Does anyone have a convincing argument for the existence of a non material reality?

[leroy]

No - the evidence for a significant event giving rise to the current space-time reality of the universe we are currently (at least in principle) able to observe happening about 13.8 billion years ago became "overcalling"...but the creationists' "upping the ante" and placing all their bets on this being proof of God is a bluff - you've got a poor deal and when the chips are down and all the cards are dealt, you're going to find there is no "ace in the hole" after all. The Big Bang almost certainly wasn't the beginning of anything except a new phase of an already ancient and possibly eternal physically (and 100% natural) universe.

And the suggestion that this proves that there is a non-material reality is an even worse bet - it proves nothing of the sort because even if you are right and 'this' universe had a beginning, that neither proves that it was the first universe or that its cause was non-material.

Looks like at best you've got a 2 and a 7 of different suits. You're not likely to get a winning hand off that. But you can continue to bluff is you like - you never know.

Even if there was "something material" before the big bang, (other universes, strings, cycles, a quantum era...) there would still be an absolute begining at some point in the past. These has been show by the bgv theorem and various other lines of evidence.

Besides we have the second law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy tends to increase as time passes......the fact that we don't have an entropy of 100% implies that the universe can't be eternal.


Yes if the universe (all material reality ) had a cause , the cause by definition has to be "non material"

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Yes if the universe (all material reality ) had a cause , the cause by definition has to be "non material"

Correct. But I don't see how your assertion that the universe having a beginning necessarily implies the universe had a cause is logically sound. Your intuition and personal observations tell you that everything that has a beginning must have a cause. However, that does not mean that it must *necessarily* be true. Also, intuition is frequently wrong. For instance, most people's intuition tells them an elephant and a feather will fall at different rates in a vacuum, but of course this is erroneous.

 

[sealchan]

The argument is not that everything requires a cause, the argument is that everything that begins to exist requires a cause.

If the cause of the universe didn’t begin to exist (but has always excised) then it wouldn’t necessarily require a cause.


This is not special pleading, traditionally many scientists have claimed that the universe is eternal, it has always excised, and therefore it would not require a cause. But in the last 100 years the evidence for a beginning became overcalling, making the idea of an eternal universe almost certainly wrong.

Or what if there are phenomenon which take place "in time" but there are other phenomenon which do not? Then we have the possibility that "timeful" phenomena arise out of timeless phenomena. This could happen in a way in which causality might "begin" with the timeful phenom.

Apparently a particle of light does not experience time and has no mass. So light, the photon, may be an example of something which is both timeless (in it's own inertial frame of reference) and timeful in its interactions with matter. Being timeless without interacting with matter it follows the strange paths seen in Feynman diagrams and the famous double-slit experiment.

 

[siti]

Even if there was "something material" before the big bang, (other universes, strings, cycles, a quantum era...) there would still be an absolute begining at some point in the past. These has been show by the bgv theorem and various other lines of evidence.

Besides we have the second law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy tends to increase as time passes......the fact that we don't have an entropy of 100% implies that the universe can't be eternal.


Yes if the universe (all material reality ) had a cause , the cause by definition has to be "non material"

No, no and no in that order.

BGV theorem does not provide evidence of an absolute beginning at all - it simply establishes that expanding universes cannot be infinite in the past. I have no idea whether that is true or not but who says universes have to be expanding? We now ours is now - and we know that it has been as far back as it is possible to tell. We have no idea whether it will continue expanding forever.

There can't be an "entropy of 100%" unless the universe is eternal - so what does that mean for the future of the universe? Can it continue to expand forever until we do have "entropy of 100%"? Or might it "bounce" back again at some point, reverse the "arrow of time" and provide the low entropy conditions of the starting point for a new "Big Bang"? We have no idea.

And if the "material" universe had a cause that is beyond the "material" reality we are able to observe and investigate, then we have no way of knowing anything about the nature of that cause.

 

[leroy]

Correct. But I don't see how your assertion that the universe having a beginning necessarily implies the universe had a cause is logically sound. Your intuition and personal observations tell you that everything that has a beginning must have a cause. However, that does not mean that it must *necessarily* be true. Also, intuition is frequently wrong. For instance, most people's intuition tells them an elephant and a feather will fall at different rates in a vacuum, but of course this is erroneous.

