PS apologies if you get onto that later. On 23 October 2014 16:34, LizR <[email protected]> wrote:
> IMHO this slightly understates the problem of an infinite causal chain: > > The idea of an eternally existing universe – for example in the form of an > eternal cycle of Big Bangs – might turn out to be a scientifically > legitimate hypothesis. It might even turn out to be true. But it still > doesn't answer the question why there is anything at all. It doesn't answer > the question why there is this infinite series to begin with. It might be > objected that this question makes no sense because in an infinite series of > causes there simply is no first cause. But this objection assumes that the > ultimate cause of the universe must be temporal, existing in time, like the > universe itself. But why can't the ultimate cause be non-temporal? This, > indeed, is what contemporary physics suggests about the cause of the Big > Bang: since not only space and matter but also time itself only came into > existence with the Big Bang, the cause of the Big Bang must be timeless. > This notion of a non-temporal cause is also inescapable for the infinitist > solution. A temporally infinite series of causes has no first cause in > time, but it must have an ultimate cause outside of time, a non-temporal > cause. > > Assuming the laws of physics allow such an infinite chain to exist, I > think a more important question is where do those laws originate? > > That is, the "something" that we're wondering about includes whatever > makes what physically exists the way it is. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
