Philosophy Now Forum

Sorry...double post.

Ginkgo wrote: Quite simply there is no methodology within science that allows for a first cause.

Immanuel Can wrote:
This seems manifestly untrue to me.

Ok, that's fine. On this basis it should be easy for you to post me a scientific theory that postulates a first case. That is to say, a scientific theory, not a pseudo-scientific theory such as Intelligent Design or Creationism.

Immanuel Can wrote: I understand your resistance to the idea of "first cause," because it can proceed from personal motivations, or from the unnecessary anxiety that the idea of God may somehow undermine science (though I think historically the situation is quite opposite). But what's manifestly incorrect, in my view, is the idea that "first cause" is somehow "unscientific."

No, you don't understand because you are not listening. I have said on many occasions here and within other forums that I am not rejecting the idea of a first cause and God. Why do you keep bringing this up... do you think I am lying?

Immanuel Can wrote:
Science clearly favours causes of all kinds.

The whole point of science is that it doesn't favour causes of all kinds. This is why we can draw a demarcation when it comes to science and metaphysics.

Immanuel Can wrote: Furthermore, it depends on sequentiality and the concept of time (this happened, then that happened, and did so repeatedly and under varying conditions, therefore hypothetically, this caused that). Since science requires causality and depends on time, how can it evade the concept of first cause, save by positing that impossible idea of an eternal universe?

Easily. It can and it does. We have already been though this.

Ginkgo wrote: I don't see Hibert's work in relation to infinities as being relevant to this discussion. Unless you can convince me otherwise.

Immanuel Can wrote: May I try? Hilbert shows that when we attempt to apply real conditions, empirical conditions, to the concept of infinity we instantly get unmeasurable nonsense, like hotels that are simultaneously infinitely full but can contain an infinite string of new arrivals. The very conditions we depend upon to do science, such as objects occupying particular space, fall apart at infinity. So positing infinity as the start-condition of the universe is merely to posit, literally "non-sense": nothing of which we, or science, can make sense.

Science doesn't posit infinity as a starting postulate. Science uses a bottom-up methodology rather than a top-down approach. This is a general rule of science. At least in there terms we are talking about at the moment. With the advent of string theory and quantum loop gravity the distinction is not all that clear cut. Nonetheless, none of theories I have mentioned postulate infinities as a starting point.

Immanuel Can wrote: Not necessary. See Hilbert. But as a matter of fact, I was actually strengthening your point for you, accepting that you needed no additional support for it, since the burden of proof is in science's favour there. I was conceding that science does not need to defend itself against something so irrational as infinite beginnings. I'm surprised you don't concur.

I do agree. But again, science doesn't postulate infinities as a starting point. Can you provide me with a scientific theory that postulates infinities as a starting point? Infinities arrive when we stretch a theory too far. The most obvious example is when we attempt to make sense of relativity at the micro scale.

Immanuel Can wrote: Again, I would suggest there is but one "ontology": but indeed, there are two problems -- they are articulated in the fact/value divide. In a world composed entirely of empirical facts, how does one suddenly import a conception like value? That is Hume's question, actually. There are no resources in science to perform the alchemy of turning a fact into a value.

One usually doesn't when one is doing science.

There is more than one type of ontology, just google "Ontology" and you will see.

Immanuel Can wrote:
As have I. And I like most of what he says. But like you, my hesitancy came with his conclusions. They seem to me entirely discordant with his hard-headed factuality earlier on, and smack of utopian dreaming. I see you felt the same about that, since you see the "gap" too.


Well, if Hume is right, we're barking up the wrong tree. We're expecting to derive values from empirical observations. And though we cannot generate them now, we keep hoping that additional empirical observations will somehow create legitimations for value judgments. Yet historically, as Hume knew, this has never been the case; and we have no reason to think it will now.

A different kind of modus operandi is required, I suggest. Science can tell us what is the case: it cannot tell us why we should care, or what we should or should not do with our knowledge, or even that we ought to continue to exist. Nagel's indictments are quite accurate there, I think. Something else is needed.

Probably, but I'm buggered if I know.

Immanuel Can wrote:
But is it possible that our failing is asking science to do too much for us? Is it possible that science is a truly excellent tool, but one that is simply not adapted to working on any questions of value? Are we trying to use a hammer to install screws there? Would we be best to accept science as excellent for its purposes but incapable of helping us with value questions? And in continually looking to science to do what it simply does not try to do, and cannot do, are we in danger of creating pseudosciences-of-value like Marxism, Social Darwinism or Nazism?

True, but it also gives rise far less offensive pseudo-scientific theories such as Intelligent Design and Creationism

Ok, that's fine. On this basis it should be easy for you to post me a scientific theory that postulates a first case. That is to say, a scientific theory, not a pseudo-scientific theory such as Intelligent Design or Creationism.

Sorry...it seems I'm not making myself clear on a couple of things. I suppose this is part of the frustration of communication by typed word instead of conversation. But let's have another go, and see if I can do better.

I'm not saying that science can take us farther in the direction of a first cause than to show that it is rational we should think one exists. Science is, of course, at present and for the foreseeable future, unable to specify what it would be. It can only hint, on the basis of effects observed long after the initial event. So no scientific theory can postulate a particular first cause. But science itself has to assume one, or causality -- upon which it depends -- cannot get off the ground.

We also got into a further confusion in my statement...

Science clearly favours causes of all kinds.

You emphasized the phrase "of all kinds" in your response, which was for me the throw-away part of the line.

Let me rephrase, please. To do science on something requires an explanation of cause. "Uncaused things" if such exist, are by definition outside of scientific explanation. Now, causes come in many different kinds. But of course there are proposed "causes" science does not favour, such as cause by leprechaun, or by spontaneous generation, or by magic. I don't think we actually have a point of contention there.

Nonetheless, none of theories I have mentioned postulate infinities as a starting point.

Somehow, we're also speaking past one another here. There are but two ways in which a thing can exist, rationally speaking: either it has a starting point, or it does not. Those simple opposites exhaust all rational possibilities, according to basic logic. If a thing has no start, it is by definition, infinite in a backward direction. If it has no end, it is infinite in a forward direction. But if it has a start, it has a cause. And if it is infinite, but only in a forward direction, then it also has a cause.

So there are only two possibilities: the universe is infinite backward, or it is caused. And if it is caused, then there is an explanation for that cause, whether we currently possess that explanation or not.

Am I doing better at explaining my position?

There is more than one type of ontology, just google "Ontology" and you will see.

I did. But there is still only one thing I'm referring to by "ontology." Wiki wants to call it "upper ontology." Okay, that's fine. That's the only one I want to discuss, since the rest are irrelevant to the issue of universal causality. They are only particular to sub disciplines and secondary questions not on the table here. So let me stipulate that when I say "ontology," I'm meaning "upper ontology."

pseudo-scientific theories such as Intelligent Design and Creationism

When I see you group these two together, it makes me suspect you may not know the difference between them. Is that possible?

Immanuel Can wrote:

pseudo-scientific theories such as Intelligent Design and Creationism

When I see you group these two together, it makes me suspect you may not know the difference between them. Is that possible?

There is no difference, Intelligent Design is a phrase that was substituted for Creationism to hide it's religious origins. Both are fiction based on Judeo-Christian mythology.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:You can pick out any event and come up with any number of explanations. That would cause it. And the cause itself may have underlying causes. I believe in plenty of evidence for the event (no matter how simple it looks) and I don't believe in first causes very firmly (the controversial Big Bang is a case in point due to the evidence for it, but it does leave open questions).

PhilX

The only valid first cause is an Absolute Miracle, or group of several such Miracles.

No matter how far back we try to trace the course of our observable realities, we will come to something that cannot possibly be explained-- not by any number of brilliant humans, not even by an Omnipotent God.

Current thinking, such as it is, has settled upon one of two low-entropy Miracles.

1. A cosmic micropea/singularity that has always existed, and about 13-14 billion years ago spontaneously (meaning, without cause) exploded and became our universe, and ourselves. No reason for its doing so.

2. An almighty God who has always existed, and who, about 13-14 billion years ago spontaneously (you know what that means) decided to create a universe including ourselves. No particularly interesting reason for doing so.

These two theories are functionally identical. Think about that. Before reacting, consider what functional differences they might have.

One characteristic that these popular (and virtually identical "first causes") have in common is that each is extraordinarily complex. Each must contain all the laws and principles needed to build a functional universe complete with at least the handful of quasi-intelligent biological life forms known to exist.

A more effective first cause would not involve the notion of "spontaneity." Nor would it include complex things at the beginning. It would include at least two absolutely simple things that existed at the highest possible entropy level (e.g. complete disorder), each with a single property that interacts naturally with the other.

Greylorn

Immanuel Can wrote:
I'm not saying that science can take us farther in the direction of a first cause than to show that it is rational we should think one exists. Science is, of course, at present and for the foreseeable future, unable to specify what it would be. It can only hint, on the basis of effects observed long after the initial event. So no scientific theory can postulate a particular first cause. But science itself has to assume one, or causality -- upon which it depends -- cannot get off the ground.

Yes, it is perfectly rational to postulate a first cause. However, this doesn't mean there was or is one. In the same way it is perfectly rational for Plato to propose a world of Forms. This doesn't mean such things and entities exist. Philosophy is full of rationalist ideas and entities that may or may not exist.

Why does science have to assume a first cause? Science got off the ground with Newton and has been flying around ever since without the need for a first cause.

Immanuel Can wrote: Let me rephrase, please. To do science on something requires an explanation of cause. "Uncaused things" if such exist, are by definition outside of scientific explanation.

Exactly. The reason being the big difference between talking about causation within a system compared to talking about causation of the system as a whole.

Immanuel Can wrote: Now, causes come in many different kinds. But of course there are proposed "causes" science does not favour, such as cause by leprechaun, or by spontaneous generation, or by magic. I don't think we actually have a point of contention there.

Yes, that's correct and this highlights the reason why we have a distinction between scientific/physics causation and other types of causation.

Immanuel Can wrote: Somehow, we're also speaking past one another here. There are but two ways in which a thing can exist, rationally speaking: either it has a starting point, or it does not. Those simple opposites exhaust all rational possibilities, according to basic logic.

If a thing has no start, it is by definition, infinite in a backward direction. If it has no end, it is infinite in a forward direction. But if it has a start, it has a cause. And if it is infinite, but only in a forward direction, then it also has a cause.

So there are only two possibilities: the universe is infinite backward, or it is caused. And if it is caused, then there is an explanation for that cause, whether we currently possess that explanation or not.

Am I doing better at explaining my position?

Yes, but I don't now what "the universe is infinite backwards" means. Are you thinking of the Hawking thought experiment where he imagines running the universe backwards to the Big Bang and the initial singularity?


I'll get to the rest later when I get a bit more time.

Why does science have to assume a first cause? Science got off the ground with Newton and has been flying around ever since without the need for a first cause.

You seem to have two historical misconceptions here: 1) Though Newton was an important contributor after the fact, science did not "get off the ground" with Newton, but long before. The person who formalized the methodology we now call science was the theologian-scientist Francis Bacon. You can confirm this with any good text on the history of science you like. 2) Newton believed in causes. When the (possibly mythical, historians are unsure) apple fell on his purported head, he looked immediately for a cause.

And why? Well, why should I be the one to say? And would you have reason to believe me if I told you?

Let the old man speak for himself:

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being....This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God "pantokrator," or Universal Ruler.... (Principia Mathematica).

Exactly. The reason being the big difference between talking about causation within a system compared to talking about causation of the system as a whole.

