TED Conversations

William Humphrey

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Does everything have to come from something else?

The origin of life and the universe.

0
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb

    Gabo Moreno 100+

    • 0
    Aug 1 2012: Nope.

    • William Humphrey

      • 0
      Aug 1 2012: please elaborate.
      • thumb

        Gabo Moreno 100+

        • +1
        Aug 1 2012: Well, for one, all of our knowledge about causality depends on there being time. Einstein has shown that time is not a constant, thus causality does not operate, or at least not in our common usage concept of causality. Then, that we might have found that all or most of what we witness has come from something else does not necessarily mean everything has to. Then, if everything came from something else, then we have to think that either regression is infinite (which may or may not imply time, which, as we said, is not constant), or the whole thing goes in circles (which again may or may not imply time, which is not a constant). Thus, whatever our experience, we cannot know for sure if everything has to come from something else. It does not make sense for everything to come from something else, yet, we do not have the mind, concepts, and vocabulary to talk about timelessness at all. Thus, we can't conclude either way other than to say that it is not a necessary truth that everything has to come from something else. All we could say is that so far it looks that way (though some physicists might disagree), and that logic alone will not help us figure it out.

        • William Humphrey

          • 0
          Aug 2 2012: If I understand you correctly you are basically explaining the idea of not being certain. Q.P. makes the concept of linear time useless and it has a profound answer for this paradox.
        • thumb

          Obey No1kinobe 50+

          • 0
          Aug 2 2012: That is kind of what I was getting to. Understanding the limits of reality is pushing the limits of what our apish brains evolved to perceive and understand. What is time. Is nothing something. What is outside the universe. What existed before. How can matter pop into and out of existence.

          I suggest some things may seem to come from nothing but nothing is something.

          Or perhaps there has always been something. But something different to our current observable reality.

          Also something can come from nothing if offset. 0 = + 1 -1. Perhaps dark matter offsets light matter.
        • thumb

          E G 10+

          • 0
          Aug 7 2012: Gabo :

          Maybe it's true that whatever our experience we can't say if causality occurs or not for certain but the reason you gave for it do not proves it because it doesn't matter if time is relative to the process or constant in order for causality to appear , what matters is there to be time . Einstein never said there isn't time or a succession of events .
      • thumb

        Gabo Moreno 100+

        • 0
        Aug 4 2012: Yes, you've got it. I doubt that something like QP, which looks so much like new-age religious pseudoscience, would have anything to offer to solve any paradoxes. Horoscopes can't answer serious questions.
      • thumb

        Gabo Moreno 100+

        • 0
        Aug 4 2012: You can claim as you wish Yet, despite you seem quite sincere about what you are saying, it is convoluted and confused even in your own mind. Such philosophy so detached from reality, as imaginative as you might perceive it, does not solve anything. Imagining that you solved something does not mean you solved it. Reading about the perplexing interpretations of quantum mechanics, imagining that you understood them and that they really reflect what's going on, mixing all of that with new age religiosity, and then jumping on it to build such convoluted philosophy is no conductive to reasonable conclusions.

        • William Humphrey

          • 0
          Aug 4 2012: Though you have assured me that you are a man of many assumptions which I see as being counterproductive in deductive reasoning I’m sure once you actually get into the theory even you would agree with it. I say this because the philosophy is designed to be universal.
        • thumb

          edward long 100+

          • 0
          Aug 6 2012: RE: "For one you can't claim. . . "
          I, too, would rather that you not continue. No shock Gabo that you disagree with my logic, that is a dead horse we need not continue beating. If you honestly cannot see how an uncaused cause cannot be a natural reality then I must confess I am stark blind to your rationale, and believe you are so to mine. Our exchanges have been many and have all led nowhere Gabo. I wish you the best, but I prefer not to continue contesting your opinions and observations. Allow for faith my friend. Be well.-Edward
        • thumb

          edward long 100+

          • 0
          Aug 8 2012: I'm delighted to see my less-that-hospitable remark did not cause any grief Gabo. We are on the threshhold of the boundary between natural and supernatural. The language I speak regarding the latter is foreign to you. You assess it as "horoscopes; detached from reality; not conducive to reasonable conclusions; total failure from the beginning; etc." My belief in the Biblical account is an essential part of who I am. I know you view it as snake oil, I did also. My reluctance to defend the idea of a Necessary Being as the Uncaused Cause of Everything is not spurious. We have butted heads too long on this matter. We both defend what we believe, and you do a very good job, I admire your intellect, education, and decency in debate. But I "know" I will never convince you to allow for faith, and you will never convince me to abandon mine. Let me resign from further contests with you about such matters. I look forward to less contentious dialogs with you. Thanks Gabo.
      • thumb

        edward long 100+

        • 0
        Aug 5 2012: RE: "I agree with you. . . "
        Perhaps formally stating my argument is in order here to make you see the logic of my conclusion that everything finite (natural) comes from (is caused by) some other natural (finite) thing:
        1) Nothing can satisfy the concept of the Uncaused Cause but a necessary being.
        2) So if the Uncaused Cause is so much as possible, a being is necessary.
        3) It is surely possible for a necessary being to exist—theism is not incoherent after all.
        4) So an Uncaused Cause in the form of a Being exists necessarily.
        5) So an Uncaused Cause in the form of a Being exists actually.

        • William Humphrey

          • 0
          Aug 5 2012: I completely agree in your logic. Your basis for this conclusion is the fact that “infinite regression” is impossible which would mean the catalyst for existence would necessarily be an “uncaused cause.” You are also saying “God” as a being that is an “uncaused cause” exists because it is necessary. This is logical. I’m sure this “Uncaused Cause Concept” can be easily represented as a true statement mathematically. My issue here is that the concept is highly philosophical those who are not already inclined will most likely not relate to it. The uncaused cause it a great starting point. My book Quantum Philosophy does profoundly add to this idea.
        • thumb

          Gabo Moreno 100+

          • 0
          Aug 5 2012: Meh,

          For one, you can't claim with certainty that anything natural is finite, nor that everything natural has to come from something else. Logical failure failure from the beginning. If we still went for your next stuff:

          1. Why couldn't an uncaused cause be a property of natural reality, rather than a "being", let alone a "necessary" one?

          See, total failure from the beginning. Total failure at the very next step after the first total failure, and I rather not continue.

          Completely disagree with your faulty logic.
        • thumb

          E G 10+

          • 0
          Aug 6 2012: Edward :

          I could agree that the idea of 'uncaused cause' implies its necessity but it doesn't mean (as Gabo said) that the uncaused cause is a being , you need to give more reasons for it in order to prove you claim. Anyway , it could be a being , so let's make from it a reasons to believe , a reason which suggest an uncaused cause=being (God) exist . Isn't it enough for theism ? I think it is .
          Anyway it is at least as good as any atheistic reason which suggest for some minds that God do not exist .

          What Gabo is wrong about is that he thinks there is no reason to believe , perhaps he said it to you too .
        • thumb

          Gabo Moreno 100+

          • 0
          Aug 8 2012: Sorry Edward, but I sincerely cannot see why an uncaused cause cannot be one or many natural realities. The only way to be convinced about such a thing, please try and follow regardless of our differences, would be if we were able to test and understand each and every bit of natural reality and know for sure that no natural thing(s) could be an uncaused cause. Even then, there would still be the open question about whether the unnatural uncaused cause had to be a being, or else just some unnatural cause(s), that started the whole natural part, but is not a being. For that, only to start, we would need some kind of way of distinguishing where the unnatural starts, which should be quite the problem.

          So you see? There is nothing clearly logical about what you said. Only a bunch of unfounded assumptions. Or else, assumptions on top of other unfounded assumptions. I can honestly say that I do not know if there is an uncaused cause, or else if we cannot talk about cause/effects at some points within nature just because our experiences and cause/effect relationships come from a reality where time is a given, while scientific understanding includes realities, far from those experiences, which are timeless. So, not knowing is fine by me. Claiming to know with unfounded premises, that I can't admit.

          I know we wil not agree before I even comment. I expect though to be able to give you a sense of why your logic fails. You gratuitously accept faulty premises mixed with faulty logic. I don't. Even if that means that I end with no answers.
        • thumb

          E G 10+

          • 0
          Aug 8 2012: Gabo :

          What about this :

          I agreed that the 'uncaused cause' is not necessarily a being , part of a different reality than ours , all I'm saying is that it could be a being. It's true that I can't prove if the 'uncaused cause' is unnatural but I have reasons to think it could be more than natural , example :
          - the limits the science has reached to , physics for example has reached at some very tiny particles and we still don't have the all answers ....;
          - some metaphysical questions and paradoxes ;
          - the concept of infinite nobody has entirely understood so far;
          - the existence of more dimensional spaces like 1D , 2D , 3D , 4D ..... about this we are sure but what guarantees me there aren't more ? ; if you think at the relations between this spaces , the way everyone bigger includes the others and if you continue to imagine something more than 4D you can reach at something 'unnatural' very easy.

          I agree that what Edward said rest mainly on assumptions but I don't agree that this assumptions are unfounded , they are some reasonable assumptions because I provide reasons for them. I don't try to prove something, I don't claim I know something . Let's say Edward want to go beyond limits with a reasonable imagination . Does this logic fails ? I don't think so . So what Edward said is still worth to think about .

        • William Humphrey

          • 0
          Aug 8 2012: My sentiments exactly E.G, there is too much truth in the universe to be content with simply not knowing, however I do find fulfillment while searching.
        • thumb

          Gabo Moreno 100+

          • 0
          Aug 9 2012: No problems ever Edward. Be well.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.