THE UNCAUSED CAUSE REDUX

[Note:  Correspondent Ryan G. posted an interesting response to my “Uncaused Cause” article.  This prompted further consideration of the subject by me that I think is better presented here as a new article rather than in the comment section.]

Ryan,

My “Uncaused Cause” article was an empirical approach to the kalam cosmological argument, which states that everything that begins has a cause.  I expressed this in terms of the natural (all that begins) and the supernatural (an eternal creator of the natural).  Implicit in this distinction vis-a-vis the kalam cosmological argument is that a natural (that is, physical) entity that has no beginning would give rise to special pleading:  All of nature requires a cause except that which is necessary to rule out the existence of the supernatural.  Because that is specious, we can infer from the kalam cosmological argument the distinction I made between natural entities (they must have a beginning because they are uniformly subject to the laws of our universe) and a supernatural creator (who as the creator of those laws need not submit to them).

THE QUESTION REMAINS

With this in mind, let’s consider what you had to say.  I am not disputing the lack of dimensionality featured in the conventional models of quantum mechanics and the Big Bang.  I also don’t dispute the astounding dimensionality of the string hypothesis which, if proven, would knock a lot of holes in those models.  The science regarding the foundation of the universe remains unsettled, and my argument does not rest upon these particulars.  It rests upon the indisputable scientific observations that our universe is finite in space and time.  As such, it has a cause.

If I understand you correctly, Ryan, you argue that our universe did not have a beginning because it existed as a timeless, spaceless singularity, a dimensionless void containing all the matter of our universe, “before” it exploded as the Big Bang.   OK, let’s say that’s true.  A cause was still needed to change that matter from a formless singularity into the form of our universe.  So, your argument does not eliminate a first cause, at least in relation to the form of our universe.  That still leaves us with the question of whether that cause was natural or supernatural.

A WORD ABOUT THE SUPERNATURAL

Before we go further, let me be clear about what I mean by supernatural.  I do not mean the superstition of New Age frippery or Halloween spooks.  I mean that which is superior to nature in the same manner in which a creator is superior to his creation.  A creator transcends his creation by bringing to it function thus form that the mere matter composing it can never bring about itself.  A creator is independent of his creation, whereas the origin of his creation is entirely dependent upon his will.  For example, a sculpture cannot exist without and prior to its sculptor, although the sculptor can surely exist without the sculpture.

DEAD ENDS

Now let’s consider what a natural cause of our universe, at least its transformation from a singularity, would entail.  It would have to be either internal or external to the singularity.  If it is internal and the singularity is timeless, then as a physical – therefore deterministic – entity the singularity could not exist in any state except that which was necessary and sufficient for that internal cause to bring about the event of the Big Bang.  If so, because no time exists to separate the events that would allow the development of a cause internal to the singularity, then the singularity could not exist except as the Big Bang.  Thus, the singularity and the Big Bang would be identical; it could not exist apart from that event occasioning the beginning our universe.  So, a natural cause internal to the singularity leaves us treading water.  We’re still in the same place when it comes to inquiring into the uncaused cause of our universe.

If the natural cause were external, then all the singularity would need to possess is the potential to explode as the Big Bang upon its interaction with the necessary outside forces.  Having only potentiality, it could exist in a state distinct from the Big Bang.  However, because all the known laws of physics break down in the singularity, it is nothing but sheer speculation as what the physical structure and mechanics of this existence would be.  Nevertheless, I think there is a reasonable metaphysical statement we can make about a natural cause of the Big Bang that is external to the singularity:  Either that external cause is part of a finite series of events culminating in the creation of our universe or it is a link in a chain of infinite regression.

I think you’ll agree that if it is the former, then all that has happened is that we punted the uncaused cause to another point.  Nothing is resolved by positing a natural cause of the Big Bang in this manner.  Similarly, if it is the latter, we are back to the flaw I cited in the naturalist’s argument:  The law of causation, which is ironclad in its application to all physical entities we have observed in nature, is contradicted by the existence of a physical entity (either the singularity, the structure within which it exists, or both) without a cause.  This is but one of the perversities that arise from reifying infinity, which is nothing more than a mathematical concept.  Mathematics is an entirely mental construct.  It is, like language and logic, a method to obtain knowledge but has no physical aspect.  Infinity is no more a quality of nature than the word “cat” is actually a cat.

A KNOWN DIMENSIONLESS PHENOMENON

Of course, Ryan, infinity is moot if a dimensionless singularity exists subject to a structure capable of acting upon it that is also without dimension.  But then we must acknowledge that a structure capable of effecting so fundamental a change in the singularity as to turn it into our universe is superior to it.  Furthermore, each and everyone of us knows of a dimensionless structure that is capable of manipulating nature:  The consciousness each of us possesses.  Therefore, we needn’t argue from ignorance that the timeless, spaceless structure external to the singularity that caused it to explode as the Big Bang must be a physical entity, because there is no other rational explanation.  We can reason that consciousness – a known dimensionless, non-physical, indeed immaterial, phenomenon – is that structure.

Such a consciousness would be supernatural in the sense previously described, because it would be superior to all nature (at least all nature that we can know from the evolution of the singularity into our universe) by causing that nature to exist.  Furthermore, as a consciousness it could act as an agent, free of the deterministic restraints that rule physical entities.  By that I mean it would possess the volition to act that is not dependent upon preceding conditions – i.e., it would have free will.

THE RELEVANCE OF FORM

Therefore, in the same manner that a sculptor can freely choose whether or not to fashion formless clay into a sculpture, this consciousness would have the power to freely choose whether or not to fashion a formless singularity into our universe.  Moreover, we can comprehend how this consciousness could bring the form of our universe to the void of the singularity just as the sculptor brings the form of his artistic vision to a lump of clay.  By the form of our universe I mean the precise fine-tuning of dozens of physical constants (i.e., the anthropic principle) and the fortuitous arrangement of matter (i.e., the “Rare Earth” hypothesis) that have made possible the existence of human beings.

Where else could this form come from?  How can form arise from within the formlessness of the singularity?  It cannot.  It must have imbued with form from without.  We know of no physical process except chance that could have produced the form of our universe.  Furthermore, as form implies function, we have no reason to believe that any purely physical process could have devised the form of our universe for the purpose of functioning as a habitat for human beings.  Yet, once again, we know of the one thing that can produce extremely complex form in service to function – consciousness, a mind.  Of course, it is this mind, this structure external to the singularity that exploded as the Big Bang and inaugurated our universe, that Christians, Jews, and others recognize as God the Creator.

In conclusion, reason leads to the belief that the uncaused cause of our universe is supernatural.  That supernatural cause, the mind of God, explains the physics, form, and function of our universe.  It is non-contradictory and applies known phenomena.  However, a natural cause either does nothing more than push the question elsewhere or results in apparent contradictions to which the only appeal is to ignorance – i.e., we don’t know how now, but we’ll figure out a naturalistic explanation someday.

Thanks, Ryan, for your remarks that prompted this discourse.

Regards, Bill

Comments

[John]

Hi, Im John from Melbourne Oz.
I much prefer these related essays on Real God and what we are as human beings.

1. www.dabase.net/dht6.htm
2. www.dabase.net/dht7.htm
3. www.dabase.net/christmc2.htm
4. www.dabase.net/spacetim.htm
5. www.dabase.net/divhscrt.htm

[Ryan G]

Hi Bill,

Thank you for your detailed reply, it has allowed me to ponder this question more rigorously.

As such, I have to take issue with some of your characterizations of my position. First of all, I do not believe it is right to characterize such a singularity as physical and deterministic. By definition, that without dimension is not physical unless it interacts in space via some force (ex. charge, spin.) Thus the singularity cannot be physical qua singularity. And as a timeless void the only such interaction with space it would possess would be the Big Bang itself. You have gone as far as to say that a timeless singularity would exist solely as the Big Bang. You are correct to the extent that existence implies physicality (spatial and temporal dimensions). I believe it would be more correct to say that it would subsist independent of space and time.

Now, I’m not sure exactly what connotations you are attaching to the claim that such a universe would be deterministic. I think the debate is tired, and even if we do live in a deterministic universe it is obvious that humans have free will, the two are compatible in my opinion.

Second of all, the notion you have presented of an internal “cause” is slightly off target. I am claiming that it is possible for the universe to have been formed without need of an external force acting upon it. Per the Law of Conservation of Energy and Matter, the universe must have always existed with the same amount of energy and matter as currently comprising it. I am claiming the logical consistency of a self-sufficient inflationary model. You are right to claim such an entity would exist only as the Big Bang, that is, in space and time. My claim is that such an entity would subsist independent of space and time, and that a self-sufficient force, one that cannot be considered natural (as this indicates physicality) effected the Big Bang. A singularity subsisting independent of space and time need not have cause, as causality itself only comes into effect with space and time.

Logically speaking, though you claim we are “left treading water” and that we must inquire further into an uncaused cause, by definition such a singularity as I am positing has no cause. There is no infinite regress. That which is timeless can have no beginning (and energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed). I believe that this line of thinking denies the necessity of a supernatural force supervening upon a subsisting singularity, or creating the universe from nothing. Of course, your main objection was not that the singularity itself was uncaused, but that the process by which it transformed from timeless and space less into the observable universe in space and time would be uncaused. My point is only that it is logically conceivable for the Big Bang to have occured from a non-physical internal happening. Such a position is coherent, and does not open itself to reductio ad absurdum.

A few points of contention--you mentioned that you were basing your thoughts on the kalam cosmological argument. I must admit I haven’t come across this form of the cosmological argument before. In my reading I found this description:

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

I believe I have demonstrated the logical consistency of the argument that the total finite mass in the universe need not have had a beginning. You dismiss the possibility that the first cause of the physical universe could be internal to the universe itself. I am still not sure why this is. Does life need a supervening force for it to exist in this very moment? DNA is internal to the organism in the very same way that the formation of the universe would have been internal to the pre-natural mass from which the universe sprang. But you claim the necessity of an external ordering force as you easily shift gears to a teleological argument for the existence of God from the basis of human consciousness i.e. because we can move ourselves and order nature, therefore nature must have been ordered by an external intelligence. But is our consciousness not natural? Do we need an external force to supervene upon it for it to exist, and in every moment? You are claiming it is not natural, but rather immaterial. What proof do you have of this? As far as I am aware, consciousness is comprised of energy and chemicals in a complex organic arrangement. Of course it may be possible for consciousness to transcend space and times, as neither are necessary properties of mass (while energy, not matter, is the only candidate for transcendence.) If anything, the wondrous phenomenon of consciousness seems more consistent with the claim that the universe is self-ordering and self-sufficient.

peace

[Bill]

Hi, Ryan.

Thanks for correcting my statements on your contentions. I better understand your point of view and find that we are not too far apart on a number of points. I see too that I was probably a bit opaque in my response because I used some words in a very specific manner -- e.g., "physical" -- without clearly defining my usage. However, I appreciate that you discerned my meaning fairly well.

There are a number of issues that merit further discussion. However, I would like to focus upon one in particular. Your last paragraph heads toward what I believe is the heart of the matter, form.

To resolve the source of form in the universe we observe today, I found (during my years as a non-believer) science wanting because it is arbitrarily restricted, in Aristotelian terms, to the study of material and efficient causes (i.e., matter and mechanics), whereas complete knowledge of an entity also requires study of its formal and final causes (i.e., form and function).

While I don't think that the objective identification of form and function necessitates theology (in which we might express form and function as design and purpose), modern science is ill-equipped for this task because it is essentially metrics, the study of that which is reducible in principle to measurement. Matter and mechanics are readily measurable, so in science they have become the end-all and be-all of explanation. But the formal and final causes of an entity are not so reducible, so science ignores them as irrelevant to objective knowledge.

Yet that still leaves us with the quandary of what established the form of our universe -- i.e., the particular settings of physical constants and the present arrangement of matter in astronomical structures. You argue that because the singularity is not subject to causation as we understand it, we consider the resulting form of our universe to come about from a self-ordering and self-sufficent process. Fair enough. But that still leaves us with the question of what is that process?

You compare it to the DNA of a cell. However, DNA contains a mind-boggling amount of information that could not have been arranged by any natural process we know of (other than the replication process, of course). The "letters" of a DNA molecule have no particular affinity for one another, so on the one hand they can fit together in any arrangement but on the other hand there is no chemical process by which any particular letters would come together. So we are left scratching our heads as to how nature could have arranged the letters of the first DNA molecule to produce a complex and specific string of information. The number of variations are uncomprehensibly vast for that process to be chance, so how did nature develop that information, which is the foundation of the form each living creature takes?

Similarly, even though the singularity would exist outside of time and space and therefore would not be subject to causation (and so exempt from the determinism of the laws of nature as we understand them), we are left to ponder how the singularity came to possess the information, the "DNA" of the universe, that gave our universe the form that permitted beings like us to exist.

If we do not falsely constrain science to metrics -- i.e., the study of material and efficient causes -- then there surely is a scientific answer to this question. Science would at least have the vocabulary that comes along with the study of formal and final causes to apprehend, if not comprehend, the universe in its entirety.

But until science is released from its present philosophical constraints that banish formal and final causes from the realm of objective knowledge, I do not know how it can effectively address, either to affirm or refute, the theological reasoning that there exists a supernatural creator of the universe.

I hope that helps to put my articles on this subject in a more illuminating context for you, Ryan. Once again, thanks for the thoughtful remarks that have given me the opportunity to sharpen my thinking on this topic.

Regards, Bill