What is the Ultimate Source of Energy in the Universe?

In summary: This philosophical issue has been dealt with in various forms over and over again.http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hl083.htm#HL1_103Thank you. But I find what Hegel says here to be false:§ 171 ... If the world, or anything, is supposed to have begun, then it must have begun in nothing, (Hegel) But Hegel errors because it is a false premise that a thing (X) "must" have begun in nothing, for clearly beginning of any thing (X) could be nothing
  • #1
ReggieB
2
0
For a cause to effectively be examined, there must be a way to find its cause and its effects. A 'first cause' has no prior cause, thus logic can only deal with its effects, and not the first cause itself, as there is nothing before it to derive its attributes from. Evolutionary theory has prior species to derive base attributes that can be modified through mutations from. Abiogenesis has prior energy to derive the base attributes of life from. What does energy derive its attributes from? Logic cannot help us answer this question unless we discover something to have existed before energy; then it can be posed as to what that effect was caused by.

You can attempt inductive logic to figure out the attributes of some initial cause...but the chances of you being right, even if you've put every last piece of existence into consideration, is less than worthwhile.

This idea is akin to 'The tao that is named is not the eternal tao'. Nobody can ever know what started it all, as there is nothing before it to set the stage for examination through logic. It's very much a, 'Alright, something started this ****heap called existence, but we can never know just what it was' sort of deal.
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #2
Either there was a first cause to existence, or not--first this topic must be decided. I think not, imo, there is no "beginning" to existence (note here I do not say there is no beginning to our universe), for it seems to me that only those things that have a beginning require a first cause.
 
  • #4
heusdens said:
This philosophical issue has been dealt with in various forms over and over again. See for example the treatment of Hegel in Science of Logic, Being, the incomprehensibility of the Beginning. http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hl083.htm#HL1_103
Thank you. But I find what Hegel says here to be false:

§ 171 ... If the world, or anything, is supposed to have begun, then it must have begun in nothing,
(Hegel)

But Hegel errors because it is a false premise that a thing (X) "must" have begun in nothing, for clearly beginning of any thing (X) could be nothing more than ending of any thing (Y), and a thing begun from another thing is not the same as beginning from no"thing".

So, I find little of value in Hegel here as to topic of "beginnings".
 
  • #5
Rade said:
Thank you. But I find what Hegel says here to be false:

§ 171 ... If the world, or anything, is supposed to have begun, then it must have begun in nothing,
(Hegel)

But Hegel errors because it is a false premise that a thing (X) "must" have begun in nothing, for clearly beginning of any thing (X) could be nothing more than ending of any thing (Y), and a thing begun from another thing is not the same as beginning from no"thing".

So, I find little of value in Hegel here as to topic of "beginnings".

You don't read very well or can't understand the argument he makes.

He clearly states that "since that is incomprehensible" (a begin from nothing) it did not begin.
The sentence has the word "supposed" in it, so this is to understand for you, he does not state that "as if true". It can be restated as: "If we would have to assume that the world has had a begin, it would have needed to begin from nothing. But since nothing is only nothing and not a begin of any something, I hold that not to be the case."

Your argument is effectively stating the same, that a begin of any something must be based on a previous something.

So, a begin in or from nothing, is no begin, because nothing is only nothing, not a begin of any something. That, as Hegel states, is incomprehensible.

The Hegel quote is in the middle of some ellaborated explenation about being and nonbeing (which Hegel states are the same, when taken as empty abstractions without anything in them determined), so perhaps you read the whole section.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hlbeing.htm#HL1_81
 
Last edited:
  • #6
Rade said:
Either there was a first cause to existence, or not--first this topic must be decided. I think not, imo, there is no "beginning" to existence (note here I do not say there is no beginning to our universe), for it seems to me that only those things that have a beginning require a first cause.

It is trivially (tautological) the case that the world started from a "first cause".

The "first cause" (without any further ellaboration about what we mean with it) could be stated and for any state the universe is in at any time as the direct past of the "now" (so far that can be uniquely defined, yet any frame of reference has an associated "now").

Likewise we could also claim that the most ancient relic of the cosmos (the "surface of last scattering"), and everything what goes (in practical unobservable) before it, is contained as the "first cause".

Yet, with this, we don't have assumed anything about time or eternity contained in "first cause", and for all practicality, it ain't measurable, and ain't of any importance to us now, so why do we care and why do we want to know?

Any reasoning about it, has no bearing on our life here and now, and is for the most part something which goes well beyond falsification (theoretical constructs like "strings" of size well below the measureable - both practical and theoretical - idem dimensions above the normal 3+1 which are identically unobservable, and regimes of inflation and/or instantons, which can only make some rough estimates on how the world now looks like, which although they make some falsifiable predictions, also make a lot of predictions - multiverses for example - which are equally undetectable even in principle) is more like discussing how many angels can dance on top of a needle, then has any practical significance.
 
  • #7
There was never "nothing." There has always been "something."

It is absurd to think that something can come from nothing without cause or reason.

Therefore, something is eternal, without beginning and without ending.

Therefore, there is no "first cause." First cause inevitably leads to infinite regression which is meaningless, and therefore, logically absurd.
 
  • #8
Royce said:
There was never "nothing." There has always been "something."It is absurd to think that something can come from nothing without cause or reason.Therefore, something is eternal, without beginning and without ending.Therefore, there is no "first cause." First cause inevitably leads to infinite regression which is meaningless, and therefore, logically absurd.

Heusdens claims: "It is trivially (tautological) the case that the world started from a "first cause"

Royce claims: "There is no first cause".

I side with Royce. I see no possibility for a dialectic union of the two viewpoints--am I incorrect ?
 
  • #9
Rade said:
Heusdens claims: "It is trivially (tautological) the case that the world started from a "first cause"

Royce claims: "There is no first cause".

I side with Royce. I see no possibility for a dialectic union of the two viewpoints--am I incorrect ?

IMHO, both viewpoints are vertually saying the same thing.
 
  • #10
Rade said:
Heusdens claims: "It is trivially (tautological) the case that the world started from a "first cause"

Royce claims: "There is no first cause".

I side with Royce. I see no possibility for a dialectic union of the two viewpoints--am I incorrect ?

No.

My "first" cause is not to be understood as a single moment in time, since I argued that the whole history leading up to now, can be thought of as "first cause".
 
  • #11
Royce said:
There was never "nothing." There has always been "something."

It is absurd to think that something can come from nothing without cause or reason.

Therefore, something is eternal, without beginning and without ending.

Therefore, there is no "first cause." First cause inevitably leads to infinite regression which is meaningless, and therefore, logically absurd.


Hegel would claim that Pure Being and Nonbeing are the same.

The truth of both is Becoming as the Unity of Being and Nonbeing.
 
  • #12
heusdens said:
...You don't read very well or can't understand the argument he makes...
I do not argue here against his overall "argument" on being vs nothing (another topic), I argue against the symbolic logic of this sentence he wrote.

Hegal claims (using an if-then statement):
§ 171 ... If the world, or anything, is supposed to have begun, then it must have begun in nothing, (Hegel)

You say he really claims this:

"... "If we would have to assume that the world has had a begin, {then} it would have needed to begin from nothing..."

But this is not a valid statement (that is, the conclusion does not follow from the premise), because even if we have to assume that [A] has a begin, it does NOT logically follow that [A] "must" (his word) or "would have needed" (your word) only begin from nothing . It is equally logical that [A] begin from another something we call [C]. I say nothing more or less about Hegel but that his above statement (and your modification), using rules of symbolic logic, is NOT VALID.

And now another comment about Hegel. Clearly Hegel holds:
“Becoming” contains “being” [e] and “nothing” [n], thus symbolically
b= {the set of e + n}

but, being a good Hegelian, what then is ~ (not becoming), how does Hegel explain the dialectic between and ~ , for if no explanation is found, neither is a valid philosophy, only a meaningless tautology--is this not correct ?
 
  • #13
heusdens said:
Hegel would claim that Pure Being and Nonbeing are the same.

To me, this is saying that B = ~B. Logically this is a contradiction or oxymoron.

The truth of both is Becoming as the Unity of Being and Nonbeing.

This statement is beyond me. I do not understand it at all.

Nonbeing has no beginning hence no end. Nonbeing is the same as nothing. It does not exist. It may be; but it is unchangeable; there, literally, is nothing to change. Nonbeing, nothing, cannot have a becoming as this implies change of state i.e. nothing becoming something and a beginning.

According to my understanding of Hegel nothing cannot become something and therefore there can be no beginning or first cause.

BTW I never have thought much of Hegel or his so called logic. I have always thought that this was why Marx and communism cling so tightly to him. Both are illogical and incomprehensible. IMHO
 
  • #14
Rade said:
I do not argue here against his overall "argument" on being vs nothing (another topic), I argue against the symbolic logic of this sentence he wrote.

Hegal claims (using an if-then statement):
§ 171 ... If the world, or anything, is supposed to have begun, then it must have begun in nothing, (Hegel)

You say he really claims this:

"... "If we would have to assume that the world has had a begin, {then} it would have needed to begin from nothing..."

But this is not a valid statement (that is, the conclusion does not follow from the premise), because even if we have to assume that [A] has a begin, it does NOT logically follow that [A] "must" (his word) or "would have needed" (your word) only begin from nothing . It is equally logical that [A] begin from another something we call [C]. I say nothing more or less about Hegel but that his above statement (and your modification), using rules of symbolic logic, is NOT VALID.


The truth is that It is valid. Your C can not exist, it is already contained in A.

{the world = everything that exists }

You may read it as: if everything would have had a begin, then it would have begun from nothing.

And now another comment about Hegel. Clearly Hegel holds:
“Becoming” contains “being” [e] and “nothing” [n], thus symbolically
b= {the set of e + n}


hmmmm.

I think you would state that as being and non-being are distinct moments of becoming.

but, being a good Hegelian, what then is ~ (not becoming), how does Hegel explain the dialectic between and ~ , for if no explanation is found, neither is a valid philosophy, only a meaningless tautology--is this not correct ?


The anti-thesis of becoming is of course ceasing-to-be.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
Royce said:
To me, this is saying that B = ~B. Logically this is a contradiction or oxymoron.

It sure looks like a joke, but Hegel was quite certain on it.

Well let me try to explain.

First Being and Non-being are really empty and abstract descriptions.

What they have in common is that they are each others opposites.
And that in fact, since they do not contain any determination, means they are the same (abstraction).

This statement is beyond me. I do not understand it at all.

Nonbeing has no beginning hence no end. Nonbeing is the same as nothing. It does not exist. It may be; but it is unchangeable; there, literally, is nothing to change. Nonbeing, nothing, cannot have a becoming as this implies change of state i.e. nothing becoming something and a beginning.

Non-being and Being are equal that both of them are unchangeble, if taken as absolute separate (isolated) as well as empty.

Being can neither change state, because also that means Non-being (of past state).
So Being (on itself) is changeless and without beginning, and without determination, so in fact equal to Non-being!
According to my understanding of Hegel nothing cannot become something and therefore there can be no beginning or first cause.

Not quite right, there is not an absolute seperatedness between being and non-being.

You can not have either one isolated from the other.

If there just was being, then equally there would be no possibility of change.

In that manner also, you can reflect on it that being and non-being are the same.

BTW I never have thought much of Hegel or his so called logic. I have always thought that this was why Marx and communism cling so tightly to him. Both are illogical and incomprehensible. IMHO

Haha.

Well it is understandable, but you have first to swallow it, and if you past that, it will cling on.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
heusdens said:
The truth is that It is valid. Your C can not exist, it is already contained in A...{the world = everything that exists }...
You may read it as: if everything would have had a begin, then it would have begun from nothing...
I do not agree, "my" [C] is not already contained in the [A] of Hegel, my [C] is the antithesis of the Hegel [A], and it is this fact that falsifies Hegel, because his thinking cannot allow for "my" [C] to exist, when it may.

Then,

the antithesis of this statement:

...if everything would have had a begin, then it would have begun from nothing...

is,

...if everything would not have had a begin, then it would have begun from something,

which is an impossibility, to both not have a begin, and to have begun. So, I hold to my claim that Hegel's thinking leads to an invalid argument via the "trivial principle"---"If an argument has all true premises but has a false conclusion, then it is invalid"

But I wait for you to correct my error in thinking.
 
  • #17
If you prefer that the world has a cause in something else, then the world has a begin, so to say.

But mind you, this is not the same as saying that all being has begun from some different being, which is clearly nonsensical.
 
  • #18
heusdens said:
Hegel would claim that Pure Being and Nonbeing are the same.

The truth of both is Becoming as the Unity of Being and Nonbeing.

Hegel makes many claims and substantiates none. He uses antiquated terminology and makes little effort to write clearly (assuming what he wrote was translated correctly). Having died in 1831, he had no knowledge of Relativity, QM, DNA, or BB cosmology. In trying to understand Reality, we should reject such terms as 'pure being' and 'nonbeing' (both pure and impure), 'The Absolute', and 'becoming' (in a metaphysical sense). Replace them with mathematical terms, scientific terms, and use the term 'nothing' instead of 'nonbeing'. Use 'matter/energy' instead of 'being'. Leave 1831 and enter the 21st century.
 
  • #19
sd01g said:
Hegel makes many claims and substantiates none. He uses antiquated terminology and makes little effort to write clearly (assuming what he wrote was translated correctly). Having died in 1831, he had no knowledge of Relativity, QM, DNA, or BB cosmology. In trying to understand Reality, we should reject such terms as 'pure being' and 'nonbeing' (both pure and impure), 'The Absolute', and 'becoming' (in a metaphysical sense). Replace them with mathematical terms, scientific terms, and use the term 'nothing' instead of 'nonbeing'. Use 'matter/energy' instead of 'being'. Leave 1831 and enter the 21st century.

The notions of Hegel are for sure rather abstract, but therefore not incomprehensible.

I think Hegel would have rejected the notion of the Big Bang as the begin of the universe... and he was right (as currently cosmology seems to acknowledge also!).
 
  • #20
Hi ReggieB. Interesting discussion on what determines determinism. :smile:

ReggieB said:
What does energy derive its attributes from? Logic cannot help us answer this question unless we discover something to have existed before energy; then it can be posed as to what that effect was caused by.


Good question! I tend not to view energy as having a definite beginning and end. I think of it being more like a circle.

Perhaps it’s our limited human perception that constructs the illusion of creation & destruction in our mind.

The philosopher and scientist, Spinoza, had insightful ideas on the infinite nature of the universe and its deterministic quality. Einstein was quoted as saying he agreed with Spinoza’s reasoning.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza

"He contended that everything that exists in Nature/Universe is one Reality (substance) and there is only one set of rules governing the whole of the reality which surrounds us and of which we are part. Spinoza argued that God and Nature were two names for the same reality, namely the single substance (meaning "to stand beneath" rather than "matter") that underlies the universe and of which all lesser "entities" are actually modes or modifications, that all things are determined by Nature to exist and cause effects, and that the complex chain of cause and effect are only understood in part. That humans presume themselves to have free will, he argues, is a result of their awareness of appetites while being unable to understand the reasons why they want and act as they do. The argument for the single substance runs as follows:

1. Substance exists and cannot be dependent on anything else for its existence.

2. No two substances can share the same nature or attribute.

Proof: Two distinct substances can be differentiated either by some difference in their natures or by the some difference in one of their alterable states of being. If they have different natures, then the original proposition is granted and the proof is complete. If, however, they are distinguished only by their states of being, then, considering the substances in themselves, there is no difference between the substances and they are identical. "That is, there cannot be several such substances but only one."

3. A substance can only be caused by something similar to itself (something that shares its attribute).

4. Substance cannot be caused.

Proof: Something can only be caused by something which is similar to itself, in other words something that shares its attribute. But according to premise 2, no two substances can share an attribute. Therefore substance cannot be caused.

5. Substance is infinite.

Proof: If substance were not infinite, it would be finite and limited by something. But to be limited by something is to be dependent on it. However, substance cannot be dependent on anything else (premise 1), therefore substance is infinite.

Conclusion: There can only be one substance.



I'd like to know your thoughts.
 
Last edited:
  • #21
Assuming that you are still monitoring this thread, I apologize for the late response.
heusdens said:
First Being and Non-being are really empty and abstract descriptions.

Non-being and Being are equal that both of them are unchangeable, if taken as absolute separate (isolated) as well as empty.

Being can neither change state, because also that means Non-being (of past state).
So Being (on itself) is changeless and without beginning, and without determination, so in fact equal to Non-being!

Not quite right, there is not an absolute separateness between being and non-being.

You can not have either one isolated from the other.

If there just was being, then equally there would be no possibility of change.

In that manner also, you can reflect on it that being and non-being are the same.

I agree that Non-being is an empty and thus non-changeable abstraction.

I do not agree that Being is empty nor non-changeable.
If we look at Being as a pure abstraction and the only alternative or change to the concept of Being is Non-being, then, yes, Being is non-changeable as is Non-being.

However, while Non-being implies, and can only imply, Nothing; Being implies Something and thus cannot be empty in abstraction or in reality.

Something can have the ability or property to change into something else and is thus changeable with no change in its abstract state.

Therefore: While they may have abstract properties in common, they are not and cannot be equal even in the abstract.

Words are symbols and are themselves abstractions. They also have meanings and implications. If we abstract the meanings and implication out of these symbols then yes they become equal, equally meaningless and no longer symbols or words.

This, in my mind, is what Hegel has done and also did to his logic. They are meaningless abstractions and thus all valueless. I equate it with reduction to the point that they become null-symbols with no referent. They then of course are equal, equally meaningless, and thus logically absurd.
 
Last edited:
  • #22
Here is how you can conclude that Being and Nonbeing are in fact the same.

Take in mind some determinate being. Let us say: a coffee cup.
The coffee cup has determinate being, it has distringuishable properties.
However - in regard to being - none of these properties are relevant to it's being. It would be a different coffee cup, or not a coffee cup at all, but it's being would not change at all.
Further, take in mind this same coffee cup, but now as nonbeing (imagine the coffee cup has not yet been manufactured). It has the same distinguishable properties as the coffee cup which has being.

Therefore being and nonbeing differ in nothing, and altogether are nothing.
Yet, being is also different from nonbeing, and directly opposite to it.
The only reality of being and nonbeing is becoming in which both pass over into the other.
 
  • #23
heusdens, I have delayed responding to this last post because I have read it four times and still have trouble understanding it.

First the word "Being" implies, to me anyway, a conscious, aware, living entity. I realize that Hegel and you are using it, "being", as "existing."

In your example a cup is not a being but a thing that exists. It is made of material that has existed in one form or another since the beginning if there is a beginning. The cub is simply another shape or form of something that has existed billions of years.

In one line of thought the cup, its material or matter, has always had the property of being. It has simply changed form. This is a property that non-being does not have and can never have. It does not have the property of being nor does it have the property of changeability, becoming. In this way of thinking being and non-being have nothing in common not even "becoming."

I realize Hegel's premise of all of existence coming from nothing, the basis of materialism, is where we differ fundamentally. I reject the possibility of something coming from nothing. Even the Buddhist philosophy, that Hegel refers to, of the unchangeable Void as being the foundation of the universe is illogical. If it is forever unchangeable and the unchanging foundation of all that exists, how, then, can it change, become something.

Hegel is addressing this contradiction by saying that; therefore , non-being and being must be equal, must be the same. We and the universe are all nothing, come from nothing and will eventually return to nothing. Again from the Buddhist.

This is IMO the fundamental illogic of materialism and Buddhist philosophy of the Void. In order for it to hold Being must equal Non-being, B = ~B. This is logically absurd IMO.

PS
I have been to the void while in deep meditation and it is not empty. A number of other westerners have experienced and reported the same thing. True, there is no material thing existing there, neither matter nor energy, but it is full of spiritual being and energy and thus ever changing. I have made some Buddhist angry when I have mentioned this. Others have dismissed me as totally ignorant of such things and thus not at all enlightened. A typical materialists and physicalist response to any claim or philosophy of Duality or Spiritual existence.
 
Last edited:
  • #24
Royce said:
heusdens, I have delayed responding to this last post because I have read it four times and still have trouble understanding it.

First the word "Being" implies, to me anyway, a conscious, aware, living entity. I realize that Hegel and you are using it, "being", as "existing."

Correct. (although in the terminology of Hegel "being" and "existence" mean something else).

In your example a cup is not a being but a thing that exists. It is made of material that has existed in one form or another since the beginning if there is a beginning. The cub is simply another shape or form of something that has existed billions of years.

You refer to the matter of which the cup is made.
But being (in determinate form) refers to something in specific.

In one line of thought the cup, its material or matter, has always had the property of being. It has simply changed form. This is a property that non-being does not have and can never have. It does not have the property of being nor does it have the property of changeability, becoming. In this way of thinking being and non-being have nothing in common not even "becoming."

Being and Nonbeing belong together, and one turns over into the other.
They pass over into another because they are not absolutely seperate.

I realize Hegel's premise of all of existence coming from nothing, the basis of materialism, is where we differ fundamentally. I reject the possibility of something coming from nothing. Even the Buddhist philosophy, that Hegel refers to, of the unchangeable Void as being the foundation of the universe is illogical. If it is forever unchangeable and the unchanging foundation of all that exists, how, then, can it change, become something.

"Coming from nothing" is clearly a misnomer and your reference to it is essentially telling you did not grasp the idea of Hegel.
And by the way, Hegel was an Idealist (primacy of consciousness), not a Materialist (primacy of matter).

Hegel regards (pure) Being and Nonbeing essentially in their dialectical unity. Outside of that unity, both are meaningless. Like positive belongs to negative and the northpole belongs to the southpole.

Let's take another example.
In the early universe massive clouds of hydrogen turn itself into stellar systems.

In other words the Being of the hydrogen cloud turns into Nonbeing and at the same time the Nonbeing of the star turns into Being.
[ and remark that this does not mean that being turns into nothing either as that nothing becomes something. ]

That is the proper way of looking at it, and in this sense, you see how being belongs to nonbeing and can not exist seperately. Their unity is the process of becoming.
Hegel is addressing this contradiction by saying that; therefore , non-being and being must be equal, must be the same. We and the universe are all nothing, come from nothing and will eventually return to nothing. Again from the Buddhist.

Like I said before: Being and Nonbeing belong to each other (as a dialectical unity of opposites), not seperately, because they are meaningless then.

This is IMO the fundamental illogic of materialism and Buddhist philosophy of the Void. In order for it to hold Being must equal Non-being, B = ~B. This is logically absurd IMO.

