An infinite series of finite causes.

[element771]

This post brings to mind an exchange I had in a different thread. Given your scientific background, I'd be curious about your response. My intent was to engage in a thought experiment for the following purpose: see if there was anything about a non-sentient creative force that was logically (or physically?) inconsistent. If it is not, then we can at least posit an possible alternative to "god did it." We cannot, of course, know if it is actual. So I proposed the following:

I appreciate the kind words. I will do my best to rip it apart (this is meant to be a good thing as it is integral to a refining process, you should see some of my grants on their first round...). What I will do will just write down whatever comes into my head when reading your proposed alternative. I will go from the gut so some of this may be answerable or I may think of more later. Here we go....

There exists a realm (I like your "motherverse" term) which is infinite and comprising "stuff" whose very nature is to be in motion.

So immediately you are assuming that this "motherverse" has at least 2 spacial dimensions and 1 temporal dimension. I also don't like the term infinite as infinities are often thrown around too glibly BUT for the sake of conversation, I will ignore this point.

Nothing causes it to be in motion - and it has always been in motion. This motherverse is the first cause.

So here is a problem. I am not clear how nothing can cause the motion. There has to be a first cause of the specific motion in question. You say that the motherverse is the first cause but if it is infinite, how did it "first" cause anything? Also what type of laws are we talking. I will assume that we are basing this universe with laws from ours... It is very hard for me to see how this stuff remains in motion for an infinite amount of time. A fundamental aspect of our universe is the arrow of time in the form of entropy. Barring concerns about entropy, where did the stuff in motion come from? If it just popped into existence, where did it get the momentum to keep in motion in the first place?

Because the "stuff" that comprises this motherverse is in constant motion, it randomly creates regions of greater and lesses density.

So the multiverse is less dense than the stuff in it. Is there enough stuff to create a singularity? Is there any attraction between the stuff? If there isn't and the motherverse is infinite, it is virtually impossible for it to come together at all much less enough of it to come together to for a local high density. In fact, if the motheruniverse is infinite...it seems to me that you could not even have stuff come together randomly if there were an attractive force. Infinite space is very big. ;)

Every so often, a region in this infinite expanse becomes so dense, it spawns a singularity that drops into its own dimension, explodes, and gives rise to a universe.

How would the stuff have access to another dimension? Again, the infinite expanse is very problematic unless there is an infinite amount of stuff. BUT if there is an infinite amount of stuff then you do not get variations in density.

Because the motherverse is infinite, there have been an infinite number of these universes born. Some are born and immediately collapse. Some are born and rapidly expand into heat death. Some give rise to galaxies and stars, but remain barren. Some have exactly the right attributes to give rise to life, and some even to sentient life.

If there are an infinite number of universes that are born and infinite time before "our" universe, I think this represents an issue given thermodynamics. Also it may create weird paradoxes / possibilities...for example, because there are an infinite number of universes...this exact universe can into being an infinite number of times in which an infinite number of me's is typing this exact post. There is also an infinite number of universes where I am the only survivor of a global nuclear war between Texas and New Zealand.

Obviously, we cannot prove this has happened. If such a scenario did exist, we would be trapped inside one of those universes with no way to see outside of it. The real question, to me, is "does this scenario defy anything we know about reason or physics or metaphysics? If not, then it is on the list of "could be." If so, then perhaps I need to more closely examine "god did it."

I think it definitely defies physics. I don't think it is very appealing metaphysically because of all of the weirdness and existing eternally with stuff already in motion (but I am not sure if that means it is impossible).

Or is the entire exercise, in your opinion, pointless?

Not at all...I love thought experiments.

I have found your posts to be informed, and guileless. I would value your perspective.

Thank you very much. I really appreciate that and it means a lot to me.

[Tassman]

The fine tuning argument is not about life evolving or the amount of life being in our universe. It is a problem that pertains the presence of anything in the universe or even that there is a universe that has lasted this long. If you vary the cosmological constant by about 1%, you either blow the universe apart or you collapse in a very small amount of time.

Also, I disagree that the fine tuning problem is a "non-issue" and only a apologetics argument. For example...



Fred Hoyle was an atheist obviously. ]

And he was shown to be wrong. Fred Hoyle was a great sci-fi writer, e.g. The Black Cloud, but he opposed Big Bang theory (despite coining the term (derisively), in favour of his now discredited Steady State theory.

Also there is this....

https://www.ted.com/talks/harry_clif...end_of_physics

I get that you don't buy the fine tuning argument but it is disingenuous to assert that it is a non-issue.

That would be like me saying that the problem of evil is a non-issue so I don't really see why I need to address it. I would imagine that you would find that a little too convenient.

False comparison fallacy.

[element771]

And he was shown to be wrong. Fred Hoyle was a great sci-fi writer, e.g. The Black Cloud, but he opposed Big Bang theory (despite coining the term (derisively), in favour of his now discredited Steady State theory.

False comparison fallacy.

[Tassman]

An existing universe is not the equivalent of a lottery win; it is merely the existence of an entity (the universe) due to a particular combination of circumstances...no positive value judgement is implied. "If things were different, things would not be the way things are". - Prof. Bob Park

was a great sci-fi author, though.

What was he wrong about? The quote was referring to him predicting the resonance energy for carbon formation. A prediction that was verified. He found to strange to say the least.

Ah well, truth is often stranger than fiction.

[Tassman]

But that is exactly what he is saying Jim, I know you don't like it. THE UNIVERSE CREATED ITSELF.

But he did not say it was God. "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." In The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking argues that the Big Bang, rather than occurring following the intervention of a divine being, was inevitable due to the law of gravity. "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

[element771]

An existing universe is not the equivalent of a lottery win; it is merely the existence of an entity (the universe) due to a particular combination of circumstances...no positive value judgement is implied.

You are correct...an existing universe is not an equivalent of a lottery win. But a universe with a number of constants that are just right and could have been different is. One number is the "winner" and when the universe began, the value for that number was "chosen".

"If things were different, things would not be the way things are". - Prof. Bob Park

ok. Not sure what stating the obvious is but ok. Also, if you are going to quote people that support your position, at least try to pick someone that doesn't share your specific point of view. My quotes are from atheists who have no reason to philosophical reasons to agree with my worldview yet share my scientific view. Your example would be like me quoting WLC.


The link to the TED talk was to illustrate the motivations underlying the multiverse hypothesis.

You are shifting the goal posts on me. This was a response to you stating it was a non-issue. I pointed to Hoyle as evidence that there are many scientists who don't agree with you that it doesn't cry out for an explanation. TED talk was also to support that.

was a great sci-fi author, though.

What does him being wrong about the "Big Bang" have anything to do with anything? Scientists are always wrong...that is why there is always more stuff to figure out.

I will have to check out his books.


Why are you wary? Please don't misconstrue this as attacking your motivation, I am just trying to figure out why you think this way.

This blurb could be a fact. I understand that it makes some atheists uneasy in the way that evolution makes some Christians uneasy. My buddy who is a physicist hates the multiverse idea because he thinks it will be the end of that particular line of inquiry. If we cannot, by definition, gather data on anything outside of our universe..what left is there to study about them? I don't agree with him but that is his opinion (he is also an atheist).

My overall point is that there may be some things that science cannot figure out. There may be limits. That doesn't mean that "...therefore God" should be invoked. I think it could be a "soft marker" if you will for God's existence. There is nothing that happens repeatedly in the naturally occurring world that we should not be able to explain scientifically. Abiogenesis makes absolutely no sense to me given what I know about biology. That doesn't mean I leap to the idea that God did it. I don't find that theologically palatable. God should not have to stick his finger in the creation from time to time IMO. It is more fascinating to me that it could happen naturally without a direct intervention.


Ok...can you back up why you think I committed this fallacy as I don't think that I did? It could just be your opinion on what should be compared or equivalent.

[seer]

But he did not say it was God. "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." In The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking argues that the Big Bang, rather than occurring following the intervention of a divine being, was inevitable due to the law of gravity. "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

Right as an atheist Hawking would not invoke a god, but that was not my point which was that he moved from the multiverse theory (which you mentioned) to creation from nothing, and he did mean nothing - the only requirement being the LAW of gravity.

