Philosophy Now Forum

In scientific terms it is possible the universe had a cause. In scientific terms it is possible the universe didn't have a cause.

No, there's nothing scientific about the idea, "Phenomenon X was caused by nothing."

We are in agreement that know one knows at this stage. If science is restricted to casual explanations in terms of casual chains then this automatically excludes the possibility that the universe was not caused by anything.

Quite right. It must have been caused by something, scientifically speaking. This is the key point, in fact.

..which was caused by that, which was caused by that and so on... is a metaphysical explanation for causation.

No it's not. It doesn't require you to believe in any particular metaphysic at all. And it doesn't specify what the "cause" in question has to be. You could be a Theist or a rank Materialist: it wouldn't change this principle. All you have to believe in is that things just don't happen without causes sufficient to explain them. That's pretty much common sense, I think, if nothing else.

There's nothing spooky about it at all. It's an assumption we all live by every day. If you hear a loud noise suddenly, you look around for what caused it, don't you? If you see movement out of the corner of your eye, you turn your head to see what's making it. If you find a present on your doorstep, you wonder right away who put it there. We all know full well that things don't happen without a cause. We look for causes and we expect them. It's just life.

Immanuel Can wrote:

In scientific terms it is possible the universe had a cause. In scientific terms it is possible the universe didn't have a cause.

No, there's nothing scientific about the idea, "Phenomenon X was caused by nothing."

Of course it is science. Scientific journals are full of such theories. Have a look for yourself if you don't believe me. StuPhD, just posted one.

Ginkgo wrote:As to whether my term "meaningless" is accurate I'll let you be the judge. What would you make of a an initial singularity that has zero volume, infinite density and infinite temperature?

That it likely never existed in anything other than the scientist's mind.

Ginkgo wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:

In scientific terms it is possible the universe had a cause. In scientific terms it is possible the universe didn't have a cause.

No, there's nothing scientific about the idea, "Phenomenon X was caused by nothing."

Of course it is science. Scientific journals are full of such theories. Have a look for yourself if you don't believe me. StuPhD, just posted one.

I'm inclined to agree with I.C. here. How would you evaluate non-contingency scientifically?

Edit: By that, I mean a scientific theory must be evaluable via scientific methodology, even if at a later date, no?

ReliStuPhD wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:As to whether my term "meaningless" is accurate I'll let you be the judge. What would you make of a an initial singularity that has zero volume, infinite density and infinite temperature?

That it likely never existed in anything other than the scientist's mind.

Basically, the initial singularity is a logical consequence of general relativity breaking down at the quantum level.

ReliStuPhD wrote:
I'm inclined to agree with I.C. here. How would you evaluate non-contingency scientifically?

Ginkgo wrote: Not really a problem for quantum mechanics. As you know quantum mechanics is a scientific theory.
P.S. I haven't read that particular paper in question, so I don't know how the scientists in question evaluate non-contingency in their particular model.

Sorry, I got a bit carried away with this. Anything to do with quantum mechanics is always problematic.

Ginkgo wrote:

ReliStuPhD wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:As to whether my term "meaningless" is accurate I'll let you be the judge. What would you make of a an initial singularity that has zero volume, infinite density and infinite temperature?

That it likely never existed in anything other than the scientist's mind.

Basically, the initial singularity is a logical consequence of general relativity breaking down at the quantum level.

Interesting.

Edit: "By that, I mean a scientific theory must be evaluable via scientific methodology, even if at a later date, no?"

Naturally. Their particular theory is no different to any other theory. Quantum loop gravity is still just a theory with no observational evidence at the moment. The idea is that the theory will be testable indirectly in the future. We just wait for the results- if any.

ReliStuPhD wrote:
Interesting.

As to whether the theory is 'retrievable' at that level is of course a different question.

Immanuel Can wrote: No it's not. It doesn't require you to believe in any particular metaphysic at all. And it doesn't specify what the "cause" in question has to be. You could be a Theist or a rank Materialist: it wouldn't change this principle. All you have to believe in is that things just don't happen without causes sufficient to explain them. That's pretty much common sense, I think, if nothing else.

There's nothing spooky about it at all. It's an assumption we all live by every day. If you hear a loud noise suddenly, you look around for what caused it, don't you? If you see movement out of the corner of your eye, you turn your head to see what's making it. If you find a present on your doorstep, you wonder right away who put it there. We all know full well that things don't happen without a cause. We look for causes and we expect them. It's just life.

Yes, but one does not need to go back to the first cause of the universe in order to explain how it got there. That would not be very sensible or common.

Ginkgo wrote:Yes, but one does not need to go back to the first cause of the universe in order to explain how it got there. That would not be very sensible or common.

Agreed, but there are strong arguments that you do eventually have to get to a First Cause, otherwise it's just an infinite regress of causation (at least insofar as someone does not accept the un-caused nature of the universe, etc). The theist would obviously call that First Cause "God," but there's room for debate there I imagine.

ReliStuPhD wrote:...there are strong arguments that you do eventually have to get to a First Cause, otherwise it's just an infinite regress of causation (at least insofar as someone does not accept the un-caused nature of the universe, etc). The theist would obviously call that First Cause "God," but there's room for debate there I imagine.

I don't think there are any strong arguments, it is just natural to assume the universe must have come from somewhere. But however far back you go, to accept that there is no further conceivable scientific progress to be made and then invoking a god, is simply to invent a god of the gaps. That is not science.
I take everyone's point about the potential for unforeseen consequences in different fields (Hi thedoc, good to have you aboard, I'm glad it's not just us four prattling on), but it remains true that if no observable predictions arise in any field, an hypothesis is scientifically meaningless. That's not to say it should be abandoned or forgotten, because you never know, but there's no point flogging a dead horse.

So finally we seem to be at it: there needs to be a First Cause in any causal chain.

It's amazing how long it took us to get there. But perhaps I'll hazard a reason. I think that it's perhaps more due to the visceral reaction to the consequences of that realization rather than any inherent difficulty in actually establishing its truth. And if that turns out to be true, perhaps we should ask ourselves if not liking the logical consequences is sufficient reason for resisting the truth of a straightforward scientific conclusion. But we can leave that thought for now.

Really, there are only two possibilities: either time and the causal chain had a beginning (or Singularity, if you like) or else time and causality form some sort of loop, issuing in some sort of recycling process, so that there is no Singularity, just endless cycles. The second hypothesis is less plausible on the available empirical evidence, for as ReliStuPhd has implied, all we have for alternate views is mathematical models, not empirical observations, and hence we are positing pure hypothesis against conventional science when we propose them in the first place. That may not necessitate that they will turn out to be wrong, but it makes them highly implausible and non-evidentiary, far too sketchy for science to embrace as more than speculation at the moment. And to believe that the problems with circular models will be resolved in the future, when the empirical fact is that they are problematic, is quite an act of faith -- possibly even of bad faith; of scientism, not science. So we won't go there. I don't want to advocate the embracing of mere speculation.

As for cause-effect, it's really the simplest of all scientific principles, not controversial in itself at all. Yet you are not wrong to realize it goes interesting places once recognized.

Immanuel Can wrote:So finally we seem to be at it: there needs to be a First Cause in any causal chain.

I must be on his ignore list. Could someone tell Immanuel Can that 'we' are not finally at it, please?

uwot wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:So finally we seem to be at it: there needs to be a First Cause in any causal chain.

I must be on his ignore list. Could someone tell Immanuel Can that 'we' are not finally at it, please?

Depending on how long his list is, perhaps this will help.