Perhaps now you can better appreciate my efforts towards independent inferential thinking in response to what you write. — ucarr
I'm not saying that. Again, I'm saying this:Contrary to my interpretation, you're saying that"there can be somethingoutside of spacetime?" Yes or No? — Gnomon
for the reasons given in that post.there is no "outside of space-time" (or "beyond" with "possibilities") ... — 180 Proof
No apology needed.If I mis-interpreted your Immanentism position on the all-inclusive, no exceptions, expanse of space-time, I will apologize in this thread.
I don't think so. BBT explains only the development of the current structure of spacetime (see R. Penrose's CCC¹) and not its "origin". Btw, in reference to quantum cosmology, I prefer the Hartle-Hawking No Boundary Conjecture² instead.But you would have to either reject the Big Bang theory outright, or ...
On what grounds do you assume "space-time" was "caused"? It seems to me, Philosophim, you're asking, in effect, "what caused causality?" :roll:My question to you is: "What caused space-time?" — Philosophim
No, not "first" but only: existence, being sui generis, is the only cause of everything – causality itself – which in Relativistic physics is often described as the "Block Universe" or in metaphysics, as Spinoza conceives of it sub specie aeternitatus, as "substance" (i.e. natura naturans³)⁴.If there is nothing prior which explains why space-time had to have existed forever or exists as it does, then we have reached a first cause. It is the cause of all other things, yet has no cause for its own being besides its own existence.
I am currently unable to understand your ideas, and I am respectfully asking you to clarify them if you want me to remain engaged. — Philosophim
that's poetry, not anything based in actual fact. — Philosophim
I think you missed the point of my philosophical distinction between inferred Belief (certitude) in a Cause, and a scientifically-proven Fact of the Agent (bacteria) of an Effect (meningitis). The footnote gave the context*1. David Hume defined the concept of Causation as an inferred mental relationship, not a physical thing*2. Correlation does not prove Causation. If you don't agree, you can argue with Hume. From that philosophical perspective, the First Cause is an abstract concept, not a white-haired old Deity with a magic touch. :smile:After going to the doctor with mild symptoms, you're told your spinal column is infected with pneumococci bacteria. Since it's believed this infection causes spinal meningitis, you're advised to immediately undergo an aggressive program of antibiotics within the intensive care unit. Explain why you wouldn't dismiss this diagnosis as uncertain causal-belief-not-fact and go home untreated, or would you go home? Would you go home untreated, betting on fact-based-mind-over-uncertain causal-belief? — ucarr
I can see why Hawking's spherical universe "conjecture" fits your Immanent belief system better than the Big Bang theory's exploding pin-point (Singularity) imagery. To each his own.I prefer the Hartle-Hawking No Boundary Conjecture² instead. — 180 Proof
On what grounds do you assume "space-time" was "caused"? It seems to me, Philosophim, you're asking, in effect, "what caused causality?" :roll: — 180 Proof
No, not "first" but only: existence, being sui generis, is the only cause of everything – causality itself – which in Relativistic physics is often described as the "Block Universe" or in metaphysics, as Spinoza conceives of it sub specie aeternitatus, as "substance" (i.e. natura naturans³)⁴. — 180 Proof
I think you missed the point of my philosophical distinction between inferred Belief (certitude) in a Cause, and a scientifically-proven Fact of the Agent (bacteria) of an Effect (meningitis). The footnote gave the context*1. David Hume defined the concept of Causation as an inferred mental relationship, not a physical thing*2. — Gnomon
Causality doesn't care whether you observe it or not. — Philosophim
This theory does not care about whether we are accurate in any particular causality, it is about causality as a necessary reality. Human minds are not required. — Philosophim
Describe a situation in nature wherein necessity is important apart from sentients. — ucarr
Necessity is not important... — Philosophim
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around, it still vibrates the air molecules. — Philosophim
Necessity is not important...
— Philosophim
That's why you've been working your ass off with this conversation for months running? And by the way, who says "What is is not important?" Just because humans aren't necessary, that doesn't have to mean they aren't important. — ucarr
Describe a situation in nature wherein necessity is important apart from sentients — ucarr
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around, it still vibrates the air molecules.
— Philosophim
So, you've been relaxing under island breezes.
Seems fitting after slaving in the trenches for a just cause. — ucarr
Well, technically, Deduction from data*1 is just one way to understand Change in the world. It begins with observation of a general principle ((transformation ; metamorphosis) and subtracts (abstracts) everything that is not consistently associated with observed Effects. When Induction and Abduction also agree on the Deduction, we can be pretty sure that the Cause and Effect are correlated by some transformational Principle, that we call "Causation" --- or in some cases "Agency". And yet, due to the limitations of data and reasoning, mere Correlation of variables does not prove Causation. We could be missing something.I think you missed the point of my philosophical distinction between inferred Belief (certitude) in a Cause, and a scientifically-proven Fact of the Agent (bacteria) of an Effect (meningitis). The footnote gave the context*1. David Hume defined the concept of Causation as an inferred mental relationship, not a physical thing*2. — Gnomon
You and Hume characterize causation as deduction? — ucarr
When Induction and Abduction also agree on the Deduction, we can be pretty sure that the Cause and Effect are correlated by some transformational Principle, that we call "Causation" --- or in some cases "Agency". And yet, due to the limitations of data and reasoning, mere Correlation of variables does not prove Causation. We could be missing something. — Gnomon
Do you assess this lack of proof as a metaphysical issue? — ucarr
Assumption (towards reductio ad absurdum): infinite temporal past.
Let's enumerate past days up to and including last Wednesday as: {..., -1, 0}. That is, there exists a bijection among those past days (including Wednesday) and the non-positive integers.
Now come Thursday.
We find that {..., -1, 0} cannot accommodate Thursday.
Let's (re)enumerate the same past days but including Thursday as: {..., -1, 0}. That is, there exists a bijection among those past days (including Thursday) and the non-positive integers.
We find that {..., -1, 0} can accommodate Thursday.
The two findings are contradictory: {..., -1, 0} both cannot and can accommodate Thursday.
Therefore the assumption is wrong, an infinite past is impossible.
Wittgenstein overhears someone saying "5, 1, 4, 1, 3. Done."
He asks what that was about, and they respond that they just finished reciting π backward.
"But, how old are you?"
"Infinitely old. I never started, but have been at it forever and finally finished."
I keep coming up short, suggesting that an infinite past (duration) is not logically contradictory/impossible. Maybe "seemingly absurd" is more fitting? — jorndoe
What kind of "proof" --- for a "metaphysical issue" --- would you expect to find, as a philosopher? Can we send a philosophical space-probe back in time to find the empirical First Cause of the Cosmos? Can a valid logical argument prove the truth (existence/reality) of a metaphysical belief?I'm asking if work towards finding a proof is more appropriate for the philosopher than for the scientist. — ucarr
Exactly! What we call "Causation" is not a physical or mechanical Force, but a logical inference from observation of sequential physical changes.I'm not sure about the universe as a whole, but physics is giving up on causation in the physical sense - a lot now is more like logical causation. In general relativity, a big mass, like the Earth, curves space, and that gives the illusion of a force of gravity, but there is no such force in physics anymore. And there is no mechanism for how the mass manages to curve space. Similarly in quantum mechanics, the Schrodinger wave equation does not let the electrons in an atom collapse into the protons in the nucleus, even though no force is created to oppose the electrical attraction pulling them in. How does an equation accomplish that? Sounds more like logical causation to me. — Gary Venter
Instead of trying to demonstrate why the conclusions here are false, try instead to prove that a first cause logically cannot exist. In other words, present to me a logical universe in which no first cause exists. — Philosophim
Can you accept a paraphrase of: "A logical first cause is necessary" as follows: "Everything must have a beginning"? This is another way of examining logical necessity of first cause through the lens of an eternal existence. — ucarr
*The incoherence of "A first cause is logically necessary" -- per your "argument" -- is the unexplained leap from nothing to something. — ucarr
If we imagine a structure of existence featuring multi-verses, then I speculate that multi-verse, in parallel with the single universe structure, logically precludes a universal first cause for the totality of multi-verses, but not for independent universes with local first causes. — ucarr
seems to be reasoning from the assumption that the physical universe --- space-time, matter, energy --- could possibly be self-existent, hence no need for a First Cause or Creator. If so, the postulated Multiverse would be either infinite in parallel, in the sense of Many Worlds, or a serial re-incarnation of a single self-existent 'Verse.Let me give you an example. Lets say that space has always existed. What caused space to always exist? Nothing. Therefore space is a first cause. It is something within causality that itself was not caused. So no, an eternal universe does not preclude a first cause. Why is the universe eternal opposed to not? What caused it to be that way? Nothing. — Philosophim
↪ucarr seems to be reasoning from the assumption that the physical universe --- space-time, matter, energy --- could possibly be self-existent, hence no need for a First Cause or Creator. — Gnomon
Gravity (pulling action without material connection) was a mystery to Newton, and a mathematical/logical concept to Einstein. His immaterial notion of causation may be related to his incredulous "spooky action at a distance" characterization of quantum entanglement, which involves sharing Information. In the 21st century, scientists have correlated Causal Energy with Knowable Information*1. :smile:A lot here but very interesting. It does remind of Hume's argument that we do not observe causation, just a sequence of events, but we impose it on to the experience, more or less conceptually. — Gary Venter
What is warped by Gravity is not just space, but Space-Time, which seems to include everything in the universe ( Space : matter ; Time : energy ). The quantum fields (17 types???) are not material objects, but Mathematical/Logical relationships between infinite "quantum oscillators" --- whatever that is. For my own philosophical purposes, I imagine the Quantum Field as Aristotle's eternal Potential, which when Actualized into space & time (matter & energy) becomes everything in the world that we can sense (i.e. Reality). :nerd:Physics has no theory of how matter can warp space-time. . . . the quantum field is what is fundamental and that in itself actually creates space through informational effects. — Gary Venter
Einstein's E=MC^2 equation related invisible Energy and mathematical Mass to a dimensionless logical constant, which together we humans experience as Matter. Plato also related "rational principles" (Forms) with the creation of physical matter. Was he on to something, that took centuries to be expressed in a simple T-shirt equation? :joke:a lump of matter is built up from something pretty non-material. . . . they are waves of information — Gary Venter
Your comments remind me of my own Information-based philosophical worldview. We seem to be thinking along the same lines.conscious potential . . . the essential nature of matter and consciousness are the same — Gary Venter
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.