It can be said of any proposal that does not circumvent causality.
So, are you saying that the universe, and therefor time, has no beginning? Science has observed that there was a defined beginning point. There are theories that posit an initial cause for the big bang, thereby circumventing causality, as you say.
I assume it because if the creator was not created, the universe would not necessarily need to have been created.
That only follows if the universe has the same powers, faculties, and nature (separate from his character) God has. You know, omnipotence, omni-presence and so on. God is able to to be the first cause and to circumvent causality because of who He is. God possesses traits the universe does not.
__________________
Just a thought,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Johan
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Only if his omnipotence is separated from his other traits, namely rationality, wisdom, glory, and will.
For all anyone knows, God made a square circle in some 7nth dimension that might just make our minds implode if we saw it.
__________________
Just a thought,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Johan
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
That's self-contradicting. As we've established and agreed, the absence of anything cannot do anything. Therefor, it doesn't matter that there's nothing to prevent anything from happening, nothing will happen.
Non sequitur. We've agreed that the absence itself will not be the cause. That doesn't mean nothing will happen. The whole point is that an event can occur without a cause. In the absence of anything, you can still get events, since not all events require a prior cause, so the absence doesn't bother them.
However, I don't see how you conclude that nothing will ever happen, just because there's no cause. You seem to be assuming that everything must have a cause, which is not necessarily the case (prove me wrong).
Originally Posted by TheLowlyTortoise
Prove that they are un-caused events.
We use quantum mechanics to explain the behaviour of radioactive particles, and it tells us that it is uncaused, probabilistic, quantum tunnelling that results in such decay events.
Originally Posted by TheLowlyTortoise
I argue that their cause is rooted in the uncertainty principle. They may not have any direct cause, but indirect cause is still cause.
Perhaps, but what does the uncertainty principle have to do with anything?
Originally Posted by TheLowlyTortoise
Spontaneous doesn't mean without cause.
Really? Then what does it mean?
Going by internet definitions:
happening or arising without apparent external cause; "spontaneous laughter"; "spontaneous combustion"; "a spontaneous abortion"
Self generated; happening without any apparent external cause; Done by one's own free choice, or without planning; proceeding from natural feeling or native tendency without external constraint; arising from a momentary impulse; controlled and directed internally : self-active : spontaneous ... en.wiktionary.org/wiki/spontaneous
occurring in the flora without the direct assistance of people, but not firmly established as part of the flora. Spontaneous plants are present from sexual or asexual reproduction, not being intentionally planted or deposited by people or their activities (plants are present via natural causes). www.hsu.edu/default.aspx
A spontaneous process is defined as one which will either occur immediately at room temperature, or which, once initiated by heating, will sustain itself until the start materials are exhausted. www.everyscience.com/Chemistry/Glossary/S.php
An unconstrained form of divination, free from any particular medium, and actually a generalization of all types of divination. ... www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Ceromancy
spontaneity - Once a watchword of advanced art interested in unpremeditated self-expression (see expression theory), spontaneity is now regarded with suspicion. ...
The germane ones almost explicitly state that it is that which occurs without external cause.
Originally Posted by TheLowlyTortoise
What is this finite possibility that it might happen? That's the epitome of redundancy. There is a finite possibility that it's possible. Well, there's a possibility that anything's possible. That's hardly scientific.
No need to get pedantic. You know what I meant.
Originally Posted by TheLowlyTortoise
Perhaps no cause has been discovered (doesn't mean it's not there). Quite plausibly, the cause has to do with the uncertainty principle, where pairs of physical properties cannot be known to arbitrary precision. Or, the universe operates according to some law that because something might happen, it eventually will. Either is an indirect cause, but a cause nonetheless.
True, but that doesn't mean a cause actually exists. It has been proven that such 'hidden variable' theories are incompatible with quantum mechanics.
I'm not sure what the uncertainty principle has to do with anything, though.
Originally Posted by TheLowlyTortoise
Comparing how something works in a physical universe with laws to govern it is nonparallel to non-existence.
But it nonetheless shows that such a scenario is possible. Unless you can logically refute my idea, we must acknowledge that it is a possible scenario. Unless someone logically disproves God, I acknowledge that his existence is possible.
Originally Posted by TheLowlyTortoise
My question is this: Can something be said to exist without a conscious entity to observe it?
Yes, despite what these New Agey people might tell you about the observer effect.
Originally Posted by TheLowlyTortoise
Then the internet does not exist. The hardware in the computers and servers does, but the software doesn't, because software is not a physical entity. We can maybe see the 1's and 0's on the disk, but those aren't even physically 1's and 0's. My thoughts and feelings do not exist. Thoughts aren't neurons firing, thoughts are intangible - not physical entities. The physical neurons and pathways in the brain are just messages or physical representations of thoughts and feelings.
