7 ms·

> Also, we have evidence the physical universe hasn't been around forever: the Big Bang. That's not exact. The Big Bang model brings us really close to the sta

> Also, we have evidence the physical universe hasn't been around forever: the Big Bang. That's not exact. The Big Bang model brings us really close to the start of the known universe, but it doesn't describe what happened before that - nor dictates that it was really the beginning; the mathematics collapse into a non-descriptive degenerate singularity that doesn't need to match reality anymore. By this model, it is possible that there was some physical process before it that caused it and has been going on forever. Also, the Big Bang model doesn't preclude the existence of other universes far away that were created by the same process, that we simply can't reach because they're out of our scope of causality. > God is outside of space and time, whereas the physical universe is inside of space and time That's a cop-out. What does it mean to "exist" if it isn't related to space and time? > The physical universe obeys the laws of physics and God doesn't. So just because God can do something doesn't mean the physical universe can. What if the physical universe dictates the laws of physics? Then you don't need God as an entity to explain existence. Unless you want to call the physical universe "god", which is on itself a valid deistic proposition.

Thorrez 4y ago
>By this model, it is possible that there was some physical process before it that caused it and has been going on forever. What about the topic of this post, the second law of thermodynamics? >That's a cop-out. In a way. It's a hypothetical answer to the question. But it also doesn't offer any proof or a way to test if it's true or not. >What does it mean to "exist" if it isn't related to space and time? I think to some degree it's a mystery. One analogy that can partially get there, is consider if we built a really powerful computer and simulated an AI person and world inside (assuming there's no soul, this seems plausibly possible). That person would just know the simulated space and time, and would think nothing else exists, but yet we exist. This isn't a full explanation because it would have the turtles all the way down problem, but I think it helps to conceptualize the idea of something outside of our space and time. >What if the physical universe dictates the laws of physics? Scientific progress seems to me to be finding more and more foundational phenomenon that are causing higher-level phenomenon. It seems strange that at some point things stop being caused and instead cause themselves, don't follow laws but instead create laws out of nothing. It just seems different to me than what we've observed so far. >Unless you want to call the physical universe "god", which is on itself a valid deistic proposition. I guess that sort of makes sense. But I think it makes more sense to divide it into the foundation cause, and everything that rippled out from that.
- TuringTest 4y ago
  > What about the topic of this post, the second law of thermodynamics? It might be a side-effect, an emergent property of a decaying universe initiated by the Big Bang. The process that generated the Bang may be unaffected by it, or it may be compensated by a stronger physical effect creating a big concentration of energy. (We know from Stephen Hawking that particles and anti-particles are created "ex nihilo" in the vacuum; this could be similar, but way bigger and uncommon). > turtles all the way down problem Why should that be a problem? Or, in any case, more of a problem that an entity without a cause of its own? In any case, if we're going for 'there are things beyond our reach we'll never know about', I prefer to think that they work the same as the things we know about, e.g. my example of other universes created by the same process as ours. This follows the principle of relativity ("there are no privileged places in the universe"); and the alternative you suggest leads to imagining absolutely everything as possible, since there is and never will be a way to know it, so it's no better than fantasy. > It seems strange that at some point things stop being caused and instead cause themselves, don't follow laws but instead create laws out of nothing That's a common misconception. The universe never "follows" laws, not in the sense that we understand mathematical models (nor human laws, for that matter); it's the other way around. It exists in a certain way, and we "create" laws to describe patterns in what we observe. There is no guarantee that the universe is fully behaving in the way the law describes; the model can always have missing parts. If the universe is its own cause, there would be no separation between 'creating' behaviour and 'following' behaviour. Those are just labels we assign to understand what we perceive as causality (a.k.a. predictable effects). > guess that sort of makes sense. But I think it makes more sense to divide it into the foundation cause, and everything that rippled out from that. Yeah, I agree it can make sense - from a linguistic analysis POV, just like the 'cause' and 'effect' I mentioned above. The big problem with that approach is that we humans have a tendency to anthropomorphize phenomena, and we come from a culture with an imposing tradition of imbuing that 'ultimate cause' idea with the attributes of an old, wise, powerful mentor in the manner of the Elder guides of the tribe. Which is absolutely unjustified from a logical point, and only serves to muddle the dialog with people who can't avoid using those attributes. So, in terms of ontology and teleology, I find it better to conceive the universe as its own cause, in order to completely avoid that categorical error.

Thorrez 4y ago

>By this model, it is possible that there was some physical process before it that caused it and has been going on forever. What about the topic of this post, the second law of thermodynamics? >That's a cop-out. In a way. It's a hypothetical answer to the question. But it also doesn't offer any proof or a way to test if it's true or not. >What does it mean to "exist" if it isn't related to space and time? I think to some degree it's a mystery. One analogy that can partially get there, is consider if we built a really powerful computer and simulated an AI person and world inside (assuming there's no soul, this seems plausibly possible). That person would just know the simulated space and time, and would think nothing else exists, but yet we exist. This isn't a full explanation because it would have the turtles all the way down problem, but I think it helps to conceptualize the idea of something outside of our space and time. >What if the physical universe dictates the laws of physics? Scientific progress seems to me to be finding more and more foundational phenomenon that are causing higher-level phenomenon. It seems strange that at some point things stop being caused and instead cause themselves, don't follow laws but instead create laws out of nothing. It just seems different to me than what we've observed so far. >Unless you want to call the physical universe "god", which is on itself a valid deistic proposition. I guess that sort of makes sense. But I think it makes more sense to divide it into the foundation cause, and everything that rippled out from that.

TuringTest 4y ago
> What about the topic of this post, the second law of thermodynamics? It might be a side-effect, an emergent property of a decaying universe initiated by the Big Bang. The process that generated the Bang may be unaffected by it, or it may be compensated by a stronger physical effect creating a big concentration of energy. (We know from Stephen Hawking that particles and anti-particles are created "ex nihilo" in the vacuum; this could be similar, but way bigger and uncommon). > turtles all the way down problem Why should that be a problem? Or, in any case, more of a problem that an entity without a cause of its own? In any case, if we're going for 'there are things beyond our reach we'll never know about', I prefer to think that they work the same as the things we know about, e.g. my example of other universes created by the same process as ours. This follows the principle of relativity ("there are no privileged places in the universe"); and the alternative you suggest leads to imagining absolutely everything as possible, since there is and never will be a way to know it, so it's no better than fantasy. > It seems strange that at some point things stop being caused and instead cause themselves, don't follow laws but instead create laws out of nothing That's a common misconception. The universe never "follows" laws, not in the sense that we understand mathematical models (nor human laws, for that matter); it's the other way around. It exists in a certain way, and we "create" laws to describe patterns in what we observe. There is no guarantee that the universe is fully behaving in the way the law describes; the model can always have missing parts. If the universe is its own cause, there would be no separation between 'creating' behaviour and 'following' behaviour. Those are just labels we assign to understand what we perceive as causality (a.k.a. predictable effects). > guess that sort of makes sense. But I think it makes more sense to divide it into the foundation cause, and everything that rippled out from that. Yeah, I agree it can make sense - from a linguistic analysis POV, just like the 'cause' and 'effect' I mentioned above. The big problem with that approach is that we humans have a tendency to anthropomorphize phenomena, and we come from a culture with an imposing tradition of imbuing that 'ultimate cause' idea with the attributes of an old, wise, powerful mentor in the manner of the Elder guides of the tribe. Which is absolutely unjustified from a logical point, and only serves to muddle the dialog with people who can't avoid using those attributes. So, in terms of ontology and teleology, I find it better to conceive the universe as its own cause, in order to completely avoid that categorical error.