The Paradox of Reality

[magellan01]

Appeal to authority isn’t an argument. Nor is appeal to popularity or appeal to tradition. These are called logical fallacies for a reason.

I agrree. I didn’t include them to “prove my argument”, only to point out that the position I was taking was one that might not deserve the quick dismissal you seemed to give it. Does it make the argument any more “valid”? I think so, for the reason that SH and others know a lot more about the issue than I do. Does it make it correct? No.

You didn’t tell me why I should believe your theory about the origin of the universe or about god for which you’re providing no evidences rather than the ones I made up.

One problem I’m having is that I’ve trying to argue against two positions at the same time. That’s sloppy, sorry. It seems that within the sphere of those who believe that the universe requires no outside agent, some people believe that there was nothing before the big bang and others believe there could very well have been something: that maybe this is just one of many big bangs. I’ve been arguing against the former.

The only “evidence” I can offer for the existence of a “god” is science itself. Not proof, but evidence, something that leads me to believe that a particular proposition may be true.

My reasoning: Everything that we have been able to learn about our universe has been the result or can be explained through causality. It is what all science it based upon. Even theories that we accept and cannot “prove”—relativity, quantum mechanics—are subject to being explainable in the world we inhabit. Theories gain more credence when they can be put into formulas, thought experiments must adhere to the rules of logic. So, as someone who embraces science, I neither see nor am aware of ANY instance where the “law” of causality is suspended. Therefore I believe that there is a cause for everything.

Yet, there is this thing called the big bang which happened, or is happening. In order to understand why it is happened, or is happening I 1) think about it. Not beiong able to explain it I conclude that I need more information. So I 2) get more information. I read books where logic tells me the information might reside. Books written by people like Brain Greene, David Berlinsky, Stephen Hawking, John Rigden, Lawrence Krauss, and others (Singh is on my list). I attend lectures given by physicists (Savas Dimopoulus and Andrei Linde).

The result of my information gathering is that even among these esteemed men of science there is not concensus regarding the beginngs of our universe. Some even have problems with the big bang.

So, what to think? Well, the tool that I have come to depend on when trying to figure things out is logic.

1. It seems to me that there was/is an event we call the big bang.

2. this thing is real, so it must have a cause

3. the people on the earth that know much, much, much more about these things than I do not agree on what caused the big bang

4. some tell me there was no cause, because there was no “before” for the cause to exist in

5. But if that is true, “why” did the big bang happen at all?

6. maybe it’s an infinitely expanding universe, one that will expand for all time in the future and has been expanding for all time in the past. But there seems to be concensus that this universe is not infinitley old. In fact it is about 15 billion years old.

7. So there was a beginning, a starting point.

8. So what caused it to begin?

9. Something caused it to begin that itself did not require a cause to begin it’s existence. The only thing I can conceive that does not mandate a cause for its existence is an agent of a higher order. It is the thiing that willed (caused) the big bang (or the beginng of the universe however it started).

10. But some very smart people say the big bang might have been preceded by other big bangs, and this is just one of many

11. Even so, wouldn’t there have had to be something to “start” this perpetual motion machine?

[/QUOTE]
There are people actually believing in spirits living in the woods, you know. You don’t know everything. Do you as a consequence refuse to reject this belief? Do you extend this courtesy to every human belief?

Your question points to the confluence of god and mythology. Again, I would look to my/our experience with science. We have many, many instances in our history where seemingly inexplicable phenomena have been explained by attributing their causes to deities. We have also seen that over time we are usually able to discover the true causes of these phenomena. Therefore I would be very reluctant to categorize anything we do not understand to the realm of the supernatural and say that it is automatically worthy of consideration. I would be of the opinion, based on the regularity with which science has rendered myth moot, that “spirits living in the woods” does not merit serious consideration.

I only look to “god” as a possible explanation for our beginings because a higher entity would not be necessarily bound by the law of causality.

You know about the scale of the universe, don’t you? What makes you think you’re so special that a creator god having even the most remote interest in you is a sensible assumption?

Ii does not follow in my thinking that if, in fact, there is a creator, that the point of his creation was me/us. In the grand scheme of things we might ba as significant to the universe, or universes, as a speck of sand buried three feet down on an unknown beach. And if he exists, I do not posit that he is good, bad, caring, interested or anything else.

I agree insofar as “matter” required the universe to expand and cool such that the strong force could bind protons and other baryons together.

Right, I was just pointing to that time T=0 thru T+X where matter had not yet been formed.

But cosmologists most certainly agree that the singularity at t=0 is the universe at that point.

Yes. Except, as far as I understand it, for the possibility of multiverses.

In neither case does the word cause make any sense.

I know we disagree, but I think that is the queston.

I am not suggesting this, and neither does anyone I know of. There was NO nothing-to-something transition. There was NO non-big bang existence. The “next moment” is a different place in the universe, just as nothing causes the Earth to expand out towards the equator from the North Pole.

I think the my answer (insufficient as it may be) to first part of this is probably above. As far as the north pole and the earth. I don’t think I understand you. I don’t think you’re claimiing that there is no reason for the earth to have the shape it does. Are you?

Wrong. Motion and causailty are functions of time.

I must be missiing something. I agree with your statement, but what was wrong about what I had said?

There are, of course, a great many erudite and respected theists, but can you show me a citation or quote from Hawking where he actually ascribes a greater probability to God’s existence than not?

I didn’t mean to say that SH was of that opinion. I should have written “…exceed that of Stephen Hawking. or that of the other leading cosmologists…” Sorry, I’ll try to be more careful. I’ll look for those statementss by other leading cosmologists.

I have only ever seen him entertain the possibility of God’s existence - an eminently reasonable stance which I myself share (merely ascribing a very small probability to such).

I think the possibility is probably larger than you do. But I am not adamant that god played the role. I argue that now (whew!) because that is where the debate has lead. If science came up with an explanation of something existing without a cause, or an idea perpetual motion machine that not only worked, but could start itself, I would reduce the possibility dramatically. Depending on the evidence, maybe even zero.

So we can only go back so far. Causality exists as far back as we can see but that does not mean that it existed before that. It also does not mean that whatever existed before the Big Bang (if anything) was causal. Heck, we can’t even say that there was time before the Big Bang. Without time there is no causality.

If the big bang happened/started 15 billion years ago, what was going on 16 billion years ago? Or 19. or 83, or 1,654 billion years ago? I guess the answer might be that there was no time before the big bang, there was no anything. But, again that, I think, is the question.

New idea: I understand from the theory of relativity that time is maleable, that it slows down as you approach the speed of light and then stops. So maybe one explanation (counter to my point) is that the universe, " the singularity" was moving at the speed of light and actually slowed down, thus expanding time, which allowed the enrgy to be converted intoi matter. What do you think?

Magellan… I don’t mean this is an unpleasant, condescending or unfriendly way, but you are perhaps struggling a bit with some basic aspects of theology and theological debate, and the rules of fair argument and reasoning, … But it wouldn’t be hard to make those points in a better way, and one which neatly avoids some of the commoner reasoning errors to which we are all prone, unless we exercise some care.

[QUOTE]

I readily admit to struggling with the concept of god and the beginnings of the universe. Could you be more specific. As far as rules of fair argument and reasoning, I strongly request that you point of the problems, as it is an accusation. I may be guilty, but I would appreciate you pointing to specifics. If you are correct, I will truly be grateful. If you are not, it may point to where we are not connecting and allow me to restructure the presentation of my argument.

Whew, you guys are tough. Thanks.

[The_Highwayman]

1. There is no proof that what you are perceiving is real.

Observation proves nothing. I could make the argument that our belief in the scientific method shapes our perceptions just as the belief in God shaped the medieval mind. Say for instance that we are all have a stake in what is real, that is, we all are capable of individual interpretation of the universe. Let’s also say that the interpretive powers of the mind must agree with the interpretive minds of everyone in our society. Suppose that agreement revolves around and reinforces what we call the scientific method. Let’s also say that this belief shapes all the evidence that we observe . My question is: How would you know the current belief in science does not affect reality? More simply, that belief affects reality? The answer whether you choose to believe so or not is that this is impossible to know.

