The Prime Mover 2.0

Devans99

A new improved version of the Prime Mover. First just a reminded of the original argument:

The universe is all cause and effect. Chains of cause and effect that can be traced backwards. But these chains cannot continue forever; there must be a first cause; an uncaused cause. Posited to be God.

The biggest weakness of this argument is the ‘uncaused cause’. How exactly can such a thing be? Everything has a cause surely? What options are there apart from an uncaused cause?

Could there be no first cause? That leads to an infinite regress of cause and effect but that cannot logically exist (if there is no first member in the sequence, the whole sequence of cause and effect cannot exist).

So we have to ask the question ’what caused the first cause?’. Well time cannot stretch back indefinitely before the first cause because there would be nothing but emptiness to cause the first cause; which is impossible. Something must have changed to cause the first cause. So it could be the start of time; but what came before that?

It must be the end of time. The only answer is that the first cause was caused by the last effect. Time is circular. The first cause was the Big Bang and that was caused by the last effect; the Big Crunch.

So this version of the Prime Mover has no logical holes in it and it addresses the old chicken and egg problem.

Walter Pound

The original prime mover argument was about a non-contingent changer, who was unaffected by anything, who was responsible for the secondary changes in the world.

I think that these kinds of arguments can be undermined by asking for evidence about the kind causation they adhere to.

Suppose one, like Hume, challenged the very notion of causation, then the proponent of the argument needs to argue about what kind of causation exists and defend their position.

Michael

This is the Big Bounce hypothesis.

Devans99

This is the Big Bounce hypothesis. — Michael

Yes but its the one where there is only one Big Bang and one Big Crunch with time being a loop.

Jake

My sense is that our current understanding of time is still quite primitive.

As example, I was recently surprised to learn that time moves at different speeds. True, proven scientific fact, not a theory. The rate at which time unfolds depends on the observers relation to large mass bodies such as planets. So for example, time moves at one speed at sea level, and another speed at the top of a mountain. In fact, this time speed difference has to be programmed in to GPS satellites or they would generate faulty location data.

The time flow difference between say, the top of a mountain and sea level, is measured in billionths of a second so it's not an issue at human scale.

It seems to me the whole cause and effect prime mover issue depends upon our understanding of time, which probably isn't ready for the job just yet.

BC

↪Devans99

The beginning of time and space is as far as we can go, whether one posits a Big Bang, a Creatio Ex Nihilo, or a Steady State Universe that always existed.

The universe doesn't seem to be heading for a big crunch at this point. It seems more likely (at our current understanding) that everything is heading for the Big Freeze. The expanding universe will expand forever and keep getting colder and thinner.

Some people think the world will end in fire, others in ice:

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice. Robert Frost

Devans99

The universe doesn't seem to be heading for a big crunch at this point. It seems more likely (at our current understanding) that the expanding universe will expand forever and keep getting colder. — Bitter Crank

It is not a done deal. The astronomers can't even agree on how fast the universe is expanding:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/12/06/scientists-cant-agree-on-the-expanding-universe/#194fc3e75e2c

Also, the rate of expansion has slowed drastically in the past (end of the period of inflation); so it could slow again and maybe reverse (gravity wins in the end)?

Rank Amateur

How exactly can such a thing be? — Devans99

If it is such a thing as we imagine and call God

Something must have changed to cause the first cause. — Devans99

than it is not a first cause, than at best it is a second cause

Time is circular. The first cause was the Big Bang and that was caused by the last effect; the Big Crunch. — Devans99

Which is fine, except one would have to leave the realm of the best consensus scientific theory of the the universe, that it is finite. Which is also fine - but just to be clear this is just as faith based a answer as "God".

Rank Amateur

↪Walter Pound

this seems just a round about way of saying it can't be God, because there is no God, so it is something else - we just don't know what yet. Which is just one more faith based position. It is just faith in science ( or better said faith in the human ability to know everything ) than belief in an un-created creator.

Devans99

Which is fine, except one would have to leave the realm of the best consensus scientific theory of the the universe, that it is finite — Rank Amateur

Everything is finite in my view: time is a single, finite circle. Thats the only way out of the chicken and egg problem.

It cannot be a series of different Big crunch / Big bangs in a linear arrangement because what then causes the first Big Bang? So time has to circle around, Big Bang and Big Crunch have to meet.

Which is also fine - but just to be clear this is just as faith based a answer as "God". — Rank Amateur

I'm proposing circular time as a way out of the infinite regress problem at the start of the universe. I proposing it on the basis of logic rather than faith. It seems to be the only possible solution.

Rank Amateur

I'm proposing circular time as a way out of the infinite regress problem at the start of the universe. I proposing it on the basis of logic rather than faith. It seems to be the only possible solution. — Devans99

which there is no current scientific support for at all. You are just missing stating the first proposition in your logic chain - your first proposition is " it is not God, because I don't believe there is a God" so it has to be something else -

All of which is fair - I just want to point out to you that your answer to the un-moved mover has no philosophic difference than mine ( and Aquinas's') answer - Other than, my answer is consistent with the best consensus scientific explanation of the universe - while yours requires you to leave science all together and is baded solely on faith.

Devans99

ou are just missing stating the first proposition in your logic chain - your first proposition is " it is not God, because I don't believe there is a God" so it has to be something else — Rank Amateur

Well I do actually believe in God but I'm currently unsure how he fits in.

All of which is fair - I just want to point out to you that your answer to the un-moved mover has no philosophic difference than mine ( and Aquinas's') answer - Other than, my answer is consistent with the best consensus scientific explanation of the universe - while yours requires you to leave science all together and is baded solely on faith — Rank Amateur

- I do not believe the concept of an unmoved mover is logically sound.
- An infinite regress of movers in time is not logically sound.
- Something from nothing is impossible
- That leaves circular time as the only possible explanation for the start of the universe

Rank Amateur

- I do not believe the concept of an unmoved mover is logically sound.
- An infinite regress of movers in time is not logically sound.
- Something from nothing is impossible — Devans99

all of these opinions, you are assuming to be facts, are not facts - if there is such a thing as "God"

Basically you are still saying - Augustine's argument is logical, I just don't like his answer, so in that case it is not logical.

And you still have not acknowledged or answered my point that Augustine's argument is consistent with today's best science and yours is not - can you bridge that point for me ?

Devans99

Basically you are still saying - Augustine's argument is logical, I just don't like his answer, so in that case it is not logical. — Rank Amateur

I'm saying the original prime mover argument is basically logical until it reaches the point of the 'unmoved mover' which is not a logical concept. So my axiom is to the effect 'all effects have causes'.

The opposite position is 'some effects do not have causes' undermines the rest of the prime mover argument anyway because it is all based on a premise that effects have causes.

And you still have not acknowledged or answered my point that Augustine's argument is consistent with today's best science and yours is not - can you bridge that point for me ? — Rank Amateur

Science points to a start of time (the Big Bang) and explains little else to my satisfaction. My argument needs a first cause (the Big Bang) so it is just as consistent with Science as other interpretations. But my argument also has the logical advantage of explaining the infinite regress / chicken and egg problem.

aletheist

I proposing it on the basis of logic rather than faith. — Devans99

I gather than you mean deductive logic in this context, but that can only guarantee the derivation of true conclusions from true premises; it can neither furnish nor confirm the premises themselves. A deductive argument can be perfectly valid (logically correct), yet unsound (actually false). For example:

All dogs are orange.
My pet is a dog.
Therefore, my pet is orange.

- I do not believe the concept of an unmoved mover is logically sound.
- An infinite regress of movers in time is not logically sound.
- Something from nothing is impossible
- That leaves circular time as the only possible explanation for the start of the universe — Devans99

This conclusion only follows from the three listed premises if there are no other possible explanations for the start of the universe, which seems unlikely. In any case, many careful thinkers throughout history agreed that an infinite regress and something from nothing are both impossible, but found no logical flaw with the concept of an unmoved mover. Your premise for rejecting it seems to be ...

Everything has a cause surely? — Devans99

This is true of everything that has a beginning, whose being is contingent; but it is not true if there is something that has no beginning, whose being is necessary. That is precisely what we mean by an unmoved mover--an eternal being, a necessary being, what in vernacular terms we usually call God.

Devans99

↪aletheist

I think my reply to Rank Amateur above covers your points.

Rank Amateur

I'm saying the original prime mover argument is basically logical until it reaches the point of the 'unmoved mover' which is not a logical concept. — Devans99

I see no difference at all between this and my point

Basically you are still saying - Augustine's argument is logical, I just don't like his answer, so in that case it is not logical. — Rank Amateur

Am I missing something?

Science points to a start of time (the Big Bang) and explains little else to my satisfaction. My argument needs a first cause (the Big Bang) so it is just as consistent with Science as other interpretations. But my argument also has the logical advantage of explaining the infinite regress / chicken and egg problem. — Devans99

again - all you are doing is saying " i disagree with science" and I disagree with Aquinas - here is another possibility - yet again - which is fine - but it carries no more logic or reason or basis that Aquinas - actually less - since it also requires you to disregard today's best science.

aletheist

I think my reply to Rank Amateur above covers your points. — Devans99

On the contrary ...

So my axiom is to the effect 'all effects have causes'. — Devans99

As eternal and necessary being, the unmoved mover is not an effect; so this "axiom" is irrelevant to the argument.

Devans99

but it carries no more logic or reason or basis that Aquinas - actually less - since it also requires you to disregard today's best science — Rank Amateur

But don't you see the original prime mover is self-contradictory - it posits that we can use the axiom 'all effects have causes' to trace backwards in time and then denies that the very same axiom applies to God (the uncaused cause).

My version at least applies the axiom 'all effects have causes' consistently.

Pussycat

↪Devans99

so what is the cause of the first cause?

aletheist

My version at least applies the axiom 'all effects have causes' consistently. — Devans99

Only by ignoring the fact that the whole point of arguments for an unmoved mover is that there must be a first cause that is not itself an effect of some other cause. Your axiom is actually that everything has a cause, which is a very different proposition--one that proponents of an unmoved mover would categorically deny.

Devans99

↪Pussycat

The last effect.

IE The Big Crunch caused the Big Bang.

Devans99

Only by ignoring the fact that the whole point of arguments for an unmoved mover is that there must be a first cause that is not itself an effect of some other cause — aletheist

But we arrive at the conclusion there must have been a first cause by consideration of cause and effect. So I'd argue the start of the prime mover arguments uses the axiom 'all effects have causes' and the abandons the axiom at the end of the argument.

And the concept of a first cause is illogical as is an infinite regress. When you eliminate everything else, you are just left with circular time as the only possibility.

aletheist

So I'd argue the start of the prime mover arguments uses the axiom 'all effects have causes' and the abandons the axiom at the end of the argument. — Devans99

No, that axiom is maintained throughout. Again, the actual argument is that there must be a cause that is not an effect of some other cause.

And the concept of a first cause is illogical as is an infinite regress. — Devans99

Only in accordance with the unstated (and unwarranted) premise that everything has a cause.

Pussycat

↪Devans99

so that makes the last effect into the first cause. But what then is the first cause?? What happens to it?

Devans99

↪Pussycat

Time is an eternal circle. It causes itself. Nothing else is needed?

Pussycat

Time causes itself?? It is its own cause?

Devans99

↪Pussycat

The end of time causes the start of time. The Big Crunch causes the Big Bang. It seems the only way out of the infinite regress / chicken and egg problem with regards to the start of the universe. The other options are not good:

- An effect without a cause (an unmoved mover). It would have to exist for an infinite period of time and then start moving all by itself with no prior reason. Plus it runs contrary to the axiom 'all effects have causes' I'm using
- Something came from nothing. Magic IMO. Also violates 'all effects have causes'
- An infinite regress of cause and effect into the past. Magic IMO. Also violates 'all effects have causes'.

Time being circular seems unlikely on the face of things, but the alternatives (the above three) are all impossible with the 'all effects have causes' assumption. Obviously you can question that assumption but it seems common sense to me.

Pussycat

↪Devans99

so the big crunch causes the big bang, but not the other way round? Time is circular, but yet one-directional? Or is it bi?

Devans99

↪Pussycat

It seems time is uni-directional. Entropy increases with time and is then reset to zero entropy by the big crunch.

Bi-directionality I am not sure about. There is the quantum eraser experiment that possibly indicates information can travel backwards in time but that's a controversial interpretation.

Pussycat

↪Devans99

so its like a dog following a tail, only to discover it is its own? Heads and tails in time, but we are certain that there is indeed a head at the front, with a tail at the back, and thus future is differentiated from the past. But if time is circular, how can we distinguish? Say an event A that is on the left hemisphere of the circle and an event B that is on the right, which one is older?

And also there is the problem with entropy: entropy is supposedly accumulating reaching to a maximum, then suddenly or rather abruptly, it drops down to zero, only to rise again. But for that to happen, it must mean for at least sometime, time is running backwards, correct?

The Prime Mover 2.0

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions