Things that begin to exist.

[thedistillers]

Premise 1 of the Kalam cosmological argument:

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause."

If some people think this premise is true, then surely they know a lot of things that begin to exist, otherwise they wouldn't come to the conclusion that the premise is true.

So let's list all the things that begin to exist.

[PyramidHead]

I don't support the argument, and I see where you're going with your question. But it's not hard to come up with many things that have a beginning, although not physically speaking (in terms of their atomic makeup, let's say).

A few things of this nature that begin to exist:

A doubt.
The itchy sensation from poison ivy.
A rock band.

Granted, in the first case the chemical substrate in the brain existed beforehand, albeit in another configuration. In the second sensation, the toxin in the poison ivy leaf, as well as the person's skin cells, both existed before the itchy sensation "began to exist." Similarly with the people in the rock band. But this doesn't change the fact that, normally and uncontroversially speaking, all these things began to exist; that is, it would take an abnormal usage of language to suggest that they existed since the beginning of time.

ETA: You might consider this challenge: has something ever begun to exist without being comprised of things that already existed beforehand?

[makerowner]

This thread? :Cheeky:

[GenesisNemesis]

Isn't "begin to exist" pretty vague?

[thedistillers]

ETA: You might consider this challenge: has something ever begun to exist without being comprised of things that already existed beforehand?

That's my point. Everything we know of don't "begin" to exist in the meaningful sense of the word, it's just rearrangements of matter.

What is the basis to believe that everything that begins to exist has a cause? The only thing we know that possibly began to exist is the universe, so the premise is begging the question.

[Dante Alighieri]

W.L. Craig probably is referring to states of affairs.

[thedistillers]

It's logical to think that within the universe, every state of affairs needs a cause. But I don't see any reason to extend the reasoning to the universe itself, unless you have in mind to insert your favourite God in the picture.

[Draconis]

Of course God doesn't begin to exist. You want him to be eternal, so he cant begin to exist. Therefore he is eternal and doesn't need a cause. Problem solved.

[patcleaver]

ETA: You might consider this challenge: has something ever begun to exist without being comprised of things that already existed beforehand?

That's my point. Everything we know of don't "begin" to exist in the meaningful sense of the word, it's just rearrangements of matter.

What is the basis to believe that everything that begins to exist has a cause? The only thing we know that possibly began to exist is the universe, so the premise is begging the question.

Exactly,

But even worse, it infers that the universe is divided up between things that begin to exist and things that don't begin to exist.

The only thing that does not begin to exist is god. So the premises already infers the existence of god.

The postulate really means:

the universe has a cause and god does not have a cause.

[PyramidHead]

ETA: You might consider this challenge: has something ever begun to exist without being comprised of things that already existed beforehand?

That's my point. Everything we know of don't "begin" to exist in the meaningful sense of the word, it's just rearrangements of matter.

What is the basis to believe that everything that begins to exist has a cause? The only thing we know that possibly began to exist is the universe, so the premise is begging the question.

Well that's not really what I was saying. The "meaningful" sense of "begin to exist," in its everday usage, refers to the examples I gave in my post and is unproblematic. But my point was to say that theists using the Kalam argument are unaware that using "begin to exist" in this way does not allow for things to be created out of nothing. I know I'm picking apart words here, and I basically agree with you, but I just wanted to clarify my stance.

[Hamlet]

That's my point. Everything we know of don't "begin" to exist in the meaningful sense of the word, it's just rearrangements of matter.

What is the basis to believe that everything that begins to exist has a cause? The only thing we know that possibly began to exist is the universe, so the premise is begging the question.

Well that's not really what I was saying. The "meaningful" sense of "begin to exist," in its everday usage, refers to the examples I gave in my post and is unproblematic. But my point was to say that theists using the Kalam argument are unaware that using "begin to exist" in this way does not allow for things to be created out of nothing. I know I'm picking apart words here, and I basically agree with you, but I just wanted to clarify my stance.

Why would using "begin to exist" in that way not allow for things to be created out of nothing?

[patcleaver]

According to quantum mechanics things, such as pairs of particles, begin to exist all the time without any cause. These are called quantum events. The big bang was a quantum event - it had no cause.

Even before quantum mechanics we knew that many things had no cause. An excited atom emits a photon after a random period after it becomes excited and it emits it in a random direction. Thus, the timing and direction of every photon are things that have no cause. A radioactive isotope decays after a random period after it is made, and it emits radiation in a random direction. Thus, the timing of every decay of a radioactive element and direction of all emitted radiations are things that have no cause.

There are other things which begin to exist that have no cause that have been discussed in other forums on this site.

[thedistillers]

According to quantum mechanics things, such as pairs of particles, begin to exist all the time without any cause. These are called quantum events. The big bang was a quantum event - it had no cause.


Unfortunately I know nothing about physics, but surely someone could argue that quantum events do have a cause but science is unable to tell us what is the cause and works under the assumption it is causeless.

But surely, if it is appears that it is possible that some events are without any cause, then there is no reason to think the premise 1 of the Kalam cosmological argument must absolutely be true. Quantum events are enough to put serious doubts on the validity of the premise, so the argument fails.

[Hamlet]

Even before quantum mechanics we knew that many things had no cause. An excited atom emits a photon after a random period after it becomes excited and it emits it in a random direction. Thus, the timing and direction of every photon are things that have no cause. A radioactive isotope decays after a random period after it is made, and it emits radiation in a random direction. Thus, the timing of every decay of a radioactive element and direction of all emitted radiations are things that have no cause.

There's a difference between an event being random and an event being uncaused.

[Hamlet]

According to quantum mechanics things, such as pairs of particles, begin to exist all the time without any cause. These are called quantum events. The big bang was a quantum event - it had no cause.


Unfortunately I know nothing about physics, but surely someone could argue that quantum events do have a cause but science is unable to tell us what is the cause and works under the assumption it is causeless.

But surely, if it is appears that it is possible that some events are without any cause, then there is no reason to think the premise 1 of the Kalam cosmological argument must absolutely be true. Quantum events are enough to put serious doubts on the validity of the premise, so the argument fails.

Just how might it be possible, in general, that an event could have no cause? (And did you miss my question in post #11?)

[Moridin]

Even before quantum mechanics we knew that many things had no cause. An excited atom emits a photon after a random period after it becomes excited and it emits it in a random direction. Thus, the timing and direction of every photon are things that have no cause. A radioactive isotope decays after a random period after it is made, and it emits radiation in a random direction. Thus, the timing of every decay of a radioactive element and direction of all emitted radiations are things that have no cause.

There's a difference between an event being random and an event being uncaused.

Quantum mechanical events are not 'random' in the sense that everything goes. For instance, permanent violations of the conservation of energy cannot occur in quantum mechanics. Although QM events are uncaused.

- Moridin

[Moridin]

Unfortunately I know nothing about physics, but surely someone could argue that quantum events do have a cause but science is unable to tell us what is the cause and works under the assumption it is causeless.

But surely, if it is appears that it is possible that some events are without any cause, then there is no reason to think the premise 1 of the Kalam cosmological argument must absolutely be true. Quantum events are enough to put serious doubts on the validity of the premise, so the argument fails.

Just how might it be possible, in general, that an event could have no cause? (And did you miss my question in post #11?)

Irrelevant. The fact that uncaused events do exists and how they can be uncaused are two different things.

- Moridin

[thedistillers]

Just how might it be possible, in general, that an event could have no cause?

I have no idea how can an event be uncaused, but I see no reason to think it is impossible. The burden to prove that all events must have a cause is on the people who support premise 1 of the Kalam cosmological argument.

[Deleet]

Just how might it be possible, in general, that an event could have no cause? (And did you miss my question in post #11?)

Irrelevant. The fact that uncaused events do exists and how they can be uncaused are two different things.

- Moridin

I don't think it's a fact that uncaused events do exist. As far as I know, there is no compelling evidence for determinism or indeterminism.

[patcleaver]

Unfortunately I know nothing about physics, but surely someone could argue that quantum events do have a cause but science is unable to tell us what is the cause and works under the assumption it is causeless.

The problem is that for each type of decaying elementary particle, half of them will decay within an experimentally determined half-life period. Each particle decays at a random time, but there is an macro pattern to the decays. Approximately half the particles will decay during the half life period and then half of those remaining will decay within the next half life period and so on forever.

If the timing of the decay is not random, then every elementary particle has a clock somewhere that is capable of determining when it is supposed to decay to the nearest plank time (10^43 Hz). The elementary clock has to store information - it has to know how old it is and to know the predetermined age when it should decay. Some of those particles last billions of billions of years, so it takes lots of storage. It also has to have some mechanism for incrementing its stored age, and some kind of self destruct to destroy it when it reaches its predetermined time limit. All this hardware has to fit in something that phsicists conceive of as fundamentally simple - like a standing energy wave.

[diana]

That's my point. Everything we know of don't "begin" to exist in the meaningful sense of the word, it's just rearrangements of matter.

What is the basis to believe that everything that begins to exist has a cause? The only thing we know that possibly began to exist is the universe, so the premise is begging the question.

Well that's not really what I was saying. The "meaningful" sense of "begin to exist," in its everday usage, refers to the examples I gave in my post and is unproblematic. But my point was to say that theists using the Kalam argument are unaware that using "begin to exist" in this way does not allow for things to be created out of nothing. I know I'm picking apart words here, and I basically agree with you, but I just wanted to clarify my stance.I like this argument. It points out the equivocation inherent in the argument: "begin to exist" means either "appeared out of nothing" or "formed from pre-existing matter," but not both. Nice!

d

[sweetiepie]

Premise 1 of the Kalam cosmological argument:

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause."

If some people think this premise is true, then surely they know a lot of things that begin to exist, otherwise they wouldn't come to the conclusion that the premise is true.

So let's list all the things that begin to exist.
Alladin's lamp.

[patcleaver]

Premise 1 of the Kalam cosmological argument:

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause."

If some people think this premise is true, then surely they know a lot of things that begin to exist, otherwise they wouldn't come to the conclusion that the premise is true.

So let's list all the things that begin to exist.

If the multiverse always existed then nothing ever began to exist in the creation sense of KCA. However, when has zero data ever stopped the theists from deriving all kinds of wild speculations.

[Draconis]

I think the logical idea of something being true or false has always existed. Therefore logic does not need a cause. I'm not sure it needs a universe or anything to exist in either.

[thentian]

I think the logical idea of something being true or false has always existed. Therefore logic does not need a cause. I'm not sure it needs a universe or anything to exist in either.

I don't think abstract ideas counts as being "things" in the sense of the kca.

[Hamlet]

I think the logical idea of something being true or false has always existed. Therefore logic does not need a cause. I'm not sure it needs a universe or anything to exist in either.

If logic has always existed, or better yet if numbers have always existed, then they didn't begin to exist, but the premise under consideration is everything that begins to exist has a cause.

[Hamlet]

Just how might it be possible, in general, that an event could have no cause?

I have no idea how can an event be uncaused, but I see no reason to think it is impossible. The burden to prove that all events must have a cause is on the people who support premise 1 of the Kalam cosmological argument.

Sometimes it's hard to determine exactly who shoulders the burden of proof in philosophical argument. In this case, I believe the onus is on the skeptic. Here's why. All of reason and all of experience demonstrate to us the principle ex nihilo nihil fit. Never has a giraffe popped into existence uncaused out of nothing. That being the case, if you want to say that something can come from nothing, then I think you need to have some inkling as to how that could even be possible. If not, then if we come upon some event (e.g., in quantum mechanics) that seems to be an instance of aliquid ex nihilo, we should at least reserve judgment until we know that there is no cause and not just that we don't know the cause.

[thedistillers]

I have no idea how can an event be uncaused, but I see no reason to think it is impossible. The burden to prove that all events must have a cause is on the people who support premise 1 of the Kalam cosmological argument.

Sometimes it's hard to determine exactly who shoulders the burden of proof in philosophical argument. In this case, I believe the onus is on the skeptic. Here's why. All of reason and all of experience demonstrate to us the principle ex nihilo nihil fit. Never has a giraffe popped into existence uncaused out of nothing. That being the case, if you want to say that something can come from nothing, then I think you need to have some inkling as to how that could even be possible. If not, then if we come upon some event (e.g., in quantum mechanics) that seems to be an instance of aliquid ex nihilo, we should at least reserve judgment until we know that there is no cause and not just that we don't know the cause.

There is nothing in my experience that lead me to conclude that "nothing comes out of nothing". To know that "nothing comes out of nothing" is true, we would have to observe nothingness and see what happens. Have you ever observed "nothing"? I haven't. Our universe is not "nothing", so it's meaningless to use our experience to invoke such a principle.

The onus is not on the "skeptic". We simply are not justified to make a claim like: "Everything that starts to exist need a cause". We don't know.

[Hamlet]

Sometimes it's hard to determine exactly who shoulders the burden of proof in philosophical argument. In this case, I believe the onus is on the skeptic. Here's why. All of reason and all of experience demonstrate to us the principle ex nihilo nihil fit. Never has a giraffe popped into existence uncaused out of nothing. That being the case, if you want to say that something can come from nothing, then I think you need to have some inkling as to how that could even be possible. If not, then if we come upon some event (e.g., in quantum mechanics) that seems to be an instance of aliquid ex nihilo, we should at least reserve judgment until we know that there is no cause and not just that we don't know the cause.

There is nothing in my experience that lead me to conclude that "nothing comes out of nothing". To know that "nothing comes out of nothing" is true, we would have to observe nothingness and see what happens. Have you ever observed "nothing"? I haven't. Our universe is not "nothing", so it's meaningless to use our experience to invoke such a principle.

The onus is not on the "skeptic". We simply are not justified to make a claim like: "Everything that starts to exist need a cause". We don't know.

Wow. I guess it's true what Aristotle said: We do not prove the obvious by the less obvious. You either see the law of non-contradiction or you don't, but to try and prove it's validity to the skeptic is less persuasive than simply stating the law. The same is true of ex nihilo nihil fit.

But just to clear up one thing, and to give it one more try, a room contains nothing when it is empty (i.e., when it contains no things); but then how do you suppose that room could change from containing no things to containing some thing? How do you think that could happen? If there were no changes at all, do you think the room could ever contain a thing?

[mikumiku]

Premise 1 of the Kalam cosmological argument:

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause."

If some people think this premise is true, then surely they know a lot of things that begin to exist, otherwise they wouldn't come to the conclusion that the premise is true.

So let's list all the things that begin to exist.

You get two solutions either everything is eternal or you get infinite regress, which like retrocausality, is ugly and unacceptable.

Thus you're left with the everything is.

I don't support the argument, and I see where you're going with your question. But it's not hard to come up with many things that have a beginning, although not physically speaking (in terms of their atomic makeup, let's say).

A few things of this nature that begin to exist:

A doubt.
The itchy sensation from poison ivy.
A rock band.

Granted, in the first case the chemical substrate in the brain existed beforehand, albeit in another configuration. In the second sensation, the toxin in the poison ivy leaf, as well as the person's skin cells, both existed before the itchy sensation "began to exist." Similarly with the people in the rock band. But this doesn't change the fact that, normally and uncontroversially speaking, all these things began to exist; that is, it would take an abnormal usage of language to suggest that they existed since the beginning of time.

ETA: You might consider this challenge: has something ever begun to exist without being comprised of things that already existed beforehand?

True. But like the story in a book or a movie, the all the pictures and sounds in the movie 'exists', and all the words and relationships exists, irregardless of the physical existence of the book(With infinite computation you could pull out all possible combinations of letters of the length of any finite book. Thus you could get access to all possible books from all throughout existence, past, present, future, alien and terrestrial... even the books mentioned as written within other books by fictional characters.)

[Moridin]

Irrelevant. The fact that uncaused events do exists and how they can be uncaused are two different things.

- Moridin

I don't think it's a fact that uncaused events do exist. As far as I know, there is no compelling evidence for determinism or indeterminism.

I gave you multiple lines of evidence for the falsehood of (1), such as quantum fluctuation, radioactive decay and electron deexcitations. You are also denying scientific consensus.

- Moridin

[thedistillers]

There is nothing in my experience that lead me to conclude that "nothing comes out of nothing". To know that "nothing comes out of nothing" is true, we would have to observe nothingness and see what happens. Have you ever observed "nothing"? I haven't. Our universe is not "nothing", so it's meaningless to use our experience to invoke such a principle.

The onus is not on the "skeptic". We simply are not justified to make a claim like: "Everything that starts to exist need a cause". We don't know.

Wow. I guess it's true what Aristotle said: We do not prove the obvious by the less obvious. You either see the law of non-contradiction or you don't, but to try and prove it's validity to the skeptic is less persuasive than simply stating the law. The same is true of ex nihilo nihil fit.

But just to clear up one thing, and to give it one more try, a room contains nothing when it is empty (i.e., when it contains no things); but then how do you suppose that room could change from containing no things to containing some thing? How do you think that could happen? If there were no changes at all, do you think the room could ever contain a thing?

The principle "ex nihilo nihil fit" is NOT obvious.

Please answer my question: have you ever observed 'nothing'? Has there ever been a room with "nothing" in it that a scientist could observe?

but then how do you suppose that room could change from containing no things to containing some thing

The 'how' question is meaningless. It's like asking how God created the universe; do you know 'how' God created the universe from nothing? If so, how did that happen, what is it that God did? If you cannot answer this question, why are you putting the burden on me to answer it?

[Dante Alighieri]

Hamlet,

The causal principle that Craig purports seems to be pretty unsupported, if not flat not false. It is certainly not "metaphysically" necessary, whatever "metaphysical necessity" is.

Now, Craig often appeals to the notion that the causal principle (henceforth CP) is a Kantian, synthetic a priori truth. Of course, Craig merely asserts this, rather than offer some sort of actual defense of the synthetic a priori. Of course, Craig has alternative methods of support of the CP: (1) it is constantly confirmed empirically and (2) it is a metaphysical necessity qua "ex nihilo nihil fit".

What is the causal principle?

First, Craig outlines his formulation of the CP. Typically, he takes it as being "Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence." Of course, crucial to discuss here is what it means to "begin to exist." Typically, Craig defines it as that x begins to exist iff such that (i) x exists at an interval of time t and (ii) there are no intervals of time t' such that x exists at t' and (iii) t' > t.

But, this leads to a number of problems and controversies, as we will see below.

The support of the CP: Empirical

Now, Craig argues that, in our experience, most of the things that we find to begin to exist also have a cause of their existence. So, his causal principle is constantly confirmed. This is however objectionable, first, whether the actual inference exists and is correct, and the import of Craig's inference.

First, is it constantly confirmed in our experience that things that begin to exist are caused? Not at all. For instance, in quantum mechanics, there are a number of events that, under most interpretations of QM, are entirely uncaused. It is not that one does not know the cause of QM events, but that they literally lack a cause at all. Now, even if hidden-variable and deterministic interpretations are correct, clearly, it remains possible that events can be uncaused, which indicates that the CP is not as all encompassing as thought.

Moreover, in our experience, we only observe causes (macroscopically) to things in the context of natural law itself. But, prior to the initial singularity in relativistic cosmology, there is no natural law and no natural context for such events to occur in. (This is among the reasons why the singularity is not properly considered an event in standard GTR) So, our inferences within the natural order cannot apply to the natural order itself.

Furthermore, what we observe to be caused is things that come into existence, not merely begin to exist. There is a crucial difference since the latter leaves open the option that there are no prior intervals of time i.e. the beginning of time. Clearly, our inferences do not apply to something as esoteric as the beginning of time.

The latter point is especially important. Craig believes, for some reason, that even the beginning of time itself requires a cause, a rather objectionable notion. Time itself is the substratum of which causation occurs; one cannot bring about the necessary condition of bringing about in the first place!

Normally, what Craig does is defend either timeless or simultaneous causation, both of which are incoherent. Look: time is an asymmetric ordered sequence of events, in which events are simply defined as states of affairs in sequence. In other words, time is change. It is related by the dyadic properties before, simultaneous with, and after, along with the monadic, irreducible properties past, present, and future. So, crucial to the notion of time is the relationist view (and Craig is a relationist) that time is composed of event-sequences.

Now, here comes the fatal point. The beginning of time is the beginning of all said event sequences. So, if one postulates a cause to the initial singularity, then that is the beginning of time; not the initial singularity. But, that violates the earlier presumption Craig holds to, therefore, the KCA is unwarranted. Moreover, one clearly cannot cause simultaneously.

Causation is an asymmetric relation. The cause brings about the effect i.e. the effect comes into existence. This explicitly requires a change, since we have an ordered sequence such that {C&~E, E}; at which the effect did not exist and then came into existence. (Else, what is the cause bringing about?) So, if we have an ontic change in a single moment of time, we must accept a contradiction: (E & ~E). So, simultaneous causation is impossible.

In this sense, the causal event position (CEP) and the effectual event position (EEP) are mutually incompatible; hence, they cannot be simulatenous. They cannot be timeless either; the CEP is incompatible with the EEP. If the former is timeless and the latter temporal, then the latter corresponds to the proposition "For t, p" whereas the former corresponds to "For all t, ~p" which entails "For t, ~p" --> "For t, p & ~p." The same argument illustrates that neither cause nor effect can be timeless at all.

For, causation explicitly involves bringing something about, a change in the state of affairs, a change in causal structure. And a timeless entity cannot change in causal structure and timeless states of affairs cannot change either.

So, the notion that time itself could be caused (a consequence of Craig's definition of the CP; using "begins to exist" rather than "comes into existence") ends in absurdity. And given Craig's relativistic interpretations of the Big Bang cosmology, he must accept that the Big Bang was the uncaused origin of the universe.

Support of the CP: Slogans

Craig typically cites the axiom "ex nihilo nihil fit" to his favor. Of course, one is left wondering how this actually supports the CP. We are told that from nothing, nothing comes.

But, what does that mean? Does that mean that Craig should have us take the following as non-trivially impossible?

"Nothing exists, followed by something."

But, "nothing" (as Craig defines it), is absolutely nothing: no space, no energy, no objects, no time. So, how it exist in an event-sequence? This is not non-trivially impossible since "nothing" cannot be followed by something, regardless of whether or not uncaused events that have a beginning can exist. "Nothing" is not a state, so under relational views of time, it could never be a moment of time; and hence, the problem of something coming from nothing would never arise, irrespective of uncaused events.

Uncaused events never involve nothing followed by something; but that there is no efficient cause for something i.e. it simply comes into existence without anything bringing it into existence. And clearly, prior to this thing's existence, something existed. For instance, QM events are uncaused; but they hardly "come from nothing." Space, people, and other things already exist prior to QM events occurring.

Perhaps we should intepret it as "nothing begins to exist if nothing causes it to exist." But, on this interpretation, it is identical to the CP, and is nothing more than a re-assertion of the CP itself.

So, ex nihilo nihil fit amounts to little more than a slogan.

These problems are but a few of the causal principle. Other problems must take into account Craig's cosmology, as well as the unfounded assumption that this space-time continuum constitutes all of physical reality.

[Dante Alighieri]

I don't think it's a fact that uncaused events do exist. As far as I know, there is no compelling evidence for determinism or indeterminism.

I gave you multiple lines of evidence for the falsehood of (1), such as quantum fluctuation, radioactive decay and electron deexcitations. You are also denying scientific consensus.

- Moridin

Whether or not any of those actually lack a cause depends on which interpretation of QM is correct. Most are non-deterministic but there a couple of viable deterministic ones (relative-state/many-worlds and transactional) as well.

[patcleaver]

In answer to the question of why it happened, I offer the modest proposal that our Universe is simply one of those things which happen from time to time.
-- Edward P. Tryon, Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation?, Nature 246: 396-397, 1973, (Professor of Physics and Astronomy, Hunter College of the City University of New York).

Edward P. Tryon has proposed (the hypotheses) that the universe was produced ex nihilo by a quantum fluctuation.

The following is generally from: Frank Znidarsic, Genesis Of The Universe And Zero Point Energy

Einstein showed that mass and energy are interchangeable e=mc^2. The scientific principle of the conservation of mass-energy simply restates the old idea that something cannot come from nothing.

In 1973 the great contemporary scientific thinker Edward P. Tryon demonstrated how the universe could have formed without violating the principle of the conservation of mass-energy. He calculated that the total mass-energy of the universe is zero.

The positive mass-energy of the things we observe is balanced by a negative gravitational energy. Therefore the universe could have been formed from nothing without violating the principle of the conservation of mass-energy. Let's explore his idea. When something falls it loses gravitational potential energy. The relationship between potential energy and position, in a force field, is given by equation #1.

/\ PE = Wg = - INTEGRAL Fg . dr Eq #1

According to Tryon's theory if an object were to fall into the universe from an infinite distance away the gravitational potential energy the object lost would equal the total mass energy of the object. This is stated mathematically in equation #2:

mc^2 = - INTEGRAL Fg. dr (from the rad of the univ to infinity) Eq #2

Assuming that the universe is spherical with an isotopic mass distribution, the amount of gravitational potential an object will lose upon falling to the edge of such a universe is given by equation #3.

mc^2 = -(G)(M)(m) INTEGRAL(1/r^2 ).dr (from the rad of the univ to infinity) Eq #3

Given a radius of the universe is 15 billion light years,

(1.42x10^26 m) and the known gravitational constant G, the mass of the universe may be determined.

M = 1.91 x 10^53 KG

If this is the mass of the universe then the total energy of the universe is zero.

To check this result the mass of the universe was calculated from its density and volume. The universe was considered to be a sphere. This sphere has a radius of 15 billion light years and is filled with matter of the same density as the density of space in our galactic neighborhood. This "local" density is equivalent to one proton of ordinary matter and nine protons of "dark" matter per cubic meter.

Given that the volume of a sphere with a radius of 15 billion light years = 1.2 x 10^79 m^3

Please note that at one proton mass per cubic meter this is also the number of protons in the universe. The mass of the universe was derived from its volume and density in equation #4.

M = ((1 proton/m^3 )+(9 proton masses dark matter/m^3))(vol) Eq#4

The mass of the universe according to this second argument is:

M = 2.00 x 10^53 KG

Amazingly these two independently estimated masses agree within 5% even though they were determined by two entirely different methods. The estimate of mass in the universe from astronomical observations is approximately the same as the calculated mass should be if our universe were a zero total mass-energy universe. This agreement is evidence that the universe has a total mass-energy of zero and that it formed without violating the principle of the conservation of mass-energy. Thus, there is something very profound in what Edward Tryon proposed.

Although quite compelling, this is not an accepted theory of Physics because it does not make any testable predictions or explain the big bang any better then several other proposed theories such as collision of branes in string theory.

Two problems with Tryon's original proposal are that it requires space with quantum fluctuations to exist prior to the big bang and it predicts equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. Generally, physicists do not believe that nothing physical existed before the big bang so a preexisting space is not a significant problem. However, since massive interactions between matter and anti-matter is not observed, the matter and anti-matter would have to have been segregated somehow (e.g. the anti-matter fell into black holes). To solve these problems, more recently some Physicists have proposed modifying Tryon's hypotheses to use quantum tunneling rather then quantum fluctuations to initiate the big bang. Then there would be little anti-matter and no preexisting space with quantum fluctuations would be required. See Vilenkin, A., Creation of Universes from Nothing, Physical Letters 117B: 25-28, (1982).

For further discussion see http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/uncaused.html

[patcleaver]

Whether or not any of those actually lack a cause depends on which interpretation of QM is correct. Most are non-deterministic but there a couple of viable deterministic ones (relative-state/many-worlds and transactional) as well.

First, thanks for the critique of Craig's cosmology.

Second, could you provide a reference that explains how these alternative interpretations could be completely deterministic.

My understanding is that these other interpretations eliminate the collapse of the wave function, but they are not otherwise deterministic.

For example, in Bohm's theory particles have a hidden variable with a predetermined value that determines the path that a particle takes after going through a slit. That does not solve other problems for determinism.

If you set up two sequential slits, then after each particle goes through one slit, in an apparently random direction, some of them go through the second slit. What happens when it goes through the second slit? We know particles also appear to travel in a random direction after going through the second slit. Since, the path after going through the second slit also seems random, then the particle has to have a different value for the hidden variable for each possible number of slits that it might go through, or the hidden variable has to be indeterminably reset every time it goes through a slit.

When an atom gets excited it emits a photon after some period and in some direction. In Bohm's theory, the value of every emission would be controlled by a hidden timing variable and a hidden direction variable of the atom that are predetermined, and the atom would also have to assign a predetermined value to the hidden variable of every photon that it might ever emit. That would require every atom to have practically an infinite number of predetermined values that it can use to control the timing and direction of every photon that it might ever emit and to assign predetermined values for the photon's hidden variables in some predetermined manor to every photon it ever emits.

[Moridin]

I gave you multiple lines of evidence for the falsehood of (1), such as quantum fluctuation, radioactive decay and electron deexcitations. You are also denying scientific consensus.

- Moridin

Whether or not any of those actually lack a cause depends on which interpretation of QM is correct. Most are non-deterministic but there a couple of viable deterministic ones (relative-state/many-worlds and transactional) as well.

Not at all. The Bohmian quantum mechanics presupposes (1) the existence of yet undetected sub-quantum forces and (2) requires superluminal connections, which would violate the theory of relativity. The burden of evidence is squarely on you position. Should you refute the theory of relativity, you have just undermined Big Bang, since that is a result of the general theory of relativity. All non-determistic quantum theories are non-local, so good luck with that.

Each way, the argument is toast. I made a youtube video a while back on the argument.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJgXSIwVQDI

- Moridin

[Deleet]

I don't think it's a fact that uncaused events do exist. As far as I know, there is no compelling evidence for determinism or indeterminism.

I gave you multiple lines of evidence for the falsehood of (1), such as quantum fluctuation, radioactive decay and electron deexcitations. You are also denying scientific consensus.

- Moridin

Neither of those mentioned is what I consider 'compelling' evidence, i.e. if one is aware of that evidence, then one is rationally compelled to believe in p.

I'm not denying anything. I currently don't believe in either.

[patcleaver]

There's a difference between an event being random and an event being uncaused.

The classic law of causality is just a description of observations of reality.

The classic law of causality is that each state of existence is predetermined solely by the immediately preceding state of existence. Events are descriptions of the changes between subsequent states of existence. The immediately preceding state of existence solely predetermines the events between the states of existence.

Relativity puts limits on causality related to information transmission and the speed of light that I will not address here.

An uncaused state of existence means a state of existence that is not solely predetermined by the immediately preceding state of existence.

A random state of existence means a state of existence randomly selected between any one of multiple possible states of existence. Thus, a random state of existence is not solely predetermined by the immediately preceding state of existence, and thus, the random state of existence is uncaused according to the above definition of an uncaused state.

The classic law of causality does not allow any uncaused or random states of existence.

Quantum mechanics defines some exceptions to the classic law of causality. Some quantum phenomena are simply random and uncaused. They are random because a state of existace is randomly selected between either of at least two possible states of existance. They are uncaused because a subsequent state of existence is not solely caused by an immediately preceding state of existence. For example, the level of energy at some point in space will randomly instantly increase regardless of the immediately preceding state of existence. The random uncaused fluctuation will sometimes result in the creation of a pair of particles, which typically almost immediately annihilate back into energy. The random uncaused fluctuation occasionally raises the energy level of electrons allowing them to instantly tunnel through a barrier they would not normally be able to cross, which is what allows the quantum tunneling transistors in your computer to operate. The IC's in your computer are designed based on quantum mechanics - they wouldn't work if quantum mechanics wasn't true.

I am not claiming to be an expert, but people who do not believe in quantum mechanics are just like flat earthers - just totally ignorant of reality, following ignorant superstitious village idiots, and unwilling to trust real experts who understand this stuff.

[patcleaver]

I gave you multiple lines of evidence for the falsehood of (1), such as quantum fluctuation, radioactive decay and electron deexcitations. You are also denying scientific consensus.

- Moridin

Neither of those mentioned is what I consider 'compelling' evidence, i.e. if one is aware of that evidence, then one is rationally compelled to believe in p.

I'm not denying anything. I currently don't believe in either.

Deleet, what is your standard?

You are not rational unless you believe things based on the weight of the evidence.

If you don't know and don't trust us, then you should do a little research, surely we have raised your doubts enough to motivate you to check it out yourself.

[Deleet]

Premise 1 of the Kalam cosmological argument:

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause."

If some people think this premise is true, then surely they know a lot of things that begin to exist, otherwise they wouldn't come to the conclusion that the premise is true. (1)

So let's list all the things that begin to exist.

Ad 1
This argument is unsound, because this premise is false:
P "If some people think this premise is true, then surely they know a lot of things that begin to exist"

[Deleet]

Neither of those mentioned is what I consider 'compelling' evidence, i.e. if one is aware of that evidence, then one is rationally compelled to believe in p.

I'm not denying anything. I currently don't believe in either.

Deleet, what is your standard? (1)

You are not rational unless you believe things based on the weight of the evidence. (2)

If you don't know and don't trust us, then you should do a little research, surely we have raised your doubts enough to motivate you to check it out yourself.(3)

Ad 1
My standard? Of what I would consider compelling evidence?

Ad 2
Agreed.

Ad 3
???

[Moridin]

I gave you multiple lines of evidence for the falsehood of (1), such as quantum fluctuation, radioactive decay and electron deexcitations. You are also denying scientific consensus.

- Moridin

Neither of those mentioned is what I consider 'compelling' evidence, i.e. if one is aware of that evidence, then one is rationally compelled to believe in p.

I'm not denying anything. I currently don't believe in either.

So you reject the entire field of quantum mechanics and scientific consensus? Well done.

- Moridin

[Deleet]

Neither of those mentioned is what I consider 'compelling' evidence, i.e. if one is aware of that evidence, then one is rationally compelled to believe in p.

I'm not denying anything. I currently don't believe in either.

So you reject the entire field of quantum mechanics and scientific consensus? Well done.

- Moridin

Straw man.