The Great Paradox

[peter]

We as humans who observe, question and attempt to explain are caught on the horns of one Great Dilema - that of describing how the Universe came to be.

Here we are, the most complex of entities embedded in the most complex of Worlds (full of wonder at every turn), in a Universe of infinite majesty and we seek to know how we got here. On the one hand we have the idea of Creation, and here Paley's watch argument writ on the scale of the infinite wants some serious overturning ........ it seems the evidence of (super)intelligent design is before our eyes at every turn of the page, at every entry in the book of knowledge. Yet on the other we have the palpable impossibility of such a Creating Force and must instead accept the (equally impossible to the layman at least) alternative that it all came from nothing. It just did it all itself. All the space, all the time, the matter the laws the organising the building the interacting and causing, the effecting and balancing, the living and loving and dying - all itself.
But here at least we have science to help us. Much paper and pencil power has been expended to get us to a point where our physicists can nearly, can within a hairs-bredth, say "yes - we understand. This is how we come here from nothing. This is how the 'all itself' works". With one fell swoop of Okhams razor the need for the Creator to provide the 'first cause' is excised out. You can continue to believe if you want to (they say) , but it's superfluous.

This is The Great Paradox - to find the eye in the storm of existence, balanced between the tho impossibles, but before I go I have a genuine question to ask of the scientists (and if they can succeed in their quest to finally eliminate the need for a Creator I have no argument except to pose the further logical question that 'if something can be explained without something else being so, is that the same as saying that the something else isn't so). I have no understanding of mathematics, and I'm told that trying to understand the picture physics creates of the Creation without this is like trying to understand Bach from a position of congenital deafness. So be it then, the bulk of us will have to take you on your word that this mathematical explanation actually does what you say it does - explains how we came to be from nothing - and again I have no problem with this - I have no reason to doubt you - but just put my mind at rest on one point. This framework of explanatory numbers - does it have to be this way? Can I be sure that in your desire to serve on the alter of rationality, to excise at all cost the mystical, that you have not constructed your edifice of numbers to reach the end that your disciplines mind-set demanded you reach ....... that your explanation has no trace of teleology, of striving toward an already decided end, and that you have answered the 'all itself' question the way you have because it has to be so and not just because you want it to be so. Tell me there is no sophistry, no striving toward an already decided end at the expense of other alternative paths that your numbers might have taken, and I will believe you. I who have no understanding.

[Fist and Faith]

It's not a paradox. It's just an argument. Science will use whatever methods it can to find testable, verifiable, reproducible,etc, facts, in order to better understand how the universe works. If any creator has properties that can be tested, verified, reproduced etc, science will go to town.

[peter]

Sorry Fist - that's no answer. How can the numinous, the ineffable be 'tested'. Let me put it another way.

Show me the path from 2+2=4 (which I understand) to "the universe self-created from nothing" (which I do not), or tell me with your hand on your heart that such a path exists, and furthermore that it brooks no choices, that no branches occur where decisions are made that might lead to different ends, and I will believe it.

[Fist and Faith]

There is no need for the question. There is no point in moving the uncaused thing back a step. Something is uncaused. It is a bizarre thought, but it cannot be denied.

There is no logic in assuming the uncaused thing is not the thing that is an incontrovertible fact (that would be the universe), and saying it must have been caused by something that is not verifiable by any means whatsoever.

And it is not logical to simply accept that this cause can be uncaused, but the universe cannot. Show me the path from 2+2=4 to "the universe's cause self-created from nothing". Any explanation for how the universe's cause can be uncaused can be applied to the universe itself, instead.

[Avatar]

Cogently stated Fist.

--A

[peter]

But this is not what I have asked. I have asked for a simple assurance that the mathematical result that theoretical physicists assure us can account for the Universe self-creating [although we innumerati have not the cogence to understand it], is not arived at by any other than a straight line path; that at no point have [mathematical] choices been made between say to follow path a) [leading to a result that the universe can self-create], rather than path b) [leading to a result that it cannot]. Untill such an assurance can be given, the case for non-self-creation cannot be closed, whether it be a pointless extra addition or not. I seek certainty, and if it is not to be had by the route of science then it is science that is wanting, not me. [ ]

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

But this is not what I have asked. I have asked for a simple assurance that the mathematical result that theoretical physicists assure us can account for the Universe self-creating [although we innumerati have not the cogence to understand it], is not arived at by any other than a straight line path; that at no point have [mathematical] choices been made between say to follow path a) [leading to a result that the universe can self-create], rather than path b) [leading to a result that it cannot]. Untill such an assurance can be given, the case for non-self-creation cannot be closed, whether it be a pointless extra addition or not. I seek certainty, and if it is not to be had by the route of science then it is science that is wanting, not me. [ ]

Science, by definition, can't explain the Observer. Any Theory of Everything can, at best, ever be only a Theory of Everything Sans the Observer.

