The first cause argument

[ratiocinator]

..and how are you defining time?
What is a second? What is the frame of reference?
It is a model.
Without making definitions, we can't make a model.
It doesn't mean that our definitions are meaningful as to the actual nature of time through eternity.
One thing that we do know, is that measured time is relative to space in our universe.
One cannot come to meaningful conclusions about the nature of time as an absolute phenomena. It is a circular argument.
You define something, and then show it no longer exists at some point ? What doesn't exist?

The whole of the way science works and finds things out is by building models and then testing them to see if they match reality. If a model has been thoroughly tested and all of its predictions turn out to be true, then we can conclude that is a good representation of the world (at least within the scope of the model). When it comes to space, time, and gravity, we have a model called General Relativity, which has been thoroughly tested, and shown to be accurate.

That tells us that space, time, and gravity aren't actually separate things. Space-time is modelled as a four-dimensional manifold and gravity is the result of that manifold 'curving', that is, its geometry changes. Time is not the same for every observer. Even in 'flat' space-time, relative speed amounts to something like a rotation of what one observer thinks is the time direction through the manifold compared with the other (and likewise for what each thinks of as space).

We also know that space (that's space itself, not the things in it) is expanding, so if we extrapolate backwards far enough we get to a point at which the equations that describe space-time break down, and we cannot go back any further.

What actually happened at that point is not known because we know that general relativity does not take account of quantum effects, which we know will become important. However, we can't rule out a start of time because we know that it doesn't correspond to the fixed, eternal, never changing background that Newton described.

 

[YoursTrue]

You might not know

..so perhaps you would like to explain to us all, how time can actually start or finish?

That is a good question.

 

[muhammad_isa]

That tells us that space, time, and gravity aren't actually separate things.

Errr .. no.
We can observe that they interact with each other.
Theory of GR explains how they interact.

It says nothing about the nature of time itself.
If we define time as being part of the universe, then one can't turn around and say that GR shows that time has a beginning.
It is a circular argument.

 

[ratiocinator]

You are raising the bar unrealistically too high it´s impossible to show with 100% certainty that a premise is true, by your logic there are no good arguments ……….

If you're trying to use logic to reach a conclusion, then the premises must be true. So, strictly speaking, if they are about the real world, then we can never be 100% sure because we have to rely on science. However, if they are widely accepted 'facts', like the earth is roughly spherical, Paris is the capital of France, then people are likely to accept your argument. Not so much if they're unknowns that we have reasonable reasons to think are wrong.

It's a basic fact that you can't use bare logic to deduce anything about the world, because you have to start with premises and your result is only as good as those premises.

But anyway my claim is that the premises in the KCA argument are likely to be true

Throughout this thread you'll find reasons to think otherwise.

Just wondering do you always have such high and unrealistic standards? Or do you have these standards only with stuff that has theological implications that you personally don’t like?

I'm entirely agnostic about whether the universe is finite in the past, and about whether there is some larger context in which it might possibly have has a cause. I'm just pointing out the we don't know these things and making assumptions about them is basically just guessing.

It is still a fact that evolution is based on arguments that cant be proven with 100% certainty , so by your standards you should reject this theory.

Just like every other theory in science. Science works on the basis of testing its theories against the evidence. The evidence for evolution is more than enough to put it beyond reasonable doubt.

(responding to the red letters above)

You are assuming that causality is part of time, this assumption requires evidence.

The idea of equating time and causality seems arbitrary, why are you making such an affirmation?

How do you think one thing can cause another without time?

 

[ratiocinator]

We can observe that they interact with each other.
Theory of GR explains how they interact.

No. GR (like other theories in science) has a model. This model defines space-time in a certain (mathematical) way. We test that model against reality and find that it makes accurate predictions. We can then conclude that it is a good representation of what space-time is.

It says nothing about the nature of time itself.

It has an accurate model of what space-time is.

If we define time as being part of the universe, then one can't turn around and say that GR shows that time has a beginning.

GR was developed from special relativity and basically explained gravity. It was then applied to the universe as a whole and that too was shown to make accurate predictions. So the conclusions about the nature of space time are based on evidence, not an arbitrary definition.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..the conclusions about the nature of space time are based on evidence, not an arbitrary definition.

I'm not saying that GR is not based on evidence.
It is a model to show how measured physical quantities behave in our universe.
You can't make any conclusions about the absolute nature of 'time' as it is something we have already defined as being part of the universe.
It doesn't make it so. It is a convenience in order to construct a model.

 

[ratiocinator]

I'm not saying that GR is not based on evidence.
It is a model to show how measured physical quantities behave in our universe.
You can't make any conclusions about the absolute nature of 'time' as it is something we have already defined as being part of the universe.
It doesn't make it so. It is a convenience in order to construct a model.

It's a model of space-time. We know that actual space-time behaves like the model because that's been tested. You are just clinging to a different, older (Newtonian) model, which is more intuitive but also wrong because the universe doesn't behave like that.

This is the only way in which we find out anything about the universe. You're like somebody criticising Copernicus for suggesting that the sun is actually at the centre of the solar system because it's just a model that matches the way we see the planets move in the night sky.

 

[rational experiences]

Man theist stands O on earth says he is the heavens

One mass allows any other type of change to exist as a varied self expression.

Said God earth O mass and position 1.

1 of O centre of his thesis.

Says space is empty I cannot count it.

Said 00000000000000000000.

Earth. 1 plus next body destroyed gone removed as empty space quantified it was gone by 0000000000000000.

Looking at stars O one 1 is gone he said.

I proved O God in cohabitation gods were destroyed in a God war. O UFO alien caused by radiation causes.

If I said 1 O mass to 1 O mass a God it was stated by evidence 000000000.

Not as many 000000000 to another planet.

Why I knew eternal no space existed no creation was first. It's being changed its body. OOOOOOOO gods were released blew exploded burnt as the angels. Mass.

Lots of O gone. Opened space.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You are just clinging to a different, older (Newtonian) model, which is more intuitive but also wrong because the universe doesn't behave like that.

I'm not doing anything of the sort. You are just ignoring the issue.
The definition of time is part of BOTH models.

As we have already defined time, it would be a circular argument to make any conclusions about its nature outside of the universe.

One may assume that time is a property of the universe.
That is what we do, in order to construct a model.

It doesn't mean that time actually IS only a property of the universe, just because we define it so.
Similarly, we define time in one particular frame of reference.
It doesn't mean that there aren't other frames.

 

[ratiocinator]

As we have already defined time, it would be a circular argument to make any conclusions about its nature outside of the universe.

It's nothing but a guess to assume that "outside the universe" refers to anything at all. There are hypotheses about that, based on various assumptions that seem reasonable in the light of what we do know, but you're not even offering us any basis at all for your continued assertions about it.

What we have is a model of space-time that matches reality to the extent we have been able to test it. That is the only evidence based description so far available to us. That description (general relativity) indicates that it could have had a start. In fact, if we only use that description it becomes inevitable that it did, but we have good reason to think that the description becomes inadequate before we get back to that starting point, so it remains an open question.

One may assume that time is a property of the universe.

It's not an assumption. The universe is all we have access to, and space-time is undoubtedly a part of the description of the universe.

Similarly, we define time in one particular frame of reference.

Just wrong. The whole basis of relativity is that it applies to different frames of reference which see time differently.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It's not an assumption. The universe is all we have access to..

Then you have no business in making any conclusions about anything that may be outside the universe, using definitions that are only valid for this universe.
You can't have it both ways.

 

[ratiocinator]

Then you have no business in making any conclusions about anything that may be outside the universe, using definitions that are only valid for this universe.
You can't have it both ways.

It's not actually me who is trying to make the case one way or the other. It's you who made the claim that time couldn't have a start.

You are, of course, free to make as many baseless, unfalsifiable guesses as you want, but nobody else is obliged to take any notice of them unless you can give some reasoning or evidence. The universe may have been sneezed out of the nose of The Great Green Arkleseizure and we should all be fearing The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief - but why would you take that seriously?

The evidence leaves the question of a start of time open. We just don't know.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The evidence leaves the question of a start of time open. We just don't know.

..and that says nothing.
You object that there could be a first cause, because "you don't know" whether time has a start or not?

 

[ratiocinator]

You object that there could be a first cause, because "you don't know" whether time has a start or not?

I didn't object to a first cause, I pointed out that the argument was unsound because the premises were highly questionable. As was also pointed out, it's not even an argument for a first cause just for a cause for the universe, and there are problems with it whether time is finite in the past or not.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm not doing anything of the sort. You are just ignoring the issue.
The definition of time is part of BOTH models.

As we have already defined time, it would be a circular argument to make any conclusions about its nature outside of the universe.

One may assume that time is a property of the universe.
That is what we do, in order to construct a model.

It doesn't mean that time actually IS only a property of the universe, just because we define it so.
Similarly, we define time in one particular frame of reference.
It doesn't mean that there aren't other frames.

But you are the one assuming that time makes sense outside of spacetime, which is literally all of space and time. The universe is *defined* to be that spacetime manifold.

And you make this assumption without any observational support, nor any logical support other than 'how do you know it can't be defined outside'?

 

[Polymath257]

Then you have no business in making any conclusions about anything that may be outside the universe, using definitions that are only valid for this universe.
You can't have it both ways.

And you have no basis to say that there *is* anything outside of the universe.

Of the two positions, I'll take the one talking about something we know exists.

 

[Polymath257]

..and that says nothing.
You object that there could be a first cause, because "you don't know" whether time has a start or not?

Yes, the argument fails because that is not known.

'Could be a first cause' is different than 'must be a first cause'. The first cause argument claims to prove the latter, not the former.

 

[muhammad_isa]

And you have no basis to say that there *is* anything outside of the universe..

I think that I do..
I don't believe something can happen without a cause.
You cite quantum events as having no cause, but that is not true.

If we assume that the universe had a beginning, that does not imply that time has a beginning. Objects come and go. Time does not. It just *is*.

 

[ratiocinator]

You cite quantum events as having no cause, but that is not true.

Unsupported assertion and contradicted by current evidence.

If we assume that the universe had a beginning, that does not imply that time has a beginning. Objects come and go. Time does not. It just *is*.

Unsupported assertion and contradicted by current evidence.

 

[Polymath257]

I think that I do..
I don't believe something can happen without a cause.
You cite quantum events as having no cause, but that is not true.

Then please tell everyone what their cause is. I think you are claiming this solely because you don't want to give up on a first cause.

If we assume that the universe had a beginning, that does not imply that time has a beginning. Objects come and go. Time does not. It just *is*.

So time does not have a cause?