Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Soma · 06-29-2003, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fishbulb
The Big Bang theory posits that at one point (which we reckon as the beginning of time) all of the matter/energy in the universe was condensed into a tiny point. It says nothing about whether the Universe didn't exist prior to that. (For example, it might have been condensed into that point from a much larger space which at one time contained galaxies and stars and planets and life.) It also says nothing about whether there could be other universes separate from ours, embedded in a common "space" (other dimension), or whether that hypothetical "universe of universes" was a singular item or whether it was just one of many collections of universes embedded in a still higher plane. Indeed, the Universe may be as anonymous and insignificant an entity in its context as our planet is in the context of the Universe. No one can say. All we can say is what our Universe looked like 15 billion years or so ago, and what has happened to it since. We can only speculate idly about the context in which our Universe exists, if it is even right to talk about it existing in a context.

I don't think you understand what I was referring to specifically. Think about how the theory was derived that lead to the conclusion that the universe emerged from a single singularity...

If the whole universe can be traced back to a single point, then we can surmise that all causes can be traced back to a single cause.

joedad · 06-29-2003, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Soma
Because an infinite series of causes would preclude the existence of everything.

I'm just talking about a universe. Is that what you mean by everything?

Quote:

Soma:
There can be an infinite series of potential causes -- which one can regard abstractions such as the number line to be -- but not an infinite series of actualized causes.

I'll take the universe at face value. By doing so, first causes are both unnecessary and nonexistent. You're going to have to demonstrate the existence of any first cause to give your claim weight, and also make a good argument that the universe need always be logical. If "everything" is a circle, where is its first uncaused point?

Quote:

Soma:
If there were such a scenario, then this very moment in time should never have occured because there would be an infinite number of causes yet to be actualized; yet it did occur, so there isn't an infinite number of causes.

Well , demonstrate the need for such a "scenario" and you win.

Sounds a lot like the old "can't get there because I can only go half way, then half way again, then half way again....

joe

joedad · 06-29-2003, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Soma:
If the whole universe can be traced back to a single point, then we can surmise that all causes can be traced back to a single cause.

What theory traces the universe back to a single "point?" A "point" is a mathematical construct. There's nothing physical or "actual" about it. The theoretical "naked singularity" that appears at the beginning of the universe is only mathematical language that you've literalized. We're simply describing something to the best of our current ability.

Does your point constitute a first cause? Can we logically state that universes are caused by "points?"

joe

Wyz_sub10 · 06-30-2003, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Soma
Perhaps, but one could also argue, by virtue of the implication of the Big Bang theory and how it was derived, that all causality points back to a single cause...

Seeing as no cause has ever been definitely ascribed to the BB, there is no reason to assume the cause was singular, or not composed of a number of unrelated uncaused causes.

Or, most importantly, that there was a cause at all.

Asha'man · 06-30-2003, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
There is no instance in human history, where there was an effect without a cause - so why assume the universe was capable of that, but nothing else?

You are utterly wrong about that, Magus55. Uncaused events are happening everywhere constantly, and have probably been happening since the beginning of the universe. You are simply unable to observe them, so you are blind to them.

At the quantum level, uncaused events are common. Spontanious generation of matter/antimatter is happening everywhere, but is nearly impossible to detect because of the small scale. This is an accepted part of quantum mechanics, and has been more than adequately proven. If it didn't work the way we think it did, many pieces of technology, such as the solar cell, would be unbuildable.

As I see it, the major effect of the BB theory is to condense the macroscopic universe into the quantum scale. Since uncaused events are common at that scale, it is logical to speculate that spontaneous universe generation is possible. What still needs to be explained, then, is the expansion of the universe into the macroscopic scale. This is an entirely different problem from spontanous creation, and is also being worked on.

ComestibleVenom · 06-30-2003, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Soma
Because an infinite series of causes would preclude the existence of everything.

Wrong.

ComestibleVenom · 06-30-2003, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Asha'man
What still needs to be explained, then, is the expansion of the universe into the macroscopic scale. This is an entirely different problem from spontanous creation, and is also being worked on.

I don't think it's fundamentally disconnected, although there is obviously some division of labour going on due to the different scales of force and density involved.

joedad · 06-30-2003, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Asha'man:
At the quantum level, uncaused events are common. Spontanious generation of matter/antimatter is happening everywhere, but is nearly impossible to detect because of the small scale. This is an accepted part of quantum mechanics, and has been more than adequately proven. If it didn't work the way we think it did, many pieces of technology, such as the solar cell, would be unbuildable.

For sure. Lets not forget John Bell and quantum entanglement.

joe

fishbulb · 06-30-2003, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Soma
The logic of the first cause argument makes no appeal or reference to things outside of the universe. The argument etablishes, through pure logic, that causality is not infinite prior to the present.

Logic is a set of rules for evaluating premises and producing conclusions. By itself, logic does not produce conclusions. You must supply it with input in order to produce anything. Nothing in, nothing out. You must supply premises on which logic can operate. The premises may be purely hypothetical -- in which case, so are any conclusions the process may produce -- or they may be empirically justified, but they have to come from somewhere.

Quote:

If the whole universe can be traced back to a single point, then we can surmise that all causes can be traced back to a single cause.

All causes within the Universe, not the cause of the Universe itself. Assuming that you actually can trace the Universe back to a single point; as others have pointed out, cosmologists suggest that, prior to the Big Bang, the Universe may have been very small but not a point.

Soma · 06-30-2003, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by joedad
I'm just talking about a universe. Is that what you mean by everything?

The terms can be used synonymously.

Quote:

I'll take the universe at face value. By doing so, first causes are both unnecessary and nonexistent. You're going to have to demonstrate the existence of any first cause to give your claim weight, and also make a good argument that the universe need always be logical. If "everything" is a circle, where is its first uncaused point?

The axiomatic fact that the universe exists is evidence of a finite universe instantiated by an uncaused first cause. An objective universe requires the universe to be consistent and not in contradiction with itself.

As for the circle, you still have the problem of infinite regress, albeit with only a finite number of causes.

Quote:

Well , demonstrate the need for such a "scenario" and you win.

Demonstrate a scenario to the contrary, i.e., where an infinite regress of actualized causes exist.

Quote:

Sounds a lot like the old "can't get there because I can only go half way, then half way again, then half way again....

joe [/B]

Not quite. It is physically impossible to move half-way across a finite distance indefinitely, and, of course, we are referring to an infinite regress of causality, not finite, so the analogy is fallacious as one cannot move half-way through an infinite series; there is no middle point.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.