Causality

[shunyadragon]

Everytime I come for a visit, I read posts and think, what a waste of time to every bother to respond. No one in 20 years has changed their mind from what goes on here. It is a bunch of self important people mostly spouting about things they have no knowledge of, but to show how stupid I am, here is my critique of your scenario. The bolded, "it has always been" is where you violate science by the bucket load. First, uncaused and infinite existence are traits of a deity; effectively you make the universe have those traits rather than having a God to have those traits. That is fine if you want to do it, but know that you really are creating a mindless god with your mumblings. Secondly your use of before and past is ridiculous in the scientific sense. Time was created along with space by the big bang. There was no 'before' or infinity past because time didn't exist prior to the BB unless you just make it up like a 3rd grader who says, this sounds good and smart. One can't use time as a marker prior to time's creation. Science knows that the Big bang created more than what we can see in our Hubble volume, but we don't have a clue how much was created.

Having set up your little idol of the expanse, I guess you would prefer worshipping it rather than a God, that is fine, that is your choice to do. It is mine to worship God and dispense with the 2nd grade science to avoid his existence.

Finally you don't have a shred of observational evidence for your expanse but you think it sounds so scientific. It doesn't. Science is about observation and data, not about incoherent philosophical mutterings.

Interesting to see your back. I was hoping for something more interesting. Good to hear from you anyways . . .

[Duragizer]

Everytime I come for a visit, I read posts and think, what a waste of time to every bother to respond. No one in 20 years has changed their mind from what goes on here. It is a bunch of self important people mostly spouting about things they have no knowledge of, but to show how stupid I am, here is my critique of your scenario. The bolded, "it has always been" is where you violate science by the bucket load. First, uncaused and infinite existence are traits of a deity; effectively you make the universe have those traits rather than having a God to have those traits. That is fine if you want to do it, but know that you really are creating a mindless god with your mumblings. Secondly your use of before and past is ridiculous in the scientific sense. Time was created along with space by the big bang. There was no 'before' or infinity past because time didn't exist prior to the BB unless you just make it up like a 3rd grader who says, this sounds good and smart. One can't use time as a marker prior to time's creation. Science knows that the Big bang created more than what we can see in our Hubble volume, but we don't have a clue how much was created.

Having set up your little idol of the expanse, I guess you would prefer worshipping it rather than a God, that is fine, that is your choice to do. It is mine to worship God and dispense with the 2nd grade science to avoid his existence.

Finally you don't have a shred of observational evidence for your expanse but you think it sounds so scientific. It doesn't. Science is about observation and data, not about incoherent philosophical mutterings.

This thread really would be better in Philosophy than Natural Science.

[grmorton]

Sorry I wasn't entertaining enough Frank. I will bring my straw hat and cane and put on my tap shoes next time. But good to know you are still here.

[Sparko]

Sorry I wasn't entertaining enough Frank. I will bring my straw hat and cane and put on my tap shoes next time. But good to know you are still here.

Nice to see you again Glenn

[oxmixmudd]

Everytime I come for a visit, I read posts and think, what a waste of time to every bother to respond. No one in 20 years has changed their mind from what goes on here. It is a bunch of self important people mostly spouting about things they have no knowledge of, but to show how stupid I am, here is my critique of your scenario. The bolded, "it has always been" is where you violate science by the bucket load. First, uncaused and infinite existence are traits of a deity; effectively you make the universe have those traits rather than having a God to have those traits. That is fine if you want to do it, but know that you really are creating a mindless god with your mumblings. Secondly your use of before and past is ridiculous in the scientific sense. Time was created along with space by the big bang. There was no 'before' or infinity past because time didn't exist prior to the BB unless you just make it up like a 3rd grader who says, this sounds good and smart. One can't use time as a marker prior to time's creation. Science knows that the Big bang created more than what we can see in our Hubble volume, but we don't have a clue how much was created.

Having set up your little idol of the expanse, I guess you would prefer worshipping it rather than a God, that is fine, that is your choice to do. It is mine to worship God and dispense with the 2nd grade science to avoid his existence.

Finally you don't have a shred of observational evidence for your expanse but you think it sounds so scientific. It doesn't. Science is about observation and data, not about incoherent philosophical mutterings.

Hi Glenn.

I like yor basic points here. Especially about the before and after as expressions used outside of time. They would have no meaning there. Without time, cause and effect likewise have no meaning. But it is curiuos what it means for the BB to 'start' or for time to be 'created' by the BB, as the BB itself would originate from withing a substrate that does not have time, but for the universe to be 'created' itself implies some sort of timelike underpining from which it 'emerged' or began.

