First Cause

[stormbind]

I have this crazy hypothesis that the universe is 'breathing' - for lack of a better word - it's currenty expanding (inhaling if you will), gaining momentum... to a certain point (full lung capacity in my analogy), untill it will start contracting (imploding I guess) once again, at an increasing rate - which will ultimately result in all matter being 'sucked' back to the 'center', where another fantastic 'big bang' will occur, and the process will start all over again - with a 'new' universe.

Sounds good, I used to say the same thing, without the breathing

 

[newfangle]

Epistemelogically and metaphysically, a first cause isn't necessary if your premises are in order. Scientifically, it looks like it could go either way.

 

[Yom]

I have this crazy hypothesis that the universe is 'breathing' - for lack of a better word - it's currenty expanding (inhaling if you will), gaining momentum... to a certain point (full lung capacity in my analogy), untill it will start contracting (imploding I guess) once again, at an increasing rate - which will ultimately result in all matter being 'sucked' back to the 'center', where another fantastic 'big bang' will occur, and the process will start all over again - with a 'new' universe.

You're not alone in that view. I believe that it is considered as a possibility, along with the possibility that the Universe will never stop expanding and will be eventually infinitely large. Or something to that end.

 

[PantheraTigris2]

Sounds good, I used to say the same thing, without the breathing

Well, being a 'creationist' (i.e. someone that believes God created the universe) - I know of His passion for cycles, renewing things, fresh starts, etc. It's all throughout nature, also.

And besides, there's laws of physics - any action will create an equal and opposite reation - which means once the cycle is going, the big bang will have it's effect, and ultimately all that energy is going to 'stretch'/over-extend the universe, and it's going to have the 'reaction' of compressing back on itself with equal force.

Kind of like a slinky - if you throw one side away from you, it's going to come back. Not a great analogy, but still.

p.s. the only physics class I've ever taken was for 2 weeks, and I was totally lost. Transferred to chemistry, where I barely passed (not really my fault though - my highschool education was very disorganized/complicated/screwed up/lots of moves, etc.) But I SHALL take my revenge - when I go to college. But anyways, don't be thrashing my posts, because this is all just a beautiful, gifted, dynamic, yet not very educated (yet) mind at work.

 

[Free Enterprise]

What kind of nonsense is this? Do you call this reasoning? It's a bunch of weak assumptions tied together by a weaker conclusion. Bah!

Well since your post contained no arguments against what I posted I will just do a general response. I will admit that since I was in a rush to type the post some minor mistakes. Despite that I find it reasonable to suspect the main points are backed up with evidence that warrants consideration. I do not recommend arguing that the post is not reasonable and consider it is hypocrisy to do so if you are not going to put legitimate arguments against the points I discussed.

Since I said the universe operates under known laws (the scientific laws) and you called the post “nonsense” I will have to consider apparently you disagree with this which is quite odd (you did not make clear any in sense to what extent you disagree so I cannot tell which part(s) you reject). I will state to clarify further that there are obviously undiscovered laws that effect the universe however all the known laws surely effect it in varying ways in addition. I also argue that the casual relations always observed have shown all events yet witnessed have causes and results. What would you claim happened if the universe was not caused by events? If you cannot provide a better explanation than it was caused then that will be a fair paradigm to accept as reasonable. It is not necessary to always make no hypothesis whatsoever in every case where every detail is not known. I simply state that it seems quite reasonable that the universe is caused rather than uncaused. This hypothesis means the universe cannot be uncaused therefore I posted that "the universe cannot really be uncaused" to make the basic point of the idea clear. I have yet to see a theory that of an uncaused universe that is as feasible as a caused universe. If you have one I would prefer that you post it as opposed to something resembling your last post.

Now for some questions:
Will you say the universe is potentially not governed by known scientific laws? Also, will you or will you not argue it somehow can avoid the casual chain of events that has always been seen so far?

I would find it doubtful you would say yes to the first and it can avoid the casual link to the second. If you answer no to the both of the above then your last post was unnecessary since you do not disagree with the premises I have posted. If you say you do not know then you still must explain how either of these can potentially be false coherently. If it is not possible then the idea cannot be simply dumped without considering the points feasible.

 

[Neomega]

I simply state that it seems quite reasonable that the universe is caused rather than uncaused

Why? Because everything within the universe exhibits cause and effect?

Also, will you or will you not argue it somehow can avoid the casual chain of events that has always been seen so far?

More nonsense. If it "always" has been, then that defies your own parameters.

So either things have "always" followed cause and effect or they have not. Either way it is a catch 22, because the always implies no beginning for cause and effect, therefore cause and effect itself has no beginning.

 

[Cuivienen]

You're not alone in that view. I believe that it is considered as a possibility, along with the possibility that the Universe will never stop expanding and will be eventually infinitely large. Or something to that end.

It's called the Closed Universe or Big Crunch Theory, as compared to the Critical Mass Theory (that the Universe will eventually reach a certain size and stop expanding) and the Open Universe Theory (that the Universe will expand indefinitely). Right now, the Open Universe Theory is generally believed to be bunk, but the other two vie for popularity among astrophysicists. It all depends on how much Dark Matter (WIMPs [Weakly-Interacting Massive Particles] and Neutrinos) there is in the Universe.

 

[stormbind]

It's called the Closed Universe or Big Crunch Theory, as compared to the Critical Mass Theory (that the Universe will eventually reach a certain size and stop expanding) and the Open Universe Theory (that the Universe will expand indefinitely). Right now, the Open Universe Theory is generally believed to be bunk, but the other two vie for popularity among astrophysicists. It all depends on how much Dark Matter (WIMPs [Weakly-Interacting Massive Particles] and Neutrinos) there is in the Universe.

I never heard Critical Mass Theory before, but I didn't really study astronomy/astrophysics. It sounds plain wrong. The objects in space suffer no friction, so they cannot stop moving apart - unless gravity is applying sufficient negative acceleration, in which case they must return to the centre.

The Open Universe Theory is easier for me to accept, but I think it too is unlikely because, given enough time, I think gravity will wear down the velocity of any object... which brings you to Critical Mass... which brings you back to Closed Universe.

P.S. Where did you get the names for the theories?

 

[Perfection]

Open Universe theory is still very active! With the bizarre readings of galaxies actually accelerating away from us and the new ideas of "dark energy" open universe seems to be the dominant. It's latest incarnation, the "Big Rip" theory states that this dark energy is ripping the universe apart and it will continue until no two particles lie on top of each other!

 

[stormbind]

Open Universe theory is still very active! With the bizarre readings of galaxies actually accelerating away from us and the new ideas of "dark energy" open universe seems to be the dominant. It's latest incarnation, the "Big Rip" theory states that this dark energy is ripping the universe apart and it will continue until no two particles lie on top of each other!

The existence of Dark Energy is a hypothetical scenario; a "what if" of science; and, as far as I can see, anyone considering it, must also question to the credibility of the Bing Bang theory.

I don't think we can observe Dark Energy. Because we cannot observe every object, a new large object that is adding forces to a scenario we observe, but itself goes undetected, would create the illusion of Dark Energy where there is none.

 

[bobgote]

Ah I see! Throw the question right back at them. Of course they will say God just "is", at which point I can say, same thing with the universe!!!

which will not work. least not as far as i can see. the universe as we understand it still requires a cause, which you cannot provide. the concept that was explained before - that god created time - either solves or confuses the situation enough because it is rather difficult for us to fathom the absence of time as it is one of the inherent rules of our universe.

I'll answer it as an atheist/agnostic:

I don't know. Is do not pretend to know. I am also not sure that time and matter "began".

I think that at this point, this is the most sensible answer for an atheist/agnostic. With the pretty much complete lack of evidence or capability of obtaining necessary evidence at this point in time, it is rather frivolous to speculate really.

@Monk: If your friend or whomever you were discussing this with doesn't accept this answer, you pretty much have to just make clear that science doesn't necessarily have answers for everything, but rather the method to find the answers when we have the ability to gather required information.

Stephen Hawking says this about pre-Big-Bang: there's no point. Since any matter that existed before the Big Bang collapsed into the singularity that existed just before the Big Bang, all information on what that matter looked like before it collapsed has been lost. Forever. There's no way, according to the physics we know, to obtain any information on events that occurred before the Big Bang. So, for all practical purposes, Time began at the Big Bang. Whatever happened before it can never be known, so to us those events might as well never have existed.

in this case we are just talking about another cycle, which still needs a beginning and an end (or a cause or something). for our practical purposes we can go from time starting at a big bang situation, but that doesn't answer the question at all. we still don't explain what was beforehand, or a cause for the big bang (or even where whatever it was that went "bang" came from) so this isn't really satisfactory at all.

 

[Elgalad]

Monty Python's Galaxy Song in .mp3:

http://www.gecdsb.on.ca/d&g/astro/music/galaxy.mp3

or real audio (better):

http://www.gecdsb.on.ca/d&g/astro/music/galaxy-song.ra


-Enjoy!


