First cause

[nPeace]

At this point, we simply don't know. The basic BB theory has a beginning to time. So time would not eternal if it is completely correct.

HOWEVER, we know that quantum effects need to be taken into account. And *some* theories of quantum gravity allow for the 'singularity' of the Big Bang to be 'smoothed out' allowing for time to be eternal again.

Until we get a good, testable theory of quantum gravity, this is going to remain an open question.

So this is inaccurate...
According to the standard Big Bang model, the universe was born during a period of inflation that began about 13.8 billion years ago.

 

[Polymath257]

Shrugs. Call me dumb. Maybe humans want to believe we create as an ego thing. Then, I'm more of an artist minded, so I can see originality in creation but on the other hand, we do use other things to create new ideas rather than claim we made it out of thin air. Origin of ideas not the tools to create them.

As far as I can see, even in math we use the ideas that other previously had to expand and merge to create new ones. But it is always a matter of 'standing on the shoulders of giants'.

On the other hand, I do think that human ego is often the reason people default to religion. People want to believe they 'matter', not just to their friends and family, but in some cosmic way. Having a father figure that cares for everyone and has a plan to make everything good is a very comforting thought. Thinking the universe was all made so we could live here is another aspect of this same ego, I think.

All I know is that I got peace once I stopped worrying about whether I matter on a cosmic scale and just focused on those around me in the here and now. i make my small contribution to human knowledge and, maybe, even human happiness. And that is quite sufficient for me.

 

[Polymath257]

Math will do that as math isn't a thing of existences. These arguments cover things that exist.

Math studies patterns and what *can* exist. What the logical boundaries are.

I see no reason why an infinite regress in time cannot *actually* exist.

 

[Shad]

Math studies patterns and what *can* exist. What the logical boundaries are.

Math is a useful tool. It just does not exist in the manner of the arguments and entities being discussed.

I see no reason why an infinite regress in time cannot *actually* exist.

That is your expertise talking in my view not philosophy.

 

[McBell]

Yes. Do you have a specific thought or guess why a person would think there is a first cause.

I suspect it has to do with the infinity part.
Based on my experience, most people can not comprehend the idea of infinity.
For some it actually hurts their brain.
Now keep in mind I live in rural Michiana.
Not a hub of scientific minded.

so one way to avoid having to think to much about infinity, First Cause.

You should see the reactions when it is mentioned there is an infinite amount of numeric values between 1 and 2....

 

[Polymath257]

So this is inaccurate...
According to the standard Big Bang model, the universe was born during a period of inflation that began about 13.8 billion years ago.

Not exactly inaccurate, but incomplete. The universe probably went through a period of inflation prior to the 'ordinary expansion' phase which started just before nucleosynthesis. The problem is that the inflationary scenario isn't part of the 'standard' Big Bang: it was an extension to the basic model to address some issues concerning uniformity and time scale. At this time, though, the inflationary stage is a hypothesis that has not been completely proven.

But be careful, inflation here has a technical meaning of exponential expansion for several doubling times. This phase, if it happened, was over by about a tenth of a second. After that, there was 'ordinary expansion' of the type we see today.

Also, even in the inflationary model, there were even earlier stages.

And, like I said, if quantum gravity goes certain ways, there would have been an even earlier stage around 10^-33 seconds into the expansion, where the density 'maxed out'. In that case, there may well have been a previous time and it would have gone infinitely into the past. But, again, that is not part of the standard Big Bang model.

 

[Polymath257]

Math is a useful tool. It just does not exist in the manner of the arguments and entities being discussed.

That is your expertise talking in my view not philosophy.

Well, I also have some expertise in physics. I see the philosophy as beside the point in these matters.

 

[Shad]

Shrugs. Call me dumb. Maybe humans want to believe we create as an ego thing.