However, as I have been reminded of before, we need to believe in something in order to make the world go round. Personally, I believe in what science reveals but I am not so arrogant to believe that what we perceive is true at all times and in all places.

2. How do we know that the current beliefs will be held by future people?

As believers in science are apt to point out the Newton’s gravitation laws are still valid in most cases but are incorrect under the circumstances which Einstein’s physics are better suited. But Newton’s laws are describing behavior and do not tell us what gravity is rather the effect it seems to have on an object. What about other theories of Newtonian physics? Does the heavenly ether still exist?

Scientific knowledge changes all the time. What we believe now will certainly be laughed at 200 years from now. The scientific method has been around for quite a long time and has spawned just as much poppycock as religion. Remember that it was invented by a Franciscan monk named Roger Bacon in the Middle Ages who also was an alchemist.

I am not suggesting that we espouse some creationist outlook. Our world is fully invested in the Scientific method and this is the tool our society uses to understand the world at the present time. Once again, to suggest that it is correct for all time and all places is not an accurate statement. This is not the argument to use against the creationists. The argument is that it might not be right but it works.

[David_Simmons]

@magellan01

To restate: Something had to cause everything. Except, perhaps, God.

I hope you can see the contradiction of saying that everything was created by something and they immediately selecting a particular item that was not created by something. That isn’t an argument, it’s an assertion.

[magellan01]

@David Simmons

I hope you can see the contradiction of saying that everything was created by something and they immediately selecting a particular item that was not created by something. That isn’t an argument, it’s an assertion.

That was the intent. To state my position. If you read the thread you’ll see assertions an attempts (quite unsuccesful at that) to convince others of their validity.

And pointing out an exception is not a contradiction. It is the honing of a definition or, in this case, an assertion.

[clairobscur]

@magellan01

My reasoning: Everything that we have been able to learn about our universe has been the result or can be explained through causality…

I have several issues with your reasonning. In particular :
-You mentionned that no cosmologist can provide an explanation for the existence of the universe (I’m using these words in order to avoid the word “cause” and “big bang”). And then you try to find one. I’m not a cosmologist, and I will never be. Even if I were one, I would be in all likehood unable to find an such an explanation. Actually, I don’t even have any reason to believe that we might find one someday. As a result my position is simply “I don’t know, and more generally, nobody knows”. That’s a perfectly acceptable position. Not only I don’t feel the need to make up such an explanation, but I think it doesn’t make sense. One should accept the limits of human knowledge.
-You take as granted that causation must be uninterrumpted. I see no reason to make such an assumption. It’s not because our brain is hardwired to search a cause for all things that such a cause must exist. Our brain is a tool for our survival. There’s no reason to believe he’s able to perceive, understand, comprehend the reality of the universe in its entirety. It’s not because we’re thirsty that there’s necessarily a well to find. Our need for a cause doesn’t mean that there must be one.
-Making the assumption that there must be a cause, you posit a “higher order” or “a god”. But, as it has already been mentionned, an uncaused god or an uncaused higher order isn’t anymore satisfying that an uncaused big bang or an uncaused multiverse. If you can’t accept the concept of an univers without cause, how can you accept the concept of a god without cause?
-In your last post, you didn’t assign any characteristics to this god. And indeed positing any attribute would be arbitrary. Even if there’s an uncaused cause, there’s no particular reason to assume it has or had an attribute like “sentience” or “will”, for instance. And if we can’t know anything about this uncaused cause, if we can’t give it attributes, what is its relevance to us? In what way does it answer any question or provides any explanation? And finally, why calling it “god”?

[The_Highwayman]

I think that we need to clarify:

I believe that what we are debating is one of the Cosmological arguments for the the existence of God posited by St. Anselm, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Descartes. The most famous one concerning causation is that of Aquinas based on Aristotle:

1. Every event has a distinct cause.
2. Either the chain of causes goes on forever, or there is a first cause.
3. The chain of causes can’t go back forever.
4. Therefore, there is a first cause.

Science states that there is not an infinite regression, that time and the universe start in the moments after the Big Bang. If this is the case then they will have a hard time theorizing in any degree of certainty about what was the Big Bang, what caused it, and from what did it come.

I suppose you could believe the universe is a happy accident as people have believed stranger things. But in my mind there are things that should not be there. There is an intelligence, a means of interpreting the world around us. Also, there is a notion of infinity, something that cannot be demonstrated in this universe and therefore should not be a concept in it. These are two thing which I point to as being the proof that there is something beyond this reality.

[magellan01]

Clairobscur: All good points. All. Thanks. This is what I was hoping to find on SD-GB.

Paragraph 1: I have absolutely no problem with this. For the purpose of debate, I was taking a position. But my guess is that we will probably never know the cause of the universe, or why we’re here. But is a way to exercise the mind.

Paragraph 2: Right again. But in looking for an explanation I think it is logical to use a tool that is responsible for all scientific discovery: causality (tool might not be the best word). That doesn’t mean that it will be the right tool, but as a starting point it seems to make sense.

Paragraph 3: Nothing but a string of assumptions, strung together with logic, so very sloppily. But if all I know or can imagine in the universe can be linked to other things by cause, and I consider the one thing that cannot have a cause, because it is the first thing, and by definition cannot have a cause, then I conclude that thing must not be subject to the laws of the universe. And the only thing I can contemplate that would not adhere to the laws of the universe is an entity of a higher order.

Paragraph 4: Again, we are in agreement. If there is a god or being of a higher order and he did in fact create this univers, it way have been willed, like a work of art or it may have been the result of a sneeze (completely unintentional). The only relevance to us (aside of those who might look to it for faith) is curiosity? Like an orphan might want to find out who his biological parents are. I use “god” because there is no perfect word/phrase and it is shorter than retyping “entity of a higher order”. Do you have something better?

Clairobscur, I do not purport do know what caused the universe. But if asked for an opinion I’d say either the universe is some interesting eternal perpetual motion machine that somehow didn’t require that is be “started”. Or that there is an entity of a higher order that started it all—whether it’s the eternal perpetual motion machine “he” put into motion or big bang he willed on a bored day 15 billion years ago. (Excuse the anthromorphication (sp?).)

If asked to bet, I’d bet on the entity of the higher order.

Thanks for the back and forth.

[zega]

What if God operates outside of time? What if God created time? What if God exists outside of our universe, and therefore exists ouside of time? Then infinity doesn’t apply to God, only the universe. There’s no reasons to constrain god to the time-mechanics of our universe, since God may have had to be outside of the universe to create it. Just because God creates it doesn’t mean He/She’s bound by it, necessarily.

[magellan01]

I don’t think that is what I’ve said, but I agree.

[David_Simmons]

@magellan01

That was the intent. To state my position. If you read the thread you’ll see assertions an attempts (quite unsuccesful at that) to convince others of their validity.

And pointing out an exception is not a contradiction. It is the honing of a definition or, in this case, an assertion.

What you wrote was:

Something had to cause everything.

Translated this says, “Everything is caused.”

Except, perhaps, God.

Translated this says, “But maybe everything is not caused.”

This post is just an obfuscation of what you previously wrote.

If something didn’t cause everything but there was one uncaused thing then it might as well be the universe as God since the evidence for both is the same - none.

[John_Mace]

Or, maybe the universe is /U] God…

[magellan01]

David: If I say that “everyone in my classroom has red hair, except John”, that is not a contradiction. If your point is that somewhere in my many posts you can put two things together and call it a contradiction, have fun. But if you read through the posts I thik you’ll be able to see what I intended and that it is consistent. Maybe not right, but consistent, i.e., everything must have a cause, except an entity of a higher order: god.

[/QUOTE]
If something didn’t cause everything but there was one uncaused thing then it might as well be the universe as God since the evidence for both is the same - none.

[QUOTE]

Okay. See my post # 47 for more.

[magellan01]

@John Mace

Or, maybe the universe is /U] God…

Nice. It solves all problems.

[David_Simmons]

@magellan01

David: If I say that “everyone in my classroom has red hair, except John”, that is not a contradiction. If your point is that somewhere in my many posts you can put two things together and call it a contradiction, have fun. But if you read through the posts I thik you’ll be able to see what I intended and that it is consistent. Maybe not right, but consistent, i.e., everything must have a cause, except an entity of a higher order: god.

Okay. See my post # 47 for more.

I didn’t have to search your posts. It was all in one post and in consecutive sentences.

You’re getting there. I guess what you meant to write is that things come in two orders. There is a lower order that is caused and a higher order that is uncaused. The universe is of the lower order and God is of the higher order.

That’s essentially what you wrote in #47 and had it been cited in the post in question we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

I must say thought that your argument about two different orders of things seems to me to be defining your way into being right.

[magellan01]

I must say thought that your argument about two different orders of things seems to me to be defining your way into being right.

I’m not sure exactly what you mean hear (I think the tenses are screwed up), but it was never my intent to prove or even imply that I am right. I was just trying to defend a position that I believe has some merit and might be right. Or at least shouldn’t be discounted for reasons of logic.

What do you mean by “You’re getting there.”?

[David_Simmons]

@magellan01

I’m not sure exactly what you mean hear (I think the tenses are screwed up), but it was never my intent to prove or even imply that I am right. I was just trying to defend a position that I believe has some merit and might be right. Or at least shouldn’t be discounted for reasons of logic.

All you have done is postulate a “natural” world that follows the usual physical laws and a “supernatural” where whatever is needed to make things work as desired is assumed.

[magellan01]

@David Simmons

All you have done is postulate a “natural” world that follows the usual physical laws and a “supernatural” where whatever is needed to make things work as desired is assumed.

I don’t know what your so hung up on. Your statement is basically correct, but a bit oversimplified. I wouldn’t say I ascribe to the supernatural “wherever it is needed”. It is in one place to explain what might have caused the big bang. And yes, I’m guilty of attempting to build an argument in which “things work”. I suggest you read, or reread, the thread. If you have/do and come to that conclusion, I think we’ll just have to agree to not be able to connect on this one.

Bu thanks for your thoughts.

[XOLegato]

@The Highwayman

My question is: How would you know the current belief in science does not affect reality? More simply, that belief affects reality? The answer whether you choose to believe so or not is that this is impossible to know.

However, as I have been reminded of before, we need to believe in something in order to make the world go round. Personally, I believe in what science reveals but I am not so arrogant to believe that what we perceive is true at all times and in all places.

ooh wow fun! eheh… this sounds like the lead in to a HUGE debate we had in my TOK (Theory Of Knowledge) class. To take a diversion from the creationism bent for a moment, let’s discuss the makeup of reality, shall we?

ahem IMHO as formed by an exaustive debate a little while ago…

Reality is the sum of every internal personal interpretation(and constant reinerpretation) of every one of our perceptions, as filtered through the previously existent notions of “reality” that have been formed by perceptions from birth. [In this case “perception” being us “perceiving” things]. Every perception we have is received into the conglomeration of our “reality” by passing through a filter of previous knowledge at some point on the spectrum between pure reason and pure emotion. We are constantly perceiving the world around us and thus constantly building our current understanding and knowledge. Every time a new interpreted perception is blended into our reality(i.e. constantly), every other part of that reality is reinterpreted through the now slightly redefined filters. If and when one part of our previously accepted reality is changed in reinterpretation, every other part including the one that caused the change is then reinterpreted, and so on.

Thus our mind is constantly perceiving, interpreting, and reinterpreting itself, and the sum definition of all the current interpretations at any one given moment in time is our current reality. Now usually the changes that are occuring to our reality are relatively minor. For example, I move my cup over 3 inches. I perceive that it is cold, that it is half-empty, and that it is now 3 inches displaced. This changes my reality, because when I leave the room, I know that there is a cold, half full cup in the new spot. When I return to find the cup empty, this new perception is interpreted through the part of my reality which states that logically, my cup that is empty and slightly displaced is so because someone else drank it. This new perception is then interpreted through the part of my current reality built on the perception that there is only one other person in the house. The resultant addition to my reality is that I now know that at a previous point in time in my reality, that other person drank the rest of my water.

Now, as far as belief is concerned, technically EVERY aspect of our perceived reality is belief, because we BELEIVE it to be so, where belief is our mental assertion based on our reality at the time. However, the definition of belief that you are reffering to is one of the many interpretive subsets of our own reality. Remember the bit about the spectrum of pure reason and pure emotion? In simple terms, pure emotion is not “emotion” as we know it, but pure unreasonable “feeling” about something. Pure reason is interpretation based entirely on defined “facts” of reality with zero conjecture. Every new perception is interpreted along every possible point and variation along this spectrum simultaneously. Then, depending on the person and their current structural reality, the large majority of these interpretations are dismissed and archived outside of the defined reality until new perceptions render them more feasible.

Usually, only one or possibly two slightly different interpretations are added to the internal reality, but when it comes to perceptions of things that there is little or no interpretation for in the current reality, a second and entirely different set of interpretations is created as a subset of the person reality, as opposed to becoming a part of it, and is reffered to as precedence or explaination whenever a perception is encountered that is inexplicable for the “actual” reality. This subset is the subset of the “supernatural,” and the reference to it without fully assimilating it into the internal definition of reality is the process of “belief” as you are referring to it.

Now look back at your question: “My question is: How would you know the current belief in science does not affect reality? More simply, that belief affects reality?”

The “belief” in science is the reference to science as a subset of reality that is not entirely “proven” to be a part of that reality, but it is a subset that, being an interpretation through the side of the spectrum closer to reason (which is the side that is in most people usually the more accepted for adding to the definition of reality), is “closer” to reality than the “supernatural” subset is. Thus, in graphic terms, if the “science” subset is “closer” to what is part of “reality” than the “supernatural” subset, then it will be referred to “first” when something needs explaining.

Therefore, you see, the current “belief in science” DOES affect reality. However, that belief affects the consensual “group reality” only insofar as the “world around us” reality is our definition of reality as filtered through the definitions of the rest of humanity(or at least those whose beliefs we have perceived). If the majority of the people whose definitions of reality you encounter “believe” in the scientific method, then that will affect how you interpret your reality. The “world around us” reality can only be seen thorough the personal interpretation of the individual viewing it, and thus can only be defined insofar as it is for that individual.

I think my explaination of reality (again, submitted IMHO) speaks to the rest of what you wrote too.

Sorry from diverting from my own opening subject, but if anyone wants to discuss what I have here I’d be glad to work some new opinions into my (haha!) definition of reality.

…why am I only on this board at god-awful hours of the night? lol.

• 3 am

[David_Simmons]

@magellan01

I don’t know what your so hung up on.

I guess maybe I’m a little tired of people postulating a supernatural and then when it’s questioned assuming the far-off stare and saying things like, “There are many mysteries than science can’t touch … (voice trailing off as the screen fades to black).”

You haven’t done that and if I’ve been hard on you, I’m sorry.

[clairobscur]

@magellan01

And the only thing I can contemplate that would not adhere to the laws of the universe is an entity of a higher order.

I use “god” because there is no perfect word/phrase and it is shorter than retyping “entity of a higher order”. Do you have something better?

The issue here is that you assumed an entity while I was assuming an “uncaused cause” of unkown (and possibly unknowable) nature, since calling an “entity” is already granting it arbitrary attributes.

Even taking as a given the existence of an higher order, of an original cause not itself constrained by the law of causation, it doesn’t logically follow that this cause should be an entity rather than an object, or a force, or something completely beyond our comprehension that couldn’t be classified in any meaningful way.