Argument From Equilibrium
Continuing on the theme of proving the existence of a timeless first cause (God), I have a new argument. First, I'll give the argument as an analogy:
Think of the universe as a hamster cage with a spinning wheel and toys. No hamster always leads to equilibrium. With a hamster(=God) the cage stays out of equilibrium.
So my argument is:
1. If time has a start then there must be a timeless first cause to create time. If time has no start:
2. then our universe will have gone through all possible states.
3. But some states are equilibrium states.
4. Once in equilibrium the universe cannot escape.
5. We are not in equilibrium.
6. There must be something permanent and self-driven (IE intelligent) that is prevented us from reaching equilibrium.
7. It is not possible to exist permanently in time so the something must be the timeless first cause.
Some notes on the universe’s long term behaviour:
A. The universe’s expansion might be preventing equilibrium; but if the universe has always been expanding that implies a beginning, IE a first cause.
B. A cyclic universe is not possible (not stable - cycle time would deteriorate to [C] below).
C. A contracting universe is not possible.
D. A static universe would definitely reach equilibrium
Think of the universe as a hamster cage with a spinning wheel and toys. No hamster always leads to equilibrium. With a hamster(=God) the cage stays out of equilibrium.
So my argument is:
1. If time has a start then there must be a timeless first cause to create time. If time has no start:
2. then our universe will have gone through all possible states.
3. But some states are equilibrium states.
4. Once in equilibrium the universe cannot escape.
5. We are not in equilibrium.
6. There must be something permanent and self-driven (IE intelligent) that is prevented us from reaching equilibrium.
7. It is not possible to exist permanently in time so the something must be the timeless first cause.
Some notes on the universe’s long term behaviour:
A. The universe’s expansion might be preventing equilibrium; but if the universe has always been expanding that implies a beginning, IE a first cause.
B. A cyclic universe is not possible (not stable - cycle time would deteriorate to [C] below).
C. A contracting universe is not possible.
D. A static universe would definitely reach equilibrium
Comments (93)
That does not follow. There merely needs to be an initial point of time. Refer back to my description of Sean Carroll's hypothesis from the other thread: the ground state constitutes the initial point of time for all universes.
The notion that a first cause can be "timeless" is problematic. Timeless does not mean "frozen in time" it means that something exists independent of time. Abstractions exist timelessly (consider the law of non-contradiction - it is an abstraction; it did not come into existence and it cannot cease to exist). But abstractions are not causally efficacious. Why believe a timeless entity can be causally efficacious?
But time and causality are inextricably linked and a first cause is required for causality. So if there is a start of time, there must be a timeless first cause else nothing else would exist within causality.
Quoting Relativist
Because there does not seem to any other logical option; time cannot stretch back in an infinite regress; it would have no starting moment so as a result, none of it would be defined. If an infinite regress of time is impossible, the only other possibility is a start of time. But that requires a timeless first cause. The first cause must be outside of causality/time itself to be uncaused and have permanent existence.
Aquinas's Argument From Necessary Being supports this view:
- Can’t get something from nothing
- So something must have existed ‘always’.
- IE if there was ever a state of nothingness, it would persist to today, so something must have permanent existence.
- It’s not possible to exist permanently in time (always leads to an infinite regress; but they have no start so cannot not be), so the ‘something’ must be the timeless first cause (of time/causality).
Photons are timeless so it seems possible to exist timelessly and have some interaction with the world. It is true however that timelessness is very puzzling... it seems required yet how it could work I am not sure.
Even more strange is the thought that the first cause is from beyond spacetime so may not even be made of normal matter. A non-material God could cause the Big Bang and evade destruction.
An initial state (such as the one described in the Carroll hypothesis) "causes" everything that follows. What's missing in that scenario?
Quoting Devans99
False dichotomy - I gave you another logical option that doesn't rely on an infinite past. Show why it doesn't succeed.
Quoting Devans99
"Always existed" just means there is no point in time at which it didn't exist.
A "state of nothingness" is incoherent.
An initial point in time is a state of affairs that needn't be unchanging.
What causes the initial state to start causing everything else? Anything that causes something else is within some form of causality. All forms of causality require a first cause.
Certain eigenstates (high energy ones) are inherently unstable.
Ordinary causation (in the macro world in which we live) entails a transfer of energy, so the intuitive assumption (of Aristotle and Aquinas) is inherently based on the introduction of energy from the "cause" (or efficient cause) to the effect. But no transfer of energy is required in this quantum scenario; rather the energy is balanced against a negative energy elsewhere in the system.
An Aristotelian/Thomist first cause (or prime mover) is actually physically impossible because it entails a source of unlimited energy. Obviously if there is a God, he's not limited to the physically possible, but this argument for God is simply an argument from ignorance: no physical cause could be conceived, so it's concluded "it must be a God."
- Time runs at different rates due to special relativity; that has nothing to do with entropy. Entropy changing at different rates definitely does not cause time to run at different rates. Entropy is a result of causality (IE time) not time is a result of entropy.
- It sounds a lot like creation ex nilhilo and without time.
- I don't buy 'the eigenstates are inherently unstable' - something must have changed with the ground state 14 billion years ago else there would be no Big Bang. Something must have caused that change in the ground state. That something would be a timeless first cause.
Is that correct?
I am not sure what you mean. My argument is that any isolated system will end up in equilibrium after sufficiently long period of time, unless it has an internal driver - an intelligent internal driver (IE God)
OK, then please explain how you are using the term "equilibrium" in more detail if you don't mind...
As far as the universe goes, there are different types of equilibrium that it could end up in (given infinite time):
- All the matter in one big black hole (gravity wins)
- All the matter converted to energy (heat death)
I don't see how one of these could be avoided with infinite time.
But, if I'm understanding you correctly, then in a deterministic universe where a perfect unchanging equilibrium persists, then time, understood as a change occurring, within the state space of the universe, does not exist, yes?
I believe time enables change rather than change is time. If you have a clock and an empty piece of space next to it; surely time is running for both (but change is only taking place in the clock; the empty space is completely still).
Thanks for bringing this up. I always understood time as an emergent phenomenon from lower dimensions upward, instead of the absolutism of higher dimensions dictating the behavior of lower dimensions.
By 'emergent phenomenon from lower dimensions upward' you mean time is emergent from timeless thermodynamic phenomena? If entropy increases causes time to flow, we would expect time to flow faster where entropy is increasing faster. This has not been observed.
So I believe entropy does not cause time - time causes entropy.
I am a fan of spacetime so I see time as a degree of freedom and a dimension. I find it difficult to see how a dimension could emerge from anything. Time started in the Big Bang singularity most probably.
I suppose you can say so. Though, I don't understand the use of the term "timeless thermodynamic phenomena"...
Quoting Devans99
This would be true if no constants existed, such as the speed of light in a vacuum. But, constants (hidden or not) dictate the flow of time, I would think.
Quoting Devans99
I don't think it's an either/or situation. They can exist simultaneously along with each other, yes?
Well I think the idea is that if entropy causes time, there could be timeless processes that lead time to emerge via causing entropy. But it does not make sense to me; entropy is caused by causality and that is linked to time.
Quoting Wallows
Entropy causes time and time causes entropy? That sounds a bit weird. There is no evidence for the first. Correlation is not causation in this case.
Carroll does not say entropy causes time, but that time, entropy, and change are related in some fundamental way.
Causality is nothing more than the determininistic state to state evolution of the universe. If we consider the universe a quantum system, this evolution is describable (in principle) as a Schroedinger equation. A classical account of causation is subsumed by the evolution of the system as a whole. Typical accounts of causation inevitably only represent subsets of the system; a complete account of causation would require consideration of all elements of the universe, and that's what the hypothetical Schroedinger equation would do. This is boilerplate quantum physics, based only on the assumption the universe is fundamentally a quantum system - it's widely (though not universally) accepted.
Quoting Devans99
Nope, it doesn't involve anything existing that didn't previously exist. It's just changes of state of a quantum system.
Carroll's hypothesis about time is speculative, but no more so than the assumptions you make in your argument. I present it, not because it's necessarily true - but to demonstrate there are possibilities besides your own. We really don't know the nature of time, so it's invalid to draw your conclusions. You basically depend on an argument from ignorance: we don't know the nature of time, so you implicitly suggest we must accept your assumption.
Quoting Devans99
Irrespective of whether Carroll's hypothesis is true, one can coherently account for the big bang with the past being finite. It just means there was an initial state that was inherently unstable. You need a strong reason to reject that, not merely because you prefer an account that requires an intelligent creator who performs magic (i.e. can do things that violate the laws of nature).
.
The universe is a macro phenomena, so the initial state is a macro state. If it is unstable, that implies it is changing in the macro world. That implies causality holds in some form. That implies a first cause.
You need a very strong reason to reject causality in the macro world.
