First cause

[Polymath257]

A religious person would identify a "creator" as having formed the universe.
A science person might identify with some sort of non-physical entity as
having formed the universe. Either way - its outside our physics so it's to be
called "metaphysics", no?

No. For example, if there is a multiverse of which our universe is a part, we would still call it natural and physical.

Also, and once again, you ignore the idea that the universe wasn't 'formed': that it wasn't caused at all. It simply is.

Again, science does not recognize anything "outside" the universe. Religious
people DO believe there's something "outside."

And without evidence of something outside of the universe, the default is the scientific position.

 

[Polymath257]

No need to shout.
However you look at it - sideways, upside down, you can't get away from the fact that the universe began.

No, once again, we do not know whether it began or not. We do not know if it is infinite into the past or not.

What we currently call the Big Bang may well have simply been a phase change from what was before to what is now.

Whether there were millions upon millions of universes created is irrelevant. All that does is create an infinite regression - similar to what you are arguing against -, and does not address, nor dismiss, the question of first cause.

That is because if there is an infinite regression, there was no first cause. Every cause had a cause before it.

 

[Polymath257]

Which story are you referring to? I know of none that have been proved wrong. So, I am all ears.

The account given in the Bible, for example. Most of Genesis is pure mythology, as is a good part of Exodus (although there are at least some connections to reality there occasionally).

 

[Shad]

There was no nature with the first cause.
Scientists state there IS NO OUTSIDE TO EVERYTHING.
Not even physical laws. They sometimes say its like going
to the North Pole and then wanting to continue heading
North.

Read my post again. I was talking about a specific metaphysics.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If all things were, are, and will be "created" into being by cause and effect, why must there be a first cause?

Disclaimer: causality as a thing, is only valid within the context of our space-time continuum, as it is inherently temporal. Effects follow causes and causes preceed effects. A flow of time is required for this to occur. So it can't be used on the level of the cosmos, as removing the universe (space-time) from existance, would throw out causality along with it. The physics of the universe apply IN the universe. Removing the universe, will also remove the physics of the universe.

Disclaimer 2: causality, while a valid way of thinking about things on the scale of classical, macroscopic physics, gets very weird at the quantum level. To the point that it can be said to no longer apply there either. Quantum physics doesn't seem to follow this "rule" of causality.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Which can't be possible without breaking the laws of nature (whichever word is appropriate to the context)?

Spoiler alert: causality... not really a "law of nature".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is why, the universe is eternal with respect to time, and space. If there was a first cause, it would have had a starting point. But since there is no starting point then it is eternal in the past.

This becomes semantic somewhat, but I would not use those words. "eternal" has some "infinite" ring to it, and the universe (=space-time) almost certaintly isn't infinite in the past.
It had a starting point at T = 0. T, being time.

Here's where it gets weird for our brains, that evolved to deal with low speeds and low masses so that we can catch a ball or run from a lion - not to understand quantum mechanics....

There is no "before" T = 0. So there is no "cause" there either. Not in the sense that we understand "causes" anyway.

Think of it as going north and eventually reaching absolute north. Now ask yourself: what's north of that? See? There's no there there.

Space-time "always" existed.
Always = for all of time.
And true, as you go back in time, at every moment in time, the universe existed. There is no moment in time where the universe did not exist.

Yet, space-time seems to have had a beginning / starting point 13.7 billion years ago.

 

[McBell]

However you look at it - sideways, upside down, you can't get away from the fact that the universe began.

Except you can not show this claim to be the fact you claim it to be...

 

[PruePhillip]

No it's logic is based on nature first then extrapolated to the unknown. Aristotle and those following him know nothing about the universe compared to even someone with Google today. The First Cause argument is based on nature itself

Is the post you referred to about metaphysics?

 

[PruePhillip]

No. For example, if there is a multiverse of which our universe is a part, we would still call it natural and physical.

Also, and once again, you ignore the idea that the universe wasn't 'formed': that it wasn't caused at all. It simply is.



And without evidence of something outside of the universe, the default is the scientific position.

Why "default." Science does an extraordinary good job of describing the physical
realm. But it can say nothing about non-physical things.
You refer to a "multiverse." - I am thinking of what preceded it all, ie a multiverse
might spawn our universe and there might be a hyper space realm which formed
the multi-verse. There could be something which formed this hyper space world.
But eventually, someone or something had to kick start it all.
Religion will say "someone started it" and science will say "something started it"
but whatever, being outside of space and time and physical laws we would have
to agree it's metaphysical. And if "something" started it all then WHY? This question
is why I opt for the "someone."

 

[Polymath257]

Why "default." Science does an extraordinary good job of describing the physical
realm. But it can say nothing about non-physical things.

I have seen no evidence of such non-physical things.

You refer to a "multiverse." - I am thinking of what preceded it all, ie a multiverse
might spawn our universe and there might be a hyper space realm which formed
the multi-verse. There could be something which formed this hyper space world.
But eventually, someone or something had to kick start it all.

You keep saying that, but have given no good reason to think it. Why can't it be 'turtles all the way down'?

Religion will say "someone started it" and science will say "something started it"
but whatever, being outside of space and time and physical laws we would have
to agree it's metaphysical. And if "something" started it all then WHY? This question
is why I opt for the "someone."

And I am saying it was *always* going: it never started...it has just always been going.

I'm not quite sure why you think there had to be a start. Suppose that there simply was always motion: uncaused motion. Is that so difficult to believe? Or do you think the 'natural state' is one of 'no motion'? And why would you think that, if such is the case?

 

[PruePhillip]

I have seen no evidence of such non-physical things.


You keep saying that, but have given no good reason to think it. Why can't it be 'turtles all the way down'?



And I am saying it was *always* going: it never started...it has just always been going.

I'm not quite sure why you think there had to be a start. Suppose that there simply was always motion: uncaused motion. Is that so difficult to believe? Or do you think the 'natural state' is one of 'no motion'? And why would you think that, if such is the case?

The Loop theory of the universe - not sure if you can believe it anymore. There appears to be no end to the expanding universe.
But the Loop doesn't address the issue, "Why is there something instead of nothing?"

Found this
Notes from the Garden cubit: Looking Beyond the Garden: What Came Before the Big Bang?

What came before the Big Bang?

1. Nothing

According to Einstein’s work there was nothing before the Big Bang. Period.

2. Hartle-Hawking theory

There was no time before the Big Bang. It didn’t exist before the formation of “spacetime” associated with the Big Bang. James Hartle and Stephen Hawking theorize that since beginnings have to do with time, the concept of a beginning of the universe is meaningless. Before the Big Bang there was just a “singularity,” a point at which something cannot be defined because it is infinite.

3. The inflationary universe

Just before the Big Bang, space was filled with some sort of unstable energy, which exploded and created the ever-expanding universe.

4. Self-creating universe

Before the Big Bang there existed a loop of “something.” Because it was a loop, it had no beginning and no end. At some point, a “branch” popped out of the loop, and that was the beginning of our universe.

5. Universes expand and collapse (Big Bounce Theory)

Since everything in nature is cyclical, universes are continually expanding and collapsing. Therefore, before the Big Bang there was another expanding universe.

6. The Multiverse theory

Sometimes called the meta-universe, the multiverse is a set of either infinite or finite possible universes (including ours) that taken together encompass everything that has ever existed, including all of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws that describe them. The various universes within the multiverse are sometimes also called parallel universes.

7. Ball of gravity and energy

Before the Big Bang there was a ball of gravity with energy trapped inside it. No mass or particles existed. There was a lot of activity inside the ball as the energy tried to escape gravitational pull. Finally, weak points developed in the ball and energy was able to escape via a giant explosion.

8. String theory

The basic particles in the universe are not small points but rather shaped like strings. We can only see three dimensions, but space can have more than that. Events before the Big Bang could have included a collision of our own universe with a parallel universe that was made of extra dimensions. These universes exist as membranes, connected by gravity. The science behind these ideas is complex and beyond the grasp of most of us, but now occupy some of the greatest minds in physics.

Ultimately, no matter what the theory—and despite the fact that there are theories that say there was nothing before the Big Bang—we still tend to wonder: And what came before that? From a scientific point of view, it’s hard for us to get our heads around a concept like: It just is, period. There is no precursor. To our earthbound sensibilities it just doesn't make sense to get something from nothing. There must be an agent. If we believe in an ultimate power (God, Supreme Being, Higher Power, Buddha, Great Mystery—the list goes on) the it-just-is concept may be a bit easier to accept. In the end, religion and spirituality fill the void left by science. ☼

 

[Darkstorn]

Whoever wrote those summaries misunderstands all of them, unfortunately. You literally can't say "before the big bang." There was no before the Big Bang. You can't say there was "nothing" before the Big Bang. "Nothing" doesn't exist.

You can't have something "before" time.

 

[Polymath257]

The Loop theory of the universe - not sure if you can believe it anymore. There appears to be no end to the expanding universe.
But the Loop doesn't address the issue, "Why is there something instead of nothing?"

Found this
Notes from the Garden cubit: Looking Beyond the Garden: What Came Before the Big Bang?

What came before the Big Bang?

1. Nothing

According to Einstein’s work there was nothing before the Big Bang. Period.

2. Hartle-Hawking theory

There was no time before the Big Bang. It didn’t exist before the formation of “spacetime” associated with the Big Bang. James Hartle and Stephen Hawking theorize that since beginnings have to do with time, the concept of a beginning of the universe is meaningless. Before the Big Bang there was just a “singularity,” a point at which something cannot be defined because it is infinite.

3. The inflationary universe

Just before the Big Bang, space was filled with some sort of unstable energy, which exploded and created the ever-expanding universe.

4. Self-creating universe

Before the Big Bang there existed a loop of “something.” Because it was a loop, it had no beginning and no end. At some point, a “branch” popped out of the loop, and that was the beginning of our universe.

5. Universes expand and collapse (Big Bounce Theory)

Since everything in nature is cyclical, universes are continually expanding and collapsing. Therefore, before the Big Bang there was another expanding universe.

6. The Multiverse theory

Sometimes called the meta-universe, the multiverse is a set of either infinite or finite possible universes (including ours) that taken together encompass everything that has ever existed, including all of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws that describe them. The various universes within the multiverse are sometimes also called parallel universes.

7. Ball of gravity and energy

Before the Big Bang there was a ball of gravity with energy trapped inside it. No mass or particles existed. There was a lot of activity inside the ball as the energy tried to escape gravitational pull. Finally, weak points developed in the ball and energy was able to escape via a giant explosion.

8. String theory

The basic particles in the universe are not small points but rather shaped like strings. We can only see three dimensions, but space can have more than that. Events before the Big Bang could have included a collision of our own universe with a parallel universe that was made of extra dimensions. These universes exist as membranes, connected by gravity. The science behind these ideas is complex and beyond the grasp of most of us, but now occupy some of the greatest minds in physics.

Ultimately, no matter what the theory—and despite the fact that there are theories that say there was nothing before the Big Bang—we still tend to wonder: And what came before that? From a scientific point of view, it’s hard for us to get our heads around a concept like: It just is, period. There is no precursor. To our earthbound sensibilities it just doesn't make sense to get something from nothing. There must be an agent. If we believe in an ultimate power (God, Supreme Being, Higher Power, Buddha, Great Mystery—the list goes on) the it-just-is concept may be a bit easier to accept. In the end, religion and spirituality fill the void left by science. ☼

No, put aside the different theories for right now. There are theories that have a beginning anf theories that don't.

Why do *you* think an infinite regress is impossible? Why do you think there has to be a 'start' of everything?

I see no *logical* issue with an infinite regress: every effect still has a cause. The system is always in motion (no force is required if motion has always been happening).

What makes that unreasonable in your view?

 

[Polymath257]

Whoever wrote those summaries misunderstands all of them, unfortunately. You literally can't say "before the big bang." There was no before the Big Bang. You can't say there was "nothing" before the Big Bang. "Nothing" doesn't exist.

You can't have something "before" time.

While that is true in the standard model of the BB, it is NOT true in some of the extensions that include quantum effects. Some do, in fact, have a 'before' in the context of a multiverse that has a timeline going back infinitely.

The issue of a start of time is not yet conclusive.

 

[McBell]

Ultimately, no matter what the theory—and despite the fact that there are theories that say there was nothing before the Big Bang—we still tend to wonder: And what came before that? From a scientific point of view, it’s hard for us to get our heads around a concept like: It just is, period. There is no precursor. To our earthbound sensibilities it just doesn't make sense to get something from nothing. There must be an agent. If we believe in an ultimate power (God, Supreme Being, Higher Power, Buddha, Great Mystery—the list goes on) the it-just-is concept may be a bit easier to accept. In the end, religion and spirituality fill the void left by science. ☼

The problem here is that it does not stop with "GodDidIt".
Unless of course you are only using science to get to "GodDidIt".
Where did this god come from?
what created this god?
The second you make this god an exception, yuo shoot the whole argument in the foot.
So "GodDidIt" is not actually the first cause.

 

[Darkstorn]

While that is true in the standard model of the BB, it is NOT true in some of the extensions that include quantum effects. Some do, in fact, have a 'before' in the context of a multiverse that has a timeline going back infinitely.

The issue of a start of time is not yet conclusive.

I didn't think of that, yeah, you're correct. But that won't change the fact that those summaries are a mess and full of wrong terms. Again, they seem to be written as if they're all aspects of "standard cosmology" even though those are actually competing models.

 

[PruePhillip]

The problem here is that it does not stop with "GodDidIt".
Unless of course you are only using science to get to "GodDidIt".
Where did this god come from?
what created this god?
The second you make this god an exception, yuo shoot the whole argument in the foot.
So "GodDidIt" is not actually the first cause.

Rules and exceptions apply only to our world.
Whatever lies "out there" where science reckons nothing lies,
all bets are off. Our world is super-weird - whatever is outside
of the laws of physics and beyond our comprehension cannot
have rules applying to it.

 

[PruePhillip]

No, put aside the different theories for right now. There are theories that have a beginning anf theories that don't.

Why do *you* think an infinite regress is impossible? Why do you think there has to be a 'start' of everything?

I see no *logical* issue with an infinite regress: every effect still has a cause. The system is always in motion (no force is required if motion has always been happening).

What makes that unreasonable in your view?

It's possible, but I see it as a way of dodging the issue of "Why something rather than nothing."
Saying "There's never been nothing" doesn't sit right. Sure, human comprehension plays little
part in the universe - but this one is beyond the pale - a cycling system which creates dinosaurs,
butterflies and people but then dissolves it all down to start again. Time and calendars set to zero
and then start again.
IMO this idea is just a way to fool ordinary folk into thinking you have the answer how the universe
came to be. The next question they could ask you is, "But why?"

 

[night912]

Rules and exceptions apply only to our world.
Whatever lies "out there" where science reckons nothing lies,
all bets are off. Our world is super-weird - whatever is outside
of the laws of physics and beyond our comprehension cannot
have rules applying to it.

What makes you think that? Why do think that the laws of the "outside" world cannot be the same as "our" world? We don't know what it's like "outside" therefore we cannot give it any kind of property that we can conceive. Once we do that or put something "outside" then it is once again bound by our laws or at least whatever concept that we put out there is bound by our laws.