Did the universe pop out of nowhere and nothing?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This fundamentally misrepresents set theory by conflating two infinities as being equal - like zero, infinity is not a number it's a mathematical concept, and there are different infinities.  This fails to establish that an infinite series is impossible, and therefore fundamentally undermines the first premise.

Infinity is a mathematical concept and those who argue for a universe which is infinite spatio temporally, the same yesterday today and tomorrow need to somehow get from infinity being a mathematical concept to a physical reality. A problem some multiverse proposers share. The problem remains ''How can an actual infinity be observed and measured.'' I understand the jury is still out on whether an actual infinity is possible Gauss and Poincare thought not Cantor did.

This particular line seems disengenuous to me - we aren't talking about the everyday, we're talking about the entirety of existence and the potential for an all-powerful creator - these are outside of the boundaries of the day-to-day intellectual short-cuts and estimates that normally suffice.

I thought we were talking about an infinite universe not an all powerful creator. If the universe is infinite then we are talking about the day to day because as I understand it the universe is in many respects the same today as yesterday and tomorrow or to put it mathematically the set represents the infinity.

If what you say is true that there should be no intellectual shortcuts for talking about the entirety of existence  then that goes against Hillside equating God creating the universe and Thor making thunder so this paragraph has been somewhat of a win/win for me.
 

Oh boy.  Actually, quantum theory, and experimental observation, supports the contention that something can, and indeed does, come from nothing on a regular basis. At least part of the flaw, here, is seeing 'nothing' as some sort of ground state from which every 'something' is up.  Nothing is the balance point, and can be split into equal parts matter and anti-matter - no net change, but localised and specific differences.  Something (and anti-something, which is still not nothing) spontaneously emerging.

This nothing of yours sounds suspiciously like a something to me. Nothing IS a balancing point? Nothing is split? Into matter and anti-matter. Unwarranted definition of the concept of nothing there. If you will

All of which is to fail to appreciate that the contention the universe 'came from nothing' is a shorthand for 'came from nothing within the universe', which is the current limit of science's remit.  It says nothing about what might or might exist outside of the universe, or how that might have been involved in the start of any universes.

Another misunderstanding, not confined to Lane-Craig - the 'observer' in this depiction doesn't need to be a conscious, or even living, thinking being.  The observer is whatever 'device' is measuring in the experiment, and when translated to behaviour in relating correlates with whatever physical interaction comes next in the chain - it could be an electron waiting to either change energy levels and emit a photon or remain where it is, it's the 'observer'.

That is plainly unfair. The article acknowledges in it's version of the Kalam that the first cause or first observer could be impersonal. Craig Lane certainly does make an argument for a personal cause why would he need to do this if he was not aware of the impersonal alternative?

Further, this entire section is a 'gaps' argument - there are questions about various scientific interpretation of a natural cause for a universe, but nothing actually supporting the idea of a conscious creator, just scepticism about the current (or in the case of Professor Hawking's quote, a very dated) scientific commentary.  At best that reduces to 'we still don't know' - specifically:

That we don't have a theory of quantum gravity yet doesn't mean there isn't one.

If the use of imaginary numbers discounts science, why doesn't the use of imaginary gods discount religion?  Imaginary numbers are well-validate, well-established part of the mathematical framework that operate in more than the four-dimensional space we currently intellectually operate in; that said, I don't actually see any reference to imaginary numbers in the account, I think this is a misunderstanding of the concept of infinity only being partially operable as a number.

There are a number of promising ideas that are based on the extrapolation back from our earliest information on the state of the universe which lead to ideas around a quantum state, but until there's a break-through that's just one type of hypothesis.

Do they? None of Oxford, Merriam-Webster or Cambridge online dictionaries mention 'the universe' (or a synonym) in their definition of 'natural'.  Natural causes do exist within the universe, but there is nothing to say they are limited to it.  That we, in normal conversation, tend to mean it to refer to things within the universe is an artefact of the fact that we reside entirely within the universe, not as a deliberate attempt to differentiate.

Depending on whether you see Block Time as valid, the universe may have always existed for it's full extent, but regardless of that... there is a presumption in this that the extra-universal reality is static, somehow - perhaps it is, but we have no way to know.  If Block Time is invalid, then the universe has still 'always' existed to the extent that particular dimension of time that we're referring to is part of the universe and came into existence with the universe - it's literally exactly as old as time itself.

This fails to establish why only a conscious necessary agent is not static; it's a failed argument, but even then it's still an argument against a particular theory of a natural cause and not an argument in favour of a conscious one.

Overall, this particular framing evades the most egregious special pleading variants that William Lane-Craig's typical variations do, but it's still flawed at every single stage.

O.

Again with all claims of an infinite universe how are you going to observe and measure this?  A natural cause of the universe? External to it? That just extends the universe....besides the kalam argument as made in the article does recognise that the external creator is either personal or impersonal. I agree science is currently not remitted for an external creator.That you are bent on it being impersonal is due to a commitment to a belief rather than where the argument takes us.

[jeremyp]

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.

Nobody except  you has said necessity is an emergent property.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nobody except  you has said necessity is an emergent property.

And rapidly poo pooed the idea to be fair.

The fallacy of composition is for example. A wall is made up of small bricks therefore the wall is small.

But the walls largeness emerges from it's bricks.(right)

The universe is made up of contingent things therefore the universe is contingent (fallacy of composition)

But the necessity of the universe emerges from it's contingency(wrong). Wrong because if necessity emerges it cannot be necessary.

But that leaves us with the question. where is the necessity of the universe? 

[ippy]

I see there's no progress with Vlad then, round and around lots of you must be feeling giddy by now.

You never get anywhere with Vlad, what's that expression? A lost cause?

ippy 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I see there's no progress with Vlad then, round and around lots of you must be feeling giddy by now.

You never get anywhere with Vlad, what's that expression? A lost cause?

ippy

You 'ere again Ippy...Causing bother and that?

[ippy]

You 'ere again Ippy...Causing bother and that?

Verify, 'Vacuous', Vlad.

ippy

[Gordon]

Again with all claims of an infinite universe how are you going to observe and measure this?  A natural cause of the universe? External to it? That just extends the universe....besides the kalam argument as made in the article does recognise that the external creator is either personal or impersonal. I agree science is currently not remitted for an external creator.That you are bent on it being impersonal is due to a commitment to a belief rather than where the argument takes us.

Is this meant to be your "demolition" of O's post?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is this meant to be your "demolition" of O's post?

All right then ''making radical alterations''. You seemed to take it uncritically as a kind of lullaby for atheists IMHO.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I am commencing my demolition of it in due course.

Ooh, I think I feel a premonition coming on – no you won’t. Not even close. You’ll duck and dive, divert, straw man, fundamentally misunderstand or misrepresent everything he said etc but the one thing you categorically will not do is to demolish it. 

Let’s see if I’m right shall we?

Still, on the bright side at least we've exposed that you had no intention of discussing the origin of the universe at all but instead wanted to sneak in the cosmological argument. So that's progress of a kind I suppose.

[Outrider]

Infinity is a mathematical concept and those who argue for a universe which is infinite spatio temporally, the same yesterday today and tomorrow need to somehow get from infinity being a mathematical concept to a physical reality. A problem some multiverse proposers share. The problem remains ''How can an actual infinity be observed and measured.'' I understand the jury is still out on whether an actual infinity is possible Gauss and Poincare thought not Cantor did.

This is a philosophical argument, not a scientific proof, so I don't need to measure infinity - I'm not positing a position, I'm highlighting the failings of the Cosmological argument, I'm showing the theoretical validity of the alternative that the argument is trying to discredit.

I thought we were talking about an infinite universe not an all powerful creator. If the universe is infinite then we are talking about the day to day because as I understand it the universe is in many respects the same today as yesterday and tomorrow or to put it mathematically the set represents the infinity.

