 'universe' fits perfectly with the definition given above. They are applying it to refer to a finite area of space/time that appears to have had a beginning at the big bang singularity under the theory of general relativity.

Neither is using this to promote belief in God and Hawking argues how his own cosmological model limits God even further. I simply use it to demonstrate that scientists do not use the term 'universe' in the same way that you are insisting and how the view of cosmologists has informed my own definition of the word.

Within this definition, whatever caused the universe is procluded from the term universe that is strictly applied to define the finite area of space/time.

Even under your own definition this should make sense. Any attempt at explaining the universe is only a hypothesis - even attempts to describe the initial singularity. We do not know that strings, imaginary time or multiple dimensions are actually real (the criteria for existence) and therefore, even under your own definition cannot count them as a part of the universe or a universe that is only defined in terms of that which is only known to be real - existence simply means having actual being or being real.

It is the universe, according to the cosmological definition, that had its beginnings at the BB singularity according to general relativity. The question then is, do these entities that appear to have had their beginning there amount to 'all that exists'?

Firstly, if all of the above had their beginnings at the BB singularity then we can say that they appear to have begun to exist.

Before we go on, I accept the statement that 'from nothing, nothing comes' and that, 'Everything that begins to exist has a cause'. This suggests that, according to the singularity of general relativity, everything (space, time, matter and energy) began to exist and therefore must have been caused. This means that we can no longer consider these as 'all that exist' until we have worked out what this 'cause' must have been like.

I think that the idea of a necessary cause is further cemented as we consider the following.

Firstly, if the universe (matter, space, time and energy) is all that exists and it came into being at the BB (according to general relativity) then this would mean that the universe was self caused as nothing would have existed beyond it.

Secondly, if the universe (matter, space, time and energy) had its beginning at the Big Bang and the universe caused itself then the universe would have had to have pre-existed itself in order to cause its own existence - which is absurd!

Lastly, as you've pointed out, existence cannot begin to exist, causing another problem in trying to define the universe as 'everything that exists' under the general relativity model.

Simply if existence cannot begin to exist (I agree) and everything seems to have had a beginning at the BB singularity (all the known laws of science) then this would simply suggest that what began at the BB isn't 'everything that exists'.

This is why I am not defining universe as 'all that exists' and why cosmologists don't either.

We can say that the universe, defined using the terms I have suggested - referring to a finite area of space/time - began at the point of the BB singularity according to general relativity without contradiction.

The confusion is over the way we are using the term 'universe'.

Under general relativity, all the laws of science break down. It would appear that matter, time, space and energy all had a beginning under this model.

One can get around this by applying quantum mechanics to the early universe but each of these theories rest upon unproven hypothesis (as you have rightly pointed out) such as 'strings', 'multiple dimensions' or 'imaginary time'. None of these can be counted as part of the universe even under your definition because we do not know that they have actual being in terms of them forming a part of the physical universe.

No, I don't think you can include Gods or any multiverse - even under your own definition.

You have defined 'universe' as 'everything that exists'.

Existence is that which has 'actual being' or is 'real' and so your definition of universe may be reworded as 'everything that has actual being or is real'.

Multiverses, strings, multiple dimensions and imaginary time only exist within mathematics and so cannot be considered 'real' and therefore cannot be considered to be a part of the universe even as you have defined it.

If the universe is 'all that exists' then this simply means that the universe is 'all that has actual being'. If Gods or even multiverses cannot be demonstrated as having 'actual being' then they cannot be counted as having actual existence and therefore cannot be considered as forming a part of the universe you describe. We have to decide whether or not they actually exist before we can say that.

I understand what is being written. You cannot count certain hypothesis as describing the actual universe (all that exists according to your definition) before having established whether those entities that inform your view have actual existence.

See how idiosyncratic it is!

A vacuum is only a state of energy as we observe it now being applied to the early universe. All I am saying is that this has the potential of being circular.

I agree. And I think I covered this above. Your above statement is absurd because you've suggested that any potential cause would have to exist outside of existence. Of course, if an external cause did exist then it would itself exist and therefore wouldn't be causing existence to exist. It would be an existent entity making other forms of existence possible.

The confusion centres around our differing notions of 'universe'.

Then the term would differ from person to person. However, even if we accept this notion, we cannot include strings or imaginary time in describing the universe (we don't know that they exist) and we are left with a singularity, the place that matter, time, space and energy appear to have had their beginning. Of course you could argue that the singularity might not exist - but then we are unable to say anything meaningful about the origins of the universe.

It isn't the only definition and is applied by cosmologists to a finite area of space/time. See dictionary.com. Also, such a definition can be unhelpful. Because we're dealing with cosmology, I think it would be helpful to stick to the cosomological definition of the word.

Yes, I would and that is not what I am saying.

And of course, when you say 'maybe no other universes are possible' you're saying that 'maybe no other everythings that exist are possible' - if you were adhering to the strict definition that you have stipulated that is.

Yes. It is exciting.

[ May 21, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

eh

Now do you see what I mean when I say that English is an imprecise language? There is still no need for confusion. To an atheist, the cosmologists definition of the word universe and the literal meaning (all that exists) is the same. To believe that the galaxies, matter and energy are all that exist, gives us the same meaning. So to say the universe needs a cause, is nonsense.

Now if we say the visible universe, or the physical universe comprised of matter and energy needs a cause, is a different story. But then, this non physical cause is not exempt from logic. It either exists, or does not. If a non physical cause can be said to exist without needing a cause, then so can the physical universe. This was the original point of the discussion.

A few comments on what you wrote:

.....We do not know that strings, imaginary time or multiple dimensions are actually real (the criteria for existence) and therefore, even under your own definition cannot count them as a part of the universe or a universe that is only defined in terms of that which is only known to be real - existence simply means having actual being or being real.

Of course, we do not yet know what is real. But the point was that strings may be a potential answer, and my question was how this competes with the idea of God as the ground of being.

Before we go on, I accept the statement that 'from nothing, nothing comes' and that, 'Everything that begins to exist has a cause'. This suggests that, according to the singularity of general relativity, everything (space, time, matter and energy) began to exist and therefore must have been caused. This means that we can no longer consider these as 'all that exist' until we have worked out what this 'cause' must have been like.

Under the BB theory, the universe does not start to exist in a pre existing space and time! How can it be caused? Something non physical?

This is why I am not defining universe as 'all that exists' and why cosmologists don't either.

Well considering most cosmologists are athiests, I don't see much difference between using the defintion 'all that exists', and 'all energy/matter that exists'. They are just slopy with the english language, though they will sometimes use the word 'visible' or 'our' when talking about a much larger universe outside of ours.

If the universe is 'all that exists' then this simply means that the universe is 'all that has actual being'. If Gods or even multiverses cannot be demonstrated as having 'actual being' then they cannot be counted as having actual existence and therefore cannot be considered as forming a part of the universe you describe. We have to decide whether or not they actually exist before we can say that.

No we don't. Either they exist, or they don't, regardless of whether we have the truth or not. The definition doesn't change.

And of course, when you say 'maybe no other universes are possible' you're saying that 'maybe no other everythings that exist are possible' - if you were adhering to the strict definition that you have stipulated that is.

No, I am saying that maybe existence couldn't be any other way. There's the english language getting in the way again.

Are things clear now?

E_muse

Firstly, to say that something that began to exist requires a cause is not nonsense.

Atheism takes many different forms and the view that 'the universe does not need a cause' is not definitive of atheism. In fact, some atheists would still state that the universe needs a cause because of the predictions of general relativity. You still haven't commented on this.

You keep restating that the idea of the universe needing a cause is nonsense without actually making it clear why.

Indeed. This is what I am saying.

Why? What is your logical basis for this statement?

The theory of general relativity seems to predict that the universe started to exist. It is this factor that suggests that it should have a cause, nothing else.

If the universe pre-existed the singularity in some other form then please state the evidence for this.

Whether the cause requires another cause is a seperate matter.

