Stating "I think your model leads to equilibrium" is worthless unless you can make a case for that necessarily being the case.
— Relativist

All isolated systems head towards equilibrium; that is about as fundamental principle as we have discovered in science and your proposed model is flaunting it. An active agent is required to keep the system out of equilibrium. — Devans99

Are you referring to entropy? How is that a problem? Are you overlooking that the total energy of the universe and/or multiverse is zero? Overlooking Quantum uncertainty?

Gravity dominates the 4 forces and is attractive; I see no mechanism in your model that would cause the expansion of space that is keeping us out of equilibrium. — Devans99

"Equilibrium" entails zero net energy, but manifested as a superposition of eigenstates of different energies consistent with quantum uncertainty. I mentioned this before. Why are yoy ignoring this? Do you need me to explain what this means?

But spacetime is not everything; beyond the boundaries of the universe where there is no time; there maybe are no quantum fields; there is no time for anything to fluctuate so there can be no fields. — Devans99

"Maybe" there are no quantum fields? So "maybe" I'm wrong? Your burden is to show that I'm necessarily wrong. I never claimed to prove some particular model (I don't even insist quantum fields are actually the fundamental basis; I just say that there IS some fundamental, natural basis). You're the one claiming to prove God exists; I haven't disputed the POSSIBILITY of an unnatural creator.

Quantum fields are irrelevant anyway; there are 10^51 kgs of matter in the universe - the origin of the universe is a macro question. Our best theory is the Big Bang and it is a macro level theory. Macro problems need macro answers; some poxy quantum fluctuation could not shift 10^51 kgs of matter and it certainly could not cause space to expand. — Devans99

This is wrong in so many ways! To name a few: 1. matter (including its mass) and energy are interchangeable. 2. I've referred to cosmological models that explain the big bang: 3. I do not have a burden to show any particular model is true - you have the burden to show that all proposed models are false, and that no natural answer is even possible. Otherwise you are engaging in argument frim ignorance (god of the gaps).

There must be something permanent about the universe and your SOA at t0 is not permanent - it is a fleeting moment - — Devans99

The "something" that is permanent is the lowest level foundation of reality (which may be quantum fields), and the fact that reality comprises a closed, pure state quantum system. That is sufficient. These facts do not change.

what came before it? There must be something causally before it because it is not a permanent feature of the universe.

It is logically impossible for something to come before t0. I've stated this numerous times, yet you continue to make unsupported assertions to the contrary. SOA0 exists uncaused, and you have the burden to show this impossible - which requires more than merely making unsupported assertions.

Hume's beliefs about causation are antiquated. He didn't consider that there might actually exist natural law. Modern physicalist philosophers (e.g. Armstrong, Tooley, and Sosa) are "law-realists". They suggest it is reasonable to believe there actually are inviolable laws of nature.

The existence of natural law does not imply uncaused, contingent things can't exist. Adolf Grünbaum makes the case here.

In short, in my opinion in Trump we have not just a very bad man and a very bad president, but also an enemy. Or a conduit for enemy input. If anyone can think of anything that makes more sense, please post it — tim wood

IMO, Trump is the apotheosis of narcissism. He wants to "win", and will cheat to do so. This alone doesn't imply he will harm the U.S. The bigger danger is that he's uninformed, lazy, and always things his uninformed opinions are right.

The foundation of reality (e.g. the quantum fields) exist permanently. They exist by brute fact. They did not come into existence (which would entail a prior state at which they didn't exist) they exist at all times
— Relativist

I think your model leads to equilibrium. — Devans99

Stating "I think your model leads to equilibrium" is worthless unless you can make a case for that necessarily being the case.

also cannot see how a field would be responsible for time and the Big Bang. There is an assumption that quantum fields could exist without spacetime; that may not apply; creation of spacetime may have created the quantum fields -

Every cosmological hypothesis I've encountered assume reality is fundamentally a quantum system. Specifics aren't relevant except to demonstrate with an example. The key issue is that there is something that is fundamental, of which everything is made. Quantum field theory is incomplete, but to a large degree it provides exactly that basis. Quantum fields exist at every point of spacetime. Nothing seems to exist that is not composed of quanta of quantum fields. Conceptually, it leaves nothing out - so it is reasonable to say that spacetime itself is the quantum fields. To claim "spacetime created the quantum fields" is absurd if spacetime IS the quantum fields.

all quantum fields we know about require time.

Stick to my model, the one you're supposed to be falsifying. Remember time is a causal relation between states, not some external dependency. The SOA at t0 necessitates the SOA at t1. t0 and t1 don't exist; they are just abstract markers we use to distinguish between the two SOAs, and to depict their relation. To say that time has elapsed is just to indicate change.

That is logically impossible. t0 cannot exist unless there is something causally before it to define it. That has to be the start of time. — Devans99

You are still making the unsupported assertion that everything that exists has a cause of its existence. That is an assumption that cannot be shown to be necessarily true.

There is also a requirement that something must exist permanently — Devans99

My account allows for something existing permanently: it just means there is a physical foundation of reality. For example, the quantum fields of which all matter/energy are components of. These exist at all times. Everything that exists is composed of portions of the quantum fields (atoms are made of quarks and electrons; quarks are disturbances in the quark field, electrons are disturbances in the electromagnetic field).

A. Can’t get something from nothing
B. So something must have existed ‘always’. — Devans99

Something exists at all times in my account; it just changes state.

D. It’s not possible to exist permanently in time (always leads to an infinite regress; but they have no start so cannot not be), so the ‘something’ must be the timeless first cause (of time/causality). — Devans99

The foundation of reality (e.g. the quantum fields) exist permanently. They exist by brute fact. They did not come into existence (which would entail a prior state at which they didn't exist) they exist at all times.

Your argument therefore fails.

It's not a moment of time prior to the first moment of time; it is something timeless that is causally before the first moment of time. — Devans99

You are supposed to be finding a logical flaw in my account, but you are again just reasserting your own assumptions.

You seem to accept that there is no time prior to the first moment of time. In my account, there is no causally efficacious timeless entity. Rather, the first cause is the state of affairs that exists at t0. You have to show this is logically impossible, and not just by making unsupported assumptions that conflict with it.

Time cannot start itself. — Devans99

That statement bears no relationship to my account. The initial state of affairs (SOA0) causes the next (SOA1). The relation between SOA0 and SOA1 is a temporal relation. That's what time is in my account: a relation between states of affairs; specifically: the states of affairs that constitute the present state of reality.

I'm afraid 'brute fact' does not qualify as an explanation

It "qualifies" as a logically coherent account. Your personal opinion about what is "qualified" beyond that do not serve to falsify my account.

I think a timeless first cause that starts time is a more enlightening explanation. — Devans99

Of course you do: you are rationalizing your belief. You are NOT showing that you have an objective case for your belief. To do that, you would have to identify logical inconsistency in my account. Failing to do so means you must acknowledge that your argument fails: it depends on debatable premises that can rationally be rejected

Something permanent has to preexist time to cause time. — Devans99

It is logically impossible for there to be a moment of time prior to the first moment of time.

. The only way to exist permanently and uncaused is outside of time. — Devans99

Unsupported assertion. I gave a scenario that is internally consistent. You have to show ot's impossible. You're just restating your own unproven assumptions.

[QuoteIf you exist 'always' in time then you have no coming into being; so you can't exist. [/quote]
The state of affairs at t0 did not "come into being". It exists by brute fact.

The A theory of time is impossible with a start of time: if only now exists and that is taken away, then there is nothing left at all to create time. A start of time requires the B theory: something must timelessly preexist time to create it. — Devans99

Unsupported assertion. Meet you burden to show a start of time requires B-theory.

Every present moment causes the next, so it's reasonable to expect the initial moment would cause the next.
— Relativist

What causes the initial moment? It has to be the start of time. It has to be something in the world causing something else in the real world, so time seems real. — Devans99

The first cause is, by definition, uncaused. You know, like God.

Devans99 - To keep the posts from becoming too long and unwieldy, l'm going to focus on one key issue. I want to be sure we understand what each other is saying on this matter before we get into the other issues.

Time can't just start on its own. It can't emerge from anything unless there is something pre-existing it causally. Time cannot start without something causally before it. — Devans99

What do you think time is? What does it mean to you to say that "time starts"?

IMO, Time isn't a thing. Time refers to the temporal ordering of events/ moments/ states of affairs. In my opinion, the A-theory of time is correct: only the present has actual existence, and the present has been reached in a sequential series of past moments. These moments are causally connected, and they move in one direction: to the future. This means the current present moment was caused by the most recent prior moment, and the present moment causes the next. What exists at a point in time (a moment) is the state of affairs of material reality at that moment.

With this description in mind, there's no logical problem with the assumption that there is a first point of time (I'll call it t0). This simply means there was an initial state of affairs that was "the present moment", and like every subsequent moment - it caused the next. You suggest this is impossible. Why? Every present moment causes the next, so it's reasonable to expect the initial moment would cause the next. Indeed the initial state of affairs (at t0) was not caused by a prior moment. That makes the initial state of affairs the "first cause".

You don't have to believe it, but if you want to claim to prove God existence, it is your burden to find a logical flaw in my account. If there's no logical flaw, you will have to concede that my account is possible.

It's impossible to exist "before" time: "before" is a temporal relation. — Relativist

Something logically must exist before time - I proved that using Aquinas's 2nd way and you have past it by without comment. — Devans99

On the contrary, I refuted it. You had said:
Aquinas's Argument From Necessary Being supports this view:

- Can’t get something from nothing
- So something must have existed ‘always’.
- IE if there was ever a state of nothingness, it would persist to today, so something must have permanent existence.
- It’s not possible to exist permanently in time (always leads to an infinite regress; but they have no start so cannot not be), so the ‘something’ must be the timeless first cause (of time/causality).

and I responded:

"Always existed" just means there is no point in time at which it didn't exist.

To be clear: if time is past finite (as we both assume), something "always exists" if there is never a time when it did NOT exist. (I agree that something cannot come from "nothing." Nothing is not a state of existence; it cannot have been a prior state, because it doesn't even constitute a state).

So I'll reiterate: It's impossible to exist "before" time: "before" is a temporal relation.

It would be logically coherent to claim God exists at the first instant of time, but that is not BEFORE time. Let me be clear on what I am regarding as an "instant of time: it is a state of affairs that directly evolves (causes) a temporally subsequent state of affairs. Analogy: consider material reality like an endless reel of a movie, with the initial point in time being the first frame on the film. Actions occurs in the temporal flow from frame 1 to frame 2 (and so on). The analogy breaks down when considering causation, because each instant causes the next, whereas on a film it's just an illusion that the actions of one frame cause the next, but it does illustrate the temporal connection from one frame to the next. There is no prior temporal connection to frame 1. If God caused anything, he has to be in frame 1 (or at least extend into frame 1); if there were a prior frame, THAT would be frame 1.

Alternatively: an infinite regress of time is impossible, so there is no other solution - a timeless first cause is the only possibility. — Devans99

I accept your premise that the the past is probably finite, but I already refuted your conclusion:
1) I showed your assertion "a timeless first cause is the only possibility" is false: an initial state is a possibility.
2) a timeless "first cause" is not even a possibility: causation is temporal and change requires time. i.e. God must be in (or extend into) Frame 1.

Further, there are good reasons for rejecting the possibility that a a timeless entity can act:the only timeless entities of which we're aware are abstractions (like the law of non-contradiction: it doesn't begin to exist; it's existence transcends time).

There cannot be another time dimension - that leads to an infinite regress of times nested one within the other. — Devans99

Agreed. That was my point.

The only way to avoid an infinite regress is a timeless first cause.

See my above refutation.

"Somehow" is not an explanation. "Somehow" the big bang occurred, and "somehow" the early universe was in a state of low entropy. "Somehow" the universe is expanding. Neither of us can explain it, but concluding this gap in knowledge implies "therefore Goddidit" is a fallacious argument from ignorance. — Relativist


For example, eternal inflation posits a first cause of some negative gravity particles in a high energy environment that result in a chain reaction of eternal inflation, giving birth to a multiverse. This cannot have happened by accident. — Devans99

Wrong. Inflation entails a prior existing state of affairs that temporally (and causally) preceded it. This does not imply that prior state was "first". It may, or may not be. We agree the past is probably finite, but the mere fact that it is finite does not tell us the nature of the initial state. We also don't really know the nature of time, so all we can do is speculate. Sean Carroll's hypothesis that time emerges from a ground state is as reasonable and coherent as any other. It may or may not be true, but it's false to claim that it (and by extension, all natural possibilities) can't be true. Find a logical problem with it, or admit it's a possibility.

I am open-minded enough to acknowledge that the creation by a deity is possible; the existence of natural possibilities does not rule this out. You should try to be equally open-minded and recognize that natural possibilities cannot be ruled out. If you insist they should be ruled out, you have the burden to show them to be logically impossible (based on agreed assumptions, not merely on convenient controversial assumptions).

This is just the sort of thing a benevolent God would do; create a multiverse from nothing. If God was able, he would not be able to resist it. — Devans99

Are you making a positive case, or just showing that reality is consistent with the possibility of a God?
Reality is also consistent with an absence of any sort of intelligence behind it and it's consistent with an intelligence that desires to experience a complex world but is indifferent to its contents.

When precisely? At the end of the Planck epoch? At the beginning of it? If there is a God, he could have created the universe 10 minutes ago, inserting false memories in each of us, and starlight in flight. — Relativist

I don't believe in magic. God engineered the Big Bang through conventional means. — Devans99

You're missing the point: you have pointed to gaps in scientific knowledge as reason to assume it's due to something unnatural. You have the same burden as a naturalist at explaining exactly where nature leaves off and the unnatural (e.g. God) begins. That was why I asked you to identify specifically where his fingerprint is. I realize that as a theist, you believe God is behind it all, and I don't have a problem with claiming this theistic view is consistent with reality. I just have a problem with an assertion that God's existence is entailed by what we know.

If the total energy of the universe is zero, as many cosmologist think, then it IS in equilibrium. If it isn't, it may be that the total energy of the multiverse is zero. — Relativist

The universe should be gravitational or thermodynamic equilibrium. That it is not is due to an active agent (God). The Big Bang is the complete opposite of equilibrium. It is that unnatural expansion of space that is keeping us from equilibrium. — Devans99

I agree that the Big Bang is suggestive of something prior, and a lot of theoretical physicists are investigating possibilities. I gave you Sean Carroll's hypotheses: it covers these issues. There are others (e.g. Vilenkin, Krauss, Hawking,...). Perhaps each is wrong, but even this doesn't imply there's not a natural basis. I've refuted all the claims you've made that support your claims, and you can't show my general observations to be impossible, in particular: a finite past that begins with an initial state of a quantum system. That initial state exists by brute fact, and as a quantum system - it is necessarily the case that there is quantum "uncertainty," which accounts for the emergence of one or more universes.

What is your fucking problem?

I have never expressed dissatisfaction with people who use other terminology — Frank Apisa

Then why bring it up at all? As to what my problem is: I don't like getting trolled. To avoid a discussion on the semantics of "troll", read this: Internet Troll. FYI, I've been called on this myself, in other forums. Accept that it is a perception even if it was not your intent.

You post a lot of things I agree with, so I don't want to get on bad terms with you. Let's just move on. I'm not going to respond to you again in this thread, nor to future comments you make about semantics unless that is the topic of the thread.

I never said or intimated that a "belief" has to be certainty.

In fact, I said that in some cases, it is nothing more than blind guessing being disguised.

We can discuss it if you like...but I do not want my position to be distorted. — Frank Apisa

Gotta wonder why they don't just call it guessing...rather than calling it a "belief." — Frank Apisa

Sorry if I misinterpreted, but bear in mind that the only response you gave to my original post was a tangential comment about my terminology, and your repeat of your position that the word "guess" should be used. That was actually off-topic, and pointless since we've been through this before. If you want to understand my point within my own terminology then ask. If you want to make a case for using your terminology, start a new thread. Otherwise, please stop interjecting your dissatisfaction that everyone doesn't use your preferred terminology.

Some people guess mindreading is possible; some guess it is not possible.

Both are guessing.

