Cosmology and "the prior"

Gregory

Is it possible to describe the origin of the material world in materialistic terms only? That's the question I want to present within some ideas on here. Aquinas (following Aristotle) thought it absurd for the world to actually start without a God. He knew though that people would say "the world is eternal". In fact, his idol Aristotle had thought the world eternal. Aquinas modeled this theory as if it was an eternal dominoes series going into the past. He argued that every member would be intermediate, so there had to be something outside the series keeping it moving forever (or rather, having kept it moving forever). But is there some way to model this series so that it explains itself? For example, if the series was on a slant for eternity, we could posit gravity as the eternal prime mover. However, Aquinas could respond "if a first start of the universe makes no sense in materialist terms, how does pushing it into eternities past infinity grant a more satisfying answer?". So we seem forced to try to find a mechanical way to make sense of the beginning of the Big Bang, the kind of argument Descartes looked for but couldn't find. The following links provide a background:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ88kC2Nx8M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KePNhUJ2reI

Imagine a ball (any color and texture you want) as the Prime Mover in the start of the universe's motion. It rests on the edge of a precipice. Real time does not exist yet, therefore it really doesn't "rest". There is just nothing before its fall (from gravity). It's fall causes the start of time synchronically. This logical move avoids saying there is something before motion and time which needs to be addressed.

But motion would be at least logically prior to time. Maybe we aren't evolved enough to understand these questions, but motion being prior to time is the topic I would like to discuss, if anyone's interested.

tim wood

but motion being prior to time is the topic I would like to discuss, — Gregory

First challenge, a definition of motion not in terms of time - somehow in terms of no-time. No luck yet, here, with it.

And, science famously concerns itself with the how and leaves the why to non-scientists. "Why," is easy to ask.

Here's one way of looking at it. Given that one can ask why indefinitely and without limit, it must happen eventually that a given answer either answers the why in such terms that no further why can be asked, or necessarily the answers recycle back into themselves.

From this I infer that answers as answers are always within a context in which they're sufficient and comprehensive, and outside of which they're neither, and may not even be answers. The poster child of such an answer that fits both cases is the "Because," one retreats to in the face of a "Why" attack by a precocious four-year-old.

It suggests also that the mature inquirer knows when to stop asking why and settle for how, if he can even get that. One clue, imo, as to the boundaries of such inquiries is when they become the more freighted with language. When the question evolves to one of words, one is crossing the border and leaving science. And words themselves, sufficiently removed from the initial actualities they at first referred to, solve nothing and answer nothing except as word games.

PoeticUniverse

but motion being prior to time is the topic I would like to discuss — Gregory

We can know for sure that motion is ever, else all would have long since stopped in an impossible Stillness, indicating that something energetic is fundamental or derives.

Real time is perhaps meaningful change of something that persists more than a but, leaving sub-time or useless change to be such as certain quantum fluctuations that don't amount to much of anything more.

Relativist

But motion would be at least logically prior to time. Maybe we aren't evolved enough to understand these questions, but motion being prior to time is the topic I would like to discuss, if anyone's interested. — Gregory

Motion prior to time seems logically impossible. Motion entails change of position over time. In the absence of time, it logically impossible for there to be motion.

Aristotelian-Thomist arguments make a bit of sense in terms of classical (non quantum) physics: all motion in the universe is a product of thermodynamics. However when you bring Quantum Mechanics into the discussion, the argument runs into trouble. There are cosmological hypotheses that offer explanations for the high energy/low entropy state of the early universe without the need for a "prime mover" to make it go.

Certainly all are speculative, since they make assumptions that go beyond established physics - but they at least serve to falsify the argument from ignorance entailed by the Aristotelian-Thomist paradigm.

Gregory

Thanks for the thoughts!

Two cents: if energy is the foundation of causality, motion, and force, wouldn't it first have to have been in a state of perfect stillness? How could it get, from itself, from that state into the complex universe we experience?

