The first cause argument

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well let me expand on the point.. [big-bang .. expand ]
Zero, can be seen as an infinitely small quantity. You are using it mathematically, so that applies.
Applying this to the big-bang, we could suggest that as t approaches zero, it becomes undefinable.

Sure. It's still not relevant to the point I'm making.
A point you seem to be ignoring with all your strength, which is evidenced by the fact that you keep leaving it out of the quotes you are replying with.

That point is that the universe = the fabric of space time.
Space and time are both part of the universe.
So the beginning of the universe was the beginning of both space and time.

From this follows that the notion of "before" the universe, is nonsensical.

And also, which I also keep repeating, causality is a phenomenon of PHYSICS. Physics, as it applies in the universe. You can't invoke things of the universe in a context where no universe exists.

You keep saying this.

No. Science says this. Established science, like relativity.
Be my guest to reject it as wrong.... but then I'll just be asking you why GPS works.
And as I also already said, rejecting it will cause other problems with the first cause argument, as then you'll also lose the aspects of the theory that is used to support other premises.

As I keep saying: either way, the argument fails.

A theory which explains phenomena in the universe, cannot explicitly tell us about
a situation where the universe does not exist.

But it can tell you what things won't exist either, as they depend on said universe existing.
2 of those things in this particular case, are space and time.

It is a contradiction, as we have already defined time as being dependent on space.

There's no contradiction. The universe is the space-time frabric.
Removing the universe = removing the space-time fabric.

Where is the contradiction?

I have already said that whatever you think physical theories might imply,
it is based on one's original assumptions.

And I already corrected you by saying that it's not just some assumption.
But clearly you are too stubborn to acknowledge this. You prefer engaging in mental gymnastics and appealing to ignorance to desperately hold on to apologetic arguments that are problematic and even downright fallacious in a multitude of ways.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Do I? In order to make your argument sound, you have to show us that is false..

That is not so..
YOU made the claim..
"So, if the B theory is correct, which is likely, nothing begins to exist".
Why?

 

[viole]

That is not so..
YOU made the claim..
"So, if the B theory is correct, which is likely, nothing begins to exist".
Why?

Ok, then I propose a deal. Namely to change the argument so that it is safe:

P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause
P2: The Universe began to exist
P3: The A theory of time is true
C: The Universe has a cause.

Do you agree?

Ciao

- viole

 

[muhammad_isa]

That point is that the universe = the fabric of space time.
Space and time are both part of the universe..

It doesn't mean that the concepts can't exist WITHOUT the universe.

You can't invoke things of the universe in a context where no universe exists.

I don't think that I am saying that you can.
It is YOU who insist that some concept of 'time' is impossible if the universe does not exist.
YOU are the one who is "invoking things of the universe" to suggest what is possible "where no universe exists".

And I already corrected you by saying that it's not just some assumption.

Rubbish ! Of course it is.
We used to define time in the context of years and days, and we now define it in the context of atomic decay. It is no different, really.
As time is relative, our definition only applies to our frame of reference.
That alone should alert you to the fact that our definition is one of convenience only.

 

[Polymath257]

No, that is circular reasoning.
We have already defined 'time' in terms of space, as in 'measured time in our frame of reference'.

No, we did not define time in terms of space. Spacetime is the geometrical entity that exists in the B theory (and in relativity). Since *all* causality happens in time, and since time is a part of spacetime, it is impossible that spacetime be caused.

 

[Polymath257]

How did your P2 make one assumption, and a second assumption that "Only things within the universe are caused and the universe is not within the universe so is uncaused"?

If you think there is something that is caused that is not uin the universe, please give an example.

ALL causes we know about are within the universe. There is not a single example known otherwise. So P1 is a reasonable assumption.

How do you prove that the universe is not within the universe and if anything is outside the universe it is uncaused?

The universe is not a thing within the universe since nothing is a thing within itself.

All causes are within the universe because all causes happen in time and time is part of the universe.

If what is outside the universe are uncaused, then the first cause which is outside the universe is by default is uncaused. You proved the OP with a dreamt up cheap shot unknowingly.

Of course, you need to prove that there *is* something outside of the universe for this to work. You also need to prove that things outside of the universe can cause things inside of the universe. But since the universe is causally closed, this is impossible.

No one would ever think they live to see bad logic like this.[/QUOTE]

My logic is more supported than your claims in the OP.

 

[Polymath257]

Well let me expand on the point.. [big-bang .. expand ]
Zero, can be seen as an infinitely small quantity. You are using it mathematically, so that applies.

No, it cannot be so regarded. Zero is not an infinitesimal. All infinitesimals (in systems where they exist, mind you) are greater than zero.

In the standard real numbers, by the way, there are no infinitesimals at all.

 

[Polymath257]

It doesn't mean that the concepts can't exist WITHOUT the universe.

Concepts, from what we know, require brains to exist in. And brains require a universe.

I don't think that I am saying that you can.
It is YOU who insist that some concept of 'time' is impossible if the universe does not exist.
YOU are the one who is "invoking things of the universe" to suggest what is possible "where no universe exists".

Yes, time is an aspect of spacetime and the universe is ALL of spacetime.

Rubbish ! Of course it is.
We used to define time in the context of years and days, and we now define it in the context of atomic decay. It is no different, really.
As time is relative, our definition only applies to our frame of reference.
That alone should alert you to the fact that our definition is one of convenience only.

First, that is only about *measuring* time in some reference frame. That is using one coordinate system. But spacetime is the four dimensional geometry upon which that coordinate system is imposed.

As an analogy, latitude and longitude on a sphere are conventions we use, but the geometry of the sphere that they describe is not. Two different people may assign different 'north poles' and different 'prime meridians' and use degrees, radians, or some other measure of angles, but they are all describing the same geometry.

Time is a part of a coordinate system we use to map out the geometry of spacetime. Different observers use different coordinates, but are measuring the same geometry.

if we have a coordinate system on a sphere and someone asks what is south of the south pole, we can recognize that as meaningless because 'south' only makes sense within the coordinate system *and* only upon the sphere.

In the same way, to talk about 'before the universe' is meaningless because it would involve *both* a coordinate system involving time (which is our description of spacetime) *and* to be outside the geometry of spacetime.

Causes happen *within* that geometry of spacetime, not outside of it. The geometry itself 'simply exists', uncaused.

 

[firedragon]

If you think there is something that is caused that is not uin the universe, please give an example.

I didnt say that. I will not respond to your Aunt Sally's.

The universe is not a thing within the universe since nothing is a thing within itself.

Are you saying the universe is outside itself?

 

[muhammad_isa]

No, we did not define time in terms of space..

Perhaps you'd like to give us the physical definition of 'time'?

 

[Polymath257]

I didnt say that. I will not respond to your Aunt Sally's.

if you think there is something outside of the universe, please give an example.

Are you saying the universe is outside itself?

No. The universe *is* itself. It isn't inside of any thing. But it is also not outside of any thing. All things are inside of it.

 

[Polymath257]

Perhaps you'd like to give us the physical definition of 'time'?

As in all physical things, the definition is operational: how do you measure it in a reference frame.

As A. Wheeler said: time is defined so that motion looks simple.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No, it cannot be so regarded. Zero is not an infinitesimal..

OK, then..
Can we prove that such a time t=0 actually exists in our universal reality, when referring to Minkowski space?
What would it represent? It's a 'limit', isn't it?
Can we, in reality, have a point in time where mass occupied no space at all?

 

[Polymath257]

OK, then..
Can we prove that such a time t=0 actually exists in our universal reality, when referring to Minkowski space?
What would it represent? It's a 'limit', isn't it?
Can one in reality have a point in time, where mass occupied no space at all?

First, Minkowski spacetime is a flat spacetime without gravity. if you want to talk about the Big Bang, you are not using Minkowski spacetime (which has time infinite both forward and backward and no universal expansion).

In general relativity, there is no t=0, only t>0. So there is no *time* when mass occupied no space.

In most quantum theories of gravity (quantum theories extending general relativity), t=0 represents the state of maximum contraction of the universe, usually with either a previous universe going infinitely far into the past or a multiverse from which our universe buds off (in which case, my usage of the word 'universe' refers to the multiverse).

In all modern theories, mass, energy, space, and time are all co-existent.

 

[leroy]

"KCA" ??

kalam cosmological argument (as explained in the OP)

 

[muhammad_isa]

First, that is only about *measuring* time in some reference frame. That is using one coordinate system. But spacetime is the four dimensional geometry upon which that coordinate system is imposed.
...

You are avoiding the main issue, by showing us all how clued up you are about coordinate geometry.

WHAT IS 'TIME' DEFINED IN TERMS OF???

Isn't the concept of "a day" depending on a stund of time that it takes for the earth to complete one rotation?
That involves speed eg. length / time

That is a circular definition, in my book, as we define time in terms of space. It is more complex than that. Relativity shows us that time is elusive, and not absolute.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..there is no *time* when mass occupied no space.

Exactly, and that is what I meant about t=0 being unrealisable.

 

[firedragon]

if you think there is something outside of the universe, please give an example.

Repeating an aunt sally is pretty weird.

No. The universe *is* itself.

Right. Which has a cause. Thats the OP.

 

[Altfish]

kalam cosmological argument (as explained in the OP)

 

[Polymath257]

You are avoiding the main issue, by showing us all how clued up you are about coordinate geometry.

WHAT IS 'TIME' DEFINED IN TERMS OF???

It is defined operationally, like *ALL* physical things.

What is space defined in terms of? How about an electron?

The answer is that these are NOT defined in terms of other things. They are defined in terms of how to measure them.

Isn't the concept of "a day" depending on a stund of time that it takes for the earth to complete one rotation?

Not any longer. it was at one time, but it is now defined as 86400 seconds.

That involves speed eg. length / time

The current definition of a second is in terms of the number of oscillations of a certain frequency of light:


"The second is defined as being equal to the time duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the fundamental unperturbed ground-state of the caesium-133 atom."

That is a circular definition, in my book, as we define time in terms of space. It is more complex than that. Relativity shows us that time is elusive, and not absolute.

So is space. So is energy. So is momentum. So is mass, although rest mass is absolute.

We do not define time in terms of space. We *do* define space in terms of time, though, by defining the meter via a definition of the speed of light.

"The metre is currently defined as the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299 792 458 of a second."

Both quotes above are from Wikipedia.