Now, one can call that a "hair's breadth" of being able to say "yes - we understand" if one wants, but really, that "Sans" is sans a whole lot, cuz the Observer is half of the whole shebang. Half of Bacon's entire Scientific Project. And Half is a really big Hair.

[Zarathustra]

What definition of "science" are you using, Wosbald, that rules out explaining observers?

[peter]

Surely science must not only be able to account for the spontaneous auto-creation of the Universe, but also be able to do so to the exclusion of alternative explanations, in order to be definative in this argument.

[Fist and Faith]

I've never heard of any evidence supporting those things, peter. I'm sure there are many people who say it must be this way (or the other way). But nobody can point to any testable, verifiable evidence to support their position.

There are good, verifiable reasons to believe the universe began with a Big Bang. Did anything exist/happen prior to the BB? Nobody can tell. If anything did, it was reduced to less than subatomic particles. Even "the state of the universe in the earliest instants of the Big Bang expansion is still poorly understood and an area of open investigation and speculation." (wiki) So forget about prior.

It's all what one person sees as irrefutable logic vs what another person sees as irrefutable logic. For the most part, it's a silly thing to argue about. Whatever makes you happy, go for it.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

There are good, verifiable reasons to believe the universe began with a Big Bang. Did anything exist/happen prior to the BB? Nobody can tell. If anything did, it was reduced to less than subatomic particles. Even "the state of the universe in the earliest instants of the Big Bang expansion is still poorly understood and an area of open investigation and speculation." (wiki) So forget about prior.

I was just wondering ... Are y'all aware that, at least in Aquinas' 5-Ways (e.g. Proof from Causality), the Uncaused Cause is ontologically prior to the Cosmos and not chronologically prior to the Cosmos?

i ask this because moving things "back a step" chronologically would implicate God in the Causal Chain and would leave the argument open to a Turtles-All-The-Way-Down criticism.

[Zarathustra]

Peter, I'm not sure what you mean by "to the exclusion of alternative explanations." If you're talking about supernatural creation, that's not a scientific theory. Science has no obligation to disprove it, no more than Franklin had a responsibility to disprove that lightning is Zeus spears. Once a scientific explanation is found, the supernatural fictions are simply rendered unnecessary. Once it can be shown that the universe can spontaneously arise from its own principles/laws, this means a natural explanation is sufficient, and there is no longer any need for a supernatural one. Supernatural "explanations" are only entertained when one cannot conceive of a natural way for it to happen. Believing that reality is in some way impossible is the root of supernatural thinking. But it's an ironic and inauthentic position to take, a profound act of denial, since anything that exists is possible. Belief in the supernatural is a rejection of reality, the most fundamental form inauthenticity. We transform "I don't understand it" into "I can't believe it!" We can't accept it as it is, and think only the most fantastical and Otherly explanation can account for it. We turn wonder and awe into a sucking void of "this is not enough in itself, there must be more." That void is our ignorance, not a supernatural being.

The universe is real. It's not impossible or unnatural for it to be here. Thus, it makes no sense to think that supernatural explanations are necessary to account for it.

[Fist and Faith]

Fantastic post, Z.

Supernatural "explanations" are only entertained when one cannot conceive of a natural way for it to happen.

Einstein showed us how to do it. The natural explanations he conceived of, with more imagination and willingness to follow through than most of us are capable of, which turned out to be verifiable facts, should inspire everyone to keep trying, no matter the roadblock.

Believing that reality is in some way impossible is the root of supernatural thinking.

Perfect.

We transform "I don't understand it" into "I can't believe it!" We can't accept it as it is, and think only the most fantastical and Otherly explanation can account for it.
...
We turn wonder and awe into a sucking void of "this is not enough in itself, there must be more."

Humanity has let it's eyes glass over at times.