The internet exists in the same way a boat exists: even though it's just planks of wood, which are in turn just atoms of carbon and hydrogen, the sum total is designated a 'boat'. It exists in that what we call a 'boat' is a a quasi-stable pattern of atoms.
Likewise, the Internet exists in that it is the sum total of the machines that make it up. It's an emergent phenomenon.
Originally Posted by TheLowlyTortoise
Mathematics exists in much the same way that the internet does, or the way your operating system exists. Intangible things are still things that exist.
See above. Mathematics is not the same as the internet, since the latter ultimately boils downs to atoms.
__________________
A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone.
- Charles Darwin
"I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right."
- Stargate: SG1
What can be asserted without reason, can be denied without reason.
- Anon
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
If either of our reasoning on this point is a non sequitur, it's yours:
Originally Posted by Wiccan_Child
I agree that nothing begets nothing. The absence of anything itself is not a thing, 'it' cannot do anything, because it's not anything.
From this, it doesn't simply follow that something can happen at all, regardless of being unlimited. Either there's a step missing, or it's simply not logical. There must be a step which includes possibility in the scenario of non-existence, because there's nothing inherent in nothingness that says there is possibility.
We've agreed that the absence itself will not be the cause. That doesn't mean nothing will happen. The whole point is that an event can occur without a cause. In the absence of anything, you can still get events, since not all events require a prior cause, so the absence doesn't bother them.
You still haven't shown an example of an event that happens without cause. (More on this further down.)
However, I don't see how you conclude that nothing will ever happen, just because there's no cause. You seem to be assuming that everything must have a cause, which is not necessarily the case (prove me wrong).
The burden of proof is yours. You say it's possible, I've seen no evidence of this possibility.
We use quantum mechanics to explain the behaviour of radioactive particles, and it tells us that it is uncaused, probabilistic, quantum tunnelling that results in such decay events.
Quantum mechanics says it happens because of probability and the uncertainty principles. These are indirect causes. (i.e. not Causality, which is direct.) Perhaps it could be called antecedent cause. The existence of probability permits these events of quantum mechanics. Therefor, probability eventually causes these events, though not actively.
Perhaps, but what does the uncertainty principle have to do with anything?
Sorry, I thought you were at least as familiar with the mechanics of radioactive decay as I made myself for this discussion.
A decay event requires a specific activation energy. For a snow avalanche, this energy comes as a disturbance from outside the system, although such disturbances can be arbitrarily small. In the case of an excited atomic nucleus, the arbitrarily small disturbance comes from quantum vacuum fluctuations. A radioactive nucleus (or any excited system in quantum mechanics) is unstable, and can thus spontaneously stabilize to a less-excited system.
A vacuum fluctuation, or virtual particle is a particle that exists for a limited time and space, introducing uncertainty in their energy and momentum due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
So, as you can see, the uncertainty principle has everything to do with radioactive decay.
Really? Then what does it mean?
Going by internet definitions:
happening or arising without apparent external cause; "spontaneous laughter"; "spontaneous combustion"; "a spontaneous abortion"
Self generated; happening without any apparent external cause; Done by one's own free choice, or without planning; proceeding from natural feeling or native tendency without external constraint; arising from a momentary impulse; controlled and directed internally : self-active : spontaneous ... en.wiktionary.org/wiki/spontaneous
occurring in the flora without the direct assistance of people, but not firmly established as part of the flora. Spontaneous plants are present from sexual or asexual reproduction, not being intentionally planted or deposited by people or their activities (plants are present via natural causes). www.hsu.edu/default.aspx
A spontaneous process is defined as one which will either occur immediately at room temperature, or which, once initiated by heating, will sustain itself until the start materials are exhausted. www.everyscience.com/Chemistry/Glossary/S.php
An unconstrained form of divination, free from any particular medium, and actually a generalization of all types of divination. ... www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Ceromancy
spontaneity - Once a watchword of advanced art interested in unpremeditated self-expression (see expression theory), spontaneity is now regarded with suspicion. ...
The germane ones almost explicitly state that it is that which occurs without external cause.
I'm curious why you included so many denotations that don't fit the connotation of a spontaneous quantum event, such as ad-lib speaking, biological terms, or guitar music theory. Stuttering? Occult divination? What does that have to do with anything? (That's the Ceromancy one.)
I use dictionary.com. I find it concise and accurate.
1. coming or resulting from a natural impulse or tendency; without effort or premeditation; natural and unconstrained; unplanned: a spontaneous burst of applause.
2. (of a person) given to acting upon sudden impulses.
3. (of natural phenomena) arising from internal forces or causes; independent of external agencies; self-acting.
4. growing naturally or without cultivation, as plants and fruits; indigenous.
5. produced by natural process.
Your definition of occurring without external cause applies only to external cause, not all cause, as is shown of natural phenomena in definition 3. Spontaneous doesn't mean without cause, only that the timeline of the event(s) can't be predicted.
No need to get pedantic. You know what I meant.
How could I ever be sure that I understand your meaning? I believe it's up to each of us individually to be careful with our own words and phrasing. It's not pedantic to point out obfuscation.
True, but that doesn't mean a cause actually exists. It has been proven that such 'hidden variable' theories are incompatible with quantum mechanics.
That's not accurate. Local hidden variables in quantum mechanics have been ruled out. Non-local hidden variables have been posited, and are still a possible explanation.
I'm not sure what the uncertainty principle has to do with anything, though.
See above.
But it nonetheless shows that such a scenario is possible. Unless you can logically refute my idea, we must acknowledge that it is a possible scenario. Unless someone logically disproves God, I acknowledge that his existence is possible.
The set of possibility and probability of the proposed non-universe are entirely different from those of this universe, therefor what can happen in this universe is not a direct indication of what could happen in any other. Besides, you still haven't produced an event in this universe that has no cause. Radioactive decay has a cause, and so do the mechanics within the decay event. Further, I maintain that probability and possibility are things - being that they are quantifiable and able to be the object of critical thinking. Anything that is or may become an object of thought is defined as a thing (dictionary.com). Therefor it exists on some level, though not physically. Physical existence is not the only type of existence, is it? All this shows that in a non-existence, nothingness, a complete void of anything. . . nothing exists, and there is no such thing as probability to produce events out of sheer chance. So unless there is some other mechanism or function inherent in 'nothing', it will simply remain nothing - there will be no initial event.
Yes, despite what these New Agey people might tell you about the observer effect.
I know not what new agey people you refer. The only thing I've ever learned about existence from anyone is Descartes' cogito ergo sum. By the way, Descartes agrees with me (though he thought of it first) that thought is a thing. "Thought exists."
I was only considering my own thoughts on the matter. I don't see how anything can be said to exist without an observer. The manner in which the object is observed directly relates to the manner of the thing's existence. For example, math exists intellectually because we can use it and think about it. We can't hold it, or see it directly, so of course it doesn't exist physically. But we can "see" it mentally. Barring the existence of God, math was brought into existence by an initial observation of probably either addition or subtraction, and progressed from there. I don't think it can be said that math pre-existed this initial observation.
The internet exists in the same way a boat exists: even though it's just planks of wood, which are in turn just atoms of carbon and hydrogen, the sum total is designated a 'boat'. It exists in that what we call a 'boat' is a a quasi-stable pattern of atoms.
The internet, colloquially, is not a quasi-stable pattern of atoms. It's not physical. Technically speaking, the internet is the collection of hardware all linked together across the globe, but those are not the internet we observe. The internet we see and use is software which accesses the hardware. This is not the same sort of existence as a boat.
Likewise, the Internet exists in that it is the sum total of the machines that make it up. It's an emergent phenomenon.
Yet, thought is not the sum of the mechanisms behind it? What about math, or even beauty? Your idea of a thing seems to be limited to only those objects from which you can see a physical existence. Very limited indeed.
See above. Mathematics is not the same as the internet, since the latter ultimately boils downs to atoms.
What do you think brought about mathematics? The fact that two apples and two oranges have something in common, or that my two apples and someone else's two apples make four. Bam, math boils down to atoms. Just because it's an abstract (which seems to be the difference in your connotation of a thing) you can't rule out that it's a thing. Abstracts exist.
__________________
Just a thought,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Johan
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
The big bang isn't the "beginning" of time, it's simply the beginning of time as we know it. The theory of general relativity points out that gravity and time are linked, just as electricity and magnetism. Electromagnetism and spacetime. As gravity increases, time appears to slow. As mass and density increase, so does gravity. Now, try and picture what time would be like with all of the mass in the universe condensed into a tiny little speck.
The big bang isn't the "beginning" of time, it's simply the beginning of time as we know it. The theory of general relativity points out that gravity and time are linked, just as electricity and magnetism. Electromagnetism and spacetime. As gravity increases, time appears to slow. As mass and density increase, so does gravity. Now, try and picture what time would be like with all of the mass in the universe condensed into a tiny little speck.
Yet, general relativity breaks down at the singularity in the big bang, so how is that link between gravity and time still there?
__________________
Just a thought,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Johan
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Yet, general relativity breaks down at the singularity in the big bang, so how is that link between gravity and time still there?
We don't know. We don't know what was "before" the big bang, we don't know what existence was like. That's like asking what happens to gravity and spacetime at the event horizon of a black hole. The point was, you can't imagine what spacetime would've been like "before" the big bang. All we know is that it existed. The big bang was an expansion of it. As to what caused it, or even if cause and effect was even something that would've held any meaning, we can only speculate, at the moment.
We're not afraid to say "We don't know.", on the contrary, it's better to say that and try and find out, than it is to use a god of the gaps to fill in what we obviously don't understand yet.
__________________
If God exists, requesting rule 34.
Standing as human! Facing a god!
Last edited by Sanguis; 14th November 2009 at 05:08 AM.
We don't know. We don't know what was "before" the big bang, we don't know what existence was like. That's like asking what happens to gravity and spacetime at the event horizon of a black hole. The point was, you can't imagine what spacetime would've been like "before" the big bang. All we know is that it existed. The big bang was an expansion of it. As to what caused it, or even if cause and effect was even something that would've held any meaning, we can only speculate, at the moment.
I didn't say before the big bang, I was talking about the singularity of the Big Bang, at which general relativity breaks down. This means the link between gravity and time is not the same, if a link even exists. If general relativity held for the singularity of the Big Bang, which existed before the Planck time, that would mean (from what I surmise) that time would be infinite at that point since the density is infinite. However, general relativity breaks down, so having me imagine what time would be like at the singularity (the point at which all the matter was condensed, yes?) isn't very useful.
Now, on what grounds do you say time existed before the big bang? I replied as I did before because your explanation of general relativity and time during the Big Bang was prefaced by the statement that time did not begin at the big bang.
We're not afraid to say "We don't know.", on the contrary, it's better to say that and try and find out, than it is to use a god of the gaps to fill in what we obviously don't understand yet.
Don't patronize me, I've been around the science debate block, as it were. (I say patronize because I've seen those statements almost verbatim on several occasions, usually included in condescending replies.) Also, don't write off my position as god-of-the-gaps. I've familiarized myself with the term, and I haven't espoused such a theory anywhere in this thread.
__________________
Just a thought,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Johan
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I didn't say before the big bang, I was talking about the singularity of the Big Bang, at which general relativity breaks down. This means the link between gravity and time is not the same, if a link even exists. If general relativity held for the singularity of the Big Bang, which existed before the Planck time, that would mean (from what I surmise) that time would be infinite at that point since the density is infinite. However, general relativity breaks down, so having me imagine what time would be like at the singularity (the point at which all the matter was condensed, yes?) isn't very useful.
Originally Posted by sanguis
The point was, you can't imagine what spacetime would've been like "before" the big bang.
Now, on what grounds do you say time existed before the big bang? I replied as I did before because your explanation of general relativity and time during the Big Bang was prefaced by the statement that time did not begin at the big bang.
Without time, nothing can happen. Anything that happens requires time for it to happen, without time, there would've been no big bang. Nothing could've changed in order for the big bang to occur. As I said before "We're not afraid to say 'We don't know'" how time behaved "before" the big bang, but we do know that the big bang wasn't the beginning of time, only the beginning of time as we experience it now. The big bang was nothing but an expansion of spacetime, how can something expand if it didn't exist prior to its expansion?
Draw a shape on a sheet of elastic, and then stretch that elastic. The shape distorts itself. The shape can't distort itself unless the shape was drawn on the elastic in the first place. Drop a heavy object on the stretched out sheet, and that too distorts the shape further, just as expansion and gravity affect spacetime.
Don't patronize me, I've been around the science debate block, as it were. (I say patronize because I've seen those statements almost verbatim on several occasions, usually included in condescending replies.) Also, don't write off my position as god-of-the-gaps. I've familiarized myself with the term, and I haven't espoused such a theory anywhere in this thread.
I was speaking in general. Many people who don't know things are afraid to admit they don't know them, and instead put a human face on the things they don't know so they can pretend they do know, or at least feel more comfortable not knowing, when in reality, all they have is faith. The unknown is a lot more comforting when it's got a human face and loves you, isn't it?
I was speaking in general. Many people who don't know things are afraid to admit they don't know them, and instead put a human face on the things they don't know so they can pretend they do know, or at least feel more comfortable not knowing, when in reality, all they have is faith. The unknown is a lot more comforting when it's got a human face and loves you, isn't it?
So you're pigeonholing me, and psycho-analyzing a generalization. If I don't know something, and I care to know, I search for the answer and ask questions.The unknown isn't disconcerting, it's intriguing. My faith in God doesn't automatically include all the answers or fill all the gaps. There are plenty of unknowns to grapple with, and more questions to answer than science has, since there are spiritual matters to discover and learn about. The difference is, spiritual knowledge takes priority over worldly knowledge. If I don't know how God created the universe, I still know that he did, and why he did. I know God is real as surely as you know you'll see your face when you look in the mirror, but that doesn't mean I ignore the great questions. If I were pretending to know, I wouldn't be very invested in this discussion.
Everyone has faith in something, you've chosen to let it rest in science/human reason, perhaps society, or yourself...
__________________
Just a thought,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Johan
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Linear Mode
