Can causality and symmetry teach us anything about cosmology?

[bascule]

Well, the subject is my question... my question specifically alludes to a conjecture which claims that time has no beginning and simply continues backward ad infinitum.

 

Such a universe, to me, seems inconsistent with both the concepts of causality and symmetry.

 

Well, anyway, when it really comes down to it I don't have a clue... is there anything that can be inferred about cosmology at this level? Can spacetime have an origin? Does it need to? Is it possible for it to simply continue "backwards" ad infinitum?

[DV8 2XL]

Basicaly you are refering to a case of 'field axioms', pick a conjecture about time at random and build a cosmology around it. You'll be in good company.

[bascule]

Well DV8 2XL, you can probably see what I'm getting at. In a strong deterministic universe, the pattern of all causality must originate somewhere.

 

Where? Hmm, perhaps in the eternal Tao, which is inherently unknowable...

[padren]

Well' date=' the subject is my question... my question specifically alludes to a conjecture which claims that time has no beginning and simply continues backward ad infinitum.

 

Such a universe, to me, seems inconsistent with both the concepts of causality and symmetry.

 

Well, anyway, when it really comes down to it I don't have a clue... is there anything that can be inferred about cosmology at this level? Can spacetime have an origin? Does it need to? Is it possible for it to simply continue "backwards" ad infinitum?[/quote']

 

If you do cross any hard science that examines this I would love to hear about it.

 

It appears to be a rather tight paradox: Either there is an original effect that occured without a cause, or there is an infinite chain of cause and effect. Both go against everything we know about cause and effect. The closest thing to a realistic argument to me, is that whatever started time exists outside of time as we know it, and not bound by our understanding of cause and effect over time. This makes more sense to me than our universe containing an infinite reverse chain of causality, which would imply we'd have to reconcile the issue within the causal structure of the universe. Of course when both make so little sense to me my margin for error is far higher than the quanta of difference of which makes more sense.

 

I found the Cosmological Argument (a theological argument based on this which exploits the sherlock holmes fallacy) or more specifically, the subsection of "Critique and Objections" within that page interesting on the topic.

 

Is time currently thought to have began, along with space, at the moment of the big bang? Do we have the math that explores this issue and part of the universe's origin yet at all, or is it still part of the unknown?

 

Edit: Scratch the red, its being discussed in this thread.

[bascule]

Well, I found the philosophical concept I'm inquiring about: infinite causal regress

 

Apparently Thomas Aquinas attempted to use it to prove the existence of God. Or at least attempt to, what he really "proved" was the concept of a "first cause," and his proof of that was shakey at best.

 

So, infinite causal regress, possible, not possible?

[Royston]

I agree with Padren to the extent that there's something (for want of a better word) that exists outside time to remedy a loop that obeys cause and effect.

 

I can't help but think there's a clue within entropy though...with reference to an arxiv article I posted recently, where there's high entropy, there maybe low entropy fields within our universe. What I mean is if asymmetry could begin through the inflation period the same to could happen with time...time could quite possibly annihilate itself until something kick started space-time.

[DV8 2XL]

On the other hand, one can make the argument that the need for a first cause is just a human conceit; we live our little linear lives with a beginning and end, thus we assume that this must be true of the cosmos. In fact there is no requirement at all for a First Cause; the universe may be cyclic, one of many, or just some cosmic accident with a causeless beginning and a dead end.

 

Just like we have trouble conceptualizing quantum scale events with our Newtonian perspective; we may just not be able to get our minds around the concept of a causeless beginning.

[Royston]

This is precisely my point...time should not be considered linear when we're dealing with events building up to asymmetry.

 

The inflation period (the transition from a unified force, to the 4 forces we know today...and the resultant expansion) is non-isolated and as space / matter and time are intrisic (you can't have one without the other) then time should be approached in the same way i.e non-linear.

 

I need to explain my thoughts a little clearer, so I'll be sure to post more on the subject in due course.

[bascule]

On the other hand, one can make the argument that the need for a first cause is just a human conceit; we live our little linear lives with a beginning and end, thus we assume that this must be true of the cosmos. In fact there is no requirement at all for a First Cause; the universe may be cyclic, one of many, or just some cosmic accident with a causeless beginning and a dead end.

 

I believe in a cyclical universe

 

Just like we have trouble conceptualizing quantum scale events with our Newtonian perspective; we may just not be able to get our minds around the concept of a causeless beginning.

 

Well, the question should really become what is the origin (or cause, as it were) of causality? Is causality causeless? Or is there existence beyond causality from whence causality originates (the "first cause" as it were)

 

It would seem to me that any background independent physical theory must include within it the origin of causality. An infinite regression, with causality itself simply having always been and an infinitely long causal chain which has played out over an infinite amount of time, merely seems like a pathetic attempt at dodging the question.

 

It also seems like it would provide no explanation for symmetry...

[Royston]

Or is there existence beyond causality from whence causality originates (the "first cause" as it were)

 

If your saying there's something beyond causality then your contradicting what you say next...existence that's independant of a physical background may as well be infinite...but I agree infinites are a cop out when dealing with causality.

 

It would seem to me that any background independent physical theory must include within it the origin of causality. An infinite regression' date=' with causality itself simply having always been and an infinitely long causal chain which has played out over an infinite amount of time, merely seems like a pathetic attempt at dodging the question.

 

It also seems like it would provide no explanation for symmetry...[/quote']

 

Time being non-linear doesn't necessarily mean infinites...it may just behave in a way we don't experience...or can't experience. If one direction of time is pulling on another direction of time it's possible it could cause a state for us to exist...a low entropy state . If there is asymmetry within matter then why not with time ?

[padren]

 

It would seem to me that any background independent physical theory must include within it the origin of causality. An infinite regression' date=' with causality itself simply having always been and an infinitely long causal chain which has played out over an infinite amount of time, merely seems like a pathetic attempt at dodging the question.

 

[/quote']

 

To me, it sounds the "infinite chain" explanation is a lot like saying the world sits on the back of a turtle, and its "turtles all the way down." (read from someone's sig around here)

 

Its a simple way to communicate what is in effect a horribly more complicated system, that gives some reason for having no explanation, than actually explaining it. The term "forever" is far simplier to communicate and stick in one's head than 342.5421^10482221, even though "forever" is a grander concept.

 

A problem in understanding "first causality" though, is if the "start" of causality originated at the moment of space/time in the universe along with all our known laws of physics and the "starting process" existed before that, it will require we somehow study the mechanics of this environment.

If it is much like our own, then its own cause must be understood, or, if its outside of any spacetime causality and truly the source of the "original first cause" of our universe (instead of just outside our own spacetime) it may have mechanics we may not even be able to study or understand from our vantage point.

 

Questions like, "if our universe came to exist by a process, how often does this process occur and over what size of an area does it occur?" imply an environment where there is space and time and the ability to measure frequency over a span, which would have no meaning in an environment where causality as we know it didn't apply.

 

 

I half expect our spacetime universe to be visualizable as the skin of a [n]D sphere, with what we consider the beginning and end of time just part of the surface of the static globe, allowing the universe to exist as a single unchanging bubble in something far outside our understanding of time and space, every moment past and future existing as a frozen point on the skin.

 

In that case, "the start" is an idea that can only make sense from the within the frame of reference of within the universe itself, but may in itself be flawed when trying to understand how our spacetime universe came to exist from outside the frame of reference of our universe.

 

Of course, "the loop" could just as easily be another oversimplification, no better than infinite causal regress.

[bascule]

To me, it sounds the "infinite chain" explanation is a lot like saying the world sits on the back of a turtle, and its "turtles all the way down." (read from someone's sig around here)

 

I used that quote in an argument with some infinite regressionists. They liked it as well

 

Its a simple way to communicate what is in effect a horribly more complicated system, that gives some reason for having no explanation, than actually explaining it. The term "forever" is far simplier to communicate and stick in one's head than 342.5421^10482221, even though "forever" is a grander concept.

 

Indeed, the infinite regression model doesn't really solve anything, it merely provides some reasoning for its non-solution. It's essentially saying causality exists because it's always existed. I simply cannot imagine the present, complex state of the universe somehow arising through an "infinitely long causal chain" with no origin. But that, of course, can't be used as an argument against infinite regression, since it's just an argument from incredulity.

 

A problem in understanding "first causality" though, is if the "start" of causality originated at the moment of space/time in the universe along with all our known laws of physics and the "starting process" existed before that, it will require we somehow study the mechanics of this environment.

 

As far as I am able to understand it, a "background independent" theory of the universe is supposed to provide explanations for the true nature of space and time, and therefore abstract them out of the model.

 

If it is much like our own, then its own cause must be understood, or, if its outside of any spacetime causality and truly the source of the "original first cause" of our universe (instead of just outside our own spacetime) it may have mechanics we may not even be able to study or understand from our vantage point.

 

I think the true nature of the first cause, if it exists, is inherently unknowable by those of us trapped within causality.

 

Questions like, "if our universe came to exist by a process, how often does this process occur and over what size of an area does it occur?" imply an environment where there is space and time and the ability to measure frequency over a span, which would have no meaning in an environment where causality as we know it didn't apply.

 

Yes, logic seems to break down when trying to describe relationships between causal and acausal elements of the universe. Something which is acausal only seems to perturb the question "How does something which is acausal come to exist in the first place?"

 

I half expect our spacetime universe to be visualizable as the skin of a [n]D sphere, with what we consider the beginning and end of time just part of the surface of the static globe, allowing the universe to exist as a single unchanging bubble in something far outside our understanding of time and space, every moment past and future existing as a frozen point on the skin.

 

In the end there really is only the "universal now" of spacetime itself, and we perceive time because the operation of our brains is dependent on causal relationships.

 

In that case, "the start" is an idea that can only make sense from the within the frame of reference of within the universe itself, but may in itself be flawed when trying to understand how our spacetime universe came to exist from outside the frame of reference of our universe.

 

Yup. Sadly I think it may be a fundamentally unknowable property of the universe.

 

Of course, "the loop" could just as easily be another oversimplification, no better than infinite causal regress.

 

The whole "loop" idea goes back to my asinine notion that a mathematical system which is complete must be entirely self-dependent, and the only way for that to happen is for it to prove its own axioms, which seems like a rather ridiculous notion, but then again so does an acausal "first cause" arising from parts inexplicable, or an inexplicable infinite causal regression.

[DV8 2XL]

The whole "loop" idea goes back to my asinine notion that a mathematical system which is complete must be entirely self-dependent, and the only way for that to happen is for it to prove its own axioms, which seems like a rather ridiculous notion, but then again so does an acausal "first cause" arising from parts inexplicable, or an inexplicable infinite causal regression.

 

So Kurt Gödel was full of dren?

[Royston]

It would seem to me that any background independent physical theory must include within it the origin of causality.

 

Apologies Bascule, I misinterpreted what you meant here...I took the phrase at face value when you were actually referring to Einsteins 'legacy' if you will, which means something entirely different to what I thought you meant.

 

I guess I got a little lost in the context of the thread somewhere...doh!

[bascule]

So Kurt Gödel was full of dren?

 

Well, we all are...

 

However, Godel's views are certainly more logically consistent than the ones I presented which were (admittedly) "full of dren" as it were.

 

Clearly an assumption of a cyclical cosmology, at least as I have conjectured it, is that in some grand fullness of the universe Godel must be wrong. One possibility, which I have conjectured, is that there are no "truly" non-terminating programs because "apparently" non-terminating programs all exist as subroutines within a terminating program.

[padren]

I just had an interesting thought.

 

Given what you said in this thread:

These progressions (and the evolution of our own, personal conscious experience over time) instill in us a sense of time and causality having a set, predetermined direction. But physics views all laws and operations (I think???) as possessing CPT symmetry, that if the process were somehow inverted for charge, parity, and time that it would play out backwards in the exact opposite progression.

 

Is there any difference between infinite causal regress, ie, a universe with no start, and a universe with no end... in terms of time and causality?

 

If time is static from an objective perspective outside the frame than progressive direction (the start and end) are subjective, correct?

 

Even if we stop the "turtles all the way down" does "stars all the way up" cause the same dilema?

[aguy2]

I believe in a cyclical universe

 

So do I, but I prefer the term 'oscillating' in lieu of 'cyclical' and usually modify/limit the term 'universe' by refering to it as the 'observable universe'.

 

aguy2

[bascule]

Even if we stop the "turtles all the way down" does "stars all the way up" cause the same dilema?

 

The idea of an infinitely long causal chain in any form just kind of irks me...

[aguy2]

I half expect our spacetime universe to be visualizable as the skin of a [n]D sphere' date=' with what we consider the beginning and end of time just part of the surface of the static globe, allowing the universe to exist as a single unchanging bubble in something far outside our understanding of time and space, every moment past and future existing as a frozen point on the skin.

 

In that case, "the start" is an idea that can only make sense from the within the frame of reference of within the universe itself, but may in itself be flawed when trying to understand how our spacetime universe came to exist from outside the frame of reference of our universe.

 

Of course, "the loop" could just as easily be another oversimplification, no better than infinite causal regress.[/quote']

 

padren,

I did a yahoo search for a [n]D sphere and didn't find anything understandable to a non-mathemation. Could you help me out here?

 

As I understand it, current physics is saying that on one hand there seems to be no discernable barrior that would make 'temporal loops' an impossibility, but on the other hand there is no evidence that they actually exist in nature.

 

aguy2

[padren]

padren' date='

I did a yahoo search for a [n']D sphere and didn't find anything understandable to a non-mathemation. Could you help me out here?

Sorry, I just meant some-Dimentional, 3D,4D,whateverD since some string theories and all that seems to come up with...11D or something, which gets confusing if they are curled etc, and then for all that to exist in the skin of a sphere that is one dimension higher as a way to describe it...so I just said [n]D instead.

[Mart]

Originally Posted by bascule

One possibility, which I have conjectured, is that there are no "truly" non-terminating programs because "apparently" non-terminating programs all exist as subroutines within a terminating program.

I believe Turing addressed this problem when he proved that there were no terminating programs which included non-terminating subroutines.

[aguy2]

padren,

Here is a question for you. Why do we speak of our reality as being 4 dimensional when it seems that time has the dimensions of past, present, and future?

 

aguy2

[Severian]

To answer the original question, symmetry already has told us plenty of things about cosmology. GR is based on a symmetry, the Big Bang model is based on symmetry, the interactions of particles in the early universe are based on symmetry. Almost all of physics is based on symmetry.

 

And all of physics requires causality, so that is clearly used in cosmology too.

 

However, a universe which is a 4-d sphere would be just as symmetric as a 4d open sheet (which is what you seem o be proposing).

[padren]

padren' date='

Here is a question for you. Why do we speak of our reality as being 4 dimensional when it seems that time has the dimensions of past, present, and future?

 

aguy2[/quote']

 

Past present and future are not dimensions time has, they are two directions and a point along its axis. The "present" is not so much a specific point, but a way to identify the point we are experiencing at any given time.

 

Past and future are no more dimensions than up and down are, they are just directions along their respective dimensional axis (axises, axii?).

[aguy2]

Past and future are no more dimensions than up and down are' date=' they are just directions along their respective dimensional axis (axises, axii?).[/quote']

 

Wouldn't up and down be comparable to 'width', left and right comparable to 'length', and back and forth be comparable to 'breadth' or 'depth'?

 

aguy2