The materialist option says that time started with the first motion. The first cause was gravity in the first motion. — Gregory
You need to give up the the Newtonian idea of time — Gregory
Everything in time has a cause, so to avoid an infinite regress, there must be something outside of time that is the cause of everything else (including time). — Devans99
Something outside of time is beyond causality and has no ‘before’ so it is uncaused. — Devans99
This something created time. — Devans99
Why?The uncaused cause must be able to cause an effect without itself being effected. — Devans99
Non sequitur.Therefore it must be self-driven. — Devans99
Non sequitur redux.Therefore it must be intelligent. — Devans99
An atemporal, "eternal" cause of a universe that has a definite age (like 14 billion years) is incompatible with the principle of sufficient reason, since such a cause lead us to expect an infinite age of the universe — there's no sufficient reason that the universe is 14 billion years old and not some other age, any other age in fact. — jorndoe
Something strangely "atemporal" would be inert and lifeless. — jorndoe
Outside of discursive argumentation, what's wrong with "an infinite regress"? What physical law, or condition, precludes it? — 180 Proof
Why multiply entities unnecessarily (vide Ockham)? Suppose time is "outside of time"? Suppose causality is "beyond causality"? On what grounds should we - do you, D99 - assume otherwise? — 180 Proof
"Something" is either formal or factual. Formal, or abstract, denotes absence of causal relations (i.e. cannot create). Factual, or physical, presupposes (space)time; claiming (it) "created time" merely begs the question, and invites the sort of "infinite regress" the OP seeks "to avoid". — 180 Proof
Since when is "mathematical induction" a physical law? (vide Hume, Popper, et al)Mathematical induction precludes it: — Devans99
Lost me. :roll: I can't decide - post hoc fallacy? compositional fallacy? hasty generalization fallacy? (re: problem of induction, etc)The universe appears to be fine tuned. So there seems to be a need for a fine tuner. — Devans99
Yet not a physical requirement (therefore, not a sound one). Symptom of faulty - false - premises, etc.I admit I am not sure how such a being could work but it seems a logical requirement. — Devans99
Of course.As to how it could tie its own shoelaces, I have no answer. — Devans99
Since when is "mathematical induction" a physical law? (vide Hume, Popper, et al) — 180 Proof
Lost me. :roll: I can't decide - post hoc fallacy? compositional fallacy? hasty generalization fallacy? (re: problem of induction, etc) — 180 Proof
How does that work? Can you set it out concisely? — jorndoe
Causality is not a physical law; it's a speculative category (metaphysics) or methodological principle (epistemology applied to model theory/building e.g. classical physics). And if the topic is 'the origin of the universe' then we are always, necessarily dealing with the "macroscopic level" at its microscopic - planck scale, or quantum - initial conditions (i.e. quantum cosmology).Causality is a physical law (at least at macroscopic level and we are dealing with a macroscopic question here). — Devans99
Ad hoc fallacy. :roll:I referenced mathematical induction merely to demonstrate how that physical law requires a first cause. — Devans99
Non sequitur redux redux. :shade:There are about 20 physical constants that must be at or near current values for the spacetime to support life. That seems to imply something external to spacetime created spacetime with specific characteristics so that it would support life. — Devans99
Causality is not a physical law; it's a speculative category (metaphysics) or methodological principle (epistemology applied to model theory/building e.g. classical physics). And if the topic is 'the origin of the universe' then we are always, necessarily dealing with the "macroscopic level" at its microscopic - plamck scale, or quantum - initial conditions (i.e. quantum cosmology). — 180 Proof
Physical constants belong to scientific models and not to what they model, namely, the universe — 180 Proof
Also, the Many-Worlds Interpretation of QFT, especially with respect to QG (quantum cosmology) entails that the Planck Era universe c13.8 billion years ago in superposition (so-called) BB consisted in a countless universes each constituted by every possible physical value (i.e. ratios we designate "constants"), with this, our current "anthropic" universe just one of many possible universe; thus, the plausibility of which alone debunks the "need for" "intelligent" "fine tuning" as the late particle physicist & philosopher Victor Stenger points out at length in his The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning. — 180 Proof
Well, merely saying so doesn't make it so.
Can you at least deduce a contradiction then? — jorndoe
How can you possibly know this? Have you traversed the spectrum? — jgill
:roll: e.g. Casimir effect ... Lamb shift ... Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation ... quantum uncertainty ...I think you are a believer in phenomena such as quantum fluctuations. They do not exist IMO. They are purely theoretical... there is no clear empirical evidence that they exist. — Devans99
the Many-Worlds Interpretation of QFT, especially with respect to QG (quantum cosmology) entails that the Planck Era universe c13.8 billion years ago in superposition (so-called) BB consisted in a countless universes each constituted by every possible physical value (i.e. ratios we designate "constants"), with this, our current "anthropic" universe just one of many possible universe; thus, the plausibility of which alone debunks the "need for" "intelligent" "fine tuning" — 180 Proof
I don't really believe in multiple universes, but if they do exist, then which of the following is more likely:
1. They are all made of completely different stuff and evolve in completely different ways
2. They are all made of similar stuff and evolve in similar ways
I think the 2nd is much more likely, leading to the conclusion that most or all such universes support life; a conclusion that fatally undermines the so called strong anthropic principle. — Devans99
I think the 2nd is much more likely, leading to the conclusion that most or all such universes support life; a conclusion that fatally undermines the so called strong anthropic principle — Devans99
You keep saying so without showing it. :confused: — jorndoe
He won't even consider Hawking's no boundary hypothesis — Gregory
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.