Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8752 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-29-2017 12:00 AM
117 online now:
Coyote, DrJones*, dwise1, LamarkNewAge, Tanypteryx, xongsmith (6 members, 111 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DeliverUsFromEvolution
Post Volume:
Total: 809,175 Year: 13,781/21,208 Month: 3,263/3,605 Week: 49/556 Day: 0/49 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
18NextFF
Author Topic:   Time and Beginning to Exist
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12688
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 1 of 268 (641921)
11-22-2011 10:21 AM


The purpose of this topic is to discuss the notion "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" and it's relationship to our Universe and the implications of a finite past.

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is an intuitive idea, notably lacking a rigorous definition of "beginning to exist". We must take it then, to refer to the beginnings of everyday experience. In everyday experience the thing does not exist, the cause operates and then the thing exists. And, intuitively the cause is responsible for the change from the state where the object in question does not exist to a state where it does.

Now consider the case of the first moment of time. For everything that exists at that moment of time there is no prior state when it did not exist, and if a cause is needed it is not needed to bring the object into existence, for that simple reason that it already exists. Thus if we take these objects to have a beginning it is one different from the every day beginnings - and in a way that would seem to remove the need for a cause.

To save the argument then, we need a rigorous definition of "beginning to exist", we need to show that it is in fact true that everything that meets this definition has a cause - taking care to deal with the extreme cases - and we need to accept this definition when building on the argument.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 11-23-2011 8:28 AM PaulK has responded
 Message 11 by ProtoTypical, posted 11-24-2011 8:18 AM PaulK has responded
 Message 17 by kbertsche, posted 11-24-2011 12:37 PM PaulK has responded
 Message 19 by GDR, posted 11-24-2011 2:25 PM PaulK has responded
 Message 50 by designtheorist, posted 11-27-2011 12:58 AM PaulK has responded
 Message 82 by Jon, posted 11-28-2011 1:53 AM PaulK has not yet responded
 Message 145 by kbertsche, posted 11-29-2011 7:42 PM PaulK has responded
 Message 260 by kofh2u, posted 11-28-2012 3:29 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12504
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 2 of 268 (641922)
11-23-2011 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by PaulK
11-22-2011 10:21 AM


How would you address the slightly different formulation, "Everything that happens has a cause"?

About this sentence from the third paragraph:

PaulK writes:

For everything that exists at that moment of time there is no prior state when it did not exist, and if a cause is needed it is not needed to bring the object into existence, for that simple reason that it already exists.

You're talking about the first moment in time, so shouldn't the reason why no cause is needed be that there was no prior time for a cause to operate?

Edited by Admin, : Remove manual sig.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by PaulK, posted 11-22-2011 10:21 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 11-23-2011 8:33 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply
 Message 5 by IamJoseph, posted 11-24-2011 4:42 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12688
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 3 of 268 (641923)
11-23-2011 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
11-23-2011 8:28 AM


quote:

How would you address the slightly different formulation, "Everything that happens has a cause"?

It seems to be covered by the same argument. If the universe didn't come into existence, then that isn't something that happened.

quote:

You're talking about the first moment in time, so shouldn't the reason why no cause is needed be that there was no prior time for a cause to operate?

No. I think that the argument I used is a little stronger, since it can't be attacked by arguing for simultaneous causation (which is the common response).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 11-23-2011 8:28 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12504
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 4 of 268 (641925)
11-23-2011 7:06 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Time and Beginning to Exist thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1082 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 5 of 268 (641933)
11-24-2011 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
11-23-2011 8:28 AM


quote:
You're talking about the first moment in time, so shouldn't the reason why no cause is needed be that there was no prior time for a cause to operate?

The premise of a 'beginning' is more aligned with time than matter. The matter represents a secondary action in time.

Analogy. The first car out of the factory was a blue pontiac. Here, 'first' represents time, more than the car; the latter car is subsequential.

It raises the question whether time is an abstract premise or a definitive phenomenon which does not require any action to make it real. This raises the question, is 40 weeks the measure of a human pregnancy - or is the pregnancy subject to the 40 week time factor? Here, if we say a host of other factors determine the pregnancy, such as copulation, one can also say that cause could not activate a pregnancy if there was no time. We end up in a circular arguement - proof it is the wrong path.

IMHO, both time and matter, based on a finite universe, is irrefutably the result of an external, precedent factor, and I know of no alternative to this premise.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 11-23-2011 8:28 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Larni, posted 11-24-2011 5:20 AM IamJoseph has responded
 Message 7 by frako, posted 11-24-2011 5:30 AM IamJoseph has responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3941
From: UK
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 6 of 268 (641937)
11-24-2011 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by IamJoseph
11-24-2011 4:42 AM


Please keep this thread free of you particular god.

This is a science thread and as such does not 'align' with you idea of a god.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by IamJoseph, posted 11-24-2011 4:42 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by IamJoseph, posted 11-24-2011 5:56 AM Larni has not yet responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2695
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 7 of 268 (641939)
11-24-2011 5:30 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by IamJoseph
11-24-2011 4:42 AM


IMHO, both time and matter, based on a finite universe, is irrefutably the result of an external, precedent factor, and I know of no alternative to this premise.

Actually our boys are working on a theory that time and space are intertwined, basically one cannot exists whiteout the other.

Im looking for the article will post it when i find it.

is irrefutably the result of an external, precedent factor,

Well super string theory talks about a collision between 2 universes that produced space-time and matter in our universe. So actions that took place in the multi-verse could have created or shaped our universe but we can only theorize about the multi verse did the multi-verse come in to exsistance as our universe did or was it always there. We do have evidence that point to other universes like their gravitational effects.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by IamJoseph, posted 11-24-2011 4:42 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by IamJoseph, posted 11-24-2011 5:49 AM frako has not yet responded

    
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1082 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 8 of 268 (641940)
11-24-2011 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by frako
11-24-2011 5:30 AM


quote:
Actually our boys are working on a theory that time and space are intertwined, basically one cannot exists whiteout the other.

Intertwined is valid logic. In fact, everything the universe now contains is intertwined, and all its contents would have become existent simultainiously, then became definitive entities via some form of evolving. How else - there is nowhere else for something new to come from?

quote:

Well super string theory talks about a collision between 2 universes that produced space-time and matter in our universe.


MV violates the finite factor of this universe. Also, it ends in a circular premise, negating itself from science. There is good reason behind the avoidance of a finite universe!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by frako, posted 11-24-2011 5:30 AM frako has not yet responded

    
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1082 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 9 of 268 (641941)
11-24-2011 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Larni
11-24-2011 5:20 AM


You are being unscientific when omitting the finite evidence of the universe. I challenge you to state any scientific reasoning while addressing this universe as absolutely finite - anyone can wax poetic of an infinite realm, but it is not science!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Larni, posted 11-24-2011 5:20 AM Larni has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Admin, posted 11-24-2011 6:09 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12504
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.4


(2)
Message 10 of 268 (641942)
11-24-2011 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by IamJoseph
11-24-2011 5:56 AM


Moderator Request
H IamJoseph,

Please stop posting to this thread. Thanks.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by IamJoseph, posted 11-24-2011 5:56 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

    
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1702
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


(1)
Message 11 of 268 (641948)
11-24-2011 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by PaulK
11-22-2011 10:21 AM


To save the argument then, we need a rigorous definition of "beginning to exist", we need to show that it is in fact true that everything that meets this definition has a cause

Is there anything beside the Universe that is considered to potentially not have a cause? Almost everything in the collective experiance of man has been shown to have had a precedent cause. Some of these causes we can not identify but that is mearly temporary ignorance.

The wall comes when we consider time and cause to be things that only function inside of our Universe. My question is then, how can time and space begin to exist if time and space are required for existence? (abe; Its a trap!) Can time not exist independent of space?

Edited by Dogmafood, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by PaulK, posted 11-22-2011 10:21 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by PaulK, posted 11-24-2011 8:36 AM ProtoTypical has responded
 Message 13 by NoNukes, posted 11-24-2011 9:17 AM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12688
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 12 of 268 (641949)
11-24-2011 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by ProtoTypical
11-24-2011 8:18 AM


quote:

Is there anything beside the Universe that is considered to potentially not have a cause? Almost everything in the collective experiance of man has been shown to have had a precedent cause. Some of these causes we can not identify but that is mearly temporary ignorance.

Of course, this fails to address the point. The point is that IF there is no time prior to our universe, we have good grounds to question whether it needs a cause - grounds that CANNOT be answered by our experience, since the situation is completely outside our experience.

quote:

The wall comes when we consider time and cause to be things that only function inside of our Universe. My question is then, how can time and space begin to exist if time and space are required for existence? Can time not exist independent of space?

By my understanding time and space are related in such a way that it is not possible (in an absolute sense). I'm sure that Cavediver or Son Goku could give you a more authoritative answer. However, this is not relevant to the argument which only relies on there being a first moment in time, and the universe existing (in some form) at that point (i.e. we need to account for the energy, not just spacetime).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by ProtoTypical, posted 11-24-2011 8:18 AM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Omnivorous, posted 11-24-2011 10:04 AM PaulK has responded
 Message 38 by ProtoTypical, posted 11-26-2011 7:15 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9551
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 13 of 268 (641953)
11-24-2011 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by ProtoTypical
11-24-2011 8:18 AM


Is there anything beside the Universe that is considered to potentially not have a cause? Almost everything in the collective experiance of man has been shown to have had a precedent cause. Some of these causes we can not identify but that is mearly temporary ignorance.

I don't think our failure to identify causes is mere ignorance. Our current understanding is that types of events have no explanation.

What causes a particular Bismuth-212 atom to emit an alpha particle and a different Bismuth-212 to emit a beta particle?

What causes one particular photon to take a particular path through a diffraction grating such that large numbers of such paths generate a characteristic diffraction pattern?

I don't believe such questions have an answer that we simply have not yet discovered. Our universe is not mechanistic in the sense that perfect knowledge of its current state can allow us to predict exactly its next state.

If events are "caused" simply by matter and energy being in a given state but that state does not "cause" things in any thing like a deterministic fashion, then what does that imply about possible "causes" for the universe. Are those things causes in the convention sense, or in any sense that provides scientific evidence for a creator of the universe?

I think not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by ProtoTypical, posted 11-24-2011 8:18 AM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

    
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 382 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 14 of 268 (641959)
11-24-2011 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by PaulK
11-24-2011 8:36 AM


Local effect
dogmafood writes:


Is there anything beside the Universe that is considered to potentially not have a cause? Almost everything in the collective experiance of man has been shown to have had a precedent cause. Some of these causes we can not identify but that is mearly temporary ignorance.

PaulK writes:

Of course, this fails to address the point. The point is that IF there is no time prior to our universe, we have good grounds to question whether it needs a cause - grounds that CANNOT be answered by our experience, since the situation is completely outside our experience.

Dogmafood's comment fails to address the point only if we add the key word here to your previous formulations, here being the observable or deducible universe which we trace back to an origin of space-time. The same definitional effect is achieved if we define "universe" in that particular way, and both seem to beg the question.

With supersymmetry and M-theory (as I dimly understand it) we see the possibility of our universe originating in the collision or intersection of extra-dimensional branes.

So, yes, I see how one can fairly say our local universe has no local cause, as there is no local time in which it did not exist; but we also must entertain the possibility that the cause(s) of our local universe and time exists/existed elsewhere.

Similarly, as everyday experience suggests causal origins, it also suggests that a cause is external to its effect. This also would be preserved in an M-theory multiverse explanation of our local space-time.

Perhaps the idea that our universe, whether it is local or total, had no beginning is true is the most profound and absolute sense rather than within a qualifying, bracketed here. But we don't know that as yet, and we have at least some theoretical grounds to suggest it may not be so.


"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by PaulK, posted 11-24-2011 8:36 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 11-24-2011 11:01 AM Omnivorous has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12688
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 15 of 268 (641963)
11-24-2011 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Omnivorous
11-24-2011 10:04 AM


Re: Local effect
quote:

So, yes, I see how one can fairly say our local universe has no local cause, as there is no local time in which it did not exist; but we also must entertain the possibility that the cause(s) of our local universe and time exists/existed elsewhere.

And I do. However, this is not what I am discussing, because placing the cause in an external time, still doesn't render the cause timeless. That is why designtheorist declined to take that tack. His argument requires that there is no time prior to our universe in an absolute sense, and this is what I have chosen to address here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Omnivorous, posted 11-24-2011 10:04 AM Omnivorous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Omnivorous, posted 11-24-2011 11:09 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
1
23456
...
18NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017