The first cause argument

[greenboy21x]

This argument falls down when someone asks "Where did the "Thing that caused the first cause" come from?

And that kids, is what you call the infinite regress fallacy.

 

[rational experiences]

Rock said the church no argument allowed.

Theist but I believe a self blasting o maths stated mass was consuming into particles. First.

Wasn't space opening by consuming of pre existing energy? Burning.

Yes.. .. so space held particles forming in cooling then particles fused into mass by the same causes.

Yes he says I am telling the truth.

What truth?

Science converting on earth is wrong.

Oh so science was always wrong?

Yes says the first natural self human as any humans first status first.

Natural did not invent human science.

A human did.

Oh so natural thought is ahead of a theists looking back possessed mind saying hear my teaching sister. I cannot get my brother to listen.

A particle existed only by space cooling causes.

Reason why a feedback of a man's angelic type of image told me he needed me to learn what teachings he needed to give right in one moment. But could not.

He said I would learn over my life hoping he wouldn't be too late as an advisor in memory regarding human life lost.

He proved to me he was s pea king his truth.

Thin king.
Head king.
Head king thinker irradiated brain prickled.

Human sister mother head brain prickled advised.

Thank you for my science teaching unholy brothers.

 

[Polymath257]

Can virtual particles come to be without quantum fields?

This shows a confusion about quantum fields and virtual particles. They are literally just two different views of exactly the same thing. This is in exactly the same way that photons are the particles of the electromagnetic field; the virtual particles are the particles of the quantum field.

Neither 'causes' the other: they *are* the same thing. In a sense, this is another case of the wave/particle duality. Virtual particles appearing and disappearing is the same as a quantum field.

 

[Ponder This]

The point is that the surface of the earth is an analogy for the way general relativity treats space-time. Time doesn't 'flow' (there is no universal 'now', or any other universal moment of simultaneity, even in special relativity). Time is a direction (actually an observer dependant direction) through the manifold like south is a direction along the surface of the earth. Since there is no other concept of time that applies, the idea that it (the manifold) had a beginning (in the sense that the surface of the earth had a beginning because it is embedded in space-time) doesn't make sense.

No. This is not what I'm saying. This is something you introduced to what I said as your own analogy. You've made a strawman to rebut my argument.

I am talking about the Earth as a whole object that has a boundary (surface) which is not necessarily a single point in "time". I could just have easily decided to talk about your existence and defined your surface boundary (roughly corresponding to your skin) without assigning any sort of latitude or longitudinal system mapping your surface.

Models that aim to describe the universe and physics during the Planck epoch are generally speculative and fall under the umbrella of "New Physics".

I rest my case.

I'm saying they are currently unknown and that we have very good reasons to doubt them (as myself and others have pointed out).

Ah good, since you aren't trying to show that the truth of the premises is unattainable; you are freed from your burden of proof. It also means that you haven't demonstrated the argument is unsound. There is, of course, no problem with you doubting the premises are true. Just understand that your doubt about the premises has no effect whatsoever on their truth value. Doubt does not constitute proof.

The premises are about the nature of the universe and causality, so in the domain of science, so you're never going to get absolute proof. What we do have is evidence that suggests they are, at best, highly questionable.

The evidence suggests a beginning 13.8 billion years ago. The lack of absolute scientific proof is perhaps why you reconsider your argument from science and instead consider the philosophical question presented in the OP.

The universe, as a spacetime manifold, 'just is'. It doesn't 'become' because time is part of the universe.

Okay, the universe is. You don't disagree with the implicit assumption of P2 that the universe is.
I understand your objection to the universe having a beginning.

What does it matter who is saying where to move? The point is that it is possible to move to open up a space, or even infinitely many spaces by the guests moving appropriately.

It matters, because the entire point of a very lengthy discussion now is to talk about causes. The question of movers is exactly what matters.

What is the paradox? That the Hotel is full and that the guests can still move so as to open up a space? That is almost the defining property (according to Dirichlet) of being infinite.

That the guests can move is obvious. How they move is clear. What you've failed to answer is why they move or don't move.

It's more than that. Either there is an infinite regress of explanations, or there is something that cannot be explained (or, technically, there is a loop of explanations).

You clearly accept that Mathematics must be Axiomatic and even say it is because of Infinite Regress of Explanation. I rest my case. We are done here.

