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

[Strange]

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

 

1. I am not saying that. (Perhaps you need to read more carefully.)

 

2. Even if I were saying that, it would not be a logical argument.

 

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.

 

What do you mean by "constituents of the universe"?

 

A creator is any A that creates a B.

 

So you refute a number of cosmological theories with a wave of the hand. Impressive.

 

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

 

So there must be a cause because you don't think there are acausal events? Who is employing circular arguments now?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

 

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.

 

Which is obviously nonsense. There are a great many things we can explain despite now knowing how, or even if, the universe came into existence. The theory of evolution works very well despite there not yet being a good theory of abiogenesis.

 

And so on.

 

 

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.

 

Even if that were true, it has no relevance at all to the ability to explain anything.

[swansont]

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.

Sorry, I thought this was a philosophy discussion.

 

(incidentally, "absurdity of acausality" could additionally be considered poisoning the well)

 

Why does A happen?

There's no reason (i.e. no cause), though there may be conditions under which A won't happen.

[Nyaanyaa]

Strange, refrain from unnecessary snarky remarks. Thank you.

 

 

1. I am not saying that.

 

That is exactly what you said. “B spontaneously creates itself.”

 

2. Even if I were saying that, it would not be a logical argument.

 

Precisely my point. I am dismissing your “suggestion” because it is not logical.

 

What do you mean by "constituents of the universe"?

 

“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.”

 

So you refute a number of cosmological theories with a wave of the hand. Impressive.

 

Rather, you're not understanding what I wrote at all. It's really straightforward. If A creates B, then A is the creator of B. If a quantum fluctuation creates B, then the quantum fluctuation is the creator of B. If a “supernatural” entity creates B, then the “supernatural” entity is the creator of B.

 

So there must be a cause because you don't think there are acausal events? Who is employing circular arguments now?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

 

I have refuted your claim that “there are already many known examples of acausal events.” There is no evidence whatsoever for the absence of a cause for any event (and thus acausality), there is at best absence of evidence of a cause for an event. Because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, there is no evidence of any acausal events; thus, your claim has no foundation.

 

Which is obviously nonsense. There are a great many things we can explain despite now knowing how, or even if, the universe came into existence. The theory of evolution works very well despite there not yet being a good theory of abiogenesis.

 

And so on.

 

The point of such scientific theories is to explain things “well enough,” but if you keep asking Why? you will eventually reach a point where (currently) we no longer know an explanation. Thus, the very foundation of any theory in science is a very big I don't know.

 

Even if that were true, it has no relevance at all to the ability to explain anything.

 

Yes, it does.

 

If A causes B causes C, then A causes C. But if A is unknown, then the in this case fundamental cause of C cannot be explained.

[MonDie]

 

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 interchangeablythey 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.

The simulation hypothesis and multiverse inflation both violate this if true. One part of that definition is more essential, and the other is derived and subject to change based on the real or hypothetical scenario being described.

Plus it's only Wikipedia.

 

---

 

In my humble opinion, laws dictate both what can happen, and what cannot. The absence of governing principles might not mean that nothing could happen, but rather that anything could happen. Thus acausality.

Edited July 19, 2015 by MonDie

[Nyaanyaa]

Sorry, I thought this was a philosophy discussion.

 

Which is why I provided argumentation for my position afterwards.

 

(incidentally, "absurdity of acausality" could additionally be considered poisoning the well)

 

I can hardly point out that acausality is absurd/illogical without pointing out that it is absurd/illogical. I care about logical reasoning, not about making anyone look bad.

 

There's no reason (i.e. no cause), though there may be conditions under which A won't happen.

 

You wrote, “The existence of acausal events does not mean they are without explanation.”

 

If there is an explanation for why A happens, there must be a reason for why A happens; because any explanation for why A happens must begin with A happens because... .

[swansont]

I can hardly point out that acausality is absurd/illogical without pointing out that it is absurd/illogical. I care about logical reasoning, not about making anyone look bad.

But you must establish that it is illogical, not merely state it and use circular reasoning to justify why you don't have to logically exclude it.

 

 

You wrote, “The existence of acausal events does not mean they are without explanation.”

 

If there is an explanation for why A happens, there must be a reason for why A happens; because any explanation for why A happens must begin with A happens because... .

A can happen under certain conditions. IOW, A is not forbidden under those conditions.

 

(don't see a "because" in there)

[John Cuthber]

Last time I checked, the Universe included everything; there can't be two universes because the "second" one would be part of the "first".

 

Not that it matters much, if there's a God (and that's a mighty big "if") then He too is part of the Universe.

[Nyaanyaa]

The simulation hypothesis and multiverse inflation both violate this if true. One part of that definition is more essential, and the other is derived and subject to change based on the real or hypothetical scenario being described.

 

Just different definitions.

 

Multiverse hypotheses propose that there are many alternate universes and that the sum of all these is the multiverse that contains all.

 

Under the definition I provided, all these alternate universes could be called for example sub-universes and the multiverse that contains all would be the universe.

 

 

 

But you must establish that it is illogical, not merely state it and use circular reasoning to justify why you don't have to logically exclude it.

 

Circular reasoning? Where? I have explained quite at length why acausility equates to circular reasoning—A because A because A because A ... .

 

A can happen under certain conditions. IOW, A is not forbidden under those conditions.

 

(don't see a "because" in there)

 

You don't see a “because” in there because you gave no explanation.

 

Why can A happen under certain conditions?

[Strange]

Precisely my point. I am dismissing your “suggestion” because it is not logical.

 

I apologise for not being clear. What I meant was that I was not making a logical argument. I was not saying, for example, that B exists and therefore it was created by B.

 

I was simply suggesting an alternative possibility, that B was spontaneously created (by nothing).

 

Rather, you're not understanding what I wrote at all. It's really straightforward. If A creates B, then A is the creator of B. If a quantum fluctuation creates B, then the quantum fluctuation is the creator of B. If a “supernatural” entity creates B, then the “supernatural” entity is the creator of B.

 

But you claim to have proved that their cannot be a creator. Therefore, if as Hawking asserts, the universe was created by the laws of nature then you dismiss this as impossible. If Poplawski has a mathematical proof that black holes could create new universes, you say he must be wrong (without even looking at the maths). If Penrose suggests that the universe was created by the collapse of another universe you wave this away with your "proof".

 

It must be nice to be able to easily dismiss the ideas of some of the greatest minds of our time.

 

 

I have refuted your claim that “there are already many known examples of acausal events.” There is no evidence whatsoever for the absence of a cause for any event (and thus acausality), there is at best absence of evidence of a cause for an event.

 

Because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

 

If only that glib dismissal were true.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Absence_of_evidence

 

The point of such scientific theories is to explain things “well enough,” but if you keep asking Why? you will eventually reach a point where (currently) we no longer know an explanation. Thus, the very foundation of any theory in science is a very big I don't know.

I don't disagree with that. I have often made the same point myself.

 

But it would be the height of idiocy to extrapolate from that to say that we are unable to design computers because we don't understand quantum theory. Or that evolution cannot be explained by natural selection because we don't understand how to merge GR and QM. Or that computational drug discovery is impossible because we don't have a theory of abiogenesis.

 

Circular reasoning? Where? I have explained quite at length why acausility equates to circular reasoning—A because A because A because A ... .

 

You are adding strawman to your arguments. You will soon have the complete set.

Last time I checked, the Universe included everything; there can't be two universes because the "second" one would be part of the "first".

 

Definitions change (in time and context).

[zapatos]

 

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.

 

'The universe' is a scientific definition and therefore includes everything natural that exists. Examples being energy, matter, and space. If a fourth natural constituent is identified, then it too will be included in the definition.

 

God is generally considered supernatural and therefore outside the definitions of science. If God is not made of things like energy, matter and space, but of something supernatural, then God is not part of the universe.

 

You cannot use a definition that applies to the natural world to disprove the existence of God unless you've presupposed that God is natural.

[david345]

The universe being created makes little sense in the block universe view. A moving point is represented by a line in 4d. Imagine A as a point at the beginning of our universe that caused our universe. In the block universe view this would be similar to A being a point at the left end of our block universe in the direction of time. The beginning of our universe would be like the edge of our universe. If A caused our universe that would mean A allows us to determine what is to the right of A. This is similar to knowing the slope at a point on a curve. You can determine what the curve does to the left or right of the point. Some might ask "what created the block universe?" This argument fails. For the block universe to be created would require a second time outside of our 4d space time. We will call this time t'. At t'1 the block universe does not exist. At t'2 the 4d block universe (past, present, and future) is created. This second time would probably be a block time also. You would turn a 4d block universe into a 5d block universe.

[MonDie]

Circular reasoning? Where? I have explained quite at length why acausility equates to circular reasoningA because A because A because A ...

That's begging the question. Circularity is: A because B and B because A.

[tar]

david345,

 

So, with the block universe, we have essentially a grain size that includes everything, except that grain has a context.

 

Seems that is the rub, as soon as you propose a context for the grain, you violate your own definition of everything.

