Nyaanyaa

The simulation hypothesis and multiverse inflation both violate this if true. One part of that definition is more essential, and the other is derived and subject to change based on the real or hypothetical scenario being described.

Just different definitions.

Multiverse hypotheses propose that there are many alternate universes and that the sum of all these is the multiverse that contains all.

Under the definition I provided, all these alternate universes could be called for example sub-universes and the multiverse that contains all would be the universe.

But you must establish that it is illogical, not merely state it and use circular reasoning to justify why you don't have to logically exclude it.

Circular reasoning? Where? I have explained quite at length why acausility equates to circular reasoning—A because A because A because A ... .

A can happen under certain conditions. IOW, A is not forbidden under those conditions.

 

(don't see a "because" in there)

You don't see a “because” in there because you gave no explanation.

Why can A happen under certain conditions?

Sorry, I thought this was a philosophy discussion.

Which is why I provided argumentation for my position afterwards.

(incidentally, "absurdity of acausality" could additionally be considered poisoning the well)

I can hardly point out that acausality is absurd/illogical without pointing out that it is absurd/illogical. I care about logical reasoning, not about making anyone look bad.

There's no reason (i.e. no cause), though there may be conditions under which A won't happen.

You wrote, “The existence of acausal events does not mean they are without explanation.”

If there is an explanation for why A happens, there must be a reason for why A happens; because any explanation for why A happens must begin with A happens because... .

Strange, refrain from unnecessary snarky remarks. Thank you.

1. I am not saying that.

That is exactly what you said. “B spontaneously creates itself.”

2. Even if I were saying that, it would not be a logical argument.

Precisely my point. I am dismissing your “suggestion” because it is not logical.

What do you mean by "constituents of the universe"?

“According to our current understanding, the Universe consists of three constituents: spacetime, forms of energy, including electromagnetic radiation and matter, and the physical laws that relate them.”

So you refute a number of cosmological theories with a wave of the hand. Impressive.

Rather, you're not understanding what I wrote at all. It's really straightforward. If A creates B, then A is the creator of B. If a quantum fluctuation creates B, then the quantum fluctuation is the creator of B. If a “supernatural” entity creates B, then the “supernatural” entity is the creator of B.

So there must be a cause because you don't think there are acausal events? Who is employing circular arguments now?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

I have refuted your claim that “there are already many known examples of acausal events.” There is no evidence whatsoever for the absence of a cause for any event (and thus acausality), there is at best absence of evidence of a cause for an event. Because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, there is no evidence of any acausal events; thus, your claim has no foundation.

Which is obviously nonsense. There are a great many things we can explain despite now knowing how, or even if, the universe came into existence. The theory of evolution works very well despite there not yet being a good theory of abiogenesis.

 

And so on.

The point of such scientific theories is to explain things “well enough,” but if you keep asking Why? you will eventually reach a point where (currently) we no longer know an explanation. Thus, the very foundation of any theory in science is a very big I don't know.

Even if that were true, it has no relevance at all to the ability to explain anything.

Yes, it does.

If A causes B causes C, then A causes C. But if A is unknown, then the in this case fundamental cause of C cannot be explained.

It is not circular logic; it is not a logical argument at all.

 

I am just suggesting (not very originally) that another possibility is that the universe came into being spontaneously.

You are saying B creates B, which implies B because B. That is indeed not a valid logical argument.

Some have suggested as a result of a quantum fluctuation disturbing a false vacuum,others have other ideas (e.g. eternal inflation). It seems a little naive to dismiss all these cosmologists so simply.

A quantum fluctuation is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space. It requires constituents of the universe to already exist. The subject of discussion is the entire universe, not just the observable universe.

You also ignore the interesting(?) question: what do you mean by "creator"? Would you call the quantum fluctuation (or the false vacuum state) to be a "creator"? Or are you only defining "creator" as some sort of supernatural entity?

A creator is any A that creates a B.

There are many other ideas about the possible origin of the universe: Poplawski suggests universes are created when a block hole forms in another universe; Penrose proposes the universe was created by the collapse of previous universe; other suggest a collision between branes. Do you consider a black hole / previous universe / branes to be a potential "creator"?

Any theory that proposes there are multiple universes uses a different definition of the word universe than I provided. Under that definition, all “multiple universes” would be part of the one universe that entails all.

There are already many known examples of acausal events.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Not knowing the cause of an event is not evidence for the absence of a cause.

The fact we cannot explain one thing does not mean that we can't explain anything. I'm not sure what this fallacy is called, but it seems remarkably common, given that it is self evidently false. There are many things we cannot explain and yet, remarkably, there are also many things we can explain.

If there is but one effect A that cannot be explained in a causal chain that encompasses all, then all effects in the chain can fundamentally not be explained because the root is inexplicable. This is because all cause-effect relations must inevitably extend infinitely (i.e., 1 is caused by 2 is caused by 3 is caused 4 ..... is caused by ∞), and thus must inevitably reach a point where the cause is A.

Argument from personal incredulity isn't a valid argument.

It was never meant to be an argument. It was an explanation for why I did not consider the absurdity of acausality in need of explanation.

No, there is no "because". Just "A happens"

Why does A happen?

 

It could have been spontaneously created with no creator.

 

And, of course, it depends what you mean by "creator". Hawking thinks the universe was brought into existence by the laws of physics. Are the laws of physics a "creator"?

 

 

If B spontaneously creates itself then there is no A and no causality.

B because B? This is circular logic.

 

Then your narrow (and tautological) definition is ignoring another possible pathway (see the previous post by Strange), and your second statement, "there is causality" is not the issue. You had essentially concluded "there are no cases of acausality", which your "proof" does not address.

 

A better question would be, "does existence require causality?"

I consider acausality to be in the realm of magic, miracles, and fairy tales—it is absurd. Acausality posits that A happens because A happens, or that the sky is blue because the sky is blue—this circular logic is not only a fallacious argument and proves nothing, but aucasility further posits that there is no other cause but the event itself. It posits that there are hitherto unexplained phenomena that cannot be explained because they cannot be explained. If that is so, then nothing at all can be explained.

"The Universe is customarily defined as everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist.^[22][23][24] According to our current understanding, the Universe consists of three constituents: spacetime, forms of energy, including electromagnetic radiation and matter, and the physical laws that relate them.

 

I highlighted the next sentence from the link your provided.

You are misunderstanding this. The Universe is defined as everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist. That means you can use the Universe and everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist interchangeably—they mean the same.

Thus, the next sentence can be similarly written as:

“According to our current understanding, everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist consists of three constituents: spacetime, forms of energy, including electromagnetic radiation and matter, and the physical laws that relate them.”

What this sentence expresses is that according to our current understanding all that exists/has existed/will exist is either spacetime, energy, or physical law. If we were to identify a fourth constituent, then our understanding of the universe would be expanded; but the definition would remain unchanged.

The universe is by definition all the matter, energy, and space that exists. A creator could be made of something other than matter, energy, and/or space.

“The Universe is customarily defined as everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist.” Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#Definition.

 

You can prove this, right?

Of course.

Creation is—by definition—the process of A bringing B into existence. If no A brings any B into existence, there is no creation. Thus, for any process of creation, there must be a creator A, and a creation B. -> Creation requires a creator.

If A creates B, then A causes B. If A causes B, there is causality.

NyaaNyaa,

 

If we can simulate a 2D or 3D space using only 1s and 0s, then I imagine a creator could simulate relativity from within whatever meta-dimensional space it exists within. If I am wrong, then how could the simulation hypothesis work?

 

Shoot, this is philosophy!

You are confusing the universe (i.e., everything that exists, has existed, and will exist) with the observable universe (i.e., everything we can in principle observe).

The question is actually easily answered through logical reasoning alone.

The universe is by definition all that exists. -> Creation requires a creator. -> If a Creator exists, the Creator cannot create the universe because the universe already exists through the Creator's existence itself. -> The universe cannot have been created.

Another way towards that conclusion:

Creation requires causality (i.e., cause and effect). -> Causality requires the existence of time. -> Time is a property of the universe. -> The creation of the universe requires the universe to already exist. This is a paradox! -> The universe cannot have been created.

Interesting question: Was the observable universe created?