Is infinite chain of effects in the universe possible?

[Link]

This is just one of the components usually debated with the cosmological argument hence I have it in the religious debate section. Although it's part of cosmological argument, the topic is just this component of it.

I put this analogy before:

Infinite commanders all different rank to one another. All won't give an order unless one higher up gives it. There is infinite, so who is highest? There is no highest, and so you would wait forever, and never get an order.

Infinite effects all different stages of time to one another in the universe. All won't come to be unless one previous effects it to be . There is infinite, so who is first? There is no first, so you would wait forever, and never get an effect.

Does the analogy hold?

 

[paradox]

Does the analogy hold?

It holds,

Likewise if there is infinite amount of past events in the universe then today may never be reached.

 

[Link]

It holds,

Likewise if there is infinite amount of past events in the universe then today may never be reached.

Thanks!

 

[Twilight Hue]

I can see infinite interactions, curious if chaos theory applies, but it's an interesting thought.

 

[Link]

I can see infinite interactions, curious if chaos theory applies, but it's an interesting thought.

Whether "effects" all need a cause does not change this component. The reason is because time and state of the universe comes from a previous state. This would be true even if quantum level things happen without a cause as some people might claim.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Whether "effects" all need a cause does not change this component. The reason is because time and state of the universe comes from a previous state. This would be true even if quantum level things happen without a cause as some people might claim.

I kind of think cause and effect is multifaceted, hence ebbs and tides with a finite reach but interactive among other causes and effects, but I think things go in more directions than a linear chain of events.

It seems it's valid but not valid at the same time.

Essentially a paradox.

 

[Link]

I kind of think cause and effect is multifaceted, hence ebbs and tides with a finite reach but interactive among other causes and effects, but I think things go in more directions than a linear chain of events.

It seems it's valid but not valid at the same time.

Essentially a paradox.

Salam

Every state of the universe comes from a previous state. As @paradox said, infinite set of past events is proven impossible by this analogy.

So you think an order is possible in the commander scenario? Only one commander has to give an order that his higher level, but it will never happen, since they would wait forever for the one more higher up with no end in chain.

Do you think the analogy holds or not?

 

[ChristineM]

Is infinite chain of effects in the universe possible?

I believe not. Infinity is a concept without physical proof that it can exist. It is a mathematical concept which is paradoxical.

 

[exchemist]

This is just one of the components usually debated with the cosmological argument hence I have it in the religious debate section. Although it's part of cosmological argument, the topic is just this component of it.

I put this analogy before:

Infinite commanders all different rank to one another. All won't give an order unless one higher up gives it. There is infinite, so who is highest? There is no highest, and so you would wait forever, and never get an order.

Infinite effects all different stages of time to one another in the universe. All won't come to be unless one previous effects it to be . There is infinite, so who is first? There is no first, so you would wait forever, and never get an effect.

Does the analogy hold?

No. This is just an elaborate way of saying that every event has a cause. The evidence from quantum physics is that this seems not to be so.

Once this principle is established, i.e. that events do not necessarily have to have a cause, there is logical room for the universe to be uncaused.

 

[Link]

No. This is just an elaborate way of saying that every event has a cause. The evidence from quantum physics is that this seems not to be so.

It doesn't depend on that. Events in the universe at some level have a cause even if not at quantum level. They come from a previous state. So whether all effects or events have a cause doesn't matter.

 

[paradox]

The evidence from quantum physics is that this seems not to be so.

Unless I'm wrong, scientists don't know the cause in quantum world, they can neither prove nor disprove cause, they simply don't know yet.

 

[Link]

Is infinite chain of effects in the universe possible?

I believe not. Infinity is a concept without physical proof that it can exist. It is a mathematical concept which is paradoxical.

Thanks. I have heard both views from mathematicians, so I don't know of the paradox. Some told me it's not, some told me it is. Perhaps you can elaborate.

 

[osgart]

If existence is the norm or default then there must be a foundation to existence; something that doesn't depend on anything else for it's existence. With a foundation for existence an infinite chain of events is possible. Since we exist within existence I consider non existence impossible unless we are contingent upon new forms of matter for our existence. It is sure we did not exist in the form we do exist in now, and every living creature on Earth is a new form of existence. In short, everything could be eternally existent, but of ever changing form.

Why would new forms of existence appear from old forms? And how actually do things go out of existence? There must be a foundation to existence thus making it eternal. That could be the universe itself that perpetuates. I don't think anyone really knows.

If I had to guess I would say the universe is a put up job springing from a surer foundation.

 

[Link]

I don't think anyone really knows.

This analogy can be a component to know something about that.

 

[exchemist]

Unless I'm wrong, scientists don't know the cause in quantum world, they can neither prove nor disprove cause, they simply don't know yet.

Well certainly, no theory in science can ever be said to be final or proved to be true: all we have is models. But the current model, which works so far, does not require all events to be caused. That model leaves open the possibility of uncaused events.

Hence a chain of logic that relies on the principle that all events must have a cause is not supported by current science.

 

[ChristineM]

It doesn't depend on that. Events in the universe at some level have a cause even if not at quantum level. They come from a previous state. So whether all effects or events have a cause doesn't matter.

Ive mentioned this before...

The law of cause and effect did not begin to coalesce until 10e-43 of a second after the bb and did not/could not fully form until 10e-32 of a second after the bb. So first cause for any effect possibly didn't happen.

If you can provide falsifiable evidence that infinity exist then i will add one event to it. And thats why infinity cannot exist

 

[Link]

Ive mentioned this before...

The law of cause and effect did not begin to coalesce until 10e-43 of a second after the bb and did not/could not fully form until 10e-32 of a second after the bb. So first cause for any effect possibly didn't happen.

If you can provide falsifiable evidence that infinity exist then i will add one event to it. And thats why infinity cannot exist

Salam

I'm not sure I understand the paradox, as there is infinitely more real numbers then integers for example. There is different "levels" of infinity, and without this calculation of different sizes of infinity, programs and their algorithms will fail. So set theory is necessary to know to be a computer scientist for this reason.

As for the start of the universe if no infinite chain of events, I will open a thread about that. This is another component to the cosmological argument debated, but this thread is not about that.

 

[paradox]

Well certainly, no theory in science can ever be said to be final or proved to be true: all we have is models. But the current model, which works so far, does not require all events to be caused. That model leaves open the possibility of uncaused events.

Hence a chain of logic that relies on the principle that all events must have a cause is not supported by current science.

I'm talking about virtual particles, they pop into and pop out of existence, cause is unknown.
But just because cause is unknown is not proof that things can be uncaused.

I don't know of any other events for which cause is unknown?

 

[ChristineM]

Salam

I'm not sure I understand the paradox, as there is infinitely more real numbers then integers for example. There is different "levels" of infinity, and without this calculation of different sizes of infinity, programs and their algorithms will fail. So set theory is necessary to know to be a computer scientist for this reason.

As for the start of the universe if no infinite chain of events, I will open a thread about that. This is another component to the cosmological argument debated, but this thread is not about that.

Not infinitely,. No matter how many numbers you have you can always add one to the pile.

 

[ChristineM]

I'm not sure I understand the paradox

I think @Polymath257 is the person to talk to on this subject