On your expressed sense of the futility of poisting here, people do change their minds here - I was one of them. Though I do admit it is rare. I used to think evolution was not or was limited to non human species. I was convinced otherwise. I used to think ID was a valid alternative way to look at things, and have since realized that most packaging of the idea is fundamentally flawed. And I used to think AGW was a liberally agendized propaganda, and I've changed my mind on that as a result of conversations here. Many of them with you.


Jim

[JimL]

Hi Glenn.

But it is curiuos what it means for the BB to 'start' or for time to be 'created' by the BB, as the BB itself would originate from withing a substrate that does not have time, but for the universe to be 'created' itself implies some sort of timelike underpining from which it 'emerged' or began.

Exactly!

[carpedm9587]

Everytime I come for a visit, I read posts and think, what a waste of time to every bother to respond. No one in 20 years has changed their mind from what goes on here. It is a bunch of self important people mostly spouting about things they have no knowledge of, but to show how stupid I am, here is my critique of your scenario. The bolded, "it has always been" is where you violate science by the bucket load. First, uncaused and infinite existence are traits of a deity;

First - we are talking about what is outside our universe, so it is not clear to me how "science" can apply. The scenario was pure speculation, to see if a non-sentient origination violates any laws of logic. Violating laws of physics is a non issue because we have no way of knowing if those laws apply outside this universe.

effectively you make the universe have those traits rather than having a God to have those traits.

Well - not the universe. The thought experiment is about something "extra-universe" that is actually a "universe spawner."

That is fine if you want to do it, but know that you really are creating a mindless god with your mumblings.

Exactly. The real question is, why does the creative force for the universe HAVE to be sentient?

Secondly your use of before and past is ridiculous in the scientific sense. Time was created along with space by the big bang. There was no 'before' or infinity past because time didn't exist prior to the BB unless you just make it up like a 3rd grader who says, this sounds good and smart. One can't use time as a marker prior to time's creation. Science knows that the Big bang created more than what we can see in our Hubble volume, but we don't have a clue how much was created.

Again, we know space/time exists within this universe. We do not know if the concepts do or do not exist outside of it.

Having set up your little idol of the expanse, I guess you would prefer worshipping it rather than a God, that is fine, that is your choice to do. It is mine to worship God and dispense with the 2nd grade science to avoid his existence.

Actually, sentient or not sentient, I am not big on the whole worship thing. However, if the creative force for the universe is non-sentient, I definitely would not be inclined to worship it.

Finally you don't have a shred of observational evidence for your expanse but you think it sounds so scientific. It doesn't. Science is about observation and data, not about incoherent philosophical mutterings.

I never suggested this was a scientific exercise. It's a thought experiment. It may not even be a good one (see my discussion with Element in a different thread). The question is: is there anything about the scenario that makes it necessarily impossible? If not, then it is (by definition) possible. If it is possible, then "god did it" is not the only possible explanation for the universe.

It's really not more than that. It doesn't prove that this happened. It doesn't prove there is no god.

[carpedm9587]

This thread really would be better in Philosophy than Natural Science.

I'm good with it being moved. I leave it to the mods.

[oxmixmudd]

I'm good with it being moved. I leave it to the mods.

I don't think that makes sense. I think there are too many ideas directly related to cosmology for the idea for it to have any life at all in philosophy.

Jim

[shunyadragon]

Sorry I wasn't entertaining enough Frank. I will bring my straw hat and cane and put on my tap shoes next time. But good to know you are still here.

You can join me in my Burlesque act. I will be in drag.

[shunyadragon]

Hi Glenn.

I like your basic points here. Especially about the before and after as expressions used outside of time. They would have no meaning there. Without time, cause and effect likewise have no meaning. But it is curious what it means for the BB to 'start' or for time to be 'created' by the BB, as the BB itself would originate from withing a substrate that does not have time, but for the universe to be 'created' itself implies some sort of timelike underpining from which it 'emerged' or began.

On your expressed sense of the futility of poisting here, people do change their minds here - I was one of them. Though I do admit it is rare. I used to think evolution was not or was limited to non human species. I was convinced otherwise. I used to think ID was a valid alternative way to look at things, and have since realized that most packaging of the idea is fundamentally flawed. And I used to think AGW was a liberally agendized propaganda, and I've changed my mind on that as a result of conversations here. Many of them with you.


Jim

I believe you are over stating the meaning of the universe 'creating itself.' I believe the intent of this expression was simply the universe formed by natural processes without outside 'Creation' by an outside 'Source.' It does not imply any sort of 'timeline.'

In Quantum Mechanics the natural foundation of change and effect, in and of itself does not require 'time.' Time is the result of cause and effect at the Quantum level. One major view is time 'emerges' from Quantum Entanglement' based experimental and theoretical considerations of the Quantum behavior of the fundamental particles of matter.

[oxmixmudd]

I believe you are over stating the meaning of the universe 'creating itself.' I believe the intent of this expression was simply the universe formed by natural processes without outside 'Creation' by an outside 'Source.' It does not imply any sort of 'timeline.'

In Quantum Mechanics the natural foundation of change and effect, in and of itself does not require 'time.' Time is the result of cause and effect at the Quantum level. One major view is time 'emerges' from Quantum Entanglement' based experimental and theoretical considerations of the Quantum behavior of the fundamental particles of matter.

You misunderstood. I did not mean the universe 'created itself'. Notice I didn't include 'itself' in the scare quotes around 'created'. 'itself' in that sentence is the concept the universe was created. Perhaps this more correctly expresses what I was saying, where I remove itself entirely from the sentence and put the entity to which itself refers in the square brackets:

[the concept that the universe was created] implies some sort of underpinning from which it emerged or 'began'

Your second paragraph expounds on what that underpinning might be and implies it has elements that lend themselves to time based expressions (cause and effect). I would disagree though that cause and effect can exist outside of time. to change implies time. AFAIK, Change can only be measured in terms of time.

If you think or know otherwise, then please provide an example.

thanks,

Jim

[shunyadragon]

You misunderstood. I did not mean the universe 'created itself'. Notice I didn't include 'itself' in the scare quotes around 'created'. 'itself' in that sentence is the concept the universe was created. Perhaps this more correctly expresses what I was saying, where I remove itself entirely from the sentence and put the entity to which itself refers in the square brackets:

[the concept that the universe was created] implies some sort of underpinning from which it emerged or 'began'

Your second paragraph expounds on what that underpinning might be and implies it has elements that lend themselves to time based expressions (cause and effect). I would disagree though that cause and effect can exist outside of time. to change implies time. AFAIK, Change can only be measured in terms of time.

If you think or know otherwise, then please provide an example.

thanks,

Jim

The Quantum World does not change in and of itself. The cause and effect, ie in terms of the existence of time, are 'emergent qualities' product of the nature of the Quantum World. Again . . .

In Quantum Mechanics is the nature of the Quantum World, in and of itself does not require 'time.' Time is the result of cause and effect at the Quantum level. One major view is time and cause and effect 'emerge' from Quantum Entanglement' based experimental and theoretical considerations of the Quantum behavior of the fundamental particles of matter.

[JimL]

The Quantum World does not change in and of itself. The cause and effect, ie in terms of the existence of time, it is an 'emergent quality' product of the nature of the Quantum World. Again . . .

In Quantum Mechanics the natural foundation of change and effect, in and of itself does not require 'time.' Time is the result of cause and effect at the Quantum level. One major view is time 'emerges' from Quantum Entanglement' based experimental and theoretical considerations of the Quantum behavior of the fundamental particles of matter.

No offense Shunya, but that is scientific mumbo jumbo. It reminds me of Feymans quote, and I paraphrase, that "if you can't explain something simply, in simple terms, then you probably have no idea what you are talking about." The above doesn't explain anything, it just makes brash assertions.

[oxmixmudd]

The Quantum World does not change in and of itself. The cause and effect, ie in terms of the existence of time, are 'emergent qualities' product of the nature of the Quantum World. Again . . .

In Quantum Mechanics is the nature of the Quantum World, in and of itself does not require 'time.' Time is the result of cause and effect at the Quantum level. One major view is time and cause and effect 'emerge' from Quantum Entanglement' based experimental and theoretical considerations of the Quantum behavior of the fundamental particles of matter.

I'm with JimL on this Shuny. What you have posted is an assertion that 'things are just this way'. What you might be trying to say is that time is an illusion and the universe is a static thing. what we call the past and the future are just fixed elements of some larger construct. The implications there are significant. And I am unlikely to buy into that as a reasonable explanation of the universe. Theologically, I believe free will plays a part in our existence and response to God. That belief is going to make me very reluctant to accept a view of the universe that says the future is as fixed a construct as the past, that who we are and more importantly who we will become is fixed and unchangable.

Jim