Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 5:19 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 5:14 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 5:10 pm
No. An example of a thing, a specific thing, that you can show came into being spontaneously, while being neither eternal nor having a beginning, because it was just always there.

Just give me that.

You see? It doesn't even make sense. No wonder you can't do it.

I didn't say that it was always there or it was eternal. I said that it existed at the beginning of time.

Time begins with matter. Until there was matter, there was no such thing as time.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 5:10 pm Matter was not eternal, and is not now.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 5:10 pm Matter is entropic. Therefore, matter had a beginning

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 5:10 pm and a cause.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 5:10 pm What was that beginning and cause?

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 12:21 pm Absolute freedom from nature is superstition. Some individuals are relatively freer than others.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 7:36 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 7:24 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 7:09 pm

We're not done. We're still figuring out how you managed to take one of the world's most prominent physicists, and show he's lying.

I'm really starting to worry about Einstein now.

In all seriousness: you were bluffing. You are caught. You'll never admit it, but you know it, and I know it. So nobody who matters in this particular conversation doesn't know it.

On we go.

Then present the proof, that will show that he wasn't lying.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 5:50 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 5:35 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 5:33 pm
The very simple question of how this universe began. Please...

It didn't.

But we know it did.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 11:32 pm ...there are no grounds for asserting that there was nothing prior to it...

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2024 1:35 am

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 11:32 pm ...there are no grounds for asserting that there was nothing prior to it...

There had to be something prior to the universe, obviously: because the universe is a contigent and entropic entity, not a necessary and eternal one. Our universe manifests that it is the product of cause and effect. And we can say that certainly some kind of energy preceded the universe, though we can't yet say more. What was the source and nature of that energy, is the relevant next question.

So in my discussion with Gary, this is the point I had gotten to: something started the universe. I said nothing more definite than that. But then I asked what candidates there might be for the kind of entity that could start a universe. Based on the kind of universe we got, would it be a sentient entity or something else?

And I suggested what criteria we would need to meet, based on that. It would have to be an entity that did not, itself form part of the causal chain, for the simple reason that if it were, the infinite regress problem would apply...and there would be no universe, consequently. So it had to be uncaused; and what else? It would have to be of immense power, seeing as the universe has vast amounts of energy in it. And it would have to be something capable of infusing some level of order into what it produced (we can debate how orderly this universe is overall, but we can't debate that it also contains remarkably degrees and instances of fine tuning and order, for example).

So: eternal, uncaused, powerful, order-producing...and capable of generating this universe. What candidates do we have for that role?

And that's about where we left off. I had just asked Gary if it would be more plausible to think of this "whatever" as being something intelligent or something impersonal. And if impersonal, what sort of thing it might be.

So far, so good?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 5:19 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 5:14 pm
I didn't say that it was always there or it was eternal. I said that it existed at the beginning of time.

Time begins with matter. Until there was matter, there was no such thing as time.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2024 1:48 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2024 1:35 am

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 11:32 pm ...there are no grounds for asserting that there was nothing prior to it...

There had to be something prior to the universe, obviously: because the universe is a contigent and entropic entity, not a necessary and eternal one. Our universe manifests that it is the product of cause and effect. And we can say that certainly some kind of energy preceded the universe, though we can't yet say more. What was the source and nature of that energy, is the relevant next question.

So in my discussion with Gary, this is the point I had gotten to: something started the universe. I said nothing more definite than that. But then I asked what candidates there might be for the kind of entity that could start a universe. Based on the kind of universe we got, would it be a sentient entity or something else?

And I suggested what criteria we would need to meet, based on that. It would have to be an entity that did not, itself form part of the causal chain, for the simple reason that if it were, the infinite regress problem would apply...and there would be no universe, consequently. So it had to be uncaused; and what else? It would have to be of immense power, seeing as the universe has vast amounts of energy in it. And it would have to be something capable of infusing some level of order into what it produced (we can debate how orderly this universe is overall, but we can't debate that it also contains remarkably degrees and instances of fine tuning and order, for example).

So: eternal, uncaused, powerful, order-producing...and capable of generating this universe. What candidates do we have for that role?

And that's about where we left off. I had just asked Gary if it would be more plausible to think of this "whatever" as being something intelligent or something impersonal. And if impersonal, what sort of thing it might be.

So far, so good?

It seems to me that all this presupposes that a universe has to have an "intelligent" creator. Not knowing much about universes, I couldn't say one way or the other.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2024 3:07 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 5:19 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 5:14 pm
I didn't say that it was always there or it was eternal. I said that it existed at the beginning of time.

Time begins with matter. Until there was matter, there was no such thing as time.

How do we know that "time begins with matter"?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 10:43 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 7:36 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 7:24 pm
We're not done. We're still figuring out how you managed to take one of the world's most prominent physicists, and show he's lying.

I'm really starting to worry about Einstein now.

In all seriousness: you were bluffing. You are caught. You'll never admit it, but you know it, and I know it. So nobody who matters in this particular conversation doesn't know it.

On we go.

Then present the proof, that will show that he wasn't lying.

It's on you. Not me.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2024 3:38 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2024 1:48 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2024 1:35 am
There had to be something prior to the universe, obviously: because the universe is a contigent and entropic entity, not a necessary and eternal one. Our universe manifests that it is the product of cause and effect. And we can say that certainly some kind of energy preceded the universe, though we can't yet say more. What was the source and nature of that energy, is the relevant next question.

So in my discussion with Gary, this is the point I had gotten to: something started the universe. I said nothing more definite than that. But then I asked what candidates there might be for the kind of entity that could start a universe. Based on the kind of universe we got, would it be a sentient entity or something else?

And I suggested what criteria we would need to meet, based on that. It would have to be an entity that did not, itself form part of the causal chain, for the simple reason that if it were, the infinite regress problem would apply...and there would be no universe, consequently. So it had to be uncaused; and what else? It would have to be of immense power, seeing as the universe has vast amounts of energy in it. And it would have to be something capable of infusing some level of order into what it produced (we can debate how orderly this universe is overall, but we can't debate that it also contains remarkably degrees and instances of fine tuning and order, for example).

So: eternal, uncaused, powerful, order-producing...and capable of generating this universe. What candidates do we have for that role?

And that's about where we left off. I had just asked Gary if it would be more plausible to think of this "whatever" as being something intelligent or something impersonal. And if impersonal, what sort of thing it might be.

So far, so good?

It seems to me that all this presupposes that a universe has to have an "intelligent" creator. Not knowing much about universes, I couldn't say one way or the other.

Well, there's certainly some evidence to work with. For one thing, there is plenty of evidence of phenomena like irreducible complexity, or the fact that the DNA code is so highly specific of information, or the fine tuning of the cosmos. All I'm asking for is what we call "argument to the best explanation," meaning that, given whatever possible alternatives there are for explaining something, which one is most plausilble. So it's not as if I'm asking you to know for sure: I'm just asking what theory you would go with, if you had to bet on the most likely one.

Am I then to take from your response that you would say that it's more plausible to explain the existence of the universe in terms of intelligent design than in terms of something non-sentient? Or have you thought of some new non-sentient candidate, in the interval since last we spoke?

God wrote:Vilenkin's proof for a cosmic beginning is closely tied to what is known as the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) theorem. This theorem, developed by Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin in 2003, is a key result in cosmology and is often cited as evidence that the universe had a beginning.

The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) Theorem
The BGV theorem shows that any universe that has been, on average, expanding throughout its history cannot be past-eternal. In other words, even in cosmological models that allow for infinite time or exotic conditions (such as inflationary models, cyclic universes, or quantum gravity models), if the universe has been expanding over time, it must have had a beginning.

Key Ideas Behind the Theorem:
Expanding Universes: The theorem assumes a universe that is expanding on average. This expansion is central to many modern cosmological models, including the inflationary model (which suggests that the universe underwent an extremely rapid expansion early in its history).

Geodesic Incompleteness: The BGV theorem argues that if we trace the trajectories of particles backward in time (along what are called "geodesics," which are the straightest possible paths through spacetime), they eventually reach a point where the paths stop. This indicates that spacetime cannot be extended infinitely into the past and is therefore "incomplete" — implying that there must have been a boundary or starting point, i.e., a beginning.

Applicability: One important aspect of the BGV theorem is its generality. It does not depend on specific features of any one cosmological model (like the Big Bang). Instead, it applies broadly to any universe with positive expansion. Even in models where quantum mechanics or string theory might alter the nature of the universe at very early times, the theorem still holds under typical assumptions.

Implications:
The BGV theorem does not say what caused the universe to begin or what exactly happened "at" the beginning.
It does not describe the physics before the Big Bang or propose a specific mechanism for the universe’s creation.
It suggests, however, that any expanding universe cannot be eternal into the past and must have a finite beginning.
Responses to the BGV Theorem:
Quantum Gravity: Some physicists argue that quantum gravity effects, which would dominate near the beginning of the universe, might allow for models that avoid a true beginning. However, the BGV theorem still applies to most classical models of spacetime expansion.

Cyclic Models: Some cosmological models, like certain versions of the cyclic universe or "bouncing" universe models, attempt to explain the universe without a beginning by proposing an infinite series of expansions and contractions. However, the BGV theorem challenges many of these models, as they too involve periods of expansion, which suggests a finite past.

Multiverse: In the context of the multiverse, where our universe might be one of many, Vilenkin has argued that even a multiverse must have a finite past according to the BGV theorem if there is net expansion over time.

Vilenkin's Conclusion:
Alexander Vilenkin concludes that, while we may not yet have a full understanding of the nature of the universe’s origin, the BGV theorem strongly implies that the universe (and even multiverse models) must have had some form of a beginning. It makes it difficult to sustain any models of the universe that extend infinitely into the past.

In summary, Vilenkin’s alleged proof for the cosmic beginning is the BGV theorem, which implies that the universe, given its ongoing expansion, must have had a starting point in the finite past, regardless of specific cosmological models.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2024 3:41 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2024 3:07 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 5:19 pm
Time begins with matter. Until there was matter, there was no such thing as time.

How do we know that "time begins with matter"?

Quite simply because "time" refers to the interval or span between two points. It's basically the chronological gap between "here" and "there," or between "state 1" of an object, and its "state 2."

If there were only one substance in the universe, there would be no such thing as an "interval," and hence, no sense in which we could speak of there being any "time." There would no longer be a span for it to be defining.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2024 1:21 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2024 3:38 am Am I then to take from your response that you would say that it's more plausible to explain the existence of the universe in terms of intelligent design than in terms of something non-sentient? Or have you thought of some new non-sentient candidate, in the interval since last we spoke?

Sure. It seems as though intelligent design is a more plausible explanation for what we see around us than the idea of natural laws popping up out of nowhere. But that's coming from an ignorant being who doesn't know anything beyond what I experience in everyday life.

So the choice comes down to whether or not I want to think that I know more than I do or to choose ot think I am ignorant. I choose to think I am ignorant.

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2024 2:17 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2024 3:41 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2024 3:07 am

How do we know that "time begins with matter"?

Quite simply because "time" refers to the interval or span between two points. It's basically the chronological gap between "here" and "there," or between "state 1" of an object, and its "state 2."

If there were only one substance in the universe, there would be no such thing as an "interval," and hence, no sense in which we could speak of there being any "time." There would no longer be a span for it to be defining.

Yes, but these spans or intervals are measured by clocks, and clocks are made by humans. Water clocks, candle clocks, escapement clocks, electronic clocks, how long it takes an ox to plough a furlong.