[Tassman]

Right as an atheist Hawking would not invoke a god, but that was not my point which was that he moved from the multiverse theory (which you mentioned) to creation from nothing, and he did mean nothing - the only requirement being the LAW of gravity.

What do you mean by "nothing"?

[Tassman]

You are correct...an existing universe is not an equivalent of a lottery win. But a universe with a number of constants that are just right and could have been different is. One number is the "winner" and when the universe began, the value for that number was "chosen".

did

ok. Not sure what stating the obvious is but ok.

Also, if you are going to quote people that support your position, at least try to pick someone that doesn't share your specific point of view. My quotes are from atheists who have no reason to philosophical reasons to agree with my worldview yet share my scientific view. Your example would be like me quoting WLC.

You did indirectly quote WL Craig, actually in that he has misappropriated your man Harry Cliff's position, as an argument for fine tuning.

The link to the TED talk was to illustrate the motivations underlying the multiverse hypothesis.

You are shifting the goal posts on me. This was a response to you stating it was a non-issue. I pointed to Hoyle as evidence that there are many scientists who don't agree with you that it doesn't cry out for an explanation. TED talk was also to support that.

AFAIK science just works with the universe as it exists without seeking an explanation for why it is the way it is...other than the researching the mechanics of how it works.

What does him being wrong about the "Big Bang" have anything to do with anything? Scientists are always wrong...that is why there is always more stuff to figure out.

I will have to check out his books.

The Black Cloud was his most inventive and best IMO. Mind you, I read it decades ago and may not feel the same about it today.

Why are you wary? Please don't misconstrue this as attacking your motivation, I am just trying to figure out why you think this way.

This blurb could be a fact. I understand that it makes some atheists uneasy in the way that evolution makes some Christians uneasy.

supernatural

My buddy who is a physicist hates the multiverse idea because he thinks it will be the end of that particular line of inquiry. If we cannot, by definition, gather data on anything outside of our universe..what left is there to study about them? I don't agree with him but that is his opinion (he is also an atheist).

My overall point is that there may be some things that science cannot figure out. There may be limits. That doesn't mean that "...therefore God" should be invoked. I think it could be a "soft marker" if you will for God's existence. There is nothing that happens repeatedly in the naturally occurring world that we should not be able to explain scientifically.

Abiogenesis makes absolutely no sense to me given what I know about biology. That doesn't mean I leap to the idea that God did it. I don't find that theologically palatable. God should not have to stick his finger in the creation from time to time IMO. It is more fascinating to me that it could happen naturally without a direct intervention.

Sure abiogenesis is mind-boggling, as is panspermia...as favoured by your man Hoyle...and just as is the accepted BB concept that the density of matter and space-time were contained within a singularity also mind-boggling. The universe is an amazing place.

Ok...can you back up why you think I committed this fallacy as I don't think that I did? It could just be your opinion on what should be compared or equivalent.

https://www.newscientist.com/blogs/c...-for-life.html

[seer]

What do you mean by "nothing"?

What did Hawking mean by nothing? If the universe did CREATE ITSELF as he claimed, and that the only requirement was the LAW of gravity then that sounds like a real nothing. He did not say that it was created from a pre-existing something, if that was the case he could not have claimed that the universe created itself.

[element771]

did

That isn't what I am saying. Producing the universe is not the issue here...it is producing the universe with the right constants. Those are very different things. You are also committing the inverse gamblers fallacy fallacy. The probability doesn't go to 1 just because something happened.

Also, both the lottery and the constants of the universe are modeled as probability functions.

You did indirectly quote WL Craig, actually in that he has misappropriated your man Harry Cliff's position, as an argument for fine tuning.

Not sure I follow. Harry Cliff's position is that he wants to determine why the Higgs boson field and cosmological constant are what they are. Why are they so fine tuned to produce stuff? This is a question and not a position. I have not payed attention to WLC on this issue. If he said something that is similar to what I am saying, it could just be that we have the same way of thinking. If this is the case, it doesn't mean that I lifted anything off WLC or am inspired by his arguments.

