The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[X-Ray]

What does that mean?

Fallacy of composition.

Why?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is not what I am discussing. I don't like the GCA. I was saying that this is the framework for the GCA just like the framework for the KCA is listed on my opening thread.

[Asimov]

I don't see any reason why we should accept the idea that anything that begins to exist must have a cause?

[X-Ray]

Dang.  I wish I had seen this thread earlier.

 

Causality requires a natural framework.  There is nothing to suggest that causality applies outside the context of spacetime, and it is nonsense to even speak in such a manner.  What we call causality is nothing more than inference from past experience.

Why must causality require a natural framework?

 

That’s right, inference from past experience. That is why most people associate cause-effect relationships with time where the cause precedes the effect. But there is nothing to suggest that cause-effect has to be related to time.

 

 

To talk of something being caused without such a framework is gibberish.  To say that the universe has a cause is to imply a natural context outside the universe in which such causality happened (note that past tense also implies the existence of spacetime prior to the existence of the universe - spacetime).

 

Nothing has ever been observed to begin to exist.  Everything that has ever been observed is a rearrangement of that which pre-existed, not a new creation from "nothing".  There is nothing to suggest that anything has an absolute beginning.

This is an incidental aspect of cause. Like I said cause is just something that brings about its effect.

 

 

Only the present actually exists.  The past is not actual in that sense.  It may be infinite because it is not actual. 

If you want to say that the past does not exist then you can apply infinity to it. But the present is in the form that it is because of the events of the past. So the past at one time existed. Every past event, except for the first one, was at one time in the in the future, and was at one time the present. The present is built on the past. As far as time goeswe can say that there is a lineal progression. There was a regression of events that led to the present.

 

Regardless, the word "infinity" does not represetn a number.  It is nothing more than the inability to bound something.  There's no logical reason that the universe can not actually be unbounded in one or more senses.

 

That’s right. That’s why an actual infinite is impossible.

 

In what senses might the universe be unbounded?

 

 

There is a field of mathematics devoted to non-natural numbers that allows for things such as a+1=a, when a refers to an unbounded quantity (infinite).

Red herring.

 

The KCA has been disassembled by philosophers for many many years already.  It seems only theists don't know about the refutations.

In what ways? Every piece of philosophical work has been “disassembled” and reassembled many times. That’s why we are still discussing the same issues that have been discussed for 2500+ years. It depends on the critic’s bias.

 

For xray, how can god cause the universe to exist outside the context of spacetime?  Note that it incomprehensible to speak of anything "before the universe" or "outside the universe".

If it is shown that the universe had a beginning and that whatever begins has a cause then it is only natural to wonder about the cause and discuss what attributes it might possess.

 

I already explained that a cause is something that brings about its effect. This has nothing to do with temporal progression. Like I said it could be said that a timeless being chose to bring about a state of affairs not present before. Like you say, spacetime was created with the universe, so this timeless cause installed, if you will, its creation, with a temporal effect. If time is undifferentiated before the Big Bang, why would anything change after the Big Bang? This definitely adds weight to the idea that the cause of the universe is of the order of mind.

 

If you are still not satisfied with this answer than think about God creating the universe collaterally with the Big Bang.

[X-Ray]

Why do I have to?  Again, I do not subscribe to your conception of causality in which it is a metaphysical relation between two entities.  Heck, I find the concept quite problematic.

You asked me to look into Big Bang cosmology and quantum mechanics so I presupposed that is what you were referring to and I responded accordingly. The superuniverse idea is not my idea, I was just telling you one of the theories that cosmologists, physicists, and quantum mechanics have come up with in terms of a possible explanation to the universe. Most conclude, that if the universe came from a vacuum fluctuation, that it must be from something else, beyond the universe.

 

Strawman.  I am merely saying that a sufficient explanation would be that it is possible that a chain of events can extend from the quantum level to affect the macroscopic level.  Hell, this is the very basis of modern scientific cosmology!  One cannot say that the quantum level influences the macroscopic level and yet deny that a massive (though incredibly rare) vacuum genesis event would have a substantive macroscopic effect.

Maybe it is possible that a chain of events extend from the quantum level to affect the macroscopic level, but offhand, I cannot think of any instances. The only thing that comes to mind is the atomic bomb, but an atomic bomb requires manipulation of the required materials in order to be brought to fruition. An atom bomb cannot cause itself and nature cannot manipulate itself. This brings up an interesting point. Abstract thought is required in order to manipulate something. Maybe something worth thinking about when wondering about the cause of the universe.

[X-Ray]

Actually, my first reply was very unclear, so I want to give it one more try.

 

The basic problem when thinking about infinity is, that we so easy may apply logic, that only is valid in a context of finite values. And I think that this is what happens, when x-ray presents Hilbert's Hotel.

 

The way math (at least the kind of math I am familiar with) deals with infinity is to make extrapolations from the finite towards infinity. If we for example consider a hotel with 10 (single) rooms and we know it is filed, then we can easily figure out, that there also must be 10 persons in that hotel. If an extra person shows up, there will of course be no rooms available, since the new demand (11 rooms) exceeds the supply (10 rooms). In order to compare the demand and the supply, it may be relevant to calculate a ratio, for example the demand divided by the supply. In the case of 10 rooms and on extra person the ratio will be 11/10 = 1.1 = 110 %.

 

Now, what happens if this situation is extrapolated towards infinity. Well, then the number of rooms can be represented by X and then demand for rooms is then X + 1. The ratio then becomes (X + 1) / X = 1 + 1/X. For X = 10 this formula still gives 110%, for X = 100 the ratio is 101% and as X grows and grows, the ratio comes closer and closer to 100%. And this seems very consistent with the Hilbert Hotel, where an extra persons matters nothing compared to infinity. So in this case, there is so to speak balance between the infinite number of rooms and the infinite number of persons even when a finite number of extra persons show up.

 

You are using potential infinity when in your discussion of supply and demand. Yes, the more X grows the closer you get to ∞, but you never reach ∞ and therefore you never get exactly 100%. Close enough to where it doesn’t really matter, but not all the way there.

 

All this really doesn’t matter though. Infinity, in mathematics, is used as a tool. It is an abstraction. An actual infinity, like an infinite amount of rooms, bricks, stars in the sky, whatever, is not possible. In order to create an infinite amount of anything substantial one need an infinite amount of matter. The universe does not contain an infinite amount of matter.

 

 

Now what happens at the Hilbert Hotel, if we ask all the guests to invite a friend. Will there be room for them? Because we have a infinite number of rooms, we can always find room for a finite number of extra guests, but is the infinity of rooms so to speak big enough for the infinite number of extra guests?

 

If we once again look at it by making extrapolations towards infinity, we can say that the demand for rooms will be 2*X, and the ratio will be (2*X)/X = 200%. When X now is extrapolated towards infinity the ration will remain 200%. So in this situation, there will be no balance. The infinity of demand will so to speak be twice as big as the infinity of rooms.

 

And in a similar way, we can also imagine the opposite situation, where half of the people are told to go home. Then the hotel will only be half full, even when we extrapolate the situation towards an infinite number of rooms and an infinite number of people.

 

So an infinite hotel with and infinite number of guests can both be halfway filled, filled, or overloaded. It all depends on the extrapolations you make in your own mind, when our are going to imagine the infinite hotel.

 

Yes, that is the key – the extrapolations we make in our minds. Just because we can imagine something in our mind, does not suggest that it is possible in reality. In the thought experiment we could say that the hotel can be both filled and halfway filled, but applying this to reality we see that it is paradoxical. A hotel cannot have both vacancies and no vacancies.

 

In my first reply I objected to the notion, that “let’s suppose that each room is occupied”. In an infinite situation, I am not sure that “occupation” is a well defined concept. But nevertheless, I think it is okay to use it, because what is implied, is that the extrapolation involved is based on a balanced situation where the demand/supply ratio is X/X = 100%. But it goes wrong, when x-ray later objects to the idea that, “It is also impossible that a hotel can have vacancies and not have vacancies at the same time”. How does x-ray know that?

It is a logical contradiction.

 

From his experience and thinking about finite matters. (Actually Hilbert's Hotel is very well in line with another point in x-ray's post, where he says that finity cannot sum up into infinity)

 

So the conslussion cannot be, that infinity does not exist, the conslussion is, that we easily may get it mixed up, because our concepts and imagination about infinity are poor.

Infinity in the abstract exists. Infinity in reality does not.

[X-Ray]

Re:  Hilbert's Hotel and actual infinite

 

Thought experiment 1:  imagine all matter in the universe speeding away from the "center" that we call the locus of the Big Bang.  Some people postulate that the universe eventually will diffuse itself to the point that all matter is effectively dispersed and there is no "universe"

 

Thought experiment 2:  Hilbert's Hotel keeps adding visitors and rooms to infinity, expanding in all directions without limit

 

At some time t Hilbert's Hotel becomes coterminous with the universe?  Or does it keep expanding in material form while all the atoms in the universe have become separated from each other?  Or do the universe and Hilbert's Hotel bend back on each other and themselves in some way?  Or are the universe and Hilbert's Hotel metaphors of the... (drumroll)... TEXT?? ha ha

 

Sorry, just threw that last one in there for fun.

 

Interesting musings. All things that show the contradictory nature the hotel and why an actual infinite is impossible.

 

Anyway, this guy is not sure we're talking about anything meaningful when we talk about actual infinites.

 

But that aside--

 

X-ray spoke of an actual infinite series of events.  Unlike a guest or a room, an event is not a single thing.  Any event can be subdivided into littler events.  I'd say there is an infinite number of events between 1938 and today, ditto between 1937 and 1938..  These are potential infinites in Aristotle's terms.  A second problem, to which Ari pointed, is that an event does not perdure.  Events that happened before the present moment do not exist now.  That's because an event is not a substance.  So the person adding all events going back into the past is not adding any collection of items that exist at the same time.  Therefore the sum of all events is not an actual infinite.

 

My view right now is that X-ray's premise 2.12 in his first subargument, i.e. an infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite, is false.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So, then WWI never happened? Caesar never crossed the Rubicon? I am not typing this right now? “An event is not substance” sounds like a thought that leads to solipsism. Similar to what spamandham was talking about.

 

For this discussion we are using the word event in a physical sense, or as it relates to physics.

 

Here are two definitions of events. For this discussion we are using the word event as it refers to physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event

 

Look at the 4th definition of event given here:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book...event&x=22&y=17

[spamandham]

So, then WWI never happened?  Caesar never crossed the Rubicon? I am not typing this right now?  “An event is not substance” sounds like a thought that leads to solipsism.  Similar to what spamandham was talking about.

 

It did happen. But it isn't happening. For future reference, you're supposed to include the holocaust in your list. That's the standard formula for this discussion.

 

The past and future exist only as potential in the present. But potential is not actuality. When you refer to an actual infinite existing, you are implying an actual infinite in the present (or at some specific moment). But the past does not exist in the present, and so it can be infinite without being an "actual" infinite.

 

None of this should presume that you've made a solid case of the nonexistence of actual infinites; you haven't. The above example showing 0.999 (inf) is a counter example, and only one counter example is required to discredit a claim of impossibility.

 

Nor does the KCA rest on the actual infinity discussion. It's discredited without this discussion. This is a sidebar.

 

You claim the past must be bounded, yet you can provide no upper limit on that bound even in principle. The past may be arbitrarily large according to your argument. When something is unboundable even in principle, it's infinite. That's what the word "infinite" means.

 

Using the same line of argument used to arrive at a finite past, you could argue that the universe is bounded in size as well, since we could not arrive where we are without having traversed an infinite distance. Do you see the absurdity? Of course we could be right where we are, and the universe also be infinite in size, if the location we are at is our frame of reference.

 

Do you have an answer for what "causaility" means in the absence of spacetime?

[X-Ray]

For some reason the quote function is not working for me right now so I put all my words in bold print. Maybe a moderator could go back and fix it.

 

 

Kalam Cause and Purpose Conclusion Antithesis

 

I realized that there is not need to argue about the Hotel Paradox and its validity, instead I made the decision to argue the conclusion of the KCA, and not the logic in the argument itself. There are some assumptions made in the argument that I will bring up and discuss as well.

 

Sentient Cause or Non-Sentient Cause

 

Even if the Kalam Cosmological Argument is true, it still doesn't prove that the First Cause would be conscious and sentient. It only proves that beyond our physical world there is a meta-physical world that we yet have to discover.

 

Discussions about curvature of space, extra spatial dimensions, black holes and wormholes only proves that scientist know that there is more to space than we currently know.

 

There are still a lot to understand when it comes to Quantum Mechanics and the dual nature of light. The explanations might lead us to believe in multiple universes, like the Ekpyrotic Universe Model.

The Ekpyrotic Universe Model is still highly theoretical.

 

I don’t see a huge problem with the Kalam argument, but I don’t agree with the conclusion that this proves that there is a Supreme Being as the First Cause.

You understand it now. The Kalam argument is arguing that the universe has a cause. The discussion of the nature of that cause is ancillary to the argument. So you are right, the conclusion that God exists does not follow directly from the argument. But analyzing the cause of the universe and considering attributes that it must possess in order to create the universe as well as taking into consideration the anthropic principle we can come up with a pretty good case that a sentient being created it.

Maybe we could use a courtroom analogy. We are looking at the evidence to discern what the cause of the universe is. Given the philosophical argument and the scientific confirmations, such as those seem through the anthropic principle, I believe that the KCA meets the onus of proof.

 

The First Cause can be as non-intelligent and irrational, as an earthquake is to a rock, when it makes it start rolling down a hill.

It could be, but the evidence doesn’t point that way. Like I discussed, how could, if spacetime is created at the Big Bang and did not exist without the universe, a non-sentient set of necessary and requisite conditions cause a thing with a temporal effect? I don’t need to restate the last part of my argument. And why were the physical constants in such a way as to allow life. Did you know that the fundamental unit of charge, if changed by even a fraction of 1 percent, the sun would not have been able to form? But I do not want to get into the fine-tuning and teleological arguments. Suffice to say, a non-sentient cause does not seem plausible.

 

For millennia people believed many natural events were caused by a supreme being with a purpose in mind, but with modern science it has been proven to be natural causes to natural events, and not supernatural causes to natural events.

 

Kalam only leads to the conclusion that the universe, in the state as we know it right now, came from a different state, and this “proto-universe” was not tied to the same physical laws of nature that we now have.

It leads to the conclusion that there is a cause for our universe.

 

We still don’t know the laws that had to apply to the “proto-universe” before big bang. The big bang is still a mystery and the theories are constantly in flux.

You are phrasing this in such a way as to suggest that there is a proto-universe. We don’t know if there was a proto-universe, and chances are, there wasn’t.

 

The first few moments of the big bang had had to contradict many of our current physical laws.

Yes, the physical laws of the universe break down at the Big Bang. This suggests that laws were created with the universe.

 

For instance, the big bang happened in a fraction of a second, and the universe expanded to 70-80% of its currents size.

This sentence is unclear. Are you trying to say that the universe was created and in a fraction of a second it was 70-80% its current size? If this is what you are saying then it is false. The universe, in its early inflationary stage, increased from something smaller than a proton to the size of a basketball in a fraction of a second. You will probably notice that this is faster than the speed of light. This is possible because the laws are not fully formed yet.

I know what you are saying though.

 

Kalam only can state B came from A. Which all of us know and agree with, but not all of us agree that it automatically would imply that A was sentient and intentional.

 

Kalam equals Cause with Purpose, which doesn’t get proven, not even by using the Hotel Paradox.

He makes here the assumption that an enormous finite universe has to be created by a creator (the creator). He uses the term Creator without definition, but still uses it in a way that in most everyone will trigger the thought of a conscious being.

Maybe I should have stuck with cause, but since the evidence, going back to the courtroom analogy, lends inself to belief in a sentient cause, I opted for the stronger word.

 

But this doesn’t have to be the case. Why do I say this?

 

Look at it this way:

We live in a black box, and we only know partially how the black box works, we don’t know if the black box we live in is just part of a larger machinery of black boxes. It would be a Russian Doll/Black Box scenario where the event of “Creation” does have a Cause, but not a Purpose for the Cause. Our box is just output from a function in a larger scale black box.

 

This Russian Doll/Black Box scenario can also be developed ad infinitum.

 

It’s dangerous to make the leap from Cause to Purpose, and use the argument for Cause to argue the Purpose. They do not necessarily relate. Most events in this universe have non-purpose causes.

I don’t believe that is true. Gravity causes a ball to fall. The purpose of gravity is to hold things in place and keep things in order. The purpose of the strong force is to keep subatomic particles, namely hadrons, from going wild. I would think the universe would be pretty chaotic without the forces that govern all matter. Wouldn't you agree?

 

This is not necessarily true! You can’t make assumptions on the meta-physical world based on restricted thought and understanding limited to this world. It could just as well have been a dog that barfed out the universe. Maybe it was a temporal discrepancy in the fabric of the brane universe causing a cataclysmic event to take place? Time could exist in the meta-framework, just not the same kind of time as we have.

I do not subscribe to Brane Theory as far as science goes. It is too theoretical.

 

Time would presuppose some kind of material or event because time can be only measured between events or when something existing changes its state.

 

Not true. It only leaves us with a metaphysical cause. “Personal” is a word referring to an entity of a conscious mind, and it assumes that a metaphysical world only can contain personal entities. But it doesn’t have to be that way.

What else might be able to exist in a metaphysical world?

 

The only thing we can imagine being immaterial is our mind, but again, that’s assuming that a “mind” is the only thing that can be immaterial. We still wouldn’t know what the metaphysical world would contain. Everything in the metaphysical world would be immaterial to us. God’s little dog Barky Bob is just as immaterial to us as our mind is.

 

If you know anything about computers and programming, different levels of language, maybe you can appreciate this illustration:

High level programming languages are just as immaterial in concept and design to the CPU, as the metaphysical world would be to us.

I don’t know much about programming. I would think that the concept of it is immaterial as it is an abstract thought, but as far as the implementation goes, I would not think so as you are giving instructions to a (a material object)computer telling what to do given certain circumstances.

 

And yet that is what the Bible states God did, and the argument only God is the one that can create something ex nihilo.

 

: G(N) -> S

 

So again, if it’s possible to create something from nothing, then how can it be impossible to have nothing become something? God basically contradicted the law that proves that he must have created to universe.

There needs to be a cause. That is basically what it is saying. Something cannot be spontaneously created without a cause. Through agent causation, it can be said that god chose to bring about a state of affairs that was not present before.

 

: C(N) -> S

 

We could agree on “Nothing became something”, but if the cause was A God, or A Machine, you still can not tell.

 

: fn(N) -> S

Summary

 

Kalam could be used to prove a Cause for the universe, but it does not prove a Purpose or Intelligence behind it.

 

It tries to do it by slipping in notions about our mind as the only existing evidence of the immaterial.

 

But how can we know that, since our mind is finite, and the immaterial we try to explain is infinite.

 

Maybe the mind is not immaterial after all, because to believe that, it takes a leap of faith and not reason.

 

X-Ray, prove to me the Purpose or the Intention of the Cause, and then we can discuss Gods existence.

Reference:

 

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclope...k/Ekpyrotic.htm

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/science/physics/

I already said this. Through agent causation, the universe must be determined by a cause, who, from its free will, creates its effect without a prior seminal state of affairs. The agent has free will, and is able to perform an action with the intention of bringing about a certain state of affairs not present before. This is the purpose. Can I proof this? No. But if what you say is true that it is dangerous to leap from cause to purpose, and that most events have non-purpose causes, then why would a personal Creator need a purpose? Why couldn’t he just freely choose?

[X-Ray]

For future reference, you're supposed to include the holocaust in your list.  That's the standard formula for this discussion.

What the heck is this supposed to mean? Kindly explain it to me before I address the rest of your post.

[Ouroboros]

X-Ray,

 

I'm glad you had the time to respond to my arguments, and there a couple of things I'd like to refute, but my time is limited tonight and tomorrow, so I just let you know I will be back in a day or two with my rebuttal.

 

H

[MrSpooky]

Maybe it is possible that a chain of events extend from the quantum level to affect the macroscopic level, but offhand, I cannot think of any instances. The only thing that comes to mind is the atomic bomb, but an atomic bomb requires manipulation of the required materials in order to be brought to fruition. An atom bomb cannot cause itself and nature cannot manipulate itself. This brings up an interesting point. Abstract thought is required in order to manipulate something. Maybe something worth thinking about when wondering about the cause of the universe.

 

What about fusion as seen in stars? Or the quantum phenomena that cause a supernova? What about degenerate matter or strange matter?

[MrSpooky]

Numbers are abstract entities. They are tools used to desribe quantities of things and whatnotand take measurements. If a number is real (corporeal), then go find one for me and send it to me. I'll paypal the first person who finds a number for me $50.

 

If you're willing to accept numbers as having some weight as a model for reality despite their status as abstract entities, what exactly is your problem with using infinity as a model for reality despite its status as an abstract entity?

[♦ ficino ♦]

You are phrasing this in such a way as to suggest that there is a proto-universe. We don’t know if there was a proto-universe, and chances are, there wasn’t.

 

Dear X-ray, thank you for stimulating my/our thinking. Even though the Kalam Argument has been much discussed, it is an argument worth revisiting.

 

Like Han Solo and others, I think you're leaping a long way when you say that evidence inclines us to think that the cause of the universe is sentient. I thought the Big Bang is as far "back" as science can extrapolate. So I don't see how you have a basis to say that "chances are there wasn't" a proto-universe. We also don't know that conscious beings have to have been created by a conscious being (is that what you mean by the "anthropic principle"?).

 

If space and time are functions of the universe, then there was no time at which the universe did not exist. Therefore the universe has no beginning-- for a beginning implies a time before the beginning.

 

Some branches of Hinduism say that the universe is born of itself or self-caused. Why not just say that instead of bumping the question up a level to derive the universe from a creator that is self-caused? Occam's Razor.

 

On another tack: I've seen some people say that the Casimir Effect leads us to think that things can come into being without a cause. Mr. Spooky, you've alluded to that, right? X-ray, forgive me if you've already spoken to that question. Do you have a view on it?

[spamandham]

What the heck is this supposed to mean? Kindly explain it to me before I address the rest of your post.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The typical sequence of the argument goes like this:

a: the past must be finite because actual infinites aren't possible

b: the past is not actual

a: oh, so the holocaust didn't happen

 

You're not the first to argue the KCA. You followed the typical sequence, but failed to reference the holocaust per the standard formula. I suppose you get some credit for that.

[MrSpooky]

On another tack: I've seen some people say that the Casimir Effect leads us to think that things can come into being without a cause. Mr. Spooky, you've alluded to that, right? X-ray, forgive me if you've already spoken to that question. Do you have a view on it?

 

Do tell.

[Ouroboros]

What's cool with the Casimir effect is that it maybe could be used for warp drive.

 

Hypothetically.

 

To boldly go where no one has gone before.

Engage!

[X-Ray]

Dear X-ray, thank you for stimulating my/our thinking.  Even though the Kalam Argument has been much discussed, it is an argument worth revisiting.

Yeah, I find it fascinating.

 

Like Han Solo and others, I think you're leaping a long way when you say that evidence inclines us to think that the cause of the universe is sentient. I thought the Big Bang is as far "back" as science can extrapolate.

Yes it is. The scientific evidence leads us to believe that there was a beginning to the universe, namely the Big Bang. If there was a start and whatever begins to exist has a cause then we can analyze that cause, if you will, and see what kind of properties it must possess in order to create the universe. Some of the properties we have come up with lend themselves to the idea of a sentient being.

 

Maybe I should have expanded a bit on the courtroom analogy. It is like a robbery case in which the accused denies any wrongdoing. Therefore it is up to the courts to weigh the evidence and make a judgment. There may be no way to know 100% for sure whether the person accused was the one who committed the robbery, but since the evidence leads to that conclusion, he/she will be convicted, or found innocent, as the case may be.

 

So I don't see how you have a basis to say that "chances are there wasn't" a proto-universe.

You’re right. Maybe I jumped the gun. I sort of get lost in all this discussion. You know what I think we should do? We should try to gather all the theories about the origin of the universe and pre-universe or outside of the universe and list them.

 

We also don't know that conscious beings have to have been created by a conscious being (is that what you mean by the "anthropic principle"?).

Sort of. The anthropic principle refers to the idea that the universe was fine tuned for life. That if certain physical constants were changed, even by the smallest of fractions, the universe would be drastically different, and and not capable of producing life. So, the implication is how could this have occurred by chance without a sentient entity deliberately setting the constants as such.

 

If space and time are functions of the universe, then there was no time at which the universe did not exist. Therefore the universe has no beginning-- for a beginning implies a time before the beginning.

Space and time are functions of the universe, but much evidence leads to a beginning of the universe. Using the red-shift to determine the expansion rate of the universe we can measure its age approximately.

 

On another tack: I've seen some people say that the Casimir Effect leads us to think that things can come into being without a cause. Mr. Spooky, you've alluded to that, right? X-ray, forgive me if you've already spoken to that question. Do you have a view on it?

I really don’t know too much about it. I guess it says that parallel uncharged plates, when put in a vacuum, are attracted to each other. And this is caused by vacuum fluctuations. I have already spoken about the indirect cause of vacuum fluctuations.

 

For what it’s worth, anything with mass exerts a gravitational pull that attracts anything else with mass. You and I, having mass, generate a gravitational field, but of course, it is so weak, that it is not noticeable. In order for gravity to be noticeable one of the objects has to be big, for example, the earth. Objects with mass are pulled by their mutual center of gravity. For example, it isn’t that the earth pulls you back when you jump, but rather that you and the earth are being pulled together by your mutual center of gravity. Since the earth is so much more massive than you the mutual center of gravity is near the center of the earth, so you will never notice the earth being pulled towards you. Anyway, where I am going with this is that it is possible that the two plates are being pulled together by their mutual gravity. I really don’t know that much about the Casimir Effect, and am probably way off base, so I will stop right there.

[X-Ray]

What about fusion as seen in stars?  Or the quantum phenomena that cause a supernova?  What about degenerate matter or strange matter?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wrote the response so quickly, that I wasn't thinking about everything. You are right about stars and supernova. The difference is that gravity, by the weight of the star, acts on the atomic nuclei pressing them together creating high temperatures and thus fusing them together. Their is no conscious manipulation.

[X-Ray]

If you're willing to accept numbers as having some weight as a model for reality despite their status as abstract entities, what exactly is your problem with using infinity as a model for reality despite its status as an abstract entity?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe this, from wikipedia will help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity

Physical infinity

In physics, approximations of real numbers are used for continuous measurements and natural numbers are used for discrete measurements (i.e. counting). It is therefore assumed by physicists that no measurable quantity could have an infinite value, for instance by taking an infinite value in an extended real number system (see also: hyperreal number), or by requiring the counting of an infinite number of events. It is for example presumed impossible for any body to have infinite mass or infinite energy. There exists the concept of infinite entities (such as an infinite plane wave) but there are no means to generate such things. Likewise, perpetual motion machines theoretically generate infinite energy by attaining 100% efficiency or greater, and emulate every conceivable open system; the impossible problem follows of knowing that the output is actually infinite when the source or mechanism exceeds any known and understood system.

 

This point of view does not mean that infinity cannot be used in physics. For convenience sake, calculations, equations, theories and approximations, often use infinite series, unbounded functions, etc., and may involve infinite quantities. Physicists however require that the end result be physically meaningful. In quantum field theory infinities arise which need to be interpreted in such a way as to lead to a physically meaningful result, a process called renormalization.

Emphasis mine

[spamandham]

Space and time are functions of the universe, but much evidence leads to a beginning of the universe. Using the red-shift to determine the expansion rate of the universe we can measure its age approximately.

 

Yes, but we are discussing metaphysics. We could simply bypass all this business about infinite regress if we simply observe that the known universe is of finite age by observation - assuming the big bang or something like it is agreed upon. But to do so does not help the KCA in the least, since it still presumes a time when the universe did not exist, followed by creation.

 

From everything we can observe and infer, the universe has existed for all time, even though time itself is bounded. So, it fails the "everything that begins to exist" test since it has always existed.

 

Of course, our understanding could be wrong. If membrane theory pans out, or something similar, we may discover spacetime transcends the known universe within other dimensions. But right now that's no more than conjecture.

 

It is therefore assumed by physicists that no measurable quantity could have an infinite value.

 

Who here is claiming that the past must be a measurable quantity?

[X-Ray]

The typical sequence of the argument goes like this:

a: the past must be finite because actual infinites aren't possible

b: the past is not actual

a: oh, so the holocaust didn't happen

 

You're not the first to argue the KCA.  You followed the typical sequence, but failed to reference the holocaust per the standard formula.  I suppose you get some credit for that.

 

Typical sequence, ehh? Standard formula? I have never heard of that before. It sounded like you were indirectly accusing me of anti-Semitism or denying the plight that Jews went through as a result of Hitler. Or that you were implying that Christians, which you assume I am, are anti-Semitic and prone to denying the actuality of the Holocaust. what makes it even more amazing is that you say these things, out of nowhere, without knowing anything about me. I know this can be a rough site as far as theists go so I don't care if someone calls me a name like berserk, fundy, stupid, dipshit, whatever because these are vacuous identifiers. But if someone accuses me of something groundless, then I take offence. It also sounded like you were giving me a directive by saying for future reference I need to use the example of the Holocaust not being real.

 

I just used the first two examples that came to me.

 

You're not the first to argue the KCA. You followed the typical sequence, but failed to reference the holocaust per the standard formula. I suppose you get some credit for that.

First you indirectly accuse me of something totally unfounded and unrelated to anyhting we have been discussing and then proceed to "give me credit" for acting contrarily. Wow! I guess I should be grateful, right?

 

Anyway, no reason to cry over spilled milk. To your arguments,

 

OK, you need to back the horse up because you are confusing the issue on several different levels.

 

The typical sequence of the argument goes like this:

a: the past must be finite because actual infinites aren't possible

b: the past is not actual

You are confusing the word actual. I am using the word to say that there are no actual infinites. A temporal regression of the past is not an actual infinite (i.e. it has not gone on forever). Instead, it is a potential infinite, or more specifically, an actual potential infinite meaning that it is a collection built on successive addition. You are using the word actual to mean that the present is all there is and that the past does not exist; in other words it is not actual. But since I am using the word actual (only in a different sense) you are (unintentionally?) turning it around on me implying that I am saying that the past is not actual when in reality, it is you who is saying the past is not actual. DO you see what I mean?

 

a: oh, so the holocaust didn't happen

According to your use of the word actual, this what you are implying, not me.

 

---------------------------------------------------------

The past and future exist only as potential in the present.

Only the future is potential. The past cannot be changed.

 

But potential is not actuality.

Correct. And a potential infinite is different than an actual infinite. That is why the time is built by successive addition, because we don’t know what will happen in the future. Each event is built on the previous, so event 789 is built on 788 and leads to 790. Before I continue here let me ask you a question. Could we number events chronologically?

 

When you refer to an actual infinite existing, you are implying an actual infinite in the present (or at some specific moment). But the past does not exist in the present, and so it can be infinite without being an "actual" infinite.

Explain to me what you think time is.

Then explain how time is measured.

Define past and present for me.

 

Let me see if I can explain this in another way.

Space and time are one. Time is intrinsic in our universe. It is built into the fabric of space so to speak. According to Newtonian physics space and time are separate; time being abstract. Therefore, according to Newtonian physics, we could just go faster and faster eventually reaching the speed of light and then just keep on going. Time is not dependent on space, speed, or anything. But, we know that this is wrong. In reality time is dependent on how fast you are going. The closer you are to the speed of light, the slower you would appear to be going, if we could see you from earth. But you would not notice any difference in your action. Likewise, if you could travel at the speed of light, we, on earth, would see you as not moving. Time would, in essence, stand still for you. It would not progress. This is what people mean when they say time does not exist outside the universe.

 

Think of it this way: The speed of light is the speed of time.

 

Just another example: Suppose we had two synchronized clocks, and for argument sake they were atomic clocks. Now suppose we put one clock on a spaceship capable of attaining a speed of .5c (half the speed of light) and we put one of our clocks onto the ship and set it on a journey. When the ship returns we would notice that the clocks showed different times. The clock on the ship would appear to be running slow. It doesn’t matter what kind of clock you use – alarm clock, digital, writ watch – the discrepancy would be the same. I don’t want to go into the reasons why because it would take a long time to explain, but just know, that time distortion is real. The GPS satellites, that we are all familiar with, have to undergo constant relativistic corrections in order to be accurate.

 

So ask yourself this: If time is abstract, like numbers – just something we use as a measurement, why would it be dependent on speed? And why would it be able to stand still? The implication is that time is a property of the physical universe and therefore is an actual infinite. There is no such thing as infinite time. Time is dependent on speed and light.

 

None of this should presume that you've made a solid case of the nonexistence of actual infinites; you haven't. The above example showing 0.999 (inf) is a counter example, and only one counter example is required to discredit a claim of impossibility.

 

Nor does the KCA rest on the actual infinity discussion. It's discredited without this discussion. This is a sidebar.

How is it discredited?

 

And show me an actual infinite.

 

You claim the past must be bounded, yet you can provide no upper limit on that bound even in principle.

I don’t even know what this means. If you mean the limits of the past, or the limits of time, then I have done that. The lower limit is the Big Bang. The upper limit is the present. Time is ongoing, so it is constantly being added to. A collection by successinve addition.

 

The past may be arbitrarily large according to your argument.

What do you mean by arbitrarily large? The past is contained between the Big Bang and the present.

[X-Ray]

post cutoff

 

When something is unboundable even in principle, it's infinite. That's what the word "infinite" means.

 

Using the same line of argument used to arrive at a finite past, you could argue that the universe is bounded in size as well,

I thought I did. The universe is bounded. Spacetime was created at the Big Bang and expanded from there.

 

since we could not arrive where we are without having traversed an infinite distance. Do you see the absurdity?

No absurdity.

 

Of course we could be right where we are, and the universe also be infinite in size, if the location we are at is our frame of reference.

 

Do you have an answer for what "causaility" means in the absence of spacetime

I’ve explained causality. The concept of cause is something that produces or brings about its effect. If you are having trouble thinking of cause outside of a time frame then look at time. Time is measured when something existing changes its state or between events. Therefore, something immaterial and changeless (i.e. outside the universe) would not be confinied to a temporal cause-effect relationship (within the framework of the universe). At that moment, a finite time ago, the Cause, existing changelessly and eternally created the world in time.

 

How does my definition of cause presuppose a temporal sequence?

[X-Ray]

Yes, but we are discussing metaphysics. We could simply bypass all this business about infinite regress if we simply observe that the known universe is of finite age by observation - assuming the big bang or something like it is agreed upon.

Yes, I agree. The discussion of infinite regress is unnecessary to show the universe had a beginning. It is just an extra way to show it.

 

But to do so does not help the KCA in the least, since it still presumes a time when the universe did not exist, followed by creation.

I think the Big Bang does also, depending on what you think was before it or outside it.

 

From everything we can observe and infer, the universe has existed for all time, even though time itself is bounded. So, it fails the "everything that begins to exist" test since it has always existed.

This does not follow from what you previously said. I am an adherent of the Big Bang because most of the evidence leads to that conclusion. If something better comes along I will evaluate it.

 

Of course, our understanding could be wrong. If membrane theory pans out, or something similar, we may discover spacetime transcends the known universe within other dimensions. But right now that's no more than conjecture.

Agreed. Like I was saying in one of my previous posts I would like to compile a list of as many theories of the origin of the universe as possible. I will try to do rhat in the next day or two, although I will be busy. I have anthropology mid-term on Thursday.

 

It is therefore assumed by physicists that no measurable quantity could have an infinite value.

 

 

Who here is claiming that the past must be a measurable quantity?

See my previous post.

[X-Ray]

I haven't forgot about you, MrSpooky, or the rst of the posts I wanted to address, but I will be busy studying for the next few days. I'll get back as soon as possible.

[MrSpooky]

That's okay, I'm pretty tuckered out from working at the lab today.

 

Training three newbies and performing four DNA extractions.