The first cause

monosharp

Hey all,

So I came across this little gem recently and I thought I'd put it out there for discussion.

Once when I was talking to someone about the origin of the universe.
I said I didn't know and they said god. I asked what/who created god and they said nothing, god just is.

I didn't think of a good response at the time but heres a similar discussion from Bernard Russel, an English logician, mathemathician and philosopher.

If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject."

Just interested in peoples opinions on this, I thought it was quite funny actually. This place needs a bit of light humour every now and again.

PDN

The argument from First Cause, or Cosmological Argument, is not that everything must have a cause.

Rather it states that the universe must have had a cause. It makes no judgement whatsoever about anything that is outside of the universe or greater than the universe.

Russell was a good enough philosopher to know this - but I guess he thought he could get away with over-simplifying it and impressing a readership who weren't familiar with philosophy.

Morbert

This issue pops up occasionally. I'll keep it short for now and say the argument fails because it has not been shown that the universe needs a cause.

chozometroid

Morbert wrote: »

This issue pops up occasionally. I'll keep it short for now and say the argument fails because it has not been shown that the universe needs a cause.

What is the current position of the scientific community as to the question:
Did the universe have a beginning point?

Morbert

chozometroid wrote: »

What is the current position of the scientific community as to the question:
Did the universe have a beginning point?

The short, unsatisfying answer is yes and no.


The structure and curvature of space and time is related to the distribution of matter and energy in the universe. As we look into the past, space starts 'contracting' and the density of matter and energy increases. If we go back far enough, energy becomes so dense that time curves into a 'time pole' analogous to the north pole on earth. In this sense, the universe has a finite age, and time 'begins' approximately 13-14 billion years ago at this time pole singularity. So in this sense, the answer is yes.

As for the no answer, there are two major problems with saying the universe was created/caused at the Big Bang. Firstly, space and time are might have a curvature, but our interpretation of a beginning implies a perspective in spacetime. Spacetime, as an entity itself, is not embedded in a higher time, so its existence is timeless in a way. A commonly used analogy is "if the universe began at the big bang, then the earth began at the north pole". Secondly, and probably more importantly, we know that general relativity, which describes the curvature of spacetime, is not a complete picture. To truly understand the nature of the Big Bang, we would need a quantum theory of gravity. This theory might reveal that time does indeed stretch beyond the big bang, and perhaps our universe is nothing more than a bubble in an eternally expanding foam of quantum spacetime.

It's important to note that, until quantum gravity is discovered, such ideas are speculation. But the fact remains that cosmology does not support the assumption that the universe was 'caused' or 'began' at the Big Bang. It should instead be seen as the point where our current cosmology breaks down.

chozometroid

Morbert wrote: »

The short, unsatisfying answer is yes and no.


The structure and curvature of space and time is related to the distribution of matter and energy in the universe. As we look into the past, space starts 'contracting' and the density of matter and energy increases. If we go back far enough, energy becomes so dense that time curves into a 'time pole' analogous to the north pole on earth. In this sense, the universe has a finite age, and time 'begins' approximately 13-14 billion years ago at this time pole singularity. So in this sense, the answer is yes.

As for the no answer, there are two major problems with saying the universe was created/caused at the Big Bang. Firstly, space and time are might have a curvature, but our interpretation of a beginning implies a perspective in spacetime. Spacetime, as an entity itself, is not embedded in a higher time, so its existence is timeless in a way. A commonly used analogy is "if the universe began at the big bang, then the earth began at the north pole". Secondly, and probably more importantly, we know that general relativity, which describes the curvature of spacetime, is not a complete picture. To truly understand the nature of the Big Bang, we would need a quantum theory of gravity. This theory might reveal that time does indeed stretch beyond the big bang, and perhaps our universe is nothing more than a bubble in an eternally expanding foam of quantum spacetime.

It's important to note that, until quantum gravity is discovered, such ideas are speculation. But the fact remains that cosmology does not support the assumption that the universe was 'caused' or 'began' at the Big Bang. It should instead be seen as the point where our current cosmology breaks down.

Thank you. Now, even if you say it didn't "begin" at some point, there is still this definite moment you are looking back on, when it all began to expand, correct?

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

Thank you. Now, even if you say it didn't "begin" at some point, there is still this definite moment you are looking back on, when it all began to expand, correct?

There is a definite point where we can't go any further back. This is known as the Planck era (a lot of small things are named after Planck, such as the smallest divisible unit of time, and the smallest divisible unit of space)

Concepts such as "before" the zero point, the start of the planck era become mathematically complicated. Everything just goes to infinity. So we can't way what is happening, or in fact if "happening" is the right term to us.

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

Getting back on topic, the first cause argument fails for a number of reasons. Morbet mentioned the first, that we cannot assume the universe required a creation.

Secondly we cannot assume the universe didn't create itself. It sounds weird, but it theoretically possible that the universe brought itself into creation.

chozometroid

Wicknight wrote: »

It sounds weird, but it theoretically possible that the universe brought itself into creation.

Is this idea assuming it was created just this one time? If so, is this more or less acceptable than the idea that the universe always was, in whatever flavor you prefer, i.e. expanding/collpasing cycle, multiverse birth, etc?

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

Is this idea assuming it was created just this one time?

Yes

The universe didn't exist. Then it did. Then it brought itself into existence.

An event in the universe, after the universe sprang into existence caused the universe to spring into existence.

I told you it was weird

I would point out that this is just a hypothetical, but my understanding is that the maths works out, it is theoretically possible that this is the way the universe came into being. Which nullifes the argument for First Cause.

chozometroid wrote: »

If so, is this more or less acceptable than the idea that the universe always was, in whatever flavor you prefer, i.e. expanding/collpasing cycle, multiverse birth, etc?

It is not really an issue of acceptability, it is an issue with support for these theories. Scientists are still trying to figure out how they can test them to figure out which one is accurate

chozometroid

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes

The universe didn't exist. Then it did. Then it brought itself into existence.

An event in the universe, after the universe sprang into existence caused the universe to spring into existence.

I told you it was weird

I would point out that this is just a hypothetical, but my understanding is that the maths works out, it is theoretically possible that this is the way the universe came into being. Which nullifes the argument for First Cause.



It is not really an issue of acceptability, it is an issue with support for these theories. Scientists are still trying to figure out how they can test them to figure out which one is accurate

I am arguing from ignorance, but these things are indeed just hypothetical, which to me cries of how hopeless it is to explain the cause of the universe while avoiding the real answer, which is God. Saying God did it doesn't explain how, or say anything about God's mechanisms, right?
Now you probably hold to the idea that we just don't know enough, yet, but we will(perhaps) get there, correct?
Do you think there is a limit to what sorts of concepts or information that humans can process? Even supposing that we become much, much more brilliant with time, perhaps our mind would never be capable of having the level of comprehension required to grasp concepts that are completely foreign to our known reality. This is still no reason to go with the alternative which is God, right?

Just wondering what do these theories mean to you, or with what regard do you hold them?
Do you have any hopes(not beliefs) as far as where it did all come from, or what this is all about?

Thanks for your input.

Soul Winner

monosharp wrote: »

Hey all,



So I came across this little gem recently and I thought I'd put it out there for discussion.



Once when I was talking to someone about the origin of the universe.

I said I didn't know and they said god. I asked what/who created god and they said nothing, god just is.



I didn't think of a good response at the time but heres a similar discussion from Bernard Russel, an English logician, mathemathician and philosopher.

Bertrand Russell wrote:

If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject."

Just interested in peoples opinions on this, I thought it was quite funny actually. This place needs a bit of light humour every now and again.

It was actually Bertrand Russell not Bernard Russell, anyway we know that the best scientific models we have all point to space and time having their beginning at a finite time in the past known as the Big Bang, despite what some outlandish theories might suggest to the contrary. The standard big bang model is the best we have. Now if (as according to this model) at this finite time in the past, space, matter, energy and time itself all came into existence, then the cause (assuming there was a cause) must be timeless, space-less and immaterial, but also very very powerful. So if the cause is timeless, then it is eternal, i.e. having no time, hence having no beginning, hence being uncaused, so Russell was wrong. Read my sig for a quote of what the great Max Planck had to say about the cause of the universe. So at the end of the day it all boils down to two choices: the universe either created itself before even it existed or an eternal powerful force created it. Neither can be proven of course, but with the minds that we have evolved to posses, which one is the more plausible option?