Yes, it is a closure property, not a 'building up' property. Closure under the successor function is one of the defining properties of the set of natural numbers.
Notice that in your definition above, there is no infinite process. The number 2, for example, is not seen in the definition. Only 0 (in the form of the empty set) appears. Also, the assumption is that there is such a set with these properties.
I would point out that without this axiom, the natural numbers can be 'built up' in the sense that every individual natural number can be constructed and shown to be a 'finite ordinal'. The axiom is about the existence of a set that contains all of these: a completed set all at once.
BTW: you might want to compare the axiom as you gave it to @ratiocinator's signature.

I think it is a cool signature. I considered putting the Axiom of Infinity in my signature because it is just so cool...

Anyway. You seem not to understand the significance of including the empty set. The empty set (zero) is the starting point for the natural numbers, not "infinity", not "negative infinity", but rather zero is the starting point to which successors are formed. The Axiom of Infinity allows them all to be in a set. This is very basic, basic understanding. Don't include the empty set and suddenly you can't find the natural numbers.
The significance of closure should've been clear to you. It is relevant first, to saying we have all the natural numbers and second to talking about the set of natural numbers as opposed to only talking about some of the natural numbers or talking about things which are not natural numbers. That's the relevance of closure here.

I am simply pointing out the basic properties of infinite sets. Like in the Hilbert Hotel, the paradoxes tend to be misunderstandings of how infinite sets differ from finite sets. One basic way is that they can be put into one-to-one correspondence with proper subsets of themselves.

Putting infinite sets in one to one correspondence with proper subsets of themselves is well-known, but has little to do with what I had to say about the Hilbert Hotel. What I'm talking about are the movers of guests of the Hilbert Hotel.

It's more that in my view the universe doesn't begin. And that is because time itself is a property in the universe. Time may have a start, but that is not the same as the universe beginning.

What do you mean "Time may have a start"? And how does that differ from "the universe beginning"?

What makes you think that all why questions have answers?

Why would I think that all why questions have answers?

It is an *analogy*. In this, time corresponds to the latitude and the universe corresponds to the surface of the sphere. Longitude represents space.
So, time 'begins' at the South pole, space expands until the equator, then begins to contract. Finally, time ends at the North pole.

Yeah, this is not the analogy I made. @ratiocinator inserted this nonsense about the Northpole. It's a useful analogy in its own way... it just has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

The current expansion started 13.8 billion years ago. Whether it is even meaningful to talk about 'before' that is simply not known. Under most quantum theories of gravity, it is. Under general relativity, it is not.
At this point, it is an open question.

People are free to ask questions.

 

[Polymath257]

That the guests can move is obvious. How they move is clear. What you've failed to answer is why they move or don't move.

They move to make space for other guests.

Anyway. You seem not to understand the significance of including the empty set. The empty set (zero) is the starting point for the natural numbers, not "infinity", not "negative infinity", but rather zero is the starting point to which successors are formed. The Axiom of Infinity allows them all to be in a set. This is very basic, basic understanding. Don't include the empty set and suddenly you can't find the natural numbers.
The significance of closure should've been clear to you. It is relevant first, to saying we have all the natural numbers and second to talking about the set of natural numbers as opposed to only talking about some of the natural numbers or talking about things which are not natural numbers. That's the relevance of closure here.

If you have *any* set (not necessarily the empty set) and ask for the smallest set closed under successor, you get a set that is isomorphic to the natural numbers. So, no, you don't need the empty set. it is simply convenient.

And you still haven't demonstrated that the natural numbers are 'built up' in any sense. We can talk about the category of pairs (A,f) where A is a set and f:A->A. A morphism in this category from (A,f) to (B,g) is a function h:A->B so that f=goh. The natural numbers are simply an initial object in that category. No 'building up' is required.

There are also ways to characterize the ring of integers, the field of rational numbers, and the field of real numbers.

But yes, the point of the axiom is that there is a set of natural numbers as opposed to a proper class thereof.

Putting infinite sets in one to one correspondence with proper subsets of themselves is well-known, but has little to do with what I had to say about the Hilbert Hotel. What I'm talking about are the movers of guests of the Hilbert Hotel.

Why? The guests are moved to make room for other guests.

In the same way, an infinite regress can be continually added onto with new causal relations.