Gotta wonder why they don't just call it guessing...rather than calling it a "belief." — Frank Apisa

As previously discussed. I use the terminology different than you. Note how I worded my belief: "mindreading is probably physically impossible".

My beliefs are not certainties, but they are justified- based on other beliefs. Happy to discuss, if you're willing to discuss in my terms or you can provide a lexicon for yours.

Gotta wonder why they don't just call it guessing...rather than calling it a "belief." — Frank Apisa

Pick up a good book on epistemology, and see if there's something that can't be covered using the common words. Or just ask what I mean in a given instance.

The issue is that our evaluations are colored by our background beliefs. Established beliefs are not easily overturned. This is largely because our beliefs tend ti be interrelated. It is not just that I hold the belief "mindreading is probably physically impossible", as an isolated proposition. Rather, in mycase, my belief in that proposition relates to my beliefs about the nature of minds. For example, memories seem to be patterns in the neural networks of the brain. Even if the potentials of neurons in another's brain could be measured, these would not carry meaning.

Others may believe mindreading is impossible because 1. they can't do it. & 2. it has never been confirmed that anyone can do it. & 3. When it has been investigated, it has been shown to be a trick.
Therefore a single instance of a person with this alleged power is insufficient to negate the prior belief. However, I would suggest that if the alleged mindreader were to read my mind, that would be entirely different. That could be convincing.

I don't know if this was your intent, but this is similar to discussions I've had with Christians about miracles. I believe it highly unlikely that miracles (violations of the laws of nature) occur. No allegged miracle has been objectively confirmed, and many have been shown to be false, and many believers have been shown to have been duped. On the other hand, if I were to personally experience an unequivocal miracle, I could change my mind.

A first cause has to exist prior to time - that is the only logically way anything could have come about:

- Can’t get something from nothing
- So something must have existed ‘always’
- IE if there was ever a state of nothingness, it would persist to today, so something must have permanent existence.
- It’s not possible to exist permanently in time (always leads to an infinite regress; but they have no start so cannot not be), so the ‘something’ must be the timeless first cause (of time/causality). — Devans99

It's impossible to exist "before" time: "before" is a temporal relation.
An initial state is not "something from nothing".
A physical foundation of reality, such as quantum fields, indeed exists at all times. As you say, it can't have come from nothing. Can one get nothing from something? That seems hard to believe, but irrelevant because it would entail a finite future (time maps to a finite, delimited number line). Even then , it would entail physical reality existing at all times on this finite line segment. What makes you think this is impossible?
A hypothetical "timeless" entity couldn't DO anything, because action entails a passage of time.

If there is change, there is causation. Logically we have gone from a no time to time situation. That can't happen unless a change can take place without time. — Devans99

If there is change, then time has elapsed. You could posit another dimension of time, but not an absence of time, but that is problematic because it entails an infinite past for God. Your only hope is to consider there to have been an initial state that included God.

There is evidence of something unnatural - the Big Bang:

- It is a singleton; natural events always come in pluralities
- Entropy was unnaturally low at the Big Bang
- Rather than the objects themselves moving further apart, it is space itself that is expanding - the Big Bang is no normal explosion. This expansion of space is keeping the universe from collapsing in on itself into a massive black hole.
- That the expansion is speeding up rather than slowing which also seems unnatural — Devans99

Please support you claim that natural events necessarily come in pluralities.
It's absurd to claim a level of entropy is "unnatural". There is no known physical constraint on the level of entropy. Space expanding is natural, that's silly to suggest it's not. We certainly don't understand everything about these, but whenever you latch onto such unknowns and claim"therefore it must be unnatural" you are committing the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

In explaining the history and physical foundation of the universe, precisely where does God's act end and nature begin? Parsimony doesn't mean ignoring details, it means explaining details with the fewest assumptions.
— Relativist

It's a very simple model I'm proposing. God caused the Big Bang somehow. The associated expansion of space is what is keeping us out of equilibrium - that is down to God. — Devans99

"Somehow" is not an explanation. "Somehow" the big bang occurred, and "somehow" the early universe was in a state of low entropy. "Somehow" the universe is expanding. Neither of us can explain it, but concluding this gap in knowledge implies "therefore Goddidit" is a fallacious argument from ignorance.

The Big Bang is effectively the end of God's evolvement in the universe from our perspective. — Devans99

When precisely? At the end of the Planck epoch? At the beginning of it? If there is a God, he could have created the universe 10 minutes ago, inserting false memories in each of us, and starlight in flight. That's as simple as your scenario. If God is a live option, no evidence should be trusted. Historically, unknowns have been the driver for science. "Goddidit" could as simplistically been used as an explanation for any.

Any isolated system decays to equilibrium without an active agent - this applies to the universe. So God is required. — Devans99

If the total energy of the universe is zero, as many cosmologist think, then it IS in equilibrium. If it isn't, it may be that the total energy of the multiverse is zero.

In quantum field theory equilibrium means something different than in classical physics, because of the nature of quantum uncertainty. See this.

By "our" genetics, I assume you're referring to altering the genes that are in a zygote.

If the full result of changes could be known, then probably not a problem. The problems are that it would require trial and error to learn that, and the "errors" would be unfortunate victims.

Yeah, it's complicated. My main thing is that Presidents get credit and blame for the economy, despite the fact that they rarely have any direct, short term impact. Policies that do make a difference usually take years to have an impact.

