Did the universe pop out of nowhere and nothing?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm just checking with him that that is what he means. Attempted derail noted.

Stop lying. You were misrepresenting him.

No i'm after what is necessary in the universe.

What's necessary in a deterministic universe is cause and effect. Nothing more.

[jeremyp]

OK So the universe is more than the things in it...…...and what is left after you take away all the contingent things must be what is necessary...….Is that what you are saying?

or are you saying that the necessary is an emergent property from the contingent things in it?

I'm simply saying that the Universe is not the things in it. Claiming that everything in the Universe is contingent is fine. Claiming that the Universe is therefore contingent is a fallacy. You're attempt to trap me in a circularity fails.

[Gordon]

OK So the universe is more than the things in it...…...and what is left after you take away all the contingent things must be what is necessary...….Is that what you are saying?

or are you saying that the necessary is an emergent property from the contingent things in it?

I suspect you might wandering too close to the fallacy of composition, Vlad.

That the universe contains lots of contingent things does not necessarily mean that the universe must itself be contingent. If the universe is eternal, and I'm not saying it is, then the universe has always existed and there was never a time when the universe didn't exist and therefore the "spacio-temporal" you mentioned previously is a given, and the idea of something necessary that is outwith the universe becomes redundant.

I've heard some Christians apply this approach to their claim of God - so if it can be said that God 'just is' then it could also be said that the universe 'just is'. Of course it is too soon to say - not enough information you see.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm simply saying that the Universe is not the things in it. Claiming that everything in the Universe is contingent is fine. Claiming that the Universe is therefore contingent is a fallacy. You're attempt to trap me in a circularity fails.

So the universe is not the things in it......or not just the things in it?

That the universe is just the things in it would make the universe contingent is making the fallacy of composition?

That necessity of the universe is not an emergent property?

Have I got this right and if not are you going to tell us how things in the universe are not part of it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I suspect you might wandering too close to the fallacy of composition, Vlad.

That the universe contains lots of contingent things does not necessarily mean that the universe must itself be contingent.

But we also know that it doesn't mean it definitely isn't.

My contention is actually that if all we can observe in the universe is contingent then what is necessary isn't being observed not that it isn't there. I am saying there must be more than contingent things. I am not making then the fallacy of composition.

 You cannot have contingency without necessity.....that too would be fallacious, Gordon

[Gordon]

But we also know that it doesn't mean it definitely isn't.

My contention is actually that if all we can observe in the universe is contingent then what is necessary isn't being observed not that it isn't there. I am saying there must be more than contingent things. I am not making then the fallacy of composition.

You would be if you presumed that since all you can observe of the universe (the part) is contingent then the universe itself (the whole) must also be contingent: it may be, but to confirm that you would need to demonstrate a 'necessary' that is, as you said yesterday, "non spacio temporal".

Moreover, if you allow that there might be a 'necessary' then why can this not be the universe itself and not your preferred 'God', and if you stick with 'God' how do you know that your preferred 'God' isn't itself contingent? An eternal universe would be far tidier, but as I said we don't have enough information as yet.

You cannot have contingency without necessity.....that too would be fallacious, Gordon

Which fallacy do you have in mind?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You would be if you presumed that since all you can observe of the universe (the part) is contingent then the universe itself (the whole) must also be contingent:

Yes but i'm not because I am saying that if we dismiss an external creator and spontaneous existence we are left with an eternal universe which contains both the necessary and the contingent.

I cannot be making the fallacy of composition because I am not contending that the universe is just the contingent parts.

I don't know the name of the fallacy but if you are claiming you can have contingency without necessity then you are in the wrong.

[Gordon]

Yes but i'm not because I am saying that if we dismiss an external creator and spontaneous existence we are left with an eternal universe which contains both the necessary and the contingent.

No - if the universe is itself eternal then I doubt it 'contains' anything that is also eternal, where everything in it that we can know is contingent.

I cannot be making the fallacy of composition because I am not contending that the universe is just the contingent parts

If you recognise that parts of the universe are contingent and then you conclude that the whole universe is contingent, which you would have do if you also claimed a 'necessary' that is external to the universe (the non spacio temporal you mentioned - like 'God'), then you could well be committing the fallacy of composition by denying that the universe could not be an eternal but your choice of 'God' must be. 

I don't know the name of the fallacy but if you are claiming you can have contingency without necessity then you are in the wrong.

I'll always concede the possibility that I might be wrong, and I can see that the dichotomy of contingency vs necessity looks nailed-on and in a sense comforting for those who would like of First Cause called 'God'. However, there remains the issue of how to even conceptualise something that is eternal or a necessary is "non spacio temporal", and of course it is important to recognise that there may be some relevant 'unknown unknowns' down the road somewhere that we might one day discover, or maybe not discover, that in some ways extend beyond the assumption that the only options are contingency vs necessity.

