I was a strict instrumentalist until I started singing on stage to my own electronic keyboard solos. So here’s another fruitless musical attempt at distracting us from a very painful thread debate that is surpassing 240 posts and rapidly losing altitude: https://VelvetRockRecords.podbean.com/mf/play/wmtnns/Sidney_the_Talking_Donkey.mp3
Worldwide pandemics and mind-crushing debates call for desperate measures and that musical performance is about as desperate of a call for attention as one can rationally imagine.
@Dan_Eastwood, notice that that judgment is yet another example of an abductive inference.
As I understand it, anti-realism says that what can’t be observed doesn’t exist. That’s not my position at all. All I’m saying is that whatever inferences are made, they should be based on the actual evidence. But I don’t deny that there is an underlying reality that exists in spite of not being able to directly observe it.
The way I’ve seen people quibble over minutia is that even possible? Is there an example of one for the definition of what counts as observable?
I don’t see why they’re so important. If you want to quibble about what is or isn’t observation, maybe. But I think people understand in a general sense what is meant by observation. I think that’s sufficient in most cases.
If abductive inferences are made from observational evidence, and in the case of science objective and verifiable observation, why is it necessary to have a detailed understanding of “the science?” Seems to me as long as someone is informed as to what the evidence is, that’s the major issue. Of course understanding the details of the science may help in some cases where there’s nuances involved that require it. But generally speaking I don’t see that to be the case.
I’ll just drop in to say that it is crazy to think that one can talk about the philosophy of quantum mechanics without understanding quantum mechanics. I am surprised that this is not obvious.
Attempting to do so is a waste of time, as @dga471 said.
Sure, if the universe began to exist from nothing, and if it did not exist, then it did not exist. That’s the if under contention.
But there is no evidence that it began to exist. There is no evidence that it was at some point not in existence.
All the evidence we have, no matter how far back we go, says that no matter what instant/period/duration on the dimension of time we have access to, the universe was in existence at that time. Even for a universe with a finite age, at the very first moment of it’s history, it was in existence. There is no evidence that there was ever some instant, or period of time, or duration, or states of affairs, at which the universe was not in existence.
And such a state of affairs is not implied, nor even weakly suggested, by any evidence for the universe’s early hot and dense state, or it’s extrapolated finite age. If the totality of time (aka all of history) only goes back 13.72 billion years (or whatever), then at no point during those 13.72 billion years was the universe non-existent. There is thus no time at which the universe did not exist.
So either physical existence is past eternal, or it began to exist and therefore did not always exist.
But that is a false dichotomy. Those are not the only logical possibilities.
The past could be finite, and the universe could have always existed. Always here meaning for all of time. So the universe could have existed for all of time. As I already explained to you in multiple of those posts that you obviously(by now) didn’t bother reading.
If the universe existed for all of time (even if time is a past-finite dimension), then it is true to say that there was no time at which the universe did not exist. If there was no time at which the universe did not exist, then it is true to say that there was no time at which the universe began to exist. If there was never any time at which the universe began to exist, then there is no need to explain it’s coming into existence, since such a transition did not ever occur.
And I believe it’s well within reason to infer from the evidence I provided that it began to exist.
You’re big on mere assertion, but apparently completely lacking in actual argumentation.
This belief of yours appears to be based on nothing, because none of the evidence you referenced entails, nor even weakly suggests, that the universe did at some point not even exist. I also explained why that is.
The only implications from the evidence from big bang cosmology is that the universe was smaller in the past, and very hot. You can extend the line of history by extrapolation, back to a supposed first moment of time, but even at that first moment of time the universe would have been in existence. Obviously you can’t extend the line further back than the first moment of time, otherwise it would not be the first moment of time.
You can’t extend the line back to a time at which any of the physical evidence we have suggests the universe would have not been in existence. That is based on no principle of physics, science, or logic.
I would say you’re equivocating on the definition of evidence. Evidence in this case is objective and verifiable observation. So the expansion, CMBR, and entropy is evidence that infers a beginning. What I see your actual statement to say it that we don’t have objective and verifiable observation of beyond a time that is inaccessible to human observation. That’s obvious.
And since we cannot observe the subject in question, we have to infer from the evidence we do have what best explains what we do observe. And since logic is a form of knowledge we know from logic that there could be no existence of the universe where there is no existence of physical existence.
I just don’t agree. What do you think the BGV theorem is based on–the expansion of the universe. And are you saying that Vilenkin and Hawking were in error when they said that all the evidence we have points to a universe with a beginning? In fact, Vilenkin has an argument that claims that the universe began to exist. He just claims it had no cause. I think the claims you’re making are logically just totally unfounded.
So evidently you also think that Vilenkin and Hawking were wrong in saying that all the evidence there is points to a universe with a beginning. Hard to figure that one out.
Are you having trouble remembering? Almost a year ago we went over the exact same thing.
We had an entire thread about that on this very website, in which you basically admitted that the theorem does not imply what you want it to.
You mean a universe with a first moment of time. That is the sense in which they are saying the universe had a beginning. Not that there was ever nothing in existence. Do you understand the difference?
No, Vilenkin has an argument for a first moment of time. Nothing he says entails that at some point the universe did not exist. And if Vilenkin has an argument for the universe having come into existence from nothing, then please present that argument. The BGV theorem says no such thing.
Do you understand the difference between arguing that, and just claiming it with no supporting argument? You’re doing the latter.
Okay, but you make no argument for that. And you’d be wrong, as I will explain below.
That’s wrong I’m sorry to say.
Something can only constitute evidence (as opposed to merely being data) in the context of some hypothesis. To say that you have evidence for something is to say that you have one or more observations (data points, or patterns in data) that point to some hypothesis being true.
That normally means the data is more likely to be observed if the hypothesis is true, than if the hypothesis is false. Or alternatively, evidence for some hypothesis X as opposed to another hypothesis Y, is data that is more likely to be observed if that hypothesis X is true, than if hypothesis Y is true instead.
In this particular discussion we are having we are trying to distinguish two hypotheses:
X) That the universe always existed(for all of time), but had a first moment of time a finite time ago, in some extremely small, hot, and dense state, and from which it subsequently expanded.
Y) That at some point the universe did not even exist, then it came into existence out of nothing, but was initially extremely small, hot, and dense, and from which it subsequently expanded.
Then we have the data, or observations:
The cosmic microwave background radiation.
The distribution of light elements in the early universe.
And the observation of increasing redshift with distance, and thus with age.
Then there are some theorem that says time in GTR cannot be extended infinitely far into the past(aka that there must have been a first moment of time).
Are any of these observations, or pieces of data, more likely on Y than on X? Nope.
Done, case closed.
There is thus no evidence that the universe was ever not in existence, because none of the data or observations are more likely on that hypothesis Y, than on the competing hypothesis X that the universe has existed for all of time.
You mean a first moment of time.
I would agree that we don’t have any observations from some period beyond which can’t be accessed by observation. Obviously yes, that is not possible by definition.
But that’s not my problem, that’s a problem for anyone who wants to argue there is evidence from such a states of affairs, from which we can infer that there was ever such a period at which nothing existed.
What best explains what we observe(CMBR, light elements, redshifts) is that the universe was once extremely small, hot, and dense. That is the ONLY thing we need to invoke to explain ALL the data we have. None of the things we have observed, and nothing we know about how the fundamental forces or laws of physics operates(including the BGV theorem), indicates that the universe did at some point not exist. So we just have no good reason to make that inference.
Logic is a set of rules for how to think.
Which tells us nothing at all that should cause us to think the universe did at one point not even exist.
My response wasn’t at all an admission that it doesn’t imply what I want it to. And your post was poorly worded to begin with. I don’t hold to the first because it makes no sense to say nothing at all existed. Your confused wording of the first choice made it unacceptable. So there wasn’t any real choice to begin with.
And I think Vilenkin is very clear on his position, that the universe had a beginning of it’s existence. And I am more and more convinced that the Copenhagen interpretation is just wrong, and the pilot wave theory is the correct interpretation. And it’s compatible with both classical and relativistic mechanics. So if pilot wave theory is correct, that would eliminate @PdotdQ’s objection in that thread. And unless he has a way to explain how mechanical formulas in physics can be used as evidence in an abductive inference, I am confident that pilot wave is correct.
