Miracles

[JonathanL]

I think he probably meant that the cause must be "logically" prior to the effect, which of course is just as illogical. If the two are simultaneous then the simultaneity would render the terms cause and effect moot.

How so?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Apologies, everyone. I've been unavailable, this weekend, so I have a lot to respond to, here.

No, according to the definition I linked the singularity is a physical entity. And that dense entity began to expand.

Yes, a region of spacetime is a physical entity composed of events which can expand. You still don't seem to understand what the initial singularity is, nor even what a "physical entity" is. The whole cosmos is a physical entity.

And until it did there was no time, nor could there be.

Yet again, this phrase is entirely nonsensical. The word "until" describes a temporal relation between things. It is entirely meaningless if there is no time. Therefore, it makes absolutely no sense to claim "until X, there was no time." If you can describe a situation with the word "until," there must be time in that situation.

And cause and effect as it relates to time - time is event dependent. Without events there is no time.

Events are subsets of time. What you're claiming here is a tautology-- without time there is no time. That does not imply any sort of cause-and-effect relationship, whatsoever.

So do you have any other examples in nature where cause and effect does not apply?

You made the claim that everything in nature follows a cause-and-effect relationship, therefore the burden of proving that claim lies upon your shoulders. I, personally, do not believe this claim because it has not been adequately demonstrated. Are there "causes" which explain the "effects" known as gravity or radioactive decay or the Casimir effect or spacetime? There may be such causes, but then again, there may not. No one has demonstrated that there are, and-- once again-- it does not even seem coherent to suggest that spacetime could be caused.

So you believe that time began to exist with the Big Bang, but that the Big Bang is not the cause of time existing?

I think that it's likely time has a past-boundary, and that our current data place that boundary at the Big Bang. However, I do not believe that there was ever a state of affairs in which time did not exist-- in fact, I believe such a claim to be entirely incoherent. Furthermore, it is incoherent to claim that the Big Bang is the "cause" of time's existence, since the Big Bang is a temporal event.

But your argument is that nothing is in motion, not time, not things, not physical bodies, not physical brains, nothing, so if none of these things is what is experiencing motion, what is it then that you are asserting experiences time and motion.

My argument is not that "nothing is in motion." My argument is that "motion" is a description of change in spatial objects over the physical dimension of time.

It seems to me that the B-time hypotheses implies the existence of something distinct and separable from the physical body that moves through the totality of existing reality. No?

Not in the slightest.

I think he probably meant that the cause must be "logically" prior to the effect, which of course is just as illogical. If the two are simultaneous then the simultaneity would render the terms cause and effect moot.

I'm honestly wondering if you have even been reading the posts which I've written in this thread. I've explicitly argued against the notion that causes can be simultaneous with their effects, and that "logical priority" is sufficient for causation.

There are two problems with this objection. First, not every inference from part to whole commits a fallacy of composition; whether an inference does so depends on the subject matter. If each brick in a wall of Legos is red, it does follow that the wall as a whole is red. So, is inferring from the contingency of the parts of the universe to that of the whole universe more like the inference to the weight of the Lego wall, or more like the inference to its color? Surely it is more like the latter. If A and B are of the same length, putting them side by side is going to give us a whole with a length different from those of A and B themselves. That just follows from the nature of length. If A and B are of the same color, putting them side by side is not going to give us a whole with a color different from those of A and B themselves. That just follows from the nature of color.

Feser doesn't seem to understand "the nature of color" quite so well as he would like. The skin of a polar bear is black, and every individual hair on a polar bear is transparent. By Feser's reckoning, a polar bear should therefore look black to us. However, in actuality, when you look at a polar bear, you see an animal which looks almost entirely white. Similarly, the only colors which the individual pixels of a computer monitor can display are red, green, and blue. Yet, when you combine these reds, greens, and blues, you can get millions of different colors which are not red, green, or blue.

So even his example from color actually does constitute a fallacy of composition.

It seems a natural extension of the reasoning, and the burden of proof is surely on the critic of such an argument to show that the universe as a whole is somehow non-contingent, given that the parts, and collections of parts smaller than the universe as a whole, are contingent.