If dogs, bats, balls and everything else has a cause, why not universes?

To say that the universe didn't have a cause, is like saying that the universe came from nothing (literally nothing)

"Nothing," by definition doesn't have any properties, therefore there can't be something that would allow "nothing" to discriminate dogs,bats and balls and everything else except for universes. If "nothing" can't have any properties, then it can't have anything that would allow it to discriminate everything except for universes.,,,, This is why the idea of a causless beginning is incoherent.
..
Besides , Usually intuitions and observations are enough to stablish a fact (or at least an almost certain fact) the burden proof is in the one who afirms the opposite.

 

[osgart]

How does anything happen or emerge from a state of timelessness? Timelessness would imply a totally still and nonesoever changing condition.

Impossible that we would even exist if total timelessness was a prior condition of existence.

Perhaps time and space are contingent upon matter and energy.

If now is an approximation that is different from place to place then perhaps time and space is not of one instantiation, but emerges collectively from many fields at a quantum level.

Time is motion to me.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Based on the evidence that we have to date, it seems obvious that the universe (all material reality) had a beginning.

If the universe had a beginning, it follows that it had a cause, and the cause of the universe (material reality) by definition has to be “non-material”

No. We do not know if universe had beginning. Our information stops with 'inflation'. We have some leads and we are trying to find out what happened before 'inflation'.

 

[Aupmanyav]

If dogs, bats, balls and everything else has a cause, why not universes?

To say that the universe didn't have a cause, is like saying that the universe came from nothing (literally nothing)

"Nothing," by definition doesn't have any properties, therefore there can't be something that would allow "nothing" to discriminate dogs,bats and balls and everything else except for universes. If "nothing" can't have any properties, then it can't have anything that would allow it to discriminate everything except for universes.,,,, This is why the idea of a causeless beginning is incoherent.

What if it really came from 'absolute nothing'?

"A widely supported hypothesis in modern physics is the zero-energy universe which states that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero. It has been argued that this is the only kind of universe that could come from nothing. Such a universe would have to be flat in shape, a state which does not contradict current observations that the universe is flat with a 0.5% margin of error. The paper "Spontaneous creation of the Universe Ex Nihilo" provides a model for a way the Universe could have been created from pure 'nothing' in information terms."
Ex nihilo - Wikipedia

The argument is not that everything requires a cause, the argument is that everything that begins to exist requires a cause.
If the cause of the universe didn’t begin to exist (but has always excised) then it wouldn’t necessarily require a cause.
This is not special pleading, traditionally many scientists have claimed that the universe is eternal, it has always excised, and therefore it would not require a cause. But in the last 100 years the evidence for a beginning became overcalling, making the idea of an eternal universe almost certainly wrong.

It is similar to the argument that 'God is eternal'. The question is 'Why should God be taken as eternal?' and also 'Why should universe be taken as eternal?' Where is the cause? That is why the best answer at the moment IS that universe came to exist 'Ex-nihilo'. What you say IS clearly a special pleading.

 

[Valjean]

To say that the universe begun to exist without a cause is logically incoherent.


Therefore the universe (if it had a beginning) necessarily had to have a cause

Most of modern physics is "largely incoherent" -- but true.

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." -- Richard Feynman.

 

[viole]

Are there good scientific or philosophical reasons to be a non materialist?

You can skim this beginning of this next video.

If you identify materialism with naturalism then no, obviously.

Since science assumes naturalism as a premise, as a methodology, it is logically difficult to imagine scientific conclusion that undermine their premise without being logically contradictory.

It would be like asking whether there are good reason to be an atheist who believes God created the world.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Energy isn't matter. We can prove energy exists. Ergo non material reality.

E = mc^2

Energy and mass are the same. Ergo, energy has inertia and can warp spacetime because of its equivalent mass.

Looks like matter to me.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Sanzbir]

E = mc^2

Energy and mass are the same. Ergo, energy has inertia and can warp spacetime because of its equivalent mass.

