The first cause argument for God used by many Catholic's fails for many reasons. One of the of Aquinas's premises is that "there can be no infinite regress, or no infinite cause/effect. It got me thinking. Is an infinite regress possible, or even plausible with our current understanding of how the universe operates?
Not that I understand the math but my understanding is that multiverse theory allows for infinite regress....of course it is theoretical.
Personally I can't wrap my mind around infinate regress but at the same time find something coming from nothing to be equally difficult to imagine....makes me glad that I can be comfortable admitting that I (and everyone else) just doesn't know yet.
Quote from: Whitney on September 22, 2011, 04:30:51 AM
Not that I understand the math but my understanding is that multiverse theory allows for infinite regress....of course it is theoretical.
Personally I can't wrap my mind around infinate regress but at the same time find something coming from nothing to be equally difficult to imagine....makes me glad that I can be comfortable admitting that I (and everyone else) just doesn't know yet.
It's been shown that at the quantum level, things come from nothing all the time. (virtual particles, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics) etc.)
My poor pudding brain long ago rejected the creation of a complex universe via an even more complex super being.
Some principles are counter intuitive and science makes use of them to create useful things so I kind of have to believe them.
Build a working perpetual motion machine based on this nonsense and I may try to believe it.
I'm just starting to learn about this topic, but I think you need to take the view that nothing isn't simply nothing.
The properties of empty space provides an environment where it is inevitable that exists occurs.
It simply cannot be avoided. Or so the theory goes.
To suggest that there cannot be infinite regress and then to state that there must therefore be an intelligent creator that has always been, is making knowledge from a gap in knowledge. This can only be done if knowledge is complete.
e.g. take the logic equation
A=B or C
A does not = B
Therefore A = C
In this equation we know all there is to know with regards to determining that A=C
If you replace B with Physical Causation and C with MetaPhysical Causation, then to state that A does not = B, you would have to know everything there is to know about physical causation. I certainly don't think we know much about physical causation.
Where does a circle begin?
Quote from: Gawen on September 22, 2011, 12:48:26 PM
Where does a circle begin?
Right next to the place it ends. Infinite regress isn't circular I would think. I think that's the issue. One can travel around the Earth continuously in theory, but not in practice. However is infinite regression possible but the the evolved "cause > effect" human mind simply incapable of comprehending infinite regression, or even creating the right word/language to discuss the concept?
I've read a little bit about this, but it hurts my brain.
I think that part of the problem is that humans are linear thinkers - even though there is increasing evidence that reality isn't linear. For instance, we perceive time to be linear cause and effect, but that might not actually be the reality of how time works. I do tend to agree with Tank, that human consciousness just might, at this time, have a limit to how deeply we can understand this, because, let's face it, we've evolved to see linear causation time and time again.
In short, I think it has something to do with, as Dr.Who would say, "wibbly wobbly timey wimey... stuff."
Quote from: highway17 on September 22, 2011, 04:49:36 AM
Quote from: Whitney on September 22, 2011, 04:30:51 AM
Not that I understand the math but my understanding is that multiverse theory allows for infinite regress....of course it is theoretical.
Personally I can't wrap my mind around infinate regress but at the same time find something coming from nothing to be equally difficult to imagine....makes me glad that I can be comfortable admitting that I (and everyone else) just doesn't know yet.
It's been shown that at the quantum level, things come from nothing all the time. (virtual particles, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics) etc.)
I think the issue there is how do we know it came from nothing? Just because it appears that way doesn't mean we know for sure.
Quote from: Gawen on September 22, 2011, 12:48:26 PM
Where does a circle begin?
A circle is a concept, beginning and ending are not conceptual properties of the conceptual circle.
Nothing is a concept, Nothing never created anything.
A circle never created anything.
Oh, and by the way, god is a concept, god never created anything.
God can't even lift a pebble let alone create existence.
We are here, proof that existence and life are inevitable properties of the three dimensional reality we call space.
You can wonder if there ever was a time when there was nothing, and then think back 1 year, 10 years, 1 million years, an infinite time back and suggest that for an infinite amount of time there was nothing and then all of a sudden there was a universe/ or many universes. I think this would be flawed. It is entirely possible that nothing is impossible and that existence is the only possibility.
By my thinking there are an infinite amount of universes. Our universe only has a limited lifespan, but in the exact same spot in space there are likely to have already been an infinite amount of universes that have already lived out their lifespan, same could be said for any spot in space. It is possible that we are able to observe the residue effects of long gone past universes, maybe this accounts for some of the microwave background that we currently observe. It might not have all come from the big bang.
Quote from: Stevil on September 22, 2011, 08:15:25 PM
It is entirely possible that nothing is impossible and that existence is the only possibility.
This just blew my mind.
:o That's deep, Stevil.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on September 23, 2011, 05:03:54 AM
:o That's deep, Stevil.
To be practical I make a few assumptions:
Space is a three dimensional coordinate system that goes on for infinity in all directions
Space is eternal
Gravity always attracts
We shouldn't assume or presume what nothing is
The problem about thinking about this stuff is that there aren't enough words. Well, I don't know of the right words anyway. E.g. Space is the concept of three dimensions, but what is the physical instance that occupies this volume of dimensions? It is a physical distance but not necessarily a physical substance. We have a concept of a Universe, that which is expanding from a big bang, but what is the concept of multiple Universes within Space? A multiverse, but are they really related to each other? Do they rotate in orbit around each other or a common point in Space? Or are they independent of each other which would require another conceptual term rather than a "multiverse"
If gravity always attracts then sooner or later all energy and matter will come together, at least there will be several large clumps. These would become black holes (theoretically we believe black holes to exist). Black holes trap matter and energy (light). Matter requires a velocity greater than the speed of light to escape a black hole. If matter cannot escape a black hole then given enough time, all matter would be trapped within black holes. If matter was continually created without being destroyed then Space would be filled to saturation point and would simply be one massive black hole.
If matter is destroyed faster than creation then given enough time, Space would be empty.
These are our extremes.
Now what is our reality?
With my assumption that Space is eternal we could then take it to mean that an infinite amount of time has already passed by up to the time that we call now.
So if this has already happened then why isn't Space either empty or a saturated black hole?
There must be some sort of equilibrium (derived assumption), where by matter is created and destroyed at a consistent rate, or matter is neither created or destroyed but simply has always existed but is in a state of perpetual movement.
With complete knowledge we would understand the density of Space, e.g. the amount of universes per x volume of Space. We would know how far apart universes need to be in order to gain enough energy/mass to form and to explode as universes do and as ours is currently doing. Scientists say that our universe has a limited lifespan and will dissapate into nothingness.
To get your head around this concept you should not think in terms of the 15 billion years that our universe is said to be in age. With regards to the age of eternal space this is nothing. Simply think of this as 15 seconds. This is a mere instant of what has happened in Space.
These explosions (Universes) are probably happening all the time, all over Space and when they peatter out then another explosion happens, in a similar place (not necessarily the same) to where the last one happened. Whether these happen randomly via single quantum fluctuations or are the accumulation of energy/matter created from a massive amount of fluctuations is somewhat beside the point. They do happen, all the time, all over the place.
Our universe is likely not unique, not special.
Quantum fluctuations are always happening, it is impossible to stop or prevent them, therefore it is impossible to have simply nothing. Existence in inevitable and the only possibility.
To suggest that there was once nothing is ridiculous. To suggest that an intelligent god was necessary to create existence is even more ridiculous.
Just my thoughts, please don't ask for proof.
very interesting, thank you for elaborating. :)
Too late, Stevil. You are my god and I will now sacrifice this toy lamb to you. XDD
Infinite regress isn't necessarily a problem; there have been a few suggestions on how one could transverse an infinite set. Cosmological arguments can be tricky, and require some working knowledge of the topology of time, and the various arguments for and against A or B theories of time.
For example, the most popular cosmological argument is William Lane Craig's Kalaam Cosmological Argument, but for the argument to actually work requires someone to assert a neo‐Lorentzian understanding of relativity, which comes with a great deal of baggage.