What you wanted to say and almost did was "Demand for labor which can not be met by reserves of unemployed workers tends to drive up wages." — Bitter Crank

No, the qualification doesn't belong there. The idea is that when there's demand for labor, workers are enticed to move to better paying jobs.

It's sound theory, but it's not a law of nature. Over the last few years (during the recovery from the last deep recession) unemployment was dropping, employment was rising, and wages were stagnant for quite some time--in violation of the theory. Now, they finally have started to rise. — Bitter Crank

I imagine there's something to it, but you're right - it's not a law of nature. I expect it's a general trend, although I expect it would be a slow process.

People don't notice these increases in wages? Bullshit! — Bitter Crank

I didn't mean pay increases aren't noticed, I'm just suggesting that no one will open their pay envelope, see a raise, and exclaim "cool - the supply/demand for labor thing is paying off."

The universe is a macro phenomena, so the initial state is a macro state. If it is unstable, that implies it is changing in the macro world. That implies causality holds in some form. That implies a first cause. — Devans99

Unstable does not imply "is changing", it implies that it necessarily WILL change. We're assuming time is past-finite, so there cannot have been a temporally prior cause. A finite past is more problematic for theism: God cannot have existed prior to the universe because there is no time prior to the universe=spacetime.

You need a very strong reason to reject causality in the macro world. — Devans99

Agreed, and you would need a strong reason to believe causation can occur without a passage of time.

- You can't completely describe anything with Schroedinger's equation; it does not take account of gravity which is dominant for the macro world. — Devans99

Our current physics is clearly incomplete: general relativity breaks down as we retrospectively approach the "big bang". Cosmologists believe it likely that there is a quantum basis of gravity. This is the last gap in proving the universe is a quantum system. At this point, it's at least as reasonable to assume this is the case as it is to entertain the possibility that nature is explained by something unnatural. IMO, it's even more reasonable because there is no empirical evidence of anything existing that is unnatural - there are only arguments from ignorance (AKA "God of the gaps").

- I do not see how time can emerge without something changing which implies some form of causality and thus a first cause — Devans99

Who said nothing is changing?

- God is not magic — Devans99

OK, I'll just call it "unnatural", where "natural"= that which operates solely through inviolable laws of nature.

- Time is a dimension so I do not see how such could emerge from anything — Devans99

Treat time as consisting of discrete moments that are connected to one another. It maps to a number line beginning at zero (t0) and proceeds infinitely to the future. The initial state is at t0; it's a boundary. This has to be the case if the past is finite. If God did it, then he exists at t0. My issue is that God is not needed to explain why the initial state changes.

see this QM based explanation very much opposed to Occam's Razor, whereas causality based accounts are very much inline with Occam's Razor — Devans99

Occam's razor (the principle of parsimony) teaches that we should make no more assumptions than are necessary to explain the evidence. What superfluous assumptions are being made here?

Theist accounts typically omit detail. Asserting God is the first cause does not explain specifically what he directly caused. Where exactly is his fingerprint? Current science can account for the state of the universe as far back as the end of the Planck epoch. That's the current boundary of scientific knowledge, but it's very clear that there is more to learn. Quantum Field Theory based on the standard model of particle physics is known to be incomplete: it doesn't explain gravity or dark matter. Dark energy and the nature of the cosmological constant are mysteries. In explaining the history and physical foundation of the universe, precisely where does God's act end and nature begin? Parsimony doesn't mean ignoring details, it means explaining details with the fewest assumptions.

- Time runs at different rates due to special relativity; that has nothing to do with entropy. Entropy changing at different rates definitely does not cause time to run at different rates. Entropy is a result of causality (IE time) not time is a result of entropy. — Devans99

Carroll does not say entropy causes time, but that time, entropy, and change are related in some fundamental way.

Causality is nothing more than the determininistic state to state evolution of the universe. If we consider the universe a quantum system, this evolution is describable (in principle) as a Schroedinger equation. A classical account of causation is subsumed by the evolution of the system as a whole. Typical accounts of causation inevitably only represent subsets of the system; a complete account of causation would require consideration of all elements of the universe, and that's what the hypothetical Schroedinger equation would do. This is boilerplate quantum physics, based only on the assumption the universe is fundamentally a quantum system - it's widely (though not universally) accepted.

- It sounds a lot like creation ex nilhilo and without time. — Devans99

Nope, it doesn't involve anything existing that didn't previously exist. It's just changes of state of a quantum system.


Carroll's hypothesis about time is speculative, but no more so than the assumptions you make in your argument. I present it, not because it's necessarily true - but to demonstrate there are possibilities besides your own. We really don't know the nature of time, so it's invalid to draw your conclusions. You basically depend on an argument from ignorance: we don't know the nature of time, so you implicitly suggest we must accept your assumption.

I don't buy 'the eigenstates are inherently unstable' - something must have changed with the ground state 14 billion years ago else there would be no Big Bang. — Devans99

Irrespective of whether Carroll's hypothesis is true, one can coherently account for the big bang with the past being finite. It just means there was an initial state that was inherently unstable. You need a strong reason to reject that, not merely because you prefer an account that requires an intelligent creator who performs magic (i.e. can do things that violate the laws of nature).
.

What causes the initial state to start causing everything else? — Devans99

Certain eigenstates (high energy ones) are inherently unstable.

Ordinary causation (in the macro world in which we live) entails a transfer of energy, so the intuitive assumption (of Aristotle and Aquinas) is inherently based on the introduction of energy from the "cause" (or efficient cause) to the effect. But no transfer of energy is required in this quantum scenario; rather the energy is balanced against a negative energy elsewhere in the system.

An Aristotelian/Thomist first cause (or prime mover) is actually physically impossible because it entails a source of unlimited energy. Obviously if there is a God, he's not limited to the physically possible, but this argument for God is simply an argument from ignorance: no physical cause could be conceived, so it's concluded "it must be a God."

But time and causality are inextricably linked and a first cause is required for causality. So if there is a start of time, there must be a timeless first cause else nothing else would exist within causality. — Devans99

An initial state (such as the one described in the Carroll hypothesis) "causes" everything that follows. What's missing in that scenario?

Because there does not seem to any other logical option; time cannot stretch back in an infinite regress; it would have no starting moment so as a result, none of it would be defined. — Devans99

False dichotomy - I gave you another logical option that doesn't rely on an infinite past. Show why it doesn't succeed.

- Can’t get something from nothing
- So something must have existed ‘always’. — Devans99

"Always existed" just means there is no point in time at which it didn't exist.

IE if there was ever a state of nothingness, it would persist to today, so something must have permanent existence.

A "state of nothingness" is incoherent.

It’s not possible to exist permanently in time (always leads to an infinite regress;

An initial point in time is a state of affairs that needn't be unchanging.

- I wish you had actually gone over the detailed ground I laid, but so be it. I've responded to the other thread.

If time has a start then there must be a timeless first cause to create time. — Devans99

That does not follow. There merely needs to be an initial point of time. Refer back to my description of Sean Carroll's hypothesis from the other thread: the ground state constitutes the initial point of time for all universes.

The notion that a first cause can be "timeless" is problematic. Timeless does not mean "frozen in time" it means that something exists independent of time. Abstractions exist timelessly (consider the law of non-contradiction - it is an abstraction; it did not come into existence and it cannot cease to exist). But abstractions are not causally efficacious. Why believe a timeless entity can be causally efficacious?

I'm still a little unclear where exactly does the matter/energy come from in Carroll's hypothesis? Or is it that it always existed? — Devans99

Quantum fields are the fundamental basis of all that exists, and the assumption is that these simply exist by brute fact. In the ground state, time is non-existent. This means there is no time at which the ground state didn't exist - because time passes only as spacetime emerges from the ground state. This emergence is an aspect of thermodynamics: a high energy eigenstate (of the ground state) has low entropy, and time is associated with the thermodynamic gradient of decaying from low to high entropy.

We don't see time running at different rates depending on the rate of entropy increase so I think that the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not cause time; time and causality cause the 2nd law. As cause and effects multiply with time so entropy increases. — Devans99

On the contrary, time does run at different rates. I expect you're aware that a hypothetical spaceship traveling close to the speed of light will experience a slower rate of time. The entropy of a melting ice cube on the spaceship will be a function of the rate at which time runs on that spaceship.

If each universe has its own time; what passes for time/causality as far as the multiverse goes? I would of thought some overarching time/causality would have to apply to allow the birth of new universes? — Devans99

There is no multiverse time. This is consistent with special relativity: even within a universe, time is relative to a reference frame. Between universes there is no reference frame.

Carroll's hypothesis does not preclude child universes (nor grandchild universes...), but it provides an overarching landscape for everything.

That's a curious assertion, because the same reasoning leads to the expectation that THIS universe should be teeming with life. — Relativist

I believe it is. We have a sample size of one saying it is. The onerous nature of interstellar travel means we are not overrun by aliens. — Devans99

That's more or less reasonable. I've argued elsewhere that if God exists, there's a much greater liklihood of life elsewhere in the universe than if there is no God. Unfortunately, a single sample doesn't provide enough data to point in either direction. That said, theists have more reason than atheists for fearing alien invasions!

WHY is there consciousness? — Unseen

Presumably it is a product of biological evolution. Should we ask why marsupials have pouches for their young, or why anteaters have long skinny tongues? The existence of these various adaptations do not imply there's a teleological reason for it. Rather, it just seems to be a product of chance adaptation to chance environment.

if you are hoping for a nation-saving solution with the syllabus, pension for standardized testing and bureaucratic silliness let alone bold education then it is hard. — thedeadidea

No, I realize there is no nation-saving solution. I primarily wanted to shift your attention from the need for voters who are better informed to the need for improved critical thinking. Not only is that the more serious problem, it is also more feasible to address. Addressing it does not mean fixing it, it means improving it - perhaps little by little, step by step - drawing attention to this as a problem, striving to improve our own critical thinking, and finally working towards small improvements in education (informal education and eventually formal). It needn't be autocratically imposed in formal education; it can be through improved textbooks by authors who realize the problem exists. Even individual teachers who embrace the issue could address it in some limited way. Eventually perhaps electives in critical thinking skills could be offered. Still a bit of a utopian vision, I admit, but still a reasonable principle to have in mind.

But bearing in mind all the other evidence in favour of God then there is a high probability that a design objective exists. This is evidence independent of the separate scientific evidence for fine tuning. — Devans99

Irrelevant, because this just affects the prior probability of God. "Fine Tuning" considerations do not increase that probability. If the prior probability of God is 10%, the final probability is also 10%. If the prior probability is 90%, the final probability is still 90%.

So understand that I'm not claiming the FTA makes a case for naturalism, I'm just pointing out that it has zero relevance to the question of God's existence. You need to rely on those other arguments to support your belief. Some are better than others, but the FTA is the worst of all.

Whereas we have no independent evidence in favour of naturalism; there are no 'proofs of no God' for example. All we know about naturalism is it is a billion to one shot - that is the whole of the evidence for naturalism. — Devans99

The "case" for naturalism is simply this: P(naturalism) = 1 - P(God).

I propose that if you want to make a case for God, it's time to move onto a better argument than FTA. If you want to do that, I propose starting another thread.

1. Quantum fluctuations do not produce matter; they respect the conservation of energy — Devans99

That's an antiquated understanding. What is conserved is mass-energy: energy and mass are interchangeable. According to Quantum Field Theory (QFT), the building blocks of matter and energy are the quantum fields. e.g. an up-quark is a "ripple" in an up-quark field- a ripple that persists if the energy is a quantum of energy. Fluctuations that are not at the quantum level are referred to as virtual particles: i.e., these are fluctuations in a quantum field that interact with other fields. Carroll's hypothesis entails the quantum fields existing in a ground state ( "zero energy"), but such a state is a superposition of eigenstates with different energy levels (+ and -) that add to zero. The "fluctuation" refers to the uncertainty of a hypothetical measurement: a measurement would entangle with one eigenstate of the superposition; the wave's energy amplitude equals the quantum uncertainty.

2. If they did produce matter, we'd be at infinite matter density by now

Nope. The energy amplitude is limited by the quantum uncertainty, which is (in principle) a calculable finite number.

3. If Eternal Inflation is natural and time is infinite, there should be an infinite number of eternal inflation instances simultaneously.

The theory of eternal inflation refers to FUTURE eternal. Under Carroll's hypothesis, time is an aspect of thermodynamics: each distinct universe has its own, independent arrow of time. The direction of its arrow is a result of its starting energy being positive or negative. This means the total energy of the multiverse always adds to zero. It also means the individual universes are causally isolated from one another.

4. An intelligent first cause would want a multiverse teeming with life (=design objective).

That's a curious assertion, because the same reasoning leads to the expectation that THIS universe should be teeming with life.

There's something unique about every possible winner — Relativist
Not from God's perspecti"Life is an unintended consequence" is an implication of naturalism, just like "the universe was designed for life" and "life is special" are implications of God existing. So when you erroneously use an implication of God as evidence of God, it's equivalent to using "life is an unintended consequence" as evidence of naturalism. ve. — Devans99

That is true only if there is a God. This implication of God existing doesn't make it any more likely that God exists.

"Life is an unintended consequence" is an implication of naturalism. So when you erroneously use an implication of God as evidence of God, it's equivalent to using "life is an unintended consequence" as evidence of naturalism.

But there are multiple coincidences, one for each of the 20 constants: — Devans99

A random set of constants does not entail a coincidence, and the unintended consequence of life eventually emerging can't be considered a coincidence. It would only be a coincidence if life was a design objective, but if naturalism is true - there was no design objective.

So if you prefer, you can consider that the OEHD entered 20 competitions in a row and won them all. — Devans99

That is analogous to 20 different universes each having life. You've forgotten that the "universe lottery" consists of randomly picking a SET of values. The number of sets of values corresponds to the number of entries in the universe lottery.

OK you don't know what to do - so let's get realistic.

IMO the fact that most are not informed is not the biggest problem. The bigger problem is that people do not know how to think critically. Those who get "better informed" just fit the information into their existing ideological framework. We seek out news sources that fit our ideology, so even much of the new information has already be framed to fit our ideology.

What can we do? Education. Teach critical thinking skills. We can't teach everyone all the relevant information, but we can at least help them better evaluate what they DO hear.

If driving a car is a privilege and not a right, an activity one requires a licence for why should the fate of a nation and world be decided on the whim of people who are possibly contemptuously stupid ? — thedeadidea

You have identified some valid problems with universal suffrage in a democracy, but that's easy. What alternative do you propose? Identify the "right" people? I don't see a perfect way to do this. In universal suffrage, there's a chance the idiocy on all sides cancel each other out.

So In summary, I think that time/causality absolutely requires a first cause. — Devans99

You overlook one possibility: that there is an initial state.

A few years ago, Sean Carroll hypothesized that there is a ground state of the "quantum system of reality." He believes in the "Many Worlds Interpretation" of quantum mechanics, so he sees quantum fluctuations as merely being eigenstates of the ground state. Some quantum fluctuations result in universes, and each universe is a space-time, causally and temporally separated from one another. Time passes in each universe, but all originate in that initial point of time that is that ground state.

Why would anyone who believes in raising the economic situation of people at the bottom vote for Trump? He's done little except screw them over more. — YuZhonglu

The unemployment rate is down, so there is an aggregate benefit. Perhaps some of the people who had been unemployed would vote for him.

There is also an economic theory that low unemployment results in demand for labor exceeding supply, and that this drives up wages. I don't know if this has ever been confirmed, but it's not an implausible theory. Even if true, no individual is likely to notice it, so I don't see how this would get him any votes.

That said, my problem with Trump-onomics is that the only thing he's actually done is to decrease taxes for the rich and for corporations. This has resulted in increased deficits, and in fact -- they are on an unsustainable path: unsustainable because we're on an unsustainable path: eventually, interest on the national debt will dominate the budget. This is the same unsustainable path Ronald Reagan put us on in the 80s. Within the next few years, there will be no choice but to increase taxes to get deficits down. That will result in economic contraction. Whoever is President will be blamed.

If a one eyed dwarf has won a lottery at a billion to 1 and we have reason to suspect is rigged for one eyed dwarfs, the we should conclude the most likely explanation is that it was rigged for one eye dwarfs. — Devans99

Sure, but the mere fact that he won is not such a reason. There's something unique about every possible winner, so merely being unique is irrelevant; it's not a reason to suspect rigging. As I noted, EVERY POSSIBLE WINNER is unique, so uniqueness alone is not suspicious (nor is it a "fluke").

But again this is like a murder mystery who done it. You have to work out the most likely reason that the universe supports life. God is more likely than a fluke. — Devans99

There is no "fluke" if the universe is a product of random chance. You are only considering the implications of God's existence. An implication doesn't constitute additional evidence, so it does add to the probability of God:
:
P(G) = prior probability of God
P(there is a reason the universe supports life) = P(G)
There's no basis for considering #2 more probable.

You referenced a "fluke" but this is a red herring. When a lottery winner happens to be a OEHD, this does not constitute a "fluke" because he had the same chance of winning as everyone else. If there were two consecutive lotteries, and a OEHD won both - THAT would be a fluke. But when there's a single random event, and every possible outcome is unique, there can be no fluke.

There is however a distinct chance that there is a reason - because God may exist. — Devans99

Indeed there is, just as there's a distinct chance the lottery was rigged for the specific characteristics of the winner. But the mere fact that someone with those characteristics has won doesn't make it any more likely.

The epistimic probability that there's a reason is identical to the probability that God exists:
P(there is a reason) = P(G)
P(there is no reason) = 1-P(G)

You're ignoring, or refusing to think through this rigorously.

Every possible winner of the lottery is not unique in God's eyes — Devans99

...If and only if there is a God. So:
P(winner is not unique in God's eyes) = P(G)

Examine the math I gave you. You aren't thinking it through completely. Again, the starting point is:
P(G) = prior probability of God
P(N) = 1-P(G) = prior probability there is no such God

You have provided no basis for increasing P(G) because all you have done is to discuss the implications of God's existence. This doesn't change the probability.

I see you've ignored my proof, and are just repeating the same erroneous claims.

The anthropic principle says we the universe must be live supporting, the question we are trying to answer is: is why is it live supporting? — Devans99

That is a loaded question: it assumes there is a reason. The neutral question is: is the universe designed for life, or is life an unintended consequence of the way the universe happen to be?

[1] The first is probability that the universe supports life by accident. The evidence we have here (from science) is that it is a billion to one shot that it happened by accident. — Devans99

This does not correctly capture the naturalist position. If naturalism (i.e. there is no God that wants to create life) is true, life is nothing special - it is nothing more than a unique or rare characteristic of a universe whose properties are the product of randomness. By wording it as you did, you are treating life as a design objective.

The one-eyed hemophiliac dwarf (OEHD) analogy captures the error

That's consistent with my observation that its use revealed one's class. I think the same holds true in the African American community. — Hanover

I wouldn't relate it to "class" (whatever that even means). It just seems to be the received world-view of a lot of people. When I was young, I remember using the word when talking to my father about a black guy that worked for him. Had the civil rights movement not become so public (on the news, discussed in schools, etc), I may have never realized there was anything much wrong with it. So in my case, I was living in a time and place where the treatment of blacks (not just use of "n-") came to my attention.

Regarding use of the word by Blacks: I truly believe they should stop it, because it sounds like a hypocritical double standard to accept it from Blacks but not Whites. That said, it makes perfect sense that it will be perceived differently depending on the source. A black person is not connoting superiority when he says it, but he might perceive that when uttered by a white person (irrespective of what was in the white guy's heart when saying it).

Just because I say there is a 10% chance of God, you cannot assume that implies a 90% chance of naturalism - we already know the chances of naturalism are a billion to one - that evidence stands irrespective of any probability estimates we make for God. You are mixing up two separate probability calculations. — Devans99

For purposes of this discussion at least, what is relevant is whether or not there is a God that wants to create life. Label the converse of that to be "naturalism".

P(N|F)....which means the probability that naturalism is true given the fact of a universe that is life-friendly. This is not a "billion to one". — Relativist

Why is it not billion to one? — Devans99

Because P(G) + P(N) =1 ; i.e. EITHER there is a God, or naturalism is true.
You proposed using P(G) = .1, so it follows that P(N) = .9

If P(N) is .9, the existence of a life-friendly universe doesn't DECREASE the probability of naturalism.

Afraid you have lost me here. You can't do the above; the probability of naturalism is a billion to one. — Devans99

I think you're overlooking that P(G)+P(N) =1. To claim there's a billion to one chance of naturalism being true implies you believe the probability of God is 999,999,999/1,000,000,000

My question is whether this social convention of never uttering the N-word is a reasonable act of respect or whether it's simply a politically imposed rule that can be used to divide and destroy? — Hanover

By "politically imposed" I infer that you're referring to "political correctness." i.e. in our current society, it is deemed politically incorrect to say the actual "n-word". This is surely the case, but it's not "simple", it's evolved into political incorrectness for good reasons, partly historical - but also because today it DOES divide.

it's just part of my programming at this point in my life. The fury of my parents should they hear that word from one of their children would be indescribable — Hanover

That's very interesting, because I have the opposite experience, growing up in Houston. My father always used the n-word to refer to African Americans (my mother didn't). His family were small-town farmer folks, and many of them were even worse (they invariably prefixed the n-word with "god damned"). I learned to not use the term based on becoming inspired by the civil rights movement, and (TBH) this resulted in my having a rather low opinion of my red-necked cousins and anyone who sounded like them. I loved my dad, but we had many arguments about his vocabulary - and he eventually stopped using the word (at least around me).