|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,767 Year: 4,024/9,624 Month: 895/974 Week: 222/286 Day: 29/109 Hour: 2/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Time and Beginning to Exist | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2157 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:But even more fundamentally, we need a rigorous definition and discussion of "causation". You are locking "causation" to a strict temporal sequence, which of course collapses at the Big Bang. But the concept of "causation" is fundamentally a logical concept, not a temporal concept. Time sequence does not determine causation; most things which occur at different times are not causally related. There is discussion and disagreement among philosophers as to whether causation is immanent and locked to time, or is transcendent. This topic is a good one, but the questions are more philosophical than scientific. It's unfortunate that this thread was placed in a science forum, because I fear that science itself will provide no useful answers to the questions. The statement that "everything which begins to exist has a cause" is a philosophical statement made by philosophers. It cannot be properly discussed without delving deeply into philosophy. Edited by kbertsche, : Added link"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2157 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:I understood your argument just fine. I'll try to clarify my objection. Here's where you tie "causality" to temporal sequence:
quote: Your explanation of "bringing a thing into existence" is tied to time; it implicitly assumes that there was a time "before" which the thing existed. Because there was no time "before" the Big Bang, you claim that the universe was not "brought into existence". The Kalaam argument avoids these problems by using the more neutral phrase "begin to exist" ("bring into existence" implies agency as well as prior time; "begin to exist" is more neutral on both counts). There is widespread agreement that the universe "began to exist" about 13.7 billion years ago.
quote: But this claim is based on more than our experience; it is based on logic as well. Logically, an effect must have a cause. It would be logically incoherent to claim that something caused its own "beginning". The cause must transcend the effect. Since time began at the Big Bang, the cause of the Big Bang must exist outside of time itself. Claims that the Big Bang could have caused itself, or that it needed no cause, are nothing more than "special pleading". There are no other examples of things which are either uncaused or self-caused (in the philosophical sense of causation). One might claim that a cause "outside of time itself" is also an instance of special pleading. But I don't believe this holds up. Traditional conceptions of God place Him outside of time (and space) and attribute numerous instances of Him acting in time and space from outside of it. It is not only the Big Bang as a special case, but also the incarnation, the eschaton, etc. where God breaks into time and space from outside of it."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2157 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:quote:So you understand that much. But obviously you don't understand how that point fits into my argument because you don't deal with it at all. I think I've been pretty clear. The relationship of logical causation to temporality is a primary consideration in this discussion. Your argument is formulated in an attempt to sweep this issue under the rug without careful consideration of it. Your argument assumes that a logical cause must occur prior in time, so concludes that there could be no logical cause for the Big Bang. Instead of facing the question of the relationship between logical causation and temporality and presenting reasoned arguments for it, your argument simply assumes the relationship that you want. Whether you call this "begging the question", "stacking the deck", or "affirming the consequent", it is disingenuous. Like it or not, the Kalaam argument does not sweep this issue under the rug. It is formulated in such a way to be neutral on the relationship of logical causation to temporality. Can you please present a reasoned argument for why you believe logical causation necessarily requires temporal priority?"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2157 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:I agree with your second point, which seems fairly obvious. I've already explained my disagreement with your first point. Causation is primarily a logical concept. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is a logical argument, not merely an intuitive one. In order to dispute the claim that "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" you need to provide a reasoned, logical argument that something can begin to exist with no logical cause. So far, I haven't seen this. I've seen you attempt to summarily dismiss the claim, but not to present a reasoned argument against it."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2157 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:What you say is true of most things that we know of, but not everything, as I will show. Causality is an interesting and complex topic, and has been discussed by numerous philosophers from Aristotle to Hume and Kant. I'll only touch on the issues in this reply. First, I hope we can agree that we end up with numous logical problems and contradictions if an effect precedes its cause. So we must require that an effect must not precede its cause. But this is not the same as requiring that a cause must precede its effect. For example, a cause and an effect could be simultaneous; this would not create logical contradictions. Or if an effect marked the beginning of time itself, it could have a cause which lies outside of time. And when we say that an effect must not precede its cause, we must be very careful how we define "precede". We must define "precede" as something like "occurring within the past light cone". Consider the annihilation of a positron and an electron to create two high energy photons. The measurement of the polarization of one photon will cause the other photon to be collapsed into a specific polarization. In such examples of "spooky action at a distance", an effect can occur simultaneously with its cause, or even before its cause as measured on some clocks. The effect cannot occur inside the past light cone. But we cannot say that the cause is prior in time to the effect. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given. Edited by kbertsche, : Added links to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Edited by kbertsche, : Added summary sentence"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2157 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined:
|
quote:I think we're getting a bit sidetracked on this thread. I'd like to get back to the topic of the OP. Let's tackle your question of what it means to "begin to exist". You claim that we lack a rigorous definition of it. I am skeptical of this. I suspect William Lane Craig has provided a rigorous definition, which I will try to hunt down I the next few days. But in the mean time, let's see if we can come up with some descriptions or synonyms on our own. I suggest that "begin to exist" is roughly synonymous with:1) "have a finite age" 2) "have a temporal starting-point of its existence" If this is what it means, there should be no doubt that the universe "began to exist". Comments? Do we have general agreement so far?"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2157 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:So you would actually deny that the universe began to exist about 13.7 billion years ago?!? If you don't like "begin to exist", how would you prefer to describe the finite age of the universe and its origin in a singularity? Any comments from Cavediver or others actually trained in cosmology?quote: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2157 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:Can you please provide Craig's definition, and a reference to where he presents this definition? Are you sure that he has not supplied the extra argumentation? (How can you be sure unless you've read everything he's written?)"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2157 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:I don't see how (A) "began to exist" implies prior time any more than does (B) "has a finite age". They seem pretty similar to me in this respect. Based on our normal experience, both would suggest prior time. But neither one necessarily implies prior time. Both imply a "zero-point" to the thing's existence, but neither one says anything about what happened "before" the thing's existence. The main difference that I see between (A) and (B) is one of perspective. With (B), "has a finite age", one is viewing a thing's existence from the present, and looking backward toward when the thing "started" or "began to exist". With (A), "began to exist", one is viewing the thing from its origin or starting point. Looking at the analogy of the North Pole, (B) is somewhat analogous to saying "this city is at a finite latitude", while (A) is somewhat analogous to saying "our latitude coordinate system begins at the North Pole". Both imply that there is a starting point to latitude coordinates. But neither one says anything about the possibility of negative latitudes. {ABE: oops, I guess I wasn't quite awake when I wrote the above, and my latitude definition was off by 90 degrees. I was thinking more along the lines of a normal polar coordinate system. Instead of "negative latitudes" I should have said "latitudes greater than 90 degrees North". But the concept is the same.} Edited by kbertsche, : Correction"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2157 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:Interesting example, with some interesting semantic issues. When you say "Dr Adequate has always had a Y chromosome", we understand that "always" does not have its common sense of "forever" or "eternally". Rather, it has the sense of "as long as he has existed". You are communicating the message that "as long as he has existed, Dr A has had a Y chromosome". Analogously, one could claim something like "as long as time has existed, the universe has existed". To simply say that "the universe has always existed" is highly misleading; without further qualification of what is meant by "always" this would suggest the Greek concept of an eternal universe. The claim that "as long as time has existed, the universe has existed" leaves us with more questions, however:1) is this claim (that time "began" when the universe "began") really true? How do we test this scientifically or prove it logically? It seems to be the common opinion among cosmologists, but do we have any solid reasons for claiming it? 2) what does this imply about a "beginning" of time? Did time "begin to exist" at some point? And if so, what exactly does this mean? "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2157 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:Sorry for the confusion. I meant eternal or infinite in the past, i.e. always existing, having no beginning.quote:How would having always existed suggest an eternal universe? Having always existed says nothing about what will happen in the future. quote:I don't thinks so. Philosophers still puzzle over fundamental questions about the nature of time, with two main theories on what it is.quote:These questions, however would be nonsense. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2157 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:"My side"?? Do you mean physicists or creationists??quote:I think that we need to remember that it is your side that primarily promotes this point of view. William Lane Craig relies on it to argue that the creator must be timeless. And that's the only reason why I'm talking about it. I don't assume that it is true. Most physicists view time as a dimension similar to spatial dimensions. Thus it is natural for us to think that time "began" when the spatial dimensions did, at the Big Bang. However, we know that time is in some ways fundamentally different from the spatial dimensions. Time is asymmetric, with a direction given by entropy."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2157 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:Perhaps, but it looks like you also misunderstand me. quote:But my first point was to question this initial assumption that time and the universe start together. What evidence do we have for this claim? Is it really true? How do we know? My second point was to ask what the answer to this first question (whether or not time and the universe start together) implies about a beginning of time."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024