The Nature of Causality.

[LiamOS]

I was close to putting this in the 'Science and Religion' forum, but it's still hard to justify something so speculative as science.

This thread will be for the discussion of the nature of causality(Go figure, eh?) and its theological implications.

I'll preface the thread with the following, just to establish some base from which to discuss.

As best we can tell, we live in a deterministic universe. With the arguable exceptions of quantum fluctuations(This do not amount to any significant uncertainty at macroscopic scales), everything is preceded by a cause.

The very idea of a cause is dependant on time, it would seem. Relativity also comes into play, as you can't cause anything within a time frame at a distance which would cause the information of the cause to exceed the speed of light.(Entanglement is perhaps an exception)

Given that time began with the big bang, is it reasonable to assert(As many Christians, Deists and Atheists alike do) that the universe must have a cause?


Questions for debate/discussion:
1) Is it reasonable to assert that the universe has a cause?

2)- What theological implications would a universe that does not necessitate a cause entail?
- What theological implications would a caused universe entail with a God(Unless otherwise stated, we shall assume the Christian God) as the 'ultimate' cause?

The second half of the last question is also not license to debate compatibilism, for this thread deterministic laws imply no free will worth talking about.

[center]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

With respect to the second half of the final question, I shall voice my opinion on the matter:
With a judging God as the cause for all that is and will be, it is self contradictory and ultimately inane.

[LiamOS]

Grumpy's conclusions about the hydrogen atoms was perfectly warranted, and was one of the bases of General Relativity.

[Miles]

Grumpy's conclusions about the hydrogen atoms was perfectly warranted,

Then I assume you also think everything is at the center of the Universe.

everything is at the center of the Universe.

• "According to the cosmological principle, all points in space ought to experience the same physical development, correlated in time in such a way that all points at a certain distance from an observer appear to be at the same stage of development. In that sense, all spatial conditions in the Universe must appear to be homogeneous and isotropic to an observer at all times in the future and in the past.
  
  This statement implies that there is no center of the universe, since space is declared to be homogeneous and isotropic."
  
  Source: Wikipedia

And that

Every atom of hydrogen in all the water in the Universe once resided dead center in the expansion of that Universe, in the Big Bang itself.

• "Hydrogen and helium atoms begin to form and the density of the universe falls. This is thought to have occurred about 377,000 years after the Big Bang"
  
  Source: Wikipedia

Obviously not having come into existence for 377,000 years, hydrogen could hardly have been in the BB.

[LiamOS]

Well he was obviously wrong on the second count, and he wasn't saying that everything IS the centre, but that it appears to be, which is what the Cosmological principle implies.

[Grumpy]

Miles

"Hydrogen and helium atoms begin to form and the density of the universe falls. This is thought to have occurred about 377,000 years after the Big Bang"

Yes, technically, it was the energy that later formed every hydrogen atom in the Universe. But the point is still valid, everything once occupied the exact center of the event we call the Big Bang.

And just what form of movement would this be? You are evidently positing some kind of independent flow of time, but have yet to establish its existence.

Time is independent only in that it flows no matter what occurs in the other three dimensions. It can not be seperated from space/time.



"If we measure time on the vertical axis and space on the horizontal axis, the paths of the cars appear as shown to the left. Notice that the green car's path is just a line parallel to the time axis itself. This means the green car is staying at the same place in space but moving through time.
A car that stayed at the same moment in time but moved through space would follow a path parallel to the horizontal axis.
We know from observing Nature that such paths are not found. Yet in the Newtonian model for spacetime there seems nothing to prevent such a path from existing.
This is where Einstein and Special Relativity come in, to give us a mathematical model for spacetime that reflects the observed behavior of Nature in that nothing can go faster than the speed of light. (At least not anything observed in a laboratory or in outer space as of yet.) "

http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/pa ... tmtop.html

Well, according to you "motion is just the changing of position in space over time." So I assume that by "motionless" you mean "no change of position in space over time."

The point you did not understand was that there is no such thing as "motionless", there is only movement in relation to other objects. For every frame of reference there is another in motion relative to it.

Quote:
Is there anything that can be pointed to as being motionless?

EXTREMELY doubtful, but if you're talking about my remark about "absolutely everything in the universe where to stop changing," it's just a thought experiment, a "What if" proposition to consider.

OK, but what gives you the idea that motion has anything to do with time's existence? Motion is coupled to time, but does not cause time to exist.

It's all relative, everything is at the center of the Universe. Every atom of hydrogen in all the water in the Universe once resided dead center in the expansion of that Universe, in the Big Bang itself. As far as every atom of hydrogen is concerned, that's where it is right now, that everything else in the Universe moves in relation to itself.

I think you've gotten a bit carried away here. Might want to rethink this one.

I don't. It's how the Universe works. Every point in spacetime now was at the center of the Big Bang, that is just fact. And no observation that can be made will refute what I have said. Every point sees the same Universe stretching all around it and expanding away from it. So no point can be shown NOT to be in the center of an expanding Universe. It is not just an optical illusion, every point IS in the center of the Universe.

Now, that does not mean we are special or that we occupy a special place, we aren't. All points occupy a center of their own.

Grumpy

[Miles]

Yes, technically, it was the energy that later formed every hydrogen atom in the Universe. But the point is still valid, everything once occupied the exact center of the event we call the Big Bang.

No, the point is NOT still valid. Everything did not occupy the "exact center of the universe." Hydrogen no more existed than did aluminum, bismuth, or sugar. You specifically identified the element Hydrogen (H₂), P&E:1, N:0, atomic mass: 1.00794.

Time is independent only in that it flows no matter what occurs in the other three dimensions.

But it's the occuring that brings it into existence. Of course, if you believe it still exists without any occurance then I have to ask, how do you know? Where's your proof, or even your evidence?

The point you did not understand was that there is no such thing as "motionless", there is only movement in relation to other objects. For every frame of reference there is another in motion relative to it.

Oh, I understand alright, but your point is irrelevant.

OK, but what gives you the idea that motion has anything to do with time's existence?

Because motion is how we've come to define it. It isn't as if time was out there waiting for something to happen, or to be discovered. It arises because it's how we've decided to denote the persistence of duration brought about by change. If you feel it exists in of itself, apart from change, all you have to do is come up with the evidence.

Every point in spacetime now was at the center of the Big Bang, that is just fact. And no observation that can be made will refute what I have said.

So, just what is the nature of these "point in spacetime" things that they can be identified as being at the center of the Big Bang?

[Merlin]

Questions for debate/discussion:
1) Is it reasonable to assert that the universe has a cause?

Not really. The assertion has too much baggage. When people hear "first cause" they immediately think of the space-time universe being real when in fact it is nothing more than an image-shadow cast by something more fundamental and even more real: quantum fluctuations that "do not amount to any significant uncertainty at macroscopic scales."

It is more reasonable to explore the question: "What must be in order for what is to be as it is?"

2)- What theological implications would a universe that does not necessitate a cause entail?

The answer to #1 implies that this question is really of no consequence for theology, but it does entail a philosophical a problem for determinists: infinite regress. Atheist Bertrand Russell quipped, "It's causes all the way down." (Or something like it. I can't remember exactly.) However, that cannot be said to hold up under scientific scrutiny; specifically, the indeterminate nature of the quantum.

(Note: Bohr's "indeterminism" is not to be confused with Heisenberg's "uncertainty principle." Heisenberg's "uncertainty principle" assumes the interference of interacting particles that make measurements uncertain; Bohr's "indeterminism" says there is no reason to postulate that such particles even exist. After several discussions with Bohr, Heisenberg added a postscript to his paper admitting he missed essential points and basically retracting it.)

[LiamOS]

It is more reasonable to explore the question: "What must be in order for what is to be as it is?"

But what must be for that to be? This question still leads to infinite regress or something that simply was.

The answer to #1 implies that this question is really of no consequence for theology, but it does entail a philosophical a problem for determinists: infinite regress. Atheist Bertrand Russell quipped, "It's causes all the way down." (Or something like it. I can't remember exactly.) However, that cannot be said to hold up under scientific scrutiny; specifically, the indeterminate nature of the quantum.

