A hush comes over the crowd... ...so far it kinda looks like all of the theories regarding the origin of the universe, including scientific ones, are only faith based.
Is that true?
Is that true?
Is the universe eternal?
- Thread starter SetiAlpha6
- Start date
As posted in a previous thread,
Philosophical premise: All effects have causes or else the definitions are meaningless. This is no different to saying that all triangles have three sides. They do because that's the definition.
Note that it is only effects that have causes, not everything because everything is not necessarily an effect. Confusion of this sort often arises in these sort of discussions.
The options therefore for the universe in accordance with philosophical logic are as follows:
1. The universe had a beginning (a 'Big Bang' type theory). This is an effect, therefore there had to be a cause. The cause could not have had a beginning or else that beginning would have been an effect. Therefore there is an infinite first cause, which is itself not caused. It is self existing. Ascribe any name you like to it. Note that there is no philosophical logical argument against such a self existing entity.
2. The universe had no beginning. Therefore it itself is infinitely old. This creates practical problems with the second law of thermodynamics since if the universe were infinitely old, entropy would long since have been total and nothing would be going on in the universe at all. This is observable not to be true. Therefore entropy has to have been reset to zero (an infinite number of times) or the second law of thermodynamics must have reversed direction (again an infinite number of times) so that entropy decreased back to zero again. These are effectively 'Oscillating Universe' theories. In either case you have an (infinite) number of effects (the changes in entropy). This would require an infinite cause if that cause itself were not to have its own cause. So again you have an infinite first cause, which is itself not caused. It is self existing. Again ascribe any name you like to it.
3. The second law of thermodynamics really does not operate in the universe as a whole and there is a whole different set of rules applying. The excuse soemtimes quoted that the universe is not a closed system is philosophically flawed as you then have to define what might be external to the whole universe, a logical absurdity!
I am not aware of any satisfactory alternative that has been suggested that fits the evidence. Note that even the 'quantum fluctuations in the vacuum' theories still have effects happening and however you play with words, effects always have causes. A 'causeless effect' is as philosophically illogical as a triangle that does not have three sides.
Note 'Uncertainty' does not imply no cause. I can be uncertain about a coin landing heads or tails but there is certainly a cause (it's just that the number of variables operating is too great for me to be able to estimate the result - so I am 'uncertain'). Note also that 'chance' is only a description of this form of uncertainty. It does not exist as a causal force. 'Chance' can never make anything happen. If chance were a causal force we should be able to measure its effect with some form of unit. We can't and it isn't.
Ultimately you have no philosophical choice but an uncaused self existing first cause. This is philosophically logically acceptable. All other options abregate philosophical logic and you end up with a recursive argument.
This may be an unsatisfactory outcome for some but it is the only outcome of the philosophical logic, avoiding recursion.
regards,
Gordon.
Philosophical premise: All effects have causes or else the definitions are meaningless. This is no different to saying that all triangles have three sides. They do because that's the definition.
Note that it is only effects that have causes, not everything because everything is not necessarily an effect. Confusion of this sort often arises in these sort of discussions.
The options therefore for the universe in accordance with philosophical logic are as follows:
1. The universe had a beginning (a 'Big Bang' type theory). This is an effect, therefore there had to be a cause. The cause could not have had a beginning or else that beginning would have been an effect. Therefore there is an infinite first cause, which is itself not caused. It is self existing. Ascribe any name you like to it. Note that there is no philosophical logical argument against such a self existing entity.
2. The universe had no beginning. Therefore it itself is infinitely old. This creates practical problems with the second law of thermodynamics since if the universe were infinitely old, entropy would long since have been total and nothing would be going on in the universe at all. This is observable not to be true. Therefore entropy has to have been reset to zero (an infinite number of times) or the second law of thermodynamics must have reversed direction (again an infinite number of times) so that entropy decreased back to zero again. These are effectively 'Oscillating Universe' theories. In either case you have an (infinite) number of effects (the changes in entropy). This would require an infinite cause if that cause itself were not to have its own cause. So again you have an infinite first cause, which is itself not caused. It is self existing. Again ascribe any name you like to it.
3. The second law of thermodynamics really does not operate in the universe as a whole and there is a whole different set of rules applying. The excuse soemtimes quoted that the universe is not a closed system is philosophically flawed as you then have to define what might be external to the whole universe, a logical absurdity!
I am not aware of any satisfactory alternative that has been suggested that fits the evidence. Note that even the 'quantum fluctuations in the vacuum' theories still have effects happening and however you play with words, effects always have causes. A 'causeless effect' is as philosophically illogical as a triangle that does not have three sides.
Note 'Uncertainty' does not imply no cause. I can be uncertain about a coin landing heads or tails but there is certainly a cause (it's just that the number of variables operating is too great for me to be able to estimate the result - so I am 'uncertain'). Note also that 'chance' is only a description of this form of uncertainty. It does not exist as a causal force. 'Chance' can never make anything happen. If chance were a causal force we should be able to measure its effect with some form of unit. We can't and it isn't.
Ultimately you have no philosophical choice but an uncaused self existing first cause. This is philosophically logically acceptable. All other options abregate philosophical logic and you end up with a recursive argument.
This may be an unsatisfactory outcome for some but it is the only outcome of the philosophical logic, avoiding recursion.
regards,
Gordon.
Gordon said:
Gordon,
Your last reply was a very well done summary of what I myself have also come to think. Sometimes I feel like I am all alone in thinking these things. I am glad that I am not!
Thank You!
yeah, that kinda gets into metaphysics and philosophy, other than science.Cris said:
science cant prove an infinite, really.
since your original post on plasma like a year ago, i have been doing research on it. i am REAAAALLY surprised there hasnt been more research done on this idea..it seems to make more sense than an "expanding/contracting" universe.
*shrug*