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.
The Nature of Causality.
Moderator: Moderators
- Miles
- Savant
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
- Has thanked: 434 times
- Been thanked: 1614 times
Post #51
And you are purposely misconstruing my words so as not to not take responsibility for your bad logic.Grumpy wrote:You are claiming Relativity is a perversion. Big claim, zero credibility.
Yes it exists, within the construct of the Theory of Relativity, but not independently. And you're right, if your contention was backed up by proof or evidence, I couldn't rightfully reject it, but . . . . . . need I say it?Oh, I did show you, you are either rejecting it or you do not understand the facts presented. Either way, facts they remain. Time exists just like space exists(according to Relativity), in fact it is one of the four dimensions that we like to call(because it sounds really cool)the Space/Time Continuum. You simply cannot(logically)reject something so basic and so well evidenced.
And the clue to your misunderstanding is in your own statements here:Yes, Relativity tells us exactly that. You could . . .Miles wrote:No, relativity doesn't tell us that time and space are really one thing.
[IRRELEVANT GRAPHIC]
. . . learn from it and move on.
- 1. "Relativity tells us exactly that (time and space are really one thing)"
2. "Einstein’s theory of special relativity created a fundamental link between space and time."
Repeating it ad infinitum doesn't make it any truer.Time flows whether there is change or not.
Interesting pronouncment, however I won't bother asking for proof or evidence because I suspect all I'll get is "Change is a result of time's existence, not the other way round," etc..Change is a result of time's existence, not the other way round.
And I regard you in the very same light, so I'm calling stalemate here. However, before wrapping this up I have to address your closing comment.I have patiently, repeatedly corrected your errors of fact and logic. All that has resulted is you showing no ability to admit when you are wrong and an amazing ability to deny evidence(or even it's existence).
Sorry you found it disparaging, but in the future if you don't want people commenting on your points of argument---using your background and reading habits to impress me/convice me you're right (argument from authority)---then don't do it.And disparaging my experience, understanding and knowledge does not lead to polite or respectful anything.
No, but one should because you say it with the authority of having taught physics and read physics books for fun. I assume you do know what the argument from authority is.One should not believe anything just because I say it,
Then stop bringing yourself into your argument. That said, I really can't see any reason to prolong our discussion. I've grown a little weary of butting heads here, as I'm sure you have; however, I do appreciate your efforts to "educate" me in what you believe to be my failings. You're a decent chap, Grumpy. Mistaken, but decent.Stop talking about me and debate the topic.

Post #52
Miles
You have yet to provide anything but erronious statements and a rude attitude. I think we might want to ask anyone who has read the thread who is the more correct.
Grumpy
Trying to tell a real physicist that you know better than Einstein is foolishness, no matter who has to point it out to you. And telling me I don't know what I am talking about is completely untrue. But don't accept what I say because I have studied it, taught it and have been doing so for over 30 years. The cites I gave show you are wrong, they provide plenty of evidence for a reasonable person to conclude you are wrong.I have patiently, repeatedly corrected your errors of fact and logic. All that has resulted is you showing no ability to admit when you are wrong and an amazing ability to deny evidence(or even it's existence).
And I regard you in the very same light, so I'm calling stalemate here. However, before wrapping this up I have to address your closingSorry you found it disparaging, but in the future if you don't want people commenting on your points of argument---using your background and reading habits to impress me/convice me you're right (argument from authority)---then don't do it.And disparaging my experience, understanding and knowledge does not lead to polite or respectful anything.
You have yet to provide anything but erronious statements and a rude attitude. I think we might want to ask anyone who has read the thread who is the more correct.
Grumpy

- Miles
- Savant
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
- Has thanked: 434 times
- Been thanked: 1614 times
Post #53
*Sigh* I'm not telling a "real physicist" (quotation marks because we only have your word, and it isn't enough to accord you the label. All you've told us is that you taught physics, which as we know isn't the same thing as doing physics.) that I know better than Einstein. I'm telling a "real physicist" that he isn't able to make important distinctions in what was said.Grumpy wrote:Trying to tell a real physicist that you know better than Einstein is foolishness, no matter who has to point it out to you.
I know, I know. I know that's how you consider your opinion.And telling me I don't know what I am talking about is completely untrue.