Morbert

Soul Winner wrote: »

It was actually Bertrand Russell not Bernard Russell, anyway we know that the best scientific models we have all point to space and time having their beginning at a finite time in the past known as the big bang, despite what some outlandish theories might suggest to the contrary. The standard big bang model is the best we have. Now if (as according to this model) at this finite time in the past, space, matter, energy and time itself all came into existence, then the cause (assuming there was a cause) must be timeless and space-less and immaterial but also very very powerful. So if the cause is timeless then it is eternal, i.e. having no time hence no beginning hence uncaused, so Russell was wrong. Read my sig for a quote of what the great Max Planck had to say about the cause of the universe. So at the end of the day it all boils down to two choices: the universe either created itself before even it existed or an eternal powerful force created it. Neither can be proven of course, but with the minds that we have evolved to posses, which one is the more plausible option?

In another thread, I directly responded to a similar claim made by you. Perhaps you missed it. The Big Bang is not a theory which says the universe "came into existence" some finite time in the past. There was never a time when the universe didn't exist. Furthermore, spacetime itself has a timeless existence, and if it has a timeless existence then it does not imply a creator or a cause.

Basically, the Big Bang is a theory which models the time evolution of our universe, as far back as our cosomology will take us. Our cosmology tells us that "before the Big Bang" is a concept as nonsensical as "north of the north pole". We know that our cosmology is wrong somewhere, so it might be possible to talk about "before" the Big Bang in some new, undiscovered sense, but we don't know yet. Until we have that new mathematical language, we cannot insist that something must have caused the Big Bang.

Soul Winner

Morbert wrote: »

In another thread, I directly responded to a similar claim made by you. Perhaps you missed it. The Big Bang is not a theory which says the universe "came into existence" some finite time in the past. There was never a time when the universe didn't exist. Furthermore, spacetime itself has a timeless existence, and if it has a timeless existence then it does not imply a creator or a cause.

Basically, the Big Bang is a theory which models the time evolution of our universe, as far back as our cosomology will take us. Our cosmology tells us that "before the Big Bang" is a concept as nonsensical as "north of the north pole". We know that our cosmology is wrong somewhere, so it might be possible to talk about "before" the Big Bang in some new, undiscovered sense, but we don't know yet. Until we have that new mathematical language, we cannot insist that something must have caused the Big Bang.

If our universe is eternal, then it is eternal in the past as well as the future. But if that is the case then there would be no such thing as Main Sequence Stars existing right now. Why? Because main sequence stars have a lifespan of about 10 billion years, so if our universe is eternal in the past, then it should have cooled down already and be a very very cold and very dark place by now right? Prohibitng the formation of any kind of stars never mind main sequence stars. But as it stands it is pretty vibrant place, signifying a relatively young universe. How do you explain that?

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

The argument from First Cause, or Cosmological Argument, is not that everything must have a cause.

Rather it states that the universe must have had a cause. It makes no judgement whatsoever about anything that is outside of the universe or greater than the universe.

Where in the Bible does it state that ?

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

Where in the Bible does it state that ?

The Argument from First Cause is not taken from the Bible, it is a philosophical argument and a form of a priori reasoning. It used to be known as the Cosmological Argument back in the days when I first studied philosophy, but I'm learning to adapt to the language of those of you who insist on using Americanised terminology.

The Argument from First Cause predates Christianity. For example, it was advanced by both Plato and Aristotle.

If you want to do a bit of reading up on philosophy you could start with Bertrand Russell's A History of Western Philosophy. It's many years since I first read it, but it's very entertaining and readable. Russell had a quite brilliant mind, and was much more well-informed than your original post might suggest.

Morbert

Soul Winner wrote: »

If our universe is eternal, then it is eternal in the past as well as the future. But if that is the case then there would be no such thing as Main Sequence Stars existing right now. Why? Because main sequence stars have a lifespan of about 10 billion years, so if our universe is eternal in the past, then it should have cooled down already and be a very very cold and very dark place by now right? Prohibitng the formation of any kind of stars never mind main sequence stars. But as it stands it is pretty vibrant place, signifying a relatively young universe. How do you explain that?

I didn't say the universe extends infinitely into the past. Neither the universe nor God does that. I said there was never a time when the universe didn't exist. In order for a creation event to be deemed necessary, there would have to be a time when the universe didn't exist. I think the problem is we intuitively imagine the universe as a thing embedded in time, when really, time is just a component of the universe.

Questions as to the nature of the universe and its expansion are certainly interesting, and cosmologists spend their careers digging up the laws of the universe, but philosophical notions of cause and effect can't be applied when we discuss the structure of spacetime.

postcynical

Morbert wrote: »

In another thread, I directly responded to a similar claim made by you. Perhaps you missed it. The Big Bang is not a theory which says the universe "came into existence" some finite time in the past. There was never a time when the universe didn't exist. Furthermore, spacetime itself has a timeless existence, and if it has a timeless existence then it does not imply a creator or a cause.

Basically, the Big Bang is a theory which models the time evolution of our universe, as far back as our cosomology will take us. Our cosmology tells us that "before the Big Bang" is a concept as nonsensical as "north of the north pole". We know that our cosmology is wrong somewhere, so it might be possible to talk about "before" the Big Bang in some new, undiscovered sense, but we don't know yet. Until we have that new mathematical language, we cannot insist that something must have caused the Big Bang.

Do you consider time and space (or spacetime) to be properties of the universe? Or are they constructs which are independent of the physical universe?

Can we detect time and space materially (not just with a watch or a ruler:)) - do they have a material essence?

postcynical

PDN wrote: »

Originally Posted by monosharp
Where in the Bible does it state that ?

[]...you could start with Bertrand Russell's A History of Western Philosophy.

:eek: Way to go PDN - build a bridge!

Morbert

postcynical wrote: »

Do you consider time and space (or spacetime) to be properties of the universe? Or are they constructs which are independent of the physical universe?

Can we detect time and space materially (not just with a watch or a ruler:)) - do they have a material essence?

In cosmology, spacetime is an integral part of the universe. It bends and curves in ways we can measure, such as time dilation and gravitation. It's not material in the sense that it isn't made of matter, but it is related to the distribution of energy across our universe in a way that makes it more than just a background stage.

postcynical

Morbert wrote: »

In cosmology, spacetime is an integral part of the universe. It bends and curves in ways we can measure, such as time dilation and gravitation. It's not material in the sense that it isn't made of matter, but it is related to the distribution of energy across our universe in a way that makes it more than just a background stage.

Does spacetime have any intrinsic properties? Does it have energy?

If we were to consider a single light photon, travelling from a star to Earth or something. It traces out a line or a path in this spacetime. Would this be like an unbroken line or would it be like a series of "join-the-dots"?

I don't necessarily believe in a god of the gaps, but I'm looking for some place to put him in the physical universe. The background geometry of the universe always seemed like the natural place for him to sit reigning, omnipresent and undetectable.

Morbert

postcynical wrote: »

Does spacetime have any intrinsic properties? Does it have energy?

If we were to consider a single light photon, travelling from a star to Earth or something. It traces out a line or a path in this spacetime. Would this be like an unbroken line or would it be like a series of "join-the-dots"?

Spacetime does have properties described by a mathematical object called a metric. The relationship between properties of spacetime and the distribution of matter/energy is described by Einstein's field equations. It is a strange relationship in that you can say "Matter and energy determine how spacetime curves." or "Spacetime curvature determines the existence of matter and energy." and both are equally correct statements.

Whether or not you want to call these properties intrinsic is another matter. Spacetime is not the same as a particle field, for example. It does not possess properties such as momentum or energy. Instead, it defines measurements of things with those properties.

A photon travelling through spacetime, according to general relativity would trace out a smooth differentiable path (Such paths helped affirm general relativity). We do run into problems when we begin to consider quantum mechanics, however.

I don't necessarily believe in a god of the gaps, but I'm looking for some place to put him in the physical universe. The background geometry of the universe always seemed like the natural place for him to sit reigning, omnipresent and undetectable.

Well cosmology does not rule out God. What it does is refute arguments which say God must exist because the universe was created at the Big Bang.

Daftendirekt

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes

The universe didn't exist. Then it did. Then it brought itself into existence.

An event in the universe, after the universe sprang into existence caused the universe to spring into existence.

I told you it was weird

I would point out that this is just a hypothetical, but my understanding is that the maths works out, it is theoretically possible that this is the way the universe came into being. Which nullifes the argument for First Cause.



It is not really an issue of acceptability, it is an issue with support for these theories. Scientists are still trying to figure out how they can test them to figure out which one is accurate

Slightly OT here...

This is fascinating stuff. By any chance, have you got any links to any reading material on this?

I like mind-bendingly weird physics.