We are human...there are always motives. Bernard Roizman refused to accept how Herpes viruses egress out of the nucleus despite overwhelming evidence. Why? Because it was the one thing he was wrong about concerning the viral lifecycle. Also the dude in the TED talk laid out a motivation...to figure out the fine tuning problem. I referenced the motivations to illustrate that this isn't an "non-issue".

If the science leads us to a place that science can no longer reach...we have to accept that.

That isn't a reason to reject anyones views simply because there is a danger. Like I said, it could be simply that that is the way things are and there is no reason.

Every scientific finding can degenerate into a god of the gaps argument.

supernatural

Sure and I generally agree. But if the multiverse theory says that we cannot communicate with other universes, would not that be "beyond the reach of science"? It has nothing to do with the supernatural, it is just a matter of that we reached the limit of what can be measured or observed.

He laments that this would be the end of a branch of cosmology as indicated in the TED talk.


It isn't in the least scientific as science uses methodological naturalism as you well know.

You were comparing the problem of evil (a real theological issue) with the possibility of a fine-tuned universe which has been debunked, i.e. a non-issue. Re the latter:

But hasn't been debunked and it is taken seriously. That is why it isn't a fallacy from my point of view.

fine-tuning itself

This is riddled with errors concerning the state of physics. I laid out all of the "hints" in this thread. If that is why they are going where they are going...they are on incredibly shaking ground. Check out this article on String Theory...

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=5358

Also, if fine tuning isn't an issue...why does your quote suggest otherwise.

[JimL]

What did Hawking mean by nothing? If the universe did CREATE ITSELF as he claimed, and that the only requirement was the LAW of gravity then that sounds like a real nothing. He did not say that it was created from a pre-existing something, if that was the case he could not have claimed that the universe created itself.

He could if he considered the quantum vacuum to be no-thing. You can't see it, feel it or taste it, but there is energy in every inch of space and if nothing else existed but that its what we'd call the quantum vacuum, or nothingness. If a universe arose in that and from that vacuum, then we'd say it came from nothing. I'm not positive that that is what Hawking and others are implying, but I am assuming that be the case. The fact that there is something rather than nothing is a clue to the realization that there is no such thing as nothing, absolute nothing.

[element771]

You can't see it, feel it or taste it, but there is energy in every inch of space and if nothing else existed but that its what we'd call the quantum vacuum, or nothingness. If a universe arose in that and from that vacuum, then we'd say it came from nothing.

Sorry to intrude but this is a problem for me. I believe that the word "nothing" is being coopted to sell books and to be able to simply state the universe came from nothing. I remember in physics class back in the day the prof would actually make a point in saying that even empty space still has "stuff" in it. That was a cool thing about space...even when we can't see anything, there is plenty of stuff going on.

The fact that you say the quantum vacuum is what we call nothing is the elephant in the room. Nothing now means energy and space. Why is it necessary to redefine or call the vacuum nothing?

It is technically incorrect to label the quantum vacuum nothing. This is misleading and not scientifically accurate.

[JimL]

Sorry to intrude but this is a problem for me. I believe that the word "nothing" is being coopted to sell books and to be able to simply state the universe came from nothing. I remember in physics class back in the day the prof would actually make a point in saying that even empty space still has "stuff" in it. That was a cool thing about space...even when we can't see anything, there is plenty of stuff going on.

The fact that you say the quantum vacuum is what we call nothing is the elephant in the room. Nothing now means energy and space. Why is it necessary to redefine or call the vacuum nothing?

It is technically incorrect to label the quantum vacuum nothing. This is misleading and not scientifically accurate.

Well thats just my laymans way of explaining what I believe these physicists are defining as the nothingness outside of our spacetime. Vilenkin describes the universe as coming from nothing as well, but the way that it comes from this nothing is through a process of tunneling. So, if he means absolute nothingness, then what is doing the tunneling, and what is it tunneling through?

[37818]

Well thats just my laymans way of explaining what I believe these physicists are defining as the nothingness outside of our spacetime. Vilenkin describes the universe as coming from nothing as well, but the way that it comes from this nothing is through a process of tunneling. So, if he means absolute nothingness, then what is doing the tunneling, and what is it tunneling through?

There is no such thing as absolute nothingness.