First cause

[McBell]

No, it did explained it. But from your comment, I'll explain why you are not accepting the explanation. You are not looking for the how, what, and why, which should be the goal for a question that that explains something that supposedly you don't have the answer to. You already have an answer and just waiting for someone to present an answer that you have. In other words, you already reserved a gap for your answer to fit in. If you claim to not know the answer to your question, how come you already know that it MUST like the way you want it to be? So basically, you are staring at your designated gap that you've prepared, and just waiting for the the answer to slip right in.

The whole point of seeking an explanation is to follow the steps and ends wherever the answer lies, they shouldn't be waiting for it to reach where they want it. So did you even follow my explanation?

Except I have no problem saying that I do not know.
Except I am not looking for a gap for I have nothing to put in said gap.
Except I am not making any claims as to how it "MUST" be.


I suspect you mixed me up with another member.

 

[McBell]

Cause, effect, physics, time, mathematics, logic etc are things
about OUR universe. When it comes to this "impossible" realm
outside our own ALL BETS ARE OFF. Asking the questions of
"who made God" are pointless.
Asking how any things works and where it comes from are
perfectly valid questions in this universe-multiverse only. And
if you insist on expecting answers for what lies outside then
you must answer which direction is north at the north pole, and
what happened before there was time, and how to move when
there is no space.

And just like that you toss out everything you used to get to the hole to put your god into.
THEN you go even further and excempt god from inquiry.
You did not solve anything.
You merely claim that all the questions that got you to the hole you created for your god are no longer valid questions.
You gave up on learning and understanding once you got a comphy home for your god.

 

[Polymath257]

Cause, effect, physics, time, mathematics, logic etc are things
about OUR universe.

Actually, they only happen *within* our universe.

When it comes to this "impossible" realm
outside our own ALL BETS ARE OFF. Asking the questions of
"who made God" are pointless.

OK, so the notion of cause as applied to the universe *as a whole*
is also meaningless. So no explanation for the 'cause'
of its existence is required because 'cause' only
makes sense *within* the universe.

Asking how any things works and where it comes from are
perfectly valid questions in this universe-multiverse only.

That sounds like special pleading to me. And, of course, it negates
the necessity for a cause for our universe.

And
if you insist on expecting answers for what lies outside then
you must answer which direction is north at the north pole, and
what happened before there was time, and how to move when
there is no space.

Which is *precisely* why asking for a cause for the universe as a whole
is unreasonable.

The difference is you add another, unnecessary layer: that of the
supernatural. It is quite enough to say that the universe itself
is uncaused because causes only happen *within* it.

 

[Polymath257]

As far as we can tell, the universe is finite. It has a beginning. It won't have an end
but there will be the "heat death" and receding horizons. That's current cosmology
which most likely will be something different in 10 years.
A universe which has always been here avoids the question of how it came to be
here. Nor does it address the question of WHY it is here.

We don't know whether or not it is spatially finite. Current evidence actually
points to spatially infinite.

When quantum mechanics is brought in, we also do not know if it is
temporally finite. The standard model certainly points to temporally finite.

When you say cosmology will be different in 10 years, you are ignoring
the fact that we got a *lot* of high quality information relatively recently
which is why our views changed so much in the last 20 years. That is
why we have been able to nail down many of the numbers that were
pure speculation before that.

 

[MNoBody]

That's how dogs see the universe.

your point being???

 

[PruePhillip]

your point being???

There was this funny story in a Qantas flight magazine about a man and his dog
walking along a beach. The dog couldn't understand why his owner was depressed -
the day was sunny, the sand clean and the water warm. The dog thought about his
owner living in the past or the future - worrying about something. But the dog was
happy because he couldn't do that - he lived in the present.

 

[PruePhillip]

We don't know whether or not it is spatially finite. Current evidence actually
points to spatially infinite.

When quantum mechanics is brought in, we also do not know if it is
temporally finite. The standard model certainly points to temporally finite.

When you say cosmology will be different in 10 years, you are ignoring
the fact that we got a *lot* of high quality information relatively recently
which is why our views changed so much in the last 20 years. That is
why we have been able to nail down many of the numbers that were
pure speculation before that.

Agreed, in part. But if the universe is 13.4 billon or whatever years then
how can it be infinite? Certainly the numbers for the initial inflation are
quite startling - but even if the universe expanded a billion light years
every billionth of a second it still would be finite.
Just been reading about Graph Theory - another way of thinking about
the universe, utterly different from all the others which are utterly different
from each other (ie string theory, M-theory etc..)
Does your head in. Might just take the dog for a walk...

 

[McBell]

Does your head in.

Nice to know that I am not the only one...

 

[Aman Uensis]

Is that bad?

It seems that, in fact, there can be no 'reason' why there is 'something' rather than 'nothing'. Logic alone cannot justify that there is something that exists. At most, it can use the existence of one thing to prove the existence of another.

So, at some point you need to just admit that there is something that 'simply exists'. And I see no reason to assume it is anything other than the universe itself. Clearly it *does* exist. And if anything exists, then the universe does.

It's not bad at all. It's what it has to be in order for existence to go on, like a perpetual machine. If there were any absolute truths that could be discerned by any one person it'd be game over. That person would then hold some measure of absolute power over others with that truth.

On the contrary, I find it to be a comforting thought, though many will not. Most, including me, seek certainty in their lives. Even if it means entertaining a delusion.

 

[Aman Uensis]

But if the universe is 13.4 billon or whatever years then
how can it be infinite?

This universe is perhaps 13.4 billion years old. But no such calculation can be made of existence itself, or whatever came before this universe.

Thinking about these things does tend to screw with the mind.

 

[Aman Uensis]

What do you see as the problems it causes?

Are you sure they haven't been resolved by modern math?

I'm not really a maths or physics person. I'm just assuming that it is technically a kind of number but nothing can be really discerned from it or solved with it if I think about it.

 

[Polymath257]

Agreed, in part. But if the universe is 13.4 billon or whatever years then
how can it be infinite? Certainly the numbers for the initial inflation are
quite startling - but even if the universe expanded a billion light years
every billionth of a second it still would be finite.

I think you misunderstand the nature of the original singularity (assuming it exists,
that is). It is NOT a point. Instead, it is simply the condition that the universe increases in
temperature, density, pressure, etc as we get close to the beginning.

If the universe is infinite spatially, it was *always* infinite. And if the curvature
is negative or zero, then it was and will be spatially infinite at *all* times.
The growth of the universe was NOT out of a single point. Yes the *observable*
universe was quite small initially, but the universe as a whole may well have been
infinite.

Just been reading about Graph Theory - another way of thinking about
the universe, utterly different from all the others which are utterly different
from each other (ie string theory, M-theory etc..)
Does your head in. Might just take the dog for a walk...

 

[Polymath257]

I'm not really a maths or physics person. I'm just assuming that it is technically a kind of number but nothing can be really discerned from it or solved with it if I think about it.

Well, in math there are several different *types* of infinity and, within each type, several different *sizes* of infinity. Not all of them are 'kinds of numbers'. And even those that are can still be different *types* of numbers (cardinal versus ordinal).

The one we have been dealing with here is only the most basic one.

Truthfully, I find very large finite numbers to be much harder to fathom than the infinite. Look up Grahams number sometime.

 

[nPeace]

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.

What do you mean, "We... do not know"? Are you not speaking for yourself here?

Whatever, they come up with regarding the "before the BB", is future, and any ideas on that, is only an idea.

Right now, is the present.
Like I said, if you are not dealing with the current accepted scientific theory, then why should anyone care what science has to say?

So you think the current cosmological model is inaccurate... and you are concerned with the "mays" that are not. Okay.
Let's have that attitude with all the scientific theories.
Moving on...
What are we discussing again?

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

So you are hoping for an infinite regression. Okay. I got you loud and clear... and you didn't have to shout.

 

[nPeace]

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).

Your words are proof?
Why do I bother asking people on here to support their claims with supportive material.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What do you mean, "We... do not know"? Are you not speaking for yourself here?
Whatever, they come up with regarding the "before the BB", is future, and any ideas on that, is only an idea.

Like I said, if you are not dealing with the current accepted scientific theory, then why should anyone care what science has to say?

So you think the current cosmological model is inaccurate... and you are concerned with the "mays" that are not. Okay.
Let's have that attitude with all the scientific theories.

So you are hoping for an infinite regression. Okay. I got you loud and clear... and you didn't have to shout.

Yeah, science says up to what it knows and not beyond it, though it may have many theories about those things. We are not ashamed to say 'We do not know', and do not make stories to fool people.
You may not care about what science says, but you do care about what science does for you, for example, creating the computers and the internet.

Yeah the current cosmological model has things for which science may not have answers today, but science is working on those things. You do not need to suggest anything, people of science always have that attitude.

I do not think Polymath or any person of science hopes for anything other than finding evidenced answer to things that we cannot satisfactorily explain today.

 

[nPeace]

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

Claim?
So you agree that scientists make claims. Alright!

Well why not tell them how wrong they are, and you don't believe their claims.
I am only presenting what they say.

Steady-state model - Wikipedia
In cosmology, the steady-state model is an alternative to the Big Bang Theory of the evolution of the universe. In the steady-state model, the density of matter in the expanding universe remains unchanged due to a continuous creation of matter, thus adhering to the perfect cosmological principle, a principle that asserts that the observable universe is basically the same at any time as well as at any place.

While the steady-state model enjoyed some minority support in the scientific mainstream until the mid-20th century, it is now rejected by the vast majority of cosmologists, astrophysicists and astronomers, as the observational evidence points to a hot Big Bang cosmology with a finite age of the universe, which the steady-state model does not predict.

I have "no dog in that fight".
The Bible has the truth, as far as I am concerned. I'm sure you know what Genesis 1:1 says.
You may not believe it, but that's fine.
There's a whole lot of stuff people didn't believe, until...

 

[nPeace]

Yeah, till the reasons are not clear, there will be guessing. But perhaps that is better than hitching on to an obvious lie.

You'd have to convince me you believe that since you accept Hinduism. Or maybe you don't.

 

[nPeace]

Yeah, science says up to what it knows and not beyond it, though it may have many theories about those things. We are not ashamed to say 'We do not know', and do not make stories to fool people.

Seems though, that some only say they don't know, when the findings don't sit well with them.
So you don't know that man evolved from anything right?

You do make stories though. You do. Yes you do.
Scientists are human, as well. They are not "infallible, pure in heart, honest to God - never ever be dishonest, nor bias" people.

You may not care about what science says, but you do care about what science does for you, for example, creating the computers and the internet.

Did I say I don't care about science? No, I didn't.

Yeah the current cosmological model has things for which science may not have answers today, but science is working on those things. You do not need to suggest anything, people of science always have that attitude.

I do not think Polymath or any person of science hopes for anything other than finding evidenced answer to things that we cannot satisfactorily explain today.

What does the current findings reveal... What does the evidence say... that the universe began, or it didn't?

 

[nPeace]

If the universe is infinite or having an infinite amount of regression, then the answer do address the question of first cause. The answer is, there was no first cause. However you look at it - sideways, upside down, forwards, backwards, if the universe is infinite, you will not find where it began because there was never a beginning.

Here's something that can help.
Take a look at a circle. Now, point to the spot where the circle began or where it started.

If.
I don't believe that addresses the first cause, nonetheless, since intelligence seems to be very much a part of the initial processes... but that's another ball game.