Putting aside the term God, would you agree?

[viole]

Science is based on reality, wouldn't you agree?
So if our science demonstrates ALL OVER that there is always a cause, how come you cannot cast this to the beginning?
Our entire "history of the universe" is based on casting current findings to the past. the assumption is that things worked than as they work today. we know there was a change of forces, we know to calculate the movement of the universe, all based on the assumptions that the universe works as it works. why the change? it sounds very much theistic way of thinking the the universe might have just popped into reality

Well, there are many problems with that, especially if we consider the ontology of time we get from relativity, but I would like to keep the discussion focused. I am also a bit selfish, since invoking the ontology of time we get from modern physics would destroy all arguments involving beginnings, causes, ends, etc. And it is not fun to use the nuclear option prematurely and kill the problem from the start.

So, let's adhere to the 18th century view of time. The Newtonian time that flows, leaving the past behind it and where the future is yet to come. The time of our natural developed intuition. In which things can begin to exist in the present without having already been present in the future. The so-called A theory of time. I also concede a predefined arrow that runs (from past into future through present) independently of the contingencies of the Universe. The time that accompanied humanity until Einstein.

Let's concentrate on this version of time. I am afraid you have still to show, even under this premise, that causality chains always reach an end.

My challenge to you is to show me that something like an infinite regress will lead to some sort of contradiction. Remember:

1) Nobody knows what happened at the Big Bang. Some speculate that there was an Universe "before". For instance, sir R. Penrose and S. Carroll. So, nothing is settled there.
2) You can have infinite regressed sequences that unfolds in finite time

So, show it to me. Show me that causality chains will always eventually reach an uncaused cause, otherwise we have a logical contradiction. After you made your case, we will submit it to logical analysis.

Ciao

- viole

 

[j1i]

This question is mostly to people who lack the belief in God (Mono).

Let's put aside for a second the term God and all the ways people try and define this god.

Would you agree that there must be an initial cause to everything?
I mean that from our human POV, we today know that time had a starting point, this means that (from our POV) there was a point in our history when time "stood still". We can refer to this idea as an eternity (again, only from our POV as we don't really know what happened before that).

Also, there has to be an event (or something else ) that started the whole process of reality. even if you somehow believe that reality started itself, this means that some sort of "reality version" existed before our reality, we can refer to this as the initial state of existence.

This means that eventually, going back chronically (events wise), there must be an initiator (regardless of what that initiator is) that was there without being initiated in the first place.

So we can assume regardless of our belief that there was an initial event that was "placed" in what we can only describe as eternity as we have no understanding of time before our time.

We can also have the understanding that this thing, contained within it all our reality, meaning the universe as we know it emerged from that same initiator causing our reality to become what it is.

Thoughts?

Human beings in general do not like restrictions, and God who created us has limitations that hinder our activities in violation of religious teachings

Many princes resort to taking the licenses from the clergy to commit the offenses because the desires are very much in matters that have irregularities

So much is trying to stay away from religion or change it or tamper with the laws
As well as a misunderstanding of ancient divine teachings

The idea of putting God aside means in practice the green light to eliminate morals, restrictive behaviors and ethical aspects

Criminal ourselves in the destruction of civilization
Because civilization is based on perfect honourable morals

GOD bless you brother
AMEN

 

[viole]

Human beings in general do not like restrictions, and God who created us has limitations that hinder our activities in violation of religious teachings

Many princes resort to taking the licenses from the clergy to commit the offenses because the desires are very much in matters that have irregularities

So much is trying to stay away from religion or change it or tamper with the laws
As well as a misunderstanding of ancient divine teachings

The idea of putting God aside means in practice the green light to eliminate morals, restrictive behaviors and ethical aspects

Criminal ourselves in the destruction of civilization
Because civilization is based on perfect honourable morals

GOD bless you brother
AMEN

Do you think you would turn into a criminal if you lost your faith?

If yes, then keep believing, by all means.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Sleeppy]

Do you think you would turn into a criminal if you lost your faith?

If yes, then keep believing, by all means.

Ciao

- viole

You know what incentives are.

 

[Sleeppy]

It isn't just Krauss. This has a fairly long history within physics at this point. The basic ideas have been vetted and are consistent with what we know.

So your ridicule only shows your lack of knowledge of the physics here.

And yes, the cosmos is larger than the human brain and there is a great deal we do not understand. That is why, when we *do* understand some things, it is strange to reject our understanding because that understanding goes against your intuitions.

Ex nihilo is garbage its called magic. Based on your logic the tardis is a hypothesis.

It is garbage. Krauss actually argues that space, i.e nothingness, contains energy; 'ex nihilo' is misleading.

 

[David T]

It is garbage. Krauss actually argues that space, i.e nothingness, contains energy; 'ex nihilo' is misleading.

He also proposes a comos that is a perpetual free lunch machine. Prove it build one he is a moron. Free lunch cosmos is foundationally predicated on does not exist as primary. We start with does not exist inside does not exist we have existence... He just turned god into does not exist is all. Its circular self referentialism Co equal to relious reductionism which is idiotic by itself let alone krauss supporting it with this secular garbage.

 

[Segev Moran]

But time is not an eternity at 00:00, it just doesn't exist. If you are imagining a human observer looking at everything standing still indefinitely at 00:00 that is incorrect. For us to observe something time is a necessity.

0 FPS is eternity.
Imagine all the frames of the movie in one time unit all at once.
00:00 is not relevant.

 

[Segev Moran]

I just did.


Okay: you. You have two biological parents.
Now it's your turn: give an example of something that has only one cause.

Great. i have two biological parents. none of them is an event rather an ingridient.
there was only one moment when i was conceived.
There were many parts to that process... yet it took place from one sperm that managed to penetrate the egg.
One event... not many.
The sperm came out in one event. many came, many ingredients.. one event.
And so on... there is no multiple events that occurred on the exact same time.

Don't confuse two participants with two events.

When you punch a wall, you might think two things happen.. the wall is punched and the hand puches. it is true, yet it is the same event from different POVs.
I just gave you several examples.
You think when i say cause i mean the one that causes.. i mean the event that caused the outcome.

 

[Segev Moran]

Reality may have been existing timelessly "before" time, so to speak. A significant number of physicists posit that time is not fundamental to reality but something that is emergent in the macro-scale under certain conditions, and that the current state in this segment of reality satisfies those conditions thereby creating a causal directionality in the space of phenomena that exists.

Exactly.

 

[Segev Moran]

You sure fooled me.

In any case, then your request is nothing more that we agree that human beings have a tendency to phantasize that there is an Ultimate First Cause and to atribute divine will to that Cause.

That is of course true. But also a discussion about human neurology and psychology and nothing besides.

I didn't speak of divine or anything like that. simply the fact that from human POV there is always a cause and an outcome, never just an outcome.

 

[Segev Moran]

Really? That sounds odd fit for an atheist.

I know yet most atheists think the same yet they will usually not admit it and argue that I don't know is a more relevant answer.
I tend to agree when you have no understanding of how things work, but as science advances, the not knowing excuse becomes much less relevant.

Did you ever have a Deist phase?

No.
I used to assume there is something more than the physical. when i learned science, i quickly came to realize that the spiritual worlds is many times more of a wishful thinking rather than reality.

It took me a long time to realize i was simply looking in the wrong place
Today, it seems even absurd to assume we are nothing but physical. I see the world in a much different eyes since i came to understand that everything is ordered and works in a very logical and predictable way.
Things that seemed to me as "nothing but luck", once i knew how to observe them, became much more clear.
I today know for a fact that luck is only a small (if at all) part of my reality.
Suddenly things that "happen" to me, are clear and I have no wonder why they happen as they do.
It was very vague to me when science was all i took into consideration.

 

[Segev Moran]

The 'order' is the physical laws and time. Without those, there can be no causality.

Indeed. One can only assume something made these laws act as they do.

Almost always the 'immediate' cause of something is *two* things coming together to interact: the striking of a hammer on a piece of metal, the pulling of a rope by a wrench, etc. So, both things have to be there: two causes.

Nope... not two causes. one cause. two participants.
The hammer is not the cause and the metal is not the cause. the hammer striking the metal is the cause.
The hammer rushing towards the metal is the cause.
The hammer picked up by someone is the cause.

There are also many things that can be assembled in more than one way: different orders to the causes.

Nope. there is always one thing that leads to another, even if several parts are involved.
Take a 200 pcs puzzle... if one completes the puzzle, this is not because it had 200 causes. it had one... the first piece, then another, the second piece fitting the first and so on.
So it had a chain of 200 causes each was only possible due to the one before it.

 

[Segev Moran]

No, the singularity in GR is NOT a state. It is the absence of a state.

Can you describe the singularity? i am not sure we speak of the same thing.

 

[Koldo]

0 FPS is eternity.
Imagine all the frames of the movie in one time unit all at once.
00:00 is not relevant.

Zero fps = no time.
Therefore there is no time unit for them to be contained all at once.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Great. i have two biological parents. none of them is an event rather an ingridient.
there was only one moment when i was conceived.
There were many parts to that process... yet it took place from one sperm that managed to penetrate the egg.
One event... not many.
The sperm came out in one event. many came, many ingredients.. one event.
And so on... there is no multiple events that occurred on the exact same time.

But with multiple causes: any time we can say "if not for this, it wouldn't have happened," the "this" is a cause.

- your mother being born is a cause of your existence.
- your father being born is a cause of your existence.
- your grandparents being born is 4 causes of your existence.
- whatever happened to cause your parents to meet is a set of causes of your existence.
- whatever events in your life could have killed you but didn't are causes of your current existence.

So you still haven't answered my challenge: name something that only has one cause.

 

[Segev Moran]

When you use 'when', you already have time. Time, energy, space, and matter are all co-existent. Whenever one of them exists, so do all the others.

Yes.. indeed.
When there was no when.
The time when time was not

Imagine a baby being born (that will represent our universe).
There is the exact time, when it was conceived.
This is the 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 time of its existence.
The fact that in the baby's POV there was not time before itself, doesn't mean there is no time when it was not in existence.
I suggest that as the baby exist, we can assume that it had a point where it didn't or it always did.
As we know for a fact the baby didn't always exist, it means there was a "time" in the baby's past when it didn't really exist.
Lol...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nope... not two causes. one cause. two participants.
The hammer is not the cause and the metal is not the cause. the hammer striking the metal is the cause.
The hammer rushing towards the metal is the cause.
The hammer picked up by someone is the cause.

Without a hammer, you would not have the hammer striking metal.

Without the metal, you would not have the hammer striking metal.

Both of those objects - or, if you prefer, all the many events that caused those objects to exist and be in that location - are causes for the hammer striking the metal.

 

[Segev Moran]

1. Science does NOT demonstrate that there is always a cause. As I have pointed out, there are many situations *in science* that are without causes.

Without a known cause
We can't know if there is or not a cause for it.
Take entanglement for example.
Would you assume there is no cause for it?
If so, how come it works as it does?
If there was no cause, there was no prediction.
The fact we know that directing one particle will instantly cause the other to face the other direction already means there is a cause for it... even if we don't really know what that cause is.

2. The 'beginning', if there is one, is special precisely because it is the beginning (the end would be also). it is the point where time begins.

Yep.

There cannot be anything 'before' it because to be 'before' requires time.

From our POV! thats my whole point.
But we don't really know if there is a before or not, yet everything in our reality points that something was there before everything came to be.

There cannot be a cause because a cause requires time.

Exactly!!!!
So if there was no time, and nothing could cause time because cause needs time... it means there was something that cause time to exist... well... as it exists!

yes, precisely. And when we apply the laws of physics we have discovered, the causal claims for the beginning no longer hold.

Yet it is obvious there was a beginning as we obviously began
The fact we don't know how it began doesn't mean it didn't

 

[Segev Moran]

Sorry, but this is a (common) caricature of what happens in the Big Bang. One aspect is that you certainly are imagining that dot lying inside some sort of space, existing for some time

LoL, absolutely not! i claim just the opposite of this

then exploding outwards into that space. THIS IS WRONG. The 'dot' only makes sense *after* the start of time. It was the entire universe, including all of the space that existed at that time. It was space itself that expanded

Yep! as described in many ancient texts

and NOT some dot exploding.

Yep, unlike many theist, i don't think there was really a bang

And, if the universe is infinite in extent (quite possible), that dot only was for our observable universe:

Yep.. that what i meant when i said Human POV.

the universe was actually infinite at all times.

Or it didn't exist

 

[Segev Moran]

The idea of a 'chain' as opposed to a 'latticework' is the difficulty. There are many, interconnected, causes as opposed to a single linear string of causes.

I disagree.
Can you give an example?