Philosophy Now Forum

surreptitious57 wrote: You were asked about physical infinity but gave an answer referencing mathematical infinity.

Incorrect. An easy error to make, but still an error.

The mathematics were only a place-holder for causality in this case -- an arranged analogy, if you will. And to make it genuine, I stipulated (i.e. artificially prescribed for the present purposes) the same order of time sequence on the mathematical set that is actually necessary with the causal set.

Let me explain. In normal maths, you can write the symbol for infinity in less than one second, and "have" an infinity. But that's because it's only a symbol system. By stipulating the rule, I force the experimenter actually to put into practice an infinite regression (which is what causes would have to be if the past is infinite). And it is that reason that the mathematics becomes impossible. Not because maths can't posit infinite sets, but because such sets cannot be written out in a time-ordered sequence.

It's because an infinite regress of causes is also impossible. They are, by definition, a time-ordered sequence, because each cause is necessary to happen before the purported effect it has. If it happens either simultaneously or later, it's not reasonable to consider it a "cause." So time-sequence is inevitable with causality, but not in mere maths. Mathematics isn't "real," or "actual" in that sense; causality is.

uwot wrote:
As for Scientific Method that is just another of those things you believe you can make real by capitalising it. There is no Scientific Method

Yes there is as it is the name given to the process scientists have been employing since the Enlightenment over three hundred years ago

Immanuel Can wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
You were asked about physical infinity but gave an answer referencing mathematical infinity

The mathematics were only a placeholder for causality in this case - an arranged analogy if you will. And to make it genuine I stipulated
( ie artificially prescribed for the present purposes ) the same order of time sequence on the mathematical set that is actually necessary
with the causal

Let me explain. In normal maths you can write the symbol for infinity in less than one second and have an infinity. But that is because it is only a symbol system. By stipulating the rule I force the experimenter actually to put into practice an infinite regression ( which is what causes would have to be if the past is infinite ) And it is that reason that the mathematics becomes impossible. Not because maths cannot posit infinite sets
but because such sets cannot be written out in a time ordered sequence

It is because an infinite regress of causes is also impossible. They are by definition a time ordered sequence because each cause is necessary
to happen before the purported effect it has. If it happens either simultaneously or later it is not reasonable to consider it a cause. So time sequence is inevitable with causality but not in mere maths. Mathematics is not real or actual in that sense: causality is

None of the current Big Bang theories rule out a universe extending into the past so all this is mere speculation. More importantly virtual
particles pop in and out of existence all the time by borrowing from the energy they have created. Now there is nothing else making this
happen. Which invalidates the need for an external cause. The law of cause and effect applies to the classical level not the quantum one

surreptitious57 wrote:None of the current Big Bang theories rule out a universe extending into the past...

Factually incorrect, I'm afraid.

When Hubble's great discovery of the "red shift" effect was finally accepted as inevitable by the scientific community, it was with some reluctance, I understand -- and apparently much of that reluctance came from the fact that the "red shift" conclusively showed that the universe had an origin point, one they called "the Big Bang," because galaxies were moving away from ours at a calculable rate (the Hubble Constant), not converging or staying stable, as would be required by the perpetual-universe hypothesis.

Now, initially, many people were unhappy with this conclusion, since they knew darn well what it implied...an original cause, and original origin-point, and they felt this might reopen the field to Theists.

Actually, it really does. But that's a side-effect.

Hubble's data was so good, so repeatable, so demonstrable that it had to be accepted. So that's where we really stand. The only "infinite universe" models we have left are non-empirical, which makes the advocates of a perpetual universe very unhappy...but too bad, really. The data's the data. And science cannot shy away from good data merely because it tends to an unwanted conclusion.

The law of cause and effect applies to the classical level not the quantum one

I think you're channeling the optimism people have about what they hope the eventual data about quantum activity will show...not what the data actually now shows. We know very little about quantum activity right now, and to say we don't know what does something is certainly nowhere near saying we have reason to say "It just happens." So that argument doesn't have legs, really.

Between the "Big Bang" and "heat death" is the line of our (i.e. the organized universe's) existence. That's what we can observe. And we know that that which has an origin has a cause, and that causes cannot infinitely regress, because then they never take place at all.

Immanuel Can wrote:Factually incorrect, I'm afraid.

When Hubble's great discovery of the "red shift" effect was finally accepted as inevitable by the scientific community, it was with some reluctance, I understand -- and apparently much of that reluctance came from the fact that the "red shift" conclusively showed that the universe had an origin point, one they called "the Big Bang," because galaxies were moving away from ours at a calculable rate (the Hubble Constant), not converging or staying stable, as would be required by the perpetual-universe hypothesis.

Now, initially, many people were unhappy with this conclusion, since they knew darn well what it implied...an original cause, and original origin-point, and they felt this might reopen the field to Theists.

Actually, it really does. But that's a side-effect. ...

As usual IC's 'facts' are incorrect with respect to Physics. All the BBT says is that the universe that we can see theoretically had an 'origin' point but given that it could also just be a 'universe galaxy' there is nothing ruling-out that the 'universe' is bigger than this or you could consider that since SpaceTime is said to have come into existence at the BB then there is no 'origin' point in any sense we could understand.

Between the "Big Bang" and "heat death" is the line of our (i.e. the organized universe's) existence. That's what we can observe. And we know that that which has an origin has a cause, and that causes cannot infinitely regress, because then they never take place at all.

And yet his 'God' must clearly have had a cause as if not 'it' is in an infinite regress and cannot be at all?

Funny and convenient how his 'God' can be such a thing but the Universe can't?

The Big Bang was just the beginning of local cosmic expansion. Not of the universe per se. It is currently not known what happened
before it or even if there was a before. So treating it as if it was the absolute beginning is scientifically invalid. The laws of physics
break down at the singularity but this does not mean nothing happened before the singularity. The universe could extend infinitely
into the past and I repeat that none of the current Big Bang models [ for there is more than one ] actually disprove this possibility

surreptitious57 wrote:

ken wrote:
If every action causes a reaction then even a big bang type reaction was obviously caused by an action. To Me what that ( prior ) action was is pretty obvious but this will not even be looked at let alone confirmed until people stop believing that the big bang was the start or beginning

This would invalidate a universe extending infinitely into the past which is not incompatible with the laws of physics and so cannot be
ruled out at this point in time. But either way the Big Bang was not the beginning of the universe per se but of local cosmic expansion

Why would what I wrote invalidate a Universe extending infinitely into the past?

Immanuel Can wrote:And we know that that which has an origin has a cause, and that causes cannot infinitely regress, because then they never take place at all.

Hi there IC. Glad you're back in this thread because I wanted to mention that I now understand your Hilbert reference thanks to Arising_uk's explanation. When you said Hilbert I thought of his Nullstellensatz, his 23 questions, his impassioned defense of Noether ("Gentlemen this is a university, not a bath house!"), his hat. The Hilbert hotel story never entered my mind.

Indeed, it's hard to even find proof he ever told such a tale. Apparently he mentioned it in passing during a public lecture in 1924. He never wrote it down. It does not appear in his standard biography. Nobody mentioned or repeated or referenced it till 1947, when it appeared in one of George Gamow's popular works, possibly having been invented by Gamow.

Moreover, it's not a mathematical argument. I was stunned to find out that William Lane Craig actually uses it as evidence for his cosmological argument. It's as silly as a philosopher of physics basing a thesis on the rubber sheet and bowling ball model of gravity. That's not physics, it's a popularized visualization. Likewise Hilbert's hotel is not mathematics, but is rather nothing more than a popularized visualization. A fable for the tourists.

In any event I now understand why you pointed me to videos and articles on Hilbert's hotel. From Craig's mistaken use of the fable, to your associating it with the name Hilbert, and apparently your not knowing anything else about him. When in fact it's the least important thing Hilbert ever said, and it took a serious act of research for a historian of science to determine whether Hilbert even said it. Give this a read. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.0059.pdf

Anyway just wanted to say that I can now see that you were acting in good faith about bad science. Hilbert did many famous and deeply significant things. Nobody who knows Hilbert would give a moment's thought or value to the silly story of the hotel, which bears the same relationship to math as rubber sheet gravity does to physics.

surreptitious57 wrote: I repeat that none of the current Big Bang models [ for there is more than one ] actually disprove this possibility

You repeat in vain. For they do. If you even just posit a Big Bang, then you have to posit that there was a cause, and some pre-existing elements upon which this cause could work...say hydrogen, helium, plasma... Then you need a cause for that...and a cause for that...and so on. You're into infinite regress, and an actual infinite is impossible, so again, you've got the Cosmological Problem.

wtf wrote: Hi there IC. Glad you're back in this thread because I wanted to mention that I now understand your Hilbert reference...

Well, here's the problem. Your dismissive take on Hilbert and the "hotel" doesn't actually address the problem. It's really just ad hominem.

Hilbert's Hotel, as you rightly point out, gives us a way of explaining generally why an infinite regress is impossible. But like all analogies, if you don't like it -- or Hilbert himself, for that matter -- you can throw it all out. However, it won't put a dent in the central argument.

The problem remains: you cannot have an infinite causal regress, because causality is definitionally linear, with cause necessarily preceding effect. If the chain is infinite, then each preceding cause never happens, and no effects can ever ensue. That's it in a nutshell.

Immanuel Can wrote: Well, here's the problem. Your dismissive take on Hilbert and the "hotel" doesn't actually address the problem. It's really just ad hominem.

As I clearly said, I'm not discussing the problem, only putting our earlier interaction into context. I took your responses as being in bad faith. After Arising_uk pointed out that Craig has used the Hilbert hotel as a debating point, I realized that you have ONLY heard of Hilbert in connection with the Hilbert hotel. So I understand that you were responding in good faith, being unaware of the triviality of the hotel story in the context of Hilbert's many other significant achievements.

Immanuel Can wrote: Hilbert's Hotel, as you rightly point out, gives us a way of explaining generally why an infinite regress is impossible.

I said no such thing. I said that Hilbert's hotel is like rubber sheet gravity. A fable for the tourists, not a scientific argument. It's silly and ridiculous to try to base a philosophical argument on either.

Immanuel Can wrote: But like all analogies, if you don't like it -- or Hilbert himself, for that matter -- you can throw it all out. However, it won't put a dent in the central argument.

I wasn't discussing the central argument at all. I was merely mentioning to you that I now understand why you thought the single word "Hilbert" referenced a specific argument; while from my more general knowledge of Hilbert, it references everything BUT the hotel story.

If I'm still not being clear: I initially thought you were acting in bad faith. Now I understand that you were acting in ignorance of Hilbert; but from your point of view, acting in good faith.

Immanuel Can wrote: The problem remains: you cannot have an infinite causal regress, because causality is definitionally linear, with cause necessarily preceding effect. If the chain is infinite, then each preceding cause never happens, and no effects can ever ensue. That's it in a nutshell.

Repeating a flawed argument doesn't make it any less wrong. Several others have already taken up the task of arguing this point with you so I'll leave it to them. But if you think Craig has proved the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who am I to disagree?

wtf wrote: Repeating a flawed argument doesn't make it any less wrong.

Quite true, but many people have attempted to say that since there is no evidence, then an idea without evidence is not true. The best you can say is that we don't know if it is true or not.

Immanuel Can wrote:
The problem remains: you cannot have an infinite causal regress, because causality is definitionally linear, with cause necessarily preceding effect. If the chain is infinite, then each preceding cause never happens, and no effects can ever ensue. That's it in a nutshell.

Why do you say, if the chain is infinite, then each preceding cause never happens?

And, what led you to presume that is true?

Also, based on that reasoning, if there is an effect, then there must have been a cause, right?

Immanuel Can wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote: I repeat that none of the current Big Bang models [ for there is more than one ] actually disprove this possibility

You repeat in vain. For they do. If you even just posit a Big Bang, then you have to posit that there was a cause, and some pre-existing elements upon which this cause could work...say hydrogen, helium, plasma... Then you need a cause for that...and a cause for that...and so on. You're into infinite regress, and an actual infinite is impossible, so again, you've got the Cosmological Problem.

I apologize for ragging on you a lot today.

You seem to be a big fan of W.L.Craig since I see a lot of his arguments mirrored in your posts. This one interested me because it seemed inconsistent with some of his other arguments. Craig is really smart, a top-notch debater, and has demonstrated in other arguments that he knows his physics, yet suddenly he uses this fallacious reasoning in the same debate, contradicting other statements. It seemed it really didn't benefit the debate at the time since his opponent immediately pointed out the error. So I sat wondering why he suddenly dropped to the naive view when he demonstrated earlier that he knew better. It dawned on me what he was doing. There seems to be no evidence that Craig is a Christian, at least no evidence in the debates. I don't know his personal life and certainly not his beliefs, but what he says in the debates clearly is not his held beliefs. The statements actually hurt his position in one debate with Carroll (Craig obliterated Hitchens on the other hand) and his purpose because more clear: He used the naive argument to speak to the audience, not to his opponent. He is in the business of separating Christians from their money and his statement ensured his continued employment in this capacity.

If time is part of the universe, there is no more before the big bang than there is a north of the north pole or deeper than the center of the earth. The answer to the cosmological question is the same one you supply: Find a way to explain things that is self explanatory, and the regress problem vanishes.

Noax wrote: There seems to be no evidence that Craig is a Christian, at least no evidence in the debates.

Isn't that his whole thing? He's described as a Christian apologist, and it would be odd if a non-Christian chose this particular line of work. It's logically possible but it would be unusual.

Noax wrote:
(Craig obliterated Hitchens ...)

Hitchens was probably drunk. I saw Hitchens on tv once and he was so drunk he embarrassed himself.

Noax wrote: He is in the business of separating Christians from their money and his statement ensured his continued employment in this capacity.

Ahhhhh ... you are a cynic after my own heart. Is that Craig's thing? Honestly I don't pay him much attention and I thought he was sincere.

Is this something some people believe or is this mostly your idea? I always thought he was totally sincere but like I say I don't know much about him.

ps -- I went Googling and honestly found very little material calling Craig a fraud. you can disagree with him but nobody's saying he's not sincere. I did find this:

http://religionvirus.blogspot.mx/2011/0 ... craig.html

which says: "Dr. Craig's most offensive tactic is that he relies on the ignorance of his audience. He knows they're not trained in philosophy or deductive logic. He knows they're not trained in mathematics."

Now I don't know Craig well enough to say. But that quote is incredibly consistent with my own shock to find he's using Hilbert's hotel to make a debating point. If he used formal set theory and then placed set theory in context, talked about the role of the Axiom of Infinity, and so forth, that would be one thing. But to sling the fable of Hilbert's hotel as if it were a mathematical argument is evidence of either being ignorant himself, or trying to take advantage of the ignorance of his audience.

So I find this interesting. Does Craig have a different debating style when he debates trained thinkers versus giving talks to a general audience?