Refutation of the First Cause argument

[MartinM]

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.

We don't even need to go to QM. GR doesn't work in a classical singularity either; the field equations cannot be defined there. When GR predicts a singularity, what it's really saying is that GR cannot be used to explain the origin of the Universe; new physics is needed. Thanks to QM, we know that what we need is a working theory of quantum gravity.

 

[Matisyahu]

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.

Based on what evidence? It's a philosophical argument; so what demonstration of it is there?

Martin: Second, 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.

I assure you that I did not overlook the word 'equally'. I considered it. My response was precisely that this is a case regarding an unequal fit--it was not to contradict your statement but to build on it.

Me: The universe came to be. Martin: 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.

No, it implies that at a logical point, time itself came to be. There wasn't time "before" time.

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?

I personally don't argue that a causeless universe is a logical impossibility, but that's another question. Many think that it is a physical impossibility, myself included--that it is impossible on the constraints imposed by the physical universe. But a causeless cause, whether Creator or Nature, is not only a logical possibility, but a logical necessity. The question is whether it is actually possible that the universe itself is the first causeless cause.

I am going to wait for Socrastein's plentiful evidence for an uncaused universe before I make anymore comments.

 

[Tomk80]

I personally don't argue that a causeless universe is a logical impossibility, but that's another question. Many think that it is a physical impossibility, myself included--that it is impossible on the constraints imposed by the physical universe. But a causeless cause, whether Creator or Nature, is not only a logical possibility, but a logical necessity. The question is whether it is actually possible that the universe itself is the first causeless cause.

But this is exactly what I don't understand. Why do you feel the need to impose a first 'cause' for the universe, which can only present you with the same problems, only higher up. Why do you think it is a physical impossibility.

 

[Illuminatus]

Yes but can we safely assume that the laws of physics function in the same way in a pre-BB situation?

And this is an important point. The entire concept of "cause and effect" is only applicable in a situation where we have time as a dimension. Without time, cause and effect isn't applicable. To say that the universe had to have a cause is making the statement that we know of one of the states that existed before the universe, eg. that time existed.

 

[Knowledge3]

My take on this particular subject is that without basic cause, nothing would have the properties of cause whatsoever. To say something that is 'uncaused' is similiar to winding back the shorthand of the clock. Picture winding back that shorthand on this clock called the universe, as you slowly wind back that clock all things slowly become what they weren't before, should one wind the clock back 4.5 billion years nothing would exist at all, period. Even the term 'exist' would not have meaning.

 

[Randall McNally]

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.

Perhaps I jumped the gun, but some of your later replies indicate that you are unsatisfied with philosophical explanations, which are what I think Socrastein had in mind when he wrote that.

Is there another type of evidence or argument you think is pertinent here?

 

[Socrastein]

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.

It's linked to in my opening post. Random breaking of space-time symmetry and quantum fluctuations need no design or cause, they are natural explanations for the origin of the universe. Read the paper please.

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.

Nobody assumes the 'laws of physics' were the same before the universe began, because they did not even form until shortly after the universe begun. They were a result in the random breaking of symmetry, and the constants and laws of physics are a random outcome of this early symmetry breaking. It's all in the paper. Once again I must suggest that the people responding in this thread actually read the thread that this thread is centered around.

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.

Beggin the question how? We can't directly probe beyond the planck-time, but that simply means that we can't directly probe the beginning of the universe. However, that does not preclude our extrapolating back further. ONCE AGAIN this is in the paper. How many times do I have to tell people to read this thing before they try to pontificate on it?

To everyone who wishes to put their two cents in on the subject at hand:

Please read the paper before you tell me it's wrong, or tell me it misses this or misses that point. Almost every single negative response so far is made out of sheer ignorance of what the paper actually says - it's obvious that the naysayers haven't actually read it.

 

[Matisyahu]

Me: Many think that it is a physical impossibility, myself included--that it is impossible on the constraints imposed by the physical universe. But a causeless cause, whether Creator or Nature, is not only a logical possibility, but a logical necessity.<snip>
Tom: But this is exactly what I don't understand. Why do you feel the need to impose a first 'cause' for the universe, which can only present you with the same problems, only higher up. Why do you think it is a physical impossibility.

Because it is shown universe began to exist, whereas it is assumed (righly, i.e. necessarily) that the Creator did not. Big Bang cosmology implies the universe began out of nothing; the Creator didn't Himself begin. Metaphysics based on an beginningless universe needs to be revised in light of that data. Bear in mind we aren't saying a first temporal cause (the first cause is not in time, but rather the cause of time).

Randall, the only philosophical evidence that I've seen given is Occam's razor, and I've explained why I find that to be lame. I can't tell what Socrastein had in mind, which is why I await to see what it is.

 

[Socrastein]

Matis, you can think Occam's razor is lame, but you're simply being irrational. The universe does not require a supernatural cause. If it does not require a supernatural cause, and can be explained naturally, then you are postulating unnecessary hypotheses. It's that simple.

 

[Matisyahu]

I disagree with you, Soc. I consider Occam's razor helpful, but it isn't the only principle in ruling out explanations. Another is coherency, and the idea of infinite multiple universes popping out of eternal flucuating vacuums has not been found to be coherent. But since it will clearly be difficult for you to try to explain yourself to someone that you think is irrational (as you have declared twice), then I will leave you be.

I read the paper. I then reread it after you asked us to, wondering if I had missed some revelation, that would cause you to be so displeased. It was as interesting as it was the first time, but, alas, no revelations as to what your point could be. Stenger seems mostly to be addressing teleology, not causality simpliciter. The First Cause argument is not based on the Final Anthropic Principle, though some forms of Teleological argument (i.e. the design argument) rely heavily on it. The parts you quoted were the most related to FC (obviously, that being why you quoted them). But you are wrong if you think he got the job done that you brought him on to do--the title "NATURAL EXPLANATIONS FOR THE ANTHROPIC COINCIDENCES" should be a hint that he is not even focusing on the First Cause argument. I will have to check out the speculations of Smith and Smolin he referenced on my own time. I've read Smith, but not that specific article by him.

So I no longer await your evidence, and I retract myself from this thread. If anyone would like to continue this discussion, please contact let me privately, so that I may into cardiac arrest. Just kidding, I won't go into cardiac arrest. Thanks.

 

[Knowledge3]

Matis, you can think Occam's razor is lame, but you're simply being irrational. The universe does not require a supernatural cause. If it does not require a supernatural cause, and can be explained naturally, then you are postulating unnecessary hypotheses. It's that simple.

Yes it does. You reject common sense and logic.

Are you telling me that the majestic american eagle that flies over coastlines of Alaska has no cause to originate from?

I am astounded.

 

[Tomk80]

Yes it does. You reject common sense and logic.

Are you telling me that the majestic american eagle that flies over coastlines of Alaska has no cause to originate from?

I am astounded.

No, he isn't, since the majestic american eagle originited within our own universe, where time exists and hence, cause exists.

However, the problem is what to do with beginning of the universe. Since time didn't exist then, causality didn't exist either.

 

[Socrastein]

Yes it does. You reject common sense and logic.

Are you telling me that the majestic american eagle that flies over coastlines of Alaska has no cause to originate from?

I am astounded.

Please tell me you're being witty and it just isn't translating well through text.

 

[Lifesaver]

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.

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.

Socrastein, whoever says "this is just science" is very naive. This is not science. This is someone's crazy dream, or possibly drug-induced delirium. One would have a hard time in counting how many times this "scientifc hypothesis" contradicts itself.

If you believe that, of if you believe that to be possible, you might as well deny the principles of logic and cease communication with other human beings at once, not to mention give up on trying to prove anything ever again.

 

[Dale]

Socrastein in post #1:
<< This ostensible violation of energy conservation is allowed by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle for sufficiently small time intervals. >>

Need I remind you that we are talking about billionths of a second, or even less for significant masses?

You start off talking about "pure vacuum." I assume that there is an infinite amount of this "pure vacuum" since it seems to have no origin, no shape, and no limits. If an finite universe emerged out of an infinite amount of "pure vacuum" then finity emerged out of infinity. What does that suggest to you?

I suggest that "pure vacuum" is as abstract as anything the theologians ever came up with.

 

[Jet Black]

We don't even need to go to QM. GR doesn't work in a classical singularity either; the field equations cannot be defined there. When GR predicts a singularity, what it's really saying is that GR cannot be used to explain the origin of the Universe; new physics is needed. Thanks to QM, we know that what we need is a working theory of quantum gravity.

true, but GR doesn't even work approaching the singularity, I was just a bit unclear and tired of typing out long responses to this first cause nonsense

 

[Socrastein]

Lifesaver, perhaps you could elaborate on your post? You make some awefully big claims, saying that modern science is "possibly drug-induced delerium", and yet you don't substantiate them in any way whatsoever.

 

[Silent Bob]

Nobody assumes the 'laws of physics' were the same before the universe began, because they did not even form until shortly after the universe begun. They were a result in the random breaking of symmetry, and the constants and laws of physics are a random outcome of this early symmetry breaking. It's all in the paper. Once again I must suggest that the people responding in this thread actually read the thread that this thread is centered around.

Let me point out the assumptions I think happen in the paper and you tell me.

According to the natural scenario, by means of a random quantum fluctuation [Quantum fluctuation before the current time and space existed? What is fluctuating and how?] the universe tunneled from pure vacuum ("nothing") to what is called a false vacuum [Do we know/Can we ever know that the initial state was a state of "nothing"?], a region of space [I was under the impression that the BB is responsible for the origin of space and time as we know it what kind of space are we talking about here?] that contains no matter or radiation but is not quite nothing. The space inside this bubble of
false vacuum was curved, or warped.

Underlinded text is added by me. Italic parts are edited after being corrected by Jet.

On the laws of conservation yes the paper has a good point, I have also read good papers on the anthropic principles and, trust me, I knew about the model this paper talks about.

However I was under the impression that our scientific "eyes" could not see beyond plank time. That is what I am talking about. In order to have a fluctuation you need to have something to fluctuate, you do not and cannot know what was there "before the BB" (Even this phrase is silly in the BB model) and how it behaved.

I read through the paper I have yet to see where it justifies its assumptions that is why I am asking.

 

[Jet Black]

.....I was under the impression that the BB is responsible for the creation of space and time what space are we talking about here....

where do you get that assumption from? it's a bit of a bad assumption if you ask me, since all the BB really shows us is the origin in a sense of this particular organisation of spacetime. not nescessatily the origins of space and time themselves, or whether such a concept even makes sense. Look at it this way, we can treat the North Pole as an origin when we talk about the earth as a surface, but it does not tell us whether surfaces come from.

 

[Silent Bob]

where do you get that assumption from? it's a bit of a bad assumption if you ask me, since all the BB really shows us is the origin in a sense of this particular organisation of spacetime. not nescessatily the origins of space and time themselves, or whether such a concept even makes sense. Look at it this way, we can treat the North Pole as an origin when we talk about the earth as a surface, but it does not tell us whether surfaces come from.

Ok so created is the wrong word. But as you suggest it is the origin of this particular organisation. What are the assumption that we can make about previous organisations and their behaviour? To rephrase: "What kind of space are we talking about here?"

Btw thanks for pointing that out. Learning every day.