If either exist purely in the human imagination then they both exist on the same level and are, in one sense, no different.

Of course not. Space and time are both products of the singularity.

As for your second question .. what other option is there?

I haven't read any recent statistics on belief within the sciences but thought that they correlated with belief in the rest of the population.

However, I don't think that we can consider their use of language sloppy as the term universe can be defined as that which applies to matter, time, space and energy.

From dictionary.com:

I assume that you are applying definition three. It needs to be pointed out that this is a philisophical standpoint .. that existence is defined as the confines of this universe and nothing can have existence outside of it.

It depends upon which definition you are using. However, if universe does mean 'all that exists' it means 'all that has actual being'. This means that anything that cannot be known to exist cannot be included within the term 'universe' until the certainty of its existence has been established. The term is constrained by the limitations of our knowledge.

But you're not providing a cosmological model for any of your arguements. There are several big bang models, including the general theory of relativity, the no boundary proposal and so on.

Any concept of an infinite universe must be established upon a scientific model if is not being based upon blind faith.

Which model are you proposing. Without knowing this it is impossible to critique what you are saying.

You have mentioned string theory and I have stated that such theories require the universe to possess either 10 or 26 dimensions (although I believe that 5 string theories have been unified under one 11 dimensional model).

We only see four dimensions and so, if the theory doesn't actually describe experience then the idea exists in the same place as God .... the human brain.

Lastly, the initial state of this universe says nothing about the thing (if any) that caused it.

[ May 22, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

eh

Firstly, to say that something that began to exist requires a cause is not nonsense.

Atheism takes many different forms and the view that 'the universe does not need a cause' is not definitive of atheism. In fact, some atheists would still state that the universe needs a cause because of the predictions of general relativity. You still haven't commented on this.

You keep restating that the idea of the universe needing a cause is nonsense without actually making it clear why.

I've made it perfectly clear. IF the BB is the starting point of the entire universe, then no cause is required. If there is no space or time to exist before the BB, there is no cause possible. Talking about our universe existing in some eternal super vacuum, or multiverse changes the subject. But then, we are no longer thinking of the BB as the start of the universe itself.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now if we say the visible universe, or the physical universe comprised of matter and energy needs a cause, is a different story. But then, this non physical cause is not exempt from logic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indeed. This is what I am saying.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It either exists, or does not. If a non physical cause can be said to exist without needing a cause, then so can the physical universe. This was the original point of the discussion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Why? What is your logical basis for this statement?

The theory of general relativity seems to predict that the universe started to exist. It is this factor that suggests that it should have a cause, nothing else.

If the universe pre-existed the singularity in some other form then please state the evidence for this.

Whether the cause requires another cause is a seperate matter.


No, the theory of GR predicts a non static universe. It does not require the universe to begin to exist from a pre existing state. Can you not see the difference between beginning to exist in space and time, and the beginning of spacetime?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, we do not yet know what is real. But the point was that strings may be a potential answer, and my question was how this competes with the idea of God as the ground of being.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If either exist purely in the human imagination then they both exist on the same level and are, in one sense, no different.


Strings are actually thought to be real objects that make up our universe. They are only on the same level as God in the sense that we don't know yet know if they really exist. But the question was how something along the concept of strings can remove the arbitrary nature of the universe.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the BB theory, the universe does not start to exist in a pre existing space and time! How can it be caused? Something non physical?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course not. Space and time are both products of the singularity.

As for your second question .. what other option is there?


If we assume a cause is needed, can we really say a non physical explaination is really an option at all? We have zero evidence for a non physical form of existence, and no one can explain how anything can exist without have some real form.
Has there ever been a time where the supernatural explaination was ever correct?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well considering most cosmologists are athiests, I don't see much difference between using the defintion 'all that exists', and 'all energy/matter that exists'. They are just slopy with the english language, though they will sometimes use the word 'visible' or 'our' when talking about a much larger universe outside of ours.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I haven't read any recent statistics on belief within the sciences but thought that they correlated with belief in the rest of the population.