Doing physics you say. Well, I know several people in different fields of science, some of them very well regarded (one often testifies in courts of law) and none of them would claim to know everything in their field well enough to take the attitude you do. So, unless your specialty includes a necessary familarity with the Theory of Relativity, and not examining applications in the Patent Office, conducting flow dynamics in the aeronautics industry, or the like, your position as a physicist wouldn't be any more meaningful in regard to the issue of time than the physics grad who works as a vault guard in a bank and likes to read physics books. Your claim as a real physicist still has far too many unknowns to be relevant. Sorry. And just from your initial claim that H2 existed during the BB, and your subsequent attempt to wiggle out of the misstatement, lends pause to your claimed connection to physics. Neither are statements I feel a good scientist would make. Not saying you didn't teach physics, or even did physics, whatever that may have entailed, but that your statements are inconsistant with the scientific approach toward such issues.But don't accept what I say because I have studied it, taught it and have been doing so for over 30 years.
A vote! You want people here to decide if you're right or not? Well be my guest, and put whatever weight you wish on the result. As for myself, I don't let popularity contests determine who is right or not, even if they all decided I was. To me, to choose such a solution comes off as another attempt to get around the fact that you have still not shown why time exists in of itself. And yes, citing irrelevant and misunderstood aspects of relativity still does not cut it.You have yet to provide anything but erronious statements and a rude attitude. I think we might want to ask anyone who has read the thread who is the more correct.
- Miles
- Savant
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
- Has thanked: 434 times
- Been thanked: 1614 times
Post #55
Certainly.AkiThePirate wrote:Miles, having been keeping up with this thread, I'm still not entirely certain of your views regarding the nature of time.
Would you mind summing them up?
In brief:
Time is a construct of change. Without it the notion of time, sequential occurrence, would be non-existent. Of what else would it consist? I see nothing. Just as space's directional components define it, change defines time. To say, as some have, that time flows independently of change begs the question of the nature of such flow. Exactly what is it about time that is flowing? Other than the tautology that time itself flows, so far the question remains unanswered. So, absent any proof or evidence of an independent nature of time, the default understanding falls on change.
Post #56
There most certainly is time without change.
Were you to apply the schrodinger equation to a few particles at 0k, you'd likely see that.
Another point to be made for time as an actual dimension is the existence of the black hole. A black hole is essentially an edge of spacetime, and I can't think of how it could possibly make sense if change was necessary for time's existence(It's quite easily arguable that at such a singularity, nothing changes).
Also, if time were only a construct of change, it should have no bearing on space or vica verca.
My interpretation of your idea could be wrong, but that's what I'm getting from it.
Were you to apply the schrodinger equation to a few particles at 0k, you'd likely see that.
Indeed it does.miles wrote:To say, as some have, that time flows independently of change begs the question of the nature of such flow.
Another point to be made for time as an actual dimension is the existence of the black hole. A black hole is essentially an edge of spacetime, and I can't think of how it could possibly make sense if change was necessary for time's existence(It's quite easily arguable that at such a singularity, nothing changes).
Also, if time were only a construct of change, it should have no bearing on space or vica verca.
My interpretation of your idea could be wrong, but that's what I'm getting from it.
Post #57
Miles
By the way, that was from the University of Michigan, physics department, so you don't have to take my word.
One last time, show evidence that time is change, or withdraw your statement. And don't say another word about me.
Grumpy
Time is what causes change. Change can occur or not, time will still flow forward. This is pure...lack of knowing of which you speak.Time is a construct of change.
Alright, FOUL. You have made this statement several times, but you provide no evidence. Relativity says you are wrong. Your disproof of relativity is required.Without it the notion of time, sequential occurrence, would be non-existent.
Is your evidence just your personal incredulity? Its all I've seen from you, and just because you've got it wrong and repeat your erroneous statements, it has no effect on reality.Of what else would it consist? I see nothing.
We have a moment, then we have another moment, we continue to have such moments. Change happens(or not), time flows regardless.To say, as some have, that time flows independently of change begs the question of the nature of such flow.
Sequential frames in time in which the Universe exists, just like it occupies a position in space.Exactly what is it about time that is flowing?
Oh, Einstein answered the question, and every test so far has supported that answer. Time is a dimension, one of the four Einstein called the Space/Time continuum, That contains the Universe, case closed.Other than the tautology that time itself flows, so far the question remains unanswered.
Do you have any evidence to support this...statement? I've never heard such...refuse said by a single physicist who knows what they are talking about. I still haven't.So, absent any proof or evidence of an independent nature of time, the default understanding falls on change.
I earned the degree, as well as one in chemistry and a doctorate in Education. Your insult notwithstanding. Are you EVER going to stop talking about the poster and avoiding giving any evidence that what you say is not the garbage it smells like?*Sigh* I'm not telling a "real physicist"
I guess not.All you've told us is that you taught physics, which as we know isn't the same thing as doing physics.
You most certainly are doing that very thing. Since you have such a poor view of teachers it is beginning to be clear why you know nothing of physics.I'm not telling a "real physicist" that I know better than Einstein.
You have told no one anything believable, anyone who knows the least bit about the subject knows time and space are one single system, they do not rely on anything to exist, they are the matrix in which the Universe abides. You certainly have provided no evidence that you are right and Relativity wrong. Work on that instead of insulting those who call you on your errors.I'm telling a "real physicist" that he isn't able to make important distinctions in what was said.
No, that is the level of my hard won knowledge of physics. But, again, instead of addressing insults to me, apply your effort to supporting your statement or withdraw it.And telling me I don't know what I am talking about is completely untrue.
I know, I know. I know that's how you consider your opinion.
My attitude? It is you who have made completely erroneous statements and provided no support. And I don't care who your friends are, they don't have any effect on your lack of veracity. Talk about appeals to authority, bringing up who you are friends with is really weak.Doing physics you say. Well, I know several people in different fields of science, some of them very well regarded (one often testifies in courts of law) and none of them would claim to know everything in their field well enough to take the attitude you do.
Are you of the opinion that those who do not understand the subject are able to teach it. Teaching physics, of necessity, requires a thorough understanding of Relativity. I could explain it to you, if you would just realize you don't know what you are talking about.So, unless your specialty includes a necessary familarity with the Theory of Relativity
So, the subject is still me, not supporting your unsupportable statement. Do I need to remind you that you claimed...and not examining applications in the Patent Office, conducting flow dynamics in the aeronautics industry, or the like, your position as a physicist wouldn't be any more meaningful in regard to the issue of time than the physics grad who works as a vault guard in a bank and likes to read physics books. Your claim as a real physicist still has far too many unknowns to be relevant. Sorry. And just from your initial claim that H2 existed during the BB, and your subsequent attempt to wiggle out of the misstatement, lends pause to your claimed connection to physics. Neither are statements I feel a good scientist would make. Not saying you didn't teach physics, or even did physics, whatever that may have entailed, but that your statements are inconsistant with the scientific approach toward such issues.
When any person educated in physics would know..."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"
So, you were off by 377,000 YEARS, I was off by one to three MINUTES.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.
By the way, that was from the University of Michigan, physics department, so you don't have to take my word.
Hydrogen was formed from the energy erupting from the Big Bang in one to three minutes, not 377,000 years, as you cited. I am many orders of magnitude more correct on this point than you.And just from your initial claim that H2 existed during the BB, and your subsequent attempt to wiggle out of the misstatement
It was a dummied down description of what happened, it was close enough and much closer than you cited.Neither are statements I feel a good scientist would make.
There are many very smart people here. I've been corrected by some of them. Unlike your attitude, I do not disparage their knowledge, especially when it comes to things I do not know. You should probably listen to their opinions.A vote! You want people here to decide if you're right or not? Well be my guest, and put whatever weight you wish on the result.
Where is your evidence, then? Unsupported, erroneous statements have no more validity than popularity, no matter how often they are repeated. You claimed time was a result of change, show me(and everyone else)any reputable, scientific source that says the same thing.As for myself, I don't let popularity contests determine who is right or not, even if they all decided I was.
Actually, it was an attempt to get your mind off of insulting my intelligence by showing you that other, just as intelligent people see your error as well as I do.To me, to choose such a solution comes off as another attempt to get around the fact that you have still not shown why time exists in of itself.
