Infinite causal chains follow immediately from having continuous time. It's unclear if the actual world has continuous time, but there are certainly internally consistent physical laws that do, so the idea that these are metaphysically impossible seems very dubious to me. The ostensible paradoxes here all seem to arise from discontinuous events, rather than infinite causal chains per se.
Time is not continous - there exists a smallest possible time period, which is the Planck time. Both time and space seem to be discrete (against everyday experience) according to our current understanding of physical laws.
That is a common misunderstanding - quantum field theory, taken on it's own, has continuous time and space, as does general relativity. The Plank scale isn't a discretization of space-time, rather, it's the scale at which the conflicting predictions of the two theories become unavoidable. We can strongly expect to encounter new physics at or below that energy level, but that doesn't mean the new physics will have discrete space-time. Further, AIUI, discrete space-time contradicts special relativity. If there's some kind of "space-time grid" rather than a continuous manifold it can't remain invariant under Lorentz transformations (this is one of the things that make QFT hard, because it means you can't have toy models with only finitely many degrees of freedom).
Let us take a moment to appreciate how the recent Philosophical Conclusions (PC) of this Blog have enhanced the straightforward Common Observations (CO) that we all collectively share with a few Examples:
1. (CO) Less than 100 billion people have ever existed (primates who evolved under the harsh and brutal conditions of a cruel and indifferent universe, and who continue to struggle with untold misery)
2. (PC) A very good God almost certainly exists, because this is the best way to account for the very good existence of Beth 2 people
3. (CO) In terms of language ability, philosophers are inferior to literary theorists, and literary theorists are inferior to literary authors. In terms of mathematical ability, philosophers are inferior to economists, and economists are inferior to mathematicians
4. (PC) Clearly, philosophers are better thinkers than authors and mathematicians
5. (CO) All forms of thinking, worst to best, are nothing more than patternism
6. (PC) Patternism is an inferior form of thinking
7. (CO) Normal people are unlikely to reach those PC conclusions given their CO knowledge base
8. (PC) Normal people are God-awful at philosophy, and they make bogus arguments based on Patternism, Lists of Examples, and Sarcasm
> Positing an infinite succession of causes doesn’t explain anything, because there’s no explanation of the chain itself. If a dragon appeared in my room, even if it was birthed by an earlier dragon, itself birthed by an earlier dragon going infinitely far back, there would still be something unexplained—it would be surprising that there’s this infinite succession of dragons. That would need a cause.
It has several serious advantages. First of all, its inductive. Secondly, citing myself from another post:
"Infinitely old tiger is weird, but it is less weird then uncausable tiger. In the former case I can just say, okay it seems that my limited brain is just unable to comprehend the full causal chain of tiger existence because its infinite, so the problem may be on my end, while infinitely old tigers are completely valid. In the later it feels as some kind of semantic trick and the whole situation is even less satisfying."
Same thing with chain of dragons. If the dragon suddenly appears in your room for no reason - it's surprising. If a population of dragons has inhabited a room since the dawn of times and the only thing that prevents you from tracking down the causal history of every dragon is the limitations of your own mortal body - then its seems like you problem, while the infinite chain is fine.
> The chain of infinite events is concrete—causally efficacious
Not really? The chain itself doesn't causally affect anything, only elements of the chain do.
> the theist can deny that God is a thing
But then I can say: "Gotcha! Made you acknowledge that God is not a thing!" Which obviously makes me an instant winner in the argument and everyone claps.
Jokes aside, the reason why we can meaningfully say that chain is not a thing because it can be reduced to its elements and doesn't have separate existence beyond them. But God is irreducible, so this doesn't work.
That said, I agree that infinite causal chains are unlikely to be real, on the ground of a general stance against actual infinities, but if you do not share such sentiment, then you have much harder time dismissing them.
Point of clarification: the core cosmological argument of the “unmoved mover” is usually taken to mean that the Deity created the universe, but what it actually means in its original design is that the Deity is, continuously, the cause of the universe exist in an ordered and logical form. Aquinas would not argue that God created gravity, but that the continuous existence of a static gravitational constant for no discernible reason is because God has determined it will have a static form. In the traditional theology, God is more like a fabric of reality with will and desires, not some kind of big wizard who makes things happen.
More obvious is this fundamental Theorem (which we see clearly illustrated in today's Blog and discussion) concerning all philosophical arguments (for God or otherwise):
1 (Definition) Let Q be a philosophical issue, and let A, which we write as the function A(Q), be a philosophical argument concerning Q. Then A', which we write as the composition A'[A(Q)], is said to be a Re-patterning of A iff A' has the same structure of A and A'[A(Q)] yields the opposite conclusion of A(Q)
In plainer English, A' is a slight tweaking of A to yield an opposite conclusion
2 (Theorem) For any philosophical issue Q and philosophical argument A(Q), there exists a Re-patterning A'[A(Q)]
3 Therefore, if A(G) is an affirmative argument for God, then there exists a Re-patterning A' that is a negative argument for God. You might be inclined to say "But A' is a bad argument for such and such reasons". But then, Q = "whether A' is a good argument" is a philosophical issue, and your reasons R are a philosophical argument such that R(Q) is negative. This gives rise to a Re-patterning R' that refutes R, as well as an infinite series of philosophical arguments that never converges, neither to affirmation nor negation
4 Therefore, there is no truth and life has no meaning. Hence, you should read Camus and conclude that the good and wholesome use of philosophy is the accepting embrace of a never-ending absurd struggle
What happened to the first law of thermodynamics? Something like the conservation of energy, or the conservation of mass, or the conservation of mass-energy-matter? Energy cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy in a closed system is fixed but it can be transformed from one form to another.
This reminds me of a point I made to a friend in a conversation about cosmology. The core function of statistics applied to chemistry dictates that entropy must always increase. This is not just an idiopathic law of science, it’s an observable mathematical truth of physics. Therefore:
1. The universe has a finite amount of matter
2. Entropy always increases over time
3. Observation: Entropy is still increasing as the universe is not in a purely disordered state.
4. Conclusions: The observed matter must have begun to exist a finite length of time in the past
This leaves us with a choice between the universe starting a finite amount of time in the past, being subject to some periodic remission of entropy, or including an infinite amount of matter such that entropy may never reach an infinitely disordered state.
Any of these conclusions would functionally shatter the core view of “secular” cosmology, hence why even the Big Bang was considered a theological argument when it was first put forward
"if the universe, supposed to be governed by the law of entropy increase, had existed for an infinity of time, the entropy would by now be at its maximum state; since this is not the case, the universe must be of a finite age"
“The recognition after about 1900 that radioactive change is an irreversible process with a constant rate of decay opened the way to arguments in favor of a finite-age universe based on radioactivity rather than, or as a supplement to, the entropy-based argument."
"Austrian physicist Arthur Erich Haas introduced the argument based on radioactive decay. How is it that uranium is still present on the Earth and elsewhere in the universe? He pointed out that if uranium was to be explained as a decay product of a heavier, hypothetical element, then this element would again have to be the product of a still heavier element, and so on ad infinitum. Under the assumption of an eternal universe, this would lead to the impossible conclusion of an element of infinite atomic weight! Moreover, the disintegration of an infinite series of radioactive elements would give rise to an infinite amount of heat, which, when distributed in the spatially finite universe, would make the temperature of the present universe infinitely high. Therefore, “the phenomenon of atomic decay, which probably governs not only radium and uranium but all matter, constitutes an important new objection against the assumption of an eternal world process”. "
So other science stuff besides Big Bang cosmology.
Clever observation and reply!
Every *natural* thing needs a cause. The whole point of the concept of the supernatural that it does not need a cause.
But apparently motives are in play.
Infinite causal chains follow immediately from having continuous time. It's unclear if the actual world has continuous time, but there are certainly internally consistent physical laws that do, so the idea that these are metaphysically impossible seems very dubious to me. The ostensible paradoxes here all seem to arise from discontinuous events, rather than infinite causal chains per se.
Time is not continous - there exists a smallest possible time period, which is the Planck time. Both time and space seem to be discrete (against everyday experience) according to our current understanding of physical laws.
That is a common misunderstanding - quantum field theory, taken on it's own, has continuous time and space, as does general relativity. The Plank scale isn't a discretization of space-time, rather, it's the scale at which the conflicting predictions of the two theories become unavoidable. We can strongly expect to encounter new physics at or below that energy level, but that doesn't mean the new physics will have discrete space-time. Further, AIUI, discrete space-time contradicts special relativity. If there's some kind of "space-time grid" rather than a continuous manifold it can't remain invariant under Lorentz transformations (this is one of the things that make QFT hard, because it means you can't have toy models with only finitely many degrees of freedom).
Interesting, I’m not sure why I was confused about this. I think a lot of popsci books are ambigous or straight misleading on this.
Popsci is very misleading on this point
Let us take a moment to appreciate how the recent Philosophical Conclusions (PC) of this Blog have enhanced the straightforward Common Observations (CO) that we all collectively share with a few Examples:
1. (CO) Less than 100 billion people have ever existed (primates who evolved under the harsh and brutal conditions of a cruel and indifferent universe, and who continue to struggle with untold misery)
2. (PC) A very good God almost certainly exists, because this is the best way to account for the very good existence of Beth 2 people
3. (CO) In terms of language ability, philosophers are inferior to literary theorists, and literary theorists are inferior to literary authors. In terms of mathematical ability, philosophers are inferior to economists, and economists are inferior to mathematicians
4. (PC) Clearly, philosophers are better thinkers than authors and mathematicians
5. (CO) All forms of thinking, worst to best, are nothing more than patternism
6. (PC) Patternism is an inferior form of thinking
7. (CO) Normal people are unlikely to reach those PC conclusions given their CO knowledge base
8. (PC) Normal people are God-awful at philosophy, and they make bogus arguments based on Patternism, Lists of Examples, and Sarcasm
> Here is an argument that, as defenders of the cosmological argument emphasize at great length, has never been made
I've personally seen a person come up with this argument. And I'm fairly certain she wasn't the first.
Also you were essentially making it in these posts (a bit modified version but the core reasoning is the same):
https://benthams.substack.com/p/god-best-explains-the-world
https://benthams.substack.com/p/a-new-cosmological-argument
> Positing an infinite succession of causes doesn’t explain anything, because there’s no explanation of the chain itself. If a dragon appeared in my room, even if it was birthed by an earlier dragon, itself birthed by an earlier dragon going infinitely far back, there would still be something unexplained—it would be surprising that there’s this infinite succession of dragons. That would need a cause.
It has several serious advantages. First of all, its inductive. Secondly, citing myself from another post:
"Infinitely old tiger is weird, but it is less weird then uncausable tiger. In the former case I can just say, okay it seems that my limited brain is just unable to comprehend the full causal chain of tiger existence because its infinite, so the problem may be on my end, while infinitely old tigers are completely valid. In the later it feels as some kind of semantic trick and the whole situation is even less satisfying."
Same thing with chain of dragons. If the dragon suddenly appears in your room for no reason - it's surprising. If a population of dragons has inhabited a room since the dawn of times and the only thing that prevents you from tracking down the causal history of every dragon is the limitations of your own mortal body - then its seems like you problem, while the infinite chain is fine.
> The chain of infinite events is concrete—causally efficacious
Not really? The chain itself doesn't causally affect anything, only elements of the chain do.
> the theist can deny that God is a thing
But then I can say: "Gotcha! Made you acknowledge that God is not a thing!" Which obviously makes me an instant winner in the argument and everyone claps.
Jokes aside, the reason why we can meaningfully say that chain is not a thing because it can be reduced to its elements and doesn't have separate existence beyond them. But God is irreducible, so this doesn't work.
That said, I agree that infinite causal chains are unlikely to be real, on the ground of a general stance against actual infinities, but if you do not share such sentiment, then you have much harder time dismissing them.
Cause and effect gearwork
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockwork_universe
"Not only is the Universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think."
Werner Heisenberg
So we should be good to each other.
Here's the best I've seen yet on the subject. Including a PhD student
https://youtu.be/vgLzMkxhEiQ?si=mh1U0_WDZ_Gbby6F
Point of clarification: the core cosmological argument of the “unmoved mover” is usually taken to mean that the Deity created the universe, but what it actually means in its original design is that the Deity is, continuously, the cause of the universe exist in an ordered and logical form. Aquinas would not argue that God created gravity, but that the continuous existence of a static gravitational constant for no discernible reason is because God has determined it will have a static form. In the traditional theology, God is more like a fabric of reality with will and desires, not some kind of big wizard who makes things happen.
Here is another cosmological argument:
1. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed.
2. The physical universe is infinitely old.
3. God is the Creator of all other things concrete.
4. But if both matter and the physical universe are uncreated, then God does not exist (why else does God create if not matter or the universe?)
1. is obviously false
More obvious is this fundamental Theorem (which we see clearly illustrated in today's Blog and discussion) concerning all philosophical arguments (for God or otherwise):
1 (Definition) Let Q be a philosophical issue, and let A, which we write as the function A(Q), be a philosophical argument concerning Q. Then A', which we write as the composition A'[A(Q)], is said to be a Re-patterning of A iff A' has the same structure of A and A'[A(Q)] yields the opposite conclusion of A(Q)
In plainer English, A' is a slight tweaking of A to yield an opposite conclusion
2 (Theorem) For any philosophical issue Q and philosophical argument A(Q), there exists a Re-patterning A'[A(Q)]
3 Therefore, if A(G) is an affirmative argument for God, then there exists a Re-patterning A' that is a negative argument for God. You might be inclined to say "But A' is a bad argument for such and such reasons". But then, Q = "whether A' is a good argument" is a philosophical issue, and your reasons R are a philosophical argument such that R(Q) is negative. This gives rise to a Re-patterning R' that refutes R, as well as an infinite series of philosophical arguments that never converges, neither to affirmation nor negation
4 Therefore, there is no truth and life has no meaning. Hence, you should read Camus and conclude that the good and wholesome use of philosophy is the accepting embrace of a never-ending absurd struggle
What happened to the first law of thermodynamics? Something like the conservation of energy, or the conservation of mass, or the conservation of mass-energy-matter? Energy cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy in a closed system is fixed but it can be transformed from one form to another.
This reminds me of a point I made to a friend in a conversation about cosmology. The core function of statistics applied to chemistry dictates that entropy must always increase. This is not just an idiopathic law of science, it’s an observable mathematical truth of physics. Therefore:
1. The universe has a finite amount of matter
2. Entropy always increases over time
3. Observation: Entropy is still increasing as the universe is not in a purely disordered state.
4. Conclusions: The observed matter must have begun to exist a finite length of time in the past
This leaves us with a choice between the universe starting a finite amount of time in the past, being subject to some periodic remission of entropy, or including an infinite amount of matter such that entropy may never reach an infinitely disordered state.
Any of these conclusions would functionally shatter the core view of “secular” cosmology, hence why even the Big Bang was considered a theological argument when it was first put forward
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is one way to argue that the universe had a beginning. Another way is the irreversibility of radioactivity.
https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2007JHA....38..393K
"if the universe, supposed to be governed by the law of entropy increase, had existed for an infinity of time, the entropy would by now be at its maximum state; since this is not the case, the universe must be of a finite age"
“The recognition after about 1900 that radioactive change is an irreversible process with a constant rate of decay opened the way to arguments in favor of a finite-age universe based on radioactivity rather than, or as a supplement to, the entropy-based argument."
"Austrian physicist Arthur Erich Haas introduced the argument based on radioactive decay. How is it that uranium is still present on the Earth and elsewhere in the universe? He pointed out that if uranium was to be explained as a decay product of a heavier, hypothetical element, then this element would again have to be the product of a still heavier element, and so on ad infinitum. Under the assumption of an eternal universe, this would lead to the impossible conclusion of an element of infinite atomic weight! Moreover, the disintegration of an infinite series of radioactive elements would give rise to an infinite amount of heat, which, when distributed in the spatially finite universe, would make the temperature of the present universe infinitely high. Therefore, “the phenomenon of atomic decay, which probably governs not only radium and uranium but all matter, constitutes an important new objection against the assumption of an eternal world process”. "
So other science stuff besides Big Bang cosmology.