Hmmmm well it's not quite like that. About 40% of all scientists would express belief in some kind of higher power, while amoung the top scientists, about 7% would express belief in a personal God. Religioustolerance.org has the poll results.

However, I don't think that we can consider their use of language sloppy as the term universe can be defined as that which applies to matter, time, space and energy.

From dictionary.com:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.
2.
a. The earth together with all its inhabitants and created things.
b. The human race.

3. The sphere or realm in which something exists or takes place.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I assume that you are applying definition three. It needs to be pointed out that this is a philisophical standpoint .. that existence is defined as the confines of this universe and nothing can have existence outside of it.


They are slopy with the word universe when they start talking about a multiverse, super vacuums etc. That is what I meant. The dictionary.com defintion works for the description of multiverse, the 5th dimension, etc.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No we don't. Either they exist, or they don't, regardless of whether we have the truth or not. The definition doesn't change.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It depends upon which definition you are using. However, if universe does mean 'all that exists' it means 'all that has actual being'. This means that anything that cannot be known to exist cannot be included within the term 'universe' until the certainty of its existence has been established. The term is constrained by the limitations of our knowledge.

That completely misses the point.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I am saying that maybe existence couldn't be any other way. There's the english language getting in the way again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But you're not providing a cosmological model for any of your arguements. There are several big bang models, including the general theory of relativity, the no boundary proposal and so on.

A cosmological model for what? The fact that the universe can only be one way? No, as I said it is just a possible explaination. For the first cause?Yes I have, and in plain easy english. How many times do I have to say it? The need for a cause is dependant on some prior state of existence. IF the BB is the start of everything, then there is no prior state, eliminating the need for a cause. What exactly is your objection to this?

Which model are you proposing. Without knowing this it is impossible to critique what you are saying.

Any BB model will do. I've said it so many times on this thread that anyone who can read should be able to understand it. Read above.

You have mentioned string theory and I have stated that such theories require the universe to possess either 10 or 26 dimensions (although I believe that 5 string theories have been unified under one 11 dimensional model).

We only see four dimensions and so, if the theory doesn't actually describe experience then the idea exists in the same place as God .... the human brain.

These extra dimensions could be tested, unlike any God. If it's wrong, then yes it is just a piece of the human mind. But string theory is an answer to the arbitrary nature of the universe, not the first cause. They are 2 different subjects.

E_muse

Suggesting that, IF the entire universe had its starting point at the big bang, then the universe popped up out of nothing.

If one accepts this explanation for something as complex as the universe then any rational ground is lost for rejecting any other explanation as it is applied to any other complex object.

Accepted.

Yes, I can see the difference.

However, IF the universe (matter, energy, space and time) had a beginning at the BB singularity what can we say of a cause?

The opening post centred around this metaphysical consideration:

1. All that begins to exist must have a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. The universe must have a cause.

Do we abandon this metaphysical principle on the basis of not being able to explain what may have pre-existed the universe?

Exactly. Strings are thought to be real objects .. but then so is God, so this doesn't say very much does it.

Such a cause would be almost impossible to conceptualize but certain things could be said about it.

Existence is an attribute of something - an inherent characteristic. For that reason, if anything existed prior to the BB, then something must have existed.

If something as complex as the universe can 'pop' out of nothing into being, then one loses any rational basis for rejecting this as explanation when describing the presence of any complex object.

But the opening post concerns the very question of first cause as it relates to big bang cosmology.

eh

Ahhh now I see what the problem is. I'm not saying the universe popped out of nothing! Under the standard BB model, there was never a time when the universe did not exist. Thus, there is never a time when a state of nothingness was.

That's why you can only say the universe began to exist to a certain extent. Time is just a dimension, and you can say this dimension is at a minimum size at the moment of the BB. But you can't say it is a beginning in the classic meaning of the word, since it does start in time. Do you see the difference, and can understand what cosmologists mean when they say the universe is 'effectively' eternal?

As for strings, they are at least grounded in physical reality. The idea can be tested, and this, I believe, takes the theory out of the realm of Gods.