Spontaneous Creation Problems

Count Timothy von Icarus

I wanted to discuss a problem similar to, but different from the old "first cause" problem, which we have had many a thread on. Let's please, keep discussions of the necessity of a "first cause" or "unmoved mover" in those respective threads.

Here is the problem: Suppose we have satisfactorily resolved all our questions about first causes and unmoved movers. We don't think we need either.

It is still the case that, if the universe had a begining (Cosmic Inflation, the Big Bang) then there was a time T0 where things existed and did not exist in any prior state.

Let's try not to get derailed by "is spacetime infinitely divisible or not." Let's say we slice time up into very short durations. If there is a begining, there is one duration during which things exist, Cosmic Inflation is going on, etc., and during which things did not exist during any duration prior to this (because there are no prior durations, because spacetime did not exist yet).

If this is the case, and things can start to exist, for no prior reason (they are uncaused), then why don't we see more things starting to exist at different times? E.g., it seems conceivable that we could see evidence for multiple Big Bangs, occuring at different times and interacting. We don't see this though.

As near as I can tell, this problem was first identified by the theologian Jonathan Edwards, and it was an argument for God as you might expect, situated in discussions of "first causes." However, it seems to be a problem even if you allow that a first cause is not necessary. The problem with uncaused existence is that, if it is possible, then nothing should stop it from occuring at random.

Further, being uncaused, there is no reason to expect any specific sort of thing to come into existence over any other. So, we shouldn't just expect lots of stuff to start existing, but different sorts of stuff.

This seems to pose problems for some attempts to explain the begining of the universe. For example, Paul Davies attempts an explanation where quantum mechanics results in the creation of our universe. But the problem is that quantum mechanics is a description for how something that already exists works. This explanation seems to assume that something begins to spontaneously exist because it follows rules where it can create itself. This is problematic in that many toy universes work similarly, so their spontaneous existence should be equally probable.

Anyhow that's the problem. As I understand it, this problem is one of the things that makes eternalism popular. It would seem to solve the problem by saying that only what exists, including all moments, exists without begining or end. I find eternalism as a whole problematic for reasons that would make this post too long, so this never appealed to me.

Here is the solution that occured to me, and it might not be very good. But let's say that all sorts of things do start to exist, at random. Why should we expect that different sorts of things that start existing would be able to interact with one another? Maybe stuff is popping into being all the time and it just makes no difference to us. A premise in the framing of the problem seems to suggest that if anything starts to exist, we will be able to observe it. But is this premise warranted? After all, nothing can determine what is uncaused.

hypericin

Here is the solution that occured to me, and it might not be very good. But let's say that all sorts of things do start to exist, at random. Why should we expect that different sorts of things that start existing would be able to interact with one another? Maybe stuff is popping into being all the time and it just makes no difference to us. A premise in the framing of the problem seems to suggest that if anything starts to exist, we will be able to observe it. But is this premise warranted? After all, nothing can determine what is uncaused. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think this is a reasonable solution. Suppose there is a "global, " higher-dimensional universe, and it has always existed. For whatever reasons, maybe quantum-like fluctuations, maybe due to other unfathomable causes, 4D spacetimes like ours pop in and out of existence all the time. Nothing inhabiting these 4D spacetimes is able to travel outside of it, and so these universes don't interact at all. Moreover, there might be a first cause, but that cause existed outside of the 4D spacetimes, so from the perspective within a spacetime, there is no first cause at all.

L'éléphant

Here is the solution that occured to me, and it might not be very good. But let's say that all sorts of things do start to exist, at random. Why should we expect that different sorts of things that start existing would be able to interact with one another? Maybe stuff is popping into being all the time and it just makes no difference to us. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is an incorrect expectation. There was just a single point that was very very hot before the Big Bang. This singularity (prior to the Big Bang) will never occur again until, maybe, this universe dies in what they call the Big Freeze, which is like the death valley. There is no explanation as to the cause responsible for the singularity. "How it forms" is not a cause.

Philosophim

Fantastic thread.

If this is the case, and things can start to exist, for no prior reason (they are uncaused), then why don't we see more things starting to exist at different times? — Count Timothy von Icarus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgKJV_p48AQ

They're called virtual particles.

I've written a bit on this in the past. We have to logically think about what would result if things could appear without a prior cause.

1. There is no reason for their being.
2. There is no reason they should continue to exist.
3. There is no reason they should follow any laws except after they exist.

Meaning that a particle could appear, but then disappear soon after. No reason why it couldn't. When you talk about something that has no reason for its existence, you also can't say why it could NOT exist either.

So then why don't we see things like chairs randomly pop into existence and then disappear. That's due to probability. If anything could exist without reason, there are no limits. Meaning we have to consider all possibilities.

First, lets start with scale. Let think of an inch by inch square of space. Anything could appear in that square of space at any moment right? Right. But divide the square in half. Anything could appear in that square at any moment, and not in the other half. Right? Right. Continue to do this ad infinitum or until we get to what is the smallest particle we can see.

What does this mean? For every one square inch we see that has one chance out of the infinite, we have a square that subdivides down into magnitudes smaller, meaning in the comparative likelihood of one square inch, its much more likely that something appear very small. I don't want to math this out, maybe someone else could.

Second, lifespan.

A particle could exist in between the smallest possible measurement of existence that we can imagine to the largest. Meaning, like the square space, we have a situation in which there is a near infinite amount of time to exist that is both before and after. Seeing a particle form that would also form with the ability to be indestructible would also be exceedingly rare considering all other possibilities.

Third, complexity

Complexity is many smaller things integrated together. Something formed without prior rules would need to interact with something else without prior rules (Or perhaps other existences that have been here a while) and form something meaningful. What's the chance of that? Probably pretty low.

So over time its not surprising that we would see extremely small 'things' forming and unforming as they enter into existence, interact, and wink out. What would be exceedingly rare, though possible, is something of a large magnitude with massive complexity forming. Its possible again, just exceedingly rare.

Its an interesting notion though. If anything is possible, over infinite time, will all things happen? Anyway, fun thoughts to think on.

jgill

They're called virtual particles — Philosophim

A mathematical convenience that cannot be observed through instruments.

Let think of an inch by inch square of space. Anything could appear in that square of space at any moment right? Right — Philosophim

Wrong. And I think you mean an inch cube in 3-space? Or an inch square in my favorite, the complex plane.

But divide the square in half. Anything could appear in that square at any moment, and not in the other half. Right? Right. — Philosophim

Wrong. Where do you come up with these flights of fancy?

What does this mean? For every one square inch we see that has one chance out of the infinite, we have a square that subdivides down into magnitudes smaller, meaning in the comparative likelihood of one square inch, its much more likely that something appear very small. I don't want to math this out, maybe someone else could. — Philosophim

Please don't. And don't ask a mathematician to do so. And something would appear very small if it is very small.

So over time its not surprising that we would see extremely small 'things' forming and unforming as they enter into existence, interact, and wink out — Philosophim

Since they can't be seen or observed, winking out is problematic. But there is a scale going from unobservable to observable, I believe. Where on this scale a virtual particle "becomes" "real" is interesting, though.

I love it when philosophers dabble in physics and math. Especially quantum physics. :cool:

JuanZu

If this is the case, and things can start to exist, for no prior reason (they are uncaused), then why don't we see more things starting to exist at different times? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Actually we do see many new things appear: new stars, new human beings, new social problems, new diseases, new hopes, new philosophies, new theories, new films, new technologies, etc. What is not common is that something new arises out of nothing and for no reason. It always seems that if something new comes into existence (and that did not exist before) we are obliged to think about it in the order of coexistence and in the order of relation. In other words, we are obliged to think about the new among other things that precede its existence and with which it is related in some way. This is perhaps the most rational aspect of existence: That nothing comes from nothing.

Philosophim

They're called virtual particles
— Philosophim

A mathematical convenience that cannot be observed through instruments. — jgill

Good to know, I appreciate the info! I had looked into them at a cursory level, but apparently I need to read more.

Wrong. And I think you mean an inch cube in 3-space? Or an inch square in my favorite, the complex plane. — jgill

Just using a basic 2d example. Also, despite virtual particles not being what I thought they were, this is a thought experiment for the OP.

But divide the square in half. Anything could appear in that square at any moment, and not in the other half. Right? Right.
— Philosophim

Wrong. Where do you come up with these flights of fancy? — jgill

Did you read the OP?

Please don't. And don't ask a mathematician to do so. And something would appear very small if it is very small. — jgill

You misread what my intent was. It was to compare the probability of something occurring in a one inch square versus several magnitudes smaller as we divide up the square, assuming equal probability of something appearing in each measured location.

I love it when philosophers dabble in physics and math. Especially quantum physics. :cool: — jgill

Why be snide? Just educate. If the person you're educating is being rude, then be snide.

jgill

For every one square inch we see that has one chance out of the infinite, we have a square that subdivides down into magnitudes smaller, meaning in the comparative likelihood of one square inch, its much more likely that something appear very small. I don't want to math this out, maybe someone else could. — Philosophim

Take a one inch square. Divide each side into n equal parts. Then there are n^2 sub squares. Assume the probability of a point being in the big square is one, and each sub square probability then is n^-2. "One chance out of the infinite" means what? I have assumed the probability of finding a point in the big square to be one, but what you state implies zero probability. Thus there is really zero probability of finding a small object in any sub square.

jgill

↪Philosophim

Sorry. Language is a lot looser in philosophy (or this forum) than where I worked.

Philosophim

Take a one inch square. Divide each side into n equal parts. Then there are n^2 sub squares. Assume the probability of a point being in the big square is one, and each sub square probability then is n^-2. — jgill

Thanks. So then if every chance had equal chance of being, that would be 1, then n^2, then I assume n^4 if we chopped those new squares up again? The point that I was trying to make is that if all had an equal chance of being selected individually, a smaller section of square is more likely to be selected then the larger scaled squares.

"One chance out of the infinite" means what? — jgill

Sorry, its late here. I meant to say 'the limit as this division approaches infinity', if there is one. Meaning the smaller the size of the particle, the more chances per square inch it appears over something the size of an inch itself (assuming all have the same chance of appearing)

Sorry. Language is a lot looser in philosophy (or this forum) than where I worked. — jgill

Not a worry. All good!

jgill

The point that I was trying to make is that if all had an equal chance of being selected individually, a smaller section of square is more likely to be selected then the larger scaled squares. — Philosophim

If we subdivide into 9 sub squares, the probability of choosing one of those sub squares is 1/9. If we have 25 sub squares, the probability of one of those is 1/25. Time to retire here, too.

Count Timothy von Icarus

↪L'éléphant

"How it forms" is not a cause.

Yes, that's the premise I was accepting starting out. Things can begin to exist for no reason at all, no Principle of Sufficient Reason in effect.

I'm not really sure if you're trying to rebut my solution or the problem itself? If a singularity can start to exist, i.e., it did not always exist, why can't others? Why does one beginning to exist preclude others?

↪jgill

↪Philosophim

Virtual particles are not, currently, "directly observable." They have effects that can be observed, which is why the idea has gained currency. This is true of other phenomena in physics, and it also has been true of phenomena we have since developed means of observing more directly. I'm not expert on virtual particles, but those writing about them seem to suggest that they are a good deal less fully speculative than say, strings. E.g., pronouncements like "Experiments to measure the Casimir Effect show that virtual particles do exist.". (To be fair, I believe some people still advocate for alternative explanations here).

But this might actually not be all that relevant because virtual particles, like quark condensate, appear in space-time, within fields, and so they are not truly forming "out of nothing." A universe with an origin point would have to have these very fields and spacetime itself pull off the same trick. The problem of "existence ex nihilo," then is different than the problem of "creation ex nihilo."

Anyhow, I've considered that a Big Crunch or a Big Bang that eternally recurs because of the properties of a universe in heat death would all solve the problem, but these work by making the universe eternal. Black Hole Cosmology works by making the universe caused. So, I guess this problem would apply to only certain cosmologies.

If we subdivide into 9 sub squares, the probability of choosing one of those sub squares is 1/9. If we have 25 sub squares, the probability of one of those is 1/25. Time to retire here, too.

If I understand the point properly, it would be that each square has a 1/9th, 1/25th, etc. chance of being filled in. And the question is, what % of the surface area is likely to be filled in by this process as we add more squares and make each square smaller.

But I don't think this is necessarily relevant since it would seem to relate to the size/mass-energy, what have you, of objects beginning to exist within an already existing space-time.

Philosophim

But I don't think this is necessarily relevant since it would seem to relate to the size/mass-energy, what have you, of objects beginning to exist within an already existing space-time. — Count Timothy von Icarus

We can even remove the virtual particle notion. If it is the case that the origin of the universe has no prior explanation for its existence, there are no rules. If something formed within nothing then, why can something not form within nothing now? There's no reason it couldn't. There's no reason preventing tons of incredibly tiny 'things' popping into and out of existence. Right now, there could be things popping into existence somewhere in this vast universe.

The point I was trying to make is that the math makes anything large, long lived, or complex orders of magnitude less likely than something that is smaller, not eternal, and simple. While the idea of something appearing within nothing without prior explanation means there are no rules, it doesn't mean we can't think of logical consequences. Namely if anything is possible, all things are equally possible. Why? If something were more possible than another thing, there must be an external reason. But there is no external reason. It simply is.

With this in mind, we can also realize that it is equally possible that a big bang formed, and for the last trillion years, nothing else formed from nothing. Perhaps something will happen again in another 5 years. Or five minutes. When you're dealing with something which has no rules, it cannot be predicted.

Count Timothy von Icarus

↪Philosophim

This is initially how I was conceptualizing the problem as well, but I think it runs into problems. "Time" doesn't exist outside of our 4D spacetime manifold. When our universe spontaneously exists, it is like a 4D object popping into existence, outside of any external time dimension.

If we believe in eternalism and the "block universe," the entire object (our universe) is there all at once. If we believe in the local becoming, the "growing block universe," or the retrocausal "crystalizing block universe" then it is possible to say the object "grows," although this is tricky to conceptualize because it's "growth" would not occur across any sort of external, "global" time dimension (difficulty in conceptualizing this is in fact one of the arguments for eternalism, although I don't think it's a good one).

Other things that spontaneously exist wouldn't "start to exist" within the context of the time dimension of our own universe. You need an external frame here, and here it might be useful to conceptualize our universe as only two dimensional, with a third time dimension. Sort of a cube springing into existence, which is how the block universe and it's variants are normally portrayed.

So for a visualization, the problem is sort of asking, why haven't new shapes sprung up that interact with our universe's "block." But visualization is probably misleading here, because we might want to think of one cuboid smashing into another, but again, there is no spatial dimension for various block universes to be placed in where they can or can fail to intersect.

That means the question is more abstract. Can something start to exist that will interact with our "block universe?" Maybe my solution works, because there is no reason why different sorts of objects should interact. Maybe it doesn't because the very fact that our sort of universe does exist means the sort of stuff that would interact with our "block" can, and does spring into being. Appeals to the frequency of this happening "over time" don't work because the time dimension itself is one of those things that spontaneously exists.

Smarter people than me, who actually specialize in this sort of thing still think Johnathan Edwards has a point here, which makes me skeptical of the solution, although I've never seen the point specifically addressed.

L'éléphant

Yes, that's the premise I was accepting starting out. Things can begin to exist for no reason at all, no Principle of Sufficient Reason in effect.

I'm not really sure if you're trying to rebut my solution or the problem itself? If a singularity can start to exist, i.e., it did not always exist, why can't others? Why does one beginning to exist preclude others? — Count Timothy von Icarus

No. Singularity as described is the infinite density - this is what was. (matter cannot be created nor destroyed). So, that said:

Actually we do see many new things appear: new stars, new human beings, new social problems, new diseases, new hopes, new philosophies, new theories, new films, new technologies, etc. What is not common is that something new arises out of nothing and for no reason. — JuanZu

This is totally not what we're talking about here. The "new" is missed here.

Stars, for example, as part of the galaxy is not "new" -- stars are not born -- they form out of gas and dust. So, when they undergo change in properties, they age and collapse.

What's new and had existed infinitely was the singular point that has infinitesimal volume. Then big bang happened.

L'éléphant

I know it's hard to wrap our heads around the idea that there was always "something" and that something was a single point. There was never a time when there was nothing. There was always something.

Count Timothy von Icarus

↪L'éléphant

I see what you're saying. If the universe is actually eternal, that solves the problem. But cosmologists often frame the problem as getting support for this position in the first place. Basically, if inherit fluctuations in the singularity could produce the universe 14 billion years ago, how did the singularity not produce any such fluctuations for an infinite amount of time before these fluctuations finally did occur? My understanding is that this is the problem that drives the appeal of cyclical universes or Black Hole Cosmology.

Of course, we could appeal to the status of time in singularities, but we have reason to think our understanding of singularities is incomplete because of Hawking radiation, conservation laws, the prediction that black holes will decay and have an end, etc.

Metaphysician Undercover

If the universe is actually eternal, that solves the problem. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Determining that something is infinite (such as eternal time) solves no problem. It just means that the theory being applied toward understanding the thing is inadequate for actual understanding. Application of the theory produces the appearance of infinity and the thing cannot be understood with that theory. Thus the thing appears to be infinite, and therefore unintelligible. Explained here in the first cause thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/868259
To some, this may appear as a resolution to the problem, because we would just say that the thing which led to the appearance of infinity in our attempts to understand it, is fundamentally unintelligible, therefore we can forget about trying to understand it, and move along. But we know that putting a problem aside because it appears to have no solution, thereby forgetting about it, does not actually solve the problem.

Philosophim

This is initially how I was conceptualizing the problem as well, but I think it runs into problems. "Time" doesn't exist outside of our 4D spacetime manifold. When our universe spontaneously exists, it is like a 4D object popping into existence, outside of any external time dimension. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Time doesn't exist if nothing exists, that's true. However, there is one thing we're likely making a mistake on. If its true that there is no reason why anything should exist, there's also no reason why only one thing should exist. We tend to look at 'the origin' as a one time event. Nothing before, then something after that had set laws. There's no reason that it had to be this way. The start of the universe may very well have been one small particle appearing, followed by others for countless eons.

What we usually refer to in the universe's origin is, "When the big bang happened" There's nothing in the math that leads to the big bang that necessitates there was nothing prior to the big bang. There's also nothing that states that things could have continued to appear after the big bang.

Other things that spontaneously exist wouldn't "start to exist" within the context of the time dimension of our own universe. You need an external frame here, and here it might be useful to conceptualize our universe as only two dimensional, with a third time dimension — Count Timothy von Icarus

Time is only a comparison of change between two existences. So a thing that forms on its own does not have time for itself prior to its being, but as soon as it enters into a universe with existence, time happens. I wouldn't place too much emphasis on time personally. Its just change between existences and not an actual existent force or entity.

Smarter people than me, who actually specialize in this sort of thing still think Johnathan Edwards has a point here — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think its pretty clear once we realize that thing can form without a prior explanation, that a God is not necessary. While a God is possible, so is anything else we can imagine. Since anything could have been possible, we have to look at the evidence of our universe as it is and conclusively determine "X is the origin" with evidence. Claims to God as the universal origin are not evidential. Not saying someone couldn't take this approach, but as it stands now, its not a very good argument for the universe's origins.

Echarmion

The problem with uncaused existence is that, if it is possible, then nothing should stop it from occuring at random.

Further, being uncaused, there is no reason to expect any specific sort of thing to come into existence over any other. So, we shouldn't just expect lots of stuff to start existing, but different sorts of stuff. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Well, how do we know that things don't spontaneously spring into existence all the time? Since the laws of physics as we observe them would already account for this, we wouldn't necessarily notice. We could argue that, if different things came into being constantly, existence must be chaotic and have no observable rules at all.

But then the anthropic principle strikes and says that bubbles of stability in chaos are possible and observers could only form in such a bubble, so really it's no surprise at all that observers would always find a reasonably stable, ordered world.

