The impossibility of a begin of time

  • Thread starter heusdens
  • Start date
  • #1
heusdens
1,736
0
The impossibility of a begin of time

One of the contemporary and most popular beliefs both amongst theists and scientists is the belief that the universe had a begin in time.

This belief has grown due to the fact that more and more evidence is provided for the theory of the Big Bang, a theory which in itself does not state other then that - since we now can witness that far away galaxies are 'receding' from us with increasing speeds (Hubble redshift-distance relation) that the universe was in the far past smaller, denser and hotter.
In this discussion, the theoretical and observational evidence for the Big Bang is assumed to be correct, and is not of relevance to the discussion. It is hold that the possibility of a begin of time or what was 'before' the Big Bang, and hypothesis based on this, are not part of the Big Bang theory itself, but are part of pre-Big Bang cosmology (like for example the Ekpyrotic model of colliding branes in string cosmology, and the eternal / open / chaotic inflation model)

So we will focus this discussion entirely on only one aspect of the Big Bang, namely the hypothese and popular belief that the Big Bang denotes or came out of the "begin of time", and which therefore means that there was no before.

But this topic as such has been long known to scientists and philosophers to be a topic of interest.

It has been stated in the past that it would be inconceivable that the now would have been formed by an infinite causal events lined up to each other. A contemporary argument for this is known as the Kalam Cosmological argument. But history shows that this argument has been used over and over again, as for example by Leibnitz and Kant.

And thirdly there is the argument from Thermodynamics, in which the Second law of thermodynamics is applied on the universe as a whole, and which would mean that the universe would already have used it's amount of usable energy, which as we can see happens not to be the case, and therefore it has to be assumed that the universe must have had a definite begin in time.

So, to be put in brief, the three major arguments for a begin in time are:

  • [1] A postulate or hypothese in which the Big Bang denotes the begin of time.

    [2] The impossibility of an actual infinite, and therefore the need of a definite begin of time.

    [3] The argument from the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the universe is a closed system, and which means that it's amount of usable energy must decrease, and hence a begin in time is required.

In the following posts I will discuss all three arguments, and provide sufficient counter arguments against these ideas, in defense of the position hold by materialist, that there can not have been a begin of time.

[TO BE CONTINUED]
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
heusdens
1,736
0
Introduction part #1

Introduction

Before I put in my arguments, let us first denote and state here that, based on these most used argument, a whole lot of people tend to believe that the "begin of time" is an integral part of science. Most people would not even tend to be critical about it, and ask the question how at all a begin of time is possible.

This has to do with the fact that the Big Bang theory, while at one sided being a well tested theory, but at the other side in the popular understanding of this, the Big Bang theory has become a synonym for the "begin of time" scenario.

What does the Big Bang theory in fact state and not state?

We will not try to repeat the whole scientific theory here, but just indicate some of the foundations on which this theory rest. There is of course a lot more that can be said about this, so this is just a short explenation.

For a more detailed explenation of the Big Bang scenario, I will refer to http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm" [Broken]

Firstly, after the General Relativity theory had been developed by Einstein, it became obvious to a number of theoretical physicsists that one of the solutions to the Big Bang would be an expanding (or contracting) universe model. Einstein also saw this, and because he believed in static universe, he therefore introduced a cosmological constant, that would balance the force of gravity in the universe as a whole, and would cause the universe to be in a stable steady state. Later on Einstein has considered this his "biggest blunder".
A russian scientist Alexander Friedman however developed some possible cosmological models, of which some were models for an expanding universe. Depending on the overall density of matter in the universe, this model would either: recollapse (closed model: density > critical density) or expand eternally (open model: density < critical denisty), with a balancing model in which the expansion is slowing down and nears zero when time nears infinity (density = critical denisity).
This model at that time (early '20-ies) was however a purely theoretical model, and was not yet based on observational evidence.
The tremendous development in astronomic observations however revealed more and more of the distant parts of the universe. Due to the development of reliable standards for measurements (there are a number of tools that are used to measure distances, for the most distant observations astronomy uses a class of stars that have a unique feature, based on the spectrum of the star we know their actual brightness, which makes it possible to measure the distance to such a star and use that as a standard for cosmic measurements).
One of the most astonishing outcomes of these observations was that there was an appearant relation between the distance to a distant astronomical object, and the redshift. The further away an astronomical object, the more the spectrum is shifted to red.
This was at that time some unexplained phenomena. The phenomena is investigated, and there have been many attempts to explain this phenomena based on for example the hypothese of tired light: during the long travel of light through the intergalactic cosmos, the light waves would become stretched and loose energy, and therefore appear redder. Although there have been proposed mechanisms for this (for example due to the existence of intergalactic matter, in the form of plasma) none of them was able to explain the redshift-distance relation and observed light spectrum.
A better explenation was however found when combining this observation with the theoretical model of an expanding universe.
It in fact showed that the redshift-distance relation was the observational evidence for the expanding universe cosmological model. An astonishing discovery! The Big Bang model was born!
At that time, not all physicist and cosmologist accepted this model, and for some years, a majority of scientists adapted to a model of a Steady-state universe. This model proposed that there would be some center to the universe, in which new matter was born, and was sort of 'filling the gaps' due to the expansion of the universe, which would result in a steady universe.
Although initially there were a number of issues that were not solved in the Big Bang model, adjustments and improvements of the model indicated that this was the best theory on hand that fit the observed data, and gave rise to the development of a hot Big bang. The hot Big bang describes that the universe further in the past was smaller, denser and hotter. Due to the "marriage" between cosmology and particle physics that took place, scientific models were developed, that could explain the physical phenomena going on in the early phase of the universe.
New evidence was found due the observation of the so-called Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, which showed to be a steady source of microwave coming from all parts of space, indicating a 3 Kelvin temperature of outer space (2.7 Kelvin to be exact).
Although this was short time thereafter incorporated as evidence for the Big Bang, as the remnants of the photons which were created as a result of the Big Bang itself, at that time there was also another viable explenation on hand, that could explain this phenomena.
This has to do with the so-called paradox of Olber. He adressed the question as to why the night sky is dark. At the time of Olber the universe was still theorised acc. to Newton as a static and infinite space. When theoretizing that in every part and every direction of space there must be a same amount of luminious matter (stars, etc) with the same luminosity, one can calculate that although the more distant stars are seen dimmer, this is compensated by the increase in the amount of stars the further one looks, and thus would mean that in an infinite universe, the nigh sky should be in every direction of space as brilliant as the surface of the sun! This is obviously not the case, which can be explained on the basis of the Big bang model. The existence of large quantities of dark material (dust) would not be a plausible solution either, because all light what is absorbed would be reemited too. However a possible explenation of the CMBR phenomena was thought to be the solution to Olber's paradox, as that the night sky is in fact brilliant in the 3 Kelvin spectrum.
Earlier calculations of this, at the basis of the remnants of all the light from all the stars in space, indicated an overall value of space which was near to 3 K. Calculations based on the Big Bang model initially indicated a far larger value.
However, the explenation of the CMBR as being the remnants of the light of all the stars in the universe was rejected on the basis that this explenation could not possible match the observed spectrum of the CMBR, and which could be explained on the basis of the Big Bang model only. The CMBR therefore is now adopted as strong evidence for the Big Bang model.
Even so, and still up to today, the Big Bang model has some problems as to explain all the observed phenomena, but is nevertheless the theory that best fits the observational data.
Due to the marriage of cosmology and physics, the Big bang scenario has been theoretized in models which go as far back as to 10 to-the-minus 43 seconds! The "begin of time" as such, however is not incorporated in the Big Bang model. As to this , physics is set up with the problem that they don't have a theoretical model that could describe how matter in such conditions (immense density and temperature!) would behave, and there appearantly is not a quantum theory of gravity.

[TO BE CONTINUED]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
heusdens
1,736
0
Introduction part #2

Introduction, part 2

Theory development has not stopped there. Already in the end of the 70-ies the Soviet scientists Starobinsky theoretized about a large scale material transition or tranformation that could have taken place in the early universe. Although the initial model did not work and was far too complex, it did set science and theory development on the right track. One of the scientists that developed this theory into a workable model was Alan Guth, who developed a theory that became known as inflation theory. Inflation theory is built up on vacuum energy.

"The crucial property of physical law that makes inflation possible is the existence of states of matter that have a high energy density that cannot be rapidly lowered. Such a state is called a "false vacuum," where the word "vacuum" indicates a state of lowest possible energy density, and the word "false" is used to mean temporary. For a period that can be long by the standards of the early Universe, the false vacuum acts as if the energy density cannot be lowered, since the lowering of the energy is a slow process."

"The peculiar properties of the false vacuum stem from its pressure, which is large and negative (..). Mechanically such a negative pressure corresponds to a suction, which does not sound like something that would drive the Universe into a period of rapid expansion. The mechanical effects of pressure, however, depend on pressure differences, so they are unimportant if the pressure is reasonably uniform. According to general relativity, however, there is a gravitational effect that is very important under these circumstances. Pressures, like energy densities, create gravitational fields, and in particular a positive pressure creates an attractive gravitational field. The negative pressure of the false vacuum, therefore, creates a repulsive gravitational field, which is the driving force behind inflation.

There are many versions of inflationary theories but generically they assume that some small patch of the early Universe somehow came to be in a false vacuum state Various possibilities have been discussed, including supercooling during a phase transition in the early Universe, or a purely random fluctuation of the fields. A chance fluctuation seems reasonable even if the probability is low, since the inflating region will enlarge by many orders of magnitude, while the non-inflating regions will remain microscopic. Inflation is a wildfire that will inevitably take over the forest, as long as there is some chance that it will start.

Once a patch of the early Universe is in the false vacuum state, the repulsive gravitational effect drives the patch into an inflationary period of exponential expansion. To produce a universe with the special features of the Big Bang discussed above, the expansion factor must be at least about 10 to-the-power 25. There is no upper limit to the amount of expansion. Eventually the false vacuum decays, and the energy that had been locked in it is released. This energy produces a hot, uniform, soup of particles, which is exactly the assumed starting point of the traditional Big Bang theory. At this point the inflationary theory joins onto the older theory, maintaining all the successes for which the Big Bang theory is believed. "

[Quotes from "WAS COSMIC INFLATION THE 'BANG' OF THE BIG BANG?" A. Guth] See link http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Guth/Guth_contents.html" [Broken]]

[TO BE CONTINUED]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
heusdens
1,736
0
What does science say or not say?

What does science say or not say?

After my first explenation of the purpose of the thread, and an introduction tot the current perspective of the cosmological model, let us go further with the arguments that are used to show that time had a beginning.

One of the popular beliefs is that:
  • Science explains there is a begin of time
  • the Big Bang denotes the begin of time
  • There is no "before" the Big Bang


However:

Science as such does not include a notion of a begin of time. Neither it can. For example one of the most and rigourlously tested laws is the first law of thermodynamics. It says that both matter (particles) and energy are conserved quantities. The amount of matter and energy (even when, due to E=mc2, matter and energy can be transformed into another under certain conditions) is therefore conserved, and there is no known mechanism to create matter or energy from nothing, neither is there a way in which matter or energy can dissolve into nothing.

Even when we consider that there are phenomena, like virtual particles, that seemingly come from nowhere, live shortly, and go back to nowhere, there is no evidence that anyhow this first principle is broken. Even when we don't have a clue as to what caused the creation of a particle-antiparticle pair. There is however no way in which this phenomena can be used to create any measurable amount of matter or energy as a nett quantity. Not knowing the causes for this phenomena of particle-antiparticle creation is however not telling that there is no source for it. There appearently is, although as of yet unknown.
It is important also to consider that virtual particles exist in what is called a vacuum, although a vacuum is never completely empty of matter or energy. Even in the most distance intergalactic space there is still the gravity field and photons from the CMBR.

Science therefore still holds on to the principle that matter and energy as such can not be created or destroyed. It is indestructable. This means that a begin of matter can not be conceived, neither an end. Matter and energy are infinite in the sense that they are neither created or destroyed, but always transformed, developing, changing and in motion.

Science therefore:
  • Does not claim that there is a begin to time
  • Does not denote the Big Bang as the begin of time
  • Does not envision the idea that there is no before to the Big Bang
An issue which is entirely different is the question as to what in fact did occur or not occur 'prior' to the Big Bang. This is part of theory development known as Pre-Big Bang cosmology, and which is about modelling possible models of the physical universe prior to the Big Bang.

[TO BE CONTINUED]
 
  • #5
heusdens
1,736
0
First Argument -- Big Bang denotes begin of time?

[CONTINUATION]

Let us now turn to the three arguments which are used by many to 'proof' that time had a beginning.

First argument

The "Big Bang" denotes the begin of the universe.
Due to popular science books, like Stephen Hawkings book "A Brief History of Time" it has become a popular concept to think of the Big Bang as denoting the "begin of time". But despite the popular belief, what are in fact the ideas presented by Stephen Hawking, and in how far or how much do they in fact relate to this concept of a "begin of time"?

The idea of Stephen Hawking is not about the begin of time as such. What he comes up with is a solution to the ugly nature of the 'singularity'. He therefore assumes that time becomes more 'spacelike' near the singularity, and in that way he overcomes the singularity. It becomes then 'calculable'. But in order to do that, when using complex quantummechanical equations, he needs to introduce another thing. He has to assume that apart from time, which he then calls "real time", he has to introduce "imaginary time". Imaginary here means not something of an imagination, as in something that isn't real but a dream, but imaginary in the sense that it is an independend time axis, which is orthogonal to the normal time axis. And he uses imaginary numbers (which are based on i, the square root of minus 1) to solve the wave equations. Imaginary numbers are used throughout many parts of physical theory, to solve wave equations etc. They are a handy tool for the mathematician, but the term 'imaginary' doesn't mean it is something unreal.
This imaginary time then, does NOT have a begin. In the book Stephen Hawking even says that in fact imaginary time is "more real" then "real time".

So, the "beginning of time" is just a popular translation of that idea. It is based on just one part of it, while trowing away the other. But as such this idea does not and can not state that time as such has had a definite begin. Physics can never work with that. It's a fixiuous idea, which does not belong to the real world.

Stephen Hawking is an atheist. As such he confesses to the idea that the world, the universe, in whatever form has always existed.
And as an atheist scientist he knows very well that a begin of time is inconceivable and foreign to material sciences. He expressed this as follows: "Physicists don't know how to make physics from nothing".

Nevertheless, Stephen Hawking is a human too. He is dependend for his daily life mostly on his wife, who is a Christian.
For his book to be published, and spread amongst a wide audience, the publisher wanted him to put some theistic ideas in. It would increase the selling of the book. After all, Stephen Hawking is only human.

But if you read the book well, it does not say such a thing as a "begin of time". It can not.

So, anyone speaking about the "begin of time" as a real physical theory, and base themselves on Stephen Hawking or others, realy makes a mistake. They take then only one part of the theory, and refute at the same time the other.

There is no scientific theory that states an absolute begin to time itself.
 
  • #6
heusdens
1,736
0
Second argument -- Actual infinite impossible, therefore begin of time?

Second argument

"If time has no begin, it must be infinite. But a real or actual infinite is inconceivable, therefore time must have had a begin."

There realy are a lot of these type of argument around. It dates from the time of Leibnitz and Kant, who both provided this argument.
In the book "Kritik der Reiner Vernuft" (Critique of Pure Thought) Kant not only provided this argument (that time had a begin) but also provided another argument (that time did not have a begin) and showed that the one is as provable as the other.

A more contemporary form of the argument is known under the name of Kalam Cosmological argument. For the reader who want to read that argument, a link is provided http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/oppy.html" [Broken]

In short this argument is as follows:

"The Existence of an Actual Infinite

If an actual infinite cannot exist, then the series of past events cannot be actually infinite; therefore the universe began to exist, which is the second premiss of the kalam argument."

In brief: since an actual infinite can not exist, therefore time needs to have a begin.

The objection against these reasoning is of course: what is an actual infinite? There is only one way in which the infinite time can become an actual, and that is if we want to measure it. How do we measure it? By placing two arbitrary points on the infinite time line. What will we measure? A finite amount of time!

How strange! It does not matter at all where we place our two points, the distance between them will always be a finite quantity!
Does this mean that infinite time does not exist? On the contrary.
What we just discovered was that infinity is built up on only finite quantities. It is a seeming contradiction, but yet is that the case.
It does not matter where we place a point on the infinite time line. At every point on the time line there will be an infinite past and infinite future.

A very sharp argument against a similar argument as the Kalam Cosmological Argument, is provided by Friedrich Engels, who in his book Anti-Duhring (1877) http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/1877-AD/p1.htm#c5" [Broken][/b] made a sharp counter argument against the idea of Herr Eugen Duhring of the possibility of a begin of time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7
heusdens
1,736
0
Third argument -- Second law menas time must have had a begin?

Third argument

"The universe is a closed system. The second law of thermodynamics describe that the amount of usueable energy must decrease. Since there are still amounts of usueable energy, this means that time must have a beginning"

Also this argument, like argment #1 has immense popularity.

It can be shown that in this case the laws of thermodynamics are taken out of context. And while the law which is used here to argument is called the second law of thermodynamics, ordinary logic will tell us that physics also came up with a first law of thermodynamics. It will be good to study this one first, and not hop immediately to the second law, after all the fact that they have been given numbers must indicate somehow that the first law takes precedence over and is more important then the second law.

So let's see what these laws state:

First law:

In a closed system the amount of energy and matter are conserved quantities.

Second law:

In a closed system, the amount of usueable energy must always decrease.

Critique

The universe is a closed system?

The definition of a closed system is one that is not in thermal contact with the surrounding environment. There is no interchange of energy, neither matter. It is however arguable that we can not extend the definition of a closed system, which in normal cases is only applied to finite systems, to that of the universe. When we also consider the first law, this means that if we consider the universe to be a closed system the amount of matter and energy must be conserved.

The combination of these two findings will result in an universe, in which the total amount of matter and energy remained constant throughout time, and since they are conserved, we can not think of a begin of time, while the amount of usueable energy must be decreasing. This obviously leads to the paradox then that the usueable amount of energy should have already been gone to zero.

We go outside, and see: the sun is still shining.
Something must be wrong then, cause our 'theory' would indicate, all amounts of usueable energy would have already been used!

a begin of time?

As a "way out" of this contradiction, it is concluded that "time must have a begin" then. But what good is this "solution"?
In fact, our very first statement was that the universe was a "closed system". Since the first law is still applicable, it must have been the case then that, since we assume that "time had a begin", this system all of a sudden had 'started' and became filled with matter and energy from appearently nowhere. A flagrant violation of the first law, since we hold it that - if we take it for our argument that the universe is closed in using the argument from the second law, it is not any less closed when we use the argument of the first law!

Solution

A closed system is in fact always denoting a finite system.
We could consequtively 'built' a system, by adding subsequently all the systems together that are in thermal contact with the initial open system we start with, until we reach a 'closed' system, a system that has no thermal contact with anything outside it. The point is however, that such is undoable, since we are always left with the rest of the universe, with which we are still in thermal contact, and thus did not never achieve our 'closed' system.

Conclusion

Our initial assumption that the universe is a 'closed' system, must therefore be obviously wrong.
 
  • #8
Zantra
781
3
I'm not nearly verse enough on these topics to go into big bang, and as it's very late, I only skimmed, so I may post later, but it's my personal belief that if there is a begin time, it doesn't begin with our universe. Of course that leads into my theory that our "universe" as we percieve it is not the highest form of existence, that indeed we are a universe within other universe,within another universe, etc

Our immediate world teaches us that there is a beginning and end to everything. So must there be a beginning and end to time. The scope of our universe is not yet mapped, and I believe there is an end. It's late..more on this later.
 
  • #9
Iacchus32
2,313
1
And yet the river flows, ceaselessly.
 
  • #10
Iacchus32
2,313
1
It's hard to imagine a beginning to time, and yet if there were no physical universe before the Big Bang, how would it be measured? What would it be relative to? Hmm ... even if there were only time? There would be nothing to experience it, and yet perhaps it's time that's the beginning of all experiences? Almost has a mystical sounding quality now doesn't it?

Hey I don't know! :wink:
 
  • #11
Mentat
3,918
3
Heusdens, as always, you have made an extremely admirable effort in this thread. Kudos.

Now, as to the mention of the first law of thermodynamics. I will not dispute that energy cannot be produced from nowhere, but will provide the Quantum Mechanical postulate that the energy of a given system cannot be precisely determined. Thus, to say "there was no energy" is fallacious. This means that energy needn't be created at the beginning of time, since it was already there, just not determinately so.

That having been said, I like your argument for an infinite time line. There is no reason (IMO) to assume that time cannot be infinite, since any point in time that we choose to study is finite.

Again, my sincere admiration for a thread well-posted :smile:.
 
  • #12
heusdens
1,736
0
Originally posted by Zantra
I'm not nearly verse enough on these topics to go into big bang, and as it's very late, I only skimmed, so I may post later, but it's my personal belief that if there is a begin time, it doesn't begin with our universe. Of course that leads into my theory that our "universe" as we percieve it is not the highest form of existence, that indeed we are a universe within other universe,within another universe, etc

Our immediate world teaches us that there is a beginning and end to everything. So must there be a beginning and end to time. The scope of our universe is not yet mapped, and I believe there is an end. It's late..more on this later.

I think I know what you say, and partly I think you are correct, and partly incorrect.

What we understand about the material world is indeed that as you have noted, that every specific existence form, no matter how large, is always in a finite extend of time and space.

But the assumption that as such there is a begin of time is, as I showed, is incorrect. Cause we know that every specific material form has been formed by previous existing material forms, and will turn back into other material forms.

In this sense, time does not and can not have a begin.
 
  • #13
Eh
746
1
Wow, that's a lot of text to deal with. But whenever someone claims that a beginning of time is impossible, I simply ask for a logical contradiction in the idea. In other words, is the proposal that time had a beginning logically inconsistent? Following the silence that ensues, it is safe to say that most people (although reluctantly of course) must accept that a beginning is at least, a logical possibility. Given their failure to show otherwise, it is absurd to claim it is impossible in that sense.

Now as to the scientific claims, there is nothing there that prevents a beginning of time. The law of energy conservation doesn't apply, because "no before" does not mean a state in which the energy did not exist. Even if it did, this would not be a problem. For one, the universe is not contingent upon energy for it's existence. Since the net energy of the universe is zero, any such universe created would not violate the first law, since the total sum stays the same. In fact, the net zero energy idea is one feature of many inflation models, where all the energy in our universe is created during the inflation epoch.

Given a quantum theory of spacetime, a cyclic model of the universe may be allowed, but even then there is no guarantee.
 
  • #14
heusdens
1,736
0
Eh:

You are mistaken about inflation theory. It does not state that the universe comes from totally nothing.

Haven't you read the text about inflation theory?

It states about the existence of a bubble of "false" vacuum, which DOES contain energy. Reread that part or look up some basic stuff about inflation theory. You are making a subtle but important mistake.
Same as people tend to believe that there is a scientific theory about a begin of time. Fact is: there isn't.

Further, most people reason that when there is no change, when nothing changes or moves, that there would be no time.
But time is something different as change, since we can measure time with change. Time must therefore be independend and different from change.

A begin of time is logically inconsistent with causality.
Causality is that there are events, which are both and simultaniously causes and effects. Events are not their own cause and effect, but in a causal relationship we can distinguish a cause or causes and an effect or effects. But every cause is also an effect (caused by previous cause or causes), and every effect also a cause (of following effect or effects).

This means: time can not have a begin, unless causality itself is false. But that is what we have experienced to be the case. There is causality, undoubtly. Causality itself can not be 'caused' by something, cause outside of causality itself, there are no causes.
Therefore causality itself can not have a begin.

So, if you hold it that time could have a beginning, then at first proof to me that causality is false. Otherwise, your argument doesn't hold water.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
Eh
746
1
Originally posted by heusdens

You are mistaken about inflation theory. It does not state that the universe comes from totally nothing.

No, but the energy increases by a massive amount. A tiny amount of energy in the vacuum can grow to an enormous amount, but only because the net energy is zero.

You are making a subtle but important mistake.
Same as people tend to believe that there is a scientific theory about a begin of time. Fact is: there isn't.

We've been through this before. The classic singularity is based on GR, which last time I checked was a scientific theory. GR is the only working theory of spacetime we have, and is the only guide we have for dealing with the big bang. As well, a quantum theory of gravity is still not necessarily going to prevent a beginning to time, or at least our classic understanding of time.

Further, most people reason that when there is no change, when nothing changes or moves, that there would be no time.
But time is something different as change, since we can measure time with change. Time must therefore be independend and different from change.

Yes, and science tells us without change, there would be no time. At least, there is no need for such independent existence of time. Your conclusion that because we measure time with the amount of change they are therfore seperate, does not logically follow.

A begin of time is logically inconsistent with causality.
Causality is that there are events, which are both and simultaniously causes and effects. Events are not their own cause and effect, but in a causal relationship we can distinguish a cause or causes and an effect or effects. But every cause is also an effect (caused by previous cause or causes), and every effect also a cause (of following effect or effects).

Problem here. You can always start with a first chain in the causality link. There is nothing logically inconsistent about such a series of events that has a first, uncaused event.

Only if you first define that all events must be effects, would a beginning be a contradiction. But that premise is unjustified, since an uncaused event itself does not suffer any logical inconsistencies.

So, if you hold it that time could have a beginning, then at first proof to me that causality is false. Otherwise, your argument doesn't hold water.

No, it would only show that a first event which does not require a prior cause is possible. You still get a series of cause and effect events, though the chain has a starting point.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
heusdens
1,736
0
Eh:

Events don't exist outside of causality.

At the very minimum I would require proof for any event that takes place outside of causality.

Since there is no proof of that, I still state that all events take place within causality. All events are effects of previous causes and all events are at the same time causes for following effects.

Where is your proof that this is not the case?

If you state that there can be "uncaused events" then please proof that to us. YOU CAN'T

Do you confess here in the belief of some sorts of actors outside of time, space and matter, that regulate our existence or create matter out of nothing?
 
  • #17
Eh
746
1
I don't need to prove anything, because my claim is merely that such an uncaused event is logically consistent. If you dispute that, it is up to you to show a contradiction. Otherwise, a beginning is a logical possibility because it is logically consistent. In that case, it's no longer a matter of opinion.