None of us, on a day-to-day basis, are dealing with the entirety of existence, and so to fall back to 'common sense' impressions is to rely on cognitive biases and shortcuts that haven't been developed to operate at that scale, which is why they're misleading.

If what you say is true that there should be no intellectual shortcuts for talking about the entirety of existence  then that goes against Hillside equating God creating the universe and Thor making thunder so this paragraph has been somewhat of a win/win for me.

Hillside is making his own points - we may have disagreements on some elements, agreements on others, but his argument stands or falls by the points he makes, not the points I make, and vice versa.
 

This nothing of yours sounds suspiciously like a something to me.

That's the current paradigm of 'nothing' - it's entirely possible that the classical contention of 'nothing' doesn't actually exist.

Nothing IS a balancing point? Nothing is split? Into matter and anti-matter. Unwarranted definition of the concept of nothing there.

No, that's the reality of nothing - if you're stuck in a pre-quantum, purely positive energy/matter understanding of physics then you may struggle to accept that.  Do you accept that antimatter is a thing? If equal parts anti-matter and matter coincide they eliminate each other and you are left with...  That process works in reverse, too.

That is plainly unfair. The article acknowledges in it's version of the Kalam that the first cause or first observer could be impersonal. Craig Lane certainly does make an argument for a personal cause why would he need to do this if he was not aware of the impersonal alternative?

I'm not sure how that's a criticism of the point that I made, I'm fully aware that Craig includes that point in his formulation.  In this summary of Craig's position whomever is writing cites the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory and misunderstands the nature of the posited 'observer' in the formulation.

Again with all claims of an infinite universe how are you going to observe and measure this?

Again, for the purposes of this, I don't need to - I just to establish that it's viable, because this formulation of the cosmological argument is attempting a false dichotomy; establishing that even one of the possible alternatives is viable means that the logic fails to flow to support the claim.

A natural cause of the universe? External to it? That just extends the universe....

Right?  The limitations of our universe that are highlighted by observation (an apparent start point, the inception of time) lead to the conclusion that it's finite in at least one direction, but that doesn't preclude it being part of something larger.  The counterpoint here, a deity external to the universe, already relies on something extra-universal being viable; why should that be a deity but not an alternate physics?

besides the kalam argument as made in the article does recognise that the external creator is either personal or impersonal.

But, critically, fails to provide any support for that idea; it's focussed on attempting to invalid other possibilities, but unless it can identify all the possible alternative explanations, it's always going to fail. It's not a proof of anything, even if it worked, it's merely a revertion to 'we don't know for sure'.

I agree science is currently not remitted for an external creator.

Our current science is limited by practicality rather than ideology to events within the universe; there is no reason to presume that limitation is absolute, nor that anything is beyond science's remit.  If there is an external creator, that is a cause that has measurable effects which can therefore be tested.

That you are bent on it being impersonal is due to a commitment to a belief rather than where the argument takes us.

This argument isn't intended to show that there isn't a personal deity, it's to show that this particular formation of an argument intended to show that there is is invalid.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Ooh, I think I feel a premonition coming on – no you won’t. Not even close. You’ll duck and dive, divert, straw man, fundamentally misunderstand or misrepresent everything he said etc but the one thing you categorically will not do is to demolish it. 

Let’s see if I’m right shall we?

Still, on the bright side at least we've exposed that you had no intention of discussing the origin of the universe at all but instead wanted to sneak in the cosmological argument. So that's progress of a kind I suppose.

The tragedy was that Outrider seemed fated as you all seem to be to follow the error of Krauss's fatal redefinition of nothing and to wrongly characterise the cosmological argument as ''everything has a cause''.

The jury is still out regarding actual spatio temporal infinities but whether they are impossible or not they are not measurable.

I could have gone further. His comparison of Imaginary numbers with imaginary gods was at least poetry, nice but not appropriate in a discussion about imaginary numbers in science.

[jeremyp]

I see there's no progress with Vlad then, round and around lots of you must be feeling giddy by now.

You never get anywhere with Vlad, what's that expression? A lost cause?

ippy

Funny. That’s exactly how I feel when talking to you on the Brexit thread.

[jeremyp]

The tragedy was that Outrider seemed fated as you all seem to be to follow the error of Krauss's fatal redefinition of nothing and to wrongly characterise the cosmological argument as ''everything has a cause''.

The jury is still out regarding actual spatio temporal infinities but whether they are impossible or not they are not measurable.

I could have gone further. His comparison of Imaginary numbers with imaginary gods was at least poetry, nice but not appropriate in a discussion about imaginary numbers in science.

What was Krauss’s definition of nothing?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The tragedy was that Outrider seemed fated as you all seem to be to follow the error of Krauss's fatal redefinition of nothing and to wrongly characterise the cosmological argument as ''everything has a cause''.

So now all you have to do is to demonstrate that Krauss’s definition was in error. Good luck with it. (I’ll leave aside too your habit of relentlessly re-defining terms like “materialism” so as to complain that no-one can justify them.) 

The jury is still out regarding actual spatio temporal infinities but whether they are impossible or not they are not measurable.

Gibberish.

I could have gone further. His comparison of Imaginary numbers with imaginary gods was at least poetry, nice but not appropriate in a discussion about imaginary numbers in science.

I’ll leave you to your private grief about whatever point it is that you think you’re making here.

[Outrider]

The tragedy was that Outrider seemed fated as you all seem to be to follow the error of Krauss's fatal redefinition of nothing and to wrongly characterise the cosmological argument as ''everything has a cause''.

Whether I cleave to that definition isn't relevant - it seems sensible to me, but regardless...  All I need to show is that it's viable to show that the Cosmological argument cannot dismiss it out of hand.

The jury is still out regarding actual spatio temporal infinities but whether they are impossible or not they are not measurable.

And, again, if I were making a claim that would be important, but as I'm only showing that it's viable that's not a problem.

I could have gone further. His comparison of Imaginary numbers with imaginary gods was at least poetry, nice but not appropriate in a discussion about imaginary numbers in science.

I'm not sure what the idea was that was intended to be communicate, but imaginary numbers are a specific mathematical concept, and doesn't apply to whatever it was was being said here.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What was Krauss’s definition of nothing?

Krauss refers variously to nothing as empty space, the quantum vacuum and speculates a 'deeper' nothing where there is no space. Which one is his actual nothing?......as Hillside says ''good luck with that''

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Whether I cleave to that definition isn't relevant - it seems sensible to me, but regardless...  All I need to show is that it's viable to show that the Cosmological argument cannot dismiss it out of hand.

And, again, if I were making a claim that would be important, but as I'm only showing that it's viable that's not a problem.

I'm not sure what the idea was that was intended to be communicate, but imaginary numbers are a specific mathematical concept, and doesn't apply to whatever it was was being said here.

O.

I was surprised that you concentrated on the infinity /not infinity premises in the given version of Kalam. I think that led you talking at cross purposes to the actual argument. The definitions of nothing and what constitutes the universe are not actually standard in both your argument and the KCA. we are meant to take Krauss's redefinition in your argument But arguments for alternatives often do that I suppose.

[Outrider]

I was surprised that you concentrated on the infinity /not infinity premises in the given version of Kalam. I think that led you talking at cross purposes to the actual argument.

That was the point I was trying to make, is that there are different concepts of infinity, and presuming because one infinity isn't compatible with a particular take on set theory doesn't therefore mean that reality can't be infinite - the crossed-purposes are in the original premise because it fails to differentiate between two different infinities.

The definitions of nothing and what constitutes the universe are not actually standard in both your argument and the KCA.  We are meant to take Krauss's redefinition in your argument But arguments for alternatives often do that I suppose.

It's not so much that I (or even Krauss) can define 'nothing' in a different way, as that what we understand nothing to be has been updated.  That concept of some sort of inert 'nothing' doesn't appear to be viable within the universe - outside of it, who knows, but that lack of definitive understanding works to my benefit here, because I only need to establish that it's a possibility to show the cosmological argument doesn't work.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's not so much that I (or even Krauss) can define 'nothing' in a different way, as that what we understand nothing to be has been updated.  That concept of some sort of inert 'nothing' doesn't appear to be viable within the universe

And that i'm afraid is something irrelevant to the origin of the universe though.
We all know that where there is something there can no longer be nothing. So what.

Who are you deriving your statement that actual infinities possibly exist from?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That was the point I was trying to make, is that there are different concepts of infinity, and presuming because one infinity isn't compatible with a particular take on set theory doesn't therefore mean that reality can't be infinite - the crossed-purposes are in the original premise because it fails to differentiate between two different infinities.

It's not so much that I (or even Krauss) can define 'nothing' in a different way, as that what we understand nothing to be has been updated.  That concept of some sort of inert 'nothing' doesn't appear to be viable within the universe - outside of it, who knows, but that lack of definitive understanding works to my benefit here, because I only need to establish that it's a possibility to show the cosmological argument doesn't work.

The cosmological argument though is not about things in the universe it is about the origin of the universe. How then if you are going on about what's in the universe possibly demonstrating that the cosmological theory does not work.

Your redefinition or update of the word nothing is just a piece of intellectual dishonesty.

You Krauss and the whole celebrity atheist bandwagon who take to the football pitch with paintbrushes and whitewash ready to draw new lines.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Krauss refers variously to nothing as empty space, the quantum vacuum and speculates a 'deeper' nothing where there is no space. Which one is his actual nothing?......as Hillside says ''good luck with that''

No, what he actually does is to explain a plausible method by which the universe could have originated. The job of the theist who would dismiss it is to explain why it isn’t plausible. What “nothing” means is a philosophical as much as a practical definitional question, but “with no particles in it” is the one he uses. Here it is in his own words in an article from The Atlantic (which you’ll doubtless ignore as you ignore everything else, but you shouldn’t – it’s a well-written exposition of what he actually said):

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/has-physics-made-philosophy-and-religion-obsolete/256203/

Of course once you have your materialist “nothing” you can fill it with whatever immaterial conjectures you like – gods, leprechauns, you name it – but you could equally argue that then you no longer have “nothing” either - just a “no material nothing”, which gives you another definitional problem.   

Oh by the way – what happened to your “demolition” of Outy’s falsification of WLC? As I correctly prophesised that you would do no such things do I truly have the power of foresight do you think?

[Outrider]

And that i'm afraid is something irrelevant to the origin of the universe though. We all know that where there is something there can no longer be nothing. So what.

The point isn't, though, that where there is something there can no longer be nothing, it's that mathematically we can demonstrate that even where there is nothing there is still a background rate of that nothing breaking down into equal parts of something and anti-something.  It might be that at some point in the future we find out something that updates the maths, but for now that's the understanding.

Who are you deriving your statement that actual infinities possibly exist from?

I'm not making the case, I'm contending that this claim that actually infinite regression isn't possible is founded on a miscategorisation of some of the various types of inifinity.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The cosmological argument though is not about things in the universe it is about the origin of the universe. How then if you are going on about what's in the universe possibly demonstrating that the cosmological theory does not work.

It doesn't work because it relies on a string of premises that it cannot justify. If my unqualified premise is that there are pots of gold at the ends of rainbows, my argument for leprechauns works too.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

It doesn't work because it relies on a string of premises that it cannot justify. If my unqualified premise is that there are pots of gold at the ends of rainbows, my argument for leprechauns works too.

Leave it out Hillside...….You're just a PR man for atheism.

[jeremyp]

Leave it out Hillside...….You're just a PR man for atheism.

I take that as a retreat in total disarray.