A cause and a mechanism are not the same. For example, nothing causes a photon to be created, but the mechanism of its creation is the collapse of an electron’s orbit (a quantum leap). Just as a mechanism is necessary for the creation of a photon, a mechanism is necessary for the creation of the universe.
If the universe is eternal, then there is a profound philosophical (or logical) problem with there being a “current state”. It can’t go both ways; i.e., if the universe is not eternal, then it is a certain age, but if it is a certain age, then it cannot be eternal.
The universe, considered as a higher-dimensional structure whose pattern generates the illusion of “time”, is necessarily eternal: more precisely, it’s timeless.
Once again, I repeat an earlier claim: the universe cannot be said to exist, nor can it be said not to exist. There’s nothing for it to exist relative to. . .
The universe, considered as a higher-dimensional structure whose pattern generates the illusion of “time”, is necessarily eternal: more precisely, it’s timeless.
Once again, I repeat an earlier claim: the universe cannot be said to exist, nor can it be said not to exist. There’s nothing for it to exist relative to. . .
No, you are confusing our lives as humans, which begin and end, and are measured in time relative to other events, with the universe as a whole, for which time is a property, and for which there is no external standard against which to measure. Think of time as a dimension. As we move through time, we see the universe in different ways. From our perspective, the “state” of the universe changes, but it’s still the same universe. Imagine flying in a plane around the Earth - you would find yourself in strange, different lands, but the Earth has not changed*. You are just seeing it from a different perspective. I see no paradox in the universe having a current state AND being timeless.
*Of course, it would be a plane that can’t stop, and can only travel in one direction.
The Doctrine of Mechanism has been a central tenet of mainstream materialist philosophy for centuries. The basic idea is that “all natural phenomena are explicable by material causes and mechanical principles”. Thus, although it is allowable that a photon form without a cause, it may not form without both a cause and a mechanical principle. Were a photon to form without the collapse of an electron’s orbit, the process of photon formation would be mystical. To declare that the universe exists without either physical cause or physical mechanism is a substantive declaration that its existence is metaphysical. In other words, it would be saying the exact same thing that non-materialism is saying: the origin of the universe is mystical, and is inexplicable by any possible materialistic account.
I’m not sure I understand this. Certainly, I understand that time can be treated as a dimension — that is, as a variable in a physics equation. But is that to say that a changing earth is contingent on whether or not I fly around it in a plane? As Spiritus has illustrated, time, when treated as a dimension, is unidirectional. Entropy tends to increase over time. The longer the universe has existed, the more entropy we would expect. And indeed, if the universe has existed eternally, then we would expect entropy to be 100%. Even if there is a cycle of Big Bangs and Big Crunches, there is nothing to account for how the Helmholtz free energy might be restored. See this thread in General Questions where exactly this matter was discussed. Hawking himself has conceded the point:
“Hawking tells us how initially he thought that this proposal favoured the former horn of the above dilemma: ‘I thought at first that the no boundary condition did indeed imply that disorder would decrease in the contracting phase.’ He changed his mind, however, in response to objections from two colleagues: ‘I realized that I had made a mistake: the no boundary condition implied that disorder would in fact continue to increase during the contraction. The thermodynamic and psychological arrows of time would not reverse when the universe begins to contract or inside black holes.’” — http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week26.html
Regarding the Doctrine of Mechanism, let me put it to you by way of a question: if you will accept that the universe exists without any cause or mechanism, then will you also accept that Jesus fed 10,000 people with a couple of loaves and fishes? If not, why not?
A mechanism requires a cause, and vice versa. In quantum mechanics, photons can indeed form without an electron’s waveform falling to a lower energy state.
It’s the electron’s loss of energy which is acausal and amechanical in this example. This event has no known general cause in quantum mechanics, and there’s no known mechanism that results in the electron’s emission of light.
What exactly does that mean? A photon is, by definition, a packet of energy with a particular wavelength — energy that is given off by an electron jumping from one energy level to another. A photon’s energy forming out of nothing is indistinguishable from a photon created by God.
There is not just no known cause. There is no cause period. But the mechanism of energy creation (the emission of light) is the collapse of the electron field.
** The first part of the first statement is correct, the second is not. The second is more correct than you realize.
Particles can spontaneously arise from the vacuum in quantum mechanics. That’s what’s responsible for Hawking radiation.
It’s entirely possible for photons to arise without electrons dropping into lower energy states; that’s not the only known mechanism. More to the point, it’s known that photons can arise without any known mechanism. (The role of probability in quantum mechanics is hotly debated, as is the existence of probability.)
How do you know there’s no cause? We can conclude only that there’s no cause we know of.
Not necessarily.
I think we’ve established that you’re not familiar with certain physics concepts. I suggest that you find and read some books on quantum mechanics before making pronouncements about the subject again.
What happens—the mechanism by which: description. Why it happens—the cause of: explanation. One is answerable.
If photons are as we define them in the theory, there is no cause. If you would like to take a jump up the meta-stairway to then say “We are not certain our theory is correct” you are welcome to do so. It does not seem to illuminate the discussion.
It is both “not correct” and “more correct” than I realize?
We weren’t talking about particles generally, but about photons. And there is no such thing as a vacuum in the universe.
See this paper for an explanation of how it works: “The researchers conclude that the spontaneous emission of a photon by an excited atom is in a sense induced by vacuum fluctuations (Haroche & Raimond, 1993).” The quantum fluctuation is in that case the mechanism.
It is a conceptual matter. There is no cause because there is no causative principle. The creation of a photon is not an event, but a statistic. Asking what is the cause of photon emission is like asking what color red is. Photon emissions are spontaneous.
When someone I trust corrects me, I will abandon the photon analogy. But even if that happens, the philosophical principle remains. If a universe (or a photon for that matter) arises without either cause or mechanism, then it is a miracle and materialism is fatally undermined.
It’s still important to note. Quantum mechanics does not concern itself with the causes of quantum events any more than probability concerns itself with the physics of dice-rolling. It’s still useful, as probability is useful.
To return to the thread: time, when considered as a dimension, it not unidirectional. Entropy increases along a time axis; this is all that can be said.
Electrons falling into lower energy states are themselves without known mechanism: we know of no trigger or cause that determines when and how and electron will give up energy. Likewise, we know of no mechanism that determines nuclear decay. We can construct probabilities that can accurately predict what percentage of a group of radioactive nuclei have decayed, and we can make statements about whether any given nuclei is likely to have decayed within any given timeframe.
Does Libertarian then believe that radioactive decay is a mystic or divine event?
The second half of the first statement is not correct. The second statement is more correct than you realize.
Precisely. “Empty” space is filled with virtual particles and quantum fluctuations.
What’s the mechanism of the quantum fluctuations? It’s one thing if we explain a seemingly random phenomenon by referring to a deterministically-understood principle. Explaining a random event by referencing another random event is meaningless.
It’s well known that a photon can induce an atom to release a similar photon; the referenced article suggested that the virtual photons present in the vacuum are responsible for spontaneous emission of real photons. What causes the fluctuations to spontaneously take on the proper characteristics? We have no idea.
Now you seem to be contradicting yourself. You say, correctly given our current state of knowledge, that photon emission is something that “just happens”. Similarly, the universe is a thing that “just is”. Why do you object to this?
By what mechanism do the fundamental building blocks of reality operate? There is none – because if there were, they wouldn’t be the fundamental building blocks of reality: there’d be even more basic elements out of which those parts would be constructed.
When reality is reduced to its most basic elements, no more explanations are possible. Fortunately, there’s nothing left to explain, so we’re not inconvenienced.
You’re definitely not using the word “event” in the way physicists do, then.
The emission of particles from a nucleus is an event. “Red” is a state, a property that a photon can possess. “Decay” in subatomic physics isn’t a state, it’s a thing that happens.
I would think that only applies to the known universe. How can you apply materialism to before the Big Bang, when observable laws of physics don’t exist?
We can observe constants, or laws, if you will, in the universe, but we currently have no way to observe anything outside of the universe. To suggest that the observable laws of the universe necessarily apply outside of the universe is folly. You are trying to create a dilemna where there is none. Let me say this again: time, cause-and-effect, quantum mechanics, etc. are all PROPERTIES of the universe. It is unscientific to suggest that the universe AS A WHOLE must follow the laws that exist WITHIN the universe, with respect to some OUTSIDE standard. If we have no data regarding what is outside the universe, if anything, the best we can say is “we don’t know”.
Let’s say the New York Philharmonic performs Beethoven’s 5th Symphony at Avery Fisher Hall. The symphony is in c minor, but what key is Avery Fisher Hall? The question is nonsensical, because tonality is a concept that applies to Beethoven’s Fifth, but not to concert halls. It is a PROPERTY of that symphony. In the same way, the question “What time is it outside the universe?” is nonsensical, because time is a PROPERTY of the universe. This is not intuitive to us because our lives AS HUMANS are ruled by our perception of time. The concept of time has a very profound psychological hold on us. You really have to think outside the box on this one.
Please read the analogy again. The Earth doesn’t change, YOUR perspective changes. As you cross the ocean, you say to yourself: “Hmmm, the Earth is entirely covered in water”, but then you fly over a continent, and remark: “Now the Earth is all one land mass”.
That’s very interesting. But I thought the current thinking was that mass in the universe was insufficient for it to ever contract, so wouldn’t that render your point moot? Aren’t most physicists now of the opinion that the universe will simply continue to expand, and that entropy will eventually approach 100%? Perhaps we are simply at a point in time where it is not yet 100%. You see this as a paradox because you are confusing “eternal” with “has existed forever”. As TVAA pointed out, “timeless” is probably a better word. We don’t really have a word in the language to describe the concept.
Good question. It is precisely the one that I have posed!
That is exactly what I have said consistently. Remember when I asked for evidence of a Brane?
Long ago in a thread far away, when I first posed the question about how energy available to do work might be restored to an eternal universe, I was told that it would be restored in a Big Crunch. Obviously, that was not correct. So the problem remains. Whether or not there will be any Big Crunch, if the universe is eternal, then why isn’t entropy at 100%? But if we are at a “point in time”, then it is not eternal. And in fact, most cosmologists believe that it is somewhere between 10 and 15 billion years old. A point in time — which is a discrete unit of Planck time, not a dimensionless point like on a number line — that is preceded by an infinite number of points in time is a point in time in which entropy should be complete.