Looks like matter to me.

Ciao

- viole

Nice try, but You're leaving out an important part of that.

E = mc^2 is a simplification for an object with mass that is not moving. Einstein's entire equation is E^2 = P^2c^2 + m^2c^4. Since the P = 0 in the case of an object at rest, then that simplifies to E = mc^2.

For a photon, energy is not governed by mass or velocity, but is based on frequency, E = hf.

Perhaps I should have used the example of "light" or "photons" rather than energy specifically, but in short it appears not all energy has mass.

But ergo, observable, existing, non-material. Let there be light.

Does light have mass?

 

[viole]

Nice try, but You're leaving out an important part of that.

E = mc^2 is a simplification for an object with mass that is not moving. Einstein's entire equation is E^2 = P^2c^2 + m^2c^4. Since the P = 0 in the case of an object at rest, then that simplifies to E = mc^2.

For a photon, energy is not governed by mass or velocity, but is based on frequency, E = hf.

Perhaps I should have used the example of "light" or "photons" rather than energy specifically, but in short it appears not all energy has mass.

But ergo, observable, existing, non-material. Let there be light.

Does light have mass?

Yes. Proportional to its frequency. Take enough particle of lights with the same frequency, and they can drill a hole through you.

Looks very material to me.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Sanzbir]

Yes. Proportional to its frequency. Take enough particle of lights with the same frequency, and they can drill a hole through you.

Looks very material to me.

Ciao

- viole

That ain't matter bub. It doesn't matter what you opinions about matter and what looks like matter are, the facts are that it isn't matter.

Yes, non-matter can affect matter. That doesn't make it matter. Matter is defined as "that which occupies space and possesses rest mass, especially as distinct from energy." (emphasis added)

So it ain't matter, therefore it's non-material.

It's funny how you're trying to use a very poor understanding of science to pick apart a point that was ultimately just a joke, my answer intentionally taking OP's question too literally and putting forth a literal example of something that is non-material.

Oh, and that "Does light have mass?" isn't a question for you, it's RF's formatting of a hyperlink. The link goes to an article which explains the answer is no in painful detail. Ya probably want to read that.

But if you take nothing else from this, take this science lesson:

Just because a thing can affect matter doesn't mean that it is matter itself. Photons are not matter. Your feelings and opinions on what it looks like are irrelevant to the situation.

A valuable lesson in science for you!!

 

[Rational Agnostic]

If dogs, bats, balls and everything else has a cause, why not universes?

To say that the universe didn't have a cause, is like saying that the universe came from nothing (literally nothing)

"Nothing," by definition doesn't have any properties, therefore there can't be something that would allow "nothing" to discriminate dogs,bats and balls and everything else except for universes. If "nothing" can't have any properties, then it can't have anything that would allow it to discriminate everything except for universes.,,,, This is why the idea of a causless beginning is incoherent.
..
Besides , Usually intuitions and observations are enough to stablish a fact (or at least an almost certain fact) the burden proof is in the one who afirms the opposite.

You're making a lot of assumptions which are, again, based on your intuition but not backed up by any actual proof. And, no, intuition is not enough to establish a fact. You made the claim that "everything that has a beginning must have a cause" and so the burden of proof is on you to prove that claim. However, you cannot prove it. You have only cited more intuition, which, again, is useless.

 

[leroy]

No - the evidence for a significant event giving rise to the current space-time reality of the universe we are currently (at least in principle) able to observe happening about 13.8 billion years ago became "overcalling"...but the creationists' "upping the ante" and placing all their bets on this being proof of God is a bluff - you've got a poor deal and when the chips are down and all the cards are dealt, you're going to find there is no "ace in the hole" after all. The Big Bang almost certainly wasn't the beginning of anything except a new phase of an already ancient and possibly eternal physically (and 100% natural) universe.

And the suggestion that this proves that there is a non-material reality is an even worse bet - it proves nothing of the sort because even if you are right and 'this' universe had a beginning, that neither proves that it was the first universe or that its cause was non-material.

