h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN
(1) If there is a designer, then God must exist.
(2) If I find a watch in a forest, there must be a designer.
(3) *throws watch into forest*
(4) Therefore, God exists.


(from: Over Three Hundred Proofs of God's Existence!)


az
(after a late Friday lunch and perhaps a wee bit too much )

Madent. Do you believe that the universe had a cause. If so, what do you suppose it was; if not, do you think it had a beginning?

toxx

toxx

What I believe is immaterial. I could believe that sky was pink, but it wouldn't make it so.

what I think is that most people live in a world of personal causes. I suppose it is only natural therefore that most people would suppose that the universe is the result of a personal cause.

However there is evidence that events do not require causes. Particularly when you get down to the sub-atomic level and start looking at the "empty" regions of space. Particles come into existence and disappear all the time. Why? Because they want to?

Such particles are insignificant to our world. They do not present any sort of threat to this planet, to the solar system, to the galaxy, or to you or me. Their existence and non-existence does not necessarily "cause" anything to happen. However one could speculate that at a singularity, their impact might be somewhat different.

Beginning? I think that we live in a universe that had some form of start, but whether that was an absolute start or whether it was a transition or migration from some other state or form I don't know. No-one does and I'm not sure that we know enough about the first few minutes of the universe's existence to speculate.

Don't get me wrong, toxx. This doesn't mean that I am an atheist. I can quite clearly see that gods exist and I may even believe in some of them. But I see gods as a product of life, not the other way around.

Madent

Hmmmm, about those particles that jump into existence because they want to. Apparently around black holes, they are able to steal some gravity energy, and become real particles. And this creation of particles apparently means that the laws of thermodynamics about heat radiation from a body are kept. At least that is what the equations say. But it does make it seem like those particles aren't all that random and meaningless.

That a phenomena doesn't break any theories about the workings of the universe doesn't mean that we can say it happens for a "reason" or "cause".

"Anything that happens, happens. Anything that causes something else to happen, will cause something else to happen. Anything that causes itself to happen, will happen again. However, it doesn't always do it in chronological order." - DNA

At the level of these events, probability plays a big part. It is quite possible that the probability of the universe existing is equal to 1, without a "cause" for its beginning or continued existence, either in the past or in the future, even assuming that those terms have any relevance to a singularity.

Madent

PS I hope I've got the quote right.

Madent. I'm not inclined to take seriously anyone who refuses to put their views to the test by answering a couple of simple questions. I only ask for answers based on the balance of probability - not absolute truths.

An atom has a probability of decaying of 0.5 over the halflife of the isotope of which it is a sample. This is no more an example of lack of causation than if I tell you that the atoms in a turbulent stream of water have a certain probability of passing through a certain point. This will depend only on the cross-sectional area of the water stream, the size of the atoms and an equal flow rate throughout the cross-section of the stream.

Atoms come into existence because the conditions are right for them to do so. Yes, one can expect anything or nothing at a singularity precisely because a 'singularity' is defined as a region in which the laws of physics do not apply. It is physicists' shorthand for "We don't know" or even "Here be dragons"!

toxx

In that case, toxx, on the balance of probability, my opinions, etc.

"Do you believe that the universe had a cause"

I think it likely that something happened or will happen that could be said to be a "cause" for the universe. I include events that have not yet happened on the grounds that we don't yet fully understand how time fits in to the system, or even if time has any meaning at all.

"If so, what do you suppose it was"

I do not think that this "cause" need be anything more significant than a single random event (or perhaps several) at a sub-atomic level. Indeed given the nature of probability, I think it extremely likely, almost certain, that this was the case.

"If not, do you think it had a beginning"

I do think that the universe as we perceive it to be, had some form of beginning or start event (eg a big bang), however it is still possible that this event only marked a transitional point in an on-going process or processes of which we are not yet aware.

Does that address the questions you asked?

Madent

Madent. It is kind of you to accommodate me.

I think it is very difficult to suppose that a cause should come later than its effect. If we always were to observe Y following X (plus other factors, of course), would we not want to say that X was the cause and Y the effect? What kind of observation would it take for us to decide that Y was the cause of X?

You suspect that the first cause was a random sub-atomic event. Yet we're assuming that there isn't any matter yet and therefore no atoms. 'Sub-atomic' doesn't seem to me to be a meaningful concept in those circumstances. I would be less sceptical if you were to suggest a burst of energy.

A transitional event is not, by definition, a beginning. We can all propose cyclical universes. The question then becomes: "Was there a first cycle with a beginning, or has the sequence gone on for ever?" I think reason suggests that the latter is not possible.

toxx

What I meant with the black hole and phantom radiation is that it just seems too neat. The fact that their existence manages to keep the laws of thermodynamics. Makes it seem that even if we don't know their cause, they certainly don't seem to be simply random events.

""Was there a first cycle with a beginning, or has the sequence gone on for ever?" I think reason suggests that the latter is not possible."

