I said Ok, Ok, and now Ok. I was wrong, there is no such thing as causality in physics - I bend to your overwhelming knowledge on the subject. Not really sure what level of victory you are looking for.

I said Ok, Ok, and now Ok. I was wrong, there is no such thing as causality in physics - I bend to your overwhelming knowledge on the subject. Not really sure what level of victory you are looking for. — Rank Amateur

If causality is absent in the laws of physics, then why does anyone expect the creation event to have a cause?

your right it doesn't - can't believe the amount of time and effort we humans have put into that question for the last couple of thousand years. Waste of time.

if the universe is finite (by definition) it had a first moment. — Rank Amateur

Correct, in principle, according to the rules of logic.

also by definitnon there was nothing before that — Rank Amateur

Correct, within the same reference frame. While in the Universe, it can be said there was nothing of the Universe before it’s first moment. Nonetheless, both propositions, together or separately, are not sufficient to logically eliminate some other reference frame which suffices to falsify the conclusion “there was nothing before that”.

As long as knowledge is unattainable, pure speculation is allowed. But just because pure speculation is allowed does not serve as warrant to usurp logical or rational rules.

Correct, within the same reference frame. While in the Universe, it can be said there was nothing of the Universe before it’s first moment. Nonetheless, both propositions, together or separately, are not sufficient to logically eliminate some other reference frame which suffices to falsify the conclusion “there was nothing before that”. — Mww

No problem with that at all.

As long as knowledge is unattainable, pure speculation is allowed. But just because pure speculation is allowed does not serve as warrant to usurp logical or rational rules. — Mww

Agree, didn't think I did, and if so, not intentionall. What we know, we know. What don't know is a open to a free exchange of ideas. Including, the TPF heresy of such a thing as God

I agree - but if the universe is finite. By definition it had a first moment. so also by definitnon there was nothing before that. So there was nothing - than there was something. How? — Rank Amateur

This is what I was saying when I said whatever answer you pick there's an exception we're making because we're at a limit case where our usual standards break down. There cannot be a "how" the beginning of existence, because "how" implies something like causality, but we've agreed there couldn't be anything so no cause and effect. But if you take an eternal universe you have to ditch the assumption that there's a reason for everything as well, because there's no explanation for why the sequence of cause and effect doesn't terminate.

Your answer seems to be, is something cant come from nothing, but it did, so it didn't - I am lost in you logic. And pretty sure it is my fault. — Rank Amateur

I didn't say something could not exist uncaused (I do not accept the Principle of Sufficient Reason). What I'm saying is that the reason we are stumped by the idea that something can't come from nothing is that we're generalizing from the behavior of parts of the universe and assuming that applies to the set of everything that has ever existed. And I think that assumption has absurd consequences like I mentioned earlier.

I think I would basically agree with TP here, just pick one because it's obviously going to be one of these answers, counter-intuitive as they may be in their own right:

Or in other words, as I've pointed out before, and as should be obvious, no matter what we posit, we're stuck on either with "something coming from nothing" or something always existing. There's no way to circumvent that problem, so we might as well just stick with the obvious stuff instead of making up things that don't necessarily make any sense--"god," "quantum fluctuations," whatever. — Terrapin Station

Can't see how with that understanding - you can rule out a an un-created creator. — Rank Amateur

There's no need for it, and no evidence for it.

Anything you say about a god for this purpose you can simply say about the universe sans any gods.

TP, I am fine with almost all the non- God possible answers. But the finite uuniverse, which at this moment of our understanding is the scientific consensus, most definitely posits the question how did something come from nothing. We have seen where GR breaks down into quantum mechanics, maybe if we can bridge that gap some new insight develops. QM would suggest that matter isn't matter until it is observed, and what we perceive as our universe is not much different than a movie screen, and there maybe multiple planes of movie screens forming a block of time, and and and. All of which is possible. However, Something like a necessary being is a possible answer as well. Maybe at some point we will know. Maybe when we leave this broke down palace.

But the finite uuniverse, which at this moment of our understanding is the scientific consensus, most definitely posits the question how did something come from nothing. — Rank Amateur

They actually posit nonsense like "it came from quantum fluctuations," and then completely ignores how we get to there being quantum fluctuations.

If causality is absent in the laws of physics, then why does anyone expect the creation event to have a cause? — Inis

Excellent question, just an entire world full of fools I guess.

Oh, I didn’t mean to imply anything of the sort directly at anybody, just generally editorializing.

That being said, and if I was forced to think about it, which I would have to be, I might wonder how you would arrive at this: “....kind of thought if the world is finite, it lent some weight to the concept of an un-created - creator, or a non-contingent being...”, if you weren’t being, shall we say......overly speculative?

Edit:
I see you spoke of this: “Something like a necessary being is a possible answer as well.” Assuming “possible answer” applies to some causality for that which is theorized as having a finite duration, I suppose there really is no good refutation of such a statement. I certainly don’t have one, even if I could soundly argue we’d never know it, if there was such a thing.

just a matter of opinion on the relative speculation of a necessary being versus (fill in the blank). Science knows what it knows, and more importantly knows what it does not know.

Pre, very very very early Big Bang, science has no knowledge or even anything it would even elevate to a formal definition of theory.

Everything you or me or Steven Weinberg says is some degree of speculation

If causality is absent in the laws of physics, then why does anyone expect the creation event to have a cause? — Inis

If the creation event had no cause; it must be a naturally occurring event like quantum fluctuations. If it is a naturally occurring event, it should have occurred infinite number of times (if time is infinite) but we have evidence of only on. So the creation event was not natural and had a cause (without resorting to causality) or time is finite (IE it would need a non-natural cause).

Let's call that cause God. Then there is the chicken and egg problem (who created God). The creation of God can't be a natural event else conservation of energy is violated (and we'd have an infinite number of Gods with infinite time). So we can either make God timeless (beyond cause and effect) or we can make time circular (God can create himself).

Lazy. There is no causality in any fundamental law of physics. — Inis

How about 'every action has an equal opposite reaction'? Causality I think is essential to physics and everyday life. Causality is required by common sense in any case (which trumps physics).