A few other points:
- You can't completely describe anything with Schroedinger's equation; it does not take account of gravity which is dominant for the macro world.
- I do not see how time can emerge without something changing which implies some form of causality and thus a first cause
- God is not magic. Who said anything about magic. What would be magic is any form of causality existing without a first cause
- Time is a dimension so I do not see how such could emerge from anything
- I see this QM based explanation very much opposed to Occam's Razor, whereas causality based accounts are very much inline with Occam's Razor
So you have this timeless unstable initial state. It should tend towards equilibrium. All isolated systems tend towards equilibrium. What it should not do is the Big Bang - that is the polar opposite of equilibrium.
All systems end up in equilibrium unless they have a self-driven agent in them. The universe would be in equilibrium unless there has always been a self-driven agent in it. This would be God.
Unstable does not imply "is changing", it implies that it necessarily WILL change. We're assuming time is past-finite, so there cannot have been a temporally prior cause. A finite past is more problematic for theism: God cannot have existed prior to the universe because there is no time prior to the universe=spacetime.
Quoting Devans99
Agreed, and you would need a strong reason to believe causation can occur without a passage of time.
Quoting Devans99
Our current physics is clearly incomplete: general relativity breaks down as we retrospectively approach the "big bang". Cosmologists believe it likely that there is a quantum basis of gravity. This is the last gap in proving the universe is a quantum system. At this point, it's at least as reasonable to assume this is the case as it is to entertain the possibility that nature is explained by something unnatural. IMO, it's even more reasonable because there is no empirical evidence of anything existing that is unnatural - there are only arguments from ignorance (AKA "God of the gaps").
Quoting Devans99
Who said nothing is changing?
Quoting Devans99
OK, I'll just call it "unnatural", where "natural"= that which operates solely through inviolable laws of nature.
Quoting Devans99
Treat time as consisting of discrete moments that are connected to one another. It maps to a number line beginning at zero (t0) and proceeds infinitely to the future. The initial state is at t0; it's a boundary. This has to be the case if the past is finite. If God did it, then he exists at t0. My issue is that God is not needed to explain why the initial state changes.
Quoting Devans99
Occam's razor (the principle of parsimony) teaches that we should make no more assumptions than are necessary to explain the evidence. What superfluous assumptions are being made here?
Theist accounts typically omit detail. Asserting God is the first cause does not explain specifically what he directly caused. Where exactly is his fingerprint? Current science can account for the state of the universe as far back as the end of the Planck epoch. That's the current boundary of scientific knowledge, but it's very clear that there is more to learn. Quantum Field Theory based on the standard model of particle physics is known to be incomplete: it doesn't explain gravity or dark matter. Dark energy and the nature of the cosmological constant are mysteries. In explaining the history and physical foundation of the universe, precisely where does God's act end and nature begin? Parsimony doesn't mean ignoring details, it means explaining details with the fewest assumptions.
A first cause has to exist prior to time - that is the only logically way anything could have come about:
- Can’t get something from nothing
- So something must have existed ‘always’
- IE if there was ever a state of nothingness, it would persist to today, so something must have permanent existence.
- It’s not possible to exist permanently in time (always leads to an infinite regress; but they have no start so cannot not be), so the ‘something’ must be the timeless first cause (of time/causality).
Quoting Relativist
If there is change, there is causation. Logically we have gone from a no time to time situation. That can't happen unless a change can take place without time.
Quoting Relativist
There is evidence of something unnatural - the Big Bang:
- It is a singleton; natural events always come in pluralities
- Entropy was unnaturally low at the Big Bang
- Rather than the objects themselves moving further apart, it is space itself that is expanding - the Big Bang is no normal explosion. This expansion of space is keeping the universe from collapsing in on itself into a massive black hole.
- That the expansion is speeding up rather than slowing which also seems unnatural
Quoting Relativist
It's a very simple model I'm proposing. God caused the Big Bang somehow. The associated expansion of space is what is keeping us out of equilibrium - that is down to God.
The Big Bang is effectively the end of God's evolvement in the universe from our perspective.
Any isolated system decays to equilibrium without an active agent - this applies to the universe. So God is required.
It's impossible to exist "before" time: "before" is a temporal relation.
An initial state is not "something from nothing".
A physical foundation of reality, such as quantum fields, indeed exists at all times. As you say, it can't have come from nothing. Can one get nothing from something? That seems hard to believe, but irrelevant because it would entail a finite future (time maps to a finite, delimited number line). Even then , it would entail physical reality existing at all times on this finite line segment. What makes you think this is impossible?
A hypothetical "timeless" entity couldn't DO anything, because action entails a passage of time.
Quoting Devans99
If there is change, then time has elapsed. You could posit another dimension of time, but not an absence of time, but that is problematic because it entails an infinite past for God. Your only hope is to consider there to have been an initial state that included God.
Quoting Devans99
Please support you claim that natural events necessarily come in pluralities.
It's absurd to claim a level of entropy is "unnatural". There is no known physical constraint on the level of entropy. Space expanding is natural, that's silly to suggest it's not. We certainly don't understand everything about these, but whenever you latch onto such unknowns and claim"therefore it must be unnatural" you are committing the fallacy of argument from ignorance.
Quoting Devans99
"Somehow" is not an explanation. "Somehow" the big bang occurred, and "somehow" the early universe was in a state of low entropy. "Somehow" the universe is expanding. Neither of us can explain it, but concluding this gap in knowledge implies "therefore Goddidit" is a fallacious argument from ignorance.
Quoting Devans99
When precisely? At the end of the Planck epoch? At the beginning of it? If there is a God, he could have created the universe 10 minutes ago, inserting false memories in each of us, and starlight in flight. That's as simple as your scenario. If God is a live option, no evidence should be trusted. Historically, unknowns have been the driver for science. "Goddidit" could as simplistically been used as an explanation for any.
Quoting Devans99
If the total energy of the universe is zero, as many cosmologist think, then it IS in equilibrium. If it isn't, it may be that the total energy of the multiverse is zero.
In quantum field theory equilibrium means something different than in classical physics, because of the nature of quantum uncertainty. See this.
Something logically must exist before time - I proved that using Aquinas's 2nd way and you have past it by without comment. Alternatively: an infinite regress of time is impossible, so there is no other solution - a timeless first cause is the only possibility. Stuff can't always exist in time and it can't come from nothing so it must exist timelessly.
Quoting Relativist
There cannot be another time dimension - that leads to an infinite regress of times nested one within the other. The only way to avoid an infinite regress is a timeless first cause.
Quoting Relativist
For example, eternal inflation posits a first cause of some negative gravity particles in a high energy environment that result in a chain reaction of eternal inflation, giving birth to a multiverse. This cannot have happened by accident.
This is just the sort of thing a benevolent God would do; create a multiverse from nothing. If God was able, he would not be able to resist it.
Quoting Relativist
I don't believe in magic. God engineered the Big Bang through conventional means.
Quoting Relativist
The universe should be gravitational or thermodynamic equilibrium. That it is not is due to an active agent (God). The Big Bang is the complete opposite of equilibrium. It is that unnatural expansion of space that is keeping us from equilibrium.
On the contrary, I refuted it. You had said:
[i]Aquinas's Argument From Necessary Being supports this view:
- Can’t get something from nothing
- So something must have existed ‘always’.
- IE if there was ever a state of nothingness, it would persist to today, so something must have permanent existence.
- It’s not possible to exist permanently in time (always leads to an infinite regress; but they have no start so cannot not be), so the ‘something’ must be the timeless first cause (of time/causality).[/i]
and I responded:
"Always existed" just means there is no point in time at which it didn't exist.
To be clear: if time is past finite (as we both assume), something "always exists" if there is never a time when it did NOT exist. (I agree that something cannot come from "nothing." Nothing is not a state of existence; it cannot have been a prior state, because it doesn't even constitute a state).
So I'll reiterate: It's impossible to exist "before" time: "before" is a temporal relation.
It would be logically coherent to claim God exists at the first instant of time, but that is not BEFORE time. Let me be clear on what I am regarding as an "instant of time: it is a state of affairs that directly evolves (causes) a temporally subsequent state of affairs. Analogy: consider material reality like an endless reel of a movie, with the initial point in time being the first frame on the film. Actions occurs in the temporal flow from frame 1 to frame 2 (and so on). The analogy breaks down when considering causation, because each instant causes the next, whereas on a film it's just an illusion that the actions of one frame cause the next, but it does illustrate the temporal connection from one frame to the next. There is no prior temporal connection to frame 1. If God caused anything, he has to be in frame 1 (or at least extend into frame 1); if there were a prior frame, THAT would be frame 1.
Quoting Devans99
I accept your premise that the the past is probably finite, but I already refuted your conclusion:
1) I showed your assertion "a timeless first cause is the only possibility" is false: an initial state is a possibility.