Wos, if you would care to elaborate, I'm all ears. Not an issue either way, though. I don't see a need for any turtles.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Wos, if you would care to elaborate, I'm all ears. Not an issue either way, though. I don't see a need for any turtles.

As long as it's understand that the "prior to the Big Bang" imagery is a falsification of the classical Causal Proof, I'm good.

Eastern Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart says that Dawkins "devoted several pages of The God Delusion to a discussion of the 'Five Ways' of Thomas Aquinas but never thought to avail himself of the services of some scholar of ancient and mediaeval thought who might have explained them to him ... As a result, he not only mistook the Five Ways for Thomas's comprehensive statement on why we should believe in God, which they most definitely are not, but ended up completely misrepresenting the logic of every single one of them, and at the most basic levels." Hart said of Dawkins treatment of Aquinas' arguments that:

Not knowing the scholastic distinction between primary and secondary causality, for instance, [Dawkins] imagined that Thomas's talk of a "first cause" referred to the initial temporal causal agency in a continuous temporal series of discrete causes. He thought that Thomas's logic requires the universe to have had a temporal beginning, which Thomas explicitly and repeatedly made clear is not the case. He anachronistically mistook Thomas's argument from universal natural teleology for an argument from apparent "Intelligent Design" in nature. He thought Thomas's proof from universal "motion" concerned only physical movement in space, "local motion," rather than the ontological movement from potency to act. He mistook Thomas's argument from degrees of transcendental perfection for an argument from degrees of quantitative magnitude, which by definition have no perfect sum. (Admittedly, those last two are a bit difficult for modern persons, but he might have asked all the same.)

[Fist and Faith]

As long as it's understand that the "prior to the Big Bang" imagery is a falsification of the classical Causal Proof, I'm good.

So what's the real story? I'm not concerned with what Dawkins got wrong.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

As long as it's understand that the "prior to the Big Bang" imagery is a falsification of the classical Causal Proof, I'm good.

So what's the real story? I'm not concerned with what Dawkins got wrong.

I thought I already said (not trying to be snarky).

God is ontologically prior, not chronologically prior. He's not implicated in the Causal Chain. God is just as immediately (ontologically) "before" the Now as He is immediately (ontologically) "before" the Big Bang. So, one can move backwards (or forwards) along the Chain ad infinitum and one would still never "get to God". Rather, there is a quantum leap, a yawning incommensurability, between the Cosmos and God.

My only point was to note that asking "What's before the Big Bang?" (if one means by "before" as "before in Time") is the wrong question. (Even though, yes, in the common consciousness, this is how the question is often framed).

[wayfriend]

At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang. ... Although the laws of science seemed to predict the universe had a beginning, they also seemed to predict that they could not determine how the universe would have begun.

Our physics can explain most of the evolution of the Universe after the Planck time (approximately 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang). The Planck time is the earliest moment in the history of the Universe where our physics still works.

Science itself has determined that the origin of the universe cannot be explained by science. Neither the Big Bang itself, nor some period of time thereafter, can be rationalized, ever, since they occur before the laws of nature or even the rule of determinism pertained.

There was a point in time where the laws of physics could have been anything. So how did they get to be this? You cannot argue it was mandated by natural law, since natural laws didn't exist. You cannot argue it was inevitable, since determinism didn't exist.

And so the reason why the universe is the way it is remains a question. And supernatural causes are the only thing left to consider. Natural causes have all been ruled out. By science.

[Zarathustra]

WF, since you're responding directly to points I've introduced, I hope I won't be accused of being a troll by responding.

Science itself has determined that the origin of the universe cannot be explained by science.

You can't take the opinion of one man and say that "Science itself" has determined something. Though Hawking is a scientist, he doesn't speak for all of Science. There are others--such as David Deutsche--who argue that explanation can indeed reach beyond the beginning of the universe. There are reasons why it's this way instead of some other way. Those reasons eliminate certain kinds of preconditions for the universe, allowing us to make conjectures into the kind of reality responsible for the universe's emergence.

Hawking is just wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. 'Science itself' is full of examples of scientists mistakenly cutting off the point of any possible knowledge. For instance, in past centuries the best scientists said no one would ever know the composition of stars. It was considered an emblematic example of the limits of knowledge. It was instead a limit of imagination, the inability of very smart men to imagine that even smarter men (who have better explanations) could go beyond that imagined limit.

Neither the Big Bang itself, nor some period of time thereafter, can be rationalized, ever, since they occur before the laws of nature or even the rule of determinism pertained.