What do you mean "Time may have a start"? And how does that differ from "the universe beginning"?

It is important to be very careful with language. 'Having a beginning' in the sense that there is no time previous is one thing. 'Coming into existence' implies a time before a process that ends with the existence. 'Beginning to exist' is rather ambiguous about implications of previous times.

The point is that causality requires time. If there is no *time* when the universe does not exist, there can be no causality of its existence.

 

[muhammad_isa]

They move to make space for other guests.

You are just fooling yourself. It's all a sham.

The point is that causality requires time. If there is no *time* when the universe does not exist, there can be no causality of its existence.

..and that is another sham. There is no such thing as "no time".
Time is measured relative to something. It does not imply that time can cease.
..unless of course, you don't accept the concept of eternity.
Eternity does not presume the existence of matter.
It presumes nothing but being.

 

[rational experiences]

If science says maths adds to age.

Reasoned. I live I am the consciousness owning all claims by my speeches. Maths adds to age. Maths is not conscious as all terms stated is by a human.

My human consciousness makes all claims about any topic that I choose.

No says science I add to subtract.

If I added only how could I be wrong?

Science says a condition colder had to first exist to not be changing. Not adding not in minus.

How do you know that advice scientist?

I exist living supported by colder first that I heat convert.

So I add to a huge number then go conversion.

Some of it is removed as I control the reaction. Yet until the energy is removed to a state nearly gone. Do I then claim removed destroyed.

Yet it was destroying the whole time.

So I add first claiming aged.

In human the conscious self says if I add to 100 the age is deceased in my consciousness.

Reasoned. I don't own empty space. I live in a water first then gas mass that expresses space also.

So if I add an age of a universe I claim I am adding spaces into the aged universe of what no longer existed.

To claim it went away and is gone.

Hence when I do a calculus my intention is to remove the rest of it.

Space owned pressure plus cooling in mass energy removal. The first law against highest I taught was consuming.

Yet I also taught the highest first being the coldest first is unknown.

I told myself. Two types. Held or removing as removed is in existence. In space as opposition. Removing was in. Heated space.

Existence I said is removing....heat.

As a scientist. As a scientist is speaking only about science and not about self biological presence. I told myself it is evil thinking. As I am not the states of my conscious discussion.

I exist also. My existence is in a cooled higher state. As I don't expect to be converted.

Why I taught earth a held mass first was holy.

Everyone is the same human having a diverse experience.

So we argue in the claim my experience wants to advise yours.

 

[ratiocinator]

No. This is not what I'm saying. This is something you introduced to what I said as your own analogy. You've made a strawman to rebut my argument.

I am talking about the Earth as a whole object that has a boundary (surface) which is not necessarily a single point in "time". I could just have easily decided to talk about your existence and defined your surface boundary (roughly corresponding to your skin) without assigning any sort of latitude or longitudinal system mapping your surface.

Sorry, but I've no idea what you're trying to say, then. The space-time manifold (assuming that is ultimately the correct way to look at it) may be finite in one direction (the past). I simply do not see how you can look at the whole manifold and sensibly say that it had a beginning. It looks like you just haven't understood the analogy. A 2-dimensional surface, like that of a sphere, is a type of manifold, 4-dimensional space-time is also a manifold, which includes time itself as a coordinate. The whole thing is timeless, so it makes no sense to say it began to exist.

I rest my case.

What case? The point is that we simply don't know what happened as we extrapolate further back because we run out of tested scientific theories that would be applicable, so we can't assume that time is finite in the past. It might be, but it might not be as well, we just don't know.

Ah good, since you aren't trying to show that the truth of the premises is unattainable; you are freed from your burden of proof. It also means that you haven't demonstrated the argument is unsound. There is, of course, no problem with you doubting the premises are true. Just understand that your doubt about the premises has no effect whatsoever on their truth value. Doubt does not constitute proof.

It's not me who is trying to prove anything. The argument in the OP is in the form of a deduction, which can only be sound if the premises are true. If we don't know they are true, and indeed have good reason to think otherwise, then the deduction has failed and we cannot rely on the conclusion.

Taking a set of unknowns, then making highly questionable assumptions about the answers to arrive at a conclusion that you want, isn't all that convincing.

 

[firedragon]

Sorry, but I've no idea what you're trying to say, then. The space-time manifold (assuming that is ultimately the correct way to look at it) may be finite in one direction (the past). I simply do not see how you can look at the whole manifold and sensibly say that it had a beginning. It looks like you just haven't understood the analogy. A 2-dimensional surface, like that of a sphere, is a type of manifold, 4-dimensional space-time is also a manifold, which includes time itself as a coordinate. The whole thing is timeless, so it makes no sense to say it began to exist.


What case? The point is that we simply don't know what happened as we extrapolate further back because we run out of tested scientific theories that would be applicable, so we can't assume that time is finite in the past. It might be, but it might not be as well, we just don't know.


It's not me who is trying to prove anything. The argument in the OP is in the form of a deduction, which can only be sound if the premises are true. If we don't know they are true, and indeed have good reason to think otherwise, then the deduction has failed and we cannot rely on the conclusion.

Taking a set of unknowns, then making highly questionable assumptions about the answers to arrive at a conclusion that you want, isn't all that convincing.

Can you try answering a simple question? You were propagating quantum fluctuations are one of your main arguments, of course among others spelt out by others. Thus, in this, I asked you if virtual particles can come into existence without quantum fields? Simple, basic question.

 

[ratiocinator]

You are just fooling yourself. It's all a sham.

No, it's mathematics.

..and that is another sham. There is no such thing as "no time".

Of course there's no such think as no time. You're getting tripped up by the language. If time is finite in the past, that doesn't mean that was something called 'no time' before, it's that 'before' has become a meaningless concept, that doesn't refer to anything.

Time is measured relative to something. It does not imply that time can cease.
..unless of course, you don't accept the concept of eternity.
Eternity does not presume the existence of matter.
It presumes nothing but being.

You need to drag your understanding at least into the 20th century. Since Einstein we've understood time is part of the space-time manifold that can 'curve' and may possibly be finite in the past direction.

 

[ratiocinator]

You were propagating quantum fluctuations are one of your main arguments, of course among others spelt out by others.

I'm not making an argument. It was a counterexample to your first premiss.

Thus, in this, I asked you if virtual particles can come into existence without quantum fields? Simple, basic question.

You've already had an answer: #1203. I'm not going to repeat what others have already said, and, to be honest, if you want to know more about quantum field theory, then you'll get more informed answers from @Polymath257 anyway.

Logically speaking, we have a counterexample to your first premiss but even if we accepted its truth, you then have a problem regardless in trying to apply what happens in the universe to the universe as a whole. Even if we accepted that everything within the universe was caused, then you still have to explain how you can have a cause without a universe - specifically without time.

 

[firedragon]

I'm not making an argument. It was a counterexample to your first premiss.


You've already had an answer: #1203. I'm not going to repeat what others have already said, and, to be honest, if you want to know more about quantum field theory, then you'll get more informed answers from @Polymath257 anyway.

Logically speaking, we have a counterexample to your first premiss but even if we accepted its truth, you then have a problem regardless in trying to apply what happens in the universe to the universe as a whole. Even if we accepted that everything within the universe was caused, then you still have to explain how you can have a cause without a universe - specifically without time.

So again, you cant answer, but are referring to someone else's answer, false or correct, you dont care, you just have been repeating other peoples arguments, propagating them as if they are your Gods with ultimate truths.

You are outsourcing intellect.

Mind you, your prophets and Gods answers in this thread you are worshiping are all false. So bad that its desperate, and too quickly googled, it is really really bad. But that is what you are worshiping. This is your religion. Worshiping other people.

Since you have not made any argument, this is an assertion to your "that guy said this so I believe it and propagate it" position. If you did make an argument, this would be ad hominem. But you never made any argument.

Do you even know how false the responses are? I mean seriously ignorant.

Try to use your own study and your own intellect, rather than outsourcing them.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So again, you cant answer, but are referring to someone else's answer, false or correct, you dont care, you just have been repeating other peoples arguments, propagating them as if they are your Gods with ultimate truths.

You are outsourcing intellect.

Mind you, your prophets and Gods answers in this thread you are worshiping are all false. So bad that its desperate, and too quickly googled, it is really really bad. But that is what you are worshiping. This is your religion. Worshiping other people.

Since you have not made any argument, this is an assertion to your "that guy said this so I believe it and propagate it" position. If you did make an argument, this would be ad hominem. But you never made any argument.

Do you even know how false the responses are? I mean seriously ignorant.

Try to use your own study and your own intellect, rather than outsourcing them.

Okay, here is the single individual answer to your deduction. It is not universal for the world as such because I can think/feel/act differently than you. If if you claim, that what I answered is false, I can still do it. I have been doing in for over 25 years now as a skeptic and I can observe it in general for the everyday world. Not all humans think like you do and thus their answers are false, yet they are all in the everyday world.
In effect for all your true answers for your religion, over 90% of all people give false answers, yet nothing happens. That is not particular to your world view, but is what happens when someone takes their individual thinking as true as for such debates and then declares all other answers false.
I just test if the false answers still work for the everyday world.
So I can do I as an individual and that is simple. Can I do it differently than you? If yes, we can both do it differently and then it can't be universally true.

 

[ratiocinator]

So, rather than address the points, we get yet another ad hominem rant from @firedragon.

So again, you cant answer, but are referring to someone else's answer, false or correct, you dont care, you just have been repeating other peoples arguments, propagating them as if they are your Gods with ultimate truths.

Nonsense. I know enough about the subject to make the point I made, I also know enough to recognise when somebody else has a more in-depth knowledge of a subject than I do. As far as the point I made is concerned, you could go and look it up for yourself if you took a break from running away from substantive problems with your own argument, rants, and evasion. I gave you a link back in post #10.

Mind you, your prophets and Gods answers in this thread you are worshiping are all false. So bad that its desperate, and too quickly googled, it is really really bad. But that is what you are worshiping. This is your religion. Worshiping other people.

And yet you have never once linked to a single reference that disagrees with the points you have been trying to claim are wrong. Since they are so bad and so easily googled, that seems decidedly odd to me. The endless stream of unsupported claims that people are wrong, that they haven't understood, need to read up, read again, and now accusations like this, look indistinguishable to me from those I might expect from somebody who doesn't understand anything about the subjects under discussion and is trying to get by with bluff and bluster.

Do you even know how false the responses are? I mean seriously ignorant.

If they are false and ignorant, then it should be easy for you to refute them, yet you don't even try, you just claim they are false and ignorant.

If you make a substantive claim that is easily shown to be wrong, I'll continue to correct you (with references) as I have been doing. If you make a serious attempt to reply to the points that have been made, I'll probably respond, but I've had quite enough of your empty blustering.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Even if we accepted that everything within the universe was caused, then you still have to explain how you can have a cause without a universe - specifically without time.

As I have already stated, that is a ridiculous notion.
We describe time relative to motion, and then you say that this implies that "time" can therefore "not be there" like mass.
It is purely a manipulation of concept, and nothing more.

Time is only measurable as in "relative to motion". It doesn't mean that time can disappear. It just "is". That is the meaning of eternity.
You can't suggest that eternity might terminate at the beginning or end of time. It is meaningless.

 

[ratiocinator]

As I have already stated, that is a ridiculous notion.

And as I said, you need to drag your understanding out of the 19th century. The Newtonian idea that time is a constant backdrop to everything is known to be wrong. Space-time can distort (we have to take account of the fact to make the GPS system work) and, quite possibly have a start.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As I have already stated, that is a ridiculous notion.
We describe time relative to motion, and then you say that this implies that "time" can therefore "not be there" like mass.
It is purely a manipulation of concept, and nothing more.

Time is only measurable as in "relative to motion". It doesn't mean that time can disappear. It just "is". That is the meaning of eternity.
You can't suggest that eternity might terminate at the beginning or end of time. It is meaningless.

You are thinking in your mind and then claim that works outside your mind.

 

[firedragon]

You've already had an answer: #1203. I'm not going to repeat

false answer.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You are thinking in your mind..

That's all we can do, I'm afraid.

 

[firedragon]

And as I said, you need to drag your understanding out of the 19th century. The Newtonian idea that time is a constant backdrop to everything is known to be wrong. Space-time can distort (we have to take account of the fact to make the GPS system work) and, quite possibly have a start.

Yeah. Maybe you need to insult someone to feel alive. Keep it up.

But see your God in this thread mistook quantum fluctuations to QFT. Since he is your God you blindly gulped it.

Point: Other peoples point
Answer: Other people answered
End point: Insult to thrive