Reply
Wed 30 Jun, 2010 09:59 pm
First: First things first, we must acknowledge that the universe has not existed for an infinite amount of time, without acknowledging that there must be something else out there. This is because thermodynamics teaches that in any closed system the amount of heat in that system will eventually reach equilibrium. So if at any given moment there must have been an infinite amount of time before that moment, and before that moment and so on, the only logical conclusion would be that if the universe existed for an infinite amount of time, then all areas in the universe would be equally warm. Obviously, we can tell this is not true, because we can observe differences in temperature. Thus, the universe has not existed infinitely.
Second: Thermodynamics also states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. The same rules apply to matter. But if energy or mass cannot be created or destroyed, and the universe is not infinite, how is it possible that anything was created?
Third: While quantum physics may or may not clash with this, though I am no fan of quantum physics, causality states that every event must be the conclusion of another series of events. However, if we have already shown that the universe could not have been an infinite chain of preceding events, how would this be possible? There must have been a creation point, and yet that very point cannot possibly have been.
Fourth:If we are to use all of these theories without any additional theorizing, the only logical conclusion is that our universe does not exist. However, philosophically, we can prove that it exists, because we can doubt that it exists, proving that there is some sentient being doubting that it exists. Cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am. So we know that the universe exists in some form.
Summary: Essentially what we have learned is:
1. The universe could not have existed infinitely.
2. The universe could not have had a creation moment.
3. The universe exists.
You may notice the terrible paradox of this situation. Thus, we must come to the...
Conclusion: By the universes own guiding laws of physics, the very basic blocks of understanding and solidity of existence in our universe, the universe could not exist..., and yet it does. Thus, we must compromise. In order for the universe to exist, there must have been something greater than the universe that does not adhere to it's laws of physics in order to create it.
Final Note: You may ask why despite all this, I remain an atheist, though some might consider me agnostic. My sole reason is that, with a force so beyond our comprehension as to not be affected by causality, thermodynamics and physics itself, it is unimaginable. I find giving it a form of any sort rather silly, especially a sentient form. A sentient form that is integrated in our daily lives and places humanity at the center of existence, favoring one religion above another, sending people to hell, impregnating teenagers, sacrificing his child, demanding prayer or sacrifice, moral defining, angel loved, 'human' of a character just plain stupid. If I had to be truly agnostic, at the most I would have an Einstein view of God. I view a force as alien and undefinable as the one I demonstrated to be definable in only one way, chaos. Thus I usually like to call this theory "Ex Chaos", Latin for "Out of Chaos" as a reverse view of "Ex Nihilo", Latin for "Out of Nothing."
Thoughts?
@Sentience,
I am not interested in reading all this. Not believing is simple.
@ossobuco,
You should probably read the final note at the end first, because either way I believe you'll find it interesting. Also, I find the idea of 'not believing is simple' perhaps more ignorant then those who take religion solely based on faith. Believing is simple as well. Do you simply have faith in the lack of God's existence? Personally, as an Atheist, that really doesn't help our image.
@Sentience,
Great post. I think really it is a version of the Cosmological Argument, but that doesn't slight it in the least. I still believe the cosmological argument is hard to refute.
Quote:My sole reason is that, with a force so beyond our comprehension as to not be affected by causality, thermodynamics and physics itself, it is unimaginable.
Well, fair enough, and it is quite true that whatever it might be is unimaginable. However the tradition would say that 'God'
broke into human consciousness. That is the meaning of 'revelation': something is revealed. I am not saying you should believe it, but this is what it means.
I would also be inclined to say that your atheism, so-called, is predicated upon the rejection of a particular anthropomorphic model of deity which might not have actually ever existed in the first place. The Gnostics (for example) believed in (or actually claimed to 'know;) an 'unknown God' who was beyond any human conception. The deity whom you depict in your post is very much like what they would have regarded as 'the demiurge' who was basically the target of worship by the 'agnostics' (the word has a different connotation in that context).
@Sentience,
First, I respect your posts generally. So take my objections as well intentioned. I personally think thermodynamics is getting to easy of a pass. And so is causality. What is causality? Do you know Hume's "objection" to it? Is causality anything more than correlation? Is induction logically justified? Is natural science logically justified or only pragmatically justified by its technological goodies?
Why do we conceive of the universe as a unity in the first place? Why should inducted tendencies be universal throughout time and space? What are these concepts time and space and how do they connect to sensation and emotion? What are concepts in the first place?
Can we think the infinite, or only the potential infinite? What can God be for man except a concept within his mind? But what are "concepts" and what is a "mind"? Are these not also "concepts" within his "mind"? But is there a subject to begin with, or is the subject another Santa Clause? Is the subject a useful but illogical abstraction?
What is energy? Isn't energy a highly abstract concept projected on sensation/emotion? An interpretative device? Is a concept like energy more or less fundamental than raw sensation? And can any concept be what "reality" (a concept)
really is? What are we even saying? Are we not stacking concepts, declaring one concept prior or more fundamental than another? Are energy and matter more fundamental (in theory) because more general and abstract? But does this not also make them more distant from sense experience?
Are there really "laws" of physics, or is this a deceptive metaphor? Why should the future resemble the past? Because it always has? And if we use math to describe tendencies with the aid of explanatory concepts, shouldn't we also explain our math and our explanatory concepts? But at what point to we hit the bedrock of axioms and intuitions? And what then? Is it even possible for any mere concept to be the final word? Or are words of a different nature than raw sensation, raw emotion? Is human experience truly explainable in theory, let alone is practice?
@Reconstructo,
Quote:Why do we conceive of the universe as a unity in the first plac
Note the first syllable in the word that describes it.
@Sentience,
Sentience wrote:1. The universe could not have existed infinitely.
2. The universe could not have had a creation moment.
3. The universe exists.
In order for the universe to exist, there must have been something greater than the universe that does not adhere to it's laws of physics in order to create it.
Thoughts?
1) the universe doesn't adhere to laws of physics, it is partially described by laws of physics, so, your conclusion shouldn't be more than that laws of physics are incomplete.
2) what you require is laws of nature, not laws of physics, if you can make a case for the reality of laws of nature, how will you avoid a requirement for distinct laws for whatever preceded the universe?
3) as neither answer to the question "did you universe have a beginning?" makes sense, my conclusion is that the question is illegitimate, so one can forget about it, it's unimportant and irrelevant. However, if classical logic is the logic of science, then scientists seem to be stuck with that question, then again, if scientists waste their time with meaningless pseudo-questions, that's no reason for anyone else to do so.
@Reconstructo,
Alas, I must admit, my posts DO hinder on some fundamental 'truths,' but as nothing can be proven 100% correct, I find it is necessary for any possible theory that we accept certain things as fact. Essentially, I go with Descartes's Doubt Everything philosophy, but if everything can be doubted, then what point is there in knowledge? I believe we must go with the most probable reality, for if there are infinite possible realities there is no sense in considering any one but the one which makes the most sense. I could easily conclude that thermodynamics is a lie, water causes hallucination and anything proving contrary is a hallucination caused by the water, and we are all pink cows, but the problem is we couldn't go anywhere from there. I can observe causality, so there is no real point in dismissing it unless you wish to create your own theory without it, rather than try to dismiss mine without it.
@ughaibu,
Quote:1) the universe doesn't adhere to laws of physics, it is partially described by laws of physics, so, your conclusion shouldn't be more than that laws of physics are incomplete.
How so? If the universe doesn't adhere to the unifying laws of physics, what makes it part of the universe? How do you define universe? Perhaps you could just call my 'chaos' part of the universe, and I can reword it to say 'observable universe.'
Quote:2) what you require is laws of nature, not laws of physics, if you can make a case for the reality of laws of nature, how will you avoid a requirement for distinct laws for whatever preceded the universe?
The entire idea is that whatever preceded the universe needs no law, or it's laws would be so entirely different as to be never defined or understood. I could simply say 'It may or may not have rules, but either way we will never find them.'
Quote:3) as neither answer to the question "did you universe have a beginning?" makes sense, my conclusion is that the question is illegitimate, so one can forget about it, it's unimportant and irrelevant. However, if classical logic is the logic of science, then scientists seem to be stuck with that question, then again, if scientists waste their time with meaningless pseudo-questions, that's no reason for anyone else to do so.
But in what way does it not make sense? It makes sense to me, at least.
@Sentience,
Sentience wrote:if everything can be doubted, then what point is there in knowledge?
A notion of knowledge based on adequacy is useful without requiring certainty, and anything useful has its point.
@ughaibu,
It was a rhetorical question. That was
my point. We need to have a 'reality' we agree has the most probability of existence, and go from there.
@Sentience,
Sentience wrote:If the universe doesn't adhere to the unifying laws of physics, what makes it part of the universe?
Laws of physics are statements made by physicists, that's all. You appear to be confusing these with laws of nature. It's not clear that there are laws of nature and if there are, it's not at all clear what manner of thing they are.
Sentience wrote:The entire idea is that whatever preceded the universe needs no law, or it's laws would be so entirely different as to be never defined or understood. I could simply say 'It may or may not have rules, but either way we will never find them.'
You haven't defended the idea that a lawful universe can be created by a lawless one, and if the laws are unknowable, how does that differ from the conclusion to which I suggest that your argument is limited?
Sentience wrote:But in what way does it not make sense? It makes sense to me, at least.
"Did the universe have a beginning?" is a yes/no question, your argument relies on the fact that neither answer makes sense. If you think that either answer makes sense, then you'll need to expand on the logical structure of your argument.
@Sentience,
In a practical sense, I agree. It's impossible to ignore causality. But when it comes to issues like determinism, for example, I find that the problems with causality are significant.
Induction is also more than a little justified by its results, so I won't deny its usefulness either. But as soon as we move from the practical to issue like God, I feel we are stretching our pragamatic adaptations into murky water. What
can God mean to us? Can he/it/she exist for us except as some fusion of conception/emotion/sensation?
We think about our conceptions and whether they correspond to what is "really" there, but this "really there" is just another conception. We are not comparing concept with reality but instead we are comparing one concept with another. So it seems to me.
If we are too practical, we philosophers aren't even useful, for natural science , etc, has that covered. Philosophy is even an aesthetic- poetic pursuit in some regards, as well as a breaker of new ground, an opener of new perspectives.
To what degree are philosophers inventors of truth, rather than its discoverers? To what degree are questions "useful" or valuable in themselves, even if impractical or unanswerable?
How does the philosopher fit in with the natural scientist and the poet? Is philosophy the science of science, the investigation of investigation? Is Being revealed/created by Discourse? Is social man Logos Incarnate?
@Sentience,
No, I don't find all that interesting. Give us a break.
No I do not simply have a faith in a lack of god's existence. How fatuous are you? What is this faith stuff? How many months have you been out of religion?
I don't care if you are a so called Atheist with a capital A. Prince of Sentience, and so on.
Some of us simply don't believe all this ****.
@Sentience,
The fact we do not know does not mean we should wheel in a god to explain our current lack of knowledge.
We did not know how lighting bolts work at one point so it was turn into weapons of the gods.
Yes our knowledge of what had happen before the big bang does not exist, if that have any meaning as before the big bang time did not exist either.
Sorry creating a god to cover our lack of knowledge had never been proven helpful in the past and is unlikely to do so in the future.
As a matter of fact all it could do is move the questions down stream to this god head and add zero to our understanding of the universe we live in.
@Sentience,
Sentience wrote:
First: First things first, we must acknowledge that the universe has not existed for an infinite amount of time, without acknowledging that there must be something else out there. This is because thermodynamics teaches that in any closed system the amount of heat in that system will eventually reach equilibrium.
Thoughts?
Stop. Your first conclusion is invalid. Thermodymanics applies within our Universe, not necessarily outside of it.
@rosborne979,
nevertheless if the universe had existed for an infinite duration, would it not be in a state of maximum entropy?
@jeeprs,
jeeprs wrote:nevertheless if the universe had existed for an infinite duration, would it not be in a state of maximum entropy?
But the Universe has not existed for an infinite duration. It's only 13.8byo, a mere baby compared to our currently projection for its stability (on the other hand it might poof out of existence tomorrow, who knows).
@Sentience,
I think you've drawn the wrong conclusion. My reasoning (based on the premises that you have posted, here) goes something like this:
1. The physical laws that we are able to describe do not allow the existence of the Universe.
2. The Universe exists.
Therefore, our understanding of the physical laws is incomplete.
As to your second point Sentience, the laws of thermodynamics apply now, whose to say what laws held in the early universe. And I believe physicists already have an explanation for how all the matter came into the universe.
As to your third point, quantum mechanics is the most accurate theory known to man. How the universe began is still one of the un-answered questions in physics. I think BillRM's response is perfect.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace