Causation impossible for TBB?

[Zylstra]

Can y'all tell me whether the following argument is logical valid and consistent?

Remember that creation implies causation, which in turn requires a progression along the dimension of, or through, time. Recall that space-time as we know it came into being with the big bang. Thus, there can be no 'before' the big bang, as there was no space time and, therefore, no time as we know it. This makes a causal relationship impossible in in any instance other than those in which the Big Bang is itself the cause of later events. The logical implication of this is that, since a causal relationship is impossible, a cause is impossible for the big bang. This means that causation (or creation), and therefore a 'first cause' (creator) is impossible in the case of the Big Bang.

 

[Netheralian]

Recall that space-time as we know it came into being with the big bang.

Speculation. I don't think string or chaotic inflation theory postulates this at all... (I'm sure someone will correct me on this if I am wrong)

no time as we know it.

Maybe - but does that imply no time?

The logical implication of this is that, since a causal relationship is impossible, a cause is impossible for the big bang.

I think this is completely wrong. You (or whoever) is trying to show the causal relationship between two events as a function of time only, rather than as a function of time and something else (probability perhaps? one of the however many other possible dimensions?) and undoubtedly there is more than just time at stake wrt to causality. So when you dismiss time, I don't think you can automatically dismissing everything else as well.

Just my opinion though - its either that or do real work...

 

[Zylstra]

Speculation. I don't think string or chaotic inflation theory postulates this at all... (I'm sure someone will correct me on this if I am wrong)

My understanding was that spacetime itself was expanding (not just matter moving away from a central point in space) and, according to the Standard Model, came into beingh with TBB along with matter (which formed as things cooled) ?

Maybe - but does that imply no time?

If my understanding is correct, and spacetime as we know it came into being with TBB, then time as we know it would not have existed 'before' TBB

I think this is completely wrong. You (or whoever) is trying to show the causal relationship between two events as a function of time only, rather than as a function of time and something else (probability perhaps? one of the however many other possible dimensions?)

Does not causation imply that one thing at one point in spacetime occurs because something else happened elsewhere in spacetime?

 

[Netheralian]

My understanding was that spacetime itself was expanding (not just matter moving away from a central point in space) and, according to the Standard Model, came into beingh with TBB along with matter (which formed as things cooled) ?

Sure - but time already exists at this stage and you are talking pre Big Bang. And the standard model only applies after the Big Bang has already started - I don't think the standard model even applies to the plank epoch (not sure on that one). Anyway, the plank epoch itself is pretty much speculation so pre big bang is even more so. Therefore making definitive statements about anything pre big bang is impossible.

If my understanding is correct, and spacetime as we know it came into being with TBB, then time as we know it would not have existed 'before' TBB

You keep using this time "as we know it" thing. What about time "as we don't know it". OK - i'm being argumentative, but there is no reason that the argument isn't valid. Anyway, anything pre big bang is still speculation at best and maybe unknowable so your statement that time did not exist is impossible to qualify at this time.

Does not causation imply that one thing at one point in spacetime occurs because something else happened elsewhere in spacetime?

Agreed - but just because your timeline disappears then there is no reason to say that there was no cause. All you can say is that the cause had no relationship in time with the effect. I.e. one did not precede the other. But once again, you are starting with the assumption that there is no time of any description (and I don't just mean our own spacetime). If you can justify that assumption I think you will impress a lot of people.

 

[Netheralian]

Just to add to my last argument - I was pondering while I went to the local rubbish tip...

Causality is based on observation of events in our own space-time. Is it therefore valid outside of our own spacetime? Can you apply something learnt in this universe in (or outside of) another?

 

[Zylstra]

You keep using this time "as we know it" thing. What about time "as we don't know it".

Is therd even any such thing? Does not ';time' specifically refer to that time which we experience as our 'fourth dimension' within this universe?

Agreed - but just because your timeline disappears then there is no reason to say that there was no cause.

\

You contradict yourself. If you agree that causation implies that Y occurs in a given point in (space-)time because X occurs at a given point in (space-)time and the 'information' or effects of X therefore triggered Y, then you have made my point for me that such causation is impossible without (space-)time.

All you can say is that the cause had no relationship in time with the effect.

does not the very definition of causation imply such a relationship?

I.e. one did not precede the other.

Cause need not preceed effect, as we have seen in physics, where information (for want of a better term) seems to travel 'backwards in time'). Of course, such things are so counter-intuitive that it seems to belie human comprehension. At the risk of arguing out of ignorance, I'm not sure such things can be comprehended at all by or brain/minds.

But once again, you are starting with the assumption that there is no time of any description (and I don't just mean our own spacetime). If you can justify that assumption I think you will impress a lot of people.

Is this not the same as deity in that we cannot assume it does exist without evidence? does not the same reasoning that causes us to assume there is no deit,y no tea kettle in space, no invisible pink unicorn, and no purple elephant on your head cause us also to assume a lack of any ''other' time-line until evidence suggestive of such a thing is presented? To assume the existence of a thing without evidence of fallacy. Do not the laws of logic and reason require we assume the non-existence of such an 'other' time as you suggest when constructing our hypotheses*, given the lack of evidence for such a thing?


*ffor this is indeed a hypothesis at this point, and to call it a theory would be dishonest, given a lack of predictive powers or falsifiability

 

[Netheralian]

Is therd even any such thing?

Who knows?

You contradict yourself. If you agree that causation implies that Y occurs in a given point in (space-)time because X occurs at a given point in (space-)time and the 'information' or effects of X therefore triggered Y, then you have made my point for me that such causation is impossible without (space-)time.

Maybe I do... I'm just thinking out loud. Is there a difference between causality (i.e. the implication that the effect always happens after the cause) and cause and effect (where either may happen in any order or at the same time - or as you say, effects without cause. )? In this universe, no, in another... Once again, I don't think you can apply the rules of this universe outside of it.

does not the very definition of causation imply such a relationship?

only in this universe

Cause need not preceed effect, as we have seen in physics, where information (for want of a better term) seems to travel 'backwards in time').

Example? I don't think this is possible. Even tachyons (if they existed) apparently don't counter causality. I.e. you can't get information from the future.

Is this not the same as deity in that we cannot assume it does exist without evidence?

Funny. Is the assumption that there is no time less vaild or more so than the assumption there is time? Or do we just not make any assumptions and see where the evidence takes us? If more dimensions exist as per string theory, then our own space time may only be a subset of the universe as a whole in which case maybe time is also bound to another dimension somewhere enabling it to exist without space. I'm not proposing this as being real in any way, I just want to highlight that I don't think we know enough to be making logical assesments on the nature of the cause (or lack thereof) of TBB.

does not the same reasoning that causes us to assume there is no deit,y no tea kettle in space, no invisible pink unicorn, and no purple elephant on your head cause us also to assume a lack of any ''other' time-line until evidence suggestive of such a thing is presented?

Maybe - certainly of another time line you are probably correct. But a continuation of the same time line through a cyclic universe?

To assume the existence of a thing without evidence of fallacy. Do not the laws of logic and reason require we assume the non-existence of such an 'other' time as you suggest when constructing our hypotheses*, given the lack of evidence for such a thing?

Do we automatically assume that there is no time in the future - i.e. next Tuesday doesn't actually exist until we are there and can establish through the evidence of lunch time that it is real? I'm not entirely sure if you can apply the laws of logic and reason to the (non)existence of time merely for the purposes of creating a new hypothesis. You will first be asked to validate your assumption because if you make the slightest error with your assumptions then the whole thing is invalid.

I'm not a cosmologist, but I would assume (there goes my argument) that any cosmologist that comes up with a theory on anything pre big bang would do so from a bunch of "knowns", and then mathematically extrapolate from that to say that there is (not) time. Based on the maths, this is demonstrable. However, you are starting from the result of a hypothesis to make your own hypothesis. Is this a good idea? How often does it happen in science and is it accepted as good science?

*ffor this is indeed a hypothesis at this point, and to call it a theory would be dishonest, given a lack of predictive powers or falsifiability

Unfortunately it isn't testable so it isn't even a hypothesis. Its merely speculation...

 

[theatheistguy]

Remember that creation implies causation

I'd rephrase this to "sequence requires causation, and in this case, creation is the first step of this sequence"

Recall that space-time as we know it came into being with the big bang.

The big bang was the not creation, nor was it the beginning of anything other than the current form of the universe. The big bang was a massive expansion of space-time. The law of conservation of energy says that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only changed to other forms (including matter) therefore we say the universe has always existed, though not as we know it now.

Thus, there can be no 'before' the big bang, as there was no space time and, therefore, no time as we know it.

This is a very difficult topic, however the way Prof. Hawking put it was that we cannot see before the big bang and therefore we essentially say that time began with the big bang, even though it has always existed. This therefore makes the rest of your comment null and void.

This means that causation (or creation), and therefore a 'first cause' (creator) is impossible in the case of the Big Bang.

I realise you probably didn't do this intentionally, but please be careful when using the words 'creator' and 'creation' because they always can be taken to mean a being or a purposeful act.

Causality is based on observation of events in our own space-time

Not really, if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to observe it, it still falls.

 

[Zylstra]

Do we automatically assume that there is no time in the future - i.e. next Tuesday doesn't actually exist until we are there and can establish through the evidence of lunch time that it is real?

You're misrepresenting my argument We can follow the laws of physics and conclude that it is not only highly probable that 'next Tuesday' (x numbver of days from now) will come, but nearly impossible for it not to.