Reason deals with logical forms that transcend the laws of nature. And determinism isn't necessary for explanation.

There was a point in time where the laws of physics could have been anything. So how did they get to be this? You cannot argue it was mandated by natural law, since natural laws didn't exist. You cannot argue it was inevitable, since determinism didn't exist.

No one said anything about it being mandated by current natural laws of this universe. Maybe there were other, 'higher' laws of some higher nature. No one is saying it was inevitable, nor invoking determinism as a necessary or sufficient condition. Within known physical laws, there are explanations that include the random and spontaneous self-creation of matter and energy. This is backed up by observation. We already know it happens. We can already explain it. Random, spontaneous self-creation is part of quantum mechanics. We don't invoke God every time particles and anti-particles spontaneously emerge from the void.

And so the reason why the universe is the way it is remains a question. And supernatural causes are the only thing left to consider. Natural causes have all been ruled out. By science.

Just because there remains a question doesn't mean the answer is God. Natural causes have not been ruled out [science never rules out the possibility of knowledge--only (bad) philosophy does that]. This is simply a failure of understanding and/or imagination. Just because you can't imagine a way for it to make sense doesn't mean you have ruled it out of being possible.

[Edit: Hawking wasn't wrong if you only take current science into account. In fact, if you read his quotes, you can see that's what he was talking about--only current science, not all of Science for all of time. Explanations currently stop at pre-Plank time due to the limits of quantum mechanics, which is still an incomplete explanation until united with general relativity. Maybe the Grand Unification theory will go farther. But even if it doesn't, who is to say that we won't completely supersede that theory with a better one? I don't think Hawking was arguing against that possibility, or even addressing it.]

[peter]

Can I just throw in a few alternatives that would need to be, if not proven not to be the case, then at least not to be alternative end points leading off via branches, from the proof that the universe spontaneously auto-created from nothing: that a 'big'crunch' of a contracting universe is not the same singularity that we see as the point of Creation, that the universe has not simply existed forever, that it is not a virtual simulacrum of a Universe and we are simply fooled into thinking it exists.

Or it might just simply be the case, because sometimes this is as good as physics gets, that the alternative end point might be simply that the universe 'did not spontaneously auto-create', and no more can be said than that, or that causal entity is implied - but no more can be said than that either.

Much of what we now understand would have previously been categorised as 'supernatural', and though I do not say this to bolster a 'God did it' argument, I still think it serves to remind us that at the far edges the demarcation between what is and is not so is apt to become.......fuzzy.

It may be as Fist says, I simply ask too much of science (and philosophy!) and that certainty can simply never be...........

[Zarathustra]

Peter, I'm not sure what you're saying, but I agree that our knowledge will always be incomplete. Even "god did it" doesn't complete our knowledge; it only inserts an infinitely larger unknown into the equation. Who the hell can claim they understand God?

"Supernatural causes" in general are *not* explanations. Let me repeat: they explain nothing. They only introduce greater mystery, not understanding. I can't empathize at all with the urge to accept them or even entertain them as possibilities. To me it seems indistinguishable from a desire to stop asking questions and accept ignorance as our final position. That's not me. My curiosity is too strong to be assuaged with a final shrug and "oh well, it was a miracle."

A good explanation is one that is difficult to vary while still accounting for the phenomenon. Supernatural creation 'theories' can be infinitely varied and all of them be equally plausible. If you can't tell the difference between "god did it" and "super intelligent magical Elves did it" or "the flying spaghetti monster did it," then you're so-called 'explanation' is absolutely worthless. It's only a story, a fairy tale. You haven't gained any knowledge at all.

For instance, all of these questions (and many more) immediately come to mind, but none can be answered:

Which god did it?
My god? Your god? Their god?
Where did god come from? A bigger god?
What is a god? A person? A thing? A state of being?
Why is there a god instead of no god?
Do gods spontaneously self-create? If so, then why not other things?
If gods are supernatural, why are the things they make merely natural? Why are there two kinds of things? Is there a third? A sub-natural? Or a super-duper-natural?
If the universe arose from supernatural principles, then why isn't it also ruled by supernatural principles? Why does it operate by existentially different rules than the ones which created it? [Note: no object created in the universe operates by different rules than those responsible for its creation. There is no known precedent for this concept of created objects operating by different rules than their creation. It's entirely made up.]

And so on ...