• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

The phenomenon and the explanation

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
5,745
4,677
✟347,440.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
A first cause would not be subject to entropy. It is not caused therefore would be self existent, not subject to change or the law of physics. A first cause directly and indirectly caused everything that is.
One can claim there is no such thing but that just removes that one from discussing what is intrinsic to a first cause.
Huh?
This is word salad which does not address a single point in my previous post which countered your claim a first cause (whatever that may mean) can occur outside the universe resulting in an observable effect.
Your response indicates you do not understand what a particle horizon is.

Let me explain without using the general relativity found in the Wikipedia link but simple arithmetic.
You have probably heard the universe is expanding and the further an object such as a galaxy is away from us the observer, the greater its recession velocity.
Distant galaxies can exceed the speed of light c since the rate of expansion of space-time is not constrained by c.
A galaxy with a recession velocity v emitting photons back towards the observer is causally connected with the observer if v-c ≤ c.
If v-c > c the observer and the galaxy are not causally connected; this represents a boundary known as the particle horizon.
Objects inside and outside the particle horizon are separated both temporally and spatially.
A cause occurring outside the particle horizon will never have an effect inside the particle horizon which is our observable universe as the carriers of information, the photons travelling back towards the observer, will never reach the observer.
In simple terms the expanding observable universe can never catch up to be causally connected with the receding galaxy.
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,458
3,994
47
✟1,112,808.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
A first cause would not be subject to entropy. It is not caused therefore would be self existent, not subject to change or the law of physics. A first cause directly and indirectly caused everything that is.
Why?

This just seems to be grab bag of claims to create an exception to the assertions about "Everything has a cause.".

One can claim there is no such thing but that just removes that one from discussing what is intrinsic to a first cause.

It's not about claiming there's no such thing, it's just that there isn't a justification for assuming apriori that both that it exists and has all of the traits people assign to it.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,143
✟349,282.00
Faith
Atheist
Everything we observe has a beginning a middle and an end.

A first cause can't have a beginning or it is caused and not the first cause.

A first cause cannot be an effect.
But everything we can observe is.
What you've done there is reify human categories, draw an unjustified conclusion, and use special pleading to avoid it.

Everything we observe is in flux, matter and energy continually rearranging. We identify various phases in this flux as particular things, but these are arbitrary categories, different arrangements of pre-existing matter & energy. The phases we identify have a beginning, middle, and end, but as far as we can tell, what they are made of does not. We can only speculate about what, if anything, happened before the big bang and what will happen in the distant future.

As for cause and effect and the arrow of time itself, these appear to be emergent macro-scale phenomena.

[if, for the sake of argument, we assume that cause and effect is not emergent, there are alternatives to an inexplicable 'backstop'; for example, it could extend indefinitely into past and future, or it could form a temporal loop - both are compatible with Einstein's equations.]
 
Upvote 0

Eloy Craft

Myth only points, Truth happened!
Site Supporter
Jan 9, 2018
3,132
871
Chandler
✟431,808.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Huh?
This is word salad which does not address a single point in my previous post which countered your claim a first cause (whatever that may mean) can occur outside the universe resulting in an observable effect.
Your response indicates you do not understand what a particle horizon is.

Let me explain without using the general relativity found in the Wikipedia link but simple arithmetic.
You have probably heard the universe is expanding and the further an object such as a galaxy is away from us the observer, the greater its recession velocity.
Distant galaxies can exceed the speed of light c since the rate of expansion of space-time is not constrained by c.
A galaxy with a recession velocity v emitting photons back towards the observer is causally connected with the observer if v-c ≤ c.
If v-c > c the observer and the galaxy are not causally connected; this represents a boundary known as the particle horizon.
Objects inside and outside the particle horizon are separated both temporally and spatially.
A cause occurring outside the particle horizon will never have an effect inside the particle horizon which is our observable universe as the carriers of information, the photons travelling back towards the observer, will never reach the observer.
In simple terms the expanding observable universe can never catch up to be causally connected with the receding galaxy.
It seems your first cause is governed by effects.
A first cause happened before space or time existed.
The particle horizon didn't exist before the first effect did it?
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
5,745
4,677
✟347,440.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It seems your first cause is governed by effects.
A first cause happened before space or time existed.
The particle horizon didn't exist before the first effect did it?
A particle horizon is an effect of space-time expansion.
Causes and effects are examples of events which are spatially and temporally defined in space-time.

event.gif
Since information cannot travel faster than the speed of light c, events are ordered such that a cause always precedes an effect and causality is preserved.

That's why your comment about a first cause happening before space or time existing is contradictory.
The fact you refer to it as a first cause indicates ordering does occur in which case it must be temporally defined.
A cause whether it be the first, last or somewhere in between are events which occur in space-time.
 
Upvote 0

Eloy Craft

Myth only points, Truth happened!
Site Supporter
Jan 9, 2018
3,132
871
Chandler
✟431,808.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
particle horizon is an effect of space-time expansion.
isn't space time caused by something?

Causes and effects are examples of events which are spatially and temporally defined in space-time.
space time expanding means a beginning. A beginning requires a beginner right?

Since information cannot travel faster than the speed of light c, events are ordered
I'm no physicist but doesn't quantum entanglement make that doubtful?

That's why your comment about a first cause happening before space or time existing is contradictory.
Cause and effect in philosophy has no such barrier. Space time has a cause in philosophy but not physics yet. Could be cyclic, universe after universe as the end of a collapse causes an expansion.
The fact you refer to it as a first cause indicates ordering does occur in which case it must be temporally defined.
I think I know what you're saying. There is no such thing as 'before' space time. That doesn't mean it's uncaused. Temporal reality is changing matter. Matter has always been changing and always will or changing matter began. That isn't understood but I think science leans towards a beginning.

cause whether it be the first, last or somewhere in between are events which occur in space-time.
That's a boundary for science maybe but not reason
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Astrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
11,053
3,695
40
Hong Kong
✟188,686.00
Country
Hong Kong
Gender
Female
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
isn't space time caused by something?

space time expanding means a beginning. A beginning requires a beginner right?

I'm That's a boundary for science maybe but not reason

and a beginner needs a beginner to begin it. Right?

See where "reason" and "philosophy" get you?
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
5,745
4,677
✟347,440.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
isn't space time caused by something?

space time expanding means a beginning. A beginning requires a beginner right?

I'm no physicist but doesn't quantum entanglement make that doubtful?


Cause and effect in philosophy has no such barrier. Space time has a cause in philosophy but not physics yet. Could be cyclic, universe after universe as the end of a collapse causes an expansion.
I think I know what you're saying. There is no such thing as 'before' space time. That doesn't mean it's uncaused. Temporal reality is changing matter. Matter has always been changing and always will or changing matter began. That isn't understood but I think science leans towards a beginning.

That's a boundary for science maybe but not reason
Since you trying to conflate philosophy with physics, where the two overlap the philosophy of science incorporates the concept of falsifiability.
It makes your argument of physics not having caught up with philosophy rather pointless as your ‘first cause’ whether it sits outside the particle horizon or when space-time ‘did not exist’ is beyond observation, has zero evidence, and is therefore unfalsifiable.
A theory that is unfalsifiable is not science.
Furthermore this focus on a first cause smacks too much of defining a purpose; science is about explaining how things happen not why things happen which falls in the field of metaphysics.

Let me correct some of your misconceptions about the physics.
First of all quantum mechanics violates locality not causality.
Quantum entanglement is the quantum superposition of two or more particles which cannot communicate with each other while in the superimposed state; only after an observation or measurement is made when the superimposed state collapses and communication between the individual particles at the speed of light or less is allowed.
This forms the basis of the no-communication theorem; this non mathematical description hopefully clarifies the issue.

Secondly there is the case of space-time not having a beginning.
Here one needs to separate the time from the space-time.
Since the introduction of cosmological inflation in the late 1970s there has been a progressive shift amongst cosmologists that time existed before the Big Bang and was not created at the Big Bang.
This is the result of applying a quantum field theory known as the ‘Inflaton field’ to explain the cause of inflation which is the exponential increase in the rate of space-time expansion in the very early history of our universe.
Once again the simplest explanation without getting into the math (which also requires a quantum gravity theory) is that the Big Bang did not occur at cosmological time t=0 but rather a hot Big Bang which occurred at a very small scale of space-time after inflation.
This led to the development of eternal inflation theory which states while matter and radiation disappear at t=0, there is the possibility inflation does not and never reached a zero value in the past indicating time existed before our universe was created and might extend infinitely into the past.

growth.jpg
While this would appear to fall into the territory of unfalsifiability, cosmologists believe the cosmic microwave background may hold the evidence.
The eternal inflation theory has offshoots such as the multiverse theory where our universe is one of an infinite number of universes that have been created at different cosmological times.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,143
✟349,282.00
Faith
Atheist
  • Agree
Reactions: Astrid
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
5,745
4,677
✟347,440.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
and a beginner needs a beginner to begin it. Right?

