The first cause argument

[Polymath257]

I know what you mean..
I, myself, pointed that out to @firedragon in the start of this thread.

However, the idea that the universe has no beginning is not part of the argument.
If you think that the universe has no beginning, then it is not finite.
Good luck with that. Our lives here in this world are definitely finite.

I don't know whether the universe is infinite or not. Current evidence points to it being *spatially* infinite, but it is far from conclusive.

As for being temporally infinite, that is certainly a possibility, but again, we don't have evidence to say whether it is the case or not.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok. Instead of word games, word misunderstandings, or language gaps, etc,,,,
Did everything that lead up to the result, made the result possible, have a cause or did not have a cause?

The term 'cause' it too vague to be useful in this context.

 

[Polymath257]

But it is not demonstrated physically. I thought you are insistent upon physical realities.

Unless of course you can demonstrate as you would generally ask for "demonstrable, observable evidence".

You are right, it has not been demonstrated.

But it also has not been demonstrated as impossible.

We simply do not know one way or the other.

There is none. Lets be real. Philosophically, an infinity is not possible as well.

Then philosophy needs to grow up and extend its boundaries.

 

[firedragon]

You are right, it has not been demonstrated.

But it also has not been demonstrated as impossible.

We simply do not know one way or the other.



Then philosophy needs to grow up and extend its boundaries.

Super.

 

[Polymath257]

Errr no.
We experience time, regardless of whether it is being measured or not.
I think that this is an important issue.
You can insist that our definition of time is absolute, as in what we measure.
However, Einstein shows us that it is NOT absolute.

But spacetime *is*. The geometry is absolute, not the coordinate system.

We say that "the speed of light is constant". That is what we observe. It is merely an observation, based on our initial assumptions. It is not written in stone, and it doesn't mean that we can explain why it is etc.

It is the foundation of a theory that is predictive, testable, and has passed every test for over a century.

You can interpret it however you like.
..and I shall do likewise.

As far as I'm concerned, time is something that can be experienced and observed.

it is also something that can be measured in any coordinate system and different coordinate systems can be used to get the same absolute results (the geometric aspects).

 

[Polymath257]

Its a logical impossibility.

Tell me. If you divide infinity, with 14 billion, whats the answer?

In systems where it is defined, you get infinity.

So?

 

[firedragon]

In systems where it is defined, you get infinity.

So?

Great. Thanks.

 

[Polymath257]

Let's modify the argument in the OP a bit to reflect what we actually know.

I'm going to present two different syllogisms, each a slight modification of that in the OP, and both more based on what we know.

First syllogism:

P1. Everything in the universe that begins to exist has a cause within the universe.

In this, there is no possible conclusion about the universe because the universe is not *within* the universe. So, with this P1 it is quite possible that the universe began while not having a cause.

But P1 is closer to what we actually know than the OP. We certainly don't have any evidence except from *within* the universe, so this P1 is a better starting point than the one in the OP.

Now, from this, we get the following conclusion:

1. Either there is an infinite regression of causes within the universe OR there is something in the universe that did not begin.

Now, I would argue that there is another premise that is much closer to what we actually know than either the one above or the one in the OP. And that is

P1': Everything in the universe that has a cause has a cause within the universe.

This is something supported by all the evidence and all of our intuitions. it is a reasonable philosophical starting point.

But, from P1', we can only conclude:

1': Either there is an infinite regression of causes within the universe OR there is something in the universe that is uncaused.

And this is as far as you can get from pure philosophy.

 

[Polymath257]

Great. Thanks.

No problem. What was your point?

 

[firedragon]

No problem. What was your point?

Can you prove that the Hillberts Hotel proves an infinite regression as you claimed in relation to the OP?

Thanks.

 

[Polymath257]

Can you prove that the Hillberts Hotel proves an infinite regression as you claimed in relation to the OP?

Thanks.

it *allows* for an infinite regression. That possibility has not been removed by your argument.

More specifically, the negative integers provide a model of a system where everything has a predecessor and there is no first element.

-1 preceeds 0, -2 preceeds -1, -3 preceeds -2, etc.

Everything has a predecessor and yet there is no 'first' negative integer.

So an infinite regression is NOT a logical impossibility.

What *you* need to do for your argument to work is show that such an infinite regression is impossible in the real world. Until you do that, your argument fails.

Good luck.

 

[firedragon]

it *allows* for an infinite regression. That possibility has not been removed by your argument.

More specifically, the negative integers provide a model of a system where everything has a predecessor and there is no first element.

-1 preceeds 0, -2 preceeds -1, -3 preceeds -2, etc.

Everything has a predecessor and yet there is no 'first' negative integer.

So an infinite regression is NOT a logical impossibility.

What *you* need to do for your argument to work is show that such an infinite regression is impossible in the real world. Until you do that, your argument fails.

Good luck.

So the hotel was also infinite? Or did you understand such a simple thing? Who built that hotel? Did it exist infinitely?

Please explain.

 

[Polymath257]

So the hotel was also infinite? Or did you understand such a simple thing? Who built that hotel? Did it exist infinitely?

Please explain.

Yes, in the model of the hotel, the hotel is infinite. That is sort of the point.

It doesn't matter how it was built for the lessons to be learned from it. maybe it has always been under construction, like many highways. Maybe it simply always existed, uncaused.

Again, look at the negative integers. They provide an example of a system where everything has a predecessor and there is no first item.

Can you show that is impossible in the real world?

Also, how does that relate to infinity divided by 14 billion?

 

[Altfish]

You didnt understand the argument.

Also, we dont know is not a scientific explanation. It is the answer given when there is "no scientific explanation".

I do understand the argument and it doesn't make sense.

If you ask a scientist from this field this question they will say, "We don't know" And scientists don't know, so it is the current state of play.
Now if you want to make up an answer, that's fine but don't expect me to accept it.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, in the model of the hotel, the hotel is infinite. That is sort of the point.

Nah. For the third time, this same question you avoided. I cant believe that you are incapable of understanding this question so Im sure you are capable. There is no question about it.

Who built the hotel? Try not to ignore it and speak of the axiomatic infinite hotel that is in the future, after the hotel is built, which is a thought experiment.

I am sure you understand this question.

 

[firedragon]

If you ask a scientist from this field this question they will say, "We don't know"

Yeah, but its not a scientific answer. I am sure you can understand that. No problem. You can see that it is an answer because there is no scientific answer. When you dont have an answer you say "I dont know".

 

[muhammad_isa]

In my view the universe 'just is'. There is no 'how it came about'.

That implies that when we are dead, our lives no longer have relevance.
In turn, that implies that our existence has no relevance.
My conscience tells me that makes no sense.

Your conscience presumably thinks otherwise.

 

[ratiocinator]

Who built the hotel?

It's completely irrelevant. You're obsessing over an analogy that just illustrates one of the odd properties infinity. Do you just not understand analogy? The fact remains that infinity couldn't possibly be dealt with mathematically, if it were a logical impossibility.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Here is a video of Physicists Marcelo Gleiser and Max Tegmark discussing the First Cause.

 

[firedragon]

It's completely irrelevant. You're obsessing over an analogy that just illustrates one of the odd properties infinity. Do you just not understand analogy? The fact remains that infinity couldn't possibly be dealt with mathematically, if it were a logical impossibility.

Hillbert Hotel was introduced as an argument for infinite regression by another person. So jumping into that conversation, telling me that's irrelevant seems strange to me.

Please try to engage with arguments. Anyway, since you came to someones aid, this is called a veridical paradox.

Tell me. how much is Zero divided by Zero.