Which existed first "something" or "nothing"?

[viole]

I'm sure you can and already have looked up what the logic of infinite regress is.
Infinite regress is the proposition that there is a perpetual motion machine and you can run the idea by the patent office if you like and they can explain the error to you or you can look at our reality and see what is there to be seen.
We have never observed / experienced an infinite sequence of causes/effects and if infinite regression were true then we would be existing during a point along that infinite action of cause and affect so, ultimately we should never be able to observe an effect that is not also a cause but, physics has shown that every effect comes from a greater cause, thus an effect is always of less potential than its cause with which we can easily conclude that the potential of an effect to be causal diminishes to the point where it can no longer cause anything and it will simply remain an effect. An example; Scientists have asserted that heat death of the universe will leave the universe at equilibrium and unable to do any further work or cause a further effect. Thus, it is logical that there is neither an infinite regression or progression of causality based on the simple observable evidence of effects being less than their cause and eventually ending in uselessness. If you can see infinity end then you weren't observing infinity and you cannot assert that infinity occurred previous to your point in time since all points in time would be part of infinite time.

I would like to challenge that.

Even if the time interval since the "beginning" of the Universe is bounded (13 billions years and change), what leads you to think that the Universe today, or any of its constituents, is not the product of an infinite sequence of causes and effects? I fail to see the logical necessity of your conclusion.

It is very easy to imagine an infinite sequence of causes/effects events that unfold in any limited time interval of your choice. For instance, one day.

Ciao

- viole

 

[paarsurrey]

One might also say that time has always existed since it is an opinion just like Hawkings is and just because he assumes that events before what is conceived as the big bang event are not observable doesn't give him license to assume that time itself could be affected by it. All they know for sure is that the current structure of the universe began from a point and appears to be expanding away from that point. That doesn't mean there wasn't anything existing before the event. It simply means that a cause began an effect at a specific point in time and in a specific place.

And yours is also an opinion.
What are your sources to know that time always existed and also that time creates something?
Regards

 

[KBC1963]

I would like to challenge that.

Even if the time interval since the "beginning" of the Universe is bounded (13 billions years and change), what leads you to think that the Universe today, or any of its constituents, is not the product of an infinite sequence of causes and effects? I fail to see the logical necessity of your conclusion.
It is very easy to imagine an infinite sequence of causes/effects events that unfold in any limited time interval of your choice. For instance, one day.
Ciao - viole

I gave you the rationale if you choose not to accept it then you can carry your argument into infinity unless of course you meet an end

 

[viole]

I gave you the rationale if you choose not to accept it then you can carry your argument into infinity unless of course you meet an end

I am not sure i would call it (a) rationale. It looks like a bold statement without logical justification to me.

There is no logically necessity to meet an end, at least as far as I can see. But I am afraid you made the positive claim: infinite regress can be excluded given the current state of the Universe.

Why is that? Do you think it is a logical necessity or a nomological one?

What do you think?

Ciao

- viole

 

[KBC1963]

And yours is also an opinion.
What are your sources to know that time always existed and also that time creates something? Regards

There would be no source to show anything about time and no one alive can provide a scientific rationale about it either. All assertions about time are entirely based on belief since time is not a thing we can test or that we could attribute to any known cause. Even the biblical message has no direct assertion about time beginning in fact that message alludes to the creator existing for eternity. I would rationalize that logically an uncaused cause has to exist and would of necessity exist within time since it would need to go from a point of non-creating to a point of creating since the observable evidence does not show the proposed cause of the arrangement in this universe to be still acting so apparently the cause is not a constantly acting one.
Further I did not assert that time creates anything.

 

[KBC1963]

I am not sure i would call it (a) rationale. It looks like a bold statement without logical justification to me.
There is no logically necessity to meet an end, at least as far as I can see. But I am afraid you made the positive claim: infinite regress can be excluded given the current state of the Universe.
Why is that? Do you think it is a logical necessity or a nomological one? What do you think? Ciao - viole

what does logic have to do with the observable evidence that every effect is less than every cause? If you can show any instance where any effect can cause a greater effect than the cause that began the effect before it then you might be able to build a case for perpetual motion but so far you have nothing and all the evidence points in one direction. So, If you want to believe in a perpetual motion mechanism be my guest there are also people who still believe the earth is flat go figure.

 

[viole]

what does logic have to do with the observable evidence that every effect is less than every cause? If you can show any instance where any effect can cause a greater effect than the cause that began the effect before it then you might be able to build a case for perpetual motion but so far you have nothing and all the evidence points in one direction. So, If you want to believe in a perpetual motion mechanism be my guest there are also people who still believe the earth is flat go figure.