I think you simply didn't get it.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hlbeing.htm
 
Last edited:
  • #25
(That was quick)
I didn't. I think that I was looking too deeply nor did I know that Hegel was an idealist. Your last example with the gas clouds seems to clear it up for me. I think now that I understand. In this sense then Being and Non-being are linked and share the property Becoming as you and he said. (but, I might add, only in our minds.)
To a die hard realist this is of course nonsense. Which is probably why I couldn't get it. It is a major paradigm shift from realistic to idealistic thinking. Thanks for you help and patience with me.
 
  • #26
heusdens said:
Being and Nonbeing belong together, and one turns over into the other.They pass over into another because they are not absolutely seperate.

I think that quite often the proposed notion of 'nonbeing' leads to a lot of difficulties. It seems, at first, to be the opposite of being, but this, in Hegels sense, is not the case. Nonbeing, as defined by Hegel appears to be "the other which takes its (beings) place". In this defintion, nonbeing is not where being comes from, its where it goes (ie: water becomes ice). It reflects a movement from one state (of being) to another (state of being). Water is Being and, before it changes, Ice is Nonbeing. Then water (Being) becomes Ice (Nonbeing). However, once it has become Ice then THIS is Being and whatever the ice will change into becomes Nonbeing. In this case Nonbeing does not mean "nothing", it means "being, but at a different time". Its no big deal. Of course being and nonbeing are the same thing.
In terms of the first cause or whatever, this seems to imply that that universe (present state of being) "became" from a prior state of being. Something I personally have no problem with. The only grey area is "Why do things 'become'? What is the "mechanism" that moves Being to different states?
It should also be made clear that nonbeing is never achieved. It is an intellectual notion and nothing more.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
heusdens said:
It can be restated as: "If we would have to assume that the world has had a begin, it would have needed to begin from nothing. But since nothing is only nothing and not a begin of any something, I hold that not to be the case."

Your argument is effectively stating the same, that a begin of any something must be based on a previous something.

So, a begin in or from nothing, is no begin, because nothing is only nothing, not a begin of any something. That, as Hegel states, is incomprehensible.
I find the use of the word "from" here troubling.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
mosassam said:
The only grey area is "Why do things 'become'? What is the "mechanism" that moves Being to different states?
Being and becoming (change) are necessary properties of any cognisant universe. Why do we observe that our universe has this property of becoming? Because if it did not have this property, then we would not be here to ask the question.

The mechanism underlying becoming (the mechanism which "moves" Being to different states) is simply the physical makeup of our 4-dimensional spacetime; the 3-dimensional spatial "Being" at any point in time is constrained to be consistent with the 3-dimensional spatial "Beings" at all other points in time, and the rules governing this consistency we call the "laws of nature".

MF
 
  • #29
moving finger said:
Being and becoming (change) are necessary properties of any cognisant universe. Why do we observe that our universe has this property of becoming? Because if it did not have this property, then we would not be here to ask the question.

The mechanism underlying becoming (the mechanism which "moves" Being to different states) is simply the physical makeup of our 4-dimensional spacetime; the 3-dimensional spatial "Being" at any point in time is constrained to be consistent with the 3-dimensional spatial "Beings" at all other points in time, and the rules governing this consistency we call the "laws of nature".

MF

I understand the curiosity that has brought this question about the origin of the big bang. I can only speculate that, judging from the way nature produces events and things, there was a universe before this one and its remnants have spawned ours.

One Big Bang, or were there many?· New theory tries to solve problem Einstein raised
· Universe may be much older, say cosmologists

James Randerson, science correspondent
Friday May 5, 2006
The Guardian

The universe is at least 986 billion years older than physicists thought and is probably much older still, according to a radical new theory.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1768191,00.html
 
  • #30
moving finger said:
Being and becoming (change) are necessary properties of any cognisant universe. Why do we observe that our universe has this property of becoming? Because if it did not have this property, then we would not be here to ask the question.

The mechanism underlying becoming (the mechanism which "moves" Being to different states) is simply the physical makeup of our 4-dimensional spacetime; the 3-dimensional spatial "Being" at any point in time is constrained to be consistent with the 3-dimensional spatial "Beings" at all other points in time, and the rules governing this consistency we call the "laws of nature".

So basically, things are the way they are because that's the way they are. It seems a bit lame to me and an absolutely pointless thing to say.
 
  • #31
mosassam said:
So basically, things are the way they are because that's the way they are. It seems a bit lame to me and an absolutely pointless thing to say.
You misunderstand, that's why it seems pointless to you. I suggest you read up about the anthropic cosmological principle.
 
  • #32
ReggieB said:
For a cause to effectively be examined, there must be a way to find its cause and its effects. A 'first cause' has no prior cause, thus logic can only deal with its effects, and not the first cause itself, as there is nothing before it to derive its attributes from. Evolutionary theory has prior species to derive base attributes that can be modified through mutations from. Abiogenesis has prior energy to derive the base attributes of life from. What does energy derive its attributes from? Logic cannot help us answer this question unless we discover something to have existed before energy; then it can be posed as to what that effect was caused by.

You can attempt inductive logic to figure out the attributes of some initial cause...but the chances of you being right, even if you've put every last piece of existence into consideration, is less than worthwhile.

This idea is akin to 'The tao that is named is not the eternal tao'. Nobody can ever know what started it all, as there is nothing before it to set the stage for examination through logic. It's very much a, 'Alright, something started this ****heap called existence, but we can never know just what it was' sort of deal.


This is a stance I often encounter at religious people and (too) strong empiricists, there are some 'mysteries' which will remain forever beyond science or, in other versions, we should not try to answer questions situated too far from the phenomenological experience. Not the best of options in my view.

I remember talking once on the net (during the 'glory days' of askme.com, some may remember that forum) with a Zen follower who, when asked questions considered metaphysical, always retorted 'why do you want to know this?', 'what is the sound of one hand clapping?' etc instead of trying a philosophical answer...Knowing even at that time some philosophy I recognized immediately a strong positivist doctrine which, while very helpful for finding inner peace, represent rather an antithesis of the scientific spirit...

Indeed one of the basic (heuristic) tenets of science is that nature can be explained (in principle), basically never give up (even going beyond methodological naturalism if very very strong evidence for supernatural is found; or beyond methodological reductionism if there are very good reasons to prefer strong emergence). And scientists have strong reasons to avoid renunciation stances, the 'positivist period' in the history of science, beginning with Comte and Mach and finishing with logical positivism, proved rather harmful for the scientific quest (which does not amount to say that philosophy itself is responsible for the long lasting legacy of positivism in science as the widespread myth goes, especially in the physics circles - beginning with Weinberg and Feynman...). As Popper said once ‘even the most obvious connections remain unseen if we are constantly brainwashed that they are impossible or meaningless’…it is better to deal with ‘metaphysical research programs’ (of course being fully aware of their limits by avoiding too strong ontological commitments) than with nothing at all.

Thus the problem you raise falls, for a scientist, in the same category with questions situated very close to everyday facts, there is no good reason yet to put it in another category. Sure the answers here (more generally in the parts of science situated at the border) are not on equal footing with let’s say Newton’s second law but they are still the best we managed to find at this time, based on existing evidence and reliabilism (anyway all of science is considered fallible). In spite of the fact that our best existing physical theories ‘break down’ at extremely high energies we can still use them to construct hypotheses which are the most coherent with all we know at the moment (though of course we cannot confirm them as we can confirm GR for example). The time when a scientist (a cosmologist anyway) would have said that ‘it is meaningless to talk of what happened before big bang’ seems, happily, to have gone…

The infinite inflationary hypothesis of Guth is one of the best answers we have to this problem, there is no need to think of Big Bang as a Beginning of spacetime in absolute (see http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/mysteries/html/uns_guth_1.html for a short intro). It runs of course in the problem of being (it seems) impossible to be confirmed but the same claimed Comte in the 19th century in the problem of the composition of stars (he claimed that we can never know their composition)…so beware of too strong conclusions.

Guth talks of this criticism in his book ‘The Inflationary Universe’ and his conclusion is: “Given the plausibility of eternal inflation, I believe that soon any cosmological theory that does not lead to the eternal reproduction of the universes will be considered as unimaginable as a species of bacteria that cannot reproduce.” While he may be too optimistic here it is clear that his solution is one of the most coherent with the main corpus of the actually accepted scientific theories and methodologies (including methodological naturalism) and could become one day a full part of accepted scientific theories.

And this is not the only serious alternative; recently even the cyclical hypothesis has been ‘resuscitated’ (so far it drew little attention; not because it was proved in any way as impossible but because no one had a clue of how to reconcile it with the accepted laws of physics, especially with the second law of thermodynamics):

No Big Bang? Endless Universe Made Possible by New Model

Still early days indeed but the boldness of scientific quest is preferable to renunciation…I think one can always find a state of inner peace and still be characterized by the strive to ponder upon answers to seemingly 'forever metaphysical' questions - as much as too strong ontological commitments are carefully avoided…Finally, while indeed some [very important] things may be forever above science (no one denies this possibility), there is still no good reason to adopt this stance at this moment; in science at least.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
mosassam said:
So basically, things are the way they are because that's the way they are. It seems a bit lame to me and an absolutely pointless thing to say.
actually, I just thought of a better answer : 42.

Does that make any more sense?

The fundamental problem is that it is meaningless to seek any "ultimate meaning" or "ultimate explanation" for anything - apart from the explanations provided by consistency, coherency and rationality themselves.

Just imagine that you had an explanation "Z" which is "why the universe is the way it is" - what is to then stop you from asking "why Z"?

The theists at least realize that their "ultimate explanation" is beyond further rational enquiry - it makes no sense (ie we are not allowed) to ask "why God?"
 
  • #34
moving finger said:
... it makes no sense (ie we are not allowed) to ask "why God?"
Perhaps the "why" of god is to allow you to ask "why" ? So I find some sense in the question. And since god provides humans free will, you are then free to do anything, including ask (e.g., think about) "why god", but you are not free to find an answer unless god wills that you know.
 
  • #35
Rade said:
Perhaps the "why" of god is to allow you to ask "why" ? So I find some sense in the question. And since god provides humans free will, you are then free to do anything, including ask (e.g., think about) "why god", but you are not free to find an answer unless god wills that you know.
To a theist, God is the ultimate creator of all things, but God was not in turn created (or if He was created, then He created Himself). Therefore (to a theist) it makes no sense to ask "why God?" - the question is meaningless (ie senseless) to a theist.
 
<h2>1. What is the ultimate source of energy in the universe?</h2><p>The ultimate source of energy in the universe is the fusion of hydrogen atoms in the cores of stars. This process releases an immense amount of energy in the form of heat and light, which sustains the life of stars and provides energy for other processes in the universe.</p><h2>2. How does the fusion of hydrogen atoms create energy?</h2><p>Fusion occurs when two or more atoms combine to form a new, heavier element. In the case of hydrogen atoms, they fuse together to form helium atoms, releasing a large amount of energy in the process. This energy is released due to the conversion of mass into energy, as described by Einstein's famous equation, E=mc².</p><h2>3. Is the fusion of hydrogen atoms the only source of energy in the universe?</h2><p>No, there are other sources of energy in the universe, such as nuclear fission, which is the splitting of atoms, and gravitational potential energy, which is the energy stored in objects due to their position in a gravitational field. However, the fusion of hydrogen atoms is the most abundant and powerful source of energy in the universe.</p><h2>4. How long has the fusion of hydrogen atoms been the source of energy in the universe?</h2><p>The fusion of hydrogen atoms has been the source of energy in the universe for billions of years. It is estimated that the fusion process has been occurring in stars since the early stages of the universe, and it will continue to do so for billions of years to come.</p><h2>5. Can we harness the energy from the fusion of hydrogen atoms for human use?</h2><p>Scientists are currently working on developing technology that can harness the energy from fusion reactions for human use. This technology is known as nuclear fusion, and it has the potential to provide a nearly limitless source of clean energy for our planet. However, it is still in the early stages of development and has not yet been fully realized.</p>

1. What is the ultimate source of energy in the universe?

The ultimate source of energy in the universe is the fusion of hydrogen atoms in the cores of stars. This process releases an immense amount of energy in the form of heat and light, which sustains the life of stars and provides energy for other processes in the universe.

2. How does the fusion of hydrogen atoms create energy?

Fusion occurs when two or more atoms combine to form a new, heavier element. In the case of hydrogen atoms, they fuse together to form helium atoms, releasing a large amount of energy in the process. This energy is released due to the conversion of mass into energy, as described by Einstein's famous equation, E=mc².

3. Is the fusion of hydrogen atoms the only source of energy in the universe?

No, there are other sources of energy in the universe, such as nuclear fission, which is the splitting of atoms, and gravitational potential energy, which is the energy stored in objects due to their position in a gravitational field. However, the fusion of hydrogen atoms is the most abundant and powerful source of energy in the universe.

4. How long has the fusion of hydrogen atoms been the source of energy in the universe?

The fusion of hydrogen atoms has been the source of energy in the universe for billions of years. It is estimated that the fusion process has been occurring in stars since the early stages of the universe, and it will continue to do so for billions of years to come.

5. Can we harness the energy from the fusion of hydrogen atoms for human use?

Scientists are currently working on developing technology that can harness the energy from fusion reactions for human use. This technology is known as nuclear fusion, and it has the potential to provide a nearly limitless source of clean energy for our planet. However, it is still in the early stages of development and has not yet been fully realized.

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • Cosmology
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
819
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
20
Views
939
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Cosmology
Replies
31
Views
2K
Back
Top