Now, that's unscientific. If you are comfortable taking causality for granted *within* the system, then you would have a burden to justify rationally any claim that some other axiom ought to apply to the system itself. But you would add the additional difficulty that you would need a non-causal (and hence magical) explanation for the existence of the rational system of causality.

So the weight would fall on your shoulders to show not just that it could work conceptually (like Plato's Realm of Higher Forms) but that it was actually true. But you'd have to abandon causal science to do so.

I'm not optimistic you could do it.

Yes, but I don't now what "the universe is infinite backwards" means.

Nothing odd. Just a linear timeline extended into the past infinitely. Picture a ray commencing in the centre of a page and extending infinitely beyond the left margin of the page. Nothing like Hawking.

There is no difference, Intelligent Design is a phrase that was substituted for Creationism to hide it's religious origins. Both are fiction based on Judeo-Christian mythology.

Not so. They operate differently.

Creationism depends on Biblical revelation. Intelligent Design is a non-sectarian but scientific view, but one more resisted for its implications favouring Theism than for anything inherently unscientific in its methodology. Its methods are plain science; its implications are anti-Darwinian.

ID simply replaces the Progressivist scientific paradigm drawn from Darwin with the analytical methods drawn from Engineering. Looking at an organism, Evolutionism asks, "How did this progress forward to become what it is now?" ID looks at the same organism and asks, "How do the parts of this organism work together?"

Now, that ID has eventual *implications* beyond itself is obvious, and no one denies that. But the perception that its basic method is unscientific is categorically incorrect. It does not require any religious presuppositions at all, nor any revelation to get off the ground. And that's what makes it such a massive threat to conventional science, even after secularists believed they had succeeded in pushing Creationism off the stage.

It's as straightforward an approach and as scientific as engineering itself.

Immanuel Can wrote:

There is no difference, Intelligent Design is a phrase that was substituted for Creationism to hide it's religious origins. Both are fiction based on Judeo-Christian mythology.

Not so. They operate differently.

Creationism depends on Biblical revelation. Intelligent Design is a non-sectarian but scientific view, but one more resisted for its implications favouring Theism than for anything inherently unscientific in its methodology. Its methods are plain science; its implications are anti-Darwinian.

ID simply replaces the Progressivist scientific paradigm drawn from Darwin with the analytical methods drawn from Engineering. Looking at an organism, Evolutionism asks, "How did this progress forward to become what it is now?" ID looks at the same organism and asks, "How do the parts of this organism work together?"

Now, that ID has eventual *implications* beyond itself is obvious, and no one denies that. But the perception that its basic method is unscientific is categorically incorrect. It does not require any religious presuppositions at all, nor any revelation to get off the ground. And that's what makes it such a massive threat to conventional science, even after secularists believed they had succeeded in pushing Creationism off the stage.

It's as straightforward an approach and as scientific as engineering itself.

Every time I have watched an Intelligent Design presentation the presenter usually ends with the claim that God is the designer, sometimes they don't say it directly, but that is the ultimate claim, and that is used to trump any science or evidence that may have been presented. irreducible complexity is often brought in to justify the claim of being designed by God, of any characteristic that they will claim couldn't have evolved by chance. The fallacy is that evolution does not claim that features of organisms were evolved by chance, but survival has selected some features that are advantageous. Secondly, so far cases of proposed irreducible complexity have been debunked by discovering intermediate forms that have filled some other function, but were then adapted to the new function. ID is attempting to use science to disprove science.

Every time I have watched an Intelligent Design presentation the presenter usually ends with the claim that God is the designer,

True, no doubt, but a poor reason for rejecting ID. "I don't like your conclusions" would not seem to be an adequate reason for rejecting any scientific claim. If the evidence goes there, then that is where we must go. The only question is, does the evidence go there?

Secondly, so far cases of proposed irreducible complexity have been debunked by discovering intermediate forms that have filled some other function, but were then adapted to the new function.

Not true. That was merely the first reply to a much more complicated problem raised by ID, and it wasn't a very good one. Just like the famed "missing link(s)" there are not enough intermediate forms suggested by Evolutionism to cover the changes required. In addition, the ID proponents had very good second salvos, such as the irreducible complexity at the DNA levels and the existence of multiple symbiotic relationships, for which the Darwinists have yet to invent credible replies. The debate goes on...

But the preferred strategy of the Darwinist club is to pretend ID is simply the same as Creationism because of its conclusions, and then to dismiss it outright. That's understandable, because they've long held the pole position on science, and are loath to give it up. And if they can only hold onto it by behaving irrationally, well, they'll do that.

Basically, here's what they want you to believe.

P1: That which compels us to believe in God is not science.
P2: ID compels us to believe in God.
C: Therefore, ID is not science.

As you can see, unless you grant them premise 1, there isn't an argument worth having here at all. But why would we think it true, and absent some other totally compelling line of reasoning to support it, why would we grant it -- that is, assuming we are wanting to ask the question at all?

Dawkins himself makes this irrational move. He admits that everything observable in the natural world seems to compel us to think there is some sort of design at work in it -- then he tells us, nevertheless, we must resist at all costs the inclination to accept that explanation.

Well, why, Richard? If all the evidence *seems* to go that way, isn't a scientist more or less duty-bound to investigate that possibility? Why would we reject it before all investigation, and why would we be more scientific to do so? That seems rather anti-scientific, does it not?

ID is attempting to use science to disprove science

No it isn't. It's using Engineering to question our faith in Progressivism.

But even if it were questioning our existing notions about science, what of that? Science progresses only by being questioned and tested, and then found either sound on a point or unsound, then revised and made more sound.

Questions will never destroy science; but the refusal to ask questions, that would certainly put a stop to all science once and for all.

thedoc wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:

There is no difference, Intelligent Design is a phrase that was substituted for Creationism to hide it's religious origins. Both are fiction based on Judeo-Christian mythology.

Not so. They operate differently.

Creationism depends on Biblical revelation. Intelligent Design is a non-sectarian but scientific view, but one more resisted for its implications favouring Theism than for anything inherently unscientific in its methodology. Its methods are plain science; its implications are anti-Darwinian.

ID simply replaces the Progressivist scientific paradigm drawn from Darwin with the analytical methods drawn from Engineering. Looking at an organism, Evolutionism asks, "How did this progress forward to become what it is now?" ID looks at the same organism and asks, "How do the parts of this organism work together?"

Now, that ID has eventual *implications* beyond itself is obvious, and no one denies that. But the perception that its basic method is unscientific is categorically incorrect. It does not require any religious presuppositions at all, nor any revelation to get off the ground. And that's what makes it such a massive threat to conventional science, even after secularists believed they had succeeded in pushing Creationism off the stage.

It's as straightforward an approach and as scientific as engineering itself.

Every time I have watched an Intelligent Design presentation the presenter usually ends with the claim that God is the designer, sometimes they don't say it directly, but that is the ultimate claim, and that is used to trump any science or evidence that may have been presented. irreducible complexity is often brought in to justify the claim of being designed by God, of any characteristic that they will claim couldn't have evolved by chance. The fallacy is that evolution does not claim that features of organisms were evolved by chance, but survival has selected some features that are advantageous. Secondly, so far cases of proposed irreducible complexity have been debunked by discovering intermediate forms that have filled some other function, but were then adapted to the new function. ID is attempting to use science to disprove science.

Doc,

Michael Behe introduced the concept of irreducible complexity in Darwin's Black Box. I believe that this concept has held up to scientific scrutiny, although the particular example he showed might have been found to have a viable and simpler precursor.

He presents a more powerful argument for I.D. in The Edge of Evolution. However, this is a also a more complex presentation and will certainly challenge the attention spans of many readers. I found that argument to be non-refutable, and have not found any Darwinists who claim better.

To conclude "Edge..." Behe acknowledges that he is a rather conventional Roman Catholic, but does not claim that the God in whom he believes is necessarily the designer about whom he writes. He does not claim to know anything about the designer, and is specific about that.

You may be doubtful about his disclaimer, as am I, but it is entirely possible that he realizes and accepts the inherently non-scientific characteristics of the omnipotent God he believes in.

I pinged him several years ago to ask if he was interested in Plan B, but got no reply. Either he was not interested, or more likely did not feel it would come from someone with low-level physics credentials.

Whatever, there is interesting evidence that puzzles both Darwinists, ID enthusiasts, and bible-thumping creationists alike-- a set of scientific observations known as the C-value Enigma. Plan B explains it of course. But a genuinely curious mind who does not have a logical explanation for this might be advised to be skeptical about the source of his skepticism.

Greylorn

Ginkgo wrote:Why does science have to assume a first cause? Science got off the ground with Newton and has been flying around ever since without the need for a first cause.

Immanuel Can wrote: You seem to have two historical misconceptions here: 1) Though Newton was an important contributor after the fact, science did not "get off the ground" with Newton, but long before. The person who formalized the methodology we now call science was the theologian-scientist Francis Bacon. You can confirm this with any good text on the history of science you like. 2) Newton believed in causes. When the (possibly mythical, historians are unsure) apple fell on his purported head, he looked immediately for a cause.

(1)Yes, I know all of this. I was extending your metaphor in terms of science as flight. This is why I chose Newton.

(2) When Aristotle got hit on the head with the very same apple he also looked for a cause. The difference being that Newton gave as a scientific theory for causation. Aristotle gave us a metaphysical explanation for causation.

Immanuel Can wrote: And why? Well, why should I be the one to say? And would you have reason to believe me if I told you?

Let the old man speak for himself:

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being....This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God "pantokrator," or Universal Ruler.... (Principia Mathematica).

I am sure we can come up with some more quotes from recent eminent scientists.

"The holiness of the unintelligible God is conveyed by the holiness of symbols" Max Planck.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is also lame". Albert Einstein.

Throughout history there have been many famous scientists that have expressed their belief in God. In exactly the same way there are many modern physicists who also express a belief in God. So what does this have to do with science as a methodology besides nothing. Can you show me any reference to God in Newton's equations? Can you show me where God appears at the Planck scale?

Immanuel Can wrote: Now, that's unscientific.

I find this rather odd coming form someone who wanted us to believe the Big Bang was an explosion.

Immanuel Can wrote:
If you are comfortable taking causality for granted *within* the system, then you would have a burden to justify rationally any claim that some other axiom ought to apply to the system itself. But you would add the additional difficulty that you would need a non-causal (and hence magical) explanation for the existence of the rational system of causality.

So the weight would fall on your shoulders to show not just that it could work conceptually (like Plato's Realm of Higher Forms) but that it was actually true. But you'd have to abandon causal science to do so.

Not really, you are promoting the burden of proof fallacy. Science is in no way obliged to provide any axiom of universal causality. If you want demonstrate that such a principle is necessary for science to work then the burden on proof is with you.

Ginkgo wrote: Yes, but I don't now what "the universe is infinite backwards" means.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Nothing odd. Just a linear timeline extended into the past infinitely. Picture a ray commencing in the centre of a page and extending infinitely beyond the left margin of the page.

[/quote]

Well, it is actually odd in terms of general relativity and quantum mechanics.

If you are talking about a ray extending from the centre of a page as a analogy then you are not talking about a linear timeline, you are talking about geometry and topology. Time can only extend back as far as the Big Bang. Not indefinitely. Before the Big Bang a quantum theory of time and space is required.

Can you show me any reference to God in Newton's equations? Can you show me where God appears at the Planck scale?

If I did, I would not be showing you the Christian God.

The Christian God is not a Deterministic Force pulling the all the physical forces by hand. He's a Lawgiver God who establishes patterns of predictable natural phenomena and leaves us free to discover and use them creatively. When he intervenes in the physical world, it's only on very rare and special occasions -- hence people call them "miraculous."

Routine intervention, which is the sort of thing you describe above, is not a thing we would expect from a law-giving Supreme Being; for there would then be no reason for physical laws at all. Every event would be an exception to every other, and science itself would be impossible for us.

Yet I would say that our ability to do science is a very great good for humanity, and opens up much human potential, freedom and creativity. And I imagine you would too. So we should be quite happy that God is a Lawgiver rather than a Micromanager.

The Big Bang

You shouldn't trouble yourself much about this. It is a thing in which I do not believe. I do believe in a singular initial event produced by the First Cause, but not the BB.

Thus any looseness of the BB theories is not a problem for me. It can only trouble those who care to defend the BB. I'm merely pointing out that the BB gives them a causal problem they cannot solve, and that much we seem to agree on.

Immanuel Can wrote:

The Christian God is not a Deterministic Force pulling the all the physical forces by hand. He's a Lawgiver God who establishes patterns of predictable natural phenomena and leaves us free to discover and use them creatively. When he intervenes in the physical world, it's only on very rare and special occasions -- hence people call them "miraculous."

Routine intervention, which is the sort of thing you describe above, is not a thing we would expect from a law-giving Supreme Being; for there would then be no reason for physical laws at all. Every event would be an exception to every other, and science itself would be impossible for us.

Yet I would say that our ability to do science is a very great good for humanity, and opens up much human potential, freedom and creativity. And I imagine you would too. So we should be quite happy that God is a Lawgiver rather than a Micromanager.

I can't come up with any reason(s) why I would disagree with this.

Immanuel Can wrote: The Big Bang

Immanuel Can wrote: You shouldn't trouble yourself much about this. It is a thing in which I do not believe. I do believe in a singular initial event produced by the First Cause, but not the BB.

Thus any looseness of the BB theories is not a problem for me. It can only trouble those who care to defend the BB. I'm merely pointing out that the BB gives them a causal problem they cannot solve, and that much we seem to agree on.

In terms of the initial singularity, there would be very few scientists who would be of the opinion that such a singularity actually existed.

In terms of the initial singularity, there would be very few scientists who would be of the opinion that such a singularity actually existed.

I don't really know how you're getting that idea.

Science presupposes linear time. The universe is also clearly not past-eternal, as we can empirically see by the process of entropy. For were the universe past-eternal, it would have been reduced to heat death an infinite span of time ago. At some point, then, the Laws of Entropy had to begin to operate on an already highly-organized system, since entropy is uni-directional, always tending from order to disorder (2nd Law of Entropy). Absent any event to produce that organized system, what explanation would you offer for the empirical situation?

So perhaps you can you explain?

Immanuel Can wrote:

In terms of the initial singularity, there would be very few scientists who would be of the opinion that such a singularity actually existed.

I don't really know how you're getting that idea.

Science presupposes linear time. The universe is also clearly not past-eternal, as we can empirically see by the process of entropy. For were the universe past-eternal, it would have been reduced to heat death an infinite span of time ago. At some point, then, the Laws of Entropy had to begin to operate on an already highly-organized system, since entropy is uni-directional, always tending from order to disorder (2nd Law of Entropy). Absent any event to produce that organized system, what explanation would you offer for the empirical situation?

So perhaps you can you explain?

Science is very good at explaining what happened less than a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang. The assumption is that the universe was in a highly organized state prior to the Big Bang. Science cannot explain what the universe was like before or at the time of the Big Bang. The reason is the initial singularity problem. The singularity is the product of general relativity breaking down at tiny distances.

The initial singularity doesn't predict or explain anything useful.This is why a quantum explanation for space and time is required. It is problematic at this stage as to whether such a explanation will include general relativity. However, what we might term "classical science" does very well in terms of explanations and predictions just after the Big Bang.