This isn't far off the mark if simplified. Humans have major issues giving up ideas we hold to be true when the idea is demonstrated to be false or refuted. Religion is a major part of ego as it comprises a complete or at least near complete view of existence people treat as true. This happens in criminal courts as well as per family members believing their relative didn't commit a crime. Both go back to the person as it exposes a flaw in their thinking as they believe X is true so any refutation becomes personal. This is different from say a believe of life on another planet as that type of belief is not perception changing in compared to religious views of existence.

 

[Polymath257]

Math will do that as math isn't a thing of existences. These arguments cover things that exist. First cause is based on nature itself. You have parents who have parents, etc.

Again, I see nothing in physics that says an infinite time into the past is impossible. If anything, it is a common assumption in many areas of physics.

Why do you think it is impossible?

Yes, I have parents, and they have parents, and we can follow back to at least the first instances of the Big Bang. But there is a possibility in quantum gravity *physics* allowing for an infinite regress into the past.

Why do you think it is impossible for such to really exist?

 

[Shad]

Well, I also have some expertise in physics. I see the philosophy as beside the point in these matters.

The arguments being discussed are philosophical in nature. Physics and math are tools to attack premises in these arguments.

 

[Polymath257]

The arguments being discussed are philosophical in nature. Physics and math are tools to attack premises in these arguments.

I don't see them as philosophy at all. I see them as physics, pure and simple.

Philosophy might be well advised to reconsider the nature of causation. The old metaphysics is broken and needs to be mended badly.

Philosophy is remarkably bad at figuring out how things 'must be'. Often physics goes ahead and figures out how they 'are', whether or not philosophers agree.

 

[Shad]

Again, I see nothing in physics that says an infinite time into the past is impossible. If anything, it is a common assumption in many areas of physics.

Which is an assumption or axiom.

Why do you think it is impossible?

Infinite regression doesn't work on large scale.

Yes, I have parents, and they have parents, and we can follow back to at least the first instances of the Big Bang. But there is a possibility in quantum gravity *physics* allowing for an infinite regress into the past.

You misunderstood my point. I was clarifying some of the basics of first cause and prime mover arguments'' logic work which is based on observations of causes such as parents. The Why behind some of Aquinas' views

 

[Shad]

I don't see them as philosophy at all. I see them as physics, pure and simple.

The arguments are philosophical in nature. I mean the arguments people like Feser and Aquinas made. The question itself they attempt to answer could be answered by other tools used physics and it's concepts. Fact is I think turning toward physics will do more to create an answer than dead philosophers and theologians having their material recycled by those that dismiss even Newtonian metaphysics.

Philosophy might be well advised to reconsider the nature of causation. The old metaphysics is broken and needs to be mended badly.

That is the hallmark of that line of apologetics. It relies upon outdated ideas and dismissal of modern idea

Philosophy is remarkably bad at figuring out how things 'must be'. Often physics goes ahead and figures out how they 'are', whether or not philosophers agree.

The issue isn't philosophy itself, it is how people use it and what their goal is. Hence why God based philosophical issues are handled by the religious mostly to merely validate and reinforce an existing religious belief. While those against tend to be scientists by trade with a specific expertise in a premise of these arguments or atheists.

 

[Polymath257]

Which is an assumption or axiom.

Yep, that's how science is done: we make a model and see if it works.

Infinite regression doesn't work on large scale.

Why not? Any specific issues with it?

You misunderstood my point. I was clarifying some of the basics of first cause and prime mover arguments'' logic work which is based on observations of causes such as parents. The Why behind some of Aquinas' views

But the conditions for the early universe are so different than those common today that any intuitions developed now are essentially useless.

Parents only shows that anything macroscopic that begins to exist in the universe has a cause in the universe.

 

[Polymath257]

The arguments are philosophical in nature. I mean the arguments people like Feser and Aquinas made. The question itself they attempt to answer could be answered by other tools used physics and it's concepts. Fact is I think turning toward physics will do more to create an answer than dead philosophers and theologians having their material recycled by those that dismiss even Newtonian metaphysics.

That is the hallmark of that line of apologetics. It relies upon outdated ideas and dismissal of modern idea

Well, Aquinas was still using Aristotelian metaphysics. So that can be dismissed without much further comment. More modern treatments include Craig's comments, which seem to have very deep misunderstandings of what Cantor said about the infinite and the nature of causality.

The issue isn't philosophy itself, it is how people use it and what their goal is. Hence why God based philosophical issues are handled by the religious to merely validate and reinforce an existing religious belief.

 

[nPeace]

Not exactly inaccurate, but incomplete. The universe probably went through a period of inflation prior to the 'ordinary expansion' phase which started just before nucleosynthesis. The problem is that the inflationary scenario isn't part of the 'standard' Big Bang: it was an extension to the basic model to address some issues concerning uniformity and time scale. At this time, though, the inflationary stage is a hypothesis that has not been completely proven.

But be careful, inflation here has a technical meaning of exponential expansion for several doubling times. This phase, if it happened, was over by about a tenth of a second. After that, there was 'ordinary expansion' of the type we see today.

Also, even in the inflationary model, there were even earlier stages.

And, like I said, if quantum gravity goes certain ways, there would have been an even earlier stage around 10^-33 seconds into the expansion, where the density 'maxed out'. In that case, there may well have been a previous time and it would have gone infinitely into the past. But, again, that is not part of the standard Big Bang model.

We aren't discussing the "incomplete" part. We are discussing this part... According to the standard Big Bang model, the universe was born...
That part being accurate, is all we need.

 

[Polymath257]

We aren't discussing the "incomplete" part. We are discussing this part... According to the standard Big Bang model, the universe was born...
That part being accurate, is all we need.

A loose terminology for popular consumption. And, like I said, if some version of quantum gravity are correct, this part of it is simply wrong.

/E: why do you think that is 'all you need'? Remember that in the standard model, there is no 'before the Big Bang'.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

From my understanding, energy is not the universe, and matter is energy transformed. It doesn't disappear, as in go out of space, since it is transposed (for lack of a better word) to energy.
As regards God, I don't think we humans get to decide what God is, since our mind is so vastly limited, to even understand the nature of spirit. We don't even comprehend how complex our own brain is.
I think one can understand what we can about God, from the oldest book about him. Not the imitations.
That's my perspective.

Do you think energy and god reflect and/or are each other in the sense of their complexity, eternal nature, and so forth?

 

[Shad]

Yep, that's how science is done: we make a model and see if it works.

An axiom in philosophy is treated as fact by choice. You either accept it or you do not. There is no required model nor experiment to accept or reject an axiom. No different than you rejecting you are in a brain in a vat right now. An axiom is science is based on both models and experiments.

Why not? Any specific issues with it?

Due to existing models reducing the number of causes to singular examples.

But the conditions for the early universe are so different than those common today that any intuitions developed now are essentially useless.

Maybe.

Parents only shows that anything macroscopic that begins to exist in the universe has a cause in the universe.

Sure, that is my point. However pushing a cause to outside the universe is no different than say God did it as God is place outside the universe as well.

Sorry for the delay. I was walking the dogs.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

As far as I can see, even in math we use the ideas that other previously had to expand and merge to create new ones. But it is always a matter of 'standing on the shoulders of giants'.

On the other hand, I do think that human ego is often the reason people default to religion. People want to believe they 'matter', not just to their friends and family, but in some cosmic way. Having a father figure that cares for everyone and has a plan to make everything good is a very comforting thought. Thinking the universe was all made so we could live here is another aspect of this same ego, I think.

All I know is that I got peace once I stopped worrying about whether I matter on a cosmic scale and just focused on those around me in the here and now. i make my small contribution to human knowledge and, maybe, even human happiness. And that is quite sufficient for me.

This reminded me of another saying "my best thoughts were stolen by the ancients." Ralph Waldo Emerson. One of my favorites.

I've always been indifferent about religion, spirituality, cosmic, and mystics etc. Peer social (and environmental even) pressure wants me to "think" I'm missing out on something but now, I'm slowly feeling it doesn't matter.