Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9045 total)
337 online now:
CosmicChimp, jar, PaulK (3 members, 334 visitors)
Newest Member: Dade
Post Volume: Total: 887,360 Year: 5,006/14,102 Month: 604/707 Week: 2/157 Day: 2/22 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Kalam cosmological argument
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2639 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(2)
Message 8 of 177 (574370)
08-15-2010 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Deleted
08-15-2010 1:54 PM


But premise 1/2 can be replaced by anything that proves the universe is not infinite, like: if the universe excisted for an infinite time, we could not have a tomorrow. As we would have more than infinite days.

Neither argument is valid. The Universe does not progress one day at a time. This is merely our own perception based on our consciousness. And the entropy argument is incorrect - in an expanding Universe, it is possible that there is no thermal equilibrium, and entropy can grow unbounded.

The Universe may or may not have a finite extent in the past time-like direction. At the moment, we do not know.

But the question I have, is: what caused the big bang?

Three possibilities (amongst others):

The Big Bang is simply a squeeze point in cosmological evolution, and time simply extends backwards before the Big Bang.

The Big Bang represents a beginning of our own time and 3-dimensional space, and is caused by the physics of a higher dimensional space-time in which our Universe is embedded.

The Big Bang is the earliest moment in our Universe. There is no prior time, no higher-dimensional space-time, it exists as one point in the Universe just as the North Pole (axial, not magnetic) exist as one point on the Earth. It has no cause, other than being one point in the Universe, so is a necessary part of the Universe just as the North Pole is a necessary point on the Earth. There is no "before" the Big Bang, there is no "outside" the Universe. The Universe simply "is".

You may wish to suggest that a "divine being" brought this entire existence into being - and that is fine - but you have no tools to construct a proof of this. Cause and effect are merely concepts that exist within the Universe, where a well-defined time-direction can be chosen. Attempting to apply this to the 4d Universe as a whole is futile, as you have no concept of time nor of time-ordering.

The Kalam cosmological argument is far too simplistic in the light of 20th/21st century physics and cosmology. It is a good 100 years past any level of applicability.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Deleted, posted 08-15-2010 1:54 PM Deleted has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Deleted, posted 08-17-2010 2:31 PM cavediver has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2639 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 14 of 177 (574744)
08-17-2010 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Deleted
08-17-2010 2:31 PM


Re: Reply to cavediver and nwr
The point is that time passes.

No, it does not. There is no concept of "time passing" in physics. This is simply our perception. There is no universal clock that ticks away, one minute, hour, day at a time. The fact that this misconception arises time and again in similar discussions simply demonstrates the lack of awareness of 20th century fundemental physics. With just Special Relativity we can see how flawed this concept is by considering (the lack of) simultaneity.

But with these, you are not saying/proving anything

Excuse me - I was answering your question. Are you usuqally so rude to those that spend their time answering your questions?

you only move your problem somewhere else.

I have no problem to move. You had a question. It was answered.

I dont really get what you mean with this (and the paragraph).

Fair enough - it is not an easy concept to appreciate. But until you can appreciate it, you will never be able to see one of the biggest flaws in the Kalam cosmological argument.

But if the universe is expanding for an infinite amount of time, the universe would be infinitely big. So I dont think that the entropy would reduce.

No, it would not. But nor would it necessarily have a maximum - i.e. there may not be a state of thermal equilibrium. So youe entropy argument fails either way.

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Deleted, posted 08-17-2010 2:31 PM Deleted has acknowledged this reply

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2639 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 18 of 177 (574849)
08-18-2010 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Fiver
08-17-2010 4:15 PM


Re: Reply to cavediver and nwr
If scientists are correct (and I understand that there's some disagreement on this point), then the Big Bang...

I wouldn't phrase things this way - better to say "if the Standard Model of cosmology is correct (and I understand that scientists are working to go beyond this so this may not necessarily hold in a deeper theory), then the Big Bang..."

then the Big Bang was actually the inception point of time itself. Therefore, assuming that "come into existence" means "goes from a time of non-existence to a time of existence", then the universe never came into existence

Exactly. The Universe may well be created by some divine being, but if so, the Big Bang is no more likely the point of creation than last saturday under my bed. Any act of creation has to be completely outside our own time-dimension in order to qualify as an act of creation...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Fiver, posted 08-17-2010 4:15 PM Fiver has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2639 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 39 of 177 (653893)
02-25-2012 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Shimbabwe
02-24-2012 4:48 PM


A temporal succession of actually infinite events (and a collection of an actually infinite number of things) is what the Kalam argues against.

Yes, by taking an erroneous and naive view of time. This is what happens when theologians and philosophers try to discuss theoretical physics. You may like to read my old messages in this thread to understand this point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Shimbabwe, posted 02-24-2012 4:48 PM Shimbabwe has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Shimbabwe, posted 02-25-2012 6:42 PM cavediver has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2639 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(5)
Message 40 of 177 (653896)
02-25-2012 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Shimbabwe
02-24-2012 6:45 PM


Re: Reply to cavediver and nwr
My understanding of the theistic model currently propounded by William Lane Craig et al, is that it posits an immaterial, timeless, beginningless, extremely powerful, and personal creator -- an agent who wills to create -- who is causally prior to the universe, but not chronologically prior to it. The being is timeless without the universe and temporal with the creation of the universe. An infinite cause with a finite effect cannot be the result of event/event causation or state/state causation. Therefore it must be personal!

There's a whole lot of words in this paragraph, and 90% of them have virtually no agreed definition. How can you possibly try to advance an argument that supposedly creats a "proof" of something with such nebulous terms?

What is "immaterial"? What is "timeless"? What is "beginningless"? What is "powerful" and how much is "extremely"? What does "personal" mean? Are your definitions unique and universally accepted such that this "proof" can be unambiguously understood?

Basing an argument on such terms does not generate "proof", only obfuscation.

Moreover, the idea of a multiverse seems quite superfluous.

No, it actually seems necessary - that is, a multiverse of one form or another is implicated in many post-Standard Model ideas.

Why posit a series of parallel universes... ...in order to explain apparent fine tuning in our known universe?

For one, because we already have an excellent example of parallel worlds creating the appearance of fine-tuning. The Earth's "extraordinary" biosphere has long been touted by theists as blatent fine-tuning evidence of a divine hand. However, it is quite clear that the fine-tuning that gives rise to the Earth's remarkable qualities is simply the anthropic selection effect on a large number of worlds throughout the Universe, each taking a point in the vast parameter-space of possible qualities.

Asking what is south of the south pole has no relevance here, so far as I can see.

You are correct - you cannot see the relevance. But that does not negate the relevance.

Yes, there is a vast chasm between being and non being that is rarely appreciated. Quantam fluctuation models don't begin to appreciate this disparity.

This I can agree with, but I would stress that you have no good definition of your term "non being".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Shimbabwe, posted 02-24-2012 6:45 PM Shimbabwe has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Shimbabwe, posted 02-26-2012 2:35 PM cavediver has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2639 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 43 of 177 (653984)
02-25-2012 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Shimbabwe
02-25-2012 6:42 PM


Re: Philosophy of Time
as I anticipated a response from one who argues against the tensed view of time.

Just a quick note whilst awaiting your larger response - I don't argue against the tensed view of time. I argue against those that use the terms "tensed" and "untensed" views of time, whether they themselves fall into A-theorists or B-theorists. Neither tend to have the first clue about the real nature of time


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Shimbabwe, posted 02-25-2012 6:42 PM Shimbabwe has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Shimbabwe, posted 02-25-2012 7:18 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2639 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 166 of 177 (657035)
03-25-2012 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Shimbabwe
03-24-2012 1:15 PM


Re: bail out already
This methodology is simply not applicable to a timeless, spaceless, beginningless, cause. This entity, on Kalaam, exists causally prior to both space and time.