Looks like at best you've got a 2 and a 7 of different suits. You're not likely to get a winning hand off that. But you can continue to bluff is you like - you never know.

The thing is that even if there was something before the Big Bang, that “something” can not be past eternal ether, this is what the current evidence indicates

 

[leroy]

You're making a lot of assumptions which are, again, based on your intuition but not backed up by any actual proof. And, no, intuition is not enough to establish a fact. You made the claim that "everything that has a beginning must have a cause" and so the burden of proof is on you to prove that claim. However, you cannot prove it. You have only cited more intuition, which, again, is useless.

If universes can be caused by “nothing” why cant dogs, bats and beans be caused by “nothing” what makes “nothing” so discriminatory?

This would indicate that “nothing” has a property that would allow “it” to discriminate dogs, bats beans etc. but not universes, but by definition “nothing” isn’t anything, by definition “nothing” can’t have any properties, if “nothing” would have had some properties, then it wouldn’t be “nothing” it would be something with such properties.

This is why the idea of a universe being cause by “nothing” is absurd.

Our intuitions and observations are simply a bonus that confirm that everything that begins to exist require a cause.

 

[leroy]

No, no and no in that order.

BGV theorem does not provide evidence of an absolute beginning at all - it simply establishes that expanding universes cannot be infinite in the past. I have no idea whether that is true or not but who says universes have to be expanding? We now ours is now - and we know that it has been as far back as it is possible to tell. We have no idea whether it will continue expanding forever.

Ok but all the evidence that we have indicates that the universe is expanding, if you what to say that things are different “beyond our observable universe” you would be making an act act of faith that would require evidence.

But even if I allow you to make such an act of faith, most “non standard big bang models” are also inflationary universes. The remaining models models, even if not inflationary fail to be past eternal for other reasons. The point is that even if the big bang doesn’t represent the beginning, chances say that there would be an absolute beginning in any case.

+ the argument on the second law of thermodynamics which is independent form the big bang or any other theory on the origin of the universe.

If you what to argue that the universe is eternal you would have to:

1 show that there was something before the big bang

2 prove that this “something” is past geodecically complete, (that it could theoretically be there from past eternity)

3 Deny the second law of thermodynamics, (or at least find a way to circumvent it)

It seems much simpler to simply say that the universe had an absolute beginning.

There can't be an "entropy of 100%" unless the universe is eternal

-
yes that is my point.

Given that we don’t have an entropy of 100% (or close to 100%) it follows that the universe is not eternal

And if the "material" universe had a cause that is beyond the "material" reality we are able to observe and investigate, then we have no way of knowing anything about the nature of that cause.

Well we would know that this cause is non material, timeless, space less, and personal, this follows logically.

 

[Segev Moran]

If we define “universe” as all the material world, then by definition the cause of the universe has to be “non-material” otherwise it wouldn’t be the cause of material reality.

The definition of what you mean by universe changes the statement
When i say universe, i mean the scientific concept of universe.
But a material can create a material.
In fact, all the materials we see today emerge from other materials.

When i say material i refer to things that have mass.
Your statement is true when it comes to the first material "particle" that was formed. obviously it wasn't material before that.
It is already scientifically theorized (with many evidence to support it) that the material worked was formed from a non material substance, so no arguments here. that is part of the charm i find in the Hebrew bible BTW.

If “X” caused “Y” and “Y” includes all the material world, then by definition “X” can’t be material.

Unless if "X" caused "Y" from its own parts. this means that X was a material that had more than a material.

The concept of God can maybe be described as a non materialistic concept that included all that is material withing it self.

It is the same with energy. we know that a high force of energy can emerge into material. this means the ingredients of the material were already there yet transformed into something else

Our entire world (and visible universe as far as we know) btw, supports this idea of transformations.
Nothing is lost, all is recycled
The big question is what created all this thing that keeps transforming.
I have my truth, others have other ideas. Time will tell [or not] i guess which is the true one

 

[Segev Moran]

Well these are just definitions, but I am pretty sure that in the context of the OP “Material reality” refers to the entire “physical world”, including matter, energy, gravity, dark energy, strings, parallel worlds.etc

God?