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.

[davidsupreme]

1) Is it reasonable to assert that the universe has a cause?

"Cause" is a human concept, it means whatever we want it to mean and is an arbitrary concept. No, the universe would not have a 'cause' other then any you want to apply to it, which is subjective.

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

Theological is also a human made concept, specifically in believing in gods, goblins and other things that do not exist. This came to be from ignorance and have continued because of human fear and the need for people to have a fantasy to rely on when the going gets tough, indoctrination is the main reason it still exist in the educated and technological world we have today.

As gods do not exist, this question is really irrelevant.

- What theological implications would a caused universe entail with a God(Unless otherwise stated, we shall assume the Christian God) as the 'ultimate' cause?

On once again, irrelevant, gods and goblins do not exist, its a human concept made up explained previously.

[Goat]

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.

Yet, virtual particles happen without an apparent cause, and radioactive decay is probabilistic rather than deterministic. Atoms changing energy states also is probabilistic, but that won't happen while being observed. It would be better to say that all causes precede effects, ... but that does not mean all effects have 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?

I do not think that it is reasonable to make any hard claim for any state before the Planck epoch. However, Hawkings solved some issues with the calculations by introducing 'imaginary time'. The one thing I will note is that time is relative, and time relative to the state of existence we know as the universe started at the expansion of space. The singularity might have had it's own 'time frame', but we do not understand that condition.

[Miles]

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

Yes, given our understanding that at one time it didn't exist.

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

Depends on the theology.

- 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 usual issues of responsibility and consequences inherent under the notion of free will.

[McCulloch]

1) Is it reasonable to assert that the universe has a cause?

Yes, given our understanding that at one time it didn't exist.

What time is it that the universe is said not to have existed? Without the universe there would be no time.

[Miles]

1) Is it reasonable to assert that the universe has a cause?

Yes, given our understanding that at one time it didn't exist.

What time is it that the universe is said not to have existed?

Pre 13.75 ±0.17 billion years ago.

Without the universe there would be no time.

Right. Time in our universe began when it came into existence.

[McCulloch]

1) Is it reasonable to assert that the universe has a cause?

Yes, given our understanding that at one time it didn't exist.

What time is it that the universe is said not to have existed?

Without the universe there would be no time.

Time in our universe began when it came into existence.

So then, I ask again, at what time is it that the universe is said not to have existed.

If time began when the universe came into existence, then there was no time before that. If there was no time before the universe came into existence then at no time could it be said that the universe did not exist.

Is it reasonable to assert that the universe has a cause?

No. When the universe began, so did time. There was no time before there was time. That is tautologically true. The universe, therefore, has existed in some form or other for all time. This is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics. It is more parsimonious to believe that the universe which we know to exist is self-existent that to posit some kind of self-existent being (god) that we do not know to exist which is outside of spacetime.

[Miles]

So then, I ask again, at what time is it that the universe is said not to have existed.

If time began when the universe came into existence, then there was no time before that. If there was no time before the universe came into existence then at no time could it be said that the universe did not exist.

*sigh* Equivocatory word games. Tsk! Tsk!

[davidsupreme]

So, Miles, where does the concept of time and cause come from? Is it universally applied to everything, or is it related soley to human imagination of what it is?

[thatoneguy]

Time as we know it exists only within the universe. Our understanding of time is contingent with the universe. If there is something outside the universe that functions causally, then we probably couldn't call it time in the scientific sense.

However, we do not, and likely cannot, know if there exists causality (either linear or non-linear) outside the universe. I know little to nothing about physics, but I know enough to know that we just plain don't know. We can only understand that which follows rules we can observe. Anything that exists in a place we can't observe we necessarily can't know.

Unfortunately, I see only two alternatives regarding the universe's origin: either there is at least one uncaused event, or there is an infinite chain of events. We lack the ability to make working models of either possibility, nor can we ever know for sure. How would we know whether something was uncaused or if we just did not know the cause? Not to mention, any attempt to assert either position usually winds up paradox-ridden. I honestly don't believe humanity will ever know.

And if anyone wishes to suggest a third option to infinite regress and uncaused event, I'd love to hear it.

So, Miles, where does the concept of time and cause come from? Is it universally applied to everything, or is it related soley to human imagination of what it is?

Cause independent of time would be the notion that event X necessitates event Y. Thus, X has caused Y. Without the factor of time, causality would be impossible for us to determine, but that does not by necessity imply that it cannot exist. It is of course possible that the two actually are contingent, but without a counter-example we can prove nothing.

And even if we had an environment free of time and a way to test causality, we'd be trying to prove a universal negative, which is impossible to do definitively.