Firstly, I would certainly be keen on seeing where Feser has demonstrated that all of "the parts, and collections of parts smaller than the universe as a whole, are contingent." That seems to be a rather grandiose and unsupported assumption.

However, more importantly, it still doesn't overcome the inherent composition fallacy. Every single integer, x, is preceded by another integer, x-1, and succeeded by another integer, x+1. That does not imply that the integers, as a whole, are preceded by an integer and succeeded by an integer. Similarly, even if every entity within the universe is contingent upon some other entity within the universe, that does not imply that the universe as a whole is contingent upon anything.

When we judge that a book, an apple, or a typewriter is contingent, do we do so only after first judging that each page of the book, each seed in the apple, each key of the typewriter, and indeed each particle making up any of these things is contingent? Surely not; we can just consider the book, apple, or typewriter itself, directly and without reference to the contingency of its parts. So why should things be any different for the universe as a whole?

We consider the book, apple, and typewriter as wholes because we have experience seeing the contingent origination of those whole objects. Can Feser point to any whole-universes for which he has experienced their contingent origination?

[seer]

You made the claim that everything in nature follows a cause-and-effect relationship, therefore the burden of proving that claim lies upon your shoulders. I, personally, do not believe this claim because it has not been adequately demonstrated. Are there "causes" which explain the "effects" known as gravity or radioactive decay or the Casimir effect or spacetime? There may be such causes, but then again, there may not. No one has demonstrated that there are, and-- once again-- it does not even seem coherent to suggest that spacetime could be caused.

So basically with a finite universe you believe that it came from nothing? Something from nothing?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

So basically with a finite universe you believe that it came from nothing? Something from nothing?

No. I do not believe that it "came" at all, as I do not believe that there was ever a state in which it did not exist.

[seer]

No. I do not believe that it "came" at all, as I do not believe that there was ever a state in which it did not exist.

But you said the universe was finite. It did begin to exist. And how do you know there was never a state when the universe did not exist?

[Adrift]

I think that it's likely time has a past-boundary, and that our current data place that boundary at the Big Bang. However, I do not believe that there was ever a state of affairs in which time did not exist-- in fact, I believe such a claim to be entirely incoherent. Furthermore, it is incoherent to claim that the Big Bang is the "cause" of time's existence, since the Big Bang is a temporal event.

What does "past-boundary" mean to you? Do you disagree with Hawking when he says that time had a beginning at the Big Bang?

Feser doesn't seem to understand "the nature of color" quite so well as he would like. The skin of a polar bear is black, and every individual hair on a polar bear is transparent. By Feser's reckoning, a polar bear should therefore look black to us. However, in actuality, when you look at a polar bear, you see an animal which looks almost entirely white. Similarly, the only colors which the individual pixels of a computer monitor can display are red, green, and blue. Yet, when you combine these reds, greens, and blues, you can get millions of different colors which are not red, green, or blue.

You do realize his analogy was...only an analogy, correct? Any analogy can be extended or dissected till its meaningless. If we limit Feser's analogy to just red Lego blocks, will you agree with his point?

However, more importantly, it still doesn't overcome the inherent composition fallacy. Every single integer, x, is preceded by another integer, x-1, and succeeded by another integer, x+1. That does not imply that the integers, as a whole, are preceded by an integer and succeeded by an integer. Similarly, even if every entity within the universe is contingent upon some other entity within the universe, that does not imply that the universe as a whole is contingent upon anything.

We consider the book, apple, and typewriter as wholes because we have experience seeing the contingent origination of those whole objects. Can Feser point to any whole-universes for which he has experienced their contingent origination?

[shunyadragon]

So basically with a finite universe you believe that it came from nothing? Something from nothing?

No, the Natural Laws 'causes' in this case are not caused by some other thing nor force, nor do they come from nothing. They have infinitely and eternally existed.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

But you said the universe was finite. It did begin to exist.

I believe that it's likely the universe has a past-finite temporal boundary. I do not believe that there was ever a state in which the cosmos did not exist.

And how do you know there was never a state when the universe did not exist?

Because it is not coherent to claim that there was a time when time did not exist.

What does "past-boundary" mean to you? Do you disagree with Hawking when he says that time had a beginning at the Big Bang?

A "past-boundary" is indicative of an earliest possible value for time. A good analogy would be a "north-boundary," which delineates a northern-most possible value over the surface of the Earth-- a boundary which we have named, "the North Pole."

You do realize his analogy was...only an analogy, correct? Any analogy can be extended or dissected till its meaningless. If we limit Feser's analogy to just red Lego blocks, will you agree with his point?

It wasn't an analogy. It was an example of a case in which Feser believed that the properties of a whole can be inferred from the properties of its composite parts. He was explicitly utilizing this example to state that it should be reasonable, therefore, to infer properties of the whole cosmos from things within the cosmos. However, his example does not even hold true universally, thereby undermining his whole point.

[seer]

I believe that it's likely the universe has a past-finite temporal boundary. I do not believe that there was ever a state in which the cosmos did not exist.

Because it is not coherent to claim that there was a time when time did not exist.

But time is a dependent function. It is dependent on events, no events no time. So why couldn't something exist in an event-less state?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

But time is a dependent function.

Time is not a "dependent function." It's not a function, at all.

It is dependent on events, no events no time.

Again, this is equivalent to saying, "Time is dependent on time, no time then no time." It's a meaningless tautology.

So why couldn't something exist in an event-less state?

It's possible that a thing could exist in an event-less state. But it could not be both "event-less" and "before" another thing, any more than it could be "space-less" and "to the left" of another thing.

[seer]

Again, this is equivalent to saying, "Time is dependent on time, no time then no time." It's a meaningless tautology.

No it's not, time is dependent on events. Without events there is no time. An event is not, in itself, time. And it would seem to me that you would need more than one event for time to even be relevant. A single even does not time make. I think you would have to have at least two events before time comes into being.

It's possible that a thing could exist in an event-less state. But it could not be both "event-less" and "before" another thing, any more than it could be "space-less" and "to the left" of another thing.

Why not, why would it be incoherent to suggest that and event-less state became event-filled? In that case the event-less state was prior to the event-filled state.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

No it's not, time is dependent on events. Without events there is no time. An event is not, in itself, time. And it would seem to me that you would need more than one event for time to even be relevant. A single even does not time make. I think you would have to have at least two events before time comes into being.

An event is a particular configuration at a particular moment in time. Events are not entities independent of time. They are functions of time.

Why not, why would it be incoherent to suggest that and event-less state became event-filled? In that case the event-less state was prior to the event-filled state.

Again, this is entirely incoherent. What does it mean to "become" in the absence of time? If the state was not temporally prior, in what sense was it prior?

[seer]

An event is a particular configuration at a particular moment in time. Events are not entities independent of time. They are functions of time.

What do you mean a function of time? You said that time has no influence on anything. And how would one apply time to a single event? That seems incoherent.

Again, this is entirely incoherent. What does it mean to "become" in the absence of time? If the state was not temporally prior, in what sense was it prior?

But I'm not talk about time, I'm speaking of events. An event-less state to an event-filled. Time would then just happen to be a by product of the event-filled state.

[Adrift]

A "past-boundary" is indicative of an earliest possible value for time. A good analogy would be a "north-boundary," which delineates a northern-most possible value over the surface of the Earth-- a boundary which we have named, "the North Pole."

I note that you failed to answer the question, "Do you disagree with Hawking when he says that time had a beginning at the Big Bang?"

It wasn't an analogy. It was an example of a case in which Feser believed that the properties of a whole can be inferred from the properties of its composite parts. He was explicitly utilizing this example to state that it should be reasonable, therefore, to infer properties of the whole cosmos from things within the cosmos. However, his example does not even hold true universally, thereby undermining his whole point.

It was an analogy, but if you prefer, we can use the word "example". If we limit Feser's example to just red Lego blocks, will you agree with his point?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

What do you mean a function of time?

I mean that an event is a description of a certain point in time. It is not something which exists in the absence of time.

And how would one apply time to a single event? That seems incoherent.

It is, but not for the reason you're thinking. The idea of a "single event" existing in the absence of any other events is nonsensical. If there is no time, what makes it an event?

But I'm not talk about time, I'm speaking of events. An event-less state to an event-filled. Time would then just happen to be a by product of the event-filled state.

An event-less state cannot change. A change is an event. If a state is event-less, it cannot "become" event-filled.