See where "reason" and "philosophy" get you?
Bertrand Russell while giving a lecture on astronomy had to contend with a similar argument from a little old lady in the audience involving turtles.

turtles.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Astrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
11,053
3,695
40
Hong Kong
✟188,686.00
Country
Hong Kong
Gender
Female
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Bertrand Russell while giving a lecture on astronomy had to contend with a similar argument from a little old lady in the audience involving turtles.

turtles.png
Maybe in the future we can just say "turtles" and skip
any further expoundiation.
 
Upvote 0

Eloy Craft

Myth only points, Truth happened!
Site Supporter
Jan 9, 2018
3,132
871
Chandler
✟431,808.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Since you trying to conflate philosophy with physics, where the two overlap the philosophy of science incorporates the concept of falsifiability.
It makes your argument of physics not having caught up with philosophy rather pointless as your ‘first cause’ whether it sits outside the particle horizon or when space-time ‘did not exist’ is beyond observation, has zero evidence, and is therefore unfalsifiable.
A theory that is unfalsifiable is not science.
Furthermore this focus on a first cause smacks too much of defining a purpose; science is about explaining how things happen not why things happen which falls in the field of metaphysics.

Let me correct some of your misconceptions about the physics.
First of all quantum mechanics violates locality not causality.
Quantum entanglement is the quantum superposition of two or more particles which cannot communicate with each other while in the superimposed state; only after an observation or measurement is made when the superimposed state collapses and communication between the individual particles at the speed of light or less is allowed.
This forms the basis of the no-communication theorem; this non mathematical description hopefully clarifies the issue.

Secondly there is the case of space-time not having a beginning.
Here one needs to separate the time from the space-time.
Since the introduction of cosmological inflation in the late 1970s there has been a progressive shift amongst cosmologists that time existed before the Big Bang and was not created at the Big Bang.
This is the result of applying a quantum field theory known as the ‘Inflaton field’ to explain the cause of inflation which is the exponential increase in the rate of space-time expansion in the very early history of our universe.
Once again the simplest explanation without getting into the math (which also requires a quantum gravity theory) is that the Big Bang did not occur at cosmological time t=0 but rather a hot Big Bang which occurred at a very small scale of space-time after inflation.
This led to the development of eternal inflation theory which states while matter and radiation disappear at t=0, there is the possibility inflation does not and never reached a zero value in the past indicating time existed before our universe was created and might extend infinitely into the past.

growth.jpg
While this would appear to fall into the territory of unfalsifiability, cosmologists believe the cosmic microwave background may hold the evidence.
The eternal inflation theory has offshoots such as the multiverse theory where our universe is one of an infinite number of universes that have been created at different cosmological times.
The first cause argument is philosophy not physics.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Astrid
Upvote 0

Eloy Craft

Myth only points, Truth happened!
Site Supporter
Jan 9, 2018
3,132
871
Chandler
✟431,808.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
and a beginner needs a beginner to begin it. Right?

See where "reason" and "philosophy" get you?
A beginner that is not an effect. A self existent being.
 
Upvote 0

Eloy Craft

Myth only points, Truth happened!
Site Supporter
Jan 9, 2018
3,132
871
Chandler
✟431,808.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Why not? I suppose the universe could be oscillating but it's not. Infinity vs. eternity it seems. One is an infinite duration the other no duration. When thinking about existence beyond matter I pick no duration.
A duration requires a beginning and an end
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
7,045
2,232
✟210,136.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
The first cause argument is philosophy not physics.
Science grabs hold of any concept which may be useful when pushing the boundaries of objective knowledge. Philosophical concepts are not off the agenda when it comes to doing that.
The quest there however, is to make 'em testable. (Belief is optional).
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
5,745
4,677
✟347,440.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The first cause argument is philosophy not physics.
When you stated a first cause can occur outside the universe........
A first cause is necessarily outside of the universe.
.......... then it becomes an issue in physics since a cause outside the universe cannot have an effect in our observable universe for the reasons given.
 
Upvote 0

Eloy Craft

Myth only points, Truth happened!
Site Supporter
Jan 9, 2018
3,132
871
Chandler
✟431,808.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Without testable evidence, that's just word-salad based on belief.
Science grabs hold of any concept which may be useful when pushing the boundaries of objective knowledge.

When you stated a first cause can occur outside the universe........
I wouldn't state a first cause occurred.

.... then it becomes an issue in physics since a cause outside the universe cannot have an effect in our observable universe for the reasons give
everything we observe would be an effect of a first cause. Who said a first cause must only be outside the universe?
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
5,745
4,677
✟347,440.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I wouldn't state a first cause occurred.

everything we observe would be an effect of a first cause. Who said a first cause must only be outside the universe?
You said so.
Eloy Craft said:
A first cause is necessarily outside of the universe.
 
Upvote 0