 

or as John Cuthber says,

 

"Last time I checked, the Universe included everything; there can't be two universes because the "second" one would be part of the "first".

 

Not that it matters much, if there's a God (and that's a mighty big "if") then He too is part of the Universe."

 

So we either have to include everything in everything, or we can't call it everything.

 

Claiming supernatural things also are part of existence, means that supernatural things are part of existence...so they too are part of everything.

 

But, considering that all theories, quantum fluctuation in false vacuums, and such, all require "conditions" and the existence of something, of some definition or another to exist "prior" or in conjunction with the "creation" of a predecessor of the current situation...then there is only one answer to the thread question.

 

Not.

 

The universe started, all space and time, matter and energy, according to measurements, 13.8 billion years ago. But within what context did this happen? Existence of a greater cosmos or realm of existence, within which the universe can be considered a "happening" must be assumed, as in "What was going on 13.9 billion years ago?" . Where were the laws of physics spawned? Did another universe collapse into a black hole, and our universe emerged out the other side of that?

 

The main question remains. If God created the place, did he/she/it have parents, or contemporaries or an audience, or indeed did God create other places that are out of reach of this "universe".

And if God is eternal, as in "always was", why indeed could existence not instead have this eternal characteristic, and God could simply be not required.

 

Existence always was, in some form or another, happening.

 

No creation of everything required. Just the emergence of whatever is, from what was going on before.

 

Regards, TAR

Sometimes I wonder why people need something "bigger" than the universe. Seems quite immense enough, and quite long-lived enough already. Would be nice to "step-outside" and see what the place looks like, except looking would require seeing the light, and light only travels at 186000 miles a second. If you stepped outside the universe, what would you see? Exactly what we see from here, I would imagine.

[david345]

david345,

 

So, with the block universe, we have essentially a grain size that includes everything, except that grain has a context.

 

Seems that is the rub, as soon as you propose a context for the grain, you violate your own definition of everything.

 

or as John Cuthber says,

 

"Last time I checked, the Universe included everything; there can't be two universes because the "second" one would be part of the "first".

 

Not that it matters much, if there's a God (and that's a mighty big "if") then He too is part of the Universe."

 

So we either have to include everything in everything, or we can't call it everything.

 

Claiming supernatural things also are part of existence, means that supernatural things are part of existence...so they too are part of everything.

 

But, considering that all theories, quantum fluctuation in false vacuums, and such, all require "conditions" and the existence of something, of some definition or another to exist "prior" or in conjunction with the "creation" of a predecessor of the current situation...then there is only one answer to the thread question.

 

Not.

 

The universe started, all space and time, matter and energy, according to measurements, 13.8 billion years ago. But within what context did this happen? Existence of a greater cosmos or realm of existence, within which the universe can be considered a "happening" must be assumed, as in "What was going on 13.9 billion years ago?" . Where were the laws of physics spawned? Did another universe collapse into a black hole, and our universe emerged out the other side of that?

 

The main question remains. If God created the place, did he/she/it have parents, or contemporaries or an audience, or indeed did God create other places that are out of reach of this "universe".

And if God is eternal, as in "always was", why indeed could existence not instead have this eternal characteristic, and God could simply be not required.

 

Existence always was, in some form or another, happening.

 

No creation of everything required. Just the emergence of whatever is, from what was going on before.

 

Regards, TARSometimes I wonder why people need something "bigger" than the universe. Seems quite immense enough, and quite long-lived enough already. Would be nice to "step-outside" and see what the place looks like, except looking would require seeing the light, and light only travels at 186000 miles a second. If you stepped outside the universe, what would you see? Exactly what we see from here, I would imagine.

I don't see how your statement has anything to do with what I said.

[tar]

david345,

 

Perhaps I misunderstood your point. It seemed to me you were saying that there was a point in time when the universe was not and then there was a point where it was. I thought you were adding a dimension from which you could see the edge of the universe. I was thinking that this was saying that whenever you needed to, you could just add a dimension and the universe would have a context in which to exist or not exist. That said to me that the context is always available in which something can exist or not exist. The context, existence, therefore does not have anyway to not be...ever. It, existence, is therefore not in need of creation, because it always was so.

 

Or so I thought you were saying.

 

Regards, TAR

But then again I often say things that people don't think have anything to do with the topic being discussed. Perhaps I should explain myself better.

[david345]

david345,

 

Perhaps I misunderstood your point. It seemed to me you were saying that there was a point in time when the universe was not and then there was a point where it was. I thought you were adding a dimension from which you could see the edge of the universe. I was thinking that this was saying that whenever you needed to, you could just add a dimension and the universe would have a context in which to exist or not exist. That said to me that the context is always available in which something can exist or not exist. The context, existence, therefore does not have anyway to not be...ever. It, existence, is therefore not in need of creation, because it always was so.

 

Or so I thought you were saying.

 

Regards, TAR

But then again I often say things that people don't think have anything to do with the topic being discussed. Perhaps I should explain myself better.

Here is a simple introduction to the block universe.

http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2012/09/24/time-free-will-and-the-block-universe/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)

[tar]

david345,

 

I don't like the block universe theory. It is unsatisfying and does not make sense. I subscribe to my own thinking on the matter.

 

Consider for a moment the fact that I held a match up (in the past) when I was 13. The light from that match went out into the universe and is currently a very dispersed half shell of light approximately 48 lys in radius, with a center point located where the Sun and Earth were in space 48 years ago, and the shell is oriented in the direction that New Jersey was facing at that time on that night. I don't remember the exact date or time, but if I did, one could plot the progression of the shell through the local space of the Milky Way. Places inside the shell have already seen the match, places outside the shell have yet to see the light of my match.

 

So past, present and future, are clearly understood. What has happened here has already happened. What has not yet happened here, has not happened yet. There is no place in the universe, that has seen what will happen here tomorrow. And there are plenty of places in the universe that have not yet seen what happened here yesterday. In fact, most of the history of Western Civilization, say the last 4000 years, has not yet been seen by locations in the Milky Way that are further than 4000 lys away.

 

This picture of time, that I hold, has two nows. One that is here and now, to every point of view in the universe, and one now that is 13.8 billion years after the big bang, everywhere, which I call the universal now. In the universal now sense, every local here and now, is currently experiencing the nature of their particular existence for the first time, and each location in the universe is doing what it is doing for the first time. Each local here and now has a definite past (things already done, irreversibly) the present moment, tied flawlessly to the surrounding universe, and the future, which is what is going to happen next, locally. Same is true for all locations in the universe. All are 13.8 billion years old, and time travel is not possible, because you can not get to a place in the universe that is not exactly as old as the universe is. Where ever you go you carry with you both nows, as the flow of time continues in both senses.

 

Any theory that allows one to get out of step with either the local now, or the universal now, is suspect to me.

 

So I don't like your block universe idea. It does not answer anything, and contradicts my thinking on the matter.

 

But, since you think it makes sense, how does it answer the thread question about the universe being created alone or not? Yes or not?

 

Regards, TAR

Edited July 24, 2015 by tar

[david345]

Most physicists believe relativity is a block universe. Your definition of time is made up nonsense.

[tar]

David345,

 

Well, are we talking about a model of the universe, or the universe? I do not know what you are referring to when you say relativity is a block universe. Relativity is a theory, it is not a block universe. I am not following you, at all.

 

But in any case, let's say my definition is made up nonsense, and everybody agrees with you that "relativity is a block universe." Does that mean that the universe was created alone, or not?

 

Regards, TAR

David345,

 

Let me ask you this though. According to most physicists, where are the electromagnetic waves generated by my match when I was 13, right now. Have they left the block universe, or are they currently still in it? And are they about 48 lys from where the Earth was 48 years ago, or not?

 

 

Regards, TAR

[david345]

David345,

 

Well, are we talking about a model of the universe, or the universe? I do not know what you are referring to when you say relativity is a block universe. Relativity is a theory, it is not a block universe. I am not following you, at all.

 

But in any case, let's say my definition is made up nonsense, and everybody agrees with you that "relativity is a block universe." Does that mean that the universe was created alone, or not?

 

Regards, TAR

David345,

 

Let me ask you this though. According to most physicists, where are the electromagnetic waves generated by my match when I was 13, right now. Have they left the block universe, or are they currently still in it? And are they about 48 lys from where the Earth was 48 years ago, or not?

 

 

Regards, TAR

The you that held the match is at the same x,y,z,t location. It has not disappeared or moved on. It is as real as you are now. The now you and the past you both exist at different x,y,z,t locations. At different times objects have different x,y,z locations. Objects do not change their x,y,z,t locations. The picture below shows the moon orbiting the earth. In the block universe veiw this looks like a corkscrew. Notice the past, present, and future all exist in the block universe. The 2d moving planets are represented by a 3d motionless "block".

It makes no sense to say the block universe was created. The answer is not.

[tar]

David345,

 

I am not sure I agree with the logic that says no moment can objectively be singled out at THE special moment, therefore all moments are equally real. It just does not seem to be true to say that.

 

Here is what I think is wrong with that logic. To have such a stance, one must look at time, and the universe from an other than human perspective. Since the flow of time is something we experience as humans, and know exactly what past present and future mean, and they mean the same thing to everybody on the planet, it seems silly to me to say that objectively, if we were not humans, and not on the planet, we would have no particular reason to call now now, yesterday yesterday and tomorrow tomorrow, because just the propagation of light and close to light speed travel could cause the order of events to be claimed as different from different hypothetical positions. So, hypothetically you can take the position of someone on Earth 100 years ago, and say to that person the world was just as real as it is to a person standing on the corner of State Street and Barley Ave. today, so both times are equally real, except for the fact that they are not equally real. The guy 100 years ago is dead and is buried in the cemetery on Barley Ave, 100 ft. away, and is not making the claim that his moment is real. Because his moment is past.

 

Now what makes a particular moment eternal, is the effect that that moment has on the rest of the universe. Like the match, the light waves go out, the ripples go out, and have no reason to ever not move the place, that little bit that they move the place. But that is a different kind of claim than the block universe is making. The block universe is saying that if one takes a god's eye view, all moments are of equal importance, and all places in the universe are of equal importance, and no place is special. Problem is, nobody I know is God.

 

So back to the beginning we go. One that completely understands the flow of time, can not pretend that they can understand the universe from an other than human perspective, because this is the ONLY perspective a human can have. If we are aware of the universe BECAUSE we know what time is and BECAUSE we know what space is, then there it is absolute nonsense to claim a position that the REAL reality is something we cannot imagine.

 

 

Regards, TAR

Perhaps the problem is in the definition of an event. Let's take a super nova. When did it start? When is it over? How many are going on right now in the Milky Way? If we see one tomorrow, does that mean it just is happening tomorrow, or does it mean it happened 30,000 years ago, because its distance from us is measured at 30,000 lys so it must have already happened and the gases from that star are currently rarified to a point where they no longer glow. So one event, that happened at a precise moment in time, at the universal clock mark of 13.8????? billion years, might not "happen" on Earth 'til 10s of thousands of years later. So should we not understand that the super nova itself happened at a special time, before which it was a star, after which it was hot gases streaming out in all direction, and after that it was cooler gases spread out over a great expanse of space? The moment was special. It is already over and done and is in the past. If we see it today we say, "oh that star exploded 30 thousand years ago. And we would be absolutely right.

Edited July 26, 2015 by tar

[david345]

From a human perspective the sun appears to revolve around the earth. The universe often plays tricks on us. Have you took a god's eye veiw of our universe and saw that the past disappeared or is no longer there? You claim we flow along the timeline. At what speed do we move along the time line? A point travels along the distance line over a period of time. A point would need a second time dimension to travel along the timeline. You claim the guy from 100 years ago is dead and buried. You are confusing x,y,z position with x,y,z,t position.

Edited July 26, 2015 by david345

[Moontanman]

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.

 

 

 

 

Can you show the universe was created? Calling the universe creation begs the question of a creator, if we call it reality does it require a realtor? The assumption there was a creator is flawed, you really need to show evidence for this "creator" and there are theories that go back to before the big bang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universeso your assumtion of either or does not hold up to scrutiny...

[tar]

david345,

 

In the context of the question, as to whether the universe was created alone, or not, there is an implied time line. That is, that there is a time before, the creation of the universe, a "present" act of creating the universe, and a subsequent time in which a created universe exists.

 

Is the "block universe" that you are floating completely contained in the "after the universe is created" section of existence, or does the block universe idea contain the situation containing the big bang and its "aftermath". If there was a time the universe was very close together followed by a time the universe inflated at super luminal speeds, followed by a time of expansion, accompanied by several generations of star formation and the evolution of life on Earth and such...does that not imply that those things happened in the past, and are no longer happening, and the universe is currently ALL 13.8 billion years old? Is not the guy, dead and buried, someone who "used to" exist in this universe, that currently does not?

 

Regards, TAR

[david345]

Look at the above picture. There is a slice that is labeled "present" that which happened before the present is located to the left of the present in the direction of time. If something existed before the big bang then that would be similar to saying it exists to the left of the big bang. If something existed before the big bang then it would be more like our neighbor then our creator. The dead guy does not exist in the x,y,z slice that you consider to be the present. His entire life still exists in the 4d block universe. Notice in the picture on the right the entire history of the moon exists as a spiral like object. According to the block universe this is how objects exist. Their entire history exists and is spread out along the time line.

Edited July 26, 2015 by david345