Perpetual motion has nothing to do with an infinite chain of causes effects. It has to do with thermodynamic, or statistical, irreversibility. I think you are confusing things here. If not, please show me the source of your inference that connects infinite regress with perpetuum motion, or any other thermodynamical issues.

Again, what prevents a (possibly irreversible) process, burning entropy and all that and leading to thermal death if you want, to be an infinite chain of causes and effects (that could unfold in a bounded amount of time)?

What do you think?

Ciao

- viole

 

[KBC1963]

Perpetual motion has nothing to do with an infinite chain of causes effects. It has to do with thermodynamic, or statistical, irreversibility. I think you are confusing things here. If not, please show me the source of your inference that connects infinite regress with perpetuum motion, or any other thermodynamical issues. Again, what prevents a (possibly irreversible) process, burning entropy and all that and leading to thermal death if you want, to be an infinite chain of causes and effects (that could unfold in a bounded amount of time)?

Obviously you don't quite understand how the chain is progressing and If you don't comprehend the causal chain as it has been unfolding since observable record then there is nothing I can say to illuminate your understanding. So before you ask me to answer any other silly questions you will need to first explain to my satisfaction that you understand how a cause has the ability to make an effect.

 

[viole]

Obviously you don't quite understand how the chain is progressing and If you don't comprehend the causal chain as it has been unfolding since observable record then there is nothing I can say to illuminate your understanding. So before you ask me to answer any other silly questions you will need to first explain to my satisfaction that you understand how a cause has the ability to make an effect.

It is entirely possible that I do not understand. And that is the main reason why I asked you, who understands it so well. Allegedely.

So, again, explain to me in simple words how an infinite chain of events could NOT have possibly lead to the current state of the Universe. You made the claim. Now prove it us. In a logical airtight manner if possible.

Until now I just read your claim without any justification that might support it. Should I believe it just because you said so?

Ciao

- viole

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Obviously you don't quite understand how the chain is progressing and If you don't comprehend the causal chain

“for a linear system any efficient cause can be arbitrarily divided into components (C1, C2, . . . , Cn), whereupon the effect will be correspondingly divided into (E1,E2, . . . , En). Although convenient for analysis – providing a basis for Fourier analysis and Green function methods – this property is not usually found in the realms of biological, cognitive, and social sciences [25, 27, 29].

Far more common is the nonlinear situation, where the effect from the sum of two causes is not equal to the sum of the individual effects. The whole is not equal to the sum of its parts. Nonlinearity is less convenient for the analyst because multiple causes interact among themselves, allowing possibilities for many more outcomes, obscuring relations between cause and effect and confounding the constructionist. For just this reason, nonlinearity plays a key role in the course of biological evolution and the organization of the human mind.”
Scott, A. (2006). Physicalism, Chaos and Reductionism. In J. Tuszynski (Ed.) The Emerging Physics of Consciousness (pp. 171-191). Springer.

Or more directly:

“Instabilities, in turn, arise from closed causal loops…with A causing B and B, in turn, causing A.”
Scott, A. C. (2007). The Nonlinear Universe: Chaos, Emergence, Life. Springer.

So before you ask me to answer any other silly questions you will need to first explain to my satisfaction that you understand how a cause has the ability to make an effect.

Emergence, downward causation, feedbacks, synchronization, closure to efficient causation (functional processes with causal efficacy) which is similar to closed causal loops, CTCs, acausality (as in the nonlocal synchronization of quantum systems or the emergence of both causally efficacious "virtual" particles and the emergence of actual particles out of nothing), etc.

 

[KBC1963]

It is entirely possible that I do not understand. And that is the main reason why I asked you, who understands it so well. Allegedely.
So, again, explain to me in simple words how an infinite chain of events could NOT have possibly lead to the current state of the Universe. You made the claim. Now prove it us. In a logical airtight manner if possible.
Until now I just read your claim without any justification that might support it. Should I believe it just because you said so? Ciao - viole

I did explain exactly why you cannot posit an infinite regression of cause and note here that I do not have to prove that some thought you may have, cannot be possible. Scientific inquiry and thought must be based on what we can observe in the here and now and if we cannot posit and test a perpetuity being possible and still ongoing such as a perpetual motion mechanism then you cannot posit that it is possible. Your manner of forming the question has the intent of trying to force that if I can't prove it wrong that this allows for it to be possible but, the truth is that science doesn't function that way.
No rational scientist would every take up the task of trying to prove there is no god right? The normal answer to an assertion of god is to "show me the evidence for this cause" and then I will consider your assertion so, if you wish to have perpetual causation to be considered possible you must first show the evidence for it just like any other hypothesis since, every observable evidence so far shows non-perpetuity.

Now here would be a good question to answer if you would like to pursue an assertion that an infinite regression is possible. Form a rational explanation for how the energy that was expended in the forming of this universe (which we now understand is in constant motion away from that point in space where it was first caused to occur and is actually spreading apart as it moves through space) could be recombined back into the same causal form that originated it to begin with without expending more energy to recombine it and explain how it would occur before or after all the energized matter reaches that state where it is essentially reduced to being just another part of the Cosmic microwave background.

Oh you would also have to determine how current space would be able to return to nothing because remember according to the BBT there was nothing and then it became something including space itself.

 

[KBC1963]

Emergence, downward causation, feedbacks, synchronization, closure to efficient causation (functional processes with causal efficacy) which is similar to closed causal loops, CTCs, acausality (as in the nonlocal synchronization of quantum systems or the emergence of both causally efficacious "virtual" particles and the emergence of actual particles out of nothing), etc.

Something from Nothing? A Vacuum Can Yield Flashes of Light
A vacuum might seem like empty space, but scientists have discovered a new way to seemingly get something from that nothingness, such as light.....
...The investigators caution that such experiments do not constitute a magical way to get more energy out of a system than what is input. For instance, it takes energy to change a material's index of refraction.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/something-from-nothing-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light/

Does Quantum Field Theory allow the Universe to emerge from nothing?
As we know, many cosmologists argue that the Universe emerged out of nothing, for example Hawking-Mlodinow (Grand Design, 2010), and Lawrence Krauss, see http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/a-universe-from-nothing/. Most of their arguments rely on conviction that the Universe emerged out of vacuum fluctuations.
While that kind of argument may sound interesting, it is too weak argument in particular from the viewpoint of Quantum Field Theory. In QFT, the quantum vaccuum is far from the classical definition of vaccuum ("nothing"), but it is an active field which consists of virtual particles. Theoretically, under special external field (such as strong laser), those virtual particles can turn to become real particle, this effect is known as Schwinger effect.
Of course, some cosmologists argue in favor of the so-called Cosmological Schwinger effect, which essentially says that under strong gravitational field some virtual particles can be pushed to become real particles. Therefore, if we want to put this idea of pair production into cosmological setting, we find at least two possibilities from QFT:
a. The universe may have beginning from vacuum fluctuations, but it needs a very large laser or other external field to trigger the Schwinger effect. But then one can ask: Who triggered that laser in the beginning?
b. In the beginning there could be strong gravitational field which triggered Cosmological Schwinger effect. But how could it be possible because in the beginning nothing exists including large gravitational field? So it seems like a tautology.
http://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_Quantum_Field_Theory_allow_the_Universe_to_emerge_from_nothing

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Something from Nothing? A Vacuum Can Yield Flashes of Light
A vacuum might seem like empty space, but scientists have discovered a new way to seemingly get something from that nothingness, such as light.....
...The investigators caution that such experiments do not constitute a magical way to get more energy out of a system than what is input. For instance, it takes energy to change a material's index of refraction.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/something-from-nothing-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light/

Does Quantum Field Theory allow the Universe to emerge from nothing?
As we know, many cosmologists argue that the Universe emerged out of nothing, for example Hawking-Mlodinow (Grand Design, 2010), and Lawrence Krauss, see http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/a-universe-from-nothing/. Most of their arguments rely on conviction that the Universe emerged out of vacuum fluctuations.
While that kind of argument may sound interesting, it is too weak argument in particular from the viewpoint of Quantum Field Theory. In QFT, the quantum vaccuum is far from the classical definition of vaccuum ("nothing"), but it is an active field which consists of virtual particles. Theoretically, under special external field (such as strong laser), those virtual particles can turn to become real particle, this effect is known as Schwinger effect.
Of course, some cosmologists argue in favor of the so-called Cosmological Schwinger effect, which essentially says that under strong gravitational field some virtual particles can be pushed to become real particles. Therefore, if we want to put this idea of pair production into cosmological setting, we find at least two possibilities from QFT:
a. The universe may have beginning from vacuum fluctuations, but it needs a very large laser or other external field to trigger the Schwinger effect. But then one can ask: Who triggered that laser in the beginning?
b. In the beginning there could be strong gravitational field which triggered Cosmological Schwinger effect. But how could it be possible because in the beginning nothing exists including large gravitational field? So it seems like a tautology.
http://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_Quantum_Field_Theory_allow_the_Universe_to_emerge_from_nothing

You selected a single answer and applied it to a question I didn't actually answer. You stated:

So before you ask me to answer any other silly questions you will need to first explain to my satisfaction that you understand how a cause has the ability to make an effect.

