What "caused" the big bang?

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

Well, QM is an acausal theory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I have said, you don't understand what acausal means. If something occurs due to physical laws, even if the chance of it occurring is only 50%, it is still caused. Acaused means without any discernable pattern. Entirely unpredictable.

Neither do I. I just don't think that acausal is synonymous with supernatural.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this we disagree (with your definition of "supernatural").

I am not interested in debating semantics with you.

What, exactly, is it that you think we are in disagreement about here, anyway? I have not made any claims about what caused the Big Bang, or even whether it was caused. All I have done is mention what some of the current theories are, and you immediately attack me, claiming that I am talking out of my ass, while simultaneously demonstrating that you know nothing about those theories. What is your problem, anyway?


Dr. Stupid

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:

As I have said, you don't understand what acausal means. If something occurs due to physical laws, even if the chance of it occurring is only 50%, it is still caused. Acaused means without any discernable pattern. Entirely unpredictable.

What is a quantum fluctuation caused by? No fair saying that it's caused by its underlying cause.

Imagine if reality were like what most intellectuals envisaged in the 17th century (ie the materialists). Most of our modern technology would not be possible.

The straw man that will not die!

~~ Paul

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian said:
What is a quantum fluctuation caused by? No fair saying that it's caused by its underlying cause.


The straw man that will not die!

~~ Paul

Ah yes, I forget. Materialists have shifted and fudged their position so much that 21st century materilism bears very little resemblance to the materialism espoused with the birth of modern science. So much for the good old mechanical philosophy.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:

Ah yes, I forget. Materialists have shifted and fudged their position so much that 21st century materilism bears very little resemblance to the materialism espoused with the birth of modern science. So much for the good old mechanical philosophy.

Yup, so much for philosophy in general. What?! You want us philosophers to pay attention to developments in science? Hell, no! We composed our grocery list of philosophies centuries ago and we're stickin' to it. The fact that it is meaningless to ask which philosophy is correct won't stop us from discussing them ad nauseam.

So what was the cause of a quantum fluctuation?

~~ Paul

 

[T'ai Chi]

If you want to talk about Big Bang, you have to accept that there was no time before it.

"you have to accept", sounds like some serious religious dogma to me.

If I favor the Big Bang, and want to talk about it, then I cannot even put forth the idea of something existing before the Big Bang?

In Big Bang theory, there is no before. This has been pointed out by several posters in several ways - perhaps it might help if you explained your difficulty in acknowledging this?

I'm interested in the Big Bang theory, but also interested in the actual physical Bang that took place in nature. Therefore, asking what came before is a question that makes sense.

 

[JamesM]

"you have to accept", sounds like some serious religious dogma to me.

I'm afraid that's how science works. Theories are adjusted to take into account observations, not because it is inconvenient or fails to match up with our prejudices.

If I favor the Big Bang, and want to talk about it, then I cannot even put forth the idea of something existing before the Big Bang?

Of course you can. Just bear in mind that there is no evidence for the Big Bang you want to talk about. As a result, it is essentially your own speculative whimsy and you are unlikely to find anyone interested in discussing it on the science forum.

I'm interested in the Big Bang theory, but also interested in the actual physical Bang that took place in nature. Therefore, asking what came before is a question that makes sense.

Sorry, that's still not correct, no matter how many times you repeat it. Big Bang means no before.

 

[T'ai Chi]

"Big Bang means no before."

You don't have the knowledge to know that I am incorrect.

You, I, and everyone else, is ignorant of all the variables of the universes' origin, if it had one.

I'm wondering how the bang started, where the material/energy/etc. used in it came from, and if you or anyone can name something, anything, that had no cause?

 

[LFTKBS]

I'm wondering how the bang started, where the material/energy/etc. used in it came from

Okay, try this: think of every "bang" that you know. Movie explosions, nuclear weaponry, pipe bombs, et cetera. T=0 is exactly not like that.

 

[JamesM]

You don't have the knowledge to know that I am incorrect.

Incorrect about whether there was a 'before' before the Big Bang? If our current theory is right then you are incorrect.

You, I, and everyone else, is ignorant of all the variables of the universes' origin, if it had one.

Yes, those appear to be unknowable from our current position, which is what makes your question meaningless.

I'm wondering how the bang started, where the material/energy/etc. used in it came from, and if you or anyone can name something, anything, that had no cause?

I can't name anything, no. My ignorance does not make Big Bang theory wrong.

It is obvious that you have made your mind up on this matter, so excuse me if I bow out of this unproductive exchange. Enjoy your speculation.

 

[T'ai Chi]

"Yes, those appear to be unknowable from our current position, which is what makes your question meaningless."

I don't believe in meaningless questions, sorry. They appear to be unknowable, yet you dogmatically say that "you must accept", etc.? heh, I thought they were unknowable? heh

"I can't name anything [that exists yet had no cause], no."

Gee, that doesn't surprise me. I can't either. Hey, why didn't you say "the universe"? I guess you even don't believe your own theory.

BTW, when I say cause, I am probably speaking about a natural cause, just to get some argument hungry atheists off my back.

 

[Moccomouse]

BTW, when I say cause, I am probably speaking about a natural cause, just to get some argument hungry atheists off my back.

Read my other post, T'ai Chi.
Also, I'd like everyone to read this: (from Encarta)

"According to the big bang theory, the universe expanded rapidly in its first microseconds. A single force existed at the beginning of the universe, and as the universe expanded and cooled, this force separated into those we know today: gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force."

So even if there was something before the Big Bang, this means it could proabably not be described under the laws of physics, since the laws of physics as we know them did not exist.

You keep asking "What caused the Big Bang?". You must try and seperate the concept of the Big Bang and the Beginning of Time/Space (t=0) in your mind. The Big Bang could have had a cause, but if it did, then it could not have been t=0, and the Big Bang theory would be wrong on that point, at least. The concept of a caused Bang and a Beginning of Time Bang are mutually exclusive. If the Big Bang was t=0, then there could not have been a cause.

Something cannot have a "cause" as we understand the word if there was no space beforehand to BE a cause in.

And if there was no time, then the concept of cause and effect is totally meaningless, as there must be time for one thing to happen after another, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Supercharts]

We will never know because we can't.

It occurs to me that the way we have evolved to think about our environment is that everything has a cause. We accept that because of the nearly infinite times humans have observed causal relationships since the time we became sentient.

Historically, science has given us overwhelming evidence that if we follow effect backwards – always looking for a cause – we will figure it all out and be satisfied. Satisfied in the sense that the ‘cause’ we discover is understandable and satisfies our initial question based on our evolutionary stage.
Suppose our method is basically unreal and incorrect? And it’s been that way throughout our evolution.

In other words we, as humans, made an initial mistake at the very beginning of our evolution and establishment of becoming sentient. Our brains evolved in a way that makes us able to only view the world in terms of cause and effect.

For the sake of argument suppose that even though this ‘mistake’ occurred what we have erroneously believed up to now has done a very good job of explaining things – but for the wrong fundamental reasons. In other words Aristotle was really wrong. Cause and effect works but for the wrong reasons. Somehow we have missed the true underlying explanation but it hasn’t stopped us from continuing to use ‘cause’ and ‘effect’ as an explanation.

Continuing on with this argument, and using cause and effect as an explanation, it follows that we, in our present state of evolution will never be able to really understand the actual basis for reality. Our brains are not ‘wired’ for it. You could state that our brains have evolved and are ‘wired’ in such a way as to make us the ultimate survivor and rulers of a planet composed of other animals. What part of our DNA needs to be changed to understand? Or, what part of our DNA is missing? There is no major difference between being human and being a Chimpanzee at the DNA level. Is it 93% or so that we share with them?

To sum this all up I believe that we will never be able to understand the Big Bang at t=0 or t<0.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: We will never know because we can't.

It occurs to me that the way we have evolved to think about our environment is that everything has a cause. We accept that because of the nearly infinite times humans have observed causal relationships since the time we became sentient.

Historically, science has given us overwhelming evidence that if we follow effect backwards – always looking for a cause – we will figure it all out and be satisfied. Satisfied in the sense that the ‘cause’ we discover is understandable and satisfies our initial question based on our evolutionary stage.
Suppose our method is basically unreal and incorrect? And it’s been that way throughout our evolution.

In other words we, as humans, made an initial mistake at the very beginning of our evolution and establishment of becoming sentient. Our brains evolved in a way that makes us able to only view the world in terms of cause and effect.

For the sake of argument suppose that even though this ‘mistake’ occurred what we have erroneously believed up to now has done a very good job of explaining things – but for the wrong fundamental reasons. In other words Aristotle was really wrong. Cause and effect works but for the wrong reasons. Somehow we have missed the true underlying explanation but it hasn’t stopped us from continuing to use ‘cause’ and ‘effect’ as an explanation.

Continuing on with this argument, and using cause and effect as an explanation, it follows that we, in our present state of evolution will never be able to really understand the actual basis for reality. Our brains are not ‘wired’ for it. You could state that our brains have evolved and are ‘wired’ in such a way as to make us the ultimate survivor and rulers of a planet composed of other animals. What part of our DNA needs to be changed to understand? Or, what part of our DNA is missing? There is no major difference between being human and being a Chimpanzee at the DNA level. Is it 93% or so that we share with them?

To sum this all up I believe that we will never be able to understand the Big Bang at t=0 or t<0.

Hey this is impressive stuff you've written here Supercharts!

 

[Moccomouse]

Indeed, supercharts, quite interesting. I'd hate to think of all the other things we'd have gotten wrong if we can't even understand something as simple as cause and effect.

 

[BillyJoe]

Supercharts,

I don't know.....if we had always assumed there are things we will never understand, there would probably, right now, be a whole lot more things we would never understand that we do understand because we didn't make that assumption.....if you get my drift.

BillyJoe

 

[Supercharts]

Supercharts,

I don't know.....if we had always assumed there are things we will never understand, there would probably, right now, be a whole lot more things we would never understand that we do understand because we didn't make that assumption.....if you get my drift.

BillyJoe

You are correct. But if you think in the sense of our idea of cause and effect it could be that for the most part it works but for the wrong fundamental reasons.
Those fundamental reasons are fine except when we run into a paradox.
We know about QM because it can be proven to be a valid but we cannot understand it logically. [The double slit/light experiment is an example. Why those results? We have to accept the results because we can see them but try to make sense of those results in terms of cause and effect and my mind just swims.]
I really hate to give credit to Chomsky but if he is right - our brains are 'wired' for language whereas other animal's brains are not - then it could also follow that our brains are wired for 'cause and effect'. This really bothered David Hume who, as a philosopher, founded, IMHO, skeptical thought in the modern age.
And...not to belabor the point, if a mole has no chance of ever developing language then we have no chance of understanding what appears to be a paradox - what caused the BB without an actor? - because our brains, being wired for cause and effect - won't ever allow us to understand.
Somethings we just have to accept - in this case our inability to comprehend the double-slit experiment and the BB.
But I could be wrong.

 

[Dancing David]

Perfectly clear BillieJoe. The truth of the matter is that Stimp is talkiing out of his a*se again. The Big Bang just arose acausally. There can be no vacuum fluctuations or quantum fluctuations in the absence of anything at all.

Silly Rabbi kicks are for trids. Go read Guth's book on infaltion, it is recursive infinitly.

 

[sorgoth]

Once again, I'm still trying to make sense of this myself, so I am probably wrong, but...

There can be no vacuum fluctuations or quantum fluctuations in the absence of anything at all.

You see, there's Nothing, which apparently isn't the absence of possibility, just matter. So fluctuations in this Nothing cause something(Of course, I use the word "Cause" to stop my head from exploding, since they are simply fluctuations, are aren't "Caused" by anything). Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[BillyJoe]

You see, there's Nothing, which apparently isn't the absence of possibility, just matter. So fluctuations in this Nothing cause something(Of course, I use the word "Cause" to stop my head from exploding, since they are simply fluctuations, are aren't "Caused" by anything). Correct me if I'm wrong.

Okay, so "Nothing" actually means "Something (quantum fluctuations)".
But why doesn't "Nothing" simply just mean "Nothing"?
Why is there "Something (quantum fluctuations)" rather than "Nothing"?

BillyJoe.
(No longer expecting an answer)

 

[BillyJoe]

Supercharts,

Okay I'll let it go. You could be right. But I think we need to assume that we can find answers and that we are not limited by our biology. Otherwise we may stop before we have all the answers that it is possible for us to get.

.Somethings we just have to accept - in this case our inability to comprehend the double-slit experiment and the BB.
But I could be wrong.

Well, there are a variety of interpretations of the double-slit experiment (Copenhagen, Everett, Statistical, Quantum potential). None of them without problems but better than throwing up the arms....

regards,
BillyJoe.