First cause

Author: Fallaneze

Posts

Total: 59
#31
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 379
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@Goldtop
An obvious false premise, the Big Bang whether brought on by free will or not can both be argued for infinite regress.
Infinite regress is logically impossible. If time were to travel back infinitely it would logically never be able to reach the present.
#32
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@TwoMan
A little over 100 years ago if you said things can be in two places at once (QM) or going faster makes time slowdown(SR) you'd have been considered a madman. 

My guess is that something we we take for granted is false, or something that seems to us as illogical or impossible is in fact true.   But it will take another Einstein to 'think outside the box' and be right! 

The 'thinking out of the box' part is easy... it's the 'and be right' part that's the killer!

#33
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
We have no indication if time itself (or anything else for that matter) is "infinite" or not.
Periods of time { finite events } are eternally existent, within a finite SPACE we identify as Universe/God.

Minimal brainer since late 1800's when a few scientists came to rational, logical common sense conclusion.

Physical/energy --ergo one form of occupied space---, cannot be created, nor destroyed,  and that cosmic law/principle is 1st law of thermodynamics.

You may now return to your seat bru7.



#34
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@keithprosser

My guess is that something we we take for granted is false, or something that seems to us as illogical or impossible is in fact true.   But it will take another Einstein to 'think outside the box' and be right!  The 'thinking out of the box' part is easy... it's the 'and be right' part that's the killer!
Einstein went to his grave attempting to unify gravity and quantum physics.

The geodesic positive and negative aspects of a torus (  )(  ) unite 180 degree opposites of gravity  (  ) and dark energy )(.

The inversions from peak (><)(><)  of gravity and dark energy create basis for all sine-wave based quanta { quantum mechanics }.

It is thinking inside the torus ---and any aggreate interfering set thereof--- as much as it is thinking 'outside the cube/box'.

By going outside the cube/box we get a broader set of viewpoints.

The box/cube defined by 6 great circles { tori } of the tetrahedrons 6 edges/chords{ tori }.





#35
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Goldtop
If the Big Bang wasn't brought into existence by free will, then there must be an infinite regress of preceding causes that led to up to the Big Bang.

The only way around this is if an action occurred by free will - in that case the event will not have a quantifiable beginning.
You have made this assertion but have not quantified or explained this difference in any way.

An obvious false premise, the Big Bang whether brought on by free will or not can both be argued for infinite regress.
Well stated and well reasoned.
#36
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TwoMan
An obvious false premise, the Big Bang whether brought on by free will or not can both be argued for infinite regress.
Infinite regress is logically impossible. If time were to travel back infinitely it would logically never be able to reach the present.
Excellent point.
#37
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Is any infinite quantity physically realistic?  I suspect that infinity is a mathematical covenience, a useful approximation for a value that is extremely large. 
#38
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@TwoMan
Infinite regress is logically impossible.
Yeah, I get that, but I was trying to say that both can be argued equally whether or not the argument is valid.

#39
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
Is any infinite quantity physically realistic?  I suspect that infinity is a mathematical covenience, a useful approximation for a value that is extremely large.  
While I agree with you 100%, would you say "time" is properly "physical"?

#40
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
While I agree with you 100%, would you say "time" is properly "physical"?
All words have dualistic characteristics/nature of meaning/definition

1} metaphysical-1 concept of time i.e. the mathematical lag rates of consciousness between this event { tick } and the other one { tock }.
...meta{ beyond } Observed Time....

2} physical/energy as Observed Time i.e. reality associated with sine-wave pattern of events /\/\/ via fermions, bosons or any aggregate thereof





#41
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@Fallaneze
It isn't a false dilemma because it is either true that the Big Bang occurred by chance or it is not true that the Big Bang occurred by chance. 
Not occurring by chance does not necessarily mean freewill. Perhaps some as yet unknown physical law made the Big Bang inevitable.

Since natural explanations lead to an infinite chain of events with quantifiable beginnings, the only recourse is to say that we don't understand how it happened. That may be true, but it doesn't address the logic in my argument.
It addresses the unstated assumption in your argument, namely that we have a full enough understanding of causality and time and the Big Bang to make sweeping statements about what is not possible when it comes to the origin of the universe. We don't.
Topic's author
#42
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@Stronn
A physical law would run into the same problem though. When something is inevitable, the event has a quantifiable beginning. You would need a mechanism that isn't on any sort of clockwork. You would need something that could "choose" to actualize an event. This is an argument based on knowledge, and a rejection of the argument, at this point, is based on ignorance. 
#43
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@Fallaneze
It does not follow that an event occurring, or having a beginning, implies a choice.
Topic's author
#44
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@Stronn
I'm doing a process of elimination. If chance and physical laws are excluded, this leaves free will as the best explanation at this point.
#45
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Stronn
It does not follow that an event occurring, or having a beginning, implies a choice.
Well stated.
#46
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
I'm doing a process of elimination. If chance and physical laws are excluded, this leaves free will as the best explanation at this point.
This is not how deductive reasoning works.

Number one, you have no way of eliminating "chance" and or "physical laws" as hypotheticals.

Number two, even if you did, "free-will" is an obvious non-sequitur.

You might as well credit "magic".

Magic explains everything.  -  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVbnciQYMiM
Topic's author
#47
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Either A, B, or C.
Not A or B.
Therefore, C.

The OP shows how chance and physical necessity result in mathematical and logical contradictions. 

Some event must begin in a non-quantifiable way, which leaves free will and excludes chance and physical necessity. 


#48
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
Either A, B, or C or D or E or F or G or H or I or J or K or L or M or N or O or P or Q or R or S or T or U or V or W or X or Y or Z.

Not A or B.

Therefore, C or D or E or F or G or H or I or J or K or L or M or N or O or P or Q or R or S or T or U or V or W or X or Y or Z.

The OP shows how chance and physical necessity result in mathematical and logical contradictions WHICH are only valid as they relate to our human experience and the ability of our minds and senses to directly or indirectly corroborate.  ANYTHING categorically beyond our ability to experience may or may not be subject to our INDUCTIVE (Humorous Hume) conclusions.  It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits. 

Some event must begin in a non-quantifiable (fundamentally unobservable) way, which leaves free will (magic) and (only hypothetically) excludes chance and physical necessity. 

An unfalsifiable hypothesis is not strengthened by arbitrarily eliminating imaginary alternatives.
Topic's author
#49
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
A is chance, B is physical necessity, and C is free will. Please feel free to fill in letters D-Z with an identified alternative.
#50
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Fallaneze
0A} there exists no "first cause" for a;

...1A} eternally existent metaphysical-2, macro-infinite, non-occupied Space, that embraces the following,

....2A} eternally existent physical/energy --Observe Time /\/\/--- occupied Space Universe aka Uni-V-erse.

Our current info regarding occupied Space can only detect info from 380,000 years after the alledged Big Bang{ what ever that was or was not }.

" U "niverse/" G "od has no reason/purpose for existence.

Only humans attempt to apply reason/purpose to occupied and non-occupied Space Universe.

To seek truth requires ability to access rational, logical common sense.  Not all humans have this ability and some to varying degree in differrent days.




#51
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
If the Big Bang wasn't brought into existence by free will, then there must (not necessarily) be an infinite regress of preceding causes that led to up to the Big Bang.

Given an infinite amount of time (nothing could ever happen, XENO'S PARADOX), any action that has a greater than 0 chance of occurring will inevitably occur.

One this action inevitably occurs, we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to the action (only if those "trials" are verifiable using logic based on verifiable evidence). By doing this, the entire event has a quantifiable beginning (only if it is verifiable).

The problem is that given an unlimited amount of time, something that can happen inevitably will (and yet, at the same time, nothing can possibly happen). This gives you an infinite chain of events (there can never be an "infinite" anything, much less a "chain of events") that all have quantifiable beginnings (only if they are verifiable) to them which is logically absurd. The only (not the only) way around this is if an action occurred by free will (free-will is a human EMOTION, not a logical necessity or a verifiable fact) - in that case the event will not have a quantifiable beginning (if we cannot verify an event with logic and evidence, it cannot be quantifiable).

Either A "chance" - UNVERIFIABLE, UNFALSIFIABLE unable to eliminate this as a conceivable option, has no explanatory power, indistinguishable from either random or no explanation

Or B "physical, verifiable causes" - VERIFIABLE, can be eliminated as a primary factor (logically), but not as a potential secondary or tertiary (or potentially hundreds of bobaquinchillions) hidden variables, has no explanatory power, indistinguishable from either random or no explanation

Or C "the human emotion we call free-will" - UNVERIFIABLE scientifically, logically FALSIFIABLE able to eliminate this as a conceivable option (maybe a human caused the cosmos with the aid of non-linear-non-local causality), has no explanatory power, indistinguishable from either random or no explanation - If FREE-WILL is a hypothetical primary cause of the cosmos, FREE-WILL itself must be "uncaused" and would therefore be indistinguishable from random

Or D "quantum flux" - UNVERIFIABLE, UNFALSIFIABLE unable to eliminate this as a conceivable option, has no explanatory power, indistinguishable from either random or no explanation

Or E "noumenon" - VERIFIABLE, can be confirmed as a primary cause (logical necessity) and has zero explanatory power, indistinguishable from either random or no explanation

Or F "we have no flipping idea" - VERIFIABLE, and yet has no explanatory power, indistinguishable from either random or no explanation

Or G "dark energy" - Indirectly VERIFIABLE, UNFALSIFIABLE unable to eliminate this as a conceivable option, has no explanatory power

Or H "magic" - UNVERIFIABLE, UNFALSIFIABLE unable to eliminate this as a conceivable option, has no explanatory power, indistinguishable from either random or no explanation

Or I "Nanabozho" - UNVERIFIABLE, UNFALSIFIABLE unable to eliminate this as a conceivable option, has no explanatory power, indistinguishable from either random or no explanation

Or J "Marduk" - UNVERIFIABLE, UNFALSIFIABLE unable to eliminate this as a conceivable option, has no explanatory power, indistinguishable from either random or no explanation

Or K "Zeus" - UNVERIFIABLE, UNFALSIFIABLE unable to eliminate this as a conceivable option, has no explanatory power, indistinguishable from either random or no explanation

Or L "Pangu" - UNVERIFIABLE, UNFALSIFIABLE unable to eliminate this as a conceivable option, has no explanatory power, indistinguishable from either random or no explanation

Or M "Brahman" - UNVERIFIABLE, UNFALSIFIABLE unable to eliminate this as a conceivable option, has no explanatory power, indistinguishable from either random or no explanation

Or N "pure imagination" - UNVERIFIABLE, UNFALSIFIABLE unable to eliminate this as a conceivable option, has no explanatory power, indistinguishable from either random or no explanation

Or O "eternalism" - UNVERIFIABLE, UNFALSIFIABLE unable to eliminate this as a conceivable option, has no explanatory power, indistinguishable from either random or no explanation

Or P "string theory" - UNVERIFIABLE, UNFALSIFIABLE unable to eliminate this as a conceivable option, has no explanatory power, indistinguishable from either random or no explanation

Or Q "M-brane theory" - UNVERIFIABLE, UNFALSIFIABLE unable to eliminate this as a conceivable option, has no explanatory power, indistinguishable from either random or no explanation

I'm sure you get the idea.

An unfalsifiable hypothesis is not strengthened by arbitrarily eliminating imaginary alternatives.
#52
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@Fallaneze
Do you claim that we have discovered all the applicable physical laws? If not, then how can you possibly eliminate physical laws as an explanation?
#53
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Stronn
Do you claim that we have discovered all the applicable physical laws? If not, then how can you possibly eliminate physical laws as an explanation?
Excellent point.  We can only be 100% positive that, "we don't know everything".

Topic's author
#54
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
The only alternative you've offered that hasn't already been said is an eternal universe. All evidence points to the Big Bang so this isn't a good alternative. The other theories all fall under either chance, free will, or physical law.
Topic's author
#55
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@Stronn
Physical "laws" are all subject to the same problem. If the end result is from clockwork then it faces the quantitative problem
#56
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
The only alternative you've offered that hasn't already been said is an eternal universe. All evidence points to the Big Bang so this isn't a good alternative. The other theories all fall under either chance, free will, or physical law.
An eternalist universe (option O in the above list) supposes that what we can observe is cyclical.

All energy condenses into a tiny super-dense singularity, then expands until heat death, then condenses again, then expands again, rinse and repeat.

All of these so-called explanations suffer from the same critical problem.

They all have no explanatory power (predictive power), and as such, are indistinguishable from either random or no explanation.
#57
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Fallaneze
The only alternative you've offered that hasn't already been said is an eternal universe.
see 1s law of thermodynamics.....my translationn as .occupied Space cannot be created nor destroyed my translation

All evidence points to the Big Bang so this isn't a good alternative.
That evidence only goes to within 380,000 years of BB and still says nothing about what BB event { WOW! } actually was .  It was not the creation of occupied Space.  Something does not come from nothing. It is presumtion with no evidence much less any rational, logical common sense.

It is this kind of thinking that leads to be people creating a divined God existent outside of our eternally existent, finite, occupied Space Universe.

Some theories scenarios are going to be based on observation and rational, logical common sense than others.  We have no evidence to believe physical { cosmic laws/principles } are not eternally existent ex there can never exist more that five regular/symmetrical and convex polyhedra of Universe. 

Ergo terminal absolute truth ending of one line of the story.

The other theories all fall under either chance, free will, or physical law.

#58
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@Fallaneze
Again, you are making sweeping statements about "all physical laws," when we have yet to discover them all.

It does not logically follow that a beginning to time implies a choice. I'm not sure what else you mean by the 'quantitative problem."
#59
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Stronn
It does not logically follow that a beginning to time implies a choice.
time ^v^v  = free will { choice } is a non-starter

* * = bilateral consciousness ergo /\/\/\* * /\/\/\/* *\/\/\/\/ = quantum fluctuation in sine-wave { not seriously }

So the sine-wave /\/\/\/\/\/\/ of Observed Time eternally exists, yes? 

Or is it the positive (  ) and negative )( geodesics that, eternally exist?

Or do both  (><)(><) eternally exist?

............................SPACE(>*<)  i  (>*<)SPACE............................

Do black holes eternally regenerate here and there in and eternally existent Universe?

Do black holes have a systemic and structural integrity? Of course they or they would not exist.

Mesons have a systemic and structural integrity even if that integrity is ultra-short lived.

Divinity  of humans is conceptually step outside our finite, changing/dynamic box/cube/polyhedron and to conceptually look back in upon it.

The digital age allows to enhance those concepts 10, - 100 - 1000 fold.

The closet we come to actualizing free will is the dynamic spiraling through positive, flat and negative aspects of a closed toroidal integrity.

There is no cosmic "first cause"

1} Free Will as localized torus---They are negatively curved, any object thrown away on a straight line will eventually return.

2} "Our universe, in contrast, is quite flat - and on astronomic distances, it has positive curvature", says Daniel Grumiller.