Refutation of the First Cause argument

[Ellethidhren]

And a 767 jumbo jet came into existence from an explosion in a junkyard. Uh huh!

 

[Jet Black]

And a 767 jumbo jet came into existence from an explosion in a junkyard. Uh huh!

a designer of course, being the ultimate 767.

You do realise that the comparison between evolution/abiogenesis and this tornado/explosion in a junkyard making a 767 is fallacious don't you? because nobody is actually saying that any of these proteins or organisms emerged fully formed in any sense, and they are all the result of chemical evolution?

 

[Socrastein]

Cronic -

As far as I understand, we cannot mathematically reproduce the universe before the BB. This does not mean we do not have any idea of what could have happened before the BB, in general terms. It reminds me of biology and abiogenesis. Though we haven't actually been able to recreate abiogenesis in the lab, this doesn't mean we have no idea of how it may have come about. We just don't know exactly. I believe it is the same with the very very beginning of the universe. Our math and our physics isn't yet powerful enough to recreate anything, nor are our particle accelerators, but using ideas and equations from quantum mechanics we can understand the likelihoods.

I'm not going to pretend to be privy to all the math involved, and I'm not going to pretend to know exactly what part of what theory is used to theoretically create pure vacuums and predict random quantum fluctuations. I know that quantum mechanics allows for them, but that's not a very specific answer.

However it will have to suffice. QM to my knowledge allows for random quantum flux in a pure vacuum devoid of energy/matter. From this fact, we can postulate that perhaps the universe came about this way (Like Stenger says, it hasn't risen to theory yet, but it's consistent with all data and current scientific knowledge).

As for space-time before our universe began, I dunno. I'll get back to you on that if I find anything out.

I appreciate that you read the paper and I appreciate your questions. I only wish I could help you more. If only I were Stenger himself

Ellethidhren -

What are you talking about?

 

[Jet Black]

Ellethidhren -

What are you talking about?

vacuous nonsense. probably not a perfect vacuum though

anyway......

looked into Ekpyrosis much? iirc the properties of the the recently formed a quark gluon plasma ties in fairly well with string theory.

 

[Lifesaver]

"There was nothing. Then, a quantum fluctuation happened"
if there was a quantum fluctuation, there wasn't nothing, since a quantum fluctuation is something.

"and then instead of nothing there was a 'kind of nothing'; and from this 'kind of nothing' a lot of things exploded and came into existence"

They could have saved themselves sometime and just said: "eventually, stuff came out of nothing and we are here".

Surely, that wouldn't make it any more valid, as it is shockingly illogical and also not scientifical, but it would at least save the readers some time.

 

[Socrastein]

Before the quantum fluctuation, yes, there was nothing, obviously. The quantum fluctuation is a violation of the conservation of energy, in that energy literally was created out of nothing. There's nothing illogical about this. Counter-intuitive does not mean illogical. Also, it's scientifically valid according to quantum mechanics, which is as you probably don't know the most accurately experimentally verified system of physics we have.

Your post is completely devoid of meaning, and of support Lifesaver. If you wish to say that it is illogical, then please elaborate on what rules of logic are being violated. If you wish to say that it is unscientific, then I await your refutation of quantum theory. I'm sure we can find some quantum physicists to look at what you say and laugh at how incredibly ignorant you are.

 

[Randall McNally]

a designer of course, being the ultimate 767.

You do realise that the comparison between evolution/abiogenesis and this tornado/explosion in a junkyard making a 767 is fallacious don't you? because nobody is actually saying that any of these proteins or organisms emerged fully formed in any sense, and they are all the result of chemical evolution?

You're coming at this the wrong way. The real problem with the analogy is that a 767 is not a jumbo.

/my work here is done

 

[Lifesaver]

Before the quantum fluctuation, yes, there was nothing, obviously. The quantum fluctuation is a violation of the conservation of energy, in that energy literally was created out of nothing. There's nothing illogical about this. Counter-intuitive does not mean illogical. Also, it's scientifically valid according to quantum mechanics, which is as you probably don't know the most accurately experimentally verified system of physics we have.

Socrastein, you seem not to have understood is that, if there is absolutely nothing, there is nothing to be violated, and nothing to violate.
Yes, there was nothing, and then a quantum fluctuation happened; this event had a cause, or else it wouldn't have happened (and point to a scientific law, or to its violation, is irrelevant, as these are descriptions of how the things that are act; and if you accept these principles as existing apart from things then the fluctuation was not the first event).

Sure, a quantum fluctuation was done out of nothing and caused things to exist; but it too was caused by something; either directly or secondarily, by God.

 

[Tomk80]

Socrastein, you seem not to have understood is that, if there is absolutely nothing, there is nothing to be violated, and nothing to violate.
Yes, there was nothing, and then a quantum fluctuation happened; this event had a cause, or else it wouldn't have happened (and point to a scientific law, or to its violation, is irrelevant, as these are descriptions of how the things that are act; and if you accept these principles as existing apart from things then the fluctuation was not the first event).

Sure, a quantum fluctuation was done out of nothing and caused things to exist; but it too was caused by something; either directly or secondarily, by God.

The primary, false assumption in this argument is that you are arguing some sort of causality. But causality is a funtion of time (one thing preceding another). As time is non-existent before the big bang (as far as we know), causality becomes meaningless. Also, before the length of one planck time, natural laws as we know them don't exist yet. As far as I'm aware, we have no way of deciding which laws are in place in that case.

Your argument in favor of God implies causality, and hence time. But time is a concept we don't know anything about before the big bang, so your argument just doesn't hold up.

 

[Silent Bob]

I appreciate that you read the paper and I appreciate your questions. I only wish I could help you more. If only I were Stenger himself

Thanks mate, this was the idea I had as well about this model it is kinda like one of the models for abiogenesis, it could be possible but we are not sure yet.

Sorry for derailing the thread btw, I just had to ask cause I like this specualative theory.

 

[Socrastein]

Lifesaver:

As tom pointed out, your argument presumes an absolute causality. Even within time, causality is not an unbreakable law. It is, as was mentioned elsewhere in this thread I believe, nothing more than a macroscopic emergent property stemming from quantum probabilities. On the quantum level there is no noticeable causality. Things happen quite randomly, all the time. In fact on a small enough scale things are required to be random, though I don't wish to degress into uncertainty.

And when I talk about conservation of energy being violated, I am not referring to any actual "thing" being violated to start the Big Bang. Physical laws are convenient abstractions we use to understand and codify what we observe. So to retroactively label a quantum fluctuation as a violation of convservation of energy does not form any contradiction whatsoever, it's simply a means of convenience. That you would get hung up on something so simple is quite surprising.

Lifesaver, you have said that the model contradicts logic and science, but you have NOT shown this to be the case. All you have shown is that you have absolutely nothing on which to reject it save for your ignorance and fallacious assumptions.

If you wish to try once again to actually give some merit to your attack, then please do so. If you only desire to make vacuous and ridiculous statements as though you're disproving science, please spare me.

Cronic:

Don't be sorry, you did not derail the thread. We're discussing the first cause and a scientific model for it, and you had questions on this model. That's perfectly relevent.

I have actually e-mailed Stenger a form of your question, because I am just as curious as you are exactly how space-time fits into this whole scheme. If and when he replies, I will surely let you know what he had to say.

 

[Code-Monkey]

One thing I've never understood is why any calls something "science" if they haven't really observed anything related. There is no sort of experiment we can do in an absolute vacuum. Anytime we say yes this happens in a vacuum, we're basically pretending or perhaps being guilty of wishful thinking. Thus the idea of energy being created in an absolute vacuum is simply wishful thinking, or at best just pure guesswork, or more likely a reactionary response to a solid, theological claim.

It also seems to me an argument from ignorance. We don't know of a cause for this to happen, so it must not have a cause, it's just magic.

Along those same lines... if QM doesn't need a cause, then shouldn't it be sufficient to say nothing else does either?

 

[Socrastein]

How ironic that you speak of appealing to ignorance, Code-Monkey. Your argument is thus:

I don't understand how science works without direct observation. I don't understand the mathematics and evidence for QM and big bang cosmology. Something from nothing doesn't make sense to me.

Therefore my misunderstandings are epistemologically superior to science, and science is thus wrong.

 

[Knowledge3]

How ironic that you speak of appealing to ignorance, Code-Monkey. Your argument is thus:

I don't understand how science works without direct observation. I don't understand the mathematics and evidence for QM and big bang cosmology. Something from nothing doesn't make sense to me.

Therefore my misunderstandings are epistemologically superior to science, and science is thus wrong.

Tell me, what is First Cause?

 

[Code-Monkey]

How ironic that you speak of appealing to ignorance, Code-Monkey. Your argument is thus:

I don't understand how science works without direct observation. I don't understand the mathematics and evidence for QM and big bang cosmology. Something from nothing doesn't make sense to me.

Therefore my misunderstandings are epistemologically superior to science, and science is thus wrong.

Nice try buddy Nope, QM is flat out speculation, guesswork, wishful thinking when it comes to suggesting that it works in an absolute vacuum. The part I don't understand is why anyone is foolish enough to suggest that it's "science".

 

[Randall McNally]

Nice try buddy Nope, QM is flat out speculation, guesswork, wishful thinking when it comes to suggesting that it works in an absolute vacuum. The part I don't understand is why anyone is foolish enough to suggest that it's "science".

Perhaps because we are more inclined to listen to scientists than the pseudo-authoritative, polemicized, ad hominem-laden rantings of message board alter-egos?

 

[Knowledge3]

Tell me, what was the "cause" of the First Cause in the first place?

 

[Socrastein]

Tell me, what is First Cause?
Tell me, what was the "cause" of the First Cause in the first place?

First cause is that which brought into effect our universe and everything in it.
By definition there is no cause of the first cause, obviously. You might as well ask what's north of the north pole, what time was it when time was created, or any other self-contradictory and nonsensical question.

Nice try buddy Nope, QM is flat out speculation, guesswork, wishful thinking when it comes to suggesting that it works in an absolute vacuum. The part I don't understand is why anyone is foolish enough to suggest that it's "science".

Do you have an actual argument, or are you content with appealing to your own authority? If I have to pick between the ignorant and unsubstantiated rantings of you, and the consensus of quantum physicists, it's not going to be a hard choice.

 

[Elduran]

Tell me, what was the "cause" of the First Cause in the first place?

Who needs one? What is causality without space or time?

 

[Knowledge3]

Who needs one? What is causality without space or time?

That was precisely my point.