tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6672880129970799148.post1169817909208838503..comments2023-08-22T07:01:08.590-07:00Comments on Agent Intellect: Causality and the Big BangJim S.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15538540873375357030noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6672880129970799148.post-21042625494699943172010-05-25T07:48:02.365-07:002010-05-25T07:48:02.365-07:00Looking back on my tendency to polarize against yo...Looking back on my tendency to polarize against your position, Jim, I think it is worth mentioning that I find first-cause arguments to be one of the two most plausible lines of arguments in support of the possible existence of a supernatural creator being. Slightly ahead of them in my mind are fine-tuning arguments.<br /><br />Together, they give me pause. They do not persuade me, and they certainly do not point to a personal being of the sort that most religions posit, but they do encourage me to avoid outright rejection of the god-hypothesis as untenable.<br /><br />I remain an atheist, as I still lack positive god-belief, but I am an agnostic atheist.Timothy Millshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00373801153623991221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6672880129970799148.post-54039492308877380482010-05-20T08:15:33.254-07:002010-05-20T08:15:33.254-07:00Hmm... I remain skeptical, but have no good basis ...Hmm... I remain skeptical, but have no good basis for dissent, so I will concede the point for now.<br /><br />However, I have another objection. (I know, you were hoping I'd say that, weren't you?)<br /><br />You say that "To limit this intuition to physical processes would be a case of special pleading; there's no reason why it wouldn't apply to the beginning of the universe." I disagree.<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading" rel="nofollow">The Wikipedia article on special pleading</a> suggests that "In philosophy, it is assumed that wherever a distinction is claimed, a relevant basis for the distinction should exist and be substantiated. Special pleading is a subversion of this assumption." Let me argue for a relevant basis for this distinction.<br /><br />Our intuitions about causality are derived <i>exclusively</i> from spatio-temporal events. There is no obvious reason why these intuitions should extend to non-spatio-temporal phenomena, such as the border between nihilo and the Big Bang.<br /><br />Consider also that, through most of human history, the intuition that objects in motion tend to come to rest was quite justified. It works anywhere on Earth that people happen to be. But it fails when you reach the effectively frictionless environment beyond our atmosphere.<br /><br />History is littered with the broken shells of egocentric intuitions, shattered by contact with the new and alien. So until you can demonstrate to me that this causality intuition should apply beyond the spatio-temporal realm in which it has been exclusively formed and trained, I will reserve judgement.Timothy Millshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00373801153623991221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6672880129970799148.post-14405736778229837062010-04-26T14:52:09.542-07:002010-04-26T14:52:09.542-07:00Nick: About the same time you wrote your comment, ...Nick: About the same time you wrote your comment, I was reading the first chapter of Plantinga's <i>Warranted Christian Belief</i> which goes into some detail about Kant and his claim that we apply our categories beyond their scope in such things. I agree with you that Kant's option is elegant, but don't think it holds water.<br /><br />Matko: per your first comment, I would say that the fact that we've only experienced causality in time is just as easily explained by the fact that we are temporal beings. This would also explain why we find the idea of nontemporal (or atemporal) causality unusual, although not incoherent. Temporality is an accidental aspect of causality in our experience, not an essential aspect of it.<br /><br />Tim: I think the original essay was "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology" published around 1970 by Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose. Einstein's general relativity equations dictated that all the matter and energy in the universe are expanding outward from a singularity (a point of zero volume); Hawking and Penrose extended general relativity to include the dimensions of space and time. The space-time theory of general relativity has developed its own literature. As far as I know, it's universally accepted by physicists, astronomers, and cosmologists.Jim S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15538540873375357030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6672880129970799148.post-11730958295106310722010-04-22T10:33:58.264-07:002010-04-22T10:33:58.264-07:00Nick said:
Another option is Kant's, and it i...Nick said:<br /><br /><i>Another option is Kant's, and it is undeniably elegant. The confusion regarding the beginning of the universe arises when empirical reasoning tries to stretch beyond its boundaries. The paradox of an uncaused "first cause" arises only because we are trying to apply characteristics of our experience (namely, time, things occurring in succession) to things-in-themselves.<br /><br />For Kant, the problem is not one to be solved, but one which indicates the limits of our powers of reasoning. Finite, limited creatures cannot understand the infinite and unconditioned.</i><br /><br />If you're alluding to Kant's antithesis of his first antinomy, Craig dealt with it when he formulated the Kalām cosmological argument in the late seventies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6672880129970799148.post-48949403069598875722010-04-22T07:39:15.145-07:002010-04-22T07:39:15.145-07:00Can you point me to a source which claims "th...Can you point me to a source which claims "that matter, energy, space, and time all sprang into existence" in the Big Bang?<br /><br />I've heard it suggested (not asserted, just speculated) that time and space came into existence then. But ... well, for what it's worth, here's the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia description</a> of the state of things before the bang:<br /><br />"Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past."<br /><br />Which seems to imply a belief that matter and energy existed at the earliest point at which the author speculates about.<br /><br />I don't find any suggestion of a belief that there was a "<i>nihilo</i>" state out of which everything sprang.<br /><br />I agree with you that those who make positive claims about what preceded the Planck epoch (as the first moments of the Big Bang are called) are setting aside skepticism, and are vulnerable to the objections you raise. However, I don't think that Big Bang cosmology as a scientific theory suffers from the same problems.Timothy Millshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00373801153623991221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6672880129970799148.post-41570265704318643072010-04-21T14:22:39.280-07:002010-04-21T14:22:39.280-07:00You don't have to deny the law of causation, b...You don't have to deny the law of causation, but you can argue that there are some conditions that must be fulfilled if A wants to cause B. Hume mentioned spatial contiguity and temporal succession. There are counterarguments to the first one (a horn alarms workers that the lunch break is over), but any causation we have ever observed happened in time. The problems I see is with nontemporal causation. How can A cause B if there is no time and space?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6672880129970799148.post-61137604952298259842010-04-21T11:20:22.643-07:002010-04-21T11:20:22.643-07:00Another option is Kant's, and it is undeniably...Another option is Kant's, and it is undeniably elegant. The confusion regarding the beginning of the universe arises when empirical reasoning tries to stretch beyond its boundaries. The paradox of an uncaused "first cause" arises only because we are trying to apply characteristics of our experience (namely, time, things occurring in succession) to things-in-themselves. <br /><br />For Kant, the problem is not one to be solved, but one which indicates the limits of our powers of reasoning. Finite, limited creatures cannot understand the infinite and unconditioned.Vanitashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03190524739107446297noreply@blogger.com