Why?

Also...

"A transitional event is not, by definition, a beginning."

Your birth was a transitional event. Are you saying you've always been alive? Or did your life have a beginning?

toxx

"What kind of observation would it take for us to decide that Y was the cause of X?"

To be honest, I don't know. However, I would suggest that our understanding of cause-effect is modelled on the basis that things occur in sequence relative to time. Given that time is so important in understanding this relationship, how can we theorise on the nature of a cause-effect relationship that occurs in the absence of time, eg at a singularity? As an aside and to illustrate the point, I understand that there is a growing body of evidence that FTL is possible, through which it is possible to arrive at a simulacrum of effect-cause, whereby information is perceived to be received before it is transmitted.

"'Sub-atomic' doesn't seem to me to be a meaningful concept ... less sceptical if you were to suggest a burst of energy."

Fair enough. However while we are discussing the nature of time in relation to a singularity, we should also consider the impact on other dimensions. What I was trying to suggest was that in relation to the universe as we see it, many effects are observed that are of infinitessimally small consequence, ie at a sub-atomic scale. In a singularity, which I think we agree suggests zero physical size (albeit considerable mass), there would still be the capacity for a small effect to occur. Such an effect in our universe may be ignored, however in a singularity, such an infinitessimally small effect would potentially be of major consequence.

"A transitional event is not ... a beginning. ... The question then becomes: "Was there a first cycle with a beginning, or has the sequence gone on for ever?" I think reason suggests that the latter is not possible."

Tough one, and I don't know how far you can push reason We don't actually know the limits of the possible.

I suppose the key point is that as far as we are concerned living in this universe, there was some sort of a start point, eg a singularity. Whether there was a before or will be an after probably has little meaning. The universe may be infinite but it appears to be bounded and one boundary seems to be the big bang.

Madent

Xanatic

I've said much the same myself earlier in the discussion with reference to the conservation laws. We seem to reach a point at the microlevel where it doesn't seem right to call an event either caused or uncaused (a bit like the uncertainty principle). Things down there seem to work to a slightly different logic which we don't quite "get".



Make that "A transitional event in linear time is not, by definition, the origin of the substrate in which the transition takes place."

Of course, if the transitional event is a transition in the nature of time, then... ... something, but I'm b******d if I know what.

Noggin

Toxx, Hiya long time no speak

"We don't know" or even "Here be dragons"!

Thsoe things are similar I guess they are used to fill in gaps. Yet one represents the truth and one represents wishful nonesense based as it is on the existence mythical beings.

much like when we are talking about the begining of our universe we can say "we dont know" or we can make a guess based on the existence of mythical beings.

one love

Toxx, Hiya long time no speak

"We don't know" or even "Here be dragons"!

Thsoe things are similar I guess they are used to fill in gaps. Yet one represented the truth people did not know and one represents wishful nonesense based as it is on the existence mythical beings.

Why do humans have to colour in all the paper or guess at answers, the urge to find answers is a good thing but the need for answers, any answers, can be a very bad thing.

Much like when we are talking about the begining of our universe we can say "we dont know" based on the fact that we have little evidence or we can make a reasoned guess based on the existence of mythical beings.

one love

Hi, Badge. We humans tend to act according to our best guess when we're uncertain. It's a survival trait. Science uses the same method but has the leisure to test the guesses - now called 'hypotheses'. I do the same thing, based on what we know and the deliverances of reason. I don't call the result 'God', although I do claim that the evidence points to a personal cause of everything. I like to think that the latter is a philosophical rather than a mythical conclusion.

toxx

I've been alive since conception - in some form. My birth was the transition from the intra-uterine environment to that of the outside world.

The reason why the universe can't be infinitely old is that nothing actual can be. You just can't have an actual infinite. If it really were infinitely old, we couldn't have traversed enough time to have arrived here yet, or ever. Infinity is a purely mathematical concept which can only exist as a possibility. Nothing actual is infinite. I don't think it makes any sense to call God 'infinite' either.

toxx

Madent. You seem to be altogether too keen on the term 'singularity'. As I understand it, it just means a physical region or phenomenon to which the laws of physics as we know them do not apply. Otherwise it might be of any description you like.

toxx

Noggin.



You put it better than I did. I like your thought about a transition in the nature of time though. In fact, it tempts me to propose a tiny, point size perhaps, 'rolled up' time dimension in which God exists. That is what we call 'eternity'. He created linear time along with the beginnings of the universe. I don't envisage a transition, but the creation of a second time dimension.

toxx

Just because time inside the visible universe does one thing it does not follow that time outside the universe does the same. As far as I am aware, the design argument in terms of the laws of physics is entirely unresolved. Where it has been truly smashed is in the field of biology. I think the most you could say is that the universe is designed for life, but human life is a total accident. There is nothing to suggest that we are anything special, at least in terms of what is possible.