There is no centre to the expansion apparently:

http://physicsfaq.co.uk/Relativity/GR/centre.html

Space itself is expanding so nowhere/everywhere is the centre. Spacial distances have to be measured relative to something else than the Big Bang.

This is a question I find very confusing.

With the Big Bang and inflation, all points in space are expanding. The analogy used is an inflating balloon - there is meant to be no centre to the expansion - if the balloon is deflated, all points become the centre. So maybe it is valid to say all points in space were once the centre of the universe.

But it seems to me that some points in space are more 'central' than others? IE those expanding less quickly than others would be closer to the centre of expansion. So I would have thought that there would be a centre to the expansion?

But then astronomers report a strict proportionality between the distance of remote galaxies and their recession rate - there does not seem to be any reported asymmetry that you might expect if we were on the edge of the expanding universe and galaxies closer to the centre of expansion were visible to us.

So without a spacial centre of the universe, it seems assigning spacial coordinates to positions of objects in the universe has to be done relatively rather than absolutely.

The Big Bang took place about 14 billion years ago so assigning temporal coordinates seems possible.

Perhaps we have some astronomers who can explain exactly what is going on?

I think making a distinction between faith in a property/characteristic of God and faith in the existence of God helps.

So we can say faith in the existence of God cannot be misplaced (if God exists).

But if person X believes in God with property A and not B, and person Y believes in God with property B and not A, then I think you could argue that one person's faith in a characteristic of God must be misplaced.

I am not sure what to say when you claim plants have similar intelligence to man. Signs of intelligence include communication, society, technology, none of which plants demonstrate.

I think it is actually hard to segregate the animals; even seemingly simple animals like ants are self aware (they pass the mirror test) so I think we have to show respect for all animals small and high.

In an ideal world, humans would be capable of photosynthesis; we could take our energy from the sun directly. Maybe our skin can be genetically reengineered to be solar panels?

And so with your creature. But the real problem with all of your posts - most of them, anyway - is that you fail to acknowledge your real problem, that of origins. Let's for the sake of argument suppose there really is a fourteen headed dragon who created the universe and all and everything in it, and that the dragon has any power you care to allow it. There's still the question of where it came from, & etc. — tim wood

God did not come from anywhere - he is a permanent fixture of reality - uncreated / no cause / outside time.

Time cannot just recede into a past eternity - that leads to infinite regresses which are impossible. Nothing can exist permanently in infinite time. But can't get something from nothing, so something must have existed permanently - we need something to exist permanently and it can't exist permanently in time. So the only answer is to have something permanent outside of time. This is what I call God. You are correct that I have no idea of his actual form. A fourteen headed dragon cannot be completely ruled out.

Man and a cornstalk? Similar kind of intelligence. — Shamshir

I said the higher animals have a similar intelligence to man. Plants only have a very limited form of intelligence.

Then you're saying God was the first species and it moderates the later species; since when did the child not have greater potential? This is improbable. It's likely there was the first event, and it came in multiples, or multiple species were born, perhaps of the forces which govern afterlife. — Schzophr

I think God is an uncreated singleton. He has nothing to do with bisexual reproduction so the ideas of species/family/sex are all inapplicable. It is merely traditional to refer to God as 'He'. Returning to the primer mover / first cause cosmological arguments; something has to move of its own accord and create everything else. Something has to create time. To be a first cause is to be a singleton. There can be only one first cause.

I don't believe God is smart enough to design advanced life from scratch - its too complex - there are 100 billion neurons in the brain we don't even understand how any of them work - we are too complicated to design directly. So we had to be evolved rather than designed. The universe can be seen then as a giant laboratory for engineering life through brute force, random process of evolution. The dinosaurs were too dumb and cold blooded so they lost the game of evolution.

It looks like we are winning the game of evolution - I think it is two steps forward and one back but then I'm an optimist. But maybe the machines will be the winners when when invent AI? Or maybe we will coexist happily with AI?

I think perfection of lifestyle (maximum pleasure in the broadest sense of the word) is something that all beings including God would naturally be interested in. So the concept of a perfect place (heaven) might fall out of consideration of that. So I'd imagine God will have thought of heaven but not seen any obvious way to achieve it apart from the long road of evolution leading to intelligence and advanced civilisations leading eventually to utopian societies.

Omnipotence and omniscience aren't supernatural concepts. If x can create a universe then surely, even if only in a relative sense, x must be in possession of vast knowledge and power. — TheMadFool

Vast knowledge and power are distinct from omnipotence and omniscience, which I maintain are magical concepts. Both are impossible anyway by the standard definitions: omniscience - knowing even thyself is impossible. Omnipotence - can God create a rock larger than he could lift?

Also, if mere humans can imagine utopia/heaven and work towards it despite severe constraints then how is it that God, able to create entire universes, can't do it? What limits God, makes him incapable of creating a paradise? — TheMadFool

God knows that we will create a utopia eventually so he does not need to do that himself and indeed he is incapable of doing so: there are an estimated 10^24 star systems in the universe; probably all populated by aliens all with slightly different utopian requirements. How is God meant to provide utopia for all these beings? Thats impossible, especially bearing in mind only about 10^10 years since the Big Bang - not enough time to visit all of the star systems.

I think you are expecting too much from God - you are expecting him to wave a magic wand and all our problems go away. He has no magic wand and he does not know in a specific sense of our problems. He created the universe. It is hospitable to life. It might even support life after death. That is and would be a miracle. I think to expect anymore of God is unreasonable.

If you believe God in the realistic sense, please throw away the bible and unname God so that we can define creator scientifically, or try. — Schzophr

I did not mention the bible. I am not christian.

I imagine there was the original species or species selection; this is the only realistic God I believe in. — Schzophr

I think God is more likely a single creature: causality absolutely requires a first cause and the first cause must be able to cause and effect without being effected; IE self-driven and probably intelligent but definitely in the singular. The first cause has to be timeless (so beyond causality - not needing to be cause itself) so I'm not sure how evolution of a species fits in.

Yes there may be systems like heaven and hell - it seems logical - but God is outweighed by science! — Schzophr

I think you can have God and science combined. If I had to choose just one, I'd choose science, but I don't have to make that choice, science and logic point to God IMO.

Would you agree with me that the average person in 2019 CE is living a better life than one in 2019 BCE? You would right? This is because humans have this vision of utopia/heaven if you will. It was, is, and will be a guide to all human planning. Its success is debatable but in very general terms it is being achieved — TheMadFool

I would agree with that. Putting myself in God's shoes again, I would think that God would expect all intelligent civilisations to strive for and mostly achieve utopia with time, so maybe he would think heaven is not a requirement?

I do not believe God is omnipotent or omniscient. I have a more realistic view of God as a being that is not magical and has to abide by common sense laws. I believe for example that it is probable that God used some sort of device like a gravity bomb to cause the Big Bang. It should all be explainable in terms of science and logic IMO without the need to introduce unscientific concepts like omnipotent or omniscient.

A better design is possible. We can think of heaven can't we? Yoi'd have to prove that heaven is impossible. Can you do that? I'd like to know. Thanks. — TheMadFool

Can't be happy with people. Can't be happy without people. Therefore heaven (as commonly defined) is technically not possible.

Putting myself in God's shoes for a second; heaven is tricky. How exactly do you implement the transmigration of the soul for example? How do you ensure a perfect world for all the different types of beings in the universe? So maybe do something simpler first (like the circular time thing I mentioned if that's possible) and then have a long think about if anything better is possible, IE a retrofit of heaven and hell at a later stage.

I suppose there's a lot of mystery in the world. So I try to be open-minded to different beliefs and receptive to criticism. I just find my interpretation of pantheism appealing for the reasons I've mentioned above. — Michael McMahon

In the beginning there would have been one of the following:

1. Some stuff that somehow made the universe
2. God and some stuff. God made the universe from the stuff
3. Gold only. God made the universe from nothing
4. God only. God made the universe from himself

So pantheism has a 1 in 4 chance of being true on this basis.

I think God is benevolent so pantheism brings the problem of evil: if he is benevolent an ever present, why does he not intervene to stop evil? Maybe he cannot intervene in the universe or maybe he has no senses in the conventional basis.

There is a potential problem: parts of the universe are flying apart from each other at faster than the speed of light. So he cannot be a conventional being (as parts of him are causally disconnected from other parts - head cannot speak to toes).

Causality absolutely requires a first cause.

Take an example; the break off shot in pool is the first cause of the pack scattering around the table. Take away the break off (=first cause) and nothing happens.

All instances of causality are inverted pyramids with the first cause being the pointy end and now being the ever growing base of the pyramid.

To deny the above is to deny common sense and much of science.

OK there are some nontheistic religions; but if you look across the globe and historically, I believe theistic religions are more common.

There are no obvious metaphysical arguments to support a nontheistic viewpoint so I believe it would be a less common development.

I don't know how "independent" they are. Seem to be very closely related in geography and in time and in culture — Izat So

I think that monotheism grew out of polytheism but the roots of monotheism are clear in polytheism - there is usually some sort of chief god who was responsible for creation. This chief god morphs into the monotheistic God over time. So most forms of polytheism could be regarded as proto-monotheistic.

I think that the argument from causality for a first cause is so obvious that it will have occurred to many people across the ages. Aristotle mentions it, St Thomas Aquinas goes to town on it; surely it will have occurred in other cultures too? A first cause for causality naturally leads to some sort of creator God, which leads eventually to monotheism.

All I'm saying is that the idea of monotheistic God is an accident of a very brief period of recent human history, which itself is extremely brief in the context of geologic history, and although the idea of God is meaningful to some of us, it has no sense without us — Izat So

The idea of monotheism arose independently in different human cultures. It is quite a natural idea to look at creation and wonder who made it. I think that aliens will also believe in a monotheistic deity of some sort; it makes sense from metaphysical arguments like the argument from causation etc... These arguments are just logical and transcend any particular culture.

Thank you!

False. You are simply redefining the cosmological model I defined. Here's an article by a physicists that explains why the world must be fundamentally quantum mechanical: — Relativist

There is at least 10^53 kg of matter in the observable universe. That needs a macro explanation involving causality not a micro explanation. The most successful cosmological theory we have is the Big Bang and it is a macro theory. I await a macro explanation of your theory. You have not even explained where the matter comes from. Also:

- Natural process always occurs in pluralities. The creation event was a singleton; that means it is not natural
- Natural processes tend to classical equilibrium; not to a Big Bang
- Natural processes do not start out in a classically low entropy state (I do not buy the Many Worlds interpretation).
- Natural processes do not result in a fine tuned universe

Your preferred theory seems complex and relies on a lot of hypotheticals. It flaunts the fundamental principle of equilibrium. Its far from Occam's Razor. I am afraid it is not high on my list of possibilities.

