Unobservability of an Uncaused Cause

That is mere presumption, if not woo. (Is that latter a technical term in philosophy scholarship? :grin:)

Their voice (the heavens) is higher than plain reason. Not irrational to be sure, but not rationalism either.

The rational possibility of solipsism may be one of the most remarkable evidences of our fallen nature.

Notice I didn’t say atheism. That’s as wrong as the person who thinks they can snap their virtual fingers for the infinite time.

1 Like

I think it’s related to the question of whether space is infinitely divisible.

How? 678901

It’s a tricky question. Going back to the original post, how else would an unobservable being appear?

By moving an immovable object? Which is a syntactically correct non-semantic question.

God has no absolute, external appearance. No dimensions. Unobservable causes are seen by their effects. One way or another eternal, infinite observable nature is caused, by either eternal, infinite unobservable nature - nothing explodes - alone or that is caused by God.

The only other appearance of God is by incarnation. He enters in to His autonomous thoughts.

I think you are saying an unobservable being will be seen by its effectual action. It’s moving so to say. But it doesn’t move. How so…

The only possible analogy I can relate to, is my own ability to act.

One thing that may be infinite in the universe, is spacetime, and even that’s debatable. If it is infinite, then it is without beginning and without cause, right?

A good fit with the above.

Nothing is infinite about the universe. Spacetime is four of the (11-17) dimensions of nature. It has no independent meaning.

Have you decided space is not infinitely divisible?

It can’t be decided. It’s problematic either way. I prefer it quantized. But that’s bias for ‘sense’.

You are canned if you do, and canned if you don’t. If spacetime were found to be a superfluid composed of parts, those parts would still exist within some relation to one another.

It puts that verse about how we live and move and have our being in a different light.

That’s a meaningless if. If 6 were 9. If cabbages were kings.

I’ve always liked Paul’s multiple, intellectual use of the sixth-century BC Cretan poet Epimenides of Cnossos.

The infinite or finite nature of spacetime is not a meaningless comparison, and neither is considering numerical and non-numerical values.

The problem we run into is that we can’t distinguish between an unobservable cause and a nonexistent cause. The best we can do is to rename them as unknown causes, and try our best to figure it out.

1 Like

“Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.” --Albert Einstein.

3 Likes

If finite spacetime is subject to infinite scaling, magnification (how? Extended by what within Planck units?) that doesn’t allow for it to be a compound superfluid. Considering what values? What would Epimenides say?

Wow! He was half wrong AGAIN!

If helps to first notice that there are only three possible statements to the question of where the universe came from: from nothing, from an infinite number of past events, or from an uncaused cause.

That sounds like you are saying spacetime only appears to be infinitely divisible, and this isn’t the first time plank units have been proposed to me as the boundary condition.

The relation between quantized spacetime can still be nonclassical… just saying anything is possible in that respect.

As far as numerical and non-numerical values:

If the natural numbers are unlimited, then the number of natural numbers is undefined. This is a simple tautology.

The real value of aleph-0 can still be defined as it is clearly found in relation to aleph-1 and not the number of natural numbers.

The more I think about this, the less I see how the math changes by referring to these Aleph ‘numbers’ as non-numerical values.

I get how the natural and real numbers cannot be put in corresponding relationships. I also get a sense of wonder, as if we are touching on a basic premise of reality when X can be considered as a discrete value representing 4 dimensions, and yet it is ‘smaller’ than the reals between 0 and 0.000001.

(X<---->non-X) > (X, X+1, X+2…)

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.