2) a timeless "first cause" is not even a possibility: causation is temporal and change requires time. i.e. God must be in (or extend into) Frame 1.
Further, there are good reasons for rejecting the possibility that a a timeless entity can act:the only timeless entities of which we're aware are abstractions (like the law of non-contradiction: it doesn't begin to exist; it's existence transcends time).
Quoting Devans99
Agreed. That was my point.
See my above refutation.
Quoting Devans99
Wrong. Inflation entails a prior existing state of affairs that temporally (and causally) preceded it. This does not imply that prior state was "first". It may, or may not be. We agree the past is probably finite, but the mere fact that it is finite does not tell us the nature of the initial state. We also don't really know the nature of time, so all we can do is speculate. Sean Carroll's hypothesis that time emerges from a ground state is as reasonable and coherent as any other. It may or may not be true, but it's false to claim that it (and by extension, all natural possibilities) can't be true. Find a logical problem with it, or admit it's a possibility.
I am open-minded enough to acknowledge that the creation by a deity is possible; the existence of natural possibilities does not rule this out. You should try to be equally open-minded and recognize that natural possibilities cannot be ruled out. If you insist they should be ruled out, you have the burden to show them to be logically impossible (based on agreed assumptions, not merely on convenient controversial assumptions).
Quoting Devans99
Are you making a positive case, or just showing that reality is consistent with the possibility of a God?
Reality is also consistent with an absence of any sort of intelligence behind it and it's consistent with an intelligence that desires to experience a complex world but is indifferent to its contents.
Quoting Devans99
You're missing the point: you have pointed to gaps in scientific knowledge as reason to assume it's due to something unnatural. You have the same burden as a naturalist at explaining exactly where nature leaves off and the unnatural (e.g. God) begins. That was why I asked you to identify specifically where his fingerprint is. I realize that as a theist, you believe God is behind it all, and I don't have a problem with claiming this theistic view is consistent with reality. I just have a problem with an assertion that God's existence is entailed by what we know.
Quoting Devans99
I agree that the Big Bang is suggestive of something prior, and a lot of theoretical physicists are investigating possibilities. I gave you Sean Carroll's hypotheses: it covers these issues. There are others (e.g. Vilenkin, Krauss, Hawking,...). Perhaps each is wrong, but even this doesn't imply there's not a natural basis. I've refuted all the claims you've made that support your claims, and you can't show my general observations to be impossible, in particular: a finite past that begins with an initial state of a quantum system. That initial state exists by brute fact, and as a quantum system - it is necessarily the case that there is quantum "uncertainty," which accounts for the emergence of one or more universes.
Time can't just start on its own. It can't emerge from anything unless there is something pre-existing it causally. Time cannot start without something causally before it.
Quoting Relativist
It is really not possible to always exist in time - that would require an infinite regress of some form which is impossible. To illustrate this with an example, imagine a pool table:
The cue hits the white ball. The white ball hits the black ball. The black goes in the pocket. Would the black ball go in if the cue did not hit the white? No - we remove the first element in a time ordered regress and find that the rest of the regress disappears. So the first element (in time order) is key - it defines the whole of the rest of a regress. If it is absent, as in the case of an infinite regress, then the regress does not exist - temporal/causal infinite regresses are impossible.
So something must have permanent existence outside of time.
Quoting Relativist
To follow on your analogy, someone has to set the film going. Time does not start by itself.
Quoting Relativist
The Big Bang is completely unnatural. The fine tuning of the universe is completely unnatural. The fact we are not in equilibrium is completely unnatural
Quoting Relativist
I afraid I do not buy these arguments. Any sound explanation for the origin of the universe must cover the following:
1. A first cause for causality
2. A cause of time
3. An explanation of why we are not in equilibrium
4. An explanation of why there is something rather than noting
5. An explanation for the fine tuning of the universe
The cosmologists are a long way from satisfying the above. Whereas using simple metaphysical arguments like Aquinas's and my argument from equilibrium satisfy all 5 of the above points.
Why can anything start on its own (as in whatever you figure started time)?
There is a timeless first cause that has existed permanently that starts everything else. That is the start of time and causality. I don't see how anything can possibly exist without this.
Quoting Devans99
What do you think time is? What does it mean to you to say that "time starts"?
IMO, Time isn't a thing. Time refers to the temporal ordering of events/ moments/ states of affairs. In my opinion, the A-theory of time is correct: only the present has actual existence, and the present has been reached in a sequential series of past moments. These moments are causally connected, and they move in one direction: to the future. This means the current present moment was caused by the most recent prior moment, and the present moment causes the next. What exists at a point in time (a moment) is the state of affairs of material reality at that moment.
With this description in mind, there's no logical problem with the assumption that there is a first point of time (I'll call it t0). This simply means there was an initial state of affairs that was "the present moment", and like every subsequent moment - it caused the next. You suggest this is impossible. Why? Every present moment causes the next, so it's reasonable to expect the initial moment would cause the next. Indeed the initial state of affairs (at t0) was not caused by a prior moment. That makes the initial state of affairs the "first cause".
You don't have to believe it, but if you want to claim to prove God existence, it is your burden to find a logical flaw in my account. If there's no logical flaw, you will have to concede that my account is possible.
I think spacetime could be 'real':
- Things that are real in some sense always have starts, things that are imaginary do not
- There was a reality before time where it did not exist. Going from not existing to existing means reality changed somehow. It was augmented by the addition of time.
- Spacetime appears to have vacuum energy / dark energy, it maybe 'real'
Quoting Relativist
The A theory of time is impossible with a start of time: if only now exists and that is taken away, then there is nothing left at all to create time. A start of time requires the B theory: something must timelessly preexist time to create it.
Quoting Relativist
What causes the initial moment? It has to be the start of time. It has to be something in the world causing something else in the real world, so time seems real.
Why can anything exist permanently?
There is a start of time, there must be something permanent causally before that to create time.
I personally think can't get something from nothing holds so all matter/energy must have existed permanently. This is in line with the conservation of energy and everyday experience. We should be able to trace everything back to a timeless state of existence.
Doesn't "permanent" only make sense in relation to time? Permanent refers to something lasting for all time (at least of a particular range), no? What would it refer to outside of that?
Permanent can't apply to something inside of time - that would mean 'always' in time and always has no start/coming to being. So the requirement that something exist permanently has to be satisfied by something outside of time.
So what would you say that "permanent" refers to in general?
I'm not sure. In the beginning, one of the following must have existed:
1. God
2. God and some stuff
3. Some stuff
My feeling is 3 leads to equilibrium rather than the start of time / Big Bang. 2 seems mostly likely. 1 requires God to do some sort of conjuring trick (something from nothing - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe maybe).
Wait, if we're basing an argument on the notion of permanence, we'd better know what we're referring to with that term.
In terms of causation, the first cause has to be self driven, so that leads to 1 or 2. In terms of equilibrium, the arguments leads to 1 or 2.
I'm not sure separating 1 and 2 is that easy. If matter can be created in exchange for negative gravitational energy, we'd not be able to tell if that took place in the Big Bang as opposed to it being from pre-existing matter. We don't know what happened in the singularity.
Then there is the idea of pantheism. God does not appear omnipresent so maybe not too likely.
I asked you how you'd define the term "permanent" if you're not using it to refer to a concept of something existing for all time (or at least for some particular extended length of time).
Your response to that request was "I'm not sure."
So maybe imagine the universe in 4D spacetime as an object like a brick. And then off to the side and outside of time you could imagine a 4D object in 4D space - permanent and outside of time.
Our task at the moment is to define "permanent" so that it's somehow not relative to time (in the sense of whether something persists relative to time).
What is the fourth dimension supposed to be?
I was imagining a possible model where some form of 4D space preexists time. And then 4D spacetime is made out of 4D space.
I don't think that the idea of a fourth spatial dimension is coherent aside from it being a sort of "game" we can play with the way we've constructed mathematics.
But okay. So "permanence" isn't referring to a state in your usage. It's a name for a type of object?
The opposite of 4d spacetime, presentism, is incompatible with a start of time:
1. Assume only now exists (presentism)
2. So before the start of time there was nothing
3. But creation ex nihilo / without time is impossible
4. So something ‘other’ than only now exists
So Einstein might be right.
Quoting Terrapin Station
The key argument from Aquinas's when it comes to permanence is this one:
A. Can’t get something from nothing
B. So something must have existed ‘always’.
C. IE if there was ever a state of nothingness, it would persist to today, so something must have permanent existence.
D. It’s not possible to exist permanently in time (always leads to an infinite regress; but they have no start so cannot not be), so the ‘something’ must be the timeless first cause (of time/causality).
In eternalism everything is permanent in some sense. As you can see from point C above, with presentism something permanent is required but nothing can exist permanently in time - point D - so presentism is impossible by this argument also - another point for Einstein.
Unsupported assertion. Meet you burden to show a start of time requires B-theory.
Quoting Devans99
The first cause is, by definition, uncaused. You know, like God.
Something permanent has to preexist time to cause time. That implies something timeless which is something 'other than only now' so the A theory can't hold.
Quoting Relativist
I have a permanent, uncaused God. The only way to exist permanently and uncaused is outside of time. If you exist 'always' in time then you have no coming into being; so you can't exist. So again the A theory is not compatible - nothing can exist permanently in A theory.
This, and the rest of the comment, seems to have nothing to do with my comment that you quoted just prior to it.
Neither 4D spacetime nor presentism have anything to do with positing a fourth spatial dimension, by the way.
Re my comment about permanence and how you're defining it, you didn't seem to understand that, either. Quoting someone else isn't going do us any good, unless they directly addressed the question just as I asked it.
I have defined permanence in terms of eternalism as something in 4D space or 4D spacetime (cannot have permanent existence in time but past/present/future can be permanent).
I'll leave that alone for a moment (we're not going to get anywhere with me pointing out that the stuff in the first paragraph is all incoherent in my view, etc.), and ask this:
How is something permanent in your sense of that term supposed to start time? Isn't that something it would have to do?
I am not sure. It appears that it was the Big Bang that was the start of spacetime. Matter and time are closely related, time runs slower in the presence of matter. Time would have run very slow approaching the Big Bang. As for the singularity; who knows, maybe that was the start of time. So in 4D space, time would start at the singularity maybe. Perhaps the act of getting all the matter together somehow for the Big Bang causes time to start.
Or it could be something completely different. Maybe time starts with God's first movement somehow.
There isn't any time without matter, by the way, so time can run differently "in the present of matter."
At any rate, any motion, any change would be time, so you couldn't "start time" from outside of time.
It is logically impossible for there to be a moment of time prior to the first moment of time.
Quoting Devans99Unsupported assertion. I gave a scenario that is internally consistent. You have to show ot's impossible. You're just restating your own unproven assumptions.
[QuoteIf you exist 'always' in time then you have no coming into being; so you can't exist. [/quote]
The state of affairs at t0 did not "come into being". It exists by brute fact.
Maybe God's first motion creates some form of time/causality? Is this the same time/causality as ours? I am not sure.
Or maybe God is quite different. From beyond spacetime so could even be non-material in which case he might be able to effect change without time somehow.
Any motion, any change would BE (identical to) time. You can't have motion/change without time, because motion/change is what time is.
It's not a moment of time prior to the first moment of time; it is something timeless that is causally before the first moment of time.
Time cannot start itself.
Quoting Relativist
The state of affairs at t0 did not "come into being". It exists by brute fact.[/quote]
I'm afraid 'brute fact' does not qualify as an explanation. I think a timeless first cause that starts time is a more enlightening explanation.
I think time enables motion. Change maybe possible without time. Photons are timeless yet they appear and disappear - suggestive of change without time. So it seems possible to move through spacetime in the space direction only. Maybe God can do that.
In any case, as I say, God's first act could of been to create time/causality or first act could of caused the creation of time/causality.
This is wrong. Time is identical to change/motion.
If photons change, they're not timeless.
It's not possible to move timelesslessly, because motion is identical to time.
Re at any rate, so why would we need to posit something that can't move or change in order to say that then something moves/changes?
Imagine
- a clock
- empty space next to the clock
Are you saying you think time does not change for the empty space (where there is no motion) and only changes for the clock (where there is motion)? That does not make sense to me.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Photons can move the whole length of the universe in no time. They cover no distance doing it due to length compression. The geometry of spacetime is pretty weird.
Quoting Terrapin Station
We have to have something existing permanently outside of time... there is no other solution. Presentism is impossible; nothing can exist permanently within the 'now'. It gives the puzzle of how the first cause caused the first effect. I think change being independent of time might be the answer.
With the "empty space" only as our frame of reference, correct, time does not pass. If we're broadening the frame of reference to include other things, like the clock, then time would pass.
Quoting Devans99
This is false when we consider them relative to other things, so that we're considering the motion. It's false that they cover no length as well. I'm not saying that no one says these things. I'm telling you that they're wrong in saying them. They're misled by the mathematical conventions they're using, where they're basically "worshipping" the mathematics per se, and they see the mathematics as ontologically primary.
Quoting Devans99
Nope. B time is incoherent.
By that logic if I had two clocks, one digital (little motion), one mechanical (lots of motion), time would run quicker for the mechanical clock.
Quoting Terrapin Station
We have evidence that time slows as the speed of light approaches so I do not see a timeless photon as controversial.
Quoting Terrapin Station
OK what's wrong with this proof:
1. Can’t get something from nothing
2. So something must have existed ‘always’.
3. It’s not possible to exist permanently in time (always leads to an infinite regress)
4. So something must exist outside of time
5. So more than only now exists
6. So presentism is false.
It depends on what motion we're focusing on. In the scenario you're describing, we usually focus on the watch faces and what they read. We're talking about our measurement of time relative to our concerns there.
Quoting Devans99
What I wrote was "This is false when we consider them relative to other things, so that we're considering the motion. "
Quoting Devans99
Just taking it one step at a time, it starts to go off track with that first premise, if it's saying that there can't be nothing and then suddenly something appears. If it's saying that, there's no good reason to believe that.
If change were time, there would be no way for time to come about. The creation of time takes change.
Quoting Terrapin Station
But I don't think that's how space time works; the photons are moving in space but not in time from their perspective
Quoting Terrapin Station
Its called the conservation of energy. If something came from nothing naturally then we'd be upto infinite matter/energy density by now.
You are supposed to be finding a logical flaw in my account, but you are again just reasserting your own assumptions.
You seem to accept that there is no time prior to the first moment of time. In my account, there is no causally efficacious timeless entity. Rather, the first cause is the state of affairs that exists at t0. You have to show this is logically impossible, and not just by making unsupported assumptions that conflict with it.
Quoting Devans99
That statement bears no relationship to my account. The initial state of affairs (SOA0) causes the next (SOA1). The relation between SOA0 and SOA1 is a temporal relation. That's what time is in my account: a relation between states of affairs; specifically: the states of affairs that constitute the present state of reality.
[Quote]I'm afraid 'brute fact' does not qualify as an explanation[/quote]
It "qualifies" as a logically coherent account. Your personal opinion about what is "qualified" beyond that do not serve to falsify my account.
Quoting Devans99
Of course you do: you are rationalizing your belief. You are NOT showing that you have an objective case for your belief. To do that, you would have to identify logical inconsistency in my account. Failing to do so means you must acknowledge that your argument fails: it depends on debatable premises that can rationally be rejected
That is logically impossible. t0 cannot exist unless there is something causally before it to define it. That has to be the start of time.
There is also a requirement that something must exist permanently and t0 cannot have permanent existence because it is in time; it must be whatever caused t0 that has permanent existence.
I reiterate, the key metaphysical argument here is:
A. Can’t get something from nothing
B. So something must have existed ‘always’.
C. IE if there was ever a state of nothingness, it would persist to today, so something must have permanent existence.
D. It’s not possible to exist permanently in time (always leads to an infinite regress; but they have no start so cannot not be), so the ‘something’ must be the timeless first cause (of time/causality).
Your t0 does not satisfy the permanent existence requirement.
There is one other option: that time is circular; IE this would satisfy the 'before each moment, there must be another moment' requirement; before the start of time comes the end of time. This model still needs a timeless first cause to set time in motion for example.
You are still making the unsupported assertion that everything that exists has a cause of its existence. That is an assumption that cannot be shown to be necessarily true.
Quoting Devans99
My account allows for something existing permanently: it just means there is a physical foundation of reality. For example, the quantum fields of which all matter/energy are components of. These exist at all times. Everything that exists is composed of portions of the quantum fields (atoms are made of quarks and electrons; quarks are disturbances in the quark field, electrons are disturbances in the electromagnetic field).
Quoting Devans99
Something exists at all times in my account; it just changes state.
Quoting Devans99
The foundation of reality (e.g. the quantum fields) exist permanently. They exist by brute fact. They did not come into existence (which would entail a prior state at which they didn't exist) they exist at all times.
Your argument therefore fails.
It’s only in the last 400 years or so that the scientific method has started to uncover the workings of the universe. We’ve only known about the big bang for under 100 years - and even today there are huge gaps & inconsistencies in our knowledge.
If history is any guide, it is likely that our current explanations about the universe & reality will - at a minimum - be proven partially wrong - i.e., only correct under certain conditions.
Or for all we know, all our current knowledge may be completely wrong. The entire observable universe could be a pimple on a much larger reality.
If humanity can succeed in not destroying itself, it may be possible that sometime in the (near? distant?) future we will evolve to the point where maybe we can ask the right questions.
But please don’t let me hi-jack this thread. I enjoy reading these back & forth discussions; I just hope that everyone accepts that we don’t know what the heck we’re talking about.
Quoting Devans99
Is there any way for change to come about? Does change need to be created?
I think your model leads to equilibrium. I also cannot see how a field would be responsible for time and the Big Bang. There is an assumption that quantum fields could exist without spacetime; that may not apply; creation of spacetime may have created the quantum fields - all quantum fields we know about require time.
Quoting EricH
That is correct, but we won't make any progress throwing our hands up and saying we don't know. The trick is to stick to broad brush metaphysical arguments like causality and equilibrium; then you don't fall fowl of specific scientific knowledge.
Quoting Terrapin Station
I am not sure. Maybe the first change coincides with the start of time?
Stating "I think your model leads to equilibrium" is worthless unless you can make a case for that necessarily being the case.
[Quote] also cannot see how a field would be responsible for time and the Big Bang. There is an assumption that quantum fields could exist without spacetime; that may not apply; creation of spacetime may have created the quantum fields - [/quote]
Every cosmological hypothesis I've encountered assume reality is fundamentally a quantum system. Specifics aren't relevant except to demonstrate with an example. The key issue is that there is something that is fundamental, of which everything is made. Quantum field theory is incomplete, but to a large degree it provides exactly that basis. Quantum fields exist at every point of spacetime. Nothing seems to exist that is not composed of quanta of quantum fields. Conceptually, it leaves nothing out - so it is reasonable to say that spacetime itself is the quantum fields. To claim "spacetime created the quantum fields" is absurd if spacetime IS the quantum fields.
[Quote]all quantum fields we know about require time.[/quote]
Stick to my model, the one you're supposed to be falsifying. Remember time is a causal relation between states, not some external dependency. The SOA at t0 necessitates the SOA at t1. t0 and t1 don't exist; they are just abstract markers we use to distinguish between the two SOAs, and to depict their relation. To say that time has elapsed is just to indicate change.
All isolated systems head towards equilibrium; that is about as fundamental principle as we have discovered in science and your proposed model is flaunting it. An active agent is required to keep the system out of equilibrium.
Gravity dominates the 4 forces and is attractive; I see no mechanism in your model that would cause the expansion of space that is keeping us out of equilibrium.
Quoting Relativist
But spacetime is not everything; beyond the boundaries of the universe where there is no time; there maybe are no quantum fields; there is no time for anything to fluctuate so there can be no fields.
Spacetime was created 14 billion years ago. So that means quantum fields did not even exist pre Big Bang, how could they exist without time?
Quantum fields are irrelevant anyway; there are 10^51 kgs of matter in the universe - the origin of the universe is a macro question. Our best theory is the Big Bang and it is a macro level theory. Macro problems need macro answers; some poxy quantum fluctuation could not shift 10^51 kgs of matter and it certainly could not cause space to expand.
Quoting Relativist
There must be something permanent about the universe and your SOA at t0 is not permanent - it is a fleeting moment - what came before it? There must be something causally before it because it is not a permanent feature of the universe.
So you need a timeless t-1 to preexist it. t-1 would contain God.
Are you referring to entropy? How is that a problem? Are you overlooking that the total energy of the universe and/or multiverse is zero? Overlooking Quantum uncertainty?
Quoting Devans99
"Equilibrium" entails zero net energy, but manifested as a superposition of eigenstates of different energies consistent with quantum uncertainty. I mentioned this before. Why are yoy ignoring this? Do you need me to explain what this means?
Quoting Devans99
"Maybe" there are no quantum fields? So "maybe" I'm wrong? Your burden is to show that I'm necessarily wrong. I never claimed to prove some particular model (I don't even insist quantum fields are actually the fundamental basis; I just say that there IS some fundamental, natural basis). You're the one claiming to prove God exists; I haven't disputed the POSSIBILITY of an unnatural creator.
Quoting Devans99
This is wrong in so many ways! To name a few: 1. matter (including its mass) and energy are interchangeable. 2. I've referred to cosmological models that explain the big bang: 3. I do not have a burden to show any particular model is true - you have the burden to show that all proposed models are false, and that no natural answer is even possible. Otherwise you are engaging in argument frim ignorance (god of the gaps).
Quoting Devans99
The "something" that is permanent is the lowest level foundation of reality (which may be quantum fields), and the fact that reality comprises a closed, pure state quantum system. That is sufficient. These facts do not change.
It is logically impossible for something to come before t0. I've stated this numerous times, yet you continue to make unsupported assertions to the contrary. SOA0 exists uncaused, and you have the burden to show this impossible - which requires more than merely making unsupported assertions.
Equilibrium is the state that all isolated system head towards. Most likely it is gravitational equilibrium with all matter/energy in one big black hole. You have to demonstrate how your solution avoids equilibrium - it would have to behave in quite an unnatural manner.
Quoting Relativist
Then t0 must be timeless. And it must be the first cause of things in the macro world. Which means it must be the timeless first cause.
I do not see why I should buy your model when all the metaphysical arguments point to an timeless intelligent first cause:
1. Arguments from causation (cosmological arguments)
2. Argument from the start of time (the start of time requires a timeless first cause).
3. The necessary being argument
4. The equilibrium argument (this thread)
5. The fine tuning argument
That is 5 good logical arguments for a first cause. That is more than enough for me. Any form of pre-Big Bang physics needs to be compatible with the above arguments. I think your argument fails on all 5 points. The more popular form of pre-Big Bang physics - eternal inflation - is broadly compatible with all 5 so that is a theory I do not dismiss.
You ignored my response: 1) moving toward higher entropy is irrelevant. This view of "equilibrium" is a future state, and consistent with my model. 2) "equilibrium" in a quantum system is a superposition of eigenstates whose values (e.g. energy) varies per quantum uncertainty) - this is the fact that makes virtually anything possible. The system as a whole is always in "equilibrium" but individual eigenstates evolve without violating the balance.
Quoting Devans99
You're just repeating your unsupported assertion, which I've previously called out. Give up. You have not falsified my model.
Quoting Devans99
You have to accept that my model is POSSIBLY true, unless you can prove it false. The relevance: you're claiming to "prove" God, and "prove" = necessarily true, not just possibly true.
Quoting Devans99
Each of these arguments is only possibly true. I could develop 100 arguments for naturalism being possibly true.
Arguments for God do nothing more than rationalize one's prior belief: they show God's existence is consistent with what we confidently know about the world. But that's quite different from proving God's existence from agreed, neutral premises (from the perspective of a hypothetical open minded agnostic).
Virtually anything is possible but you have to ask whats probable. Would the system reach equilibrium before generating a Big Bang. I feel that is highly probable.
Its a classical system as well and classical systems evolve towards equilibrium - thermal/gravitational/mechanical. Any naturalist solution will evolve towards classical equilibrium unless there is a self-driven agent to keep it out of equilibrium.
Quoting Relativist
I accept that you model is possibly true, but the possibility of it being true is not very high IMO.
Quoting Relativist
There are strong metaphysical arguments for God; I gave 5. There are no strong arguments against God that I'm aware of. So performing a meta analysis of the available arguments; the probabilities are heavily in favour of the existence of God.
OK, but if you're going to claim A is more probable than B, you have to analyze both A and B - seriously entertain both possibilities. You didn't; you hastily dismissed the contrary possibilities solely on the basis that they are contrary to YOUR assumption. Stating that you subjectively "feel" the system reaches equilibrium is just another unsupported assertion.
Quoting Devans99
Repeating the same unsupported assertion that I've refuted doesn't make it probable.
You have yet to even comment on the role of quantum uncertainty. Uncertainty certainly plays a role if the world is fundamentally quantum mechanical. That the world is fundamentally quantum mechanical is a near certainty (in that it is accepted physics that the building blocks of matter are quanta that behave according to QM)- so you can't avoid this if you're going to claim your position is more probable.
Quoting Devans99
Quoting Devans99
Each metaphysical argument depends on convenient metaphysical assumptions that you cannot show are probable. If no argument for God makes God's existence probable, than it is at least equally probable naturalism is true.
This is is good time to tell you my actual position. I label myself an "agnostic deist." I cannot rule out the possibility one or more of these arguments are sound, so I cannot rule out the possibility of some sort of creator. That said, I note that none of these arguments make a case of a God of religion or for the existence of an afterlife.
Our everyday experience and knowledge of science tells us that systems tend to equilibrium naturally. I did not feel it was necessary to justify something so fundamental. All one has to do is look around - everything is in equilibrium accept where life is involved.
Quoting Relativist
I believe the uncertainty principle only applies to the micro world. I don't see it applies to the macro world. I've never been totally convinced with the uncertainty principle anyway; if after measuring a particle once, if it is measured a second time to assess how far the original measurement deflected it and to assess the particle's speed, then surely additional information is gathered about the particle? This could be extended to a 3rd measurement, even an arbitrary number of measurements so that position and momentum at the original measurement are known to an arbitrary degree of precision. So I don't see what the uncertainty principle has to do with anything; it is an artefact of lack of imagination when data collecting - it does not reflect anything fundamental in the underlying system.
Quoting Relativist
The 5 arguments I gave only use these axioms: causality, conservation of energy and systems tend to equilibrium naturally. These are all fundamental principles of science and common sense. Compare the soundness of these axioms to the muddy/uncertain quantum assumptions of your arguments.
Quoting Relativist
I am probably an agnostic deist too but I think a much more optimistic one that you! I do not believe in any of the conventional religions.
IMO the chances of an afterlife depend on if this is a future real eternalist universe. One can imagine the universe as an eternal circle of time in 4D spacetime - a torus with time going around the outside of the ring and space being the cross-sections of the torus. It would form a causal loop with the Big Crunch causing the Big Bang. We would all live identical lives over and over again (Eternal Return). This is not as crazy as it sounds:
1. Presentism is impossible; always leads to an infinite regress, its incompatible with the start of time and it is incompatible with the need for something to always exist. So past real eternalism seems possible. If the past is real, maybe the future is too?
2. The only place in spacetime to get enough matter/energy for the Big Bang is the Big Crunch, so a loop in space time would be very neat and tidy and respectful of the conservation of energy
3. Before every moment of time, there must be another moment. So the end of time moment coming before the start of time moment satisfy this requirement of Aristotle's
4. This possibility gains theoretical support from the Closed Timeline Curve; a class of solutions in general relativity that result in causal loops in spacetime - the idea being the large amount of matter associated with the Big Bang / Big Crunch would warp spacetime into a loop.
5. Circular time is the Occam's Razor design for extended longevity. If we have a benevolent deity then I think this is the design he would go for (if its actually possible which it may not be)
So the above forms a valid argument for an afterlife IMO.
That everyday experience is entropy. What's the problem? My model is consistent with it. I noted that the initial state was unstable, consequently it is moving toward stability.
Quoting Devans99
No, everything is not in equilibrium. It is slowly evolving toward it (heterogeneously).
Quoting Devans99
The macro world is composed of micro components (atoms, which are composed of quarks and electrons). The universe began as a micro entity: the Planck Epoch is the period during which diameter of the universe was less than a Planck unit: "macro"physics could not apply and quantum effects were clearly present and applied to the universe as a whole. Your argument concerns the origin of the universe; if you're going to deny accepted physics to make your case, you've lost the debate.
Quoting Devans99
Those axioms depend on unsupported assumptions, including:
-that it is possible to exist before the first moment of time (t0)
- that a timeless entity can cause something
- that "intelligence" can exist independent of something like a brain
-that something can exist that is not part of the natural world
Each of of these assumptions is "beyond everyday experience", so it seems you only use that criterion to dismiss alternatives other than your preferred.
I'll defer commenting on your argument for an afterlife for now.
I don't see how something can evolve towards stability and cause the big bang at the same time - thats surely a contradiction.
And it's more than just entropy; gravity naturally causes the universe to end up in one big black hole, which is a form of equilibrium. The fine tuned expansion of space is keeping us out of entropy.
Quoting Relativist
That is our understanding; but physics cannot see before the Planck Epoch. For the massive amount of matter/energy concentrated in one place, there must be some sort of macro explanation. Something must have caused that concentration of matter/energy and physics cannot tell us what.
Quoting Relativist
The arguments I gave to not depend on unsupported assumptions. There were 5 arguments and in total they use 3 axioms: causation, can't get something from nothing and equilibrium. There are no other assumptions, just deductions:
- You are assuming that it possible for the first moment to exist uncaused which makes no sense; logically it has to be caused by something timeless.
- Logic demands a timeless entity to start cause and effect off. Its the only way causality could exist
- Logic demands a permanent intelligent entity to keep us from equilibrium.
- Logic demands something must exist outside the natural world to cause the natural world.
So your issue is specifically the high energy/low entropy state at the big bang. i.e.: you're pointing to the need to explain the big bang. I've pointed out that Cosmologists have developed hypotheses that explain it. We should be able to agree that: 1) there is an explanation; 2) that explanation goes beyond accepted physics.
I've charged you with argument from ignorance (god of the gaps) reasoning: we don't know the cause, therefore it must be (or is probably) God. That is fallacious. Cosmologists haven't thrown in the towel - they have proposed extensions to accepted physics that provide an explanation. Your excuse for dismissing these is that it's not consistent with experience, but ALL explanations that are beyond existing science are beyond experience but you don't apply that consistently since your metaphysical assumptions are all beyond experience.
Quoting Devans99
You seem to be claiming the micro world is explained by the macro world, which is the opposite of the case. The building blocks of the macro world are micro - the particles described in the Standard Model of Particle Physics. At the lowest level of known mereology, the objects of existence are quantum mechanical: quarks do not behave like little billiard balls, they do not have both a precise location and momentum. Quantum systems are 100% describable through the quantum mechanical Scroedinger equation. During the Planck Epoch, it is physically impossible for there to have been macro factors that somehow affect it - UNLESS, of course, you simply assume God did it - and this would make your argument circular (assume God in order to prove God).
False, as worded. Current KNOWN physics does not have an established answer. To proclaim "therefore it must be (or is probably) God is argument from ignorance (God of the Gaps) reasoning.
Quoting Devans99
OK, then falsify my model without using the unsupported assumptions I listed.
Quoting Devans99
If a first moment cannot exist uncaused then there must be an infinite series of past moments. We are both assuming the past is finite, so it logically follows there was an initial state.
Depends on the unsupported assumption a timeless entity can cause something, so you just contradicted your claim that you don't depend on this assumption.
Which depends on the assumption that "intelligence" can exist independent of something like a brain. Why do you deny that you depend on this assumption?
It's very simple. There are two overarching possibilities:
I. Naturalism is true (i.e. what occurs is a product of blind nature, following natural laws)
II. Naturalism is false (something exists that does not blindly follow natural law)
One can work out a model that is consistent with either of these. Option I entails an uncaused, initial state that has a property (I call it "unstable") that necessitates change (and change entails time). This is logically coherent and consistent.
Option II is your model. It may be logically coherent and consistent (I see some problems with it, but I'm setting that aside for now).
Your mistake is to judge Option 1 based on assumptions or implications of Option II. You can falsify Option I only by identifying an internal contradiction. You have not.
The Big Bang was a singleton; natural events always come in pluralities. Even given finite time, if the Big Bang was natural, we should expect similar (maybe smaller) events to be occurring... but there is no evidence of this. So it is highly likely the Big Bang is non-natural (it looks it too).
Quoting Relativist
Even if things are beyond experience/science, they should still be subject to common sense/logic. These explanations that dismiss causality, equilibrium and probability are running counter to common sense/logic. I am happier with common sense rather than speculative physics.
Some of the cosmologists solutions are way of the mark. Eternal inflation; which posits a first cause, is the only main stream pre-Big Bang cosmology and it is God compatible.
Quoting Relativist
But we can use are common sense. That amount of matter/energy concentrated in one place should in gravitational equilibrium - one big black hole. The fact that it did not result in a black hole is quite remarkable. All naturalistic solutions result in equilibrium... so there must be a non-natural solution... that ties in very nicely with the non-natural circumstances of the Big Bang.
Quoting Relativist
A moment cannot exist without something prior to it that determines it. That could be another moment or it could be the start of time. I don't see how in your model you can have this free standing t0 moment that was not caused by anything. That would be a magic moment, a something from nothing. Contrast that to the timeless model; then the cause of t0 has always existed - no magic required.
Quoting Relativist
It's not an assumption; it's a logical necessity. All 5 metaphysical arguments I mentioned lead to a timeless first cause. It's unusual to get so many arguments pointing in the same direction, so I give it a lot of credence.
Quoting Relativist
Plants demonstrate intelligence and they have no brain. AI will be completely different from us yet have intelligence. Intelligence could come in a variety of different forms. Intelligence is required to keep us out of equilibrium.
Quoting Relativist
There is a choice between:
1. An uncaused initial state
2. A timeless state that causes t0
I see 1 as logically unacceptable; nothing in time/causality can be uncaused; that would imply it existed for ever and things can't exist forever in time. Whereas 2 makes sense for multiple reasons.
Quoting Relativist
I feel I have; naturalism leads to equilibrium; take a look around you and see. Causality requires a first cause; play a game of pool to verify this. Can't get something from nothing requires something to exist permanently and thats not possible in time.
All cosmological theories that explain the big bang agree that there would be multiple big bangs. Is there evidence? Maybe, maybe not. Here's an example of possible evidence. Regardless, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In some Cosmological models, it is physically impossible for there to be direct evidence of another universe, but it is inferred that they exist (or existed) because (as you say) there should be "pluralities".
Quoting Devans99
In no case is causality, equilibrium or probability being denied. Speculative physics is not in conflict with reason. If your "common sense" is in conflict with reasonable extrapolations of science, then the problem is yours.
Quoting Devans99
Not everyone agrees with you and I that the past is necessarily finite (our opinions are due to metaphysical analysis, at least mine is) - and that's because physics itself doesn't show that this is the case. Regardless, if we treat our finite-past as an assumption, we still have plenty of cosmological models that are consistent with it.
Quoting Devans99
Think like a scientist: it just means that an explanation is called for. That's what the cosmological hypotheses DO. You're dismissing them too hastily.
What needs explaining is the conditions in the early universe, and you dismiss all proposed naturalistic solutions and conclude there can't be one. Classic argument from ignorance (God of the Gaps).
Quoting Devans99
I defined a "moment of time" as a state of affairs that evolves to a temporally subsequent state of affairs. This is consistent with an initial state, SOA0 existing at t0. It is not "something from nothing" because there is no prior state of nothingness; no prior moments. SOA0 didn't "pop into existence" because such a "popping" implies there is something existing to pop INTO. Look at it this way, let's assume time is contingent - it needn't have occurred. So there could have been a reality that consisted of an unchanging SOA0: no elapse of time. This seems to be the sort of thing you refer to as "equilbrium." Why couldn't this have been a logical possibility (though counter to what actually occurred)?
Magic? I admitted that SOA0 at t0 exists by brute fact (exists for no reason). There's no reason for it because there's no cause. This really isn't much different from God - there's no reason for his existence; he wasn't caused. So do we treat anything that exists without explanation as "magic", including God?
Quoting Devans99
If it's a logical necessity, you should be able to prove it. Do so, without making controversial assumptions.
Quoting Devans99
Plants are not intelligent (by my definition), but they behave (grow) in ways that are consistent with intelligent behavior, but due entirely to physical, biological activity. Even if you label this "intelligence" of a sort, it is entirely a physical phenomenon. You depend on an intelligence just existing unphysically, and that's not justified.
Quoting Devans99
In my model, SOA0 is unique in being uncaused, just as in your model you have a unique, uncaused state (or entity) that exists uncaused.
You assert there's a logical problem with 1, but the only actual contradiction is:
(SOA0 is uncaused) AND (everything has a cause)
The second clause (everything has a cause) is clearly an assumption - a common sense assumption, I admit. But it's equally common sensical to point out that timeless things don't cause anything. The only things in experience that exist timelessly are things like mathematical or logical theorems, or universals (like "4") and these timeless things are abstractions, and certainly causally inert.
This is the pivotal point: both options are problematic. It seems one of them must be true, but there's no objective basis for picking one. You only point to the problems with the option you don't like, while ignoring the problem with your choice. Be open minded! If you want to pick #2 because it's the more optimistic choice, you are free to do so - but admit you're choosing it for that reason, not because it's logically entailed by an argument.
OK but that makes SOA0 in a state that sounds like what I call timelessness. Also, the need for SOA0 not to arise ex nihilo suggests that it has permanent existence. So from the above explanation, your SOA0 sounds like a dumb version of my timeless first cause.
Quoting Relativist
Plants have some form of intelligent including (probably) learning and memory:
Plants respond to environmental stimuli by movement and changes in morphology. They communicate while actively competing for resources. In addition, plants accurately compute their circumstances, use sophisticated cost–benefit analysis and take tightly controlled actions to mitigate and control diverse environmental stressors. Plants are also capable of discriminating positive and negative experiences and of learning by registering memories from their past experiences
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_perception_(physiology)#Plant_intelligence
Intelligence could come in many forms. Perhaps God starts out very dumb but through countless eons develops intelligence - a self-evolving being of some form.
Quoting Relativist
If SOA0 if uncaused then its beyond causality, IE what I'm calling timeless.
Quoting Relativist
If we make SOA0 timeless then the two models seem to be different only in whether there is intelligence present initially. I favour intelligence because:
- To cause the first effect without in itself being effected seems to require intelligence
- The fact that we are in the polar opposite of equilibrium seems to require intelligence
- The fine tuning for life appears to point to intelligence
- The creation of a dimension (time) seems unlikely to of happened naturally
The fact that there is something rather than nothing is already extraordinary - the existence of anything at all defies logic (nothing existing would be much neater - nothing requires no explanation). I admit that making the something intelligent makes it even more extraordinary but that appears to be the explanation that fits best with the facts.
It is indeed something like a dumb version of your first cause.
Quoting Devans99
There's no example of an intelligence existing independently of something physical. A plant is physical.
How can there have been countless eons for God to evolve if time is finite to the past?
Quoting Devans99
SOA0 causes SOA1, so I wouldn't call it "beyond causality", I'd just call it uncaused.
Quoting Devans99
Recall that I showed that the fine-tuning argument doesn't increase the epistemic probability of God's existence. Everything else you said just seems to be (biased) unsupported assertion.
No it doesn't. Why should we expect nothing rather than something? Here's a paper that discusses this topic: link.
Here's why I disagree. The 2 possibilities imply either:
1) A multiverse just happens to exist, and one of more universes within the multiverse happened to evolve life.
2) An intelligent mind just happened to exist whose mind included a plan to create a universe (or multiverse) that would necessarily evolve life. This plan was not the product of careful thought and deliberation, no thinking through consequences and selecting from among a set of choices. No, this plan had to exist timelessly in that mind because there was no time to formulate a plan, and so that it could be implemented as time commences. The plan had to be the best possible plan, which means that the mind timelessly knew all other possible plans were lesser.
#2 entails an enormously more complex entity than #1, and thus it seems enormously less likely.
God may or may not be physical; to cause and evade the Big Bang would seem to need an extra-dimensional or non-material quality. We have no examples of the non-physical (excluding concepts) at all so we cannot speculate whether non-physical things can be intelligent. God is from beyond spacetime so may be physical in a different manner than we are used to. He may be physical but not made from the standard model particles.
Quoting Relativist
To create time requires a change so change must be possible without time. So it must be possible for things to happen timelessly. I was referring to the development of God's intelligence as something that might happen timelessly and culminate in the creation of time and the universe.
Relativity says we are all moving at the speed of light in the time direction when stationary. As our speed increases, the amount we are moving in the space direction increases and the amount we are moving in the time direction decreases. If this is taken to the limit as with a photon, you end up with 100% movement in the space direction and no movement in the time direction. Thanks to length compression, the photon can move anywhere in the universe in no time. I wonder if God might be like this; a timeless entity that can move anywhere in the universe in no time?
The way I imagine this is with 3D spacetime. The x-y plane is space and the z-axis is time. Then normal movement involves movement through both space and time, but something like a photon can zip around in space (the x-y plane) without ever experiencing time. Maybe God is something like that?
Quoting Relativist
But the proposed state of timelessness is the only state there is that allows something to be uncaused. Logically the first cause / SOA0 must have permanent existence (can't get something from nothing, so something must exist permanently) which is also only possible outside of time.
Quoting Relativist
I will have a look at the paper, but from my perspective it is simple: nothing requires no explanation. That there is something seems to require explanation at first. Once it is realised that the 'something' in 'why is there something rather than nothing?' is a reference to the timeless first cause; it becomes a non question: first causes are uncaused, have always existed, have no explanation, have nothing logically prior to them so they do not have a 'why' property.
Quoting Relativist
If a multiverse exists then I would contend that all universes in the multiverse will be life supporting (because they are all made of the same stuff, go through the same processes and end up at the same temperature/density. I'm aware there are theories to the contrary; I hold them in low regard; they seem to flaunt common sense). If all the universes are life supporting, then the chances are heavily in favour of a fine tuner being involved (else we'd need a billion to one shot to come off).
The plan for the universe must have taken a lot of thought - everything from how to get atoms, elements and compounds to form, through formation of stars and planets, nuclear fusion to provide an energy source for life, the expansion of the universe to avoid a gravitational collapse. I believe thinking would be possible without time (the other possibility is God creates time with his first act, has a think, then creates the universe).
OK, I can accept the possibility of such an intelligence being metaphysically possible.
Quoting Devans99
No. Please consider my description of SOA0: it exists uncaused (because SOMETHING must exist uncaused at the head of the causal chain), and time ensues BECAUSE SOA0 changes to SOA1. Time and change go hand in hand.
Consider this an axiom of my model: Time is possible if and only if change is possible.
IMO, this is true even if there is a God. That's why I can't accept the notion of something existing BEFORE time that causes time. That is, unless you're simply defining temporal points differently. In particular, you could claim SOA0 is "before" time because it is not caused by prior states. So if SOA0 is the initial state (with or without God), we could define the temporal points in either of 2 ways:
1) SOAx is a point in time for all x >= 0 (my definition). OR
2) SOAx is a point in time for all x > 0
Are you arguing for def 2? That's fine, but it's not really different because both still show a continuous causal chain. It's just a definitional thing as to whether or not SOA0 is defined as a point of time.
Quoting Devans99
The thesis of the paper is the simple observation that your perspective, which derives from Leibniz Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) is based on the unsupported assumption: we ought to expect nothingness in the absence of a reason for "somethingness". Why not expect that there must exist SOMETHING? If nothingness should be expected, then why is there a God rather than nothingness? One can use God to explain why there's a universe, but this just shifts the question over to God.
Further more, as a point of fact: there is something. We therefore know that somethingness is possible, and we have no basis for considering nothingness impossible.
Quoting Devans99
Your contention flies in the face of your Fine Tuning Argument. That FTA depends on the assumption the fundamental constants could have been different, and the observation of physicists that most alternative values would have made life (as we know it) impossible. Regardless of whether or not those constants could have differed, if there are other universes that are indeed caused by the same factors that cause ours - there's no reason to think they would be identical in every way, and that makes no sense. Consider that if they were strictly identical, WE would be duplicated and all these universes would be just so many mirrors of our universe.
I agree that if all universes are life supporting, that would be a point in favor of God's existence. However, this is only a hypothetical and does not constitute actual evidence.
Quoting Devans99
Your adding another ad hoc assumption: that there can be atemporal thoughts. What happened to Occam's Razor? I get that you may feel forced to assume this, to explain how God could atemporally plan - but it is a strike against the plausibility (and epistemic probability) that there exists a timeless, intelligent first cause.
Do you accept the implication of your assumption? It implies God is not omniscient (if he knows everything, there's no need to figure things out), and he's not immutable (his knowledge changes in the course of drawing conclusions).
Finally, if God can have atemporal thoughts - this entails an infinite regress. Since there's no temporal constraint to a sequence of thoughts, there's an infinite series of prior thoughts.
So SOA0 is timeless and permanent? SOA0 must have permanent existence else it's something from nothing. Then the first change (SOA0->SOA1) causes time?
That first change; time is not extant when it happens and time is a result of the first change so it still looks as if a timeless change is taking place (it just happens that the change taking place creates time).
Quoting Relativist
Time does not exist initially, so change is not possible initially by this axiom. So creation of time is impossible by this axiom?
Going from a no time to time situation requires a timeless change.
Quoting Relativist
I am not clear what 'x' stands for in your definition?
Quoting Relativist
Why is there God rather than nothing? God is uncaused, timeless, there is nothing logically prior to God, so it's an inappropriate question. God does not have a why property in the same way an idea does not have a length property. IMO the PEQ is answered by this.
Quoting Relativist
The FTA argument still applies: constants for the whole multiverse could have been different (by consideration of hypothetical multiverses that could have existed with different constants).
Other universes would be structurally different to ours thanks to small variations in the early universe caused by quantum fluctuations. But fundamental stuff like the mass of a quark or the strength of EMR would be the same for all universes (hence all different but all life supporting).
Quoting Relativist
I still maintain that time is a thing and to create it requires timeless change. If timeless change is possible then so is timeless thought. Timeless change is required as far as I can see.
Quoting Relativist
I don't think God is immutable; that would be like the block universe view of time. God is not omniscient because it's impossible to 'know thy self'.
Quoting Relativist
The sequence of thoughts is within some form of timeless causality so there would have to be a 'first thought' that caused all the others I guess. The first thought must be uncaused; maybe it was 'I'm bored'.
There were two ways to get things started (with God/SOA0) I mentioned:
1. timeless change is possible
2. Time is created when the first change happens
Thinking about it, the 2nd implies the first is possible; it all points to timeless change being a requirement; time cannot exist without it.
It is false to claim "SOA0 must have permanent existence else its something from nothing." I've demonstrated it multiple times, but you just continue repeating this claim without proving it. I'll try to help you understand why this may be false by giving a hypothetical example of what the SOA0 might consist of, and how a big bang might occur:
SOA0 consists of the fundamental basis of reality (which never ceases to be the fundamental basis of reality), but in an initial state. For example: assume reality is fundamentally quantum fields (everything that exists is composed of some components of these quantum fields). These exist in an initial state - which is a quantum state, and therefore consists of a superposition of many eigenstates. A single eigenstate can be thought of a discrete (classical) state, but they all exist simultaneously.
This initial state is in "equilibrium" - where equilibrium is "zero point energy", which is the the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical system may have. Because a quantum state consists of a superposition of eigenstates, there are some eigenstates that are high energy - but these are offset in the quantum system by eigenstates that are of negative energy.
For sake of discussion, let's assume the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is true. This means that each eigenstate of that superposition can actually change independently of each other. An eigenstate of high energy has low entropy and results in inflation (a "big bang"). But the overall quantum system is still at zero point energy (i.e. the quantum system remains at "equilibrium") because there is a complementary eigenstate of high negative energy that balances it out.
This cosmological model meets your requirement that an initial state be at equilibrium, but it demonstrates how a universe can nevertheless emerge. There exists something that is permanent: the overall system of quantum fields at zero point energy, but a universe occurs WITHIN this state of "equilibrium". You can think of the overall system as analogous to a photon (which does not experience time despite the universe through which it travels experiencing time), while an individual eigenstate/universe experiences time. Since the overall system is not experiencing time, it is (in a sense) timeless and unchanging, and yet - an individual eigenstate experiences time and change. While this seems paradoxical, it is exactly what a photon experiences in a changing universe - so it is not actually a paradox. Time is relative.
You can be skeptical of this cosmological model, but you have to acknowledge it is logically consistent. And if it is logically consistent, then it is false to claim it is logically impossible - as you have been doing.
To be responsible for all the matter/energy of the Big Bang, the system must be huge; IE a classical system first and a quantum system second. The system would head towards some form of classical equilibrium; the exact opposite of the Big Bang.
You are trying to use the physics of the micro world for a macro problem. Classical systems may theoretically be represented by an overall wave function but classical systems to not behave like quantum systems; there is no superposition of states in a classical system; the system is in one state only and that state tends to equilibrium.
I do not buy the Many Worlds interpretation of QM at all; non-local hidden variables like Bohemian mechanics sound more reasonable to me.
QM is relevant to working out what happened in the singularity; it is not relevant to pre-Big Bang physics IMO because that is a macro question.
Quoting Relativist
So something permanent exists; IE a timeless, classical system massive enough to generate the universe.
I think the fundamental puzzle here is that time requires change (to create time) and change requires time (to enable change).
My solution is timeless change. The only other solution I can think of is that the first change somehow causes time. But I do not see time as just change. In relativity, the faster things move through space, the slower time runs. So more change seems to equal less time - an inverse relationship. If time is change, then more change should result in time running faster. This does not happen, for example, a mechanical clock (lots of change) tells the same time as a digital watch (less change).
I do not see time as caused by the entropy increase of the universe; time runs the same speed in a system in which entropy is increasing quickly as it does in a system where entropy is increasing slowly.
A change must take place for time to be created/emerge; so change must be possible without time. I'd argue that a photon appears, travels (no distance) and disappears all timelessly; the act of disappearing timelessly is a timeless change - so timeless change seems possible.
Time is something that must be created; it does not emerge from other phenomena.
Quoting Relativist
I do not believe a micro theory can explain macro phenomena. QM cannot accurately describe macro systems. There is no superposition of states in a macro system. Macro systems head towards classical equilibrium.
Where does matter/energy come from under your proposal? Does it exist timelessly or is it created somehow? (EG zero energy universe hypothesis).
False. You are simply redefining the cosmological model I defined.
Here's a paper in which Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin discusses the general program of Quantum Cosmology:
Quantum Cosmology and Eternal Inflation
Here's an article by astrophysicist Ethan Siegel, that explains why the world must be fundamentally quantum waves:
This Is Why Quantum Field Theory Is More Fundamental Than Quantum Mechanics
I could find many more references if you need them, but if you are simply going to naively dismiss these, there's no point in continuing the discussion.
There is at least 10^53 kg of matter in the observable universe. That needs a macro explanation involving causality not a micro explanation. The most successful cosmological theory we have is the Big Bang and it is a macro theory. I await a macro explanation of your theory. You have not even explained where the matter comes from. Also:
- Natural process always occurs in pluralities. The creation event was a singleton; that means it is not natural
- Natural processes tend to classical equilibrium; not to a Big Bang
- Natural processes do not start out in a classically low entropy state (I do not buy the Many Worlds interpretation).
- Natural processes do not result in a fine tuned universe
Your preferred theory seems complex and relies on a lot of hypotheticals. It flaunts the fundamental principle of equilibrium. Its far from Occam's Razor. I am afraid it is not high on my list of possibilities.
Be sure to contact Alexander Vilenken and let him know he's wasting his time.
Thanks for the discussion.