And...

Do you confess here in the belief of some sorts of actors outside of time, space and matter, that regulate our existence or create matter out of nothing?

No such outside forces required. The universe can be self sufficient without the need for an infinite regress of time. Note that I'm not arguing against such an infinitely old universe, only that it isn't a logical necessity.
 
  • #18
Science as such does not include a notion of a begin of time. Neither it can. For example one of the most and rigourlously tested laws is the first law of thermodynamics. It says that both matter (particles) and energy are conserved quantities. The amount of matter and energy (even when, due to E=mc2, matter and energy can be transformed into another under certain conditions) is therefore conserved, and there is no known mechanism to create matter or energy from nothing, neither is there a way in which matter or energy can dissolve into nothing.

I would disagree with this statement excluding a beginning. For example, if all matter were converted to energy, such as light, space and time would disappear as energy exists at the speed of light. Thus you could have an existence of pure energy lacking time producing an eternal existence without a beginning or ending. However the moment energy converts to matter, then time and space would come into existence thus producing a beginning. Of course the initial cause could not be physical because matter would not exist at that point.

I can conceive of "no beginning" in a timeless existence. But with time, there must be a "beginning". Time forces a "beginning". A solution allowing for the reality of both would involve different phases or locations of existence each possessing a "beginning" or "no beginning".

Also an existence of eternal pure energy without a beginning could produce an existence with matter and a beginning. But the reverse would not be true. Matter could only return to pre-existing pure energy state because energy is eternal and timeless. Energy in a timeless state could not be created as there is no beginning.

The existence of any matter requires time and space and a beginning. The existence of pure energy without matter does not have time or space or a beginning.

Hopefully that makes sense.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19
heusdens
1,736
0
Jagger2003

I think we have a slight confusion here regarding the notion of matter. I use the philosophical notion of matter as that what exists outside, apart and independend of one's consciousness.
The physical notion is something else, as that refers to mass having particles which don't move at the speed of light.
Energy or fields or particles, or whatever there exists as physical entities, are all forms of matter in the philosophical sense.
And the matter does not just denote the physical stuff, also chemical or biological compounds or even consciousness itself are manifestations of matter.

A begin to physical matter is therefore quite possible, but there is necessarily something that exists.

A real begin of time is not conceivable.
The material world supposedly went through a transition phase which we denote as the Big Bang.
 
  • #20
heusdens
1,736
0
Eh:

I did make a refutation from logic. The refutation being that causality does not leave room for 'uncaused' events. Effects don't exist without a cause. So the uncaused event was not even there.

Show me just one example that that is not the case, and I could consider that such a thing ever happened.

Else: I stick to my interpretation of causality.
 
  • #21
Eh
746
1
Originally posted by heusdens

I did make a refutation from logic. The refutation being that causality does not leave room for 'uncaused' events. Effects don't exist without a cause. So the uncaused event was not even there.

You have not shown an uncaused event to suffer from any logical contradictions. And indeed, there appear to be none, so we can't claim such a beginning is impossible when logic tells us otherwise.

Show me just one example that that is not the case, and I could consider that such a thing ever happened.

That's just like claiming because we can only imagine spaces that are embedded in a larger space, it follows that space as a whole must be infinite. It doesn't, and whether or not finite space is logically possible is in the same category as a universe finite in time. Both are logically consistent.
 
  • #22
wimms
496
0
heusdens, Eh has point. Its a cold and harsh property of logic that it can deal with acausal events.

When you look at it, you make pairs cause<=>effect. Effect is by definition existent, therefore effect->cause is logical. You argue that oppposite must be also always true: cause->effect, but to analyse this, you need to find potential alternate pair for cause. If you analyse potential validity of pairs nocause->cause then you see that nocause is 'that which is nonexistent'. Now, you can look at it as nonexistent->cause->existent->effect.

Problem with causality is that it deals with only existent, and your claim that there can be no effect without cause contains strong assumption that effect can be caused only by that which exists. Its like kind of event horison of causality. It seems like nothing can escape it, but it really simply doesn't deal with transition from nonexistent->existent. While acausal event is precisely that. Acausal event can be excluded only by definition.

Some weird conclusion that may be drawn from this is that it is not possible to even detect acausal effects by world of causality, because as soon as acausal event occurs, it is subsumed by causality. Similarily, it is impossible to notice acausal disappearance. Only statistically it is possible to notice either, if some disbalance exists. Between nonexistence and nonexistence is perfectly causal statistical reality.

acausal->effect->acausal->nonexistence would be detected by rules of causality as cause->effect->cause->effect. I wonder if appearance and annihilation of virtual particles may be example of "uncaused events".
 
  • #23
radagast
484
1
I haven't given this near as much thought as I should to post, but that's never stopped me before...

As I see your argument, heusdens, there is a strong presumption that causality is always required. I can't say that the following is the reason, but it is what I am getting from it:

Causality exists and all events are the result of a (prior) causal event. We are all familiar with this in daily life and have no experience with events w/o a cause.

If we have two events A and B, such that A causes B, it is easy, from common experience, to assume that all events will have causes. This seems to be extremely close to the argument fallacy Affirmation of the Consequent. A implies B, so if B is true, A is therefore true.

While common experience provides great guidance in not walking into traffic, avoiding contact with burning objects, and not picking fights with bouncers, it's remarkably dangerous to use in forming assumptions for certain areas of physics. Between the times (apparent) T0 and T10^-43 seconds of the universe, the laws of physics and certainly the ideas provided by common experience are entirely unreliable.
 
Last edited:
  • #24
russ_watters
Mentor
21,857
8,824
Originally posted by heusdens
And thirdly there is the argument from Thermodynamics, in which the Second law of thermodynamics is applied on the universe as a whole, and which would mean that the universe would already have used it's amount of usable energy....
I'd like to see some evidence for that one. From what I've heard, it'll be hundreds of billions of years before we even get close to that implication.

As for causality, since the Big Bang itself isn't really an event, its just a starting point, there is no causality. The "explosion" that caused the big bang happened an instant "BEFORE" the observable universe existed, so there is no need for causality. Part of the Big Bang theory is the breakdown of the laws of physics at the Big Bang.

So applying the normal laws of physics (specifically thermodynamics) to the Big Bang itself is invalid. They simply don't apply.

Also, I think that arguements from causality are a philosophical objection, not a scientific one.

I also think you are wrong in your interpretation of Hawkings. I'll be back with quotes....

...quotes:

Chapter 1 (last sentence): "Roger Penrose and I showed that Einstein’s general theory of relativity implied that the universe must have a beginning..."

Chapter 3 (this addresses both time and causality): "As far as we are concerned, events before the big bang can have no consequences, so they should not form part of a scientific model of the universe. We should therefore cut them out of the model and say that time had a beginning at the big bang."

Then he goes on to eplain various failed attempts to avoid this. And then:

"Penrose’s theorem had shown that any collapsing star must end in a singularity; the time-reversed argument [applied by Hawkings] showed that any Friedmann-like expanding universe must have begun with a singularity."

It was in fact Hawkings' primary contribution to physics that there must have been a Big Bang and a beginning.

But I must still figure out this one:
"It is perhaps ironic that, having changed my mind, I am now trying to convince other physicists that there was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe – as we shall see later, it can disappear once quantum effects are taken into account."

I think he's just talking about the singularity itself there though - time (and the universe) still started at the Big Bang. And I think the singularity question is still open - to solve that problem, we need a unified theory, which we don't yet have.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
heusdens
1,736
0
To wimms and eh:

Since neither of you can or want to provide any proof for your baseless assumption that a 'first' cause and a begin of time is conceivable, your only point is that 'logic does not forbid it'.

So, I will provide you some 'logic' reasons, why this can't be the case.

My claim is that:
Either causality exists in the way I explained, or it does not exist. there is no 'half' causality.

Try to think it this way: can you think of a 'cause' for causality itself? How can there be a cause to anything outside of the existence of causality itself?

Can you see my logic point?
 
  • #26
heusdens
1,736
0
to russ_waters:

It is nice that you put those quotes from Hawking in, and it shows a different view on the ideas of Hawking.

And all what we can make of it, is that the ideas of Hawking in some or other way are in contradiction with each other. Like in one ways he says time has a begin, and at the same time he says, time did NOT have a begin.

So what is it he realy says, and what to conclude?

Firstly let me remark we have a slight difficulty here in our terminology. The term universe we became accustomed to, stams from the time of newton, in which space and time were straightforward concepts.
Since we adapted to Einsteins special and general relativity our outlook on the universe, space time and matter have been changed drastically.

It in fact means that - and in accordance with the viewpoint of materialism - that space, time and matter are very close tight together. In the time of Newton it was conceived that there was a pre-existing 3-d space in which there was matter, but since einstein we know that space and time just denote the existence forms of matter.

General relativity as a physical law however still implements the concept of causality. How could general relativity exist without there being causality?

In my point of view it is therefore unthinkable that causality emerges out of this Big Bang thing, this expanding space time bubble, which started out with nothing.

That can not happen, cause outside of causality nothing can happen.

So, it seems we have met some real contradictions. However, this puzzle can be solved, as I will show.

Firstly, is it conceivable that the universe has had a begin?
Yes and no. I will explain. What do we mean with universe (see also notes below)?

If universe is to mean the totality of everything that exist, then the answer is no. Cause there is no absolute begin to time.
If however the universe is to denote a finite spatiotemporal existence form (the collection of all the matter and energy existing in this spacetime bubble that formed since the Big Bang), then the answer is yes. There is a relative begin to the universe, like there is a relative begin to every finite spatiotemporal existence form (like the sun, an organism, a human, etc.). But every finite spatiotemporal existence form, is formed out of previously existing spatiotemporal existence forms.

See for example the following analogy:

a- The sun is formed by a contracting gas cloud. The sun has a begin in the sense that at some point in time this contracting gas cloud causes nuclear fussion processes. Where was the sun before it began to shine? There was no sun before that time, but there was a gas cloud.

b- 'our universe' (see notes below) formed out of 'The universe' as an inflating bubble of false vacuum. Where was 'our universe' before the Big Bang event? 'Our universe' did not exist, but there was matter in another form of existence (presumably some scalar field(s)).

I hope this sheds some light on the issue.

Notes:

Let us try to distinguish at least 3 concepts of 'universe'

1. Observable universe. That part of the universe that we can observe.
2. 'our universe'. The spacetime bubble that formed out of a pre-existing universe (for example as an inflating bubble of false vacuum)
3. The Universe. The universe at large in the sense that it is everything that exists, which exists without begin or end of time, and is infinite.


PS

And as a mental excercise to you:

All you will ever know about the world, exist in the form of your consciousness about the world.
But what consciousness do you have about the world before you were born?
Did the world not exist before that time?
 
Last edited:
  • #27
radagast
484
1
Originally posted by heusdens
To wimms and eh:

Since neither of you can or want to provide any proof for your baseless assumption that a 'first' cause and a begin of time is conceivable, your only point is that 'logic does not forbid it'.

This is an argument flaw, specifically, that of "Shifting the Burdon of Proof". You made the claim that there was no beginning of time, they need not prove you wrong, you are required to prove your argument correct.


So, I will provide you some 'logic' reasons, why this can't be the case.

My claim is that:
Either causality exists in the way I explained, or it does not exist. there is no 'half' causality.

If you are speaking with regards to a specific event, then yes, I would concede such, however if you are stating that all is either caused or not caused, this is a Bifurcation flaw, restricting the universe to one state or the other, without showing that this is indeed the cause. That some things could be caused and others uncaused, isn't outside the realm of possibility, without your demonstrating such. Especially regarding areas that are at the extremes of the laws of physics, such as at T10^-43.


Try to think it this way: can you think of a 'cause' for causality itself? How can there be a cause to anything outside of the existence of causality itself?

Error in logic. Causality isn't an event, so speaking as if it were caused doesn't make sense.

The existence of causality says nothing about if something can lack a cause, it only addresses things that are caused. Causality is merely a word describing the things people have seen in reality, it doesn't mean that the description either defines how reality has to react or is complete, anymore than saying our observations of reality are complete.


Can you see my logic point?

Sorry, no.
 
  • #28
Mentat
3,918
3
Originally posted by heusdens
Eh:

I did make a refutation from logic. The refutation being that causality does not leave room for 'uncaused' events. Effects don't exist without a cause. So the uncaused event was not even there.

Show me just one example that that is not the case, and I could consider that such a thing ever happened.

Else: I stick to my interpretation of causality.

First off, if you're going to discuss the Big Bang, you can say that it needn't have been caused at all, since quantum fluctuations deal with things that are already (probably) existent, and that is one of the explanations for how the BB occured.

Secondly, causality needn't exist at all, since all things could be a coincidence, every time. (See the thread, Cause-and-Effect, first post).
 
  • #29
heusdens
1,736
0
Originally posted by radagast
This is an argument flaw, specifically, that of "Shifting the Burdon of Proof". You made the claim that there was no beginning of time, they need not prove you wrong, you are required to prove your argument correct.

Who is to shift?

I just made my point that causality is a universally applied law which has no exceptions. I base this on the fact that there

1. Is a objective, material world
2. that matter itself is indestructable and uncreatable
3. that matter is in motion always; matter without motion same as motion without matter is unseen
4. matter is the primary stuff that is independend of anything else.
5. matter is the notion of how the world exist in an objective way;
consciousness is the notion of how the world exist in a subjective way.
6. matter is primary; consciousness is secondary
(there can be matter without conscuousness, but not consciousness without matter)

All events we see, we always base on material phenomena. Never we just assume that 'things happen for no appearant reason'.
Even if they are for some time unknown.

Like for instance it was long known that outside of uranus, there had to be other planets, before they were actually discoverd.
I could record a long list of this, and we always found a material cause for phenomena.

So, if we find unexplained phenomena, it just means we are about to find something new.

The explenation as that 'things appear to begin, without there being a cause' is to me as mystical an explenation as saying that 'God did it'.

Since we perform science, our intuition always was right.

If we would have thought there were no grounds for causality and logic, why would we ever have gone discovering all those physical and chemical and biological and cosmological phenomena?

We could then as well have said : 'God did it' and leave it with that.

Note:
Matter is used here as a philosophical notion as that which exist outside, apart from and independend of consciousness.

[the physical notion of matter is something else, since that are just the particles. The philosophical term therefore denotes all existence forms of matter, like particles, fields, energy, photons, atoms, molecules, enzymes, organisms, etc.]

If you are speaking with regards to a specific event, then yes, I would concede such, however if you are stating that all is either caused or not caused, this is a Bifurcation flaw, restricting the universe to one state or the other, without showing that this is indeed the cause. That some things could be caused and others uncaused, isn't outside the realm of possibility, without your demonstrating such. Especially regarding areas that are at the extremes of the laws of physics, such as at T10^-43.

Hmmmm. And did you measure the physical properties of the universe at that time?

No? So, how do you know that extreme things occured at that time?


Error in logic. Causality isn't an event, so speaking as if it were caused doesn't make sense.

Right. It isn't an event, it's an eternal process.

The existence of causality says nothing about if something can lack a cause, it only addresses things that are caused. Causality is merely a word describing the things people have seen in reality, it doesn't mean that the description either defines how reality has to react or is complete, anymore than saying our observations of reality are complete.

I am sorry, but this does not make sense.

Let me try to explain.

If we observe a star, and it shows a slight anomaly in it's gravitational effects by observation what do we conclude?

1. The law of Gravitation has exceptions. Sometimes objects obey the laws of gravity and sometimes they don't, without appearant reason.
2. There must be a (dark) companion to this star. A planet!

Science concludes in this case that some stars have planets.

BUT THE PLANETS WE DID NEVER OBSERVE DIRECTLY!

Another question:

Why do we assume that the laws of gravity are UNIVERSAL, and that if we were to see any REAL anomaly, we have to reconsider all of our gravity laws (like we had to reconsider Newtons' laws and change to Einsteins)?

How do you think that gravity could exist, if not also causality were something universal?
Don't you think that gravitation to be universally applied, it must be based on causality, which therefore must also be universally applied. That is without ANY exception.

Just think about that.

Sorry, no. [/B]


I see.
I assume I did not make myself clear then.

Same question I asked to russ_waters to you:

Where was the world before you were born?

Perhaps a too trivial question, but at least it can be said you don't know from own experience there was a world before you were born.
Why don't you adopt your hypothesis then that with the emergence of your consciousness, time began?

On the basis of what do you conclude that there was a world before you were born?

Please tell me exactly how is it that you know that!
 
Last edited:
  • #30
heusdens
1,736
0
Originally posted by Mentat
First off, if you're going to discuss the Big Bang, you can say that it needn't have been caused at all, since quantum fluctuations deal with things that are already (probably) existent, and that is one of the explanations for how the BB occured.

Secondly, causality needn't exist at all, since all things could be a coincidence, every time. (See the thread, Cause-and-Effect, first post).

A mere coincidence, huh?

If we extrapolate your logic, you could as well claim that the material world needn't to exist at all in an objective way.

Then, the only thing that exists is your consciousness.

Is that your point?

If not, then please explain me why there is an objective world, and what it is that makes it objective (that is: indepenend, outside and apart from our consciousness).
 
  • #31
russ_watters
Mentor
21,857
8,824
Originally posted by heusdens
I just made my point that causality is a universally applied law which has no exceptions.
Thats fine, but irrelevant. Like I said, we're talking about something that did not happen in the observable universe. Its not that its an exception to the rule, its just that the rule doesn't apply.
 
  • #32
Eh
746
1
Originally posted by heusdens
Since neither of you can or want to provide any proof for your baseless assumption that a 'first' cause and a begin of time is conceivable, your only point is that 'logic does not forbid it'.

Actually, that is my entire point! If logic does not forbid it, then it is logically possible. Hence, the claim that a beginning to time is impossible, has been demonstrated to be false.

So, I will provide you some 'logic' reasons, why this can't be the case.

My claim is that:
Either causality exists in the way I explained, or it does not exist. there is no 'half' causality.

False dichotomy. The definitoion of a collection of cause and effect events is not changed by an intital event.

How can there be a cause to anything outside of the existence of causality itself?

Who says there is?

Can you see my logic point?

Negative. Oops, sorry. Too many Terminator movies.
 
  • #33
wimms
496
0
Originally posted by heusdens
My claim is that:
Either causality exists in the way I explained, or it does not exist. there is no 'half' causality.
WHY not?

Try to think it this way: can you think of a 'cause' for causality itself?
Nope. Thats why we are forced to say that causality itself is acausal. :wink:

How can there be a cause to anything outside of the existence of causality itself?
there can't. Thats why we say that outside causality is .. acausal. :smile:

Can you see my logic point?
Yepp, your point is that you define that there can't be anything acausal. Then I ask, what was the cause for causality?
You see, you have PoE here on hands :smile: You effectively defined impossibility of begin of time, isn't it logical fallacy?

You didn't see my point though. Causality has borders. Every single causal event is its border. Whenever there happens acausal event, it means that border is crossed, acausal comes to existence, like causality itself. And it is immediately subsumed by causality, just because it now exists. Acausal can't be caused and causal can't be acausal, but they do not exclude each other, they can coexist. Weird, yes, but most weird is that we exist at all.

Clearly the world cannot be completely causal else it could not exist. Neither can it be completely acausal for this would invalidate logic. Therefore, the universe must exist in two mutually contradictory states at once.
contradiction resolved with brute force

2. that matter itself is indestructable and uncreatable
Here is room for "finetuning" - matter cannot be created nor destroyed .. by causal means. Matter can only appear or disappear .. acausally.

The explenation as that 'things appear to begin, without there being a cause' is to me as mystical an explenation as saying that 'God did it'.
Yepp, and thats precisely what majority of mankind does :wink: Eh could say, this isn't logically inconsistent
 
  • #34
radagast
484
1
Originally posted by heusdens
Who is to shift?

Originally posted by heusdens
To wimms and eh:

Since neither of you can or want to provide any proof for your baseless assumption that a 'first' cause and a begin of time is conceivable, your only point is that 'logic does not forbid it'.

You are making the claim of no beginning of time, no first cause. One that does tend to go against the more accepted theories, therefore you bear the burden of proof - in the above paragraph, you ask for proof of a first cause. This is classic shifting the burden of proof
 
Last edited:
  • #35
radagast
484
1
Originally posted by Heusden
I just made my point that causality is a universally applied law which has no exceptions.

Since the BB is the most accepted theory for the start of the universe, I contend that your claim that causality is universally applied with no exceptions is universally accepted is obviously incorrect.


I base this on the fact that there

1. Is a objective, material world
2. that matter itself is indestructable and uncreatable
3. that matter is in motion always; matter without motion same as motion without matter is unseen

This is somewhat absurd. Motion is always determined relative to other matter - therefore any particular object could be said to be motionless with respect to the rest of the universe.


4. matter is the primary stuff that is independend of anything else.
5. matter is the notion of how the world exist in an objective way;
consciousness is the notion of how the world exist in a subjective way.
6. matter is primary; consciousness is secondary
(there can be matter without conscuousness, but not consciousness without matter)

The above points neither support nor reject causality. Red Herring argument point.

All events we see, we always base on material phenomena. Never we just assume that 'things happen for no appearant reason'.
Even if they are for some time unknown.

...

By the above arguments (i.e. observed experience) real infinities cannot exist either. Since your basic proposition concludes time is infinite...


Since we perform science, our intuition always was right.

EXCUSE ME! Virtually nothing in particle physics has been intuitively right. Intuition would normally tell me that physical matter has some color (white/black/color - or combination thereof), yet electrons do not have a color. Intuition tells me that if one twin left earth on a space ship, close to the speed of light, coming back 10 years laters, that he/she would be the same age as their twin. This is not the case. Intuition tells me that it doesn't take an observer to collapse a quantum probability into reality, but this isn't correct.


If we would have thought there were no grounds for causality and logic, why would we ever have gone discovering all those physical and chemical and biological and cosmological phenomena?

The same arguments about Newtonian mechanics could have been used when Einsteins theories were proposed. We've only seen reality act one way, so testing Einsteins absurd theories is a waste of time.

The problem with all the above arguments is simple. It has been stated already. It's based on somewhat normal conditions, conditions we cannot count on at T10^-43 seconds post BB.

As mentioned before, we formed the ideas about causality based on the observed universe. Just as Newton based his ideas of mechanics on his observed universe. At conditions outside of our and his experience, things may no longer apply. Considering we have never observed an actual infinity, your theory requires one, which makes it, also, outside our observed universe.



We could then as well have said : 'God did it' and leave it with that.

Except for that pesky Occam and his damned razor...

Personally, I always say "Harold did it". Though I don't know a Harold, it's always given me a certain visceral satisfaction to say so.


Note:
Matter is used here as a philosophical notion as that which exist outside, apart from and independend of consciousness.

[the physical notion of matter is something else, since that are just the particles. The philosophical term therefore denotes all existence forms of matter, like particles, fields, energy, photons, atoms, molecules, enzymes, organisms, etc.]

Hmm, had I read this sooner, I wouldn't have had to go back and take out many of my replies... :smile:


Hmmmm. And did you measure the physical properties of the universe at that time?

No? So, how do you know that extreme things occured at that time?

Again, Shifting the Burden of Proof - not my job.

Have you measured - demonstated an infinity?


[Re: Causality]
Right. It isn't an event, it's an eternal process.

Actually, it's a description of how we see things happen.


[Explanations of what causality is: removed]

Another question:

Why do we assume that the laws of gravity are UNIVERSAL, and that if we were to see any REAL anomaly, we have to reconsider all of our gravity laws (like we had to reconsider Newtons' laws and change to Einsteins)?

How do you think that gravity could exist, if not also causality were something universal?
Don't you think that gravitation to be universally applied, it must be based on causality, which therefore must also be universally applied. That is without ANY exception.

Just think about that.

One assumption every scientist has to make, and should have in the back of his/her mind is that we assume all laws, constants, et. al. are the same at distant points in the universe and in time, as they are now, unless shown otherwise.

Normally, we would have to accept causality as a default existing mechnism at or around the time of the BB. However, yet another thing we have never experienced, observed, or know to exist is a real infinity.

Since the implications of applying causality principles to all theories concerning the beginning of the universe implies no beginning, it also implies an infinity in time. This, too, is outside what we consider to be actual.

Originally posted by Heusden
I see.
I assume I did not make myself clear then.

Same question I asked to russ_waters to you:

Where was the world before you were born?

Perhaps a too trivial question, but at least it can be said you don't know from own experience there was a world before you were born.
Why don't you adopt your hypothesis then that with the emergence of your consciousness, time began?

On the basis of what do you conclude that there was a world before you were born?

Please tell me exactly how is it that you know that!

This addresses the Bifurcation argument flaw I already addressed - i.e. that causality seen in common experience also is required to in regions where the laws of normal physics start to break down, where common experience no longer applies. Just because it exists where we have made observations doesn't mean it has always existed in all conditions.

To further reiterate:
Causality is a term used to describe observed reality. In all we have seen (with the possible exception of quantum particle formation) requires a cause. The trouble with this is it is based on common experience - not areas outside the conditions said to have existed near the BB. Prior to Einstein, nobody had witnessed time dialation, therefore time was considered the same for all observers. At certain extreme conditions, this was considered incorrect.

Just as we have never experienced uncaused events, we have also not experienced a real (vs conceptual) infinity. Since your argument requires a real infinity (of time), you also have a point that is outside observed behaviour, just as uncaused events are outside observed behaviour. How is it you assign one to be more probably than the other. What mechanism do you use to calculate the probability of each?



Humans have evolved to accept causality at a very deep level. It has helped enable us to survive, so evolutionarily, is considered a good thing. Humans also have a deep urge to know the 'purpose' and 'reason' for everything. Certain religious folk are notorious for bringing up the ideas of purpose and reason for existence up, in discussing faith vs atheism - but that doesn't imply it is required to exist. Though the acceptance of causality would be a default position, so would the absence of infinities. Both cannot be correct. While your arguments do have merit, the problems I've stated are enough for me to disregard what you've said, as a proof.
 

Suggested for: The impossibility of a begin of time

  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
694
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
500
  • Last Post
Replies
21
Views
745
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
312
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
320
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
617
Replies
19
Views
388
Replies
6
Views
315
Replies
1
Views
280
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
286
Top