Used with permission from Bob Warne, Content Editor, ARTISTdirect, Los Angeles http://www.artistdirect.com/(email of 23 January 2001)


-Elgalad

 

[BasketCase]

in this case we are just talking about another cycle, which still needs a beginning and an end (or a cause or something). for our practical purposes we can go from time starting at a big bang situation, but that doesn't answer the question at all. we still don't explain what was beforehand, or a cause for the big bang (or even where whatever it was that went "bang" came from) so this isn't really satisfactory at all.

If the knowledge of what came before lies across a boundary that knowledge cannot cross, we must accept that the question will never be answered.

It's impossible to know an electron's precise position and velocity at the same time. It's impossible to know if there's a God. Third Corollary of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that it's impossible to know what crazy ideas BasketCase is gonna post next.

Some things simply cannot be known.

 

[bobgote]

If the knowledge of what came before lies across a boundary that knowledge cannot cross, we must accept that the question will never be answered.

i think it's too early to say that we can't answer it, rather we just can't answer it now. Stephen Hawking is a hack anyway

It's impossible to know an electron's precise position and velocity at the same time. It's impossible to know if there's a God. Third Corollary of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that it's impossible to know what crazy ideas BasketCase is gonna post next.

i don't know about the electron one (why would we be unable to know it's position and velocity at a given time? - off topic, but i'm interested ) but i don't believe the other two.

God could reveal himself if he wanted to, leaving no doubt. and if he didn't exist, there would probably be some means to prove this without a doubt in the future.

and i'm sure if we had a higher knowledge of BasketCase, and his background, we could begin to predict his crazy idea posting behaviour

Some things simply cannot be known.

...yet

 

[King Alexander]

How do atheists get around the concept of first cause?

Scientists have a few "explanation - theories" with good points, but nothing is 100% certain - that's the beauty of science: it never stops searching, unlike religion who says "God was there always"(like someone priest saw him), "God created it all", and the issue ends there - no one is "supposed" to investigate further, if he doesn't want the wrath of God upon him.

I was discussing theology with someone recently and they brought that up, and I shamefully couldn't think of a good explanation!

There's no shame in this! We don't know it all! There are many mysteries in our own planet that we haven't solved yet, let alone the universe's mysteries.

Mystery is how religion takes for granted the story with God, and doesn't care to search further and find things/answers.

Here's what I say: Logic ends where religion begins.

 

[Neomega]

We assume cause has a beginning, because it is the first step, the past. But how do we know effect ever ends?

If effect can be eternal, why cannot cause?

And Christians believe in eternity, so they most definitely believe in a never ending effect.

 

[bobgote]

Scientists have a few "explanation - theories" with good points, but nothing is 100% certain - that's the beauty of science: it never stops searching, unlike religion who says "God was there always"(like someone priest saw him), "God created it all", and the issue ends there - no one is "supposed" to investigate further, if he doesn't want the wrath of God upon him.

That is an incorrect and far too stereotypical view of religion. there are many of us who consider it as God's purpose for us to seek knowledge and understanding of what he's done. Your apparent understanding of religion is medieval. The church has changed since then.

 

[Neomega]

It is funny, upon hearing of fallacies of science, religionists try to insert the "truths" of religion.

guy, "well, determining if there was a Big Bang was difficult indeed."

bible guy: "I have the answers, it says right here God made the universe, that is why you are confused!"

 

[bobgote]

We assume cause has a beginning, because it is the first step, the past. But how do we know effect ever ends?

If effect can be eternal, why cannot cause?

And Christians believe in eternity, so they most definitely believe in a never ending effect.

would you say then that it is possible that there was no cause, or beginning to the universe, that it always was? does that seem logical by your thinking? i would have thought that a beginning implies an end (although perhaps not), but that if you accept there is no end, you'd also accept that there is no beginning.

What do you think?

 

[Neomega]

would you say then that it is possible that there was no cause, or beginning to the universe, that it always was? does that seem logical by your thinking? i would have thought that a beginning implies an end (although perhaps not), but that if you accept there is no end, you'd also accept that there is no beginning.

What do you think?

Indeed, I can accept the possibilty of no beginning.

60 septillion years from now, I'll put down my harp, and be like, "Hey, Bob, this eternity sure is long isn't it?"

And after 60 septillion years, I think I'd start to somwhat grasp the possibility of an eternal existance of the universe.

Right now, knowing there was a beginning, and there will be an end for this particular experience on Earth, kind of makes all other rules abide by our perceptions, even though our perceptions can easily be off.