The first cause argument

[Link]

And if there is miss-application of the parts to the whole, there is also proper applications. I would say seeing every piece of it finite and in time, you can through induction properly reason the whole thing is temporary and in time.

Speak of universe as eternal is non-sensical, which part of it?

There is also this proof, if you keep cutting the universe, you get temporary parts except you assume it goes back infinitely. But if you can keep cutting it, and it's causes are temporary cuts, then you can by induction it's formed of only temporary parts. Sum of temporary parts is temporary, not eternal.

Thus by contradiction you assume it can be infinite back - you show it can't, thus infinite chain by induction is proven impossible through many avenues.

 

[firedragon]

I don't think it is a valid argument, when it comes to the Universe.

We know that the big bang happened, whether it was "caused" to happen is unknown. Also the Universe is not a being, so its not valid in regard to premise 1.

Please try and find out what a being is in philosophy. They you will understand better.

 

[firedragon]

You still have to get from valid to sound.

Nice. Thanks.

 

[firedragon]

I'm not sure that I do..
Some people would rather accept that the universe is eternal [an infinite past] rather than "something" being responsible for its creation.
Not me, obviously

I said that you didnt understand what infinite regression means.

Thanks though informing how some people would think. its just not logical. But thanks anyway.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nice. Thanks.

You do understand the difference between valid and sound in deductive logic?

 

[ratiocinator]

It's non-sensical but true. Infinite chain is a paradox and impossible.

Where's the paradox? Space-time is (as far as current theory tells us) a continuous manifold. Extending it infinitely in any direction (including timelike ones), produces no contradictions.

That's the point. It both needs a cause by principle of induction and does not need one if infinite, and so reality is it can't exist.

I suspect you're stuck in a Newtonian idea of time. What 'principle of induction' are you referring to? Induction with regard to physics and science is problematic anyway and seems irrelevant. If you mean in the mathematical sense, then do explain.

 

[firedragon]

Except we don't truly know whether P2 is correct

You can logically prove it is incorrect if you like. I would actually like to hear it out.

 

[Fool]

Accepting that things can exist without a cause negates the entire argument that everything must have a cause.
I mean "Everything must have a cause apart from things that don't have a cause" is barely even an argument at all.
Hardly rocket science.

self-perpetuating


The Information Theory of Life
The polymath Christoph Adami is investigating life’s origins by reimagining living things as self-perpetuating information

 

[Fool]

This universe clearly isn't eternal.
However, it is unknown whether the sum of all possible universes is eternal.
As you accept that things can exist without a cause or beginning, then you must also accept the possibility that "all the universes" is eternal.

then the law of conservation is broken if the absolute isn't infinite

 

[ratiocinator]

Except we don't truly know whether P2 is correct...

You can logically prove it is incorrect if you like.

The 'proof' that we don't know something is the lack of reasoning and/or evidence for us to conclude one way or the other. P2 is in that category. You can falsify the claim that we don't know by providing some sound argument or conclusive evidence that it is either true or false.

Good luck with that, and if you succeed, fame, fortune, and probably a Nobel prize awaits...

 

[ratiocinator]

then the law of conservation is broken if the absolute isn't infinite

What law of conservation? How would it be broken? Conservation laws are generally the result of symmetries (Noether's theorem), without the symmetries, there would be no conservation.

 

[muhammad_isa]

This universe clearly isn't eternal..

How so?
If you are referring to "the big-bang", then fine .. I get it.
Some people still suggest that the big-bang theory is not necessarily correct. Not many though.

I assume your answer to the cause of the big-bang is you don't know?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You can logically prove it is incorrect if you like. I would actually like to hear it out.

Again valid and sound are not the same.

Here is an example of a valid, but not sound deduction.

P1: All animals with a spine, a central nervous system and who can find food under water are fish.
P2: Penguins have a spine, a central nervous system and can find food under water.
C: Therefore penguins are fish.

Now this is an example of this: Google valid versus sound deduction
"A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. ... A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true."

 

[Fool]

What law of conservation? How would it be broken? Conservation laws are generally the result of symmetries (Noether's theorem), without the symmetries, there would be no conservation.

1st law of thermodynamics

 

[ratiocinator]

Some people still suggest that the big-bang theory is not necessarily correct. Not many though.

The "big bang theory" does not technically extend to the very "start". It describes the universe's development from a hot, dense state. The theories on which it is based break down near the "start" or singularity - which is a mathematical term that describes what happens to the equations of general relativity if we extrapolate backwards. Very few cosmologists actually think that it was a literal, physical reality, because quantum effects will become significant and we don't have a theory that combines quantum field theory with general relativity.

 

[KWED]

Anything in time cannot be eternal.

"Time" might well be a product of this universe.

All parts of all universes are in time.

And you know this, how?

There is no part of any all the universes that is not temporal.

Sounds like an unsupported assertion, if you don't mind me saying.

It's not miss application of parts to the whole, but sound reasoning by induction, that you see no matter what part of it, it's temporary.

Fallacy of composition.

The universe can't be eternal but by induction, you know it's temporary.

Maybe, maybe not.

There always been a time with some state of the universe doesn't make sense, because of induction, it needs a cause that is eternal.

You've lost me.

 

[ratiocinator]

1st law of thermodynamics

Conservation of energy depends on the time translation symmetry of the laws of physics. If the laws change, or time itself had a start, it simply wouldn't apply. It's problematic if it applies to the whole universe anyway:-

"The theory of general relativity leaves open the question of whether there is a conservation of energy for the entire universe." -- Conservation of energy - Relativity.

 

[KWED]

Please try and find out what a being is in philosophy. They you will understand better.

OK, define "philosophical being", and explain why your definition is valid.

 

[KWED]

You do understand the difference between valid and sound in deductive logic?

He's frantically Googling it as we speak.

 

[Altfish]

not really, if you follow the idea that nature recycles, or the idea that the absolute energy cannot be created/destroyed but is simply recycled, reused in some otherness.

The "God was always there" argument?