Of course it has consequence to theology.
Also, indeterminacy at a quantum level is no reason to assume that the universe isn't deterministic; only that there is indeterminacy at a quantum level.

I'd like you to explain how the nature of quantum mechanics is inconsistent with infinite regress, if you wouldn't mind.

[Grumpy]

Miles

No, the point is NOT still valid. Everything did not occupy the "exact center of the universe." Hydrogen no more existed than did aluminum, bismuth, or sugar. You specifically identified the element Hydrogen (H2), P&E:1, N:0, atomic mass: 1.00794.

Are you not aware that all the hydrogen in the Universe condensed from the energy that expanded from the singularity?

Here's a brief synopsis to help you understand...

"Immediately after the Big Bang, as one might imagine, the universe was tremendously hot as a result of particles of both matter and antimatter rushing apart in all directions. As it began to cool, at around 10^-43 seconds after creation, there existed an almost equal yet asymmetrical amount of matter and antimatter. As these two materials are created together, they collide and destroy one another creating pure energy. Fortunately for us, there was an asymmetry in favor of matter. As a direct result of an excess of about one part per billion, the universe was able to mature in a way favorable for matter to persist. As the universe first began to expand, this discrepancy grew larger. The particles which began to dominate were those of matter. They were created and they decayed without the accompaniment of an equal creation or decay of an antiparticle.

As the universe expanded further, and thus cooled, common particles began to form. These particles are called baryons and include photons, neutrinos, electrons and quarks would become the building blocks of matter and life as we know it. During the baryon genesis period there were no recognizable heavy particles such as protons or neutrons because of the still intense heat. At this moment, there was only a quark soup. As the universe began to cool and expand even more, we begin to understand more clearly what exactly happened.

After the universe had cooled to about 3000 billion degrees Kelvin, a radical transition began which has been likened to the phase transition of water turning to ice. Composite particles such as protons and neutrons, called hadrons, became the common state of matter after this transition. Still, no matter more complex could form at these temperatures. Although lighter particles, called leptons, also existed, they were prohibited from reacting with the hadrons to form more complex states of matter. These leptons, which include electrons, neutrinos and photons, would soon be able to join their hadron kin in a union that would define present-day common matter.

After about one to three minutes had passed since the creation of the universe, protons and neutrons began to react with each other to form deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen. Deuterium, or heavy hydrogen, soon collected another neutron to form tritium. Rapidly following this reaction was the addition of another proton which produced a helium nucleus. Scientists believe that there was one helium nucleus for every ten protons within the first three minutes of the universe. After further cooling, these excess protons would be able to capture an electron to create common hydrogen. Consequently, the universe today is observed to contain one helium atom for every ten or eleven atoms of hydrogen."
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

"Hydrogen and helium atoms begin to form and the density of the universe falls. This is thought to have occurred about 377,000 years after the Big Bang"

Actually, about 300,000 years ABB is when GALAXIES are thought to have formed. Hydrogen and helium(plus a little lithium) formed within a few minutes, though it took some additional time for those elements to pick up some electrons. The energy of the Big Bang transitioned to matter in three minutes or less, therefore my statement that every hydrogen atom erupted from the BB is valid, move on.

Time is independent only in that it flows no matter what occurs in the other three dimensions.

But it's the occurring that brings it into existence.

Says who, with what reason? You want to try to show how Relativity is wrong and you are right? Events occur in time, not the other way around.

Of course, if you believe it still exists without any occurance then I have to ask, how do you know? Where's your proof, or even your evidence?

Relativity(you know, space/time). People much smarter than me worked this out over a century ago and no one has shown where they(Einstein, et al)have it wrong. I really doubt you will either, but good luck.

The point you did not understand was that there is no such thing as "motionless", there is only movement in relation to other objects. For every frame of reference there is another in motion relative to it.

Oh, I understand alright, but your point is irrelevant.

So Relativity is irrelevant in your theory of time? Big claim.

OK, but what gives you the idea that motion has anything to do with time's existence?

Because motion is how we've come to define it.

Is the description the reality to you?
If so, I can't help you.

It isn't as if time was out there waiting for something to happen, or to be discovered.

Well, yes, yes it is just like it existed before we discovered it, even before any event occurs. It was there in the beginning(of time), it was there before(in time)we came into existence, it will still be there after(in time)we are gone. We measure it, but the measurement is not the thing itself.

It arises because it's how we've decided to denote the persistence of duration brought about by change.

Ridiculously wrong! Time existed before we(or any other lifeform)even had the brains to do the thing you are suggesting created time. The Universe does not rely on the hubris of some humans in order to be as it is.

If you feel it exists in of itself, apart from change, all you have to do is come up with the evidence.

No, my evidence is in all the physics books, it is you with the off the wall idea, not me.

Every point in spacetime now was at the center of the Big Bang, that is just fact. And no observation that can be made will refute what I have said.

So, just what is the nature of these "point in spacetime" things that they can be identified as being at the center of the Big Bang?

Point=a non dimensional(IE having no size)position in space/time.

position in space/time=a description indicating an objects place in both time and space.

Point in space time=a designated position in space/time.

If everything came from a singularity(a single particle), everything that now exists occupied that same singularity 13.7 billion years ago, and everything else in the Universe is expanding away from it. This is true of every point in space, making it obvious that, to it(any single point)every other point is expanding away, so, by definition it is in the center of everything.

You don't seem to understand that the expansion was not into anything, it created the anything as it expanded. There is no "outside", there is no point of view to see a "sphere" expand, there are no edges to the Universe. We are not really able to wrap our minds around the concept, but every point in spacetime is still within what we call the Big Bang, equidistant on all directions from that point(the beginning of time, actually, we haven't moved away from the center, the Universe expanded away from us as time passed). IE each point is still at the very center of the expansion of space/time.

Grumpy

[Merlin]

It is more reasonable to explore the question: "What must be in order for what is to be as it is?"

But what must be for that to be? This question still leads to infinite regress or something that simply was.

Exactly. Which is the reason for a First Cause; not "first" in a sequential sense, but "first" in the sense of most fundamental or necessary; an uncaused Cause.

The logic is quite simple: something exists. Ergo, something exists that cannot not exist. Call it whatever want: quantum sea or "God," but what must its characteristics be in order for what is to be as it is?

The answer to #1 implies that this question is really of no consequence for theology, but it does entail a philosophical a problem for determinists: infinite regress. Atheist Bertrand Russell quipped, "It's causes all the way down." (Or something like it. I can't remember exactly.) However, that cannot be said to hold up under scientific scrutiny; specifically, the indeterminate nature of the quantum.

Of course it has consequence to theology.
Also, indeterminacy at a quantum level is no reason to assume that the universe isn't deterministic; only that there is indeterminacy at a quantum level.

I'd like you to explain how the nature of quantum mechanics is inconsistent with infinite regress, if you wouldn't mind.

Whether it has consequence for theology depends on your theology. If God is some kind of superman, then you are right. There are theological consequences. But God is usually thought to be eternal and immutable. That means God didn't just wake up one day and decide to make a universe. Creatorship is hardly an attribute of God, but rather the aggregate of his acting nature. If mind can be an "emergent property" of matter, why can't the universe be an "emergent property" of God?

Determinism is there, but it is not alone. Mechanism is there, too, but it is not unqualified. A machine cannot know, much less know truth, hunger for righteousness, and cherish goodness.

"Indeterminacy" is at the bottom of it all. Quantum theory didn't just supplement Newtonian physics (determinism), but replaced it with something more encompassing that has philosophical consequences that most scientists ignore. Most, but not all. Prince De Broglie, one of the founders of modern physics, said "the mechanism demands a mysticism" as early as in the 1920s.

[McCulloch]

The logic is quite simple: something exists. Ergo, something exists that cannot not exist. Call it whatever want: quantum sea or "God," but what must its characteristics be in order for what is to be as it is?

I would prefer not to call that something God, there is way too much baggage and ambiguity in that term. How about Energy? Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only change form. Thus it cannot not exist, if it now exists.