/sci/ - Science & Math

Part 2:

But I like to propose another problem with this. It doesn't really logically follow that there has to be an uncaused cause in the first place even if we accept the premises. Can't we explain existence without appealing to some "ultimate principle", be it a god that itself can not be further explained or a set of physical laws that can not be further explained? Isn't it possible that the explanation for the universe lies within it? In other words: Can't the universe and its explanation co-emerge? Instead of thinking of laws as something fixed in a platonic heaven that are transcended of the universe or imposed from without we could say that they are emergent with and intrinsic to the universe. Time may not be linear and the past is actually caused by the present just as the future - past, present and future co-emerge. This certainly feels counter-intuitive but that doesn't mean it's impossible.

I urge people to read Paul Davies book: "Origin of the Laws of Physics" where he argues for precisely that!

It might be wrong but as long as this is a possibility I see no hope for the theist's dumb
argument.

When people make arguments like that, I like to ask what caused God. If God created himself, that violates their assertion.

>>2300466

They simply say that God is the special and necessary exception to the rule.

Of course that doesn't explain anything because one has solved a mystery with a mystery.

>>2300470
Yeah, that came up in a discussion yesterday. The response was something like, "God is so great we can't begin to understand him."

Then why are you trying to tell me about something when you don't understand it?

>Part 1:
>theists...

Reported

>>2300475

True. But if we buy their premises it would leave us with an uncaused cause anyway - something that is intrinsically unexplainable. That bothers me.

Of course one could simply reject that infinite causal chains are impossible (I see no compelling reason why they should be) but this >>2300465 is an interesting and intriguing alternative I think

>>2300485

Just ignore part 1 if you have a problem with religion even being mentioned. I think part 2 is interesting in its own right.

>counter-intuitive

One of the most important lessons science teaches us that human intuition has nothing to do with truth!

I hate it when people say "Well it just makes sense to me." Why should it matter what makes sense to you? Our senses and out brain aren't perfectly reliable all the time. Via using mathematics we can postulate dimensions that can not be imagined by humans - but this doesn't mean that they don't exist! Humans can't comprehend infinity and eternity but there might eternal things or an infinite amount of something anyway!

The whole of existence is nothing. That nothing created from everything. Like destructive interference.

Shits so elegant! Within 0, there is everything.

>>2300553

I don't fully understand? Or are you saying what Lawrence Krauss talked about ?

>>2300561
No. I was thinking along the lines of multiple universes/existences.

Then applying this simple concept.
"Add all numbers in existence together, what do you get?"
0 simply. So if everything we can imagine exists, then it sums up to 0. And if in the grand scheme of things nothing exists... then what is there to explain.

>>2300459
>everything that begins to exists had a cause

Doesn't know shit about the big bang. Your fucking highschool notions of cause and effect have no meaning to a system without time.

Z = depth = time


capcha: likes hicaliss

>>2300466
Are you slow? The whole point is that a causal chain has to reach back to something that is eternal, and therefore causeless. Such a thing obviously can't have a cause. Within a universe that began to exist, there obviously is nothing eternal.

>>2300459
This eternal cause has to have mental properties because the universe emerged from him has mental properties.

>>2300621

>>2300621

How about you read the rest of my post?

>>2300621
Finally someone who isn't a retard

>>2300465
>Can't the universe and its explanation co-emerge?
Emerge from what? Ex nihilo? That's the problem.

>>2300621
What system without time are you talking about? All systems studied by physics have time.

>>2300635
>This eternal cause has to have mental properties because the universe emerged from him has mental properties.

Logical fallacy: Fallacy of composition.

Example:

Humans are made out of atoms.

Humans have noses.

Therefore atoms have noses.

>>2300647
Why would anyone read the rest of that crap? It is considered a mental handicapp to believe in imaginary friends as an adult. So, why give a shit what religious people believe?

>>2300656
>Emerge from what?

One from the other.

>>2300667

If you would have read the rest you would quickly find out that I don't believe.

Oh wait...you're what people call a troll, right? nvm then.

>>2300661
>All systems studied by physics have time

Nope. Example: time independent schrodinger equation.

Anyway, The big bang doesn't need a cause, cause then notion of time didn't exist. Time and space differentiated as a result of the big bang......DURRRR.

You really should read a book.

>>2300671
Then you have circular causation, which is even worse than an eternal chain of causation. The circle itself is completely arbitrary and itself needs a cause. It's like if you have a book that your future self traveled back in time to give you which you later go back in time to give your past self. The book is completely arbitrary and didn't come from anywhere or itself have a cause. Who wrote the book?

>>2300694
You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? The time-independent schrodinger equation studies a system that time is necessarily a part of.

Time and space are never undifferentiated. The singularity is something you reach by reverse-evolving the system backward in time.

>>2300700

The problem you are mentioning only arises when you are taking that linear view point that humans are used to.

You want something from which everything else emerged. I simply say that it is at least possible that everything emerged on it's own - i.e. the present is as much dependent upon the past as the past is dependent upon the present.

>>2300661
they're talkin about BEFORE god invented time there was no cause and effect?

hurr hurrr dumbasses fighting for the short end of the stick!?

>>2300475
so you can meet Him for yourself?

God is not a created being; the sooner you get out of that logical fallacy the closer you will be to understanding something about the nature of reality.

God has no beginning because He is not a created being; He is a spirit being; always has been, and always will be.

that's why He named Himself "I Am"

>>2300781

Cool story bro, did he tell you that himself?

>>2300766
Anything that isn't eternal, or isn't immutable, needs a cause. That's why the language used is "begins to exist". It doesn't strictly mean an event that happens within one particular dimension of time, but it is an event in some sense, which is why it needs a cause. And this particular event does indeed relate to our dimension of time in a way that it does not relate to dimensions of time in other universes. The point isn't whether or not an event happened before the existence of the time dimension proper. Rather the point is that the universe and all its states are transient things. They are not eternal, immutable, and universal things. That's why they are not causeless.