And I think I was very clear, contrary to what @PdotdQ seems to hold to, that I didn’t agree with the idea that the BGV theorem couldn’t establish a universe with a beginning. And I think I put forth plenty of good reasons for my position. Coupled with the fact of what I now know about pilot wave theory, and am persuaded about what I view as what qualifies as evidence in an abductive argument, I’m even more sure about my position.
No. My understanding of what Vilenkin and others are claiming is that the universe had a beginning event. However, unless you’re talking about a universe that existed in a static state and then at a particular moment “burst” into an expansion, which Vilenkin claims from the standpoint of physics is not an option, that’s not the issue that you’ve raised.
It’s that the universe has always existed in time, and by implication always existed period, even though it had a beginning to its existence. That’s how I understand your argument. But it’s logically incoherent to say the universe had a beginning to its existence yet it always existed which I’ve pointed out several times now.
His argument, as far as I can tell, is that the universe had a first event which would imply where all of physical reality came into existence. So where the first event does not exist, there is no physical reality, i.e. no universe.
Yes I do. I would say from our conversation that I’m beginning to wonder if you don’t.
Umm, I am talking here particularly about an abductive inference. An abductive inference is just that, an inference from relevant evidence, and in this case objective and verifiable observation.
But arguing that even though the universe always existedonly for all of time, and had a first moment of that existence a finite time ago, only works if you deny a beginning to that existence.
Because if they began to exist they therefor had to not exist in order to begin to exist, unless you want to deny that’s true in spite of all the evidence all around us from which we can inductively infer that it is true, and for which logic necessitates it to be true.
And to deny a beginning event is to deny what all the evidence points to as pointed out by both Vilenkin and Hawking. And a beginning event implies a beginning of when the effects of the event came into existence. So if what you’re doing is denying the universe began to exist, then you’re back to arguing for an eternal universe, which seems to be a minority position these days.
No, I mean the first moment of physical time, i.e., the beginning of physical time.
A period at which nothing existed is a logical impossibility. For out of nothing, comes nothing. The argument is that all the evidence points to a first physical event, which I can’t tell anymore if you agree to or not. I would guess not in order to make any sense of what you’re arguing.
It follows logically that whatever begins to exist would have had to not exist in order for it to begin to exist. It had to have both existed and not existed in order to have a beginning. If it always existed it would not be able to begin to exist.
What I think is your position, that the universe began to exist, but always existed–implied by the fact that it always exited in time, is just logically incoherent which I’ve showed over and over again.
Yet you still insist on arguing for it, at least if I’m understanding correctly what you’re argument is.
So if I understand correctly what you’re saying, to infer a beginning to the universe would in no way imply that the universe began to exist? If so, I just think that’s obviously not true. I think most reasonable people would beg to differ with you. If you’re saying that we don’t need to invoke that implication, then I would say you’re just falling back on a brute fact as your argument.
Yes, and as far as I can tell, they are rules which inform. And you can’t do science without those rules. And as I understand it, following those rules is what provides us with knowledge about things.
If you’re saying that the universe had a beginning, i.e., began to exist, which is what a beginning implies, yet always existed because it always existed in time, it tells me that your position is logically incoherent and pretty much just nonsense.
Physics tells us nothing about anything outside of physical existence because that’s outside of what physics can inform us about.
So to summarize, I would argue that @Rumraket is basically arguing in a convoluted way for the universe as a brute fact. We don’t know why it exists or how it came to exist, it just is, and that’s all we need to know. The problem I find with that line of reasoning, is that it has no explanatory power or scope. One thing it doesn’t do thought, is rule out the possibility that there is a nonphysical explanation for why the universe exists and how it came into existence. So whether or not it’s sound, it still doesn’t affect my position as far as I can tell.
Concerning the op, the only objection that would be insuperable to the argument that I can see, is by showing the proposed explanation to be either logically or metaphysically impossible, which to my knowledge cannot be done. Sure we can quibble about things like definitions, but I don’t see how those would ever amount to insuperable problems. So I stand by my claim that it is possible to make a case for the supernatural using scientific evidence.