Or perhaps once a relatively ordered "bubble" formed, the resulting interactions keep "different" entities out. If anything goes, there's no reason not to ascribe to our universe the property of "self-stabilising".

JuanZu

What's new and had existed infinitely was the singular point that has infinitesimal volume. Then big bang happened — L'éléphant

So you think you are as old as the big-bang?

If not then you have come into existence like many other people. And not only that but you are different from the mythical primordial singularity of physicists.

But as I said in my answer, although things come into existence constantly, what would be unusual is for them to come from nothing. Since generally there is a causality that precedes and explains them, kinda. The important thing is that "coming into existence" presupposes the order of coexistence and the order of succession. From this it follows that the universe did not come out of nothing: It could have been there forever.

Metaphysician Undercover

Time doesn't exist if nothing exists, that's true. — Philosophim

Until we come up with a clear description of what time is, this statement cannot be justified

Philosophim

Until we come up with a clear description of what time is, this statement cannot be justified — Metaphysician Undercover

I believe I noted that time was registered change between entities. That's not very specific of course. Do you have a definition of time that you like to use?

L'éléphant

If the universe is actually eternal, that solves the problem. — Count Timothy von Icarus

No, the universe is not eternal. The singularity, however, is infinite.

Basically, if inherit fluctuations in the singularity could produce the universe 14 billion years ago, how did the singularity not produce any such fluctuations for an infinite amount of time before these fluctuations finally did occur? My understanding is that this is the problem that drives the appeal of cyclical universes or Black Hole Cosmology. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I am lost here. We could only describe quantum fluctuations outside of the singularity, I believe. That is, we can only describe the quantum fluctuations within the universe.

Of course, we could appeal to the status of time in singularities, but we have reason to think our understanding of singularities is incomplete because of Hawking radiation, conservation laws, the prediction that black holes will decay and have an end, etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus

No, there's no time in singularities. Let's try not to confuse the Newtonian causality with the infinity.

But as I said in my answer, although things come into existence constantly, what would be unusual is for them to come from nothing. Since generally there is a causality that precedes and explains them, kinda. The important thing is that "coming into existence" presupposes the order of coexistence and the order of succession. From this it follows that the universe did not come out of nothing: It could have been there forever. — JuanZu

You're still stuck in the Newtonian causality. While I agree with you, in fact I said this in my previous post that there was always something, and that the universe did not come from nothing, your train of thought is still the regularity of the laws of the universe. We are totally not on the same page.

jgill

Virtual particles are not, currently, "directly observable." They have effects that can be observed, which is why the idea has gained currency — Count Timothy von Icarus

In the one-dimensional Casimir Effect one could encounter the Harmonic series, which does not converge. By manipulating this series one can derive a convergent series (where the expression 1/12 might pop up) corresponding to measurements. The magic here could be interpreted as the effects of virtual particles. Or more or less as I "understand" it. Pop science keeps pushing the notion, but I suppose a physicist might also. This is strange territory where philosophy can't seem to abstain trespassing. :chin:

L'éléphant

This is strange territory where philosophy can't seem to abstain trespassing. — jgill

Please don't say this. Physics is very much invested in causality -- which is the prize of metaphysics.

jgill

Physics is very much invested in causality -- which is the prize of metaphysics — L'éléphant

I love causality. Most of the math exploration I do these days is mathematical analogues of causality chains in the complex plane. So, is philosophy very much invested in physics? Should it be? Is philosophy equipped, in general, to circumvent details and pull quantum tricks out of its big hat?

Just poking. :cool:

sime

According to the 17th Century Catholic priest Nicolas Malebranche, all effects are spontaneous whether or not they are attributed to causes, due to the fact that "Created things are at best "occasions" for divine activity. Bodies and minds act neither on themselves nor on each other; God alone brings about all the phenomena of nature and the mind" - Wiki

Malebranche can be interpreted as preempting Hume's conclusion that causal conditionals are not analytic, due to the fact that the effect of a causal relation isn't logically necessitated by the cause of the relation. Thus the effect of every causal relation must be a spontaneous act of god.

So from the point of view of the occasionalists, sponteneity is the essence of causality.

AmadeusD

, then nothing should stop it from occuring at random. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Along with your possible solution - I agree with the above and would posit that if that’s true, we are merely seeing the result of that randomness being only one instance of SC. I don’t see an issue there it’s just super unsatisfying to me

Count Timothy von Icarus

↪jgill

So, is philosophy very much invested in physics? Should it be? Is philosophy equipped, in general, to circumvent details and pull quantum tricks out of its big hat?

I don't get how it couldn't be, since "what is the ultimate nature of reality," seems to be a question both physics and philosophy try to answer. The lines between theoretical work and philosophy break down frequently across the sciences, and this is particularly true in physics.

Physics is also important because of the popularity of scientific realism and because physicalism (the dominant ontology) often tries to define itself in terms of "what physics says there is." There is, on the face of it, no reason they shouldn't closely interact. In many ways Einstein is the biggest philosopher of physics of the 20th century, as well as perhaps the biggest physicist.

We were just having a discussion as to whether causation should be removed from discussions of ontology because it "doesn't exist in physics." This was Russell's argument circa 1910 or so. "If physics doesn't use cause then it is anti-scientific and incoherent." Of course, Russell's premise is simply wrong today, physics does talk about cause, just not the "law of cause," he successfully attacks. It's actually not clear that Russell's premise was remotely true when he made his argument either.

The two intersect all the time. Credentialism here is really frustrating. Is Tim Maudlin not qualified to discuss physics? Can physicists not discuss philosophy well despite having dedicated years to studying it? I'll allow that people on both sides can opine about areas they don't understand well and make bad arguments, but this is hardly always the case. Nor is someone necessarily better informed about their own discipline.

David Mermin, the physicist who coined the phrase "shut up and calculate," for quantum mechanics also once got frustrated with realists in a paper and declared "the Moon demonstrably does not exist when no one is observing it." What could be more philosophical than that?

↪sime

I find that Hume is only convincing if we take his argument against induction seriously prior to his argument against causation. If we use induction, building up evidence for causation is easy.

IMO, the debate about whether cause can be demonstrated a priori is sort of a red herring. The Principal of Sufficient Reason is its own thing and should (and now is) dealt with separately.

Hume's argument against induction is very difficult indeed. I think one of the best arguments against it is not that it fails in some crucial way, but that it turns out you can create perhaps even better arguments against deduction providing any knowledge. The position collapses into radical skepticism, which arguably just shows the problem with the foundationalist epistemology of Hume's era.

I do think Hume's denial of the self can be successfully defeated though. If every perception was actually distinct, sui generis, then you couldn't actually experience time or compare between them. Each moment would be so utterly distinct as to be experienced by a completely different entity, which Kant gets at, or Borges in his story "Fuentes and his Memory."

Metaphysician Undercover

I believe I noted that time was registered change between entities. That's not very specific of course. Do you have a definition of time that you like to use? — Philosophim

I think yours is an inadequate definition of time because "registered change" implies observation, judgement. This would mean that prior to living beings which are capable of making such a judgment, no time could be passing unless we invoke some sort of God to make the registry.

So I would describe time in reference to the passing of time, which we know to have been occurring prior to living beings noticing it as occurring. What I see in my experience, is that time passes at the present, and "the present" marks a distinction between past and future. Also, I see that future time, such as tomorrow, January 7, will become past time, yesterday, as the time passes by. Therefore I like to define time as the process whereby the future becomes the past. The moment in front of you in the future, is always becoming the moment behind you, in the past, as time goes by.

We were just having a discussion as to whether causation should be removed from discussions of ontology because it "doesn't exist in physics." This was Russell's argument circa 1910 or so. "If physics doesn't use cause then it is anti-scientific and incoherent." Of course, Russell's premise is simply wrong today, physics does talk about cause, just not the "law of cause," he successfully attacks. It's actually not clear that Russell's premise was remotely true when he made his argument either. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, physicists are actually heavily invested in the use of "causation". Take a look at the concepts of "lightcone", "timelike & spacelike", "worldline", "propertime", for example. They use knowledge of the temporal order of events (causation) to establish timelines in relativity based observations.

Spontaneous Creation Problems

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions