Philosophy: First Cause is. Everything else is becoming.

[Ken-1122]

The alternative is to believe in spontaneous generation and perpetual motion machines.

What about the possibility that energy/matter has always existed? Why does there always have to be a start to everything except for your explanation?

 

[QvQ]

What about the possibility that energy/matter has always existed? Why does there always have to be a start to everything except for your explanation?

Here is a model of the universe
On the Face of the Deep: Eternal Infinite
1) All matter and energy was compressed into a very tiny ball ball of matter and energy (singularity)
2) The singularity "exploded" within the universe" It is still a "singularity," albeit an expanded singularity.
3) For a time, after that "big bang," there is chaos
4) Coherent patterns emerge, mathematical and physical laws can be derived within chaos.
5) The patterns existing within chaos are used to predict past
6) The patterns existing within chaos cannot be used to predict future
Therefore
The universe is finite in mass/energy
The universe is finite in space and time
The universe is a non-linear system
We exist within the present form of the singularity.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Here is a model of the universe
On the Face of the Deep: Eternal Infinite
1) All matter and energy was compressed into a very tiny ball ball of matter and energy (singularity)
2) The singularity "exploded" into the universe" It is still a "singularity, just bigger.
3) For a time, after that "big bang" it is chaos, no mathematical or physical law.
4) Coherent patterns emerge, mathematical and physical laws can be derived within chaos.
5) The patterns existing within chaos are used to predict past
6) The patterns existing within chaos cannot be used to predict future
Therefore
The universe is finite in mass/energy
The universe is finite in space and time
The universe is a non-linear system
We exist within in the present form of the singularity.

The universe had a beginning. I know this because everyone from Genesis through Einstein to Hawking told me so. Finite systems are known to have a beginning and end. Suns burn out.
Are you proposing a ball of mass/energy that is infinite eternal which has no beginning no end, just changing form according to fixed laws?

This is your universe model. What are its consequences? (It certainly *isn't* the Universe described by modern cosmology.)

 

[Moral Orel]

1) All matter and energy was compressed into a very tiny ball ball of matter and energy (singularity)
2) The singularity "exploded" within the universe" It is still a "singularity," albeit an expanded singularity.

The term "singularity" comes from math. It doesn't describe a ball of matter/energy. It describes a situation where the math physicists do breaks down and starts looking like nonsense. It's a clue that we don't know everything. Now, in the present day, the math works out on the macroscopic scale, so it is not a singularity.

3) For a time, after that "big bang," there is chaos
4) Coherent patterns emerge, mathematical and physical laws can be derived within chaos.

If there are patterns and we can write laws to describe the way stuff acts, then it isn't chaos.

5) The patterns existing within chaos are used to predict past
6) The patterns existing within chaos cannot be used to predict future

We can and do predict the future using physics. Not everything about the future, no. But I'm pretty sure LaPlace's Demon can.

Therefore
The universe is finite in mass/energy
The universe is finite in space and time
The universe is a non-linear system

These conclusions do not follow from your premises.

 

[QvQ]

It doesn't describe a ball of matter/energy. It describes a situation

a space-like singularity can occur when matter is forcibly compressed to a point, causing the rules that govern matter to break down. Hawking traced this back in time to the Big Bang, which he claimed was a point of infinite density.

 

[QvQ]

If there are patterns and we can write laws to describe the way stuff acts, then it isn't chaos.

Lorenz System Chaos Theory

We can and do predict the future using physics. Not everything about the future, no. But I'm pretty sure LaPlace's Demon can.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (HUP) In fact, HUP imposes a much stronger limitation on Laplace's demon than Einstein's Special Relativity Theory as the demon is confronted with indeterminate data.

These conclusions do not follow from your premises.

Thou Sayest

 

[Hans Blaster]

Lorenz System Chaos Theory

And what does that have to do with cosmology?

 

[QvQ]

And what does that have to do with cosmology?

What does Chaos Theory have to do with cosmology?
The solar cycles are chaotic.
Chaotic dynamics are pervasive in the solar system. "Orbits of small members of solar system, asteroids, comets, interplanetary dust are chaotic and undergo large changes on geological time scales."

"Are the major planets' orbits also chaotic?" The three body problem?

 

[Hans Blaster]

What does Chaos Theory have to do with cosmology?
The solar cycles are chaotic.
Chaotic dynamics are pervasive in the solar system. "Orbits of small members of solar system, asteroids, comets, interplanetary dust are chaotic and undergo large changes on geological time scales."

"Are the major planets' orbits also chaotic?" The three body problem?

None of that is cosmology. Try again.

 

[Moral Orel]

a space-like singularity can occur when matter is forcibly compressed to a point, causing the rules that govern matter to break down. Hawking traced this back in time to the Big Bang, which he claimed was a point of infinite density.

I changed what you bolded to the thing that actually defines a singularity. Compressing objects to a literal point is a mathematical conundrum, and so are other things. The "rules that govern matter" ain't broken down anymore, so we are not in an "expanded singularity" as you said.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (HUP) In fact, HUP imposes a much stronger limitation on Laplace's demon than Einstein's Special Relativity Theory as the demon is confronted with indeterminate data.

That's actually a fair point. We can only make accurate predictions at the macroscopic scale. We aren't sure if the quantum level is really random or if we just don't know enough about it yet.

Thou Sayest

That's exactly what I thought about your "therefore..."

 

[QvQ]

None of that is cosmology. Try again

Definition of Cosmology:
the science of the origin and development of the universe. Modern astronomy is dominated by the Big Bang theory, which brings together observational astronomy and particle physics.

Chaos Astronomy: It is precisely the study of motion of three bodies in gravitational interaction, like that of the Sun, Earth and Moon, which is the origin of chaos theory.

Chaos Theory Particle Physics: "The relationship between chaos theory and particle physics.. It is demonstrated that the mathematical apparatus used in gauge field theories of particle physics can be successfully applied to solve some problems connected with the stability and chaoticity of quantum mechanical systems and vice versa."

As it is below, so is it above...

 

[Hans Blaster]

Definition of Cosmology:
the science of the origin and development of the universe. Modern astronomy is dominated by the Big Bang theory, which brings together observational astronomy and particle physics.

A reasonable definition of cosmology.

Chaos Astronomy: It is precisely the study of motion of three bodies in gravitational interaction, like that of the Sun, Earth and Moon, which is the origin of chaos theory.

I am well aware that the 3-body system of orbits can not be solved exactly. Still not cosmology. (Weather forecasting was the origin of chaos theory.)

Chaos Theory Particle Physics: "The relationship between chaos theory and particle physics.. It is demonstrated that the mathematical apparatus used in gauge field theories of particle physics can be successfully applied to solve some problems connected with the stability and chaoticity of quantum mechanical systems and vice versa."

Never heard of "chaotic particle physics". Now tie this to the evolution/origin of the universe.

As it is below, so is it above...

Huh?

 

[QvQ]

That's actually a fair point. We can only make accurate predictions at the macroscopic scale. We aren't sure if the quantum level is really random or if we just don't know enough about it yet.

Where is any proof that we can make accurate predictions on the macro level? Past or future?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Where is any proof that we can make accurate predictions on the macro level? Past or future?

Macro level of what? Predictions about what?

 

[Eloy Craft]

And so, all the way down.


It's not trouble to me, except to find a way to show you why "eternally existing stuff" cannot be interacting to be self-existent. To me, it is intuitive, but I know there is a rational way to say what I want to, but right now it escapes me. I am sure not only that (easily enough shown) first cause must be self-existing, but the notion that there might be many self-existing, inanimate things, to me, while it is repugnant to reason, I think there is an obvious defeat for that notion.

Your challenge is simpler, suggesting that such things are interacting, which is (at least for first cause) self-contradictory. I have only to show it is also self-contradictory for self-existent things, whether mere "mechanical fact" or "with intent", but @Ken-1122 has suggested the possibility of multiple self-existents with no causes and no effects: alone. To me, that, while easy enough to dismiss for useless and undetectable, will be a little harder to prove wrong. But I am enjoying that challenge too.

The individual existences. Time wouldn't exist.

 

[Moral Orel]

Where is any proof that we can make accurate predictions on the macro level? Past or future?

Are you serious? What do you think physics does?

 

[Ken-1122]

Here is a model of the universe
On the Face of the Deep: Eternal Infinite
1) All matter and energy was compressed into a very tiny ball ball of matter and energy (singularity)
2) The singularity "exploded" within the universe" It is still a "singularity," albeit an expanded singularity.
3) For a time, after that "big bang," there is chaos
4) Coherent patterns emerge, mathematical and physical laws can be derived within chaos.
5) The patterns existing within chaos are used to predict past
6) The patterns existing within chaos cannot be used to predict future
Therefore
The universe is finite in mass/energy
The universe is finite in space and time
The universe is a non-linear system
We exist within the present form of the singularity.

The question was concerning the possibility that energy and matter always existing. Nothing you've said addressed that question.

 

[Mark Quayle]

What could all of existence have to be a derivative of? Existence exists and only existence exists. There is nothing for it to be derived from, therefore it is a self-existent, eternal, unchanging fact.

Existent is a noun, so is existence. The concept existence subsumes all existents. I am one existent out of many that make up existence.

You're looking to words when you should be looking at reality.

The problem is you don't understand how concepts work in the hierarchy of knowledge. This is easy to fix. I recommend you read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. It's a great achievement and it will make all this clear though it may take several readings and much thinking.

Or at least it might help me converse with you.

Is the noun, "existence", a governing principle, or is it just our handy thinking-basket into which we include all real things?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Again, you have your own special definitions for "first-cause" and "self-existent". I am only talking about "uncaused". It didn't begin to exist because of something else. That's it.

If it is your contention that for something to be uncaused, then it must also have other properties, then the burden is on you to show that these other properties are a logical necessity. We both agree that something can exist without a cause. That's our starting point, and you need to build from there.

We probably both agree that not just anything can exist without a cause. That fact to me seems a pretty good indication that "uncaused" necessarily includes other properties.

But for mere "uncaused", necessarily implied is also the fact of continuing existence by its own being, not by external facts, no? It is not just that it did not begin because of something else.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The individual existences. Time wouldn't exist.

Can you say that in another way, so I won't have to guess what you mean?