I have been away for a while, but I see that you are still trying to argue using undefined terms. Two can play at that. Because of flibble you are completely wrong.

You cannot use the phrase "causally prior to both space and time" as the only definition we have of causality is as it pertains to space-time. In fact, that is not enough, as you have to specify the causal structure of that space-time, to be able to take about causal priors. "causally prior to both space and time" simply says "I don't know what I'm talking about but if I use these impressive words enough, I should be able to convince at least a few people that I do".

nevertheless, time cannot go on forever in an earlier than direction, or else this moment would have never arrived, irrespective of any division of time presupposed.

Completely wrong. I see Craig arguing this nonsense and I remember believing something similar as an ignorant physics graduate. Understand that the most basic underlying concept of relativity is that there is no universal clock that ticks away the seconds of the Universe.

The time interval between two events depends completely upon the path through space-time that is taken. Along one path, that interval could be infinite. Along another, it could be 20 minutes. Craig's view is hopelessly naive and demonstrates just how out of his depth he is when he tries to play in this cosmological arena.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Shimbabwe, posted 03-24-2012 1:15 PM Shimbabwe has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2639 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 167 of 177 (657036)
03-25-2012 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Shimbabwe
02-26-2012 2:35 PM


Re: Reply to cavediver and nwr
cavediver writes:

There's a whole lot of words in this paragraph, and 90% of them have virtually no agreed definition...

...I would argue that these terms are self evident and don’t require further explanation.

And there lies the reason you will never find any place in science. If I were presenting at a conference, and was asked to explain a term - not matter how trivial - and I replied as you have, I would be laughed out of the auditorium. If you cannot define your terms, you have no argument. You are merely playing semantics.

cavediver writes:

No, it actually seems necessary - that is, a multiverse of one form or another is implicated in many post-Standard Model ideas.

Are you then advocating a necessarily existent universe or ensemble of universes?

"Necessarily existent"? That is a philosophical term, not one that has any meaning within science. All I can say is that many extrapolations of our current (experiementally verified) theories give rise to (different varieties of) multiverse scenarios.

These theories are metaphysical in nature and may never be subject to empirical falsification. So, in this regard at least, they are on equal footing with the God hypothesis.

No, they are not "metaphysical", whatever you mean by that nebulous and rather overused term. They are *theoretical* and based on know space-time mathematics and physics. To even begin to claim that these are on equal footing with the ridiculously anthropocentric "God hypothesis" (I see lightning - therefore, big man in sky throwing lightning bolts) is laughable in the extreme.

cavediver writes:

For one, because we already have an excellent example of parallel worlds creating the appearance of fine-tuning.

Not so fast. There are a great number of possible explanations for apparent fine tuning, the Hartle – Hawking model being just one.

You completely miss the point. The parallel worlds to which I was referring are the trillions of stellar systems each providing a possible earth-like planet possibility. The point is that this "many-worlds" type environment exists, and provides the perfect explanation for the goldilocks-zone and biosphere-freindly planet that we inhabit.

Your assertion, however, presupposes the anthropic principle

The weak anthropic principle requires no presupposition. It is pure tautology. Surely you appreciate this? We will only observe ourselves as having evolved on a habitable planet.

Further, it is argued by proponents of KCA that mathematical concepts such as those invoked by Hawking et al are not feasible in the actual world.

proponents of KCA (Craig especially) reveal their complete ignorance of the mathematics/physics of this topic. They are not excatly well placed to make any arguments outside of nebulous pseudo-philosophy (for Craig's obvious lak of critical thinking/willingness to engage in bait-and-switch and subterfuge, let's look at his ontological argument)

I'm more than a little familiar with the mathematics of no-boundary and quantum cosmology in general. Perhaps you would like to bring some these arguments here?

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Shimbabwe, posted 02-26-2012 2:35 PM Shimbabwe has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021