Originally posted by epiphinehasI am not sure I understand your argument.
...it would be nice to hear a continued discussion.
As far as I can tell you appear to be assuming the existence of an entity with no beginning or end. If so then you are running the first cause argument backwards.
Also you seem to assume that time has no end. Again, you must provide conclusive evidence or drop it from your argument.
One important thing to consider when talking about the first cause argument is that it is based on the time dimension. It is always interesting to try the same argument on another dimension and see what happens. For example does space have a beginning and end? Space is not directional like time so there are some differences but it is finite in extent. So anyone claiming that finite time implies something outside time must surely also claim that finite space implies something outside space.
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm not sure I understand my argument either. I am aware, however, that space and time are not two separate dimensions but rather one seamless whole. The 'direction' of space is the direction of time, and vice versa. Also, I do not claim that time is finite, because, of course, I don't know that for sure. What I'm suggesting is that the idea of a First Cause strictly 'outside' of space-time could be a misconception. Instead of stating my opinion as fact, which is entirely irksome to many here, I'm asking this question: what are the laws which govern the universe contingent upon? My opinion: Law is the verifiable expression of the First Cause, meaning Law is contingent upon the First Cause, and that the First Cause is therefore immanent within the universe, since the universe is contingent upon the consistency of its laws.
I am not sure I understand your argument.
As far as I can tell you appear to be assuming the existence of an entity with no beginning or end. If so then you are running the first cause argument backwards.
Also you seem to assume that time has no end. Again, you must provide conclusive evidence or drop it from your argument.
One important thing to consi ...[text shortened]... something outside time must surely also claim that finite space implies something outside space.
Originally posted by epiphinehasBut why are you calling it a 'First Cause' and do you have any reason whatsoever for believing that such a thing exists (other than your faith in God)?
I'm not sure I understand my argument either. I am aware, however, that space and time are not two separate dimensions but rather one seamless whole. The 'direction' of space is the direction of time, and vice versa. Also, I do not claim that time is finite, because, of course, I don't know that for sure. What I'm suggesting is that the idea of a Fir ...[text shortened]... within the universe, since the universe is contingent upon the consistency of its laws.
Where you seem to be heading is to say that what you are calling the 'First Cause' is the universe but at the same time you appear to be trying to separate it.
Whatever the case I think you should drop the term 'First Cause' and use something like 'fundamental reality', though you will quickly hit all the same snags that the first cause argument suffers from ie if the universes Laws are continent upon something else then that something else is made up of Laws which must be contingent on something else etc. If not then why the first step. ie maybe the laws 'just are'.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadBut why are you calling it a 'First Cause' and do you have any reason whatsoever for believing that such a thing exists (other than your faith in God)?
But why are you calling it a 'First Cause' and do you have any reason whatsoever for believing that such a thing exists (other than your faith in God)?
Where you seem to be heading is to say that what you are calling the 'First Cause' [b]is the universe but at the same time you appear to be trying to separate it.
Whatever the case I think you should t on something else etc. If not then why the first step. ie maybe the laws 'just are'.[/b]
Yes, I do: natural law.
Einstein (whom I recognize is an atheist) describes the 'religion' of the true scientist in this way:
"Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown the way to kindred spirits scattered wide through the world and the centuries . . . It is the cosmic religious feeling that gives a man such strength . . . His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."
Natural law gives rise to such an intuition.
Originally posted by epiphinehasIt was just pointed out to me that Einstein was in fact not an atheist.
[b]But why are you calling it a 'First Cause' and do you have any reason whatsoever for believing that such a thing exists (other than your faith in God)?
Yes, I do: natural law.
Einstein (whom I recognize is an atheist) describes the 'religion' of the true scientist in this way:
"Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived ...[text shortened]... s is an utterly insignificant reflection."
Natural law gives rise to such an intuition.[/b]
http://www.adherents.com/people/pe/Albert_Einstein.html
Originally posted by epiphinehasActually it is your brain, looking at natural law that gives rise to the intuition. You can not form any logical argument around it however so it remains intuition. You appear however to be assuming its existence in your posts.
Natural law gives rise to such an intuition.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf the laws of nature themselves were interdependent with the energies and forces of the universe itself and therefore subject to evolution or warping, then it could be said that natural law certainly does not allude to a deeper/higher reality 'outside' of space-time. However, if natural laws themselves do evolve and are warped by matter and energy, then it is inconceivable that the universe would be stable enough to subsist for any significant length of time. As it stands, the effects of gravitation are perpetually regulated by natural law, even unto the eventual destruction of space-time within a black hole. This transcendent quality of natural law, then, most definitely alludes to a certain reality independent of space-time.
Actually it is your brain, looking at natural law that gives rise to the intuition. You can not form any logical argument around it however so it remains intuition. You appear however to be assuming its existence in your posts.
Originally posted by epiphinehasHmmm, I wonder if you aren't trying to take "natural law" as something independent of existence rather than just "what happens". Rather like knightmeister (amongst others) continually tries to make time a subset of itself.
If the laws of nature themselves were interdependent with the energies and forces of the universe itself and therefore subject to evolution or warping, then it could be said that natural law certainly does not allude to a deeper/higher reality 'outside' of space-time. However, if natural laws themselves do evolve and are warped by matter and energy, the ...[text shortened]... of natural law, then, most definitely alludes to a certain reality independent of space-time.
I really don't understand the context in which you use the word "evolve" here either. Likewise, I fail to see why changing conditions as a result of the reactions of previous conditions would so spectacularly fail to allow as stable universe for a "substantial" (and how long is that?) period of time. After all, the changes that take place in suns as a result of a dynamic system with continually changing conditions (as nucleosynthesis occurs) is very stable for long periods of time. I guess, to an extent, it depends on how you define "a long time". Certainly our perception is not a suitable one to use. Bacteria, with a lifespan measured in minutes, presumably marvel (or they would if they could) at our ability to "keep it all together".
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzI wonder if you aren't trying to take "natural law" as something independent of existence rather than just "what happens".
Hmmm, I wonder if you aren't trying to take "natural law" as something independent of existence rather than just "what happens". Rather like knightmeister (amongst others) continually tries to make time a subset of itself.
I really don't understand the context in which you use the word "evolve" here either. Likewise, I fail to see why changing cond bly marvel (or they would if they could) at our ability to "keep it all together".
No, I'm not trying to take natural law as something independent of 'existence' but rather independent of 'space-time'. You are assuming that 'space-time' is the only mode of existence; whether correctly or incorrectly, that is what you are assuming.
And what does it mean when one says that natural law is just "what happens" or that natural laws "just are"? What exactly are you saying here? Because it sounds an awful lot like a philosophy...
I fail to see why changing conditions as a result of the reactions of previous conditions would so spectacularly fail to allow as stable universe for a "substantial" (and how long is that?) period of time.
How do we calculate the life-span of a given star? . . . according to the natural laws which we are familiar with; natural laws which we take to be omnipresent throughout space and time. If these laws could change, then we could not calculate the age of the universe with any accuracy and neither could we predict its fate. Scientists even now speak of black holes proliferating immediately after the big bang because of the relative density of the universe. Obviously, the same laws which apply today we assume to apply back then. Black holes themselves were predicted by our knowledge of natural law, and without such knowledge we would not be able to predict what occurs within black holes either. In fact, science itself is completely dependent upon the consistency of natural law throughout all times and places for its conclusions.
If natural laws were susceptible to being warped by the tidal forces of space-time gravitation, then it would have occurred before now. The universe in its early stages used to be much denser and therefore much more able, if possible, to warp natural law. Presently, we are investigating and theorizing about the first few moments of the universe, right after the Big Bang, utilizing our current knowledge of natural law, and assuming that these laws apply every moment the universe has existed.
Our current moment and configuration in space-time, if natural laws are indeed immutable, cannot be the result of chance, since the necessary laws are in place which determine what matter and energy do with their time, so to speak. Likewise, we can predict, with the help of further observation, the fate of the universe based on what what we know now.
Nothing suggests that natural law is dependent upon space-time for its existence. My question is, what is natural law dependent upon? Of course, in my mind natural law is dependent upon the 'first cause' (what Einstein calls a 'superior intelligence'😉 which framed the natural laws before 'the foundation of the world' (i.e. Big Bang).
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehas“Natural laws” are not metaphysical impositions on the universe; they are descriptive rules: “X always behaves this way (B) under these conditions (C).” In other words, there is not first a law, which then stands in need of a universe of x’s and c’s in which it applies.
[b]I wonder if you aren't trying to take "natural law" as something independent of existence rather than just "what happens".
No, I'm not trying to take natural law as something independent of 'existence' but rather independent of 'space-time'. You are assuming that 'space-time' is the only mode of existence; whether correctly or incorrectly, tha further observation, the fate of the universe based on what what we know now.[/b]
Call the law regarding the behavior of X—X(B,C). This can be generalized to: “For all elements x in the universe, such x will behave in a certain way (b) under various conditions (c). Therefore, for all x and c, there is some rule that specifies the behavior of such x under such conditions—x(b,c).” Once all x are identified, along with all of the possible conditions (c) that can pertain to them, all b are specified as well, according to the rule-function (which is a statement of a “natural law” ).
Now, the question of the “uniformity version” of the cosmological argument seems to be: “But doesn’t there need to be a rule-function to specify the very coherency of all x(b,c)—i.e., the coherency and uniformity of all the natural laws?” Not only why these x(b,c), but why they hold together in the total relational package.
Until such a universal function—let’s call it f(U)—is identified, our knowledge is incomplete.
But why should such an f(U) not be an aspect of the universe itself? Whether or not it is comprehendible by our consciousness? (At some point, recognizing that we ourselves are an element of U, there are sure to be some self-reference problems here.)
But then is not someone likely to say: “Yes, but what about f(U) itself? Does there not need to be some rule (or agent) that specifies why f(U) functions as it does—call it g(f(U))? Otherwise, if f(U) is an aspect of U itself, which is comprised of all the x(b,c), does that not end up being circular? And then, what about g itself...?”
I’m not sure that circularity is a real problem (e.g., a “universal tautology” ), but with that aside—
The uniformity version of the cosmological argument, like its first-cause cousin, either ends in regression or a stopping-point by fiat. It is not illogical to simply stop at the bounds of the universe, whether that seems unsatisfactory to some or not. The notion of some unknown property of the universe itself that entails self-sufficiency does not seem outside the bounds of logic; the fact that it may be outside the bounds of our cognitive capabilities does not necessitate a leap to a “supernatural” category.
As Simon Blackburn put it, in his book Think—
“There are versions of the cosmological argument that are not concerned with the first cause, in time. Rather, they consider the ongoing order of the universe: the uniformity of nature. It can seem an amazing fact that laws of nature keep on holding, that the frame of nature does not fall apart. One can think that these facts must be ‘dependent’ and require a necessary sustaining cause (like Atlas propping up the world). But once more, there is either a regress, or a simple fiat that something has ‘unknown inconceivable properties’ that make it self-sufficient. This would be something whose ongoing uniformity requires no explanation outside itself. And that might as well be the world [cosmos] as a whole as anything else.”
Originally posted by vistesd(I was wondering when you'd show up!) 😏
“Natural laws” are not metaphysical impositions on the universe; they are descriptive rules: “X always behaves this way (B) under these conditions (C).” In other words, there is not first a law, which then stands in need of a universe of x’s and c’s in which it applies.
Call the law regarding the behavior of X—X(B,C). This can be generalized to: “Fo ...[text shortened]... tion outside itself. And that might as well be the world [cosmos] as a whole as anything else.”
Until such a universal function—let’s call it f(U)—is identified, our knowledge is incomplete.
But why should such an f(U) not be an aspect of the universe itself? Whether or not it is comprehendible by our consciousness?
In my mind this is a problem of depth perception. Without a sufficient 'parallax' it is likely we will assume that natural law is an aspect of the universe itself. That is, without sufficient comprehension of reality it is likely we will assume as much. Let me explain...
There is no indication that natural law is dependent in any way upon space-time, though space-time is undoubtedly dependent upon natural law. Even though space-time is inextricable from natural law, this in no way proves that natural law did not precede space-time (preceding it in the same way the blue-print for a house must be conceptualized and drawn before the house is built).
Yes, it is not illogical to simply stop at the bounds of the universe.
But space-time and the laws which govern it differ in at least one substantial way: space-time evolves while the laws which govern it are immutable. This does not suggest interdependence (i.e. self-sufficiency) except on space-time's own terms, i.e. if we take space-time to be the end all be all of existence. If natural law is independent of space-time, however, we'd still arrive at the same conclusion, that the universe is self-sufficient, for our lack of comprehension.
The mystery is certainly there, as you point out.
Originally posted by epiphinehasI think you are elevating "natural laws" into some kind of "thing", in a similar way that Freaky used to try and do with natural selection.
(I was wondering when you'd show up!) 😏
[b]Until such a universal function—let’s call it f(U)—is identified, our knowledge is incomplete.
But why should such an f(U) not be an aspect of the universe itself? Whether or not it is comprehendible by our consciousness?
In my mind this is a problem of depth perception. Without a sufficient 'par ...[text shortened]... icient, for our lack of comprehension.
The mystery is certainly there, as you point out.[/b]
What precisely is the nature of this thing? How much mass-energy does it possess? What its physical location in space-time?
It doesn't have one. As vistestd points out, these natural laws are man made constructions. Sure there are behaviours that follow certain rules that we make up. Some of these rules explain almost everything that we've ever seen, and we believe some of these rules to be fundamental descriptions of the way the universe works, but the universe would still continue to function were those rules never discovered! It did for 13 billion years before we came along!
We know, for example, that our imperfect rules don't apply under some circumstances. Newtonian physics is pretty good until you go fast. Einsteinian physics even better until you go to the atomic level. Quantum physics doesn't explain the formation of galaxies very well - or indeed at all, in my limited understanding.
So, the "rules" that we make are not fundamental things, they're just descriptions of the way the universe is. Now, we're pretty sure some things are impossible. Faster than light travel, for example. Does this mean that there is a law which governs it? I can't ride my bike at 200 miles an hour - is there a law which specifically sets an upper limit for bicycle speed?
There are things to find out, sure, of course, but as far as I'm aware there is no need to invoke "magic" as an explanation.
Oh, and feel free to show me something which exists outside of space-time.
Originally posted by epiphinehas(I was wondering when you'd show up!)
(I was wondering when you'd show up!) 😏
[b]Until such a universal function—let’s call it f(U)—is identified, our knowledge is incomplete.
But why should such an f(U) not be an aspect of the universe itself? Whether or not it is comprehendible by our consciousness?
In my mind this is a problem of depth perception. Without a sufficient 'par ...[text shortened]... icient, for our lack of comprehension.
The mystery is certainly there, as you point out.[/b]
Well, I wanted to see where you were going first. 🙂
I would say, not that natural laws apply to the universe, but that they reflect what goes on with the universe. Or—as Scotty points out—that they are our formulations/constructions of what goes on with the universe.
Thus, I think that the question of whether or not the natural laws are dependent on space-time (or dimensionality generally) is a non sequiter. Dependency/independency implies some separation of terms—this being dependent on / independent of that. And I more and more think that that cannot be done here.
In my mind this is a problem of depth perception. Without a sufficient 'parallax' it is likely we will assume that natural law is an aspect of the universe itself. That is, without sufficient comprehension of reality it is likely we will assume as much.
With this—and the explanation that follows—it seems you are implicitly adopting a position of philosophical idealism. Used to be, I did too (and I still am prone to vestiges of it); it is attractive: it allows us to speculate “around the corners” of our own mind, so to speak.
Or at least it allows us to think that we are able to peer around those corners. But that, I now think, is a bewitchment—supported by the fact that we can state such speculations in proper grammatical form, in a systematic manner that is internally consistent, and the common mistake that there must be a substance for every substantive we use—a thing for every noun. With our subject-predicate language, this can be a difficult thing to see through.
The grammar of our consciousness is limited by the fact that it, too, is part of the syntax of the universe in which we exist. In a sense, the idealist has to assume that our consciousness has some other source or ground that allows it—if not to peer around its own corners—to have some “view from elsewhere.” That kind of assumption seems to me to be foundational for an idealist view such as yours. (Although, Schopenhauer, for instance, might be a kind of exception.)
_________________________________________
None of this is to say that, as a philosophical idealist, you don’t stand in good and bright company (among both religious and non-religious philosophers). Nor is it to dismiss the fact that you seem to be both (1) trying to present a more sophisticated version of the cosmological argument than the run-of-the-mill first-cause variety (lucifershammer has also presented the “universality/coherency” version; and (2) arguing it in way that might overcome some common objections—arguing it “from the inside out,” so to speak. I’m still interested in seeing how it proceeds.
With regard to mystery, there seem to me to be three stances:
(1) Denial that there is any (i.e., even if we don’t know all the answers yet, we are neither physically nor logically barred).
(2) Asserting our ability (potentially anyway) to explain the mystery (or, more broadly, to have access to an explanation—if not through philosophy, then via divine revelation).
(3) Simple recognition of the mystery—of the likelihood that there are aspects of the natural order that transcend our cognitive capacity (i.e., that we are not the singular species for which this does not seem to be so).
You are in camp (2); I tend toward camp (3). I tend to think that the scientific investigator, qua scientific investigator, has to remain in camp (1) in that pursuit, even if she might be more philosophically inclined elsewhere, outside that pursuit.
Originally posted by scottishinnzOf course, the actual way the universe works remains the objective reality which we aim to know.
I think you are elevating "natural laws" into some kind of "thing", in a similar way that Freaky used to try and do with natural selection.
What precisely is the nature of this thing? How much mass-energy does it possess? What its physical location in space-time?
It doesn't have one. As vistestd points out, these natural laws are man made const ...[text shortened]... n.
Oh, and feel free to show me something which exists outside of space-time.
You are right in asserting that our mathematical formulations of observed phenomena, what we call 'natural laws', are crude intellectual constructs which live or die according to their predictive accuracy; in themselves having no bearing upon space-time, simply dim reflections of what we observe the universe doing.
We are all in agreement that the universe 'works'. How it works is presently unknown, but no doubt were we to have the proper observational instruments we would formulate new laws describing how it in fact does 'work'.
For a moment, assume that our science reaches the apex of its calling, and that in one giant web-accessible database could be stored every law of nature. You simply type in what you are curious about, and up pops an absolutely complete and infallible explanation of how it works. The beginning of our universe and its fate known beyond all shadow of a doubt; such knowledge being universally familiar and perhaps even an inextricable aspect of a future society's pop-culture.
At the apex of science's purpose, when the intellectual construct (the law) perfectly mirrors observed phenomenon, how might it be said that "natural laws are man made constructions"? At that point the law and the observable phenomenon will be inseparable. What you will have before you mathematically delineated are the objective natural laws themselves, not human constructs merely.
What will this reveal? It will reveal that all matter and energy throughout space-time obey pre-established quantifiable laws. Were we to consider things deeper, perhaps we might remember and appreciate Einstein's thoughts, who lived in a dark age long ago:
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God. Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man."
This is all embellishment. My point is, it is not true that I am elevating natural laws into some kind of 'thing'. The human construct (law) is only a human construct insofar as it imperfectly mirrors reality. As soon as it perfectly mirrors what it is describing, then it ceases to be a human construct; at which point it reveals, as Einstein says, the "superior intelligence" behind "the laws of the Universe".
Originally posted by epiphinehasI disagree. Even if the model is so good as to completely explain the reality, it is still a model, a man made thing.
Of course, the actual way the universe works remains the objective reality which we aim to know.
You are right in asserting that our mathematical formulations of observed phenomena, what we call 'natural laws', are crude intellectual constructs which live or die according to their predictive accuracy; in themselves having no bearing upon space- ...[text shortened]... Einstein says, the "superior intelligence" behind "the laws of the Universe".