Just because you do not understand the relevance, or even the basics of physics and Relativity of my cites does not affect their veracity and relevance. And since my cites are the only evidence, you have been shown to be wrong.And yes, citing irrelevant and misunderstood aspects of relativity still does not cut it.
One last time, show evidence that time is change, or withdraw your statement. And don't say another word about me.
Grumpy

- Miles
- Savant
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
- Has thanked: 434 times
- Been thanked: 1614 times
Post #58
Oof dah! Now that's bad. But I'm sorry Grumpy, beating a dead horse isn't my style. As I said, I really can't see any reason to prolong our discussion. You obviously can't come up with a decent argument, and I've grown weary of butting heads here. For awhile it was kind of interesting, and I thank you for that.Grumpy wrote:Time is what causes change. . . . . .
Miles
I apologize for not being mathematically adept enough to do that, so you would have to show me.AkiThePirate wrote:There most certainly is time without change.
Were you to apply the schrodinger equation to a few particles at 0k, you'd likely see that.
I have never heard or read of the outer event horizon, I assume this is what you're referring to, as being or marking the end of time, which appears to be your contention here. Got any info?Another point to be made for time as an actual dimension is the existence of the black hole. A black hole is essentially an edge of spacetime, and I can't think of how it could possibly make sense if change was necessary for time's existence(It's quite easily arguable that at such a singularity, nothing changes).
Interesting point. I just came across a short Wiki piece describing a book called The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene, which seems to go to the very issue we're talking about in this thread. In the review we read the following,Also, if time were only a construct of change, it should have no bearing on space or vica verca.
- "Part 2: Time and Experience
Part two begins by addressing the issue that time is a very familiar concept, yet it is one of humanity's least understood concepts.
Chapter five, The Frozen River, deals with the question, "Does time flow?" One of the key points in this chapter deals with special relativity. Observers moving relative to each other have different conceptions of what exists at a given moment, and hence they have different conceptions of reality. The conclusion is that time does not flow, as all things simultaneously exist at the same time.
But back to your notion that "if time were only a construct of change, it should have no bearing on space or vica verca." I can only ask, how else could it function as a variable in all the various time-dependent equations, like the Schrödinger equation? Relying on Wikipedia again, its article on the equation begins with the following,
- "In physics, specifically quantum mechanics, the Schrödinger equation is an equation that describes how the quantum state of a physical system changes in time."
(Emphasis mine.)
I'm not asking you, but simply wondering out loud.
- Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Post #59
I personally think that this is spinning wheels. What that nature of time is very cutting edge physics right now,
This is an interview from someone who is look at it, and not even he knows for sure.. and
he is one of the 'cutting edge' theorists about it.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/02/what-is-time/
This is an interview from someone who is look at it, and not even he knows for sure.. and
he is one of the 'cutting edge' theorists about it.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/02/what-is-time/
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
- Miles
- Savant
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
- Has thanked: 434 times
- Been thanked: 1614 times
Post #60
Hey, Great link. Thanks goat.goat wrote:I personally think that this is spinning wheels. What that nature of time is very cutting edge physics right now,
This is an interview from someone who is look at it, and not even he knows for sure.. and
he is one of the 'cutting edge' theorists about it.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/02/what-is-time/
A few comments.
- "Carroll: Even in empty space, time and space still exist. Physicists have no problem answering the question of “If a tree falls in the woods and no one’s there to hear it, does it make a sound?� They say, “Yes! Of course it makes a sound!� Likewise, if time flows without entropy and there’s no one there to experience it, is there still time? Yes. There’s still time. It’s still part of the fundamental laws of nature even in that part of the universe. It’s just that events that happen in that empty universe don’t have causality, don’t have memory, don’t have progress and don’t have aging or metabolism or anything like that. It’s just random fluctuations
- "The weird thing about the arrow of time is that it’s not to be found in the underlying laws of physics. It’s not there. So it’s a feature of the universe we see, but not a feature of the laws of the individual particles. So the arrow of time is built on top of whatever local laws of physics apply."
- "The arrow of time doesn’t move forward forever. There’s a phase in the history of the universe where you go from low entropy to high entropy. But then once you reach the locally maximum entropy you can get to, there’s no more arrow of time. It’s just like this room."