Cause of origin of Universe

granpa

I am reminded of the kid who told the pizza man that he wasnt that hungry so he should only cut the pizza into 6 pieces rather than 8.

it makes no difference how you cut it, its still a meaningless question.

if the first cause had a cause then it wouldnt be the first cause.

we may ask what the first cause was but we cant ask what caused it.

DaveC426913

We do.

It's called the cosmic microwave background radiation or surface of last scattering. This is the actual remnants of the Big Bang.

elegysix

Interesting. didn't know those were associated

NIKHEL RAINA

not any one seeing when universe is forming. It is the imagination of big bang which is correct w.r.t all the theories of science that is why to put question what is the first cause is baseless

NIKHEL RAINA

It is same as the question which one arrive first?
An egg or a hen

DaveC426913

The egg came first.

The planet's first ever chicken was born from an egg, which was laid by a proto-chickenosaurus.

Chronos

Science deliberately sidesteps the 'first cause' issue because it belongs to philosophy. Science is very good at 'what' and 'how', but, not 'why'.

elegysix

Who said there had to be a 'first cause'?

'First cause' is a contradiction to Newton's third law. If there is an effect - big bang, there must be a cause. And there must have been a cause to cause the big bang, and so forth. It is an unending question of why's, the only conclusions are that this reasoning is false, or there is no 'beginning' and therefore an infinite string of causes.

This law is the basis for all our logic - or our logic is the basis for this law - either way, it is our only way of understanding things - which is in terms of 'cause and effect'.

If A, then B... if B, then C... and if B, then we can say C will occur, and that A must have preceded B if nothing else causes B.

Either this logic holds infinitely and there is no beginning, or our logic is flawed.

'Since the universe exists, it must have been created, and something must have caused that to create it...' - to deny this question is to deny any other question based on the logic of cause and effect.

There simply cannot be special cases in this logic. It is either true, or it is not. There are no exceptions.

Your pizza scenario is irrelevant. Clearly, those are two independent things. However, the creation of the universe and the cause of that cause are not independent - by definition one effects the other.


I would say more about a theory which supports the big bang and evidence for it, but argues it is not the 'creation', but that is for a different thread.

NIKHEL RAINA

British researchers say the chicken must have
come first as the formation of eggs is only
possible thanks to a protein found in the
chicken’s ovaries. ‘It had long been suspected that the egg came
first but now we have the scientific proof that
shows that in fact the chicken came first,’ said
Dr Colin Freeman, from Sheffield University, who
worked with counterparts at Warwick
University.

phinds

I was not talking about a "first cause", as I consider that to be purely philosophy and I agee w/ you about it. I was talking about what happened at t=0, which we MAY some day understand.

DaveC426913

Your British researchers are kidding around (or they are fools).

Eggs were around long before chickens were. Dinosaurs laid eggs. The ancestors of the chicken laid eggs.

granpa

the first cause IS what happened at t=0

phinds

I think of "first cause" as something which by definition has nothing before it. We do NOT know that about what happened at t=0 and that is why I think it's a perfectly reasonable question to ask what DID happen at t=0. You MAY be right that it turns out there was NOT anything before that and whatever it is WAS the first cause, but until that's discovered, scientists will keep looking.

You can give up if you want to.

granpa

if there was anything 'before' t=0 then it wouldnt be t=0

phinds

It would be t=0 in terms of our current theory. I agree that it would, if it were discovered that something comes before it, not be t=0 in any absolute sense.

Our current theories just break down at t=0. That is NOT evidence that what we call t=0 was an absolute beginning (it MIGHT be, but it might not)

When I say "t=0" I am using it in what I believe to be the currently accepted meaning in physcs which is "that place where our theories break down but which would have a time value of zero if carried backward from what our current theories DO know"

elegysix

The problem is that you are assuming there must be a 'first cause' and an absolute time of 't=0'.

As you are including it in scientific theories, you must have evidence which justifies this assumption. What is that evidence?
If things appear to come from a point, fair enough - but you cannot just assume that means it was at 't=0', or even that there is such a thing.

DaveC426913

Inasmuch as our understanding of our universe is that it is built upon cause and effect, any event we imagine we can always ask 'what preceded that event?' That is a good assumption.

If there were such an event that did not have a cause preceding it, the onus would be upon you (the royal you) to demonstrate a plausible mechanism by which this might be so.