For sake of discussion, let's assume the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is true. This means that each eigenstate of that superposition can actually change independently of each other. An eigenstate of high energy has low entropy and results in inflation (a "big bang"). But the overall quantum system is still at zero point energy (i.e. the quantum system remains at "equilibrium") because there is a complementary eigenstate of high negative energy that balances it out. — Relativist

To be responsible for all the matter/energy of the Big Bang, the system must be huge; IE a classical system first and a quantum system second. The system would head towards some form of classical equilibrium; the exact opposite of the Big Bang.

You are trying to use the physics of the micro world for a macro problem. Classical systems may theoretically be represented by an overall wave function but classical systems to not behave like quantum systems; there is no superposition of states in a classical system; the system is in one state only and that state tends to equilibrium.

I do not buy the Many Worlds interpretation of QM at all; non-local hidden variables like Bohemian mechanics sound more reasonable to me.

QM is relevant to working out what happened in the singularity; it is not relevant to pre-Big Bang physics IMO because that is a macro question.

There exists something that is permanent: the overall system of quantum fields at zero point energy, but a universe occurs WITHIN this state of "equilibrium" — Relativist

So something permanent exists; IE a timeless, classical system massive enough to generate the universe.

I think the fundamental puzzle here is that time requires change (to create time) and change requires time (to enable change).

My solution is timeless change. The only other solution I can think of is that the first change somehow causes time. But I do not see time as just change. In relativity, the faster things move through space, the slower time runs. So more change seems to equal less time - an inverse relationship. If time is change, then more change should result in time running faster. This does not happen, for example, a mechanical clock (lots of change) tells the same time as a digital watch (less change).

I do not see time as caused by the entropy increase of the universe; time runs the same speed in a system in which entropy is increasing quickly as it does in a system where entropy is increasing slowly.

A change must take place for time to be created/emerge; so change must be possible without time. I'd argue that a photon appears, travels (no distance) and disappears all timelessly; the act of disappearing timelessly is a timeless change - so timeless change seems possible.

Time is something that must be created; it does not emerge from other phenomena.

You can be skeptical of this cosmological model, but you have to acknowledge it is logically consistent. And if it is logically consistent, then it is false to claim it is logically impossible - as you have been doing. — Relativist

I do not believe a micro theory can explain macro phenomena. QM cannot accurately describe macro systems. There is no superposition of states in a macro system. Macro systems head towards classical equilibrium.

Where does matter/energy come from under your proposal? Does it exist timelessly or is it created somehow? (EG zero energy universe hypothesis).

No. Please consider my description of SOA0: it exists uncaused (because SOMETHING must exist uncaused at the head of the causal chain), and time ensues BECAUSE SOA0 changes to SOA1. Time and change go hand in hand. — Relativist

So SOA0 is timeless and permanent? SOA0 must have permanent existence else it's something from nothing. Then the first change (SOA0->SOA1) causes time?

That first change; time is not extant when it happens and time is a result of the first change so it still looks as if a timeless change is taking place (it just happens that the change taking place creates time).

Consider this an axiom of my model: Time is possible if and only if change is possible. — Relativist

Time does not exist initially, so change is not possible initially by this axiom. So creation of time is impossible by this axiom?

Going from a no time to time situation requires a timeless change.

1) SOAx is a point in time for all x >= 0 (my definition). OR
2) SOAx is a point in time for all x > 0 — Relativist

I am not clear what 'x' stands for in your definition?

One can use God to explain why there's a universe, but this just shifts the question over to God. — Relativist

Why is there God rather than nothing? God is uncaused, timeless, there is nothing logically prior to God, so it's an inappropriate question. God does not have a why property in the same way an idea does not have a length property. IMO the PEQ is answered by this.

Your contention flies in the face of your Fine Tuning Argument. That FTA depends on the assumption the fundamental constants could have been different, and the observation of physicists that most alternative values would have made life (as we know it) impossible. Regardless of whether or not those constants could have differed, if there are other universes that are indeed caused by the same factors that cause ours - there's no reason to think they would be identical in every way, and that makes no sense. Consider that if they were strictly identical, WE would be duplicated and all these universes would be just so many mirrors of our universe. — Relativist

The FTA argument still applies: constants for the whole multiverse could have been different (by consideration of hypothetical multiverses that could have existed with different constants).

Other universes would be structurally different to ours thanks to small variations in the early universe caused by quantum fluctuations. But fundamental stuff like the mass of a quark or the strength of EMR would be the same for all universes (hence all different but all life supporting).

Your adding another ad hoc assumption: that there can be atemporal thoughts. What happened to Occam's Razor? I get that you may feel forced to assume this, to explain how God could atemporally plan - but it is a strike against the plausibility (and epistemic probability) that there exists a timeless, intelligent first cause. — Relativist

I still maintain that time is a thing and to create it requires timeless change. If timeless change is possible then so is timeless thought. Timeless change is required as far as I can see.

Do you accept the implication of your assumption? It implies God is not omniscient (if he knows everything, there's no need to figure things out), and he's not immutable (his knowledge changes in the course of drawing conclusions). — Relativist

I don't think God is immutable; that would be like the block universe view of time. God is not omniscient because it's impossible to 'know thy self'.

Finally, if God can have atemporal thoughts - this entails an infinite regress. Since there's no temporal constraint to a sequence of thoughts, there's an infinite series of prior thoughts. — Relativist

The sequence of thoughts is within some form of timeless causality so there would have to be a 'first thought' that caused all the others I guess. The first thought must be uncaused; maybe it was 'I'm bored'.

There were two ways to get things started (with God/SOA0) I mentioned:

1. timeless change is possible
2. Time is created when the first change happens

Thinking about it, the 2nd implies the first is possible; it all points to timeless change being a requirement; time cannot exist without it.

There's no example of an intelligence existing independently of something physical. A plant is physical. — Relativist

God may or may not be physical; to cause and evade the Big Bang would seem to need an extra-dimensional or non-material quality. We have no examples of the non-physical (excluding concepts) at all so we cannot speculate whether non-physical things can be intelligent. God is from beyond spacetime so may be physical in a different manner than we are used to. He may be physical but not made from the standard model particles.

How can there have been countless eons for God to evolve if time is finite to the past? — Relativist

To create time requires a change so change must be possible without time. So it must be possible for things to happen timelessly. I was referring to the development of God's intelligence as something that might happen timelessly and culminate in the creation of time and the universe.

Relativity says we are all moving at the speed of light in the time direction when stationary. As our speed increases, the amount we are moving in the space direction increases and the amount we are moving in the time direction decreases. If this is taken to the limit as with a photon, you end up with 100% movement in the space direction and no movement in the time direction. Thanks to length compression, the photon can move anywhere in the universe in no time. I wonder if God might be like this; a timeless entity that can move anywhere in the universe in no time?

The way I imagine this is with 3D spacetime. The x-y plane is space and the z-axis is time. Then normal movement involves movement through both space and time, but something like a photon can zip around in space (the x-y plane) without ever experiencing time. Maybe God is something like that?

SOA0 causes SOA1, so I wouldn't call it "beyond causality", I'd just call it uncaused. — Relativist

But the proposed state of timelessness is the only state there is that allows something to be uncaused. Logically the first cause / SOA0 must have permanent existence (can't get something from nothing, so something must exist permanently) which is also only possible outside of time.

No it doesn't. Why should we expect nothing rather than something? Here's a paper that discusses this topic — Relativist

I will have a look at the paper, but from my perspective it is simple: nothing requires no explanation. That there is something seems to require explanation at first. Once it is realised that the 'something' in 'why is there something rather than nothing?' is a reference to the timeless first cause; it becomes a non question: first causes are uncaused, have always existed, have no explanation, have nothing logically prior to them so they do not have a 'why' property.

#2 entails an enormously more complex entity than #1, and thus it seems enormously less likely. — Relativist

If a multiverse exists then I would contend that all universes in the multiverse will be life supporting (because they are all made of the same stuff, go through the same processes and end up at the same temperature/density. I'm aware there are theories to the contrary; I hold them in low regard; they seem to flaunt common sense). If all the universes are life supporting, then the chances are heavily in favour of a fine tuner being involved (else we'd need a billion to one shot to come off).

The plan for the universe must have taken a lot of thought - everything from how to get atoms, elements and compounds to form, through formation of stars and planets, nuclear fusion to provide an energy source for life, the expansion of the universe to avoid a gravitational collapse. I believe thinking would be possible without time (the other possibility is God creates time with his first act, has a think, then creates the universe).

I defined a "moment of time" as a state of affairs that evolves to a temporally subsequent state of affairs. This is consistent with an initial state, SOA0 existing at t0. It is not "something from nothing" because there is no prior state of nothingness; no prior moments. SOA0 didn't "pop into existence" because such a "popping" implies there is something existing to pop INTO. Look at it this way, let's assume time is contingent - it needn't have occurred. So there could have been a reality that consisted of an unchanging SOA0: no elapse of time. This seems to be the sort of thing you refer to as "equilbrium." Why couldn't this have been a logical possibility (though counter to what actually occurred)? — Relativist

OK but that makes SOA0 in a state that sounds like what I call timelessness. Also, the need for SOA0 not to arise ex nihilo suggests that it has permanent existence. So from the above explanation, your SOA0 sounds like a dumb version of my timeless first cause.

Plants are not intelligent (by my definition), but they behave (grow) in ways that are consistent with intelligent behavior, but due entirely to physical, biological activity. Even if you label this "intelligence" of a sort, it is entirely a physical phenomenon. You depend on an intelligence just existing unphysically, and that's not justified. — Relativist

Plants have some form of intelligent including (probably) learning and memory:

Plants respond to environmental stimuli by movement and changes in morphology. They communicate while actively competing for resources. In addition, plants accurately compute their circumstances, use sophisticated cost–benefit analysis and take tightly controlled actions to mitigate and control diverse environmental stressors. Plants are also capable of discriminating positive and negative experiences and of learning by registering memories from their past experiences

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_perception_(physiology)#Plant_intelligence

Intelligence could come in many forms. Perhaps God starts out very dumb but through countless eons develops intelligence - a self-evolving being of some form.

In my model, SOA0 is unique in being uncaused, just as in your model you have a unique, uncaused state (or entity) that exists uncaused. — Relativist

If SOA0 if uncaused then its beyond causality, IE what I'm calling timeless.

This is the pivotal point: both options are problematic. It seems one of them must be true, but there's no objective basis for picking one. You only point to the problems with the option you don't like, while ignoring the problem with your choice. Be open minded! If you want to pick #2 because it's the more optimistic choice, you are free to do so - but admit you're choosing it for that reason, not because it's logically entailed by an argument. — Relativist

If we make SOA0 timeless then the two models seem to be different only in whether there is intelligence present initially. I favour intelligence because:

- To cause the first effect without in itself being effected seems to require intelligence
- The fact that we are in the polar opposite of equilibrium seems to require intelligence
- The fine tuning for life appears to point to intelligence
- The creation of a dimension (time) seems unlikely to of happened naturally

The fact that there is something rather than nothing is already extraordinary - the existence of anything at all defies logic (nothing existing would be much neater - nothing requires no explanation). I admit that making the something intelligent makes it even more extraordinary but that appears to be the explanation that fits best with the facts.

So your issue is specifically the high energy/low entropy state at the big bang. i.e.: you're pointing to the need to explain the big bang. I've pointed out that Cosmologists have developed hypotheses that explain it. We should be able to agree that: 1) there is an explanation; 2) that explanation goes beyond accepted physics. — Relativist

The Big Bang was a singleton; natural events always come in pluralities. Even given finite time, if the Big Bang was natural, we should expect similar (maybe smaller) events to be occurring... but there is no evidence of this. So it is highly likely the Big Bang is non-natural (it looks it too).

Cosmologists haven't thrown in the towel - they have proposed extensions to accepted physics that provide an explanation. Your excuse for dismissing these is that it's not consistent with experience, but ALL explanations that are beyond existing science are beyond experience but you don't apply that consistently since your metaphysical assumptions are all beyond experience. — Relativist

Even if things are beyond experience/science, they should still be subject to common sense/logic. These explanations that dismiss causality, equilibrium and probability are running counter to common sense/logic. I am happier with common sense rather than speculative physics.

Some of the cosmologists solutions are way of the mark. Eternal inflation; which posits a first cause, is the only main stream pre-Big Bang cosmology and it is God compatible.

False, as worded. Current KNOWN physics does not have an established answer. To proclaim "therefore it must be (or is probably) God is argument from ignorance (God of the Gaps) reasoning. — Relativist

But we can use are common sense. That amount of matter/energy concentrated in one place should in gravitational equilibrium - one big black hole. The fact that it did not result in a black hole is quite remarkable. All naturalistic solutions result in equilibrium... so there must be a non-natural solution... that ties in very nicely with the non-natural circumstances of the Big Bang.

If a first moment cannot exist uncaused then there must be an infinite series of past moments. We are both assuming the past is finite, so it logically follows there was an initial state. — Relativist

A moment cannot exist without something prior to it that determines it. That could be another moment or it could be the start of time. I don't see how in your model you can have this free standing t0 moment that was not caused by anything. That would be a magic moment, a something from nothing. Contrast that to the timeless model; then the cause of t0 has always existed - no magic required.

Depends on the unsupported assumption a timeless entity can cause something, so you just contradicted your claim that you don't depend on this assumption. — Relativist

It's not an assumption; it's a logical necessity. All 5 metaphysical arguments I mentioned lead to a timeless first cause. It's unusual to get so many arguments pointing in the same direction, so I give it a lot of credence.

Which depends on the assumption that "intelligence" can exist independent of something like a brain. Why do you deny that you depend on this assumption? — Relativist

Plants demonstrate intelligence and they have no brain. AI will be completely different from us yet have intelligence. Intelligence could come in a variety of different forms. Intelligence is required to keep us out of equilibrium.

One can work out a model that is consistent with either of these. Option I entails an uncaused, initial state that has a property (I call it "unstable") that necessitates change (and change entails time). This is logically coherent and consistent. — Relativist

There is a choice between:

1. An uncaused initial state
2. A timeless state that causes t0

I see 1 as logically unacceptable; nothing in time/causality can be uncaused; that would imply it existed for ever and things can't exist forever in time. Whereas 2 makes sense for multiple reasons.

You can falsify Option I only by identifying an internal contradiction. You have not. — Relativist

I feel I have; naturalism leads to equilibrium; take a look around you and see. Causality requires a first cause; play a game of pool to verify this. Can't get something from nothing requires something to exist permanently and thats not possible in time.

That everyday experience is entropy. What's the problem? My model is consistent with it. I noted that the initial state was unstable, consequently it is moving toward stability. — Relativist

I don't see how something can evolve towards stability and cause the big bang at the same time - thats surely a contradiction.

And it's more than just entropy; gravity naturally causes the universe to end up in one big black hole, which is a form of equilibrium. The fine tuned expansion of space is keeping us out of entropy.

The macro world is composed of micro components (atoms, which are composed of quarks and electrons). The universe began as a micro entity: the Planck Epoch is the period during which diameter of the universe was less than a Planck unit: "macro"physics could not apply and quantum effects were clearly present and applied to the universe as a whole. Your argument concerns the origin of the universe; if you're going to deny accepted physics to make your case, you've lost the debate. — Relativist

That is our understanding; but physics cannot see before the Planck Epoch. For the massive amount of matter/energy concentrated in one place, there must be some sort of macro explanation. Something must have caused that concentration of matter/energy and physics cannot tell us what.

Those axioms depend on unsupported assumptions, including:
-that it is possible to exist before the first moment of time (t0)
- that a timeless entity can cause something
- that "intelligence" can exist independent of something like a brain
-that something can exist that is not part of the natural world — Relativist

The arguments I gave to not depend on unsupported assumptions. There were 5 arguments and in total they use 3 axioms: causation, can't get something from nothing and equilibrium. There are no other assumptions, just deductions:

- You are assuming that it possible for the first moment to exist uncaused which makes no sense; logically it has to be caused by something timeless.
- Logic demands a timeless entity to start cause and effect off. Its the only way causality could exist
- Logic demands a permanent intelligent entity to keep us from equilibrium.
- Logic demands something must exist outside the natural world to cause the natural world.

OK, but if you're going to claim A is more probable than B, you have to analyze both A and B. You didn't; you hastily dismissed the contrary possibilities solely on the basis that they are contrary to YOUR assumption. Stating that you subjectively "feel" the system reaches equilibrium is just another unsupported assertion. — Relativist

Our everyday experience and knowledge of science tells us that systems tend to equilibrium naturally. I did not feel it was necessary to justify something so fundamental. All one has to do is look around - everything is in equilibrium accept where life is involved.

Repeating the same unsupported assertion that I've refuted doesn't make it possible. You have yet to even comment on the role of quantum uncertainty, which is an certainty if the world is fundamentally quantum mechanical. That the world is fundamentally quantum mechanical is a near certainty - so this is a sterp mountain you must climb if you're going to claim your position is more probable. — Relativist

I believe the uncertainty principle only applies to the micro world. I don't see it applies to the macro world. I've never been totally convinced with the uncertainty principle anyway; if after measuring a particle once, if it is measured a second time to assess how far the original measurement deflected it and to assess the particle's speed, then surely additional information is gathered about the particle? This could be extended to a 3rd measurement, even an arbitrary number of measurements so that position and momentum at the original measurement are known to an arbitrary degree of precision. So I don't see what the uncertainty principle has to do with anything; it is an artefact of lack of imagination when data collecting - it does not reflect anything fundamental in the underlying system.

Each metaphysical argument depends on convenient metaphysical assumptions that you cannot show are probable. If no argument for God makes God's existence probable, than it is at least equally probable naturalism is true. — Relativist

The 5 arguments I gave only use these axioms: causality, conservation of energy and systems tend to equilibrium naturally. These are all fundamental principles of science and common sense. Compare the soundness of these axioms to the muddy/uncertain quantum assumptions of your arguments.

This is is good time to tell you my actual position. I label myself an "agnostic deist." I cannot rule out the possibility one or more of these arguments are sound, so I cannot rule out the possibility of some sort of creator. That said, I note that none of these arguments make a case of a God of religion or for the existence of an afterlife. — Relativist

I am probably an agnostic deist too but I think a much more optimistic one that you! I do not believe in any of the conventional religions.

IMO the chances of an afterlife depend on if this is a future real eternalist universe. One can imagine the universe as an eternal circle of time in 4D spacetime - a torus with time going around the outside of the ring and space being the cross-sections of the torus. It would form a causal loop with the Big Crunch causing the Big Bang. We would all live identical lives over and over again (Eternal Return). This is not as crazy as it sounds:

1. Presentism is impossible; always leads to an infinite regress, its incompatible with the start of time and it is incompatible with the need for something to always exist. So past real eternalism seems possible. If the past is real, maybe the future is too?
2. The only place in spacetime to get enough matter/energy for the Big Bang is the Big Crunch, so a loop in space time would be very neat and tidy and respectful of the conservation of energy
3. Before every moment of time, there must be another moment. So the end of time moment coming before the start of time moment satisfy this requirement of Aristotle's
4. This possibility gains theoretical support from the Closed Timeline Curve; a class of solutions in general relativity that result in causal loops in spacetime - the idea being the large amount of matter associated with the Big Bang / Big Crunch would warp spacetime into a loop.
5. Circular time is the Occam's Razor design for extended longevity. If we have a benevolent deity then I think this is the design he would go for (if its actually possible which it may not be)

So the above forms a valid argument for an afterlife IMO.

You ignored my response: 1) moving toward higher entropy is irrelevant. This view of "equilibrium" is a future state, and consistent with my model. 2) "equilibrium" in a quantum system is a superposition of eigenstates whose values (e.g. energy) varies per quantum uncertainty) - this is the fact that makes virtually anything possible. The system as a whole is always in "equilibrium" but individual eigenstates evolve without violating the balance. — Relativist

Virtually anything is possible but you have to ask whats probable. Would the system reach equilibrium before generating a Big Bang. I feel that is highly probable.

Its a classical system as well and classical systems evolve towards equilibrium - thermal/gravitational/mechanical. Any naturalist solution will evolve towards classical equilibrium unless there is a self-driven agent to keep it out of equilibrium.

You have to accept that my model is POSSIBLY true, unless you can prove it false. The relevance: you're claiming to "prove" God, an ld "prove" = necessarily true, not just possibly true. — Relativist

I accept that you model is possibly true, but the possibility of it being true is not very high IMO.

Each of these arguments is only possibly true. I could develop 100 arguments for naturalism being possibly true. — Relativist

There are strong metaphysical arguments for God; I gave 5. There are no strong arguments against God that I'm aware of. So performing a meta analysis of the available arguments; the probabilities are heavily in favour of the existence of God.

"Equilibrium" entails zero net energy, but manifested as a superposition of eigenstates of different energies consistent with quantum uncertainty. I mentioned this before. — Relativist

Equilibrium is the state that all isolated system head towards. Most likely it is gravitational equilibrium with all matter/energy in one big black hole. You have to demonstrate how your solution avoids equilibrium - it would have to behave in quite an unnatural manner.

It is logically impossible for something to come before t0. I've stated this numerous times, yet you continue to make unsupported assertions to the contrary. SOA0 exists uncaused, and you have the burden to show this impossible - which requires more than merely making unsupported assertions. — Relativist

Then t0 must be timeless. And it must be the first cause of things in the macro world. Which means it must be the timeless first cause.

I do not see why I should buy your model when all the metaphysical arguments point to an timeless intelligent first cause:

1. Arguments from causation (cosmological arguments)
2. Argument from the start of time (the start of time requires a timeless first cause).
3. The necessary being argument
4. The equilibrium argument (this thread)
5. The fine tuning argument

That is 5 good logical arguments for a first cause. That is more than enough for me. Any form of pre-Big Bang physics needs to be compatible with the above arguments. I think your argument fails on all 5 points. The more popular form of pre-Big Bang physics - eternal inflation - is broadly compatible with all 5 so that is a theory I do not dismiss.

Stating "I think your model leads to equilibrium" is worthless unless you can make a case for that necessarily being the case. — Relativist

All isolated systems head towards equilibrium; that is about as fundamental principle as we have discovered in science and your proposed model is flaunting it. An active agent is required to keep the system out of equilibrium.

Gravity dominates the 4 forces and is attractive; I see no mechanism in your model that would cause the expansion of space that is keeping us out of equilibrium.

Quantum fields exist at every point of spacetime. Nothing seems to exist that is not composed of quanta of quantum fields. Conceptually, it leaves nothing out - so it is reasonable to say that spacetime itself is the quantum fields. To claim "spacetime created the quantum fields" is absurd if spacetime IS the quantum fields. — Relativist

But spacetime is not everything; beyond the boundaries of the universe where there is no time; there maybe are no quantum fields; there is no time for anything to fluctuate so there can be no fields.
Spacetime was created 14 billion years ago. So that means quantum fields did not even exist pre Big Bang, how could they exist without time?

Quantum fields are irrelevant anyway; there are 10^51 kgs of matter in the universe - the origin of the universe is a macro question. Our best theory is the Big Bang and it is a macro level theory. Macro problems need macro answers; some poxy quantum fluctuation could not shift 10^51 kgs of matter and it certainly could not cause space to expand.

Stick to my model, the one you're supposed to be falsifying. Remember time is a causal relation between states, not some external dependency. The SOA at t0 necessitates the SOA at t1. t0 and t1 don't exist; they are just abstract markers we use to distinguish between the two SOAs, and to depict their relation. To say that time has elapsed is just to indicate change. — Relativist

There must be something permanent about the universe and your SOA at t0 is not permanent - it is a fleeting moment - what came before it? There must be something causally before it because it is not a permanent feature of the universe.

So you need a timeless t-1 to preexist it. t-1 would contain God.

The foundation of reality (e.g. the quantum fields) exist permanently. They exist by brute fact. They did not come into existence (which would entail a prior state at which they didn't exist) they exist at all times — Relativist

I think your model leads to equilibrium. I also cannot see how a field would be responsible for time and the Big Bang. There is an assumption that quantum fields could exist without spacetime; that may not apply; creation of spacetime may have created the quantum fields - all quantum fields we know about require time.

If history is any guide, it is likely that our current explanations about the universe & reality will - at a minimum - be proven partially wrong - i.e., only correct under certain conditions.

Or for all we know, all our current knowledge may be completely wrong. The entire observable universe could be a pimple on a much larger reality. — EricH

That is correct, but we won't make any progress throwing our hands up and saying we don't know. The trick is to stick to broad brush metaphysical arguments like causality and equilibrium; then you don't fall fowl of specific scientific knowledge.

Is there any way for change to come about? Does change need to be created? — Terrapin Station

I am not sure. Maybe the first change coincides with the start of time?

Rather, the first cause is the state of affairs that exists at t0 — Relativist

That is logically impossible. t0 cannot exist unless there is something causally before it to define it. That has to be the start of time.

There is also a requirement that something must exist permanently and t0 cannot have permanent existence because it is in time; it must be whatever caused t0 that has permanent existence.

I reiterate, the key metaphysical argument here is:

A. Can’t get something from nothing
B. So something must have existed ‘always’.
C. IE if there was ever a state of nothingness, it would persist to today, so something must have permanent existence.
D. It’s not possible to exist permanently in time (always leads to an infinite regress; but they have no start so cannot not be), so the ‘something’ must be the timeless first cause (of time/causality).

Your t0 does not satisfy the permanent existence requirement.

There is one other option: that time is circular; IE this would satisfy the 'before each moment, there must be another moment' requirement; before the start of time comes the end of time. This model still needs a timeless first cause to set time in motion for example.

It depends on what motion we're focusing on. In the scenario you're describing, we usually focus on the watch faces and what they read. We're talking about our measurement of time relative to our concerns there. — Terrapin Station

If change were time, there would be no way for time to come about. The creation of time takes change.

What I wrote was "This is false when we consider them relative to other things, so that we're considering the motion. " — Terrapin Station

But I don't think that's how space time works; the photons are moving in space but not in time from their perspective

Just taking it one step at a time, it starts to go off track with that first premise, if it's saying that there can't be nothing and then suddenly something appears. If it's saying that, there's no good reason to believe that. — Terrapin Station

Its called the conservation of energy. If something came from nothing naturally then we'd be upto infinite matter/energy density by now.

With the "empty space" only as our frame of reference, correct, time does not pass. If we're broadening the frame of reference to include other things, like the clock, then time would pass. — Terrapin Station

By that logic if I had two clocks, one digital (little motion), one mechanical (lots of motion), time would run quicker for the mechanical clock.

They're misled by the mathematical conventions they're using, where they're basically "worshipping" the mathematics per se, and they see the mathematics as ontologically primary. — Terrapin Station

We have evidence that time slows as the speed of light approaches so I do not see a timeless photon as controversial.

Nope. B time is incoherent. — Terrapin Station

OK what's wrong with this proof:

1. Can’t get something from nothing
2. So something must have existed ‘always’.
3. It’s not possible to exist permanently in time (always leads to an infinite regress)
4. So something must exist outside of time
5. So more than only now exists
6. So presentism is false.

This is wrong. Time is identical to change/motion. — Terrapin Station

Imagine

- a clock
- empty space next to the clock

Are you saying you think time does not change for the empty space (where there is no motion) and only changes for the clock (where there is motion)? That does not make sense to me.

It's not possible to move timelessless, because motion is identical to time. — Terrapin Station

Photons can move the whole length of the universe in no time. They cover no distance doing it due to length compression. The geometry of spacetime is pretty weird.

Re at any rate, so why would we need to posit something that can't move or change in order to say that then something moves/changes? — Terrapin Station

We have to have something existing permanently outside of time... there is no other solution. Presentism is impossible; nothing can exist permanently within the 'now'. It gives the puzzle of how the first cause caused the first effect. I think change being independent of time might be the answer.

Any motion, any change would BE (identical to) time. You can't have motion/change without time, because motion/change is what time is. — Terrapin Station

I think time enables motion. Change maybe possible without time. Photons are timeless yet they appear and disappear - suggestive of change without time. So it seems possible to move through spacetime in the space direction only. Maybe God can do that.

In any case, as I say, God's first act could of been to create time/causality or first act could of caused the creation of time/causality.

It is logically impossible for there to be a moment of time prior to the first moment of time — Relativist

It's not a moment of time prior to the first moment of time; it is something timeless that is causally before the first moment of time.

Time cannot start itself.

Unsupported assertion. I gave a scenario that is internally consistent. You have to show ot's impossible. You're just restating your own unproven assumptions.

[QuoteIf you exist 'always' in time then you have no coming into being; so you can't exist. — Relativist

The state of affairs at t0 did not "come into being". It exists by brute fact.[/quote]

I'm afraid 'brute fact' does not qualify as an explanation. I think a timeless first cause that starts time is a more enlightening explanation.

At any rate, any motion, any change would be time, so you couldn't "start time" from outside of time. — Terrapin Station

Maybe God's first motion creates some form of time/causality? Is this the same time/causality as ours? I am not sure.

Or maybe God is quite different. From beyond spacetime so could even be non-material in which case he might be able to effect change without time somehow.

How is something permanent in your sense of that term supposed to start time? Isn't that something it would have to do? — Terrapin Station

I am not sure. It appears that it was the Big Bang that was the start of spacetime. Matter and time are closely related, time runs slower in the presence of matter. Time would have run very slow approaching the Big Bang. As for the singularity; who knows, maybe that was the start of time. So in 4D space, time would start at the singularity maybe. Perhaps the act of getting all the matter together somehow for the Big Bang causes time to start.

Or it could be something completely different. Maybe time starts with God's first movement somehow.

But in 4D spacetime, time is already treated in a very similar manner to space - IE 4d space. So I was suggesting that 4d space proper could preexist time and time have been created on top of one of the 4 spacial dimensions.

I have defined permanence in terms of eternalism as something in 4D space or 4D spacetime (cannot have permanent existence in time but past/present/future can be permanent).

Unsupported assertion. Meet you burden to show a start of time requires B-theory. — Relativist

Something permanent has to preexist time to cause time. That implies something timeless which is something 'other than only now' so the A theory can't hold.

The first cause is, by definition, uncaused. You know, like God. — Relativist

I have a permanent, uncaused God. The only way to exist permanently and uncaused is outside of time. If you exist 'always' in time then you have no coming into being; so you can't exist. So again the A theory is not compatible - nothing can exist permanently in A theory.

I don't think that the idea of a fourth spatial dimension is coherent aside from it being a sort of "game" we can play with the way we've constructed mathematics. — Terrapin Station

The opposite of 4d spacetime, presentism, is incompatible with a start of time:

1. Assume only now exists (presentism)
2. So before the start of time there was nothing
3. But creation ex nihilo / without time is impossible
4. So something ‘other’ than only now exists

So Einstein might be right.

But okay. So "permanence" isn't referring to a state in your usage. It's a name for a type of object? — Terrapin Station

The key argument from Aquinas's when it comes to permanence is this one:

A. Can’t get something from nothing
B. So something must have existed ‘always’.
C. IE if there was ever a state of nothingness, it would persist to today, so something must have permanent existence.
D. It’s not possible to exist permanently in time (always leads to an infinite regress; but they have no start so cannot not be), so the ‘something’ must be the timeless first cause (of time/causality).

In eternalism everything is permanent in some sense. As you can see from point C above, with presentism something permanent is required but nothing can exist permanently in time - point D - so presentism is impossible by this argument also - another point for Einstein.