an-saladMarch 28, 2025 at 17:235675 views51 comments
In my opinion, our earthly powers of logic and reason are insufficient to answer such a question.
Comments (51)
flannel jesusMarch 28, 2025 at 17:28#9792760 likes
Yeah humanity will likely never know for sure.
I'm partial to the Mathematical Universe / Ruliad class of ideas, which are both just different ways of expressing "everything that's possible to exist does exist", where "possible" is defined by some domain like mathematics or computations.
In that view, the rules of this universe are simply a system expressible in mathematical or computable terms, and the beginning of this universe is just some starting conditions.
In my opinion, our earthly powers of logic and reason are insufficient to answer such a question.
What is the basis for you opinion? Is this a subject about which you have specific experience or education? Is this a scientific judgment? A religious one? A philosophical one?
As for me - It's not clear the big bang was caused at all.
Yep, especially if notions of time and space come into existence and have sense emerging from the big bang. Thus, asking questions of cause may have little sense. But our imaginations do not want to be bound by any thing physical, thus we our doomed to ask disguised questions that seem intelligible but are really are distress calls for new conceptions.
Reply to an-salad
The physical just has existed since the beginning of time. It is absurd to ask what was before the beginning of time hence it is also absurd to ask what caused the physical before the beginning of time.
DasGegenmittelMarch 28, 2025 at 19:37#9793210 likes
I think its a necessity of structure itself the nature of nature, its underlying architecture. Like how perception structures thinking through differences, which eventually culminates in the consciousness of the difference between self, world, and others. But who knows. Just speaking loosely. I wasn't there as it happened.
Reply to an-salad I'd speculate that before the Big Bang, there were (and still are) fluctuating quantities of energy at the most fundamental level of reality. Possibly more fundamental than spacetime (e.g. it makes little sense to ask what caused something prior spacetime). Their fluctuations arise from the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and it's possible that spacetime emerges from them. When spacetime began to emerge, all the energy of the universe could be released, and that's the Big Bang.
Reply to jkop
Time is the fundamental variable of any physical theory therefore time cannot be an emergent property of such a physical theory since time cannot be the fundamental variable and emergent property at the same time.
Anxiety, neurotic instability, something like that, at a wild guess. A sentient pre-big-bang substance can't cease to exist, but it can act. Not acting I suspect might be absolutely intolerable.
In my opinion, our earthly powers of logic and reason are insufficient to answer such a question.
For almost everything in our space-time Cosmos --- except Dark Energy & Matter --- our scientific logic & reason have proven capable of answering most causal questions. So, I suppose it's temporal empirical Science that you find "insufficient" for such pre-Bang questions*1 for which we have no objective measurable data. And un-earthly powers, such as divine revelation might be suspect, as disguised human opinions.
But, this is a Philosophy forum. So, would you allow theoretical philosophical conjectures*2 in your thread? :smile:
*1. Questions Outside the Scope of Scientific Inquiry :
[i]# Subjective Experiences and Values:
Science is focused on objective, measurable data, so questions about the meaning of life, the value of art, or personal experiences like happiness are not within its purview.
# Morality and Ethics:
Science can analyze the consequences of actions, but it cannot dictate what is right or wrong.
# Supernatural and Divine:
Questions about the existence of gods, ghosts, or other supernatural entities are beyond the scope of scientific investigation, as they deal with concepts that cannot be observed or tested.
# Meaning and Purpose:
While science can explain how things work, it cannot provide answers to questions about the meaning of existence or purpose.[/i]
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=questions+science+can%27t+answer
*2. Questions Philosophy Can Answer :
[i]Philosophy grapples with fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, and reality, often exploring topics like the nature of consciousness, the meaning of life, and the foundations of morality, without necessarily providing definitive answers, but rather encouraging critical thinking and exploration.
Here are some examples of questions that philosophy explores :
# Metaphysics (the nature of reality)[/i] {including Causation?} # The Origin of the Universe: What came before the Big Bang? {First Cause?}
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=questions+science+can%27t+answer
That's a false dichotomy. Here's a link to an article that has many references to current physical theories on emergent spacetime.
The fundamental entities from which time emerges are either dynamic or static. In the first case, we are dealing with my argument. In the second case, we are dealing with strong emergence and I have to say a big no to it.
I think "before" the big bang there is no time dimension. Therefore there is no cause. It is an incausal spontaneous beginning of something. One might assume a god or any other metaphysical entity may have started it, but I guess that's not logical as this idea would re-introduce a time dimension. So the next question is: Since when does logic exist? I would say logic is a timeless principle. Logic isn't linked with any empirical principle. For example, the logical axiom "a statement is either true or false, never both" is valid in general, independent of space and time. Conclusion: The statement "there is no time before the big bang, yet there is a cause before" is a false statement.
Count Timothy von IcarusMarch 30, 2025 at 18:38#9796990 likes
I think "before" the big bang there is no time dimension. Therefore there is no cause. It is an incausal spontaneous beginning of something. One might assume a god or any other metaphysical entity may have started it, but I guess that's not logical as this idea would re-introduce a time dimension. So the next question is: Since when does logic exist? I would say logic is a timeless principle. Logic isn't linked with any empirical principle. For example, the logical axiom "a statement is either true or false, never both" is valid in general, independent of space and time. Conclusion: The statement "there is no time before the big bang, yet there is a cause before" is a false statement.
This would of course rely on a definition of causation as necessarily being temporal. Most of the arguments for God as "First Cause" deny such a deflationary account of causation, and charge that it is conflating generation and creation.
I have used this quote on this topic before, but I'll share it again because I think it is a good one.
Creare [creation] can never be used to indicate the generation of things from or by what is itself a contingent [temporal] finite being.Creation is the act whereby a thing has being; generation is what determines it, at any instant(including the instant of first creation), as this-or-that. As the Nicene Creed makes clear, all things are created by God: whatever is, insofar as it is, participates in self-subsistent being, or it would not be. As Aquinas puts it, a created thing is called created because it is a being, not because it is this being. . . God is the cause, not of some particular kind of being, but of the whole universal being. On the other hand, the changing and ephemeral identities of things are governed by the processes of nature, and in this sense, almost everything is subject to generation and corruption.
One might say: insofar as the metaphysics of Dantes Comedy things exist, they depend directly on the Empyrean; insofar as they exist as this-or-that, most things also depend on nature (particularly on the spheres, beginning from the Primo Mobile).23 All things are therefore created, and most of them are also made. This does not imply that some things (such as the spheres or angels) were created first and then made others. It only means that some things are ontologically dependent on others: there is a hierarchy of being in the order of nature (distinction), in which some things cannot exist as what they are unless a whole series of other things exist as what they are. These other things may be said to
be logically prior or prior in nature, but they are not prior in duration or in time: nothing stands between any thing and the ground of its being. It is in this sense that Aquinas says, The corporeal forms that bodies had when first produced came immediately from God; as he explains, this simply means that in the first production of corporeal creatures no transmutation from potentiality to act can have taken place. In other words, there was no becoming.
This in no way implies that at the moment of first creation the hierarchy of ontological dependence inherent in the distinction of being did not exist, or that in the first production of things God had to do something special, which later the spheres did. The moment of first creation is only conceptually, but not essentially, different from any other: the only difference is that before that moment there was nothing. Indeed, for Aquinas the created world could very well have always existed, with little consequence for the Christian understanding of creation; we only know that the world is not eternal because Scripture tells us so. The act of creation (the radical dependence of all things on the ground of their being at every instant they exist) logically implies, but must not be identified with, the hierarchical dependencies of determinate form within spatiotemporal being.24
Christian Moevs - The Metaphysics of Dante's Comedy - Introduction: Non-Duality and Self-Knowledge - pg. 119-120
The point, as I have said, is that that home (the Empyrean [God]) is nowhere at all. It does not exist in space or time; thus neither does the spatiotemporal world it contains. The Empyrean is the subject of all experience, it is what does the experiencing. As pure awareness or conscious being, its relation to creation, that is, to everything that can be described or talked about, may be metaphorically conceived in one of two ways: It may be imagined as an infinite reality containing the entire universe of every possible object of experience (this cosmological picture is the framework of the Paradiso) or it may be conceived as a point with no extension in either space or time, which projects the world of space and time around itself, as a light paints a halo onto mist. In the Primo Mobile, the ninth sphere, which is the nexus between the Empyrean and the world of multiplicity, between the subject of experience and every possible object of experience, Dante takes both these tacks.
pg. 6
God is First Cause as final cause, as in Aristotle, but also as efficient cause. However, efficient cause does not imply "temporally prior," for there is nothing temporally prior to the creation of time itself. This is a communication of existence, not a mechanical "moving" of what exists prior.
The fundamental entities from which time emerges are either dynamic or static. In the first case, we are dealing with my argument. In the second case, we are dealing with strong emergence and I have to say a big no to it.
Is energy "either dynamic or static"? Its random fluctuations might seem "dynamic", but arise from the uncertainty principle. Perhaps it takes time to fluctuate, or perhaps the fluctuation is part of what generates time? Mass is generated by the Higgs mechanism, and now current research seems suggest that also spacetime is generated / emerges.
As for me - It's not clear the big bang was caused at all.
That is a true statement. Yet, a cosmic explosion of matter & energy that continues to this day is an effectual event that deserves some kind of explanation. Empirical scientists are bound by the requirement for hard evidence to opt out of such questions. But Mathematical scientists and Theoretical Cosmologists do not shy away from implications of Causation. So they postulate a plethora of causes (e.g. quantum fluctuation) that serve for storytelling, but admit no proof. Yet, bringing clarity to confounding questions is the job description for philosophers. So let the speculation begin . . . . with a bang! :smile:
PS___The Count has already begun the count-down to a philosophical distinction between physical Causation and metaphysical Creation.
Yet, a cosmic explosion of matter & energy that continues to this day is an effectual event that deserves some kind of explanation.
This is something I've been wrestling with. My first intuition is that, no, it doesn't need an explanation - at least science doesn't require one. It only needs a description - this is what happens and this is the process by which it happens. Is Newton's law of universal gravitation an explanation? It says there is an attractive force between any two massive objects that is directly proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them. To me that's a description.
So how about general relativity, which supplants Newton's law in extreme situations? Is all the talk about curvatures in space an explanation? That's the question I'm wrestling with. I want to say that's just a story we tell ourselves. The real theory is the mathematics that goes along with it, which is only descriptive. The same issue arises when we talk about quantum mechanics. Are all those different interpretations competing explanations or just stories, with the math doing all the real work?
Is everything we call scientific explanation really just metaphysics?
Reply to Quk I've never seen anything uncaused. I have no reason to think that would fail prior to the big bang. Maybe a better thing would be to say "I want to know why the singularity existed".
I hear and see incausal things all the time: For example in transistor noise (audio amplifiers, analog screens etc.). There are countless micro events in there that occur at random positions and random time. If these were causal and deterministic the noise would turn into a pattern in the long run.
?Quk
I've never seen anything uncaused. I have no reason to think that would fail prior to the big bang. Maybe a better thing would be to say "I want to know why the singularity existed"
Good point. Years ago I published a mathematical result that, more or less in this context and under certain conditions, could be interpreted showing that the further back in time one goes from a current event the less it matters what the starting point is. This assumes no boundaries on what lengths the causal chain extends backward.
The Big Bang seems a bit like an essential singularity in complex analysis, as does a black hole. Absolutely bizarre things happen in its vicinity.
In my opinion, our earthly powers of logic and reason are insufficient to answer such a question.
The big-bang theory must have had been inferred from the observations on the other galaxies with their old stars dying with the explosion, then the new stars being born. What intrigues me more is the existence of our solar system, and especially on the existence of the Earth with all the elements which make life possible. The Earth is a unique star in the universe so far, with all the lives and eco systems fragile they may be.
Is everything we call scientific explanation really just metaphysics?
No. But when scientists go beyond compiling facts to explaining their significance, they are straying into metaphysics, and doing Philosophy. Us amateurs on the Philosophy Forum are not qualified to laboriously extract the facts from raw physics. But we can lean back in our easy-chairs and reason from facts to meanings. The Big Bang theory is generally accepted as an Axiom : a hypothetical fact. But for empirical scientists, that's the end of the story of Cosmology, told in reverse, and summarized as "Poof! let there be matter and motion".
For philosophers though, it's just the beginning of the story of "Life, the Universe, and Everything". Yet, unlike a super-duper-computer, we may not be content with a numerical summary : "42". We want the sexy juicy details, even if we have to make them up, by combining facts with a dash of Logic & a soupçon of imagination. That's called "cooking with Reason".
Unlike religious believers though, when philosophers are given an ex nihilo fact, they respond with ex nihilo, nihil fit. And instinctively look for a ding an sich to explain the contingent claim. Traditionally, that explanation has been an unconditional self-existent Cause, or First Principle. Which, of course, is a Metaphysical reason for being. And the rest is, as they say, history. :smile:
Metaphysics, often considered a branch of philosophy, explores fundamental questions about reality, existence, and the nature of being, going beyond the scope of empirical, physical science.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=science+metaphysics
It depends on the model you use. In the standard model, most of the energies related to the forces are dynamic while the rest mass energy is not. In the string theory, however, all properties of elementary particles are due to the vibration of strings including the rest mass. Each model has however its own problems though. I, however, think that the problems of the string theory can be resolved eventually.
and now current research seems suggest that also spacetime is generated / emerges.
First I have to say that if someone finds a coherent theory of quantum gravity, then that would be like BOMB. There are three main theories of quantum gravity that are widely accepted: 1) String theory, 2) Loop quantum theory, and 3) AdS/CFT, each has its own problems. This article nicely discusses these theories in simple words and explains the problems with the string theory and AdS/CFT theory. This wiki page discusses the problem of loop quantum theory though.
But when scientists go beyond compiling facts to explaining their significance, they are straying into metaphysics, and doing Philosophy
Not if they speculate within the normal scope of science. But, if they conjecture that action at a distance has religious connotations, or that the universe is a reification of mathematics, then, yes.
Count Timothy von IcarusApril 02, 2025 at 12:46#9801940 likes
It's worth noting that the dominant view in cosmology is now that the Big Bang was preceded by and caused by a period of "Cosmic Inflation." Now, there is a problem of equivocation here. "Big Bang" is sometimes used to refer to a specific cosmological event, but more often in common parlance, as "the begining of the universe," a "time zero." Obviously, Cosmic Inflation is not prior to the beginning of the universe. However, certain theories in cosmology, such as Black Hole cosmology, do posit causes prior to "start" of our universe.
But the point I'd like to draw out is that the way the universe is suggests the way it came to be. The whole reason we have the Big Bang theory in the first place is because the dominant theory of an eternal universe could not explain a number of observed features of the cosmos except as "it just is."
If something is truly uncaused, happening for "no reason at all," then there would be no reason to expect it to be one way instead of any other. Yet if we take this tack, we will be left shrugging at any and all phenomena in the early universe and saying "it just is." Theorizing advances by trying to explain what we observe. For instance, there are a number of theories for why the early universe had such a phenomenally low entropy, something that seems incredibly unlikely to have occured by chance if we start with non-informative priors, such as the Principle of Indifference. There are problems with some non-informative priors, but the low entropy and other elements of the Fine Tuning Problem seem unlikely according to all of them. If one of these theories pans out, we certainly wouldn't want to rebut it with "but what is uncaused can have no explanation, so it just is."
I think we could usefully conceive of such efforts as looking at formal causality, not efficient causation. For example, if we lived in a triangular universe à la Flatland, we might come to realize that Euclid's theorems apply to our universe, to its very limits, for instance, that the angels of our universe have a certain relationship because they must have this relationship because of what our triangular cosmos is. Ontic structural realism goes in this direction and seems fairly popular in physics.
And then final cause, something brought up by religious thinkers but what secular thinkers such as Thomas Nagel also might add another level of explanation. But probably most relevant here is trying to expand our notion of efficient cause past mere temporal ordering, as Hume does. Such a vision of causation actually makes understanding any causes essentially impossible. Cause becomes mere conjunction, mere ordering. So, we might look at notions of efficient cause that are less impoverished than mere conjunction, or even mere sufficient mechanism.
You and I have always had different ideas of what is metaphysics and what isn't. It makes it hard for us to have a fruitful discussion.
Yes, I know. For those who have had formal education in philosophy, it's hard to grasp a novel definition of an old term. I have had no academic instruction (indoctrination) in philosophical vocabulary. And until I started posting on this forum, most of my experience was in Science and Engineering. So, as an amateur, I tend to take liberties in my usage of ancient Greek and Catholic terminology, adapting it to our modern knowledge of how the world works.
Note what the examples below have in common*1. They are all abstract concepts with no physical properties. Hence Meta-Physics (beyond substance) refers to all of the non-physical features of the cosmos that emerged from evolution only after the appearance of homo sapiens in the Holocence epoch : i.e. the Anthropocene*2. The Brain is physical, but the Mind is meta-physical. Brain is a material object, but Mind is an immaterial process : a function. Hence, meta-physical*3. By that term, I don't mean super-natural, but merely non-concrete mental abstractions, concepts, ideas, designs, etc. :nerd:
PS___ For the purposes of my personal cosmological thesis, I got my understanding of the term Metaphysics from Aristotle's book on Nature (Phusis), not from Catholic theological doctrine. In my opinion, the Greek philosopher was talking about the kind of abstract ideas in the definition below, not about religious dogma. But, if that archaic word offends you, just substitute the term Mental or Ideal in place of Metaphysical, as I often do, to make a distinction from Material or Real.
*1. Metaphysics : the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.
___Oxford Dictionary
*2. What is Holocene vs Anthropocene? : The Holocene is the only state in which we know humanity can thrive with anything like the 7.5 billion humans being supported today. We have now left the Holocene and are in the transition to the Anthropocene. This new geological epoch was named to acknowledge human influence on the state of the planet.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-15-1443-2_3
Note --- Until the Anthropocene the universe was all Physics all the time. Since then, Meta-Physics (human thoughts & ideas) has accelerated the evolution of our little blue planet (e.g. global warming). Did Aristotle have any inkling of where his notion of "beyond-physics" would take us? Some technical features of 21st century human culture might seem super-natural to him. But, they are merely products of post-natural (i.e. cultural) human engineering.
*3. Meta-physics :
[i]The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled physics - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled metaphysics - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: Ideal as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal forms (concepts) were prior-to the Real substance (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the formal cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).[/i]
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
Not if they speculate within the normal scope of science. But, if they conjecture that action at a distance has religious connotations, or that the universe is a reification of mathematics, then, yes.
I agree. The Big Bang Theory is within the normal scope of empirical science, in that it is a summation of cosmological evidence. They tracked expanding matter backward to see where it came from. But the religious implications of a something-from-nothing beginning provoked Fred Hoyle to ridicule it with a catchy name, that unfortunately stuck.
Since then, numerous atheistic or agnostic scientists have proposed a variety of philosophical extensions of cosmology beyond the empirical evidence : Cyclical Universe ; Brane Cosmology ; Pre-Inflationary Scenarios ; Ekpyrotic Model ; Mathematical Universe models, etc. There's nothing wrong with scientists dabbling in philosophy by speculating beyond the evidence. Even Isaac Newton's Mechanistic Universe theory went beyond the scope of observational science to specify the Lawgiver.
Note the "-ism" suffix below, indicating a belief system. His mathematical theory openly postulated religious connotations. But there's nothing wrong with that, as long as the theory is useful for scientific applications. Scientists did their work for three centuries, despite Newton's theological leanings. :smile:
[i]Newton's philosophy, or "Newtianism," emphasized a mechanistic view of the universe, governed by natural laws, and a focus on empirical observation and mathematical reasoning, as seen in his Principia Mathematica. . . .
While known for his scientific achievements, Newton was also a deeply religious man, believing in a God who created the universe and set its laws in motion[/i]
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=newton+philosophy
For those who have had formal education in philosophy, it's hard to grasp a novel definition of an old term. I have had no academic instruction (indoctrination) in philosophical vocabulary.
I have no formal education in philosophy either. Your use of "indoctrination" in this context shows why it's hard to take your philosophical opinions seriously.
I have no formal education in philosophy either. Your use of "indoctrination" in this context shows why it's hard to take your philosophical opinions seriously.
"Indoctrination" literally means teaching or instruction. But it may be interpreted as implying that the doctrine is supposed to be accepted un-critically. So, I suppose that's why you find it hard to take seriously. Yet, if you were not indoctrinated in college, how did you arrive at your philosophical worldview?
I think you will agree, though, that most of the contentious argumentation on this forum seems to divide along the line between Physics (Materialism) and Metaphysics (Mentalism). Would you also agree that, since the 17th century, academic philosophy has tended to favor Empiricism over the ancient focus on Rationalism. That's the academic bias I was referring to. If you believe in the metaphysics of Materialism, you may think it's biased in favor of "hard Truth" (nothing immaterial), as opposed to the "sweet lies" of Spiritualism.
However, my non-academic personal worldview is intended to include both the observed facts of Materialismand the inferred reasons of Mentalism. It's an attempt to emulate the broad scope of Aristotle's Physics, which included both observed facts of Nature, and the reasoned interpretations of Human Nature, which later came to be labeled : Metaphysics. When Ari talked about Gods, though, he was referring to universal Principles*1, not to the anthro-morphic deities of the Greek religions.
Even modern Science judges its facts according to general principles : Laws of Nature*2. But where did those universal rules come from? In the metaphysics of Materialism, they seem to be taken for granted : i.e. on Faith. Similarly, the ancient Hebrews accepted Moses' ten commandments as revelations from God.
Yet, since I have learned to doubt Blind Faith, I tend to ask embarrassing questions : such as what caused the Big Bang, and where did its Energy & Laws come from? Ironically, such inquiries into universals seem to require something like Aristotle's Gods (abstract principles) to explain them. Or to turn a blind eye to Ontological questions*3.
That may be why Materialists tend to prefer to leave the "why" questions unasked. Which allows them to adopt the condescending position of Nominalism vs Idealism*4. Is that why you find my reasoning beyond Physics, into Metaphysics, not worthy of serious consideration? :smile:
*1. Aristotle conceived of a single, unmoved mover as the ultimate cause of motion and order in the universe, distinct from the traditional Greek gods, and often interpreted as a divine, perfect actuality of thought.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aristotle+gods
*2. The natural laws of the universe, often referred to as universal laws or principles, are fundamental, immutable rules that govern the workings of the cosmos, encompassing everything from the smallest particles to the largest structures.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=natural+laws+of+the+universe
*3. Ontological questions delve into the fundamental nature of existence and reality, exploring what exists and what doesn't, including questions about the existence of God, the nature of consciousness, and the meaning of reality.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=ontological+questions
*4. Idealism and nominalism are contrasting philosophical positions on the nature of reality, specifically concerning universals (general concepts or ideas) and particulars (individual instances). Idealism posits that universals are real and exist independently of particulars, while nominalism denies the existence of universals, asserting that only particulars are real.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=idealism+vs+nominalism
Note --- Are Natural Laws real & particular, or Ideal and universal?
Reply to T Clark Yep. That aversion to those who spend the most time on these issues, and who teach others about them... it's fucked. Like anyone can do that fe-low-so-fee stuff well, 'cause it's just makin' shite up. Might do me some now.
*1. aversion - a new recording of an old song.
*2. teach - that larnin' stuff is for kids.
*3. Shite - it somehow looks clever with the "e".
Would it even be possible for humanity to reach a level of understanding that makes us understand the 'why' behind creation? To see not just the bigger picture, but the entire picture?
In my opinion, based on the information and scientific understanding we currently posses, the universe had a beginning. It is expanding in size and going forward in time. Based on these facts, the Big Bang theory seems most reasonable: an infinite point creating all matter (dark and regular) that sparked the beginning.
This leads me to believe (not know) that there is a 'higher' dimension beyond our universe. A cosmic web that is truly infinite and timeless. There is no such thing as time or space, nor particles or energy. It is nothing yet not nothingness. The web that is the fundamental fabric of not just the universe, but of infinity and eternity. Now you may ponder why this web exists, or what caused it to exist, and to that I must say that I have no clue.
If the cosmic web exists (or, as an alternative term, the 'hidden void'), then at least it explains what our universe is expanding into. This would also mean that the universe is not actually infinite, just incomprehensible in size; ever-expanding and slowly heading towards complete entropy.
Ultimately, we just don't know. We are still far too early in time to even begin to understand these questions, or to start our search for the truth. Will we ever reach this level of understanding? It is not likely, but it is okay to dream.
In my opinion, our earthly powers of logic and reason are insufficient to answer such a question.
Indeed, logic and reason (alone) can't possibly answer the question. Future research and theory may point at an answer, but it seems unlikely that a definitive answer is in reach - because of the limits of available, empirical data.
If the answer is God, then it would lead to another question which is who or what created God. Since one of the definitions of god is the uncreated then that question answers itself. So in my opinion the Big Bang was created by god.
Reply to Quk You did.
But putting that to one side, nothing in that comment gives me any reason to take "random" seriously in it. You not knowing why something occurs doesn't make it random.
I think we could usefully conceive of such efforts as looking at formal causality, not efficient causation. . . . . Ontic structural realism goes in this direction and seems fairly popular in physics.
Ontic Structural Realism is over my head. But it seems to take for granted the timeless existence of real material things (beings) instead of ideal phenomenal percepts that are interpreted from local energetic signals (e.g. light). In any case, OSR seems to be one of several ways to interpret the world based on modern post-quantum physics*1. My own personal (amateur) worldview is also grounded, not in the phenomenal material world, but on the "form or structure" of what we interpret as Reality.
Almost a century ago, astronomers compiled evidence to construct a model of how the cosmos came to be in the structural form it now is : an expanding sphere of material stuff loosely held together by the mutual attraction we call Gravity. Ironically, the Big Bang theory of instantaneous emergence of matter & energy from who-knows-where? left itself open to biblical interpretations. So other scientists & philosophers have spent the last century re-interpreting the astronomical evidence in hopes of proving that Material Reality is an eternal cycling process, which occasionally goes "pop!", to spin-off a new cycle. Hence no creation miracle necessary.
The BB hypothesis assumed that Causal Energy (including its many forms of matter) and Natural Laws (formal restraints) exist eternally. Is Gravity an energetic force, or a formal law of Nature? Presumably, that ante-BB multiverse was generally formally similar to our current implementation of natural laws. Yet, BB theory implies that our bubble universe is gradually expending its allotment of energy, and trending toward the empty tank of max Entropy. So, the open question here is, in the previous multiverse, "what force triggered the Big Bang outburst of a new cycle of space-time, with surprisingly low Entropy" ?
Yesterday, I came across a Quora forum response with the Transcendent Gravity image below. It illustrated a hypothetical alternative to miraculous creation by a powerful divine being. The god-substitute in this case is Gravity --- an "unobservable entity", which is called a "force', as opposed to Einstein's definition as a geometric (formal) relationship. Would you consider Cosmic Creation by Gravity to be Formal or Structural Realism? If Formal, is this creative force Real or Ideal? :smile:
PS___ I apologize if this post is not well-formed. As I said, such abstruse topics are over my curious little head. I wrote it mainly as an excuse to post the image below in the Big Bang thread, to elicit comments.
*1. "The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts." ___Werner Heisenberg
*2. [i]Ontic structural realists argue that current physics teaches us that the nature of space, time and matter are not compatible . . . .
Scientific realism requires belief in the unobservable entities posited by our most successful scientific theories. It is widely held that the most powerful argument in favour of scientific realism is the no-miracles argument, . . . .
Structural realism is often characterised as the view that scientific theories tell us only about the form or structure of the unobservable world and not about its nature. [/i]
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structural-realism/
Note --- Gravity is immanent to the material universe, but it is not actually a vectored Force, it is an omnidirectional Form. Gravity is the interactive relationship between lumps of condensed energy (i.e. matter). You could say that Gravity is the Logical Structure of the universe.
MichaelJCarterApril 18, 2025 at 12:28#9833030 likes
Response to the Forum Article on Cosmology and Causation
The article raises profound questions about causation, cosmic inflation, and the limits of scientific explanation. While I appreciate the nuanced discussion of formal vs. efficient causality, Id like to offer an alternative perspective rooted in the philosophy of Orod Bozorg (????? ????) (Orodism), which harmonizes with certain aspects of steady-state cosmology and challenges the need for a singular "beginning" to the universe.
1. Beyond the Big Bang: Timelessness and Continuous Creation
The article notes the ambiguity in defining the "Big Bang" as either a specific event or a metaphorical "time zero." Orodism rejects the notion of a temporal starting point altogether, echoing the steady-state models assertion that the universe is eternal and dynamically evolving. Orod Bozorgs maxim, "The cosmos is without beginning or end; we are its branches, here to blossom", emphasizes a universe in perpetual transformationwhere "creation" is not a past event but an ongoing process. This aligns with the articles critique of non-informative priors: if the universes low entropy appears improbable, perhaps its because were imposing temporal boundaries on a fundamentally timeless reality.
2. Structural Realism and Human Agency
The articles reference to ontic structural realism resonates with Orodisms view of the cosmos as a dynamic, interconnected whole. Orod Bozorg teaches that humans are not passive observers but active participants in cosmic evolution ("We are part of the cosmos branches, meant to flourish and gift it new beauty"). This mirrors the articles call to move beyond Humean causation: if causation isnt merely temporal succession, then human creativity and ethical action (final causes) become part of the universes explanatory fabric.
3. Cosmic Inflation vs. Steady-State Principles
While cosmic inflation attempts to explain the Big Bangs initial conditions, Orodismlike the steady-state modelposits a universe where matter and energy are in continuous renewal, avoiding the need for a singularity. The steady-state theorys dismissal by mainstream cosmology (due to the CMB) doesnt negate its philosophical value: it challenges us to question whether "beginning" is a necessary metaphysical category. As explored in "The Similarities Between Orod Bozorgs Philosophy and the Steady-State Model" (Nahid Nazari, 2023), both frameworks share a rejection of temporal finitude in favor of infinite becoming.
4. Fine-Tuning and the Role of Explanation
The article rightly questions whether we should accept fine-tuning as a brute fact. Orodism offers a middle path: the universes apparent fine-tuning reflects not chance but the inherent harmony of a self-sustaining system. Orod Bozorgs principle of "dynamic harmony" suggests that what we call "fine-tuning" may simply be the universes natural state of balancea structural necessity rather than a contingent outcome.
Conclusion: Toward a Synthesis
The articles exploration of causality would benefit from integrating Orodist metaphysics, where formal and final causes coexist with scientific models. By embracing a universe that is eternal, participatory, and structurally coherent, we avoid the dead end of "it just is" and instead affirm a cosmos that invites both scientific and philosophical engagement.
For further reading, I recommend "Dialectics in the Philosophy of Orodism" (Vancouver Association, 2023), which delves into these parallels with modern cosmology.
Reply to an-salad
According to some scientist the Big Bang was just a theory created to help them model the universe, but lately there has been some discoveries that have been found (such as galaxies that are older than the Big Bang itself) that call into question whether the Big Bang ever happened.
IHMO, it is probably best to not think too much about why a scientific model/theory is the way it is because they are really just meant as a tools for trying to understand a complex subject and may not reflect how reality really works. In a way it is like trying to guess why thing in Game of Thrones world is the way it is. In fictional worlds this are just the way they are according to the author, and try to second guess what something might be if he never thought about it is basically like a dog trying to chase it's own tail. :chin:
Reply to an-salad My own belief is that the universe never actually started in the BB... as the song goes there's no beginning and there's no ending...
Comments (51)
I'm partial to the Mathematical Universe / Ruliad class of ideas, which are both just different ways of expressing "everything that's possible to exist does exist", where "possible" is defined by some domain like mathematics or computations.
In that view, the rules of this universe are simply a system expressible in mathematical or computable terms, and the beginning of this universe is just some starting conditions.
What is the basis for you opinion? Is this a subject about which you have specific experience or education? Is this a scientific judgment? A religious one? A philosophical one?
As for me - It's not clear the big bang was caused at all.
Quoting T Clark
:up:
:up:
The physical just has existed since the beginning of time. It is absurd to ask what was before the beginning of time hence it is also absurd to ask what caused the physical before the beginning of time.
Time is the fundamental variable of any physical theory therefore time cannot be an emergent property of such a physical theory since time cannot be the fundamental variable and emergent property at the same time.
That's a false dichotomy. Here's a link to an article that has many references to current physical theories on emergent spacetime.
Quoting an-salad
For almost everything in our space-time Cosmos --- except Dark Energy & Matter --- our scientific logic & reason have proven capable of answering most causal questions. So, I suppose it's temporal empirical Science that you find "insufficient" for such pre-Bang questions*1 for which we have no objective measurable data. And un-earthly powers, such as divine revelation might be suspect, as disguised human opinions.
But, this is a Philosophy forum. So, would you allow theoretical philosophical conjectures*2 in your thread? :smile:
*1. Questions Outside the Scope of Scientific Inquiry :
[i]# Subjective Experiences and Values:
Science is focused on objective, measurable data, so questions about the meaning of life, the value of art, or personal experiences like happiness are not within its purview.
# Morality and Ethics:
Science can analyze the consequences of actions, but it cannot dictate what is right or wrong.
# Supernatural and Divine:
Questions about the existence of gods, ghosts, or other supernatural entities are beyond the scope of scientific investigation, as they deal with concepts that cannot be observed or tested.
# Meaning and Purpose:
While science can explain how things work, it cannot provide answers to questions about the meaning of existence or purpose.[/i]
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=questions+science+can%27t+answer
*2. Questions Philosophy Can Answer :
[i]Philosophy grapples with fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, and reality, often exploring topics like the nature of consciousness, the meaning of life, and the foundations of morality, without necessarily providing definitive answers, but rather encouraging critical thinking and exploration.
Here are some examples of questions that philosophy explores :
# Metaphysics (the nature of reality)[/i] {including Causation?}
# The Origin of the Universe: What came before the Big Bang? {First Cause?}
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=questions+science+can%27t+answer
The fundamental entities from which time emerges are either dynamic or static. In the first case, we are dealing with my argument. In the second case, we are dealing with strong emergence and I have to say a big no to it.
This would of course rely on a definition of causation as necessarily being temporal. Most of the arguments for God as "First Cause" deny such a deflationary account of causation, and charge that it is conflating generation and creation.
I have used this quote on this topic before, but I'll share it again because I think it is a good one.
God is First Cause as final cause, as in Aristotle, but also as efficient cause. However, efficient cause does not imply "temporally prior," for there is nothing temporally prior to the creation of time itself. This is a communication of existence, not a mechanical "moving" of what exists prior.
Is energy "either dynamic or static"? Its random fluctuations might seem "dynamic", but arise from the uncertainty principle. Perhaps it takes time to fluctuate, or perhaps the fluctuation is part of what generates time? Mass is generated by the Higgs mechanism, and now current research seems suggest that also spacetime is generated / emerges.
That is a true statement. Yet, a cosmic explosion of matter & energy that continues to this day is an effectual event that deserves some kind of explanation. Empirical scientists are bound by the requirement for hard evidence to opt out of such questions. But Mathematical scientists and Theoretical Cosmologists do not shy away from implications of Causation. So they postulate a plethora of causes (e.g. quantum fluctuation) that serve for storytelling, but admit no proof. Yet, bringing clarity to confounding questions is the job description for philosophers. So let the speculation begin . . . . with a bang! :smile:
PS___The Count has already begun the count-down to a philosophical distinction between physical Causation and metaphysical Creation.
This is something I've been wrestling with. My first intuition is that, no, it doesn't need an explanation - at least science doesn't require one. It only needs a description - this is what happens and this is the process by which it happens. Is Newton's law of universal gravitation an explanation? It says there is an attractive force between any two massive objects that is directly proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them. To me that's a description.
So how about general relativity, which supplants Newton's law in extreme situations? Is all the talk about curvatures in space an explanation? That's the question I'm wrestling with. I want to say that's just a story we tell ourselves. The real theory is the mathematics that goes along with it, which is only descriptive. The same issue arises when we talk about quantum mechanics. Are all those different interpretations competing explanations or just stories, with the math doing all the real work?
Is everything we call scientific explanation really just metaphysics?
Why do you assume there is any causality "before" the big bang?
Good point. Years ago I published a mathematical result that, more or less in this context and under certain conditions, could be interpreted showing that the further back in time one goes from a current event the less it matters what the starting point is. This assumes no boundaries on what lengths the causal chain extends backward.
The Big Bang seems a bit like an essential singularity in complex analysis, as does a black hole. Absolutely bizarre things happen in its vicinity.
The big-bang theory must have had been inferred from the observations on the other galaxies with their old stars dying with the explosion, then the new stars being born. What intrigues me more is the existence of our solar system, and especially on the existence of the Earth with all the elements which make life possible. The Earth is a unique star in the universe so far, with all the lives and eco systems fragile they may be.
No. But when scientists go beyond compiling facts to explaining their significance, they are straying into metaphysics, and doing Philosophy. Us amateurs on the Philosophy Forum are not qualified to laboriously extract the facts from raw physics. But we can lean back in our easy-chairs and reason from facts to meanings. The Big Bang theory is generally accepted as an Axiom : a hypothetical fact. But for empirical scientists, that's the end of the story of Cosmology, told in reverse, and summarized as "Poof! let there be matter and motion".
For philosophers though, it's just the beginning of the story of "Life, the Universe, and Everything". Yet, unlike a super-duper-computer, we may not be content with a numerical summary : "42". We want the sexy juicy details, even if we have to make them up, by combining facts with a dash of Logic & a soupçon of imagination. That's called "cooking with Reason".
Unlike religious believers though, when philosophers are given an ex nihilo fact, they respond with ex nihilo, nihil fit. And instinctively look for a ding an sich to explain the contingent claim. Traditionally, that explanation has been an unconditional self-existent Cause, or First Principle. Which, of course, is a Metaphysical reason for being. And the rest is, as they say, history. :smile:
Metaphysics, often considered a branch of philosophy, explores fundamental questions about reality, existence, and the nature of being, going beyond the scope of empirical, physical science.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=science+metaphysics
It depends on the model you use. In the standard model, most of the energies related to the forces are dynamic while the rest mass energy is not. In the string theory, however, all properties of elementary particles are due to the vibration of strings including the rest mass. Each model has however its own problems though. I, however, think that the problems of the string theory can be resolved eventually.
Quoting jkop
Fluctuations are indeed dynamic things.
Quoting jkop
That is not an acceptable statement. Please read the last comment.
Quoting jkop
That is not an acceptable statement either. Please read the last comment.
Quoting jkop
Correct in the standard model. The mass however explained as the vibration of strings in the string theory.
Quoting jkop
First I have to say that if someone finds a coherent theory of quantum gravity, then that would be like BOMB. There are three main theories of quantum gravity that are widely accepted: 1) String theory, 2) Loop quantum theory, and 3) AdS/CFT, each has its own problems. This article nicely discusses these theories in simple words and explains the problems with the string theory and AdS/CFT theory. This wiki page discusses the problem of loop quantum theory though.
You and I have always had different ideas of what is metaphysics and what isn't. It makes it hard for us to have a fruitful discussion.
Not if they speculate within the normal scope of science. But, if they conjecture that action at a distance has religious connotations, or that the universe is a reification of mathematics, then, yes.
But the point I'd like to draw out is that the way the universe is suggests the way it came to be. The whole reason we have the Big Bang theory in the first place is because the dominant theory of an eternal universe could not explain a number of observed features of the cosmos except as "it just is."
If something is truly uncaused, happening for "no reason at all," then there would be no reason to expect it to be one way instead of any other. Yet if we take this tack, we will be left shrugging at any and all phenomena in the early universe and saying "it just is." Theorizing advances by trying to explain what we observe. For instance, there are a number of theories for why the early universe had such a phenomenally low entropy, something that seems incredibly unlikely to have occured by chance if we start with non-informative priors, such as the Principle of Indifference. There are problems with some non-informative priors, but the low entropy and other elements of the Fine Tuning Problem seem unlikely according to all of them. If one of these theories pans out, we certainly wouldn't want to rebut it with "but what is uncaused can have no explanation, so it just is."
I think we could usefully conceive of such efforts as looking at formal causality, not efficient causation. For example, if we lived in a triangular universe à la Flatland, we might come to realize that Euclid's theorems apply to our universe, to its very limits, for instance, that the angels of our universe have a certain relationship because they must have this relationship because of what our triangular cosmos is. Ontic structural realism goes in this direction and seems fairly popular in physics.
And then final cause, something brought up by religious thinkers but what secular thinkers such as Thomas Nagel also might add another level of explanation. But probably most relevant here is trying to expand our notion of efficient cause past mere temporal ordering, as Hume does. Such a vision of causation actually makes understanding any causes essentially impossible. Cause becomes mere conjunction, mere ordering. So, we might look at notions of efficient cause that are less impoverished than mere conjunction, or even mere sufficient mechanism.
Yes, I know. For those who have had formal education in philosophy, it's hard to grasp a novel definition of an old term. I have had no academic instruction (indoctrination) in philosophical vocabulary. And until I started posting on this forum, most of my experience was in Science and Engineering. So, as an amateur, I tend to take liberties in my usage of ancient Greek and Catholic terminology, adapting it to our modern knowledge of how the world works.
Note what the examples below have in common*1. They are all abstract concepts with no physical properties. Hence Meta-Physics (beyond substance) refers to all of the non-physical features of the cosmos that emerged from evolution only after the appearance of homo sapiens in the Holocence epoch : i.e. the Anthropocene*2. The Brain is physical, but the Mind is meta-physical. Brain is a material object, but Mind is an immaterial process : a function. Hence, meta-physical*3. By that term, I don't mean super-natural, but merely non-concrete mental abstractions, concepts, ideas, designs, etc. :nerd:
PS___ For the purposes of my personal cosmological thesis, I got my understanding of the term Metaphysics from Aristotle's book on Nature (Phusis), not from Catholic theological doctrine. In my opinion, the Greek philosopher was talking about the kind of abstract ideas in the definition below, not about religious dogma. But, if that archaic word offends you, just substitute the term Mental or Ideal in place of Metaphysical, as I often do, to make a distinction from Material or Real.
*1. Metaphysics :
the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.
___Oxford Dictionary
*2. What is Holocene vs Anthropocene? :
The Holocene is the only state in which we know humanity can thrive with anything like the 7.5 billion humans being supported today. We have now left the Holocene and are in the transition to the Anthropocene. This new geological epoch was named to acknowledge human influence on the state of the planet.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-15-1443-2_3
Note --- Until the Anthropocene the universe was all Physics all the time. Since then, Meta-Physics (human thoughts & ideas) has accelerated the evolution of our little blue planet (e.g. global warming). Did Aristotle have any inkling of where his notion of "beyond-physics" would take us? Some technical features of 21st century human culture might seem super-natural to him. But, they are merely products of post-natural (i.e. cultural) human engineering.
*3. Meta-physics :
[i]The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled physics - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled metaphysics - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: Ideal as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal forms (concepts) were prior-to the Real substance (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the formal cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).[/i]
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
I agree. The Big Bang Theory is within the normal scope of empirical science, in that it is a summation of cosmological evidence. They tracked expanding matter backward to see where it came from. But the religious implications of a something-from-nothing beginning provoked Fred Hoyle to ridicule it with a catchy name, that unfortunately stuck.
Since then, numerous atheistic or agnostic scientists have proposed a variety of philosophical extensions of cosmology beyond the empirical evidence : Cyclical Universe ; Brane Cosmology ; Pre-Inflationary Scenarios ; Ekpyrotic Model ; Mathematical Universe models, etc. There's nothing wrong with scientists dabbling in philosophy by speculating beyond the evidence. Even Isaac Newton's Mechanistic Universe theory went beyond the scope of observational science to specify the Lawgiver.
Note the "-ism" suffix below, indicating a belief system. His mathematical theory openly postulated religious connotations. But there's nothing wrong with that, as long as the theory is useful for scientific applications. Scientists did their work for three centuries, despite Newton's theological leanings. :smile:
[i]Newton's philosophy, or "Newtianism," emphasized a mechanistic view of the universe, governed by natural laws, and a focus on empirical observation and mathematical reasoning, as seen in his Principia Mathematica. . . .
While known for his scientific achievements, Newton was also a deeply religious man, believing in a God who created the universe and set its laws in motion[/i]
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=newton+philosophy
I have no formal education in philosophy either. Your use of "indoctrination" in this context shows why it's hard to take your philosophical opinions seriously.
Nuff said.
"Indoctrination" literally means teaching or instruction. But it may be interpreted as implying that the doctrine is supposed to be accepted un-critically. So, I suppose that's why you find it hard to take seriously. Yet, if you were not indoctrinated in college, how did you arrive at your philosophical worldview?
I think you will agree, though, that most of the contentious argumentation on this forum seems to divide along the line between Physics (Materialism) and Metaphysics (Mentalism). Would you also agree that, since the 17th century, academic philosophy has tended to favor Empiricism over the ancient focus on Rationalism. That's the academic bias I was referring to. If you believe in the metaphysics of Materialism, you may think it's biased in favor of "hard Truth" (nothing immaterial), as opposed to the "sweet lies" of Spiritualism.
However, my non-academic personal worldview is intended to include both the observed facts of Materialism and the inferred reasons of Mentalism. It's an attempt to emulate the broad scope of Aristotle's Physics, which included both observed facts of Nature, and the reasoned interpretations of Human Nature, which later came to be labeled : Metaphysics. When Ari talked about Gods, though, he was referring to universal Principles*1, not to the anthro-morphic deities of the Greek religions.
Even modern Science judges its facts according to general principles : Laws of Nature*2. But where did those universal rules come from? In the metaphysics of Materialism, they seem to be taken for granted : i.e. on Faith. Similarly, the ancient Hebrews accepted Moses' ten commandments as revelations from God.
Yet, since I have learned to doubt Blind Faith, I tend to ask embarrassing questions : such as what caused the Big Bang, and where did its Energy & Laws come from? Ironically, such inquiries into universals seem to require something like Aristotle's Gods (abstract principles) to explain them. Or to turn a blind eye to Ontological questions*3.
That may be why Materialists tend to prefer to leave the "why" questions unasked. Which allows them to adopt the condescending position of Nominalism vs Idealism*4. Is that why you find my reasoning beyond Physics, into Metaphysics, not worthy of serious consideration? :smile:
*1. Aristotle conceived of a single, unmoved mover as the ultimate cause of motion and order in the universe, distinct from the traditional Greek gods, and often interpreted as a divine, perfect actuality of thought.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aristotle+gods
*2. The natural laws of the universe, often referred to as universal laws or principles, are fundamental, immutable rules that govern the workings of the cosmos, encompassing everything from the smallest particles to the largest structures.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=natural+laws+of+the+universe
*3. Ontological questions delve into the fundamental nature of existence and reality, exploring what exists and what doesn't, including questions about the existence of God, the nature of consciousness, and the meaning of reality.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=ontological+questions
*4. Idealism and nominalism are contrasting philosophical positions on the nature of reality, specifically concerning universals (general concepts or ideas) and particulars (individual instances). Idealism posits that universals are real and exist independently of particulars, while nominalism denies the existence of universals, asserting that only particulars are real.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=idealism+vs+nominalism
Note --- Are Natural Laws real & particular, or Ideal and universal?
Again, you and I don't have enough in common to have a fruitful discussion.
*1. aversion - a new recording of an old song.
*2. teach - that larnin' stuff is for kids.
*3. Shite - it somehow looks clever with the "e".
Accordion to the web, aversion means a strong dislike or disinclination.
Or triple JJJ
Might be too local.
Would it even be possible for humanity to reach a level of understanding that makes us understand the 'why' behind creation? To see not just the bigger picture, but the entire picture?
In my opinion, based on the information and scientific understanding we currently posses, the universe had a beginning. It is expanding in size and going forward in time. Based on these facts, the Big Bang theory seems most reasonable: an infinite point creating all matter (dark and regular) that sparked the beginning.
This leads me to believe (not know) that there is a 'higher' dimension beyond our universe. A cosmic web that is truly infinite and timeless. There is no such thing as time or space, nor particles or energy. It is nothing yet not nothingness. The web that is the fundamental fabric of not just the universe, but of infinity and eternity. Now you may ponder why this web exists, or what caused it to exist, and to that I must say that I have no clue.
If the cosmic web exists (or, as an alternative term, the 'hidden void'), then at least it explains what our universe is expanding into. This would also mean that the universe is not actually infinite, just incomprehensible in size; ever-expanding and slowly heading towards complete entropy.
Ultimately, we just don't know. We are still far too early in time to even begin to understand these questions, or to start our search for the truth. Will we ever reach this level of understanding? It is not likely, but it is okay to dream.
Indeed, logic and reason (alone) can't possibly answer the question. Future research and theory may point at an answer, but it seems unlikely that a definitive answer is in reach - because of the limits of available, empirical data.
Being comes from non-being.
The cause of the universe is the non-existence of God. If there was God already, the universe would be superfluous.
One can say anything and probably be wrong about it.
But putting that to one side, nothing in that comment gives me any reason to take "random" seriously in it. You not knowing why something occurs doesn't make it random.
Ontic Structural Realism is over my head. But it seems to take for granted the timeless existence of real material things (beings) instead of ideal phenomenal percepts that are interpreted from local energetic signals (e.g. light). In any case, OSR seems to be one of several ways to interpret the world based on modern post-quantum physics*1. My own personal (amateur) worldview is also grounded, not in the phenomenal material world, but on the "form or structure" of what we interpret as Reality.
Almost a century ago, astronomers compiled evidence to construct a model of how the cosmos came to be in the structural form it now is : an expanding sphere of material stuff loosely held together by the mutual attraction we call Gravity. Ironically, the Big Bang theory of instantaneous emergence of matter & energy from who-knows-where? left itself open to biblical interpretations. So other scientists & philosophers have spent the last century re-interpreting the astronomical evidence in hopes of proving that Material Reality is an eternal cycling process, which occasionally goes "pop!", to spin-off a new cycle. Hence no creation miracle necessary.
The BB hypothesis assumed that Causal Energy (including its many forms of matter) and Natural Laws (formal restraints) exist eternally. Is Gravity an energetic force, or a formal law of Nature? Presumably, that ante-BB multiverse was generally formally similar to our current implementation of natural laws. Yet, BB theory implies that our bubble universe is gradually expending its allotment of energy, and trending toward the empty tank of max Entropy. So, the open question here is, in the previous multiverse, "what force triggered the Big Bang outburst of a new cycle of space-time, with surprisingly low Entropy" ?
Yesterday, I came across a Quora forum response with the Transcendent Gravity image below. It illustrated a hypothetical alternative to miraculous creation by a powerful divine being. The god-substitute in this case is Gravity --- an "unobservable entity", which is called a "force', as opposed to Einstein's definition as a geometric (formal) relationship. Would you consider Cosmic Creation by Gravity to be Formal or Structural Realism? If Formal, is this creative force Real or Ideal? :smile:
PS___ I apologize if this post is not well-formed. As I said, such abstruse topics are over my curious little head. I wrote it mainly as an excuse to post the image below in the Big Bang thread, to elicit comments.
*1. "The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts." ___Werner Heisenberg
*2. [i]Ontic structural realists argue that current physics teaches us that the nature of space, time and matter are not compatible . . . .
Scientific realism requires belief in the unobservable entities posited by our most successful scientific theories. It is widely held that the most powerful argument in favour of scientific realism is the no-miracles argument, . . . .
Structural realism is often characterised as the view that scientific theories tell us only about the form or structure of the unobservable world and not about its nature. [/i]
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structural-realism/
Note --- Gravity is immanent to the material universe, but it is not actually a vectored Force, it is an omnidirectional Form. Gravity is the interactive relationship between lumps of condensed energy (i.e. matter). You could say that Gravity is the Logical Structure of the universe.
Response to the Forum Article on Cosmology and Causation
The article raises profound questions about causation, cosmic inflation, and the limits of scientific explanation. While I appreciate the nuanced discussion of formal vs. efficient causality, Id like to offer an alternative perspective rooted in the philosophy of Orod Bozorg (????? ????) (Orodism), which harmonizes with certain aspects of steady-state cosmology and challenges the need for a singular "beginning" to the universe.
1. Beyond the Big Bang: Timelessness and Continuous Creation
The article notes the ambiguity in defining the "Big Bang" as either a specific event or a metaphorical "time zero." Orodism rejects the notion of a temporal starting point altogether, echoing the steady-state models assertion that the universe is eternal and dynamically evolving. Orod Bozorgs maxim, "The cosmos is without beginning or end; we are its branches, here to blossom", emphasizes a universe in perpetual transformationwhere "creation" is not a past event but an ongoing process. This aligns with the articles critique of non-informative priors: if the universes low entropy appears improbable, perhaps its because were imposing temporal boundaries on a fundamentally timeless reality.
2. Structural Realism and Human Agency
The articles reference to ontic structural realism resonates with Orodisms view of the cosmos as a dynamic, interconnected whole. Orod Bozorg teaches that humans are not passive observers but active participants in cosmic evolution ("We are part of the cosmos branches, meant to flourish and gift it new beauty"). This mirrors the articles call to move beyond Humean causation: if causation isnt merely temporal succession, then human creativity and ethical action (final causes) become part of the universes explanatory fabric.
3. Cosmic Inflation vs. Steady-State Principles
While cosmic inflation attempts to explain the Big Bangs initial conditions, Orodismlike the steady-state modelposits a universe where matter and energy are in continuous renewal, avoiding the need for a singularity. The steady-state theorys dismissal by mainstream cosmology (due to the CMB) doesnt negate its philosophical value: it challenges us to question whether "beginning" is a necessary metaphysical category. As explored in "The Similarities Between Orod Bozorgs Philosophy and the Steady-State Model" (Nahid Nazari, 2023), both frameworks share a rejection of temporal finitude in favor of infinite becoming.
4. Fine-Tuning and the Role of Explanation
The article rightly questions whether we should accept fine-tuning as a brute fact. Orodism offers a middle path: the universes apparent fine-tuning reflects not chance but the inherent harmony of a self-sustaining system. Orod Bozorgs principle of "dynamic harmony" suggests that what we call "fine-tuning" may simply be the universes natural state of balancea structural necessity rather than a contingent outcome.
Conclusion: Toward a Synthesis
The articles exploration of causality would benefit from integrating Orodist metaphysics, where formal and final causes coexist with scientific models. By embracing a universe that is eternal, participatory, and structurally coherent, we avoid the dead end of "it just is" and instead affirm a cosmos that invites both scientific and philosophical engagement.
For further reading, I recommend "Dialectics in the Philosophy of Orodism" (Vancouver Association, 2023), which delves into these parallels with modern cosmology.
According to some scientist the Big Bang was just a theory created to help them model the universe, but lately there has been some discoveries that have been found (such as galaxies that are older than the Big Bang itself) that call into question whether the Big Bang ever happened.
IHMO, it is probably best to not think too much about why a scientific model/theory is the way it is because they are really just meant as a tools for trying to understand a complex subject and may not reflect how reality really works. In a way it is like trying to guess why thing in Game of Thrones world is the way it is. In fictional worlds this are just the way they are according to the author, and try to second guess what something might be if he never thought about it is basically like a dog trying to chase it's own tail. :chin: