Refutation of the First Cause argument

[Socrastein]

From this paper on the anthropic coincidences of the universe.

According to the natural scenario, by means of a random quantum fluctuation the universe tunneled from pure vacuum ("nothing") to what is called a false vacuum, a region of space that contains no matter or radiation but is not quite nothing. The space inside this bubble of false vacuum was curved, or warped. A small amount of energy (approximately the rest energy
of 20 micrograms of matter) was contained in that curvature, somewhat like the energy stored in a strung bow. This ostensible violation of energy conservation is allowed by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle for sufficiently small time intervals.

The bubble then inflated exponentially and the universe grew by many orders of magnitude in a tiny fraction of a second. As the bubble expanded, its curvature energy was converted into matter and radiation, inflation slowed to a stop by a kind of friction (this all follows from the equations), and the more linear big bang expansion we now experience commenced. The universe cooled and its structure spontaneously froze out, as formless water vapor freezes into snowflakes whose unique patterns arise from a combination of symmetry and randomness.

In our universe, the first galaxies began to assemble after about a billion years, eventually evolving into stable systems where stars could live out their lives and populate the interstellar medium with the complex chemical elements such as carbon that are needed for the formation of life.

For those of you who say "Well this is just science, it doesn't prove anything!" it doesn't need to actually be proven. The fact is, this scenario need only be possible to completely disprove the notion that the one must appeal to a supernatural first cause to explain the universe.

Again from the paper:

This particular version of a natural scenario for the origin of the universe has not yet risen to the exalted status of a scientific "theory." However, the fact that it is consistent with all current knowledge and cannot be ruled out at this time demonstrates that no rational basis exists for introducing the added hypothesis of supernatural creation. Such a hypothesis is simply not
required by the data.

If it was truly the case that the universe could not possibly be explained without appealing to supernatural first causes, then the First Cause argument might have some credit. But when there are other more parsimonious natural explanations, then appealing to the supernatural becomes nothing more than an irrational attempt to justify one's beliefs.

 

[Dale]

Socrastein:
<< If it was truly the case that the universe could not possibly be explained without appealing to supernatural first causes, then the First Cause argument might have some credit. But when there are other more parsimonious natural explanations, then appealing to the supernatural becomes nothing more than an irrational attempt to justify one's beliefs. >>

Without a First Cause, an intelligent Creator, there would be no reason for the universe to have any overall unity. Yet modern physics points to everything being entertwined: matter, energy, space and time. The universe is not a chaos of conflicting forces, but a unified masterpiece.

If the universe did emerge from a quantum fluctuation in vacuum, then that vacuum must contain potentials that aren't obvious. I don't see how that could happen without a Creator to provide for those potentials.

 

[billwald]

"First cause" is a philosophical, not a scientific problem. It has no solution.

 

[Gracchus]

<< If it was truly the case that the universe could not possibly be explained without appealing to supernatural first causes, then the First Cause argument might have some credit. But when there are other more parsimonious natural explanations, then appealing to the supernatural becomes nothing more than an irrational attempt to justify one's beliefs. >>

Without a First Cause, an intelligent Creator, there would be no reason for the universe to have any overall unity.

Except that it is, in fact, just one thing, the only thing. Any other thing is just a transient pattern, including you and me.

Yet modern physics points to everything being entertwined: matter, energy, space and time. The universe is not a chaos of conflicting forces, but a unified masterpiece.

Since I am (at least part of ) the consciousness of the universe, I thank you.

If the universe did emerge from a quantum fluctuation in vacuum, then that vacuum must contain potentials that aren't obvious. I don't see how that could happen without a Creator to provide for those potentials.

Understanding does not come easy for some. For you, I suspect, it may be impossible.

 

[Socrastein]

Dale and Billwad

Did either of you actually read the link I provided? I suspect not.

Philosophy is only philosophy until science can address it. Astronomy, biology, psychology, and various other fields were all philosophical problems until science was able to delve into them. The same goes for cosmology and the beginning of the universe.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
-Charles Darwin

 

[235U92]

[...] I don't see how that could happen without a Creator to provide for those potentials.

Argument from Incredulity. Not valid.

EDIT: Thanks for the article, Socrastein.

 

[faiththatbreathes]

According to the natural scenario, by means of a random quantum fluctuation the universe tunneled from pure vacuum ("nothing") to what is called a false vacuum, a region of space that contains no matter or radiation but is not quite nothing. .

Can you find an example of a pure vacuum being observed suddenly becoming something? I'd appreciate it, because while I admittedly have very little experience with quantum mechanics (quantum anything, honestly), I have problems with the first sentence. For one thing, where would the random quantum fluctuation originate from? A pure vacuum would contain no matter and energy given to fluctuation. For another thing, who's to say the random fluctuation wasn't caused by an outside observer (in this case, God)?

I did read part of the paper you linked to (I'll read all of it later, I'm pretty tired). There's one part I'm looking at now, "In other words, the universal conservation "laws" are exactly what will occur in an isolated universe with no outside agent acting. They derive from global symmetries, such as space translation and time translation. Only a violation of these laws would imply an outside agent."
No person contained in this universe can possibly make that sort of claim. This universe has its own laws, but who can prove that conservation of matter and energy are the rule outside of it?
In fact, if you believe the Bible (as I do), this statement only makes an "outside agent" all the more probable, as such things are included in it as the resurrection of the dead - energy inexplicably returned to a former state, against natural laws, in a sort of reverse entropy.

By now, I'm undoubtedly making no sense, and probably spelling things wrong, so feel free to lambast me while I'm on vacation. I'll check back on this post when I can.

 

[235U92]

Can you find an example of a pure vacuum being observed suddenly becoming something? I'd appreciate it, because while I admittedly have very little experience with quantum mechanics (quantum anything, honestly), I have problems with the first sentence. For one thing, where would the random quantum fluctuation originate from? A pure vacuum would contain no matter and energy given to fluctuation. For another thing, who's to say the random fluctuation wasn't caused by an outside observer (in this case, God)?

I did read part of the paper you linked to (I'll read all of it later, I'm pretty tired). There's one part I'm looking at now, "In other words, the universal conservation "laws" are exactly what will occur in an isolated universe with no outside agent acting. They derive from global symmetries, such as space translation and time translation. Only a violation of these laws would imply an outside agent."
No person contained in this universe can possibly make that sort of claim. This universe has its own laws, but who can prove that conservation of matter and energy are the rule outside of it?
In fact, if you believe the Bible (as I do), this statement only makes an "outside agent" all the more probable, as such things are included in it as the resurrection of the dead - energy inexplicably returned to a former state, against natural laws, in a sort of reverse entropy.

By now, I'm undoubtedly making no sense, and probably spelling things wrong, so feel free to lambast me while I'm on vacation. I'll check back on this post when I can.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Quantum_field_theory

 

[235U92]

Can you find an example of a pure vacuum being observed suddenly becoming something? I'd appreciate it, because while I admittedly have very little experience with quantum mechanics (quantum anything, honestly), I have problems with the first sentence. For one thing, where would the random quantum fluctuation originate from? A pure vacuum would contain no matter and energy given to fluctuation. For another thing, who's to say the random fluctuation wasn't caused by an outside observer (in this case, God)?

I did read part of the paper you linked to (I'll read all of it later, I'm pretty tired). There's one part I'm looking at now, "In other words, the universal conservation "laws" are exactly what will occur in an isolated universe with no outside agent acting. They derive from global symmetries, such as space translation and time translation. Only a violation of these laws would imply an outside agent."
No person contained in this universe can possibly make that sort of claim. This universe has its own laws, but who can prove that conservation of matter and energy are the rule outside of it?
In fact, if you believe the Bible (as I do), this statement only makes an "outside agent" all the more probable, as such things are included in it as the resurrection of the dead - energy inexplicably returned to a former state, against natural laws, in a sort of reverse entropy.

By now, I'm undoubtedly making no sense, and probably spelling things wrong, so feel free to lambast me while I'm on vacation. I'll check back on this post when I can.

Oh, and how could I forget the Casimir effect? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

 

[Matisyahu]

A problem can be both a matter of science and philosophy. The First Cause is such an example.

Dr. Stenger is basically doing atheist apologetics, trying to show how big bang cosmology (which scientists generally admit points to a beginning), does not necessarily point to a beginner (the other issue, of cosmological constants not pointing to a divine calibrator, is apparently not what our thread starter wanted to focus on). I disagree. Of the two following explanations, that

something brought the universe out of nothing,

or

nothing brought one of an infinite of potential universes from an infinite fluctuating vacuum,

I hold that the former is more parsimonious, as well as coherent. Infinite potential universes from a flucuating vacuum, on the other hand, have not been shown to be the simplest explanation, nor have they been shown to be coherent. So notes one philosopher (see below),

given infinite past time, universes will eventually be spawned at every point in the primordial vacuum, and, as they expand, they will begin to collide and coalesce with one another. Thus, given infinite past time, we should by now be observing an infinitely old universe, not a relatively young one. About the only way to avert the problem would be to postulate an expansion of the primordial vacuum itself; but then we are right back to the absolute origin implied by the Standard Model. According to Isham this problem proved to be "fairly lethal" to Vacuum Fluctuation Models; hence, these models were "jettisoned twenty years ago" and "nothing much" has been done with them since.{32}

If one argues that finite existence is not itself an effect of some cause, that it just is, then what of the fact that the universe came to be? One might want to say that the simplest way is to say, "the existent universe is not an effect." Then again, the simplest way may just be to say "nothing exists," since it is a denial that the universe 'is', just as the previous statement is a denial that the universe 'came to be' in some contingent sense. But I am surely out of my league. Anyway, for atheists who held to an eternal universe, the standard big bang cosmology clarifies a real problem, thus we have Dr. Stenger's apologetics, which are interesting just before bed-time. Check out Dr. Craig as well on the matter.

 

[Socrastein]

something brought the universe out of nothing,

or

nothing brought one of an infinite of potential universes from an infinite fluctuating vacuum,

That's some pretty deceptive wording there. Are you a politician by chance?

You can try to word your belief more simply and complicate the other, but that does not change anything regarding it's parsimony.

The fact is, theism makes one more assumption than naturalistic origins.

Something without cause caused the universe.

The universe is without cause.

Either way, we're talking about the uncaused. However, it's completely erroneous to posit that the universe is caused by something uncaused when there is plenty of evidence that the universe itself is uncaused. You're simply complicating the issue with unnecessary assumptions in order to plug your beliefs irrationally.

 

[MartinM]

Of the two following explanations, that

something brought the universe out of nothing,

or

nothing brought one of an infinite of potential universes from an infinite fluctuating vacuum,

I hold that the former is more parsimonious, as well as coherent.

Invoking an explanation that could equally fit with any observed state of affairs is the antithesis of parsimony.

 

[Matisyahu]

That's some pretty deceptive wording there.

I disagree.

Something without cause caused the universe.

The universe is without cause.

Again, the universe came to be (I know you are aware of standard big bang cosmology), and so it begs the question to say that "the universe (that came to be) is without cause" is a valid option as such. Notice I didn't say your wording was deceptive; it begs the question. It presents as parsimonious what hasn't, in light of any data, been shown to be coherent.

However, it's completely erroneous to posit that the universe is caused by something uncaused when there is plenty of evidence that the universe itself is uncaused.

I await your presentation and discussion of that evidence.

Martin:
Invoking an explanation that could equally fit with any observed state of affairs is the antithesis of parsimony.

Some explanation could "fit with" any observed state of affairs, but also be necessary for a given state of affairs. We wouldn't then reject it (citing Occam's razor) simply because it could be useful in all other hypothetical state of affairs. The first cause argument works that way: whatever might be said of other states of affairs, a First Cause is necessary for this one.

 

[Randall McNally]

Again, the universe came to be (I know you are aware of standard big bang cosmology), and so it begs the question to say that "the universe (that came to be) is without cause" is a valid option as such. Notice I didn't say your wording was deceptive; it begs the question. It presents as parsimonious what hasn't, in light of any data, been shown to be coherent.

What data might one present in support of a nonexistent entity (assuming the universe is acausal)?

I await your presentation and discussion of that evidence.

It appears what you are asking for is evidence of a metaphysical negative, namely that there exist no universe-causing entities. It should be obvious why that is an absurd request.

 

[Silent Bob]

Yes but can we safely assume that the laws of physics function in the same way in a pre-BB situation? Since the universe started from a singularity there is no way to positively state the way nature functioned before that, am I right? In that case the ex-nihilo hypothesis fails in the fact that it assumes a state that we do not know if it was ever so.

Which would leave us at nothing once again.

Am I wrong? I would be very much interested to know.

 

[Jet Black]

From this paper on the anthropic coincidences of the universe.

According to the natural scenario, by means of a random quantum fluctuation the universe tunneled from pure vacuum ("nothing") to what is called a false vacuum, ..........

very nice, but ultimately superfluous, since the initial singularity is predicted by a theory that doesn't work in the realm of QM anyway. therefore the whole first cause argument is just begging the question.

 

[Jet Black]

Without a First Cause, an intelligent Creator, there would be no reason for the universe to have any overall unity.

yes there would; something that exists cannot contradict its own existance.

 

[Matisyahu]

Quote:


I await your presentation and discussion of that evidence.

It appears what you are asking for is evidence of a metaphysical negative, namely that there exist no universe-causing entities. It should be obvious why that is an absurd request.

You may want to look at the context--Socrastein's claim to "plenty of evidence that the universe itself is uncaused." This is why I said "I await your presentation and discussion of that evidence." Evidence which contradicts standard BB cosmology would be worth seeing and discussing, if it existed. Of course I am open to it. I didn't ask for evidence of a "metaphysical negative," nor did I ask him for evidence that there are no universe-causing entities. I merely await him to produce what he claimed there was tons of--evidence that the universe is uncaused. If anything is absurd, it is the claim to evidence and not the request that the claim be backed up--but I take for granted that people mean what they say, and that they do not mean to be completely absurd.

What data might one present in support of a nonexistent entity (assuming the universe is acausal)?

Could you clarify the question?

Yes but can we safely assume that the laws of physics function in the same way in a pre-BB situation? Since the universe started from a singularity there is no way to positively state the way nature functioned before that, am I right? In that case the ex-nihilo hypothesis fails in the fact that it assumes a state that we do not know if it was ever so.

Which would leave us at nothing once again.

Am I wrong? I would be very much interested to know.

Cronic,
I think you would find this discussion of the issue interesting, if you haven't already read it. He briefly discusses the concept of an occilating universe there (as regards the very question you raise--like, how do we even know our universe is isotropic and homogenous? Wouldn't that leave us with purely speculative knowledge of a "beginning"?), as well as Socrastein's candidate for a flucuating vacuum model.

 

[Tomk80]

It always seems very strange to me that people point at the universe and exclaime that it should have some cause outside the universe in the form of some sort of creator. This creator either had to be caused, going into infinite regression, or has no cause itself, leaving us at the exact same place as an uncaused universe.

What strikes me as particularly odd in this, is that a causeless universe is deemed illogical, but a causeless designer is not. Am I missing something here?

 

[MartinM]

Again, the universe came to be

This implies that there was a time when the Universe did not exist; a statement which is not true of any cosmological model I know of.

Some explanation could "fit with" any observed state of affairs, but also be necessary for a given state of affairs. We wouldn't then reject it (citing Occam's razor) simply because it could be useful in all other hypothetical state of affairs. The first cause argument works that way: whatever might be said of other states of affairs, a First Cause is necessary for this one.

First cause isn't necessary. It's conditional on observations of our Universe; namely, that it seems to display temporal causality. But our Universe does not, in fact, display temporal causality; rather, this seems to be an emergent property of macroscopic systems. So first cause is unnecessary for this state of affairs.

Secondly, you overlooked the word 'equally' in my statement. If it's necessary for this state of affairs, but merely possible for another, then it doesn't fit equally well with each.