Perhaps we should progress on this at some future point - say 500 years or so from now. 

   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No - if the universe is itself eternal then I doubt it 'contains' anything that is also eternal, where everything in it that we can know is contingent.
 

And yet again I have to inform you that what we know does not affect whatever IS in any shape or form.

Secondly, To have contingency without necessity is illogical and irrational. Are you illogical and irrational Gordon?

[jeremyp]

So the universe is not the things in it......or not just the things in it?

It's pretty clear which of those two things I said.

That the universe is just the things in it would make the universe contingent is making the fallacy of composition?

No. You are making the fallacy of composition when you claim that everything in the universe being contingent makes the universe contingent.

That necessity of the universe is not an emergent property?

You tell me. I'm not claiming that the  necessity of the Universe (if it is indeed necessary) is an emergent property.

Have I got this right

Have you got anything right?

and if not are you going to tell us how things in the universe are not part of it?

I didn't say things in the Universe are not part of the Universe.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you recognise that parts of the universe are contingent and then you conclude that the whole universe is contingent, which you would have do if you also claimed a 'necessary' that is external to the universe (the non spacio temporal you mentioned - like 'God'), then you could well be committing the fallacy of composition by denying that the universe could not be an eternal but your choice of 'God' must be. 

We have not actually eliminated the possibility of external creation or spontaneous appearance.

If we do not know the necessity in the universe that has no bearing on the existence of the necessity.

[jeremyp]

Yes but i'm not because I am saying that if we dismiss an external creator and spontaneous existence we are left with an eternal universe which contains both the necessary and the contingent.

Wrong.

It would be necessary and contain the contingent.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wrong.

It would be necessary and contain the contingent.

OK, show me the necessary.

[Outrider]

extra universal correlate of physical processes? Intrigued......Tell  on, please.

No idea, we have no information (that I'm aware of, at least) on which to base an understanding.

O.

[jeremyp]

OK, show me the necessity.

Why? That the universe is necessary is an assumption we have been working under. I have no idea if it really is or not.

The point is that your arguments are fallacious and you have failed to exclude the possibility that the Universe is necessary.

[Gordon]

And yet again I have to inform you that what we know does not affect whatever IS in any shape or form.

I'd say the real issue here is what we don't know, Vlad.

Secondly, To have contingency without necessity is illogical and irrational. Are you illogical and irrational Gordon?

No doubt at times I am, not being perfect, but I am also circumspect when it comes to issues like this, and the nature of the universe is a pretty big issue. I'm not as certain as you seem to be, Vlad, and since you mentioned Russell earlier I refer you to his advice: "Do not feel absolutely certain of anything".

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-nature-nurture-nietzsche-blog/201509/bertrand-russells-ten-commandments-0

[Outrider]

If the universe is eternally old then I think we would be justified in observing that it would be like a perpetual motion machine. What is it then that keeps it going? If nothing external......what is necessary, inside the universe?

The apparent fact that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only altered in form...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I didn't say things in the Universe are not part of the Universe.

So they are PART of the universe...…..Where and what is the rest ?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The apparent fact that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only altered in form...

O.

So energy is the necessary?

[Outrider]

God is necessary and therefore is not contingent...…...on anything to keep him going.

Based on... what, exactly?  How did you come to the conclusion that a god is dependent solely upon itself? Where did the god come from?

The universe is observed to be entirely made up of contingent things. So either God keeps the universe going.....or started the universe going or there is another necessary in the universe which is responsible for the contingency in it.

Or there is a broader extra-universal physics to reality, in which our universe manifests.

O.

[jeremyp]

So they are PART of the universe...…..Where and what is the rest ?

I have no idea.

[Outrider]

So energy is the necessary?

Energy is, at least in our universe, and it seems to conform to the law of conservation of energy.  If this is a broader facet of reality at large then our universe's possible eternal nature is simply an expression of that, possibly cyclic possibly not.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If necessity were an emergent property of contingent things it would be contingent on them and therefore could not be necessary.

The necessity of the universe could not therefore be emergent.

We must look elsewhere.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Based on... what, exactly?  How did you come to the conclusion that a god is dependent solely upon itself? Where did the god come from?

He is necessity itself and not an abstract one at that.

[Gordon]

If necessity were an emergent property of contingent things it would be contingent on them and therefore could not be necessary.

The necessity of the universe could not therefore be emergent.

We must look elsewhere.

Who said that, as regards the universe, necessity was an emergent property?