Is it the Universe created alone? Yes or not? Only Yes or Not.

[Enric]

Is it the Universe created alone? Yes or not?

Only Yes or Not.

And which answer is more irrational? Yes or Not?

 

Nobody knows the answer, but the question is very interesting by itself.

 

 

[Thorham]

Maybe.

[Strange]

There seem to be two questions:

 

1. Was the universe created? (Don't know)

2. Is there only one universe? (Don't know)

 

And which answer is more irrational? The one that is not based on evidence: which would be either "yes" or "no". The only rational answer is "don't know".

[Phi for All]

A yes or no philosophy question? Somebody's gonna rupture something.

 

Even with a decent definition of "created", we have no way of verifying either answer, so "don't know" has to be the default. The unknown is interesting, the unknowable is a waste of time, imo.

[MonDie]

To test for intelligent intervention, you have to predict what that intelligence would have done.

Edited July 8, 2015 by MonDie

[Strange]

To test for intelligent intervention, you have to predict what that intelligence would have done.

 

Ooh. That's a third question I hadn't thought of.

 

1. Was the universe created? (Don't know)

2. If so, was it created by someone or something? (Don't know)

3. Is there only one universe? (Don't know)

[pzkpfw]

If there was evidence to decide on which answer was most irrational, that same evidence would give the answer to the first question.

[Nyaanyaa]

The question is actually easily answered through logical reasoning alone.

 

The universe is by definition all that exists. -> Creation requires a creator. -> If a Creator exists, the Creator cannot create the universe because the universe already exists through the Creator's existence itself. -> The universe cannot have been created.

 

Another way towards that conclusion:

 

Creation requires causality (i.e., cause and effect). -> Causality requires the existence of time. -> Time is a property of the universe. -> The creation of the universe requires the universe to already exist. This is a paradox! -> The universe cannot have been created.

 

 

Interesting question: Was the observable universe created?

[zapatos]

The universe is by definition all the matter, energy, and space that exists. A creator could be made of something other than matter, energy, and/or space.

[ACG52]

The question is actually easily answered through logical reasoning alone.

Logic reasoning is a construction of humans based upon what humans perceive. We base our logic on a very small subset of reality,slow moving,low energy,big. Most of the universe isn't like that.

[swansont]

Creation requires a creator.

...

Creation requires causality

 

You can prove this, right?

[MonDie]

NyaaNyaa,

 

If we can simulate a 2D or 3D space using only 1s and 0s, then I imagine a creator could simulate relativity from within whatever meta-dimensional space it exists within. If I am wrong, then how could the simulation hypothesis work?

 

Shoot, this is philosophy!

[Nyaanyaa]

The universe is by definition all the matter, energy, and space that exists. A creator could be made of something other than matter, energy, and/or space.

 

“The Universe is customarily defined as everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist.” Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#Definition.

 

 

 

You can prove this, right?

 

Of course.

 

Creation is—by definition—the process of A bringing B into existence. If no A brings any B into existence, there is no creation. Thus, for any process of creation, there must be a creator A, and a creation B. -> Creation requires a creator.

 

If A creates B, then A causes B. If A causes B, there is causality.

 

 

NyaaNyaa,

 

If we can simulate a 2D or 3D space using only 1s and 0s, then I imagine a creator could simulate relativity from within whatever meta-dimensional space it exists within. If I am wrong, then how could the simulation hypothesis work?

 

Shoot, this is philosophy!

 

You are confusing the universe (i.e., everything that exists, has existed, and will exist) with the observable universe (i.e., everything we can in principle observe).

Edited July 19, 2015 by Nyaanyaa

[StringJunky]

 

“The Universe is customarily defined as everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist.” Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#Definition.

 

 

 

Of course.

 

Creation is by—definition—the process of A bringing B into existence. If no A brings any B into existence, there is no creation. Thus, for any process of creation, there must be a creator A, and a creation B. -> Creation requires a creator.

 

If A creates B, then A causes B. If A causes B, there is causality.

 

 

 

You are confusing the universe (i.e., everything that exists, has existed, and will exist) with the observable universe (i.e., everything we can in principle observe).

I'll agree with you because you are keeping within the accepted definitions.

[zapatos]

 

“The Universe is customarily defined as everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist.” Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#Definition.

 

 

"The Universe is customarily defined as everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist.^[22][23][24] According to our current understanding, the Universe consists of three constituents: spacetime, forms of energy, including electromagnetic radiation and matter, and the physical laws that relate them.

 

I highlighted the next sentence from the link your provided.

[Nyaanyaa]

"The Universe is customarily defined as everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist.^[22][23][24] According to our current understanding, the Universe consists of three constituents: spacetime, forms of energy, including electromagnetic radiation and matter, and the physical laws that relate them.

 

I highlighted the next sentence from the link your provided.

 

You are misunderstanding this. The Universe is defined as everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist. That means you can use the Universe and everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist interchangeably—they mean the same.

 

Thus, the next sentence can be similarly written as:

 

“According to our current understanding, everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist consists of three constituents: spacetime, forms of energy, including electromagnetic radiation and matter, and the physical laws that relate them.”

 

What this sentence expresses is that according to our current understanding all that exists/has existed/will exist is either spacetime, energy, or physical law. If we were to identify a fourth constituent, then our understanding of the universe would be expanded; but the definition would remain unchanged.

[StringJunky]

 

... If we were to identify a fourth constituent, then our understanding of the universe would be expanded; but the definition would remain unchanged.

Exactly. It has been defined.

[Strange]

Creation is—by definition—the process of A bringing B into existence. If no A brings any B into existence, there is no creation. Thus, for any process of creation, there must be a creator A, and a creation B. -> Creation requires a creator.

 

It could have been spontaneously created with no creator.

 

And, of course, it depends what you mean by "creator". Hawking thinks the universe was brought into existence by the laws of physics. Are the laws of physics a "creator"?

 

 

If A creates B, then A causes B. If A causes B, there is causality.

 

If B spontaneously creates itself then there is no A and no causality.

[swansont]

 

Of course.

 

Creation is—by definition—the process of A bringing B into existence. If no A brings any B into existence, there is no creation. Thus, for any process of creation, there must be a creator A, and a creation B. -> Creation requires a creator.

 

If A creates B, then A causes B. If A causes B, there is causality.

 

 

Then your narrow (and tautological) definition is ignoring another possible pathway (see the previous post by Strange), and your second statement, "there is causality" is not the issue. You had essentially concluded "there are no cases of acausality", which your "proof" does not address.

 

A better question would be, "does existence require causality?"

[Nyaanyaa]

 

It could have been spontaneously created with no creator.

 

And, of course, it depends what you mean by "creator". Hawking thinks the universe was brought into existence by the laws of physics. Are the laws of physics a "creator"?

 

 

If B spontaneously creates itself then there is no A and no causality.

 

B because B? This is circular logic.

 

 

 

Then your narrow (and tautological) definition is ignoring another possible pathway (see the previous post by Strange), and your second statement, "there is causality" is not the issue. You had essentially concluded "there are no cases of acausality", which your "proof" does not address.

 

A better question would be, "does existence require causality?"

 

I consider acausality to be in the realm of magic, miracles, and fairy tales—it is absurd. Acausality posits that A happens because A happens, or that the sky is blue because the sky is blue—this circular logic is not only a fallacious argument and proves nothing, but aucasility further posits that there is no other cause but the event itself. It posits that there are hitherto unexplained phenomena that cannot be explained because they cannot be explained. If that is so, then nothing at all can be explained.

[swansont]

I consider acausality to be in the realm of magic, miracles, and fairy tales—it is absurd.

 

Argument from personal incredulity isn't a valid argument.

Acausality posits that A happens because A happens

No, there is no "because". Just "A happens"

 

It posits that there are hitherto unexplained phenomena that cannot be explained because they cannot be explained. If that is so, then nothing at all can be explained.[/size]

Not at all. The existence of acausal events does not mean they are without explanation, and does not mean nothing can be explained.

[Strange]

B because B? This is circular logic.

 

It is not circular logic; it is not a logical argument at all.

 

I am just suggesting (not very originally) that another possibility is that the universe came into being spontaneously. Some have suggested as a result of a quantum fluctuation disturbing a false vacuum,others have other ideas (e.g. eternal inflation). It seems a little naive to dismiss all these cosmologists so simply.

 

You also ignore the interesting(?) question: what do you mean by "creator"? Would you call the quantum fluctuation (or the false vacuum state) to be a "creator"? Or are you only defining "creator" as some sort of supernatural entity?

 

There are many other ideas about the possible origin of the universe: Poplawski suggests universes are created when a block hole forms in another universe; Penrose proposes the universe was created by the collapse of previous universe; other suggest a collision between branes. Do you consider a black hole / previous universe / branes to be a potential "creator"?

 

 

I consider acausality to be in the realm of magic, miracles, and fairy tales—it is absurd.

 

You certainly know how to pack a lot of logical fallacies into a short post. There are already many known examples of acausal events.

 

 

It posits that there are hitherto unexplained phenomena that cannot be explained because they cannot be explained. If that is so, then nothing at all can be explained.

 

The fact we cannot explain one thing does not mean that we can't explain anything. I'm not sure what this fallacy is called, but it seems remarkably common, given that it is self evidently false. There are many things we cannot explain and yet, remarkably, there are also many things we can explain.

[Nyaanyaa]

Argument from personal incredulity isn't a valid argument.

 

It was never meant to be an argument. It was an explanation for why I did not consider the absurdity of acausality in need of explanation.

 

No, there is no "because". Just "A happens"

 

Why does A happen?

Edited July 19, 2015 by Nyaanyaa

[Strange]

Why does A happen?

 

Sometimes, for no reason.

[Nyaanyaa]

It is not circular logic; it is not a logical argument at all.

 

I am just suggesting (not very originally) that another possibility is that the universe came into being spontaneously.

 

You are saying B creates B, which implies B because B. That is indeed not a valid logical argument.

 

Some have suggested as a result of a quantum fluctuation disturbing a false vacuum,others have other ideas (e.g. eternal inflation). It seems a little naive to dismiss all these cosmologists so simply.

 

A quantum fluctuation is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space. It requires constituents of the universe to already exist. The subject of discussion is the entire universe, not just the observable universe.

 

You also ignore the interesting(?) question: what do you mean by "creator"? Would you call the quantum fluctuation (or the false vacuum state) to be a "creator"? Or are you only defining "creator" as some sort of supernatural entity?

 

A creator is any A that creates a B.

 

There are many other ideas about the possible origin of the universe: Poplawski suggests universes are created when a block hole forms in another universe; Penrose proposes the universe was created by the collapse of previous universe; other suggest a collision between branes. Do you consider a black hole / previous universe / branes to be a potential "creator"?

 

Any theory that proposes there are multiple universes uses a different definition of the word universe than I provided. Under that definition, all “multiple universes” would be part of the one universe that entails all.

 

 

There are already many known examples of acausal events.

 

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Not knowing the cause of an event is not evidence for the absence of a cause.

 

The fact we cannot explain one thing does not mean that we can't explain anything. I'm not sure what this fallacy is called, but it seems remarkably common, given that it is self evidently false. There are many things we cannot explain and yet, remarkably, there are also many things we can explain.

 

If there is but one effect A that cannot be explained in a causal chain that encompasses all, then all effects in the chain can fundamentally not be explained because the root is inexplicable. This is because all cause-effect relations must inevitably extend infinitely (i.e., 1 is caused by 2 is caused by 3 is caused 4 ..... is caused by ∞), and thus must inevitably reach a point where the cause is A.