Ginkgo wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 2:04 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 5:01 am
Oh. I see.
Well, do you think the BB was a caused
event, or a completely uncaused
I'll go along with Lawrence Krauss on this one and say that quantum fluctuations caused the Big Bang. On this basis we can say the universe was caused.
I'm afraid that won't work, because a quantum vacuum isn't "nothing." So he's already presupposing the existence of something.
The elements we know today came from supernovae. In other words, the majority of elements did not exist until after star formation.
This doesn't get to the question either. We've now taken for granted the existence of supernovae. That is also not a "nothing."
No one really knows what came before the Big Bang. Hawking tells us that the events before the Big Bang have no observational consequence.Events before the Big Bang are not defined so we cannot measure them.
But Hawking relies on a zero-point explanation. It's also been disproved.
However, we don't need to measure events before the BB to know what we are looking for. We just can't find it.
Let me make that as straightforward as I can:
1. A causal-chain universe with an infinite regress of causes is logically and mathematically impossible. (The chain of causes could never start.)
2. This is a causal-chain universe. (i.e. The chain of causality must have somehow 'gotten started').
Conclusion: The universe is not the product of an infinite regress of causes.
One hardly needs premise 2. It's both empirically observable everywhere, and it's implausible to imagine a universe without causal chains: but we'll cover all bases there. At total Idealist could say that our universe is a mental illusion, and so are causal chains: but most of us find that intuitively absurd and practically unliveable, so we can leave that option out, I think. And Idealist of that sort couldn't even believe in the kinds of observational thinking we're doing here, so wouldn't be talking to us anyway.
And, of course, premise 1 is certain and deductive. It's mathematically demonstrable.
The upshot is that there is no way that any explanation of the origins of the universe can be achieved by positing an infinite origin point.
We are left with a very simple, clear conclusion: the universe (including whatever "pre-matter" we posit, like elements, or supernovae, or quantum vacuums) had an inception point, a First Cause. If it did not, there would be no observable causal chains today.
That in a nutshell would be my point.