I gave you examples of "how a cause has the ability to make an effect." In return, you quote from an RG discussion of the relationship between QFT and the big bang.

 

[viole]

I did explain exactly why you cannot posit an infinite regression of cause and note here that I do not have to prove that some thought you may have, cannot be possible. Scientific inquiry and thought must be based on what we can observe in the here and now and if we cannot posit and test a perpetuity being possible and still ongoing such as a perpetual motion mechanism then you cannot posit that it is possible. Your manner of forming the question has the intent of trying to force that if I can't prove it wrong that this allows for it to be possible but, the truth is that science doesn't function that way.
No rational scientist would every take up the task of trying to prove there is no god right? The normal answer to an assertion of god is to "show me the evidence for this cause" and then I will consider your assertion so, if you wish to have perpetual causation to be considered possible you must first show the evidence for it just like any other hypothesis since, every observable evidence so far shows non-perpetuity.

Now here would be a good question to answer if you would like to pursue an assertion that an infinite regression is possible. Form a rational explanation for how the energy that was expended in the forming of this universe (which we now understand is in constant motion away from that point in space where it was first caused to occur and is actually spreading apart as it moves through space) could be recombined back into the same causal form that originated it to begin with without expending more energy to recombine it and explain how it would occur before or after all the energized matter reaches that state where it is essentially reduced to being just another part of the Cosmic microwave background.

Oh you would also have to determine how current space would be able to return to nothing because remember according to the BBT there was nothing and then it became something including space itself.

I think you are confusing logic with nomologic. Something is nomologically impossible if it violates the laws of nature, whatever they are. If something is nomologically impossible, that does not entail that it is logically impossible.

For instance, I do not see logical contradictions in positing that I can fly by flapping my arms, even though the laws of nature prohibit me to do that. Miracles are another example of things that are logically but not nomologically possible, by definition .

The other way round is not necessarily true. If something violates the laws of logic then, I believe, it will also violate the laws of nature.

So, in the interest of putting some structure on the discussion, do you think that an infinite regress is impossible logically or nomologically?

Ciao

- viole

 

[ArtieE]

So, in the interest of putting some structure on the discussion, do you think that an infinite regress is impossible logically or nomologically?

Ciao

- viole

http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/INFINITE-REGRESS-Argument-for-Creation-REFUTED
http://www.philosophyetc.net/2006/04/unchanging-time-and-infinite-past.html

 

[viole]

http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/INFINITE-REGRESS-Argument-for-Creation-REFUTED
http://www.philosophyetc.net/2006/04/unchanging-time-and-infinite-past.html

Infinite past?

What makes the apologist think that infinite regress entails infinite past?

i think this is another fallacy that needs to be addressed.

- viole

 

[KBC1963]

I gave you examples of "how a cause has the ability to make an effect." In return, you quote from an RG discussion of the relationship between QFT and the big bang.

Your were not asked to show me how a cause has the ability to make an effect. You attempted an answer that in part inferred emergence possibly allowing that something can come from nothing. So I gave you an answer to that.

 

[KBC1963]

So, in the interest of putting some structure on the discussion, do you think that an infinite regress is impossible logically or nomologically?
Ciao - viole

In what manner of logic do you feel that I have been answering you?
My position is and continues to be "that you can't posit infinite causality as a possibility because you don't possess the required evidence for its existence".

Without evidence to assert the possibility of such a concept your attempt to take it down any path of logic based reasoning is dead before you can even begin. You have never experience infinity and you have never seen anything that functions in an infinitely causal manner within our reality so, how could you propose that you could form a logic based argument for something you have no actual referential understanding of?
All of the understanding man has about the possibility of infinity comes directly out of our own heads and being that it is entirely conceptual and has no foundation in our experience then no one can apply any logical argument for how it could exist or function in our reality. This is why I pointed out it is no different than trying to applying your question to the denial for the existence of a god. You simply can't form a logic based argument that I would try to refute by any form of logic.
If you want to logically argue for the existence of a god or the existence of infinite causality you can certainly spend hours coming up with what may seem like a form of logic to argue with but none of it holds any value in any discussion about our reality. Once you have gone beyond the ability of the scientific method to support your imagination it cannot be considered more than just imagination.

 

[viole]

In what manner of logic do you feel that I have been answering you?
My position is and continues to be "that you can't posit infinite causality as a possibility because you don't possess the required evidence for its existence".

Do you possess the required evidence that allows you to posit God as a possibility?

Ciao

- viole

 

[ArtieE]

So you have a cause and then an effect and then a cause and then an effect as links in a chain... but then the second cause would have been caused by an effect and not a cause... how does that work?