1. Comment #272557 by Elles on October 27, 2008 at 3:22 pm

"Surprisingly, Dawkins admits to Premier that there must have been some cause for the start of the universe.""

Therefore Richard Dawkins can't possibly be an Atheist because everybody knows that the ONLY explanation is the Sky Faery.

EXPOSED!

Other Comments by Elles

2. Comment #272560 by Brian English on October 27, 2008 at 3:29 pm

Why must there have been some cause to the universe? I ask. Why does our notion of cause and effect decide such mirky and distant environs as what we term the 'beginning'. Why do we even say there was a beginning? Who knows? What happened before the big-bang, if the big-bang did happen and if there was a before might be out our purview. And even if we fumble upon an explanation, squeezing the data into the paradigm of a 'cause and effect' explanation might distort it into something that we grasp but has little relation to what 'happened'. Our lines are too short to plumb such depths*.

Bloody hard to talk about temporal (or seemingly temporal) events without slipping into words that imply cause and effect. Sort of like talking about the structure of lifeforms without slipping into words that state or imply design. We humans really do imagine the world through the looking glass of our concepts. Or is that just me?

Well, enough musing for now, I'll let the serious types work out what is and isn't. :)

*Obligatory Humean phrase.

Other Comments by Brian English

3. Comment #272561 by MPhil on October 27, 2008 at 3:30 pm

I think Dr. Dawkins needn't have admitted as much.

Our very concepts of "cause", "causation", "causality" necessitate spatiotemporal events in conjunction. When the beginning of the universe was also the beginning of time, it makes literally no sense to ask for causal preconditions of the beginning of time.

At least unless anyone can come up with an acceptable conception of causation and causality whose constituents do not necessitate a spatiotemporal framework, the problem is a pseudo-problem.

Other Comments by MPhil

4. Comment #272563 by Brian English on October 27, 2008 at 3:32 pm

Or, one could read MPhil's explanation and understand how a smart mind explains concepts and analyses their implications. :)

Other Comments by Brian English

5. Comment #272567 by Adrian Bartholomew on October 27, 2008 at 3:40 pm

Yup, asking "What was before the Big Bang?" might be as meaningless a question as "What's South of the South Pole?"

Other Comments by Adrian Bartholomew

6. Comment #272568 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 3:40 pm

3. Comment #272561 by MPhil

Yes, I agree. I also think that causality is an invention of pattern seeking animals, and is not necessarily necessitated. We assign causes to events, and depending on the observer, the cause one assigns to an event may vary.

Other Comments by Wosret

7. Comment #272569 by a non e-moose on October 27, 2008 at 3:40 pm

That last line about dishonest use of words was very well put. I'll use that.

Other Comments by a non e-moose

8. Comment #272570 by ColdFusionLazarus on October 27, 2008 at 3:41 pm

If the start of this universe is called Zrak, then I'm happy to accept that there might be a Zrak (some event). But those christians are indeed so confident and don't even listen to their own book of Job asking, where were you when the universe was started[questmark] We all accept that none of us were there, but rather than having doubt the christians are absolutely sure that their god created it!

Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus

9. Comment #272574 by the great teapot on October 27, 2008 at 3:49 pm

This causality question,
I have often found it strange that my coffee jar, spoon and me often meet up at the same time every morning in my kitchen. Kinda spooky.

Other Comments by the great teapot

10. Comment #272575 by Ex~ on October 27, 2008 at 3:50 pm

@ Comment #2

"Why must there have been some cause to the universe? I ask."

Because we know the Universe had a beginning.

Other Comments by Ex~

11. Comment #272576 by PaulJ on October 27, 2008 at 3:50 pm

Justin Brierley seemed to be genuine enough, asking questions that he sincerely wanted answered. Shame they were the same old issues that RD has dealt with so many times before:
Atheism is empty and nihilistic.
No morality without God.
The universe is fine-tuned for human existence, therefore Goddidit.
The universe must have a cause, therefore Goddidit.

It all stems from a deep reluctance to admit that there are some things we don't know. Yet.

Incidentally, I was a firm believer in the steady-state theory when I was at school. The Big Bang seemed such a crude explanation. Then I heard Arthur C. Clarke say he preferred the 'steady bang' theory...

Other Comments by PaulJ

12. Comment #272577 by Tzsak on October 27, 2008 at 3:50 pm

A few minutes in, annoyed at the Premier guy. Looked at the website and facepalmed at the 'accepting a cause' bit. I'm currently binging on physics books and finding the first cause argument increasingly obnoxious and indicative of willing ignorance.

Other Comments by Tzsak

13. Comment #272579 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 3:55 pm

10. Comment #272575 by Ex~

Firstly, no we don't (I'm guessing you must have misconstrued the big bang as stating this. It does not), and secondly -- supposing we did know that -- why does that imply that it was caused?

Other Comments by Wosret

14. Comment #272580 by Steve Zara on October 27, 2008 at 3:55 pm

Comment #272575 by Ex~

Because we know the Universe had a beginning.

No, we don't. Does a circle have a beginning? One possible model of the universe is a time loop than randomly spits out universe with unirectional time. That time look does not have a beginning. There are other possible models of the start of the universe that don't have beginnings.

Incidentally, I didn't hear that "Dawkins admits to Premier that there must have been some cause for the start of the universe".

Other Comments by Steve Zara

15. Comment #272581 by Brian English on October 27, 2008 at 3:56 pm

Because we know the Universe had a beginning. We do? Cool, please elaborate. I think you can say time as we measure it may have had a beginning at the 'big-bang' but that says nothing about the universe as our relativity theory goes to infinity, a singularity, at the plank-time. In other words that theory breaks down. We are only speculating as I understand it about what happened before then. But as you know, please tell what you know and with what level of confidence you know it.

Other Comments by Brian English

16. Comment #272582 by Knucklesdude on October 27, 2008 at 3:56 pm

Surprisingly, Dawkins admits to Premier that there must have been some cause for the start of the universe.

"Oho! Checkmate, atheists! The logic is so easy: we are here, so there must be a cause, let's call this cause the omniscient, omnipotent, intervening Christian God. It makes perfect sense!"

T_T I hate religion...

Other Comments by Knucklesdude

17. Comment #272583 by RichinBedford on October 27, 2008 at 3:56 pm

Why can't they see that this 'God' who was the original creator is just one that's been made up to fit in with current circumstances. Every time some new evidence comes along the role of 'God' is redefined to fit in.
The original claim was "God made everything", now it's "that first spark, that was God". He's running out of things he could have done.

Other Comments by RichinBedford

18. Comment #272584 by JAMCAM87 on October 27, 2008 at 3:57 pm

""Yup, asking "What was before the Big Bang'" might be as meaningless a question as "What's South of the South Pole'""

My favourite "before the big bang" theory, one which I find incredibly exciting, is that the universe cycles from singularity to an expanded state and then collapses again. This happens infinitely and each time there is a big bang the physical constants change in a random manner. And since it is infinite, from a human perspective we exist ALL the time. Because when we are all dead nobody is around to care and therefore after a long enough period we will arise again, owing to the infinite cyling of the universe. So we are almost always dead but never dead! A truly thrilling thought experiment. Of course, there is no need for god or a "cause" in such a theory. It debunks god and explains the anthropic principle quite nicely. I think Hume was the first to suggest it.

Other Comments by JAMCAM87

19. Comment #272587 by Brian English on October 27, 2008 at 3:59 pm

My favourite "before the big bang" theory, one which I find incredibly exciting, is that the universe cycles from singularity to an expanded state and then collapses again.

For $50 I'll take Quantum theory of gravity thanks.
Sorry, I think you're talking about Neitzche and I'm not sure it qualifies as a theory.....

Other Comments by Brian English

20. Comment #272590 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 4:00 pm

Also, for the record. I didn't see RD concede that at all. I saw him allotting charity in a hypothetical scenario. One is perfectly capable of following someone down a line of reasoning without buying the line of reasoning at all.

Christians always seem to have difficulty understanding charity.

Other Comments by Wosret

21. Comment #272591 by Steve Zara on October 27, 2008 at 4:01 pm

Comment #272584 by JAMCAM87

Sorry, but that model doesn't work for two reasons.

First, there aren't any singularities (if there where, physics would break down, not result in a bounce), and second, if the physical constants change at random, then they will eventually result in a universe that does not collapse.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

22. Comment #272592 by JAMCAM87 on October 27, 2008 at 4:01 pm

"For $50 I'll take Quantum theory of gravity thanks."

Do you understand the theory'

Other Comments by JAMCAM87

23. Comment #272594 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 4:04 pm

21. Comment #272591 by Steve Zara

Not if god is there to stop that from happening. (^_-)

Other Comments by Wosret

24. Comment #272595 by Brian English on October 27, 2008 at 4:05 pm

Do you understand the theory'

Only what I've read in Sci-Am. So, no, I don't have more than a basic idea that involves no mathematics. And physics is mathematics so I don't understand it. Do you?

However, what you were talking about wasn't Quantum Gravity. The repeating universe you mention, is not even a theory that is testable at the moment. I don't recall Hume suggesting it, but then again what do I know?

Other Comments by Brian English

25. Comment #272596 by JAMCAM87 on October 27, 2008 at 4:08 pm

"First, there aren't any singularities (if there where, physics would break down, not result in a bounce), and second, if the physical constants change at random, then they will eventually result in a universe that does not collapse"

Thank you for pointing this out but it does not change the underlying logic which is that the anthropic principle must be explained by something: either by infinite recycling of the universe or by a multiverse theory of some description. Many people use the argument that "if you win the lottery then you win the lottery". I don't buy it. I think there will be a very subtle and probably simple explanation which accounts for our improbable existence. Anyway it's just a hunch and only time will tell.

Other Comments by JAMCAM87

26. Comment #272597 by Brian English on October 27, 2008 at 4:11 pm

I don't buy it. I think there will be a very subtle and probably simple explanation which accounts for our improbable existence. Anyway it's just a hunch and only time will tell.

Argument from incredulity? Nothing wrong with that, if we didn't dislike coincidences or find them incredible as brute fact we wouldn't have investigated why inertial mass and gravitational mass coincide and discovered general relativity. When I say we, I mean Einstein. :)

Other Comments by Brian English

27. Comment #272598 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 4:14 pm

I think that the anthropic principle is perhaps misleading.

Clearly life evolved to suit the environment, not the environment to suit life.

When talking about it in a sense that says that if certain values were different, then stars would not form and so forth, they assumes that they could be different. We don't know that they could.

As Einstein once asked, "did god have a choice is creating the universe?" I'm not sure that "he" did, and without good evidence, I see no reason to just suppose that the universe could have turned out any ol'way.

I think that the anthropic principle explains away a problem that I'm not confident actually exists.

Other Comments by Wosret

28. Comment #272600 by JAMCAM87 on October 27, 2008 at 4:16 pm

"Argument from incredulity'"

It's not really an argument from personal incredulity because I'm admitting that I'm incredulous. I'm simply guessing that the anthropic principle will be accounted for sometime in the future.

Other Comments by JAMCAM87

29. Comment #272601 by Brian English on October 27, 2008 at 4:16 pm

Spot on Mitchell. It's one thing to pose the question. It's another thing to use the posed question as a justified assumption and draw conclusions from that assumption.
I can ask why because I find it all too 'neat' to just be. What I'm not justified in doing is saying that my incredulity is proof of an cause or necessity. It isn't unless I first prove it.

Other Comments by Brian English

30. Comment #272602 by gyokusai on October 27, 2008 at 4:17 pm

After four minutes in, my brain began to bleed. Again, my admiration for Richard is limitless with respect to his ability to keep producing intelligent and rational answers to this dumbosity without beginning to scream or going after Brierley with a pickaxe or something.

^_^J.

Other Comments by gyokusai

31. Comment #272603 by Brian English on October 27, 2008 at 4:17 pm

I'm simply guessing that the anthropic principle will be accounted for sometime in the future.

You may be right, then again. I think your guessing is as good as mine. I only have a problem with people who elevate their guess or hunch to the level of knowledge and declare that the universe has this or that form of explanation. Which I'm not suggesting you are doing.

Other Comments by Brian English

32. Comment #272604 by ukvillafan on October 27, 2008 at 4:19 pm

Boy do I need to do some more reading. Where do you all find the time? Don't you have families, jobs, cooking, sport in your lives? This is what comes of starting back into my philosphy etc too late!! Someone please give me a list on how the universe began!! Should I start with Hawking?

Other Comments by ukvillafan

33. Comment #272605 by JAMCAM87 on October 27, 2008 at 4:20 pm

"When talking about it in a sense that says that if certain values were different, then stars would not form and so forth, they assumes that they could be different. We don't know that they could.

As Einstein once asked, "did god have a choice is creating the universe'" I'm not sure that "he" did, and without good evidence, I see no reason to just suppose that the universe could have turned out any ol'way.

I think that the anthropic principle explains away a problem that I'm not confident actually exists"

Yes this fits in with my "winning the lottery" principle that I mentioned in comment 272596. I find it much more likely that you win the lottery when you have played the game 1 billion times, if you get my meaning.

Other Comments by JAMCAM87

34. Comment #272606 by rod-the-farmer on October 27, 2008 at 4:21 pm

I thought the good Professor was much too polite with this idiot. I would have walked away long before the end of this clip.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

35. Comment #272607 by JAMCAM87 on October 27, 2008 at 4:24 pm

"I only have a problem with people who elevate their guess or hunch to the level of knowledge and declare that the universe has this or that form of explanation. Which I'm not suggesting you are doing."

You're right that's what I'm trying hard not too do. I was merely speculating and nothing more.

Other Comments by JAMCAM87

36. Comment #272608 by Frankus1122 on October 27, 2008 at 4:25 pm

Comment #272605 by JAMCAM87

I find it much more likely that you win the lottery when you have played the game 1 billion times, if you get my meaning.

But your chances of winning the billionth time you play is the same as the first.

Is that not correct?

Other Comments by Frankus1122

37. Comment #272609 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 4:25 pm

33. Comment #272605 by JAMCAM87

Not if every ticket is a winner. I see no substantial reason to suppose that this isn't the case.

Other Comments by Wosret

38. Comment #272610 by Brian English on October 27, 2008 at 4:25 pm

Yes this fits in with my "winning the lottery" principle that I mentioned in comment 272596. I find it much more likely that you win the lottery when you have played the game 1 billion times, if you get my meaning.

The you don't understand this form of independent probability. Your chances don't improve which each playing, they are the same each time. You are no more likely to win the lottery after a billion attempts than the first attempt. Unless your have some information that every running of the universe increases the probability that a universe of our type will occur.

Other Comments by Brian English

39. Comment #272611 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 4:28 pm

32. Comment #272604 by ukvillafan

Don't you have families, jobs, cooking, sport in your lives?

Cooking? Yes.

Other Comments by Wosret

40. Comment #272612 by Steve Zara on October 27, 2008 at 4:29 pm

Comment #272610 by Brian English

Hi Brian. JAMCAM87 is right, but perhaps has not expressed things clearly. If there is an ensemble of a billion universes, then it samples a bigger volume of the physical parameter space than one.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

41. Comment #272616 by JAMCAM87 on October 27, 2008 at 4:32 pm

Comment #272608 by Frankus1122

Yeh that is the gamblers fallacy.

However that is different from what I am suggesting. If the universe was born and reborn infinitely then of course eventually life would be given the right conditons in which to thrive. If you played the lottery an infinite number of times of course you would win eventually.

The problem that everyone has with my train of thought is that I am suggesting we won the lottery in the first place. Maybe the universe is constrained. Which I could accept, I just find statistical explanations much more satisfying.

Other Comments by JAMCAM87

42. Comment #272617 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 4:33 pm

36. Comment #272608 by Frankus1122

38. Comment #272610 by Brian English

Seems like nit picking over wording.

If I play the lottery at the same time as someone who has played 999 million times in the past, then she would have no better chance than I of winning in this lottery. However the odds of winning the lottery if you play a billion times is greater than if you play only once.

I think that it is appropriate to interpret what JAM has said in this way.

Other Comments by Wosret

43. Comment #272618 by Frankus1122 on October 27, 2008 at 4:35 pm

Comment #272612 by Steve Zara

If there is an ensemble of a billion universes, then it samples a bigger volume of the physical parameter space than one.

That did not clear things up for me. Could you dumb it down a bit?

Other Comments by Frankus1122

44. Comment #272621 by Mark Smith on October 27, 2008 at 4:36 pm

You are no more likely to win the lottery after a billion attempts than the first attempt.

No, but you are more likely to have won than if you had just played it once. Similarly if the running of the universe happens a billion times it is more likely that our type will have occurred.

Other Comments by Mark Smith

45. Comment #272622 by Brian English on October 27, 2008 at 4:37 pm

So a billion universes at once, each tweaked slightly differently so that all possibilities are exhausted? This is not a lottery then, because in a lottery all you do is sample once from all possibilities, not excluding any from previous trials. However the underlying assumption that we know all the parameters, and we know the possibility space that all possible parameters can take seems to me to be a bit suspect. That these parameters are our parameters and other parameters wouldn't work is also suspect. It seems to circle back on the thought that it must be this one because it is this one or something. Underlying both those assumptions is the human failing of thinking we can grasp it if only we had the information. ;)

But I've confused myself now. Sorry for misinterpreting you JAMCAM87.

Other Comments by Brian English

46. Comment #272623 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 4:39 pm

41. Comment #272616 by JAMCAM87

I just find statistical explanations much more satisfying.

The statistics are based on mere assumptions, and the reason for developing the statistical model is based on yet another assumption that there exists a problem to solve.

I don't know what the case is. I just see no reason to try to solve problems that we don't even know exist.

To reduce it to the absurd, I find it would be silly to attempt to get demon repellent before I first know if there are any demons to repel.

Other Comments by Wosret

47. Comment #272624 by j.mills on October 27, 2008 at 4:39 pm

ukvillafan said:

Someone please give me a list on how the universe began!! Should I start with Hawking?

Go dig around in the Book Nook forum, ukvillafan, you'll find lots of recommendations:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=6

Other Comments by j.mills

48. Comment #272625 by Brian English on October 27, 2008 at 4:39 pm

No, but you are more likely to have won than if you had just played it once.

Law of averages says that one day you'll get there, but you're still no more likely unless the draws are not independent.

Other Comments by Brian English

49. Comment #272626 by j.mills on October 27, 2008 at 4:41 pm

As my mathematicianish friend would say, what is the law of averages?

Other Comments by j.mills

50. Comment #272627 by Frankus1122 on October 27, 2008 at 4:42 pm

I read about a brane theory of explaining the Big Bang.

I pictured billions of sheets of 'stuff' -universes or potentials -side by side like bedsheets on parallel laundry lines. A faint breeze comes along and they touch and a big bang occurs and a universe is born.
If billions of these events occur, and they touch at different points, and the different points create different types of universes, then one of those would create the conditions we need for our universe.

Something like that or am I hopelessly lost?

Other Comments by Frankus1122