 

[Zylstra]

I'd rephrase this to "sequence requires causation, and in this case, creation is the first step of this sequence"

Well put

The big bang was the not creation, nor was it the beginning of anything other than the current form of the universe.

I did not say TBB = creation. I said it came into its current form

This is a very difficult topic, however the way Prof. Hawkins put it was that we cannot see before the big bang and therefore we essentially say that time began with the big bang, even though it has always existed. This therefore makes the rest of your comment null and void.

Can you provide a link to his arguments and/or evidence? Simply appealing to his authority is fallacious

 

[theatheistguy]

Can you provide a link to his arguments and/or evidence? Simply appealing to his authority is fallacious

Well said. I'll get back to you once I've found it.

EDIT:

Hubble's observations suggested that there was a time, called the big bang, when the universe was infinitesimally small and infinitely dense. Under such conditions all the laws of science, and therefore all ability to predict the future, would break down. If there were events earlier than this time, then they could not affect what happens at the present time. Their existence can be ignored because it would have no observational consequences. One may say that time had a beginning at the big bang, in the sense that earlier times simply would not be defined. It should be emphasized that this beginning in time is very different from those that had been considered previously. In an unchanging universe a beginning in time is something that has to be imposed by some being outside the universe; there is no physical necessity for a beginning.

A Brief History of Time pp 8-9

 

[Ozymandyus]

Can y'all tell me whether the following argument is logical valid and consistent?

Remember that creation implies causation, which in turn requires a progression along the dimension of, or through, time. Recall that space-time as we know it came into being with the big bang. Thus, there can be no 'before' the big bang, as there was no space time and, therefore, no time as we know it. This makes a causal relationship impossible in in any instance other than those in which the Big Bang is itself the cause of later events. The logical implication of this is that, since a causal relationship is impossible, a cause is impossible for the big bang. This means that causation (or creation), and therefore a 'first cause' (creator) is impossible in the case of the Big Bang.

No, no, no.
By the same logic, the big bang itself could never have happened. There was clearly a sort of 'before' the big bang, and the 'as we know it' that we tack on is just to admit that we have no idea what kind of causation happens inside of a black hole because we cannot SEE what happens. We will probably one day be able to say things about the big bang singularity, i.e. if/how fast it was spinning or how stable it may have been, whether it emitted hawking radiation, things like that - which have direct references to a relative time frame that extends pre-big bang.

 

[AndromedasWake]

Just to address the title of this post and the theme in general: It is overly speculative to apply properties of components of our universe to the Universe itself. Currently, the Universe is not recognised as a body which possesses properties, but rather an overarching construct of 3 (or 4, if you like) components; Space, Time and Energy (and Matter, if you wish to separate it). Each of these components has properties, and more properties exist when they are combined. One property which applies to the combination of all of these components is causality - the necessity for each event that occurs to be related to a prior event.

Causality is a close friend of General Relativity, the theory which gives us the famous "singularity" at the point when the Universe "began", and whilst nothing in GR violates causality, we can already predict some slightly strange events that do not sit comfortably with *our* understanding of it. For example, mathematics tells us that an observer entering a black hole would be able to observe both past and future events. In our daily lives, we only encounter one point in time at a time, and we travel through time in one direction. Does causality demand this? Not if General Relativity is correct.

General Relativity explains the relationship between space and energy (mass). Taking the Big Bang to be a 'creation' event for both of these components of our universe, we cannot use GR to solve the state of the Universe "prior" to the Big Bang. Likewise, we cannot actually apply causality in any meaningful way. This is one of my fundamental problems with the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA), and those who espouse it so fervently (ie. William Lane Craig).

Its first premise is that everything that begins to exist has a cause and subsequently that 'science has proven the Universe began to exist'. Science has shown no such thing. This is merely an oversimplification of a very speculative topic. Can something begin if nothing preceeds it? What if things preceed it in other time-like dimensions that do not resemble our own? Applying causality to the Universe the same way we apply it in the Universe is extremely naive, and surprise surprise, so are the supporters of the KCA.

It is important to recognise that before applying any laws we understand to the 'creation' or formation of the Universe, we must first demonstrate that those laws extend beyond being properties of space, time and energy. Once that has been done, then and only then can we speak about the cause of the Universe in any meaningful way. Until then, it is simply speculation.

Just an additional point. The same applies to the Fine Tuning argument. Sure, our universe has a set of nifty constants that, if altered, would be devastating to the conditions (as we know them) but if you wish to postulate that these are set by a friendly creator, the onus is on you to first demonstrate that these values can actually fluctuate at all, or whether or not they simply must be the way they are in a universe like ours. Then once you have done this, you have the job of actually proving a creator is involved, and it did not simply happen by chance.