probably an old and worn out question

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Brian W

The core of my question is whether or not science can prove or disprove the concept of 'no beginning' because everything must have a 'cause'.

Brian, there are no 'proofs' of any theories in Science … never has been, never will be..

Originally Posted by Brian W

Now let us, just for fun, assume that time is just an illusion. I am not sure that the absence of time neccesitates the absence of cause and effect.

If time is absent, then the terms 'cause' and 'effect' would seem to be meaningless … 'effect' could precede 'cause', 'cause' might precede 'effect', the two might be co-incident, the two might not even be correlated as relationships involve connectedness and hence direction, etc, etc …

If you remove time, you remove the observer as it was an illusion in the mind of the observer…

Originally Posted by Brian W

From my simplistic mind comes this thought.

If through research, observation and meticulous record keeping I find that it is apparently impossible to get a 'result' without a 'cause' I feel that in the true spirit of science I have proved that results need causes.

Seems to me you have also implied a starting condition as well … which again, re-establishes time, and an observer … in this case, yourself.

Originally Posted by Brian W

As I mentioned,

Does that not neccesitate an infinity of causes?

Please note this does not bring in 'higher intelligence', 'self awareness' or 'G-d'

I am simply putting forward two interconnected ideas (1) everything needs a cause, (2) therefore there can be no first cause.

If there above is correct then the universe (for lack of a better term) may have an ending but it can have no beginning.

Brian

Its interesting that our brains are geared to our perception of the passing of time. Even our language contains the essence of time. The terms you're using above "cause" effect", "results" etc all imply a direction of time, to me.
It also seems to me that the best we can do, is observe things flowing from past, (or present), to the future and, maybe rewind events from the future to the past in our models. As soon as you delete time from any of this, even our language breaks down and becomes meaningless.

Perhaps this is what existed when there was nothing … meaninglessness ..?

This conversation has completely departed the realms of science. At best, plausible logic could develop something from it, but it would not be science … pure philosophy at best … better off in the hands of metaphysics.

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Brian W

Carl, I am definitely NOT bringing in the concept of an 'higher intelligence' that started everything. .

The core of my question is whether or not science can prove or disprove the concept of 'no beginning' because everything must have a 'cause'.

Now let us, just for fun, assume that time is just an illusion. I am not sure that the absence of time neccesitates the absence of cause and effect.

From my simplistic mind comes this thought.

If through research, observation and meticulous record keeping I find that it is apparently impossible to get a 'result' without a 'cause' I feel that in the true spirit of science I have proved that results need causes.

Does that not neccesitate an infinity of causes?

Please note this does not bring in 'higher intelligence', 'self awareness' or 'G-d'

I am simply putting forward two interconnected ideas (1) everything needs a cause, (2) therefore there can be no first cause.

If there above is correct then the universe (for lack of a better term) may have an ending but it can have no beginning.

Brian

Brian, cause and effect as we understand it, requires time to have any meaning. It also requires time has a direction (past to future). If there is no real time, cause and effect become meaningless, except where consciousness dictates/observes that there must be a time with direction or that a cause precedes an effect.

There is no way to prove an infinity of causes, unless you as the observer have been around for an indefinite period of time.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Brian, there are no 'proofs' of any theories in Science … never has been, never will be..


If time is absent, then the terms 'cause' and 'effect' would seem to be meaningless … 'effect' could precede 'cause', 'cause' might precede 'effect', the two might be co-incident, the two might not even be correlated as relationships involve connectedness and hence direction, etc, etc …

If you remove time, you remove the observer as it was an illusion in the mind of the observer…



Seems to me you have also implied a starting condition as well … which again, re-establishes time, and an observer … in this case, yourself.



Its interesting that our brains are geared to our perception of the passing of time. Even our language contains the essence of time. The terms you're using above "cause" effect", "results" etc all imply a direction of time, to me.
It also seems to me that the best we can do, is observe things flowing from past, (or present), to the future and, maybe rewind events from the future to the past in our models. As soon as you delete time from any of this, even our language breaks down and becomes meaningless.

Perhaps this is what existed when there was nothing … meaninglessness ..?

This conversation has completely departed the realms of science. At best, plausible logic could develop something from it, but it would not be science … pure philosophy at best … better off in the hands of metaphysics.

Cheers

That is why science needs a complete overhaul, especially its methodology. It is running into concepts and realities which it cannot deal with at present. But, unless it can learn to deal with and even work within them, it will only get so far and no further. There aren't too many scientists these days who can work with this and that is why nothing much is being done.

[Brian W (Brian)]

Ok there seems to be agreement that time is a necessity. No argument from me.

I find it strange that some feel that Philosophy, once known as the 'Queen of Sciences' is now to be excluded from scientific explorations. How will we ever get there from here without the philosophical question to drive the quest?

As for only being able to prove an infinity of causes by being an observer throughout infinity... poppycock! Science has believed for a long time that if you can reproduce the same result under the same conditions as many times as desired you have proven a law. Admittedly there is no iron clad guaranty that it will work every time but after enough consecutive positive results you are justified in believing it will allso occur the next time.
Brian

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

That is why science needs a complete overhaul, especially its methodology. It is running into concepts and realities which it cannot deal with at present. But, unless it can learn to deal with and even work within them, it will only get so far and no further. There aren't too many scientists these days who can work with this and that is why nothing much is being done.

Hmm .. not quite sure of where you're coming from here Carl.

I'm aware of calls from guys like Witten for 'different mathematics', to advance theoretical studies in extra dimensions, M-theory, etc. Would this be an example of what you mean ?

I also agree that there maybe flaws in progressing areas where breakthroughs may typically be quashed by say, peer-review, (as an example).

The example you cited in the HDF thread about perhaps needing to overturn the 13.7 Byr age of the visible universe, may be problematic also.

But, the big upside of the 'viscosity' of the process is as you know, is to force justification of wild ideas and to keep scientists honest.

Can you elaborate further (even in the context of the subject matter of this thread) on your thoughts about this ?

Cheers

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Brian W

Science has believed for a long time that if you can reproduce the same result under the same conditions as many times as desired you have proven a law.

No .. a law is a phenomenon that has been observed many times, and no contrary examples found, it is accepted as a universal phenomenon.

A theory, on the other hand, is an explanation of an observed phenomenon. Theories do not become laws, no matter how much evidence they accumulate, because they are explanations of phenomena, not the phenomena themselves.

Originally Posted by Brian W

Admittedly there is no iron clad guaranty that it will work every time but after enough consecutive positive results you are justified in believing it will allso occur the next time.
Brian

(See above response).

Cheers

[Brian W (Brian)]

Ok Craig make it a theory rather than a law. Being kept honest is a good thing.
Brian

[CraigS]

All cool Brian ..

Now the point is that Science will never be able to reveal the ultimate truth of anything because of the problem of induction (it only takes one negative example to destroy a theory, and you can't examine all examples of a phenomenon throughout all time and space).

So, no proof, ever …

As for your comment …

Originally Posted by Brian W

I find it strange that some feel that Philosophy, once known as the 'Queen of Sciences' is now to be excluded from scientific explorations.

I'm not sure that's what Carl meant .. (over to Carl)..

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Brian W

Ok there seems to be agreement that time is a necessity. No argument from me.

I find it strange that some feel that Philosophy, once known as the 'Queen of Sciences' is now to be excluded from scientific explorations. How will we ever get there from here without the philosophical question to drive the quest?

As for only being able to prove an infinity of causes by being an observer throughout infinity... poppycock! Science has believed for a long time that if you can reproduce the same result under the same conditions as many times as desired you have proven a law. Admittedly there is no iron clad guaranty that it will work every time but after enough consecutive positive results you are justified in believing it will allso occur the next time.
Brian

Notice you said believed...that is still not proof of actuality. You cannot prove an infinity of anything. Most, if not all scientific laws and theories breakdown when infinities come into their equations because infinities introduce the concept of no possible beginning or end, which science cannot handle. That's why they have a little thing called renormalisation. It's used to cancel the infinities in equations to make them "sensible" and usable.

If you run an experiment for an infinite number of iterations, you will get all possible outcomes, which means it both will work and won't work an infinite number of times. It will also be a completely ordered and chaotic experiment at the same time. Science (as it stands) completely breaks down because logic itself becomes meaningless. The only thing that makes it sensible is what is doing the observation and the decision it makes as to what it will observe. What this means is that the very presence of the observer creates the reality which is observed.

[renormalised (Carl)]

I think I'm going to take a break from this discussion. I'm tired (been running around all day) and my brain's having a hard time thinking

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Brian W

Admittedly there is no iron clad guaranty that it will work every time but after enough consecutive positive results you are justified in believing it will allso occur the next time.

Not really … even a probable outcome is not a dead certainty.

Cheers

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

I think I'm going to take a break from this discussion. I'm tired (been running around all day) and my brain's having a hard time thinking

I hope you don't get cycloned out up there Carl !!

Cheers

[Brian W (Brian)]

a break might make sense here too cause it is almost time to make dinner. But so far it is most interesting.

Brian

[Brian W (Brian)]

a final thought for the day Craig, if there are no certainties then everything is done on faith?
brian

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Brian W

a final thought for the day Craig, if there are no certainties then everything is done on faith?
brian

Is that right, Brian ?


Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Hmm .. not quite sure of where you're coming from here Carl.

I'm aware of calls from guys like Witten for 'different mathematics', to advance theoretical studies in extra dimensions, M-theory, etc. Would this be an example of what you mean ?

I also agree that there maybe flaws in progressing areas where breakthroughs may typically be quashed by say, peer-review, (as an example).

The example you cited in the HDF thread about perhaps needing to overturn the 13.7 Byr age of the visible universe, may be problematic also.

But, the big upside of the 'viscosity' of the process is as you know, is to force justification of wild ideas and to keep scientists honest.

Can you elaborate further (even in the context of the subject matter of this thread) on your thoughts about this ?

Cheers

I'll try and keep it simple, for my sake, otherwise my brain might crash

What I'm saying is that science is very quickly getting into areas that were once the purview of metaphysics and philosophy, and the scientific method is not designed to handle these. It relies on pure logic in its dictates and methodology. It excludes the possibility of something beyond the scientific. That's why it has such a hard time acknowledging the possibility of anything like a higher consciousness and its role in everything. And I don't mean the god of religion by this. This is as much beyond such an idea as we are beyond pond scum. Science cannot prove or disprove its existence, so it discounts its existence by ignoring it....calling it unscientific. It's basically not equipped with the tools or methods to deal with it.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

I hope you don't get cycloned out up there Carl !!

Cheers

My brain feels like it

However, speaking of cyclones....yeah, they're keeping a close eye on TC Anthony (or at least its possible reincarnation). It's predicted to hit somewhere between Cooktown and Mackay if it does reform. Might even come across as a deep low and just drop a bucket load of rain, but they're expecting it to reform, though.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Brian W

a final thought for the day Craig, if there are no certainties then everything is done on faith?
brian

So, Godel's Incompleteness Theorems established inherent limitations of mathematical systems. Basically, Godel proved that in formal systems, there are always assumptions external to that system, which may be true, but can never be proven to be true. (Interestingly in mathematics, there are formal 'proofs').

Brian, it would seem that the questions you seek scientific proof of, are outside of the systems we use to define the behaviours of the universe. These 'systems' are defined in mathematical terms, (having their basis in various streams of science .. such as General Relativity), for instance.

The 'infinities' Carl mentions, may also be able to be interpreted as indicators that the formal mathematical systems for the universe, have been pushed so far as to point to assumptions, which may not yet be known, which are external to the models, which may be true, but cannot be proven to be true, using the 'rules' established within the model itself.

(Hope that sentence makes sense).

As an aside comment, I think this is where some confusion comes from, in discussions about scientific modelling, which makes use of mathematical principles. Whilst proofs may exist within the mathematical domain, these proofs cannot necessarily be extended into the physical world ... and Godel proved it !

I feel that it is always handy to keep the Incompleteness Theorems in mind, when it comes to discussions on the Cosmological Models.

.. (just some thoughts) ...

Cheers

[Brian W (Brian)]

Hi Carl and Craig, let me see if I understand where we have gotten to.

Solid science indicates that energy can be altered but neither created nor destroyed

However solid science, in deference to pseudo-science cannot entertain the question 'does this mean that there is an infinity?'

Both the Incompleteness Theorems and this conversation lead me to the conclusion that some things are just not provable.

If the above is correct then is it not also correct that those who follow the scientific path must when they have walked far enough come to the place where faith (not religious faith) is needed because there simply are not the needed rules to depend on for guidance?

I once had the pleasure of listening to a seriously talented scientist describing his work. When he was asked if he wasn't attempting to break some of the laws of nature his answer was 'where we are working we don't know the laws so we can't break them' or words to that effect.

Strangely enough I have always found this a comfort.

Thanks for helping me with my question. I have some pondering to do.

Brian

Brian

[CraigS]

Hi Brian;

All cool.

I think its fair to say that most of the motivation behind the scientific principles is questioning. All questions are legitimate … even ones about infinity. I recently discovered a bunch of scientists from the past, who spent their entire lives pondering questions about infinity. They all finally developed mental illness (not sure if that's related to their research, or not). One of my favourite documentaries about this is here and we covered it in a thread here.

Answers are for those who seem to have difficulty in living with questions.
One of my favourite sayings is that 'humans are meaning adding machines', so it would seem that all observations by humans, are likely to end up with meaning.

As far as 'faith' being the next step at certain points in the process, I think it would be fairer to say that curiosity and some preconceived, informed reasoning is what leads scientists to dabble in theoretical concepts, as opposed to 'faith'.

Anyway, I'd recommend having a look at the above Youtube doco .. its goes into Cantor, Godel, etc .. and their work, (on infinity), and is thus a good place to get more 'juice' on this topic.

Cheers & Rgds