Gregory

Some of the "otherwordly" ideas about the origin of the universe are:

1) that the place Heaven, which obviously has different "physics" than ours, caused the world- Confusianism

2) that we are all one spiritual being, which created the world- Hinduism

3) that nothing "created" the world being cause and effect are limited to this world and spiritual things don't cause, but there can still be spiritual events like the birth of the universe- Buddhism

4) that we flow from, but are not caused by, the eternal Form of Causality- Platonism

5) that motion is limited to phenomenon, which is the merging of the forever mysterious substance "the thing in itself" with our lenses of time and space- Kantism

PoeticUniverse

if energy is the foundation of causality, motion, and force, wouldn't it first have to have been in a state of perfect stillness? How could it get, from itself, from that state into the complex universe we experience? — Gregory

No, no stillness, for the base of reality would have no further input, making its outputs random—and this means motion, as ever, like in the quantum fluctuations.

Forget 'spiritual'; they would have no input either, no design, no further point for specific definition, etc, meaning no particular state, i.e., random.

Gregory

Quantum fluctuations sound like Heraclitus's fire, where the universe is the smoke from the cosmic furnace. I am currently reading Heidegger and learning his insights into when the world becomes the flames

PoeticUniverse

Heidegger — Gregory

Maybe he knows about Quantum Mechanics randomness.

Metaphysician Undercover

Is it possible to describe the origin of the material world in materialistic terms only? — Gregory

Materialism conceives of the world strictly in terms of material objects. The problem which this comes up against is that we see that all material objects have a beginning and end in time, and they also require a reason for their existence, a cause. If we take the whole of material existence, and look at it as an object, the universe, then we see that there must be a cause of it which is immaterial. This is represented in a more comprehensive way as the cosmological argument.

Modern physics takes us beyond materialism by understanding the world in terms of energy. Acceptance of the terms of modern physics renders materialism as obsolete, so physicalism has superseded materialism. The problem which physicalism has, is that "physical", just like "energy", is a property of things. In relation to the universe then, as a thing, energy is a property of the universe. And, it is impossible to adequately describe a thing by referring to a single property, nor is it possible to determine a thing's origin through reference to a single property.

Gregory

Lawrence Krauss said the universe is "not only an illusion, but an accidental one". In modern language though doesn't accidental just mean random, and doesn't random just mean not within a certain pattern?

PoeticUniverse

Yes, random is the prime mover.

Gregory

Contingency and necessity, in the A/T sense, I have long thought to be in the "eye of the beholder". Being and Time has impressed me with the Heidegerrian idea that consciousness actually brings out more being in things. He doesn't think the scientific paradigm expresses the nature of the world fully and that we need his strong ontology. How could science even debunk the idea that consciousness can bring more density of being out of Being? This might be like someone thinking there are fairies in objects, but the idea of Being doesn't seem childish like that does to me. The discussion on here of A/T arguments from motion do, nonetheless, seem to me to show that energy is in some way mysterious to human understanding, and doesn't operate entirely in a mechanistic way. Teilhardians call the unknown the spiritual, if for no other reason than that they blur most lines. I am found of a physicalist understanding of reality, as long as we keep the nature of being and time a type of mystery

Relativist

Two cents: if energy is the foundation of causality, motion, and force, wouldn't it first have to have been in a state of perfect stillness? How could it get, from itself, from that state into the complex universe we experience? — Gregory

Here's a hypothetical possibility: there exists a quantum system whose quantum state is zero energy. A quantum state consists of a superposition of multiple eigenstates; this translates to zero energy actually existing as every possible level of energy, that essentially add to zero. This comprises the "perfect stillness" you reference. A universe is an antecedent of a single eigenstate - one whose energy is high. This eigenstate evolves (call it a big bang).

Gregory

Interesting post Relativist. Sounds similar to an infinity of points arising to give a finite segment or solid

Gregory

Let me clarify the previous post: an infinity of smaller and smaller movements with a limit of zero gives rise to dimensions. This reminds me of Lawrence Krauss's arguments

Cosmology and "the prior"

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions