This seems to have evaded the question. Sure, if it lacks a reason for being, it equally lacks a reason for not being. The question was where 'finite' was somehow relevant to that statement. — noAxioms

The intention was not to evade. The intention was to point out there if there is no reason for something infinite to exist, there can equally be no reason for something finite to exist. If something exists without prior reason, then it exists apart from any necessity of being. If it is, it is. And if something infinite can exist without prior reason, there is nothing to rule out something that is finite that exists without a prior reason.

Your assertion notwithstanding, how does the weak anthropic principle (or the strong for that matter) not explain why they are as they are? If they were not as they are, there'd be no observers to glean the suboptimal choice of laws. — noAxioms

All I take from the 'anthropic principle' is that the evolutionary sequence which we understand from science doesn't begin with the beginning of life on earth, but can be traced back to the origin of the universe. And that given everything now known about the nature of the physical universe, it would have been far more likely that it would not have given rise to complex matter and organic life, and that there's no reason why it should have. So it's not a matter of chance or happenstance. That is by no means a proof of God or anything else, but it is a good reason not to look to science for an alternative, as science treats the 'laws of nature' as given, which indeed they are.

If something exists without prior reason, then it exists apart from any necessity of being. — Philosophim

For objects, something where 'exists' is a meaningful property, well, most objects have a sort of necessity of being, which is basic classical causality. There's for instance no avoiding the existence of the crater if the meteor is to hit there. The necessity goes away if you step outside of classical physics.

But we're not talking about objects here, we're talking about other stuff where 'exists' isn't really defined at all. The universe existing has about as much pragmatic meaning as the integers existing. We're quite capable of working with either regardless of the fact of the matter, if 'fact' can be used to describe something not really meaningful.

All I take from the 'anthropic principle' is that the evolutionary sequence which we understand from science doesn't begin with the beginning of life on earth, but can be traced back to the origin of the universe. — Wayfarer

I don't see where evolution comes into play. I mean, are we talking about some sort of natural selection of laws of physics? That's not the anthropic principle that I know.

it would have been far more likely that it would not have given rise to complex matter and organic life, and that there's no reason why it should have.

This statement essentially says that if the dice were rolled but the once, the odds of hitting our settings is essentially nil. True that. So the dice are not rolled but the once. Unbounded rolls are part of the chaotic inflationary theory of cosmology, with countless bubbles of spacetime with random properties are generated from a single structure. Only the ones with exact optimal settings (the odds against has an insane number of zeroes) are suitable for generating a mind capable of gleaning the nature of the structure.

That is by no means a proof of God or anything else

Just so. The strong principle is, where the settings are deliberate, which implies ID, but I'm suggesting the weak principle where the settings are natural and not a violation of probability.

Unbounded rolls are part of the chaotic inflationary theory of cosmology, with countless bubbles of spacetime with random properties are generated from a single structure. Only the ones with exact optimal settings (the odds against has an insane number of zeroes) are suitable for generating a mind capable of gleaning the nature of the structure. — noAxioms

This is highly speculative. We don't know if a multiverse exists, how many universes it contains, or what kinds of universes they are.
https://bigthink.com/13-8/multiverse-no-evidence/

My thoughts too. The whole idea of ‘other universes’ says precisely nothing more than that anything might happen. Which is basically irrational.

Why should it not? Its uncaused. Something uncaused has no reason for being. Which also means it has no reason for NOT being. — Philosophim

So?

Think about the previous statement carefully. If there's no reason for something existing, then there's no reason that it has to have existed infinitely. — Philosophim

Why?

Meaning something that is unexplained would exist, and we would know it exists by its being. But there would be no prior reason for its explanation beyond its simple being. Meaning, if something exists in this world that is unexplained, there is no reason why it should have existed finitely or infinitely. — Philosophim

I am not saying that the universe in its initial state was infinite. It could be finite or infinite.

:100: :up:

This premise is self-contradictory.

If what you mean by "whatever begins to exist" is that there are certain whatevers that "begin" in a creation ex nihilo sort of way, i.e. something from nothing, then you've violated the other condition of this premise, which is that every whatever "has a cause."

