The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[AndyT_81]

Calling all atheists and agnostics (and anyone else for that matter). What are your most serious contentions with the Kalam Cosmological argument, i.e.:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist (demonstrated either via the impossibility of an infinite past or scientific evidence)
3. Therefore the universe began to exist

What is your major objection? Do you think QM disproves (1)? Or do you think that an infinite past is possible, thereby disproving (2)? Or do you think we can't get to God from reasonable arguments stemming from the conclusion?

Thanks in advance for your input

[Goat]

I don't find the second premise very convincing, but I am more interested in the truth of the first premise. Every event ever witnessed so far requires at least a formal cause, even in quantum level. That's beside the point though, since the first premise is essentially asking whether something can come out of absolute nothing. To say that it is possible makes as much sense to me as saying that two times four apples can equal ten apples.

What is the cause of virtual particles/quantum fluctuations?? They do not have a formal cause.

As said before, virtual particles can only occur in space/time, therefore space and time are the necessary causes.

That is a condition need, that is not a cause. there is a difference. DO you understand??

[instantc]

I don't find the second premise very convincing, but I am more interested in the truth of the first premise. Every event ever witnessed so far requires at least a formal cause, even in quantum level. That's beside the point though, since the first premise is essentially asking whether something can come out of absolute nothing. To say that it is possible makes as much sense to me as saying that two times four apples can equal ten apples.

What is the cause of virtual particles/quantum fluctuations?? They do not have a formal cause.

As said before, virtual particles can only occur in space/time, therefore space and time are the necessary causes.

That is a condition need, that is not a cause. there is a difference. DO you understand??

Wikipedia disagrees with you,

"If x is a necessary cause of y, then the presence of y necessarily implies the presence of x. The presence of x, however, does not imply that y will occur."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

DO you understand?

[Divine Insight]

As said before, virtual particles can only occur in space/time, therefore space and time are the necessary causes.

Where do you come up with this?

How could you ever prove that virtual particles can only occur in spacetime?

That would be impossible for humans to ever prove I would think.

In fact, the theory that hypothesizes that the universe began as a quantum fluctuation actually assumes as a premise that there was no spacetime fabric prior to this quantum fluctuation.

The idea is that this quantum fluctuation itself became the fabric of spacetime and expanded.

In other words, a fabric of spacetime would not be required for virtual particles to appear, but rather the appearance of virtual particles is what actually gives rise to a fabric of spacetime.

So your claim that spacetime is required for virtual particles to appear is totally unfounded and certainly cannot be supported by any evidence whatsoever.

For all we know it was the appearance of virtual particles that actually gives rise to what we consider to be the fabric of spacetime.

That may explain how our spacetime universe came to be from what we could consider to be "nothing".

Only in this case the "nothing" would actually have been quantum fields that are not considered to be part of spacetime.

So you are way out there on an unsupported limb of personal opinion to be claiming that spacetime is required for virtual particles to exist.

That simply may not be true at all.

That's nothing but a personal opinion on your part.

[instantc]

As said before, virtual particles can only occur in space/time, therefore space and time are the necessary causes.

Where do you come up with this?

How could you ever prove that virtual particles can only occur in spacetime?

I can't, but I think I can reasonably assume it.

Can you prove that consciousness can only occur within a brain? No you can't, but we can reasonably assume it, since the two interact each other and have never been observed separately.

[Divine Insight]

I can't, but I think I can reasonably assume it.

I would disagree that it's a reasonable assumption. For all we know the quantum world may very well be what gives rise to the physical world. In fact, based on everything I know about science, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics appears to point in that direction to me. Especially the cosmological observation of the Big Bang and how the universe most likely came to be.

If theories like Inflation are true (some else we can't really know for sure) then the idea that the entire universe began as a quantum fluctuation may also potentially be true. And if that's true, then it may very well be that quantum fields with their random waves of potentiality may have preexisted the physical universe that we currently inhabit.

For me, this is actually my current favorite hypothesis. So I have no reason to think that a spacetime macro universe is required for quantum potentiality to exist.

So no, I would not agree that your assumption is necessarily reasonable. It may or may not be true. But to assume that it is true as a premise for moving forward seems to me to be an awfully huge assumption. An assumption that, if wrong, would invalidate any logic that follows from it.

Can you prove that consciousness can only occur within a brain? No you can't, but we can reasonably assume it, since the two interact each other and have never been observed separately.

This is a huge issue for me as well. I also disagree with you on this one. I do not feel that we can reasonably assume it. Yes I am aware that we cannot objectively measure, record, or observe consciousness. Consciousness is necessarily a subjective experience. Ironically this places it outside the reach of science. Science is not even equipped to deal with it at all. Science can really on deal with objective reductionism. And consciousness cannot be objectively reduced.

Moreover, what would it ultimately need to be reduce to?

The reason this issues if so profound for me is because we are having an experience. So let's take this question into the realm of scientific reductionism and ask the question, "What is it that is actually having an experience?"

Can this question be reduced in science to simpler parts? I claim that it cannot be reduced to primal parts. The reason being that we have no fundamental constituents to point to that can have an experience. Can matter or energy have an experience? Can atoms or electromagnetic waves have an experience?

If our brains are nothing more than a collection of atoms and electromagnetic waves, neither of which are capable of having an experience, then how can a brain have an experience?

The greatest irony in all of science is to claim that experience is an emergent property of complexity. Why is this so ironic? Well, because all of science is built upon the concept of reductionism. Yet now it's proclaiming that some phantom abstract concept arises from complexity can have an experience.

To me this is utterly absurd and totally unscientific. It's certainly doesn't fit in with the concept of reductionism. It makes no sense scientifically to say that constituent that cannot have an experience and suddenly have an experience if they are put together in complex enough ways. It still doesn't answer the question of exactly what is having an experience.

A mystical view of reality does answer this question. Granted not in a scientific way but in precisely the opposite of the scientific method. Instead of appealing to reductionism (which obviously cannot explain conscious awareness) it appeals to holism (which does explain conscious awareness, albeit in a mystical way)

Mysticism suggests that there exists a mystical mind. (It's mystical in the sense that it is indeed a mystery of how it works or how it can exist). But let's face it, even attempting to reduce reality to scientific reductionism we still end up with mysticism. How so? Well, it's still mystical how anything physical came to be in the first place. It's also even a greater mystery of how this physical stuff that cannot have an experience on its own and got here without explanation could evolve to become something that can have an experience.

In other words, the hypothesis of reductionism (i.e. Science) is actually every bit as mystical and illogical as the hypothesis of holism (i.e. Mysticism). They are actually on the very same footing. They are both equally absurd.

In the holistic view of mysticism is the idea is that there exists a mystical mind (call it "God) if you like. The physics of this mind may actually be describe in-part by Quantum Mechanics. This mind may be the underlying essence that gives rise to the physical universe.

If this is true (and I'm not saying that it is) then life is but a dream of this underlying quantum mind. The entire physical universe is a dream of this underlying quantum mind. And the thing that is experiencing this dream is the quantum mind.

Now you may say, "When a brain is not active there is no consciousness". So what? If the quantum mind (let's call it God for fun) is dreaming up this universe and viewing the dream through the portals of biological brains, then when those brains are not functioning that experience is indeed temporarily lost during the time that portal is out of commission. So this explains why conscious awareness can only be had through a brain portal. And can be restored when that portal is restored.

However, the underlying entity that is actually having this experience is the "God" or quantum mind of reality.

Does this sound far-fetched? Sure it does.

But then so does the idea that a bunch of physical stuff came to be and eventually evolved to have some sort of emergent property of an awareness.

That is equally absurd, IMHO.

And as I've pointed out, this is contrary to the reductionist nature of science. Science proclaims to be able to explain things via reductionism. But when it comes to consciousness they make a complete and unwarranted about-face, tossing reductionism out the door entirely and making up a whole new concept of "emergent properties of complexity" that can have an experience.

What? An abstract concept of dubbed emergent property is having an experience?

What scientific sense does this even make? It's not even based on reductionism any more. It's just a desperate abstraction to try to make an excuse for why reductionism can't even remotely be applied to the situation.

So for me this question of what is actually having an experience is far from being answered.

Science doesn't answer this question at all.

Mysticism does answer it, but unfortunately in a mystical way with no proof that its right. But at least it offers an answer. Life is but a dream being dreamed by some sort of higher being that we simply can't comprehend.

That is an answer, albeit not a scientifically satisfying one.

But like I say, is the answer of science anymore scientifically satisfying?

Not for me it isn't. Scientists rely on reduction until the concept of consciousness comes up and then they appeal to an abstract notion of complexity. That's scientific heresy.

Also science investigates objective reality. But conscious awareness is entirely a subjective experience that can not even be made objective.
So for science to even address the phenomenon of subjective conscious awareness from the stance of objective research is also scientific heresy.

Can't scientists simply confess that maybe science has some limitations?

[instantc]

I can't, but I think I can reasonably assume it.

I would disagree that it's a reasonable assumption. For all we know the quantum world may very well be what gives rise to the physical world.

That would be consistent with the KCA premise (1), as the only thing it denies is that something can come out of absolute nothing.

[AndyT_81]

Hi all, sorry for being away for a while.

Divine Insight,

I would disagree that it's a reasonable assumption. For all we know the quantum world may very well be what gives rise to the physical world. In fact, based on everything I know about science, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics appears to point in that direction to me. Especially the cosmological observation of the Big Bang and how the universe most likely came to be.

If theories like Inflation are true (some else we can't really know for sure) then the idea that the entire universe began as a quantum fluctuation may also potentially be true. And if that's true, then it may very well be that quantum fields with their random waves of potentiality may have preexisted the physical universe that we currently inhabit.

What universe genesis model are you discussing here? Inflation is involved in models which don't necessarily involve quantum tunneling. In any case, I assume you're talking about Vilenkin's tunneling from nothing model, or the Hartle-Hawking no boundary model. There are issues with these models - the first is that QM transitions are always between classical states (i.e. on either side of a potential barrier, where classical particles could operate without issue). Quantum tunneling of the universe from a "nothing" state of null geometry is not a classical state. Second, the "prior" state in both Vilenkin's and the Hartle-Hawking model do not contain realistic energy fields - they violate the uncertainty principle as they allow a truly zero energy. Rather, if the prior state was realistic, there would be a zero point energy of this prior state (like the quantum harmonic oscillator), and therefore this tunneling "object" would have momentum and would exist in a tiny oscillating big bang universe (i.e. with a scale factor > 0) - this state would eventually decay into a classical de Sitter space of our universe. Therefore, it too would have a finite life and therefore a beginning. See page 41 of http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9712344v1.pdf

In any case, let's assume for the time being that somehow the "prior" state of the Vilenkin or Hartle-Hawking was feasible despite being in contradiction of the uncertainty principle. Here we somehow have all the physics required for universe formation in a single, dimensionless point. What exactly exists in this state? It can't just be the mathematical "laws" that we have used to describe how physical reality operates - these are simply abstract objects of a propositional nature and therefore cannot stand in causal relations to anything (unless, perhaps, such laws are actuated by a creative intelligence). Rather, something physical must exist in this state which these laws attempt to describe - but what sense can be made of some physical reality existing where nothing physical can reside (i.e. a null topology)!?

[NoisForm]

That is a condition need, that is not a cause. there is a difference. DO you understand??

Wikipedia disagrees with you,

"If x is a necessary cause of y, then the presence of y necessarily implies the presence of x. The presence of x, however, does not imply that y will occur."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

DO you understand?

I don't think you understood Goat's meaning. I believe they were clarifying the distinction between a condition (necessary or not) and a cause - they can be and often are distinct. e.g.- An oxygen atmosphere is a necessary condition for me to exist, but this does not make oxygen the cause of my existence.

[Artie]

Can this question be reduced in science to simpler parts? I claim that it cannot be reduced to primal parts. The reason being that we have no fundamental constituents to point to that can have an experience. Can matter or energy have an experience? Can atoms or electromagnetic waves have an experience?

If our brains are nothing more than a collection of atoms and electromagnetic waves, neither of which are capable of having an experience, then how can a brain have an experience?

If a cell is just a collection of non-living atoms and molecules how can it be said to be alive?
If your body is nothing more than a collection of atoms and molecules that aren't alive, how can you be alive?

A murderer can simply say that he didn't kill the person because the person was just a collection of non-living atoms and molecules so the person wasn't alive in the first place. Or he could say that since you say that consciousness isn't a product of the brain murder is impossible since you and your consciousness would survive anyway and all a murderer does is the equivalent of highjacking and wrecking a car with the owner of the car just leaving unharmed. How would we have to change our morality and justice systems if your view is correct?

[AndyT_81]

Hi NoisForm,

I don't think you understood Goat's meaning. I believe they were clarifying the distinction between a condition (necessary or not) and a cause - they can be and often are distinct. e.g.- An oxygen atmosphere is a necessary condition for me to exist, but this does not make oxygen the cause of my existence.

Not solely, but if oxygen was removed you would cease to exist given the type of being you are (i.e. given your form). Therefore the presence of oxygen is a necessary but not a sufficient cause of your continuing existence. It was also a necessary part (but not sufficient) of your efficient cause - that is, you would not have been able to be conceived without oxygen.

Similarly, the existence of quantum fields with the appropriate characteristics, or space-time itself, is a necessary (but not necessarily sufficient) cause of the existence of virtual particles. To affirm otherwise is to agree that something can come from absolute nothing.