That is, you are saying in a single breath that some things just come to be without a cause but all things have a cause.

This contradiction becomes more evident when you seek to locate the elusive first uncaused cause (i.e. God). That is, this argument doesn't lead you to finding God, but it leads you to realizing that even God fails to meet your conditions because God is a whatever that must also have a cause because you told me everything has a cause. — Hanover

They claim that God didn't begin to exist but exists.

The error is in the logic. Premise one is necessarily false. For there to be an uncaused cause, you must state that some whatevers are not caused, which would then allow for the universe to be one of those whatever. — Hanover

I agree with what you stated. But here it seems that you object to the second premise, not the first one.

Neither is the universe. — noAxioms

Are you an idealist?

There are 'things' in this universe seemingly without a cause (proof lacking). Unruh radiation is a fine example, predicted a long way back, and seemingly finally detected recently. — noAxioms

What Unruh radiation has to do with our debate?

If something exists without prior reason, then it exists apart from any necessity of being.
— Philosophim
For objects, something where 'exists' is a meaningful property, well, most objects have a sort of necessity of being, which is basic classical causality. There's for instance no avoiding the existence of the crater if the meteor is to hit there — noAxioms

Right, you are describing something that exists with prior reason. Why does the crater exist? Because a meteor landed there two days ago.

But we're not talking about objects here, we're talking about other stuff where 'exists' isn't really defined at all. The universe existing has about as much pragmatic meaning as the integers existing. — noAxioms

Exists is to be. To not exist, is not to be. That's all that's meant by it. For something to have a prior reason for its existence, is to have prior causality. If something has no prior reason for its existence, then the reason for its existence is 'that it exists'. This is an uncaused existence.

I am not saying that the universe in its initial state was infinite. It could be finite or infinite. — MoK

Then we agree!

:up:

I am not saying that the universe in its initial state was infinite. It could be finite or infinite. — MoK

.

Then we agree! — Philosophim

But I do not agree. It cannot go from finite to infinite. There's no scaling that would do that. For one, it would be transitioning at some moment from having a size to not having one.

This is highly speculative. — RogueAI

Highly? No. Speculative, yes, but all cosmological origin ideas are. This one is the one and only counter to the fine tuning argument, the only known alternative to what actually IS a highly speculative (woo) argument.

The whole idea of ‘other universes’ says precisely nothing more than that anything might happen. Which is basically irrational. — Wayfarer

Your personal aversion to the universe being larger than you like is a natural anthropocentric one, and every time a proposal was made that the universe was larger, it was resisted for this same reason, and later accepted. Chaotic inflationary theory is a theory of one structure, only a tiny portion to which we have empirical access.

Any 'anything possible happens', not just anything, and not just 'might'. It isn't a theory of true randomness like Copenhagen or something.

You're asserted the irrationality of the view, but have not explained how a theory with such explanatory power is irrational. Only that you find it distasteful, which is not rational grounds for rejecting a theory.

They claim that God didn't begin to exist but exists. — MoK

Much easier to say the universe exists. That cuts out one regression step.

No, God is dragged in not as an explanation of anything, but as an excuse to attempt to rationalize religion.

Are you an idealist? — MoK

No. I try not to identify as an anything-ist, since being such a thing come with an attitude that other views are not to be considered.
I have fewest issues with a relational view, but wouldn't go so far as to call myself a relationalist.

What Unruh radiation has to do with our debate? — MoK

It is an example of real material that is not caused, at least under non-deterministic interpretations of QM.

Exists is to be. — Philosophim

I know what the word literally means, but it isn't clear if 'to be' applies to natural numbers for instance. The natural numbers are quite useful regardless of when they actually 'are' or not. That's what I mean by 'to be' not being clearly defined or meaningful to things that are not objects. I was seeking that clarification, and you didn't clarify. Answer the question for the natural numbers. We can go from there

Highly? No. Speculative, yes, but all cosmological origin ideas are. This one is the one and only counter to the fine tuning argument, the only known alternative to what actually IS a highly speculative (woo) argument. — noAxioms

I don't think the (theological) fine-tuning argument needs such a counter, because I don't believe it works. There is a related (and somewhat controversial) issue of "naturalness" of fundamental constants in cosmology, for which anthropic selection considerations might offer a valid solution. But perhaps all this is for another topic.

You're asserted the irrationality of the view, but have not explained how a theory with such explanatory power is irrational. Only that you find it distasteful, which is not rational grounds for rejecting a theory. — noAxioms

What ‘explanatory power’? In a Scientific American cover story on the Multiverse, we read the following:

Fundamental constants are finely tuned for life. A remarkable fact about our universe is that physical constants have just the right values needed to allow for complex structures, including living things. Steven Weinberg, Martin Rees, Leonard Susskind and others contend that an exotic multiverse provides a tidy explanation for this apparent coincidence: if all possible values occur in a large enough collection of universes, then viable ones for life will surely be found somewhere. This reasoning has been applied, in particular, to explaining the density of the dark energy that is speeding up the expansion of the universe today. — DOES THE MULTIVERSE REALLY EXIST? (cover story). By: Ellis, George F. R. Scientific American. Aug 2011, Vol. 305 Issue 2, p38-43. 6p.

So the possibility of infinite universes is a 'tidier explanation' than a higher intelligence. Just who is finding what 'distasteful', I wonder. (Oh, and note the call out to 'dark matter', the existence of which is also a matter of conjecture.)

In any case, I am by no means a William Lane Craig admirer, although there are Christian philosophers I do admire, including David Bentley Hart and Keith Ward.

Highly? No. Speculative, yes, but all cosmological origin ideas are. This one is the one and only counter to the fine tuning argument, the only known alternative to what actually IS a highly speculative (woo) argument. — noAxioms

As an idealist, I sympathize with your claim the universe might not "exist", and therefore, doesn't have to have a cause (I may be summarizing your claim terribly, feel free to correct me), but I also recognize that to most people, that's a very "wooish" take on things.

So the possibility of infinite universes is a 'tidier explanation' than a higher intelligence. — Wayfarer

The old principle of plenitude, to the rescue. Given enough universes, one's got to produce intelligence. Given enough monkeys with typewriters... Typewriters went out of style before a monkey could even produce a two syllable word. I imagine the same thing will happen to the multiverse.

They claim that God didn't begin to exist but exists. — MoK

They can't claim that because it violates premise #1, which was my point.

Premise #1 is:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its beginning — MoK

Given enough monkeys with typewriters. — Metaphysician Undercover

...you'll get a Philosophy Forum :lol:

anthropic selection — SophistiCat

What is that? There is no selecting going on in Chaotic inflationary theory, or as part of the anthropic principle.

Earth is a tiny target in the cosmos, and yet there is a meteor crater in Arizona. Strong anthropic principle says the rock was deliberately aimed. Weak anthropic principle says there are a lot of rocks out there, the vast majority of which miss altogether, but a small percentage hit.

Discount the principle altogether and you get: There was but the one rock, and it was just an incredible chance that it managed to hit right next to the visitor center like that

The initial ID argument concerned biology, which was asserted to be the work of design, but the weight of evidence for evolution was too hard to deflect. So lately they go for the tuning of the cosmological constants. For example, why are there 3 macroscopic spatial dimensions and 1 macroscopic temporal one? Most of the other random chances get different numbers than those.


Wayfarer discounts the 'lot of rocks' view since if it was true, anything might get hit.
Apologies for ragging on your tastes, Wayfarer, but they're not based on rational reasoning, only on the comfort of a small fish wanting a small pond. But people used to deny other planets, then other star systems, other galaxies, and then more beyond our furthest sight. Each time, big won over us-centrism. My bets are on the 'big', that each level is only a tiny part of something even bigger, especially when it has explanitory powers.

Given enough monkeys with typewriters... — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, that's kind of it. The collected works of Shakespeare are encoded in the binary encoding of pi. So what? The point was to encode an observer that can glean that it's part of pi or that it was typed by monkeys. In that sense, we need a better analogy.

As an idealist, I sympathize with your claim the universe might not "exist", — RogueAI

I don't say it doesn't exist. I say that it isn't meaningfully defined to say that a non-object exists or not.
OK, it appears that our personal chunk of spacetime (this infinite size swath of 4D place with the constants the way we find them) is something sprung from the greater inflationary ... stuff.
There is no time as we know it, but something spawns all these separate things we call universes. It's all one big structure. That has to be if there are to be a lot of other small universes with different spacetimes and suboptimal tunings. But buying into that single regress doesn't explain the reality of that larger structure. Hence I balk at the sort of realism which says that non-object things like that meaningfully exist.
To me, a rock exists, but only because I am causally effected by the rock. Those other 'universes' don't exist to me for the same reason: They don't have a causal effect on me. Ditto for alternate histories of Earth per MWI. MWI says those worlds all exist, but it uses a realist definition of existence.

For pragmatic purposes, I define existence as a relation, not a property. Treating it as a property is to assert a counterfactual, and while I cannot disprove counterfactuals, all sorts of hoops must be jumped through to attempt to solve all the problems that come up by positing them, and that effort stands in in contrast to 'simple but large'.

So the possibility of infinite universes is a 'tidier explanation' — Wayfarer

Well, one universe (the greater structure, or which our spacetime is but a tiny part), but vast enough to exceed your comfort level. And no, I don't say that it 'exist' since 1) what does that even mean? and 2) the existence of the prime thing seems to lack any rational explanation.

Oh, and note the call out to 'dark matter', the existence of which is also a matter of conjecture — Wayfarer

They called out dark energy. Dark matter slows the expansion of the universe.
I didn't in any way see how dark energy density was in any way special in this context. Sure, it's one of the tunable constants, but just one of them. Could observers evolve with a different value for that constant? Definitely, but how different? There are some constants where only a tiny change in like the 30th digit would preclude observers.

They can't claim that because it violates premise #1, which was my point. — Hanover

Don't think it was a violation. P1 says something about 'whatever begins to exist', but a claim that God didn't begin to exist expiicitly exempts itself from P1.

I don't think it was a violation. P1 says something about 'whatever begins to exist', but a claim that God didn't begin to exist expiicitly exempts itself from P1. — noAxioms

If "whatever" doesn't mean everything, but only something, then the conclusion:

Therefore, the universe has a cause for its beginning — MoK

does not follow.

That is, if you can ad hoc remove those things you don't want to have a beginning, you can remove the universe as well.

You can't say everything has a cause, so therefore the universe must have had an uncaused cause. The statement is self-contradictory.

If God can always have existed without a cause, then so can have the universe.

My objection to it is that infinite regress isn't an issue, and magicking up an uncaused cause is a fucking wild move for a Fantasy novel.

I think the principle of plenitude actually is important to Aquinas' version of the cosmological argument. Basically, if all existence is contingent existence (coming into being from a prior possibility), then it would be possible that there was a time with no existence. By the principle of plenitude, an endless amount of time prior to now would necessitate that there was a time prior to now when there was nothing. But if there was ever nothing, nothing could ever have come from that, so there would still be nothing. However there is something now. Therefore not all existence is contingent existence, and necessary existence is real.

anthropic selection — SophistiCat

What is that? — noAxioms

Anthropic Principle is a particular case of an observation selection effect.

But I do not agree. It cannot go from finite to infinite. There's no scaling that would do that. For one, it would be transitioning at some moment from having a size to not having one. — noAxioms

We didn't say that the universe went from finite to infinite.

Much easier to say the universe exists. That cuts out one regression step. — noAxioms

We need a justification to exclude God.

They can't claim that because it violates premise #1, which was my point. — Hanover

Why does it violate premise #1?

If God can always have existed without a cause, then so can have the universe. — Hanover

That is my point. So, we are dealing with two scenarios here unless one does not exclude that the universe have existed since beginning of time one cannot conclude that God exists.

Anthropic Principle is a particular case of an observation selection effect. — SophistiCat

OK, with that I agree. It's no a selection as in natural selection, but rather selection as in selection bias. All of philosophy on this subject tends to be heavily biased as to how things are due to this extreme bias which is due to the strong correlation between observer and tuning.,

We didn't say that the universe went from finite to infinite. — MoK

You kind of did:

I am not saying that the universe in its initial state was infinite. It could be finite or infinite. — MoK

By reference to an initial state, and by use of past tense, you imply that some time (the earliest time), it could have been finite, but that it isn't finite now. That requires, at some moment, a transition from finite to infinite.

The universe (our 4D spacetime) is considered to be infinite in all four dimensions, and bounded at one end of the time dimension. That universe, not being contained by time, does not undergo change. You may not like that consensus model (all the posts by most contributors to this topic presume a different model with the universe being an object contained by time), but if you're going to attempt some sort of logic finding fault with the something-from-nothing idea, one has to consider models other than the naive one that posits that. Else you get conclusions like this:

If God can always have existed without a cause, then so can have the universe. — Hanover

Translation: If <category error>, then ditto <same category error, different object>

Things (objects) can meaningfully 'have existed', being contained by time. Neither God nor the universe is such an object.

MoK makes this definition clear.

nothing to something is not possible
...
By nothing I mean no material, no space, no time,. — MoK

The natural numbers are not a thing. — MoK

So MoK is talking about only 'things' (objects). The universe is not such a 'thing', so the conclusion from the OP is relevant only to objects, not the universe, per this restricted definition of 'nothing' to mean literally 'no thing'.
Apparently space and time (like objects, still parts of the universe, not something containing the universe) qualify as 'things'.


Question to all: Is anybody actually supporting the view of something from nothing, or supporting the Kalam argument that the prime thing exists in (some other kind of) unbounded time, for all of said unbounded time? It being contained by time, it supervenes on it, and the prime thing isn't supposed to supervene on something even more fundamental.

I ask this question because we all seem to be beating on a naive straw man argument for a god. I do totally agree Hanover's disassembly of the logic that the universe just 'being' is a simpler assertion than the indirection to the zero-evidence deity that is asserted to do the same thing. Adding the regression just makes the model more complicated, a violation of Occam.

Is anybody actually supporting the view of something from nothing? — noAxioms

I have an intuition which is rather difficult to articulate, but which revolves around the sense that there is a kind of infinitely fruitful nothingness at the centre of being. That is an intuition which is found in different forms in many schools of the perennial philosophy and properly philosophical (as distinct from popular) mysticism.

There is a Christian form, which I've found articulated in a post on Aquinas vs Intelligent Design. The author describes Aquinas' distinction between creation as 'a species of change' whereby something changes into something else. This is what he says that the Greek philosophers meant by their maxim 'nothing comes from nothing'. But, he points out, divine creation is of a completely different order to what the Greek philosophers might imagine:

Aquinas argued that their (i.e. the Greek's) error was a failure to distinguish between "cause" in the sense of a natural change of some kind and "cause" in the sense of an ultimate bringing into being of something from no antecedent state whatsoever. Creatio non est mutatio says Aquinas: The act of creation is not some species of change.

The Greek natural philosophers were quite correct in saying that from nothing, nothing comes. But by “comes” they meant a change from one state to another, which requires some underlying material reality. It also requires some pre-existing possibility for that change, a possibility that resides in something.

Creation, on the other hand, is the radical causing of the whole existence of whatever exists. To be the complete cause of something’s existence is not the same as producing a change in something. It is not a matter of taking something and making it into something else, as if there were some primordial matter which God had to use to create the universe. Rather, Creation is the result of the divine agency being totally responsible for the production, all at once and completely, of the whole of the universe, with all it entities and all its operations, from absolutely nothing pre-existing.

Strictly speaking, points out Aquinas, the Creator does not create something out of nothing in the sense of taking some nothing and making something out of it. This is a conceptual mistake, for it treats nothing as a something. On the contrary, the Christian doctrine of creation ex nihilo claims that God made the universe without making it out of anything. In other words, anything left entirely to itself, completely separated from the cause of its existence, would not exist—it would be absolutely nothing. The ultimate cause of the existence of anything and everything is God who creates—not out of some nothing, but from nothing at all. — Aquinas vs Intelligent Design

This also gives the lie to lot of atheist polemics, which concieve of the "first cause" as a kind of super-engineer or movie director, responsible for the literal construction of every particular (cf John Haldane's quip that 'the Lord has an inordinate fondness for beetles'.) It is why, for example, Richard Dawkins insists that whatever designed the universe must be more complex than the universe itself. The trouble with this argument is that the scientifically-inclined are so thoroughly immersed in their own anthropocentric project of attempting to reverse-engineer the universe and the origin of life that they are not equipped for any kind of insight into, or intuitive feel for, what the pre-modern cultures understood by the 'divine source of existence'. It's not a scientific concept at all.

This is why it is fallacious to think of the 'divine source of being' as simply an addition to the set of all existents, something else that exists, which is what makes it seem an infinite regress. But it is mistaken to place the divine source of being on the same ontological level as particular beings or the phenomenal universe. In actuality, the source of existence is not something that exists. 'Existence' is what 'the transcendent' is transcendent in relation to. This is the substance of an arcane Medieval text, The Periphyseon, composed by the scholar-monk John Scottus Eriugena in the middle of what we now call the Dark Ages.

Eriugena [lists] “five ways of interpreting” the manner in which things may be said to exist or not to exist. According to the first mode, things accessible to the senses and the intellect are said to exist, whereas anything which, “through the excellence of its nature”, transcends our faculties are said not to exist. According to this classification, God, because of his transcendence is said not to exist. He is “nothingness through excellence” (nihil per excellentiam).

The second mode of being and non-being is seen in the “orders and differences of created natures” (I.444a), whereby, if one level of nature is said to exist, those orders above or below it, are said not to exist:

For an affirmation concerning the lower (order) is a negation concerning the higher, and so too a negation concerning the lower (order) is an affirmation concerning the higher. ...

...This mode illustrates Eriugena’s original way of dissolving the traditional Neoplatonic hierarchy of being into a dialectic of affirmation and negation: to assert one level is to deny the others. In other words, a particular level may be affirmed to be real by those on a lower or on the same level, but the one above it is thought not to be real in the same way. If humans are thought to exist in a certain way, then angels do not exist in that way. — SEP

I don't expect this will be understood, but that's part of the point. The point being, a proper consideration of the question requires a grasp of an hierarchical ontology, that is, that there are levels and degrees of being and reality, which is the basis of the ancient mythology of the 'scala naturae' (also known as the great chain of being). This is why, in some of the contemporary materials I'm encountering an heirarchical ontology based on a revised neoplatonism is being considered. Vervaeke says one of the hallmarks of the modern mindset is a 'flat ontology' in which only sense-able existents are considered to be real. But seeing past that sense of what is real requires a completely different kind of understanding, not the accumulation of ever more facts about the dynamics of the Singularity.

(An amusing anecdote. It will be recalled that Georges Lemaître was both a Catholic priest and a cosmologist, and one of the original proponents of what is now called the 'big bang' theory. By the 1950's, when this idea had become somewhat grudgingly accepted by the scientific community, Pope Pius XII ventured the notion that Lemaître's theory might provide some validation of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. According to a source that I read, which I can't now find, Lemaître was embarrased by this, and prevailed upon the Pope's scientific advisor to request His Holiness desist from making such remarks in future. As Wikipedia puts it 'in relation to Catholic teaching on the origin of the Universe, Lemaître viewed his theory as neutral with neither a connection nor a contradiction of the Faith; as a devoted Catholic priest, Lemaître was opposed to mixing science with religion although he held that the two fields were not in conflict'. I which such reticence were more common amongst those who wish to utilise 'scientific reasoning' to base anti-religious polemics.)

By reference to an initial state, and by use of past tense, you imply that some time (the earliest time), it could have been finite, but that it isn't finite now. That requires, at some moment, a transition from finite to infinite.

The universe (our 4D spacetime) is considered to be infinite in all four dimensions, and bounded at one end of the time dimension. — noAxioms

I have an argument for the whole being limitless, which you can find here. My main problem however is that I don't have any argument to show that the whole is filled by material so there could be areas filled by material and others that are empty.