The Limits of Possible Explanation

[athoughtfulman]

The current thinking is that time once had a beginning, and so there was a "first cause". Of course, we know about 3 spacial dimensions and only 1 of time. There could be other time dimensions that we have no idea about

I love that!

We can keep going back and back and back, but if time never ends, then we're never going to find our 'first cause'. But if there was/is a first cause, what's our explanation of that? Our whole worldview is based on the fact that something HAS to have a cause. But that's just our worldview, formed by the world we live in. There might not be a first cause - it might go on forever. Or there might be, and we're just going to have to accept the fact that something doesn't have to have a cause.

I think at least for now, there is a limit to our explanation. Until we can understand something of time (and maybe even travel though it ), all explanations will fall short of summing the issue at hand up.

I suppose I'm happy without an explanation since there seems not to be a proper one. But IF there were a proper one, then I'd love to know it.

[Mark]

Mark...if I understand you correct - you are saying that if we found a cause...and origin for everything then that would become part of the universe and we'd still need to ask for a cause and an origin for that - if we were to continue down that road - and it would just go on forever...

If that's what you are saying then I will say the fact that we need to go on forever doesn't mean there isn't one first cause...I don't think science ever needs to find the answer because even if science finds it - it will still have to keep checking to make sure it hasn't missed something. It can never know for sure that it absolutely has found the first cause I believe - even if it does find it.

Hope I've said at least something relevant or useful lol.

EvF

Well, I will concede that however unlikely it may be, it certainly is a logical possibility that there is an infinite series of, shall we say, factors, factor 0 causing the physical universe, factor 1 causing factor 0, ..., factor n causing factor n-1, and so on ad infinitum. But in that case, you have a set that includes both the physical universe and the set of infinitely many whatever-you-want-to-call-them, external causative factors. And it is that set that is the set of all existing things, and is incapable of being explained. In just the same way, it is logically possible that the set of all things includes the physical universe and a god who created it, and nothing more. This of course is what is standardly assumed by religious believers. And under those assumptions that set, the god plus the physical universe, is incapable, as a totality, of being explained. Even by the god in question.

What I assert is that if a set is assumed to include all existing things then it is incapable of being explained. I do not assume that the set in question is finite. The physical universe, for one thing, is not finite -- at least insofar as I understand.

---

Yeah. And when we think we've found the 'first cause' we might later discover that it wasn't the first cause because something caused that!

Or if we find the first cause and fail to find whatever caused that...that doesn't mean nothing did. It may have done and we might find out later, or we might never find out later, or it might simply be impossible to go any deeper and find out later that what we think is the first cause isn't because something actually created that (and it actually might go further and further back down the line so the first cause is much further away).

But if a first cause is found then its assumed to be the 'first cause' until there is any evidence to suggest it isn't and something created that right

I.e science has working hypothesis so after the 'first cause' is found it still needs to keep checking to make sure it hasn't missed something

E.g: That there wasn't a cause before that and that what is thought of as the 'first cause' ISN'T the first cause :p

EvF

That's interesting, but it isn't really relevant to my point. It may be that there is some sort of series of "factors," factor 0 causing the physical universe, factor 1 causing factor 0, and so forth, through which science will work its way and never come to the end; and it may be that at any given point we will never know whether the last-discovered factor is the very first one (or last one, depending on your point of view). All that is irrelevant to my point, which is that no matter what the ensemble of things that are eventually found to exist, the whole thing considered as a totality is not the sort of thing that is, or will ever be, subject to explanation. This follows from what explanation is, not from what may or may not happen to exist and what science may or may not happen to discover.

Actually as I said in my first post, I think the search for "ultimate" explanation, which is an impossibility, is a by-product of mankind's earthbound existence. The "ultimate and final explanation of all things" is a kind of wordplay that seems to have meaning, but in fact has none.

Although it isn't necessary to my position, I think that it is futile to look for explanation of the physical universe. So far, nothing has been observed that is outside it, and since "ultimate explanation" is an absurdity, there is no point in positing anything non-physical in the vain hope of supplying it. Indeed I very much doubt that theoretical physics, cosmology or whatever discipline you call it, will ever point to a factor (or god or whatever) outside the physical universe. What I expect it will do is supply an increasingly consistent and thorough account of how the physical universe has developed over time, and how its various parts are interrelated. That sort of thing cannot, however, say anything about how or why it is all here.

---

The current thinking is that time once had a beginning, and so there was a "first cause". Of course, we know about 3 spacial dimensions and only 1 of time. There could be other time dimensions that we have no idea about

There may be a "first cause" but if so, it is futile to seek its cause. This is just the same as if the "first cause" were a god. One thing such a god certainly could not do would be to explain whence and how he came. And if the "first cause" is a, shall we say, singularity from which all burst forth (a common scientific account currently), then that singularity itself is incapable of explanation. There is no escaping that the totality of things, whatever it is, will forever be without explanation.

[Edwardo Piet]

There may be a "first cause" but if so, it is futile to seek its cause.

But how would you make sure that it IS the first cause otherwise? It is a working hypothesis wouldn't it?

How will you have any certainty if something is the first cause or not if you don't check for if it actually IS the first cause?
By checking in case IT actually has a cause too and therefore ISN'T actually the first cause?
And of course if you fail to falsify the "first cause" then you will still never 100% absolutely know for sure. You will never know 100% absolutely for sure what's round the corner I think, or you never CAN scientifically, rather.

Why do we NEED to know 100%? We don't do we? We go by what is most probable. Even God cannot be disproved...he is just extremely improbable.
Until a hypothesis that is actually a scientific theory, law, fact, etc that is backed up very strongly with evidence; is falsified - it shall be assumed to be correct right?

And until there is any evidence for a hypothesis it shall be assumed to be false. Evidence - for a hypothesis - needs to be collected, studied and found before a hypothesis is given any credit in the first place of course. Right?

If we can't be 100% absolutely sure that a "first cause" 'really IS' the first cause...that doesn't mean there's no point in checking. Science works by testability right? Its an on-going thing.

Can't you find an ultimate theory of everything...and then still check to make sure IT IS the ultimate theory of everything, to make sure you haven't missed anything?

How on earth otherwise, are you supposed to have any idea if you've got a Theory of Everything if you don't check if you have? If you don't make sure there isn't more out there? And keep making sure and scraping the bottom of the barrel?
And checking if your Theory of Everything is correct too...not just what might be missing...but to make sure the substance of the Theory of Everything is not flawed...and that nothing is missing there too. Making sure no mistakes are missed.

And so how will you ever 100% know absolutely what's round the corner anyway? Science doesn't claim absolute certainty. If it did it would not have doubt and experiment and it wouldn't work, it would be a dogma I think, without doubt, wouldn't it? It wouldn't function as science.

Please correct me if I'm at all wrong here. I'm by no means an expert on the subject!! Just giving my views and am interested by the discussion.

I am giving questions at least as much as answers I'm sure.

EvF

[Mark]

There may be a "first cause" but if so, it is futile to seek its cause.

But how would you make sure that it IS the first cause otherwise? It is a working hypothesis wouldn't it?

Etc.

Indeed, but that isn't my point. My argument doesn't require that I, or anyone, know that the entire set of existing things has been reduced to a first cause. Frankly I think the whole idea of a first cause is a little silly, but that also isn't essential to my argument.

The point is this: however certain or uncertain we may be of what the set of all existing things consists of, and however certain or uncertain we may be of the explanations we have constructed that relate these things to each other, we will never have an explanation for the whole shebang. This follows not from any assumptions about the state of our future knowledge, but from what explanation is.

I don't know whether this is "all right" or not, given how many people mistakenly imagine that there will one day be an ultimate explanation of all this, but it is what it is, and nothing can change it.

[Edwardo Piet]

The point is this: however certain or uncertain we may be of what the set of all existing things consists of, and however certain or uncertain we may be of the explanations we have constructed that relate these things to each other, we will never have an explanation for the whole shebang.

How do you know we won't? Do you mean because we could always go further and further back so we will never have the full explanation?

If that's your point then I have thought about that myself. But untill an explanation is sought and continued how will we know that it can never be explained?

Shouldn't the explanation be kept going? How do we know that it will NEVER be reached just as, on the flip-side to that - how would we know that it WILL be reached?

We can't know that there will or won't be an explanation can we? How can we predict this?

Why can't an explanation be sought?

I understand the logic that you can always go further and further back for example and the whole thing can be never explained. But we don't know this, scientists should try and find an explanation anyway - they're scientists, its their job I think. How do we know its impossible to find an explanation?

Its about what explanation is? Well if an explanation IS found then that's an explanation isn't it? How will you know untill you look? And how will you make sure you have indeed got it untill you check, double-check, triple-check and so on? To make sure you haven't missed something?

You say Mark, that the universe "is what it is and nothing can change it", but I don't understand your point there because to explain the universe is not to change it.

How evolution is used for an explanation for where life has come from and how it evolves - that discovery by Darwin and Wallace did not manifest evolution into existence for example. It did not 'change' how life came about simply by explaining it. Evolution had been going on way before Darwin had been born of course!

So my point is there, explaining the universe is not to change it. We wouldn't be messing up the way the universe is, we don't need to change it. The universe is what it is and nothing can change it I assume - but explaining it wouldn't change it or f*ck it up in some way.

I don't understand how it could be explained. But I don't see how it couldn't either. I don't see why its a fallacy for scientists to look for an ultimate explanation anyway - even if they can never get further back enough and we're at the risk that the universe is infinite rather than just massive but actually finite - despite the fact its expanding.

EvF

[Mark]

The point is this: however certain or uncertain we may be of what the set of all existing things consists of, and however certain or uncertain we may be of the explanations we have constructed that relate these things to each other, we will never have an explanation for the whole shebang.

How do you know we won't? Do you mean because we could always go further and further back so we will never have the full explanation?

Etc.

No, I mean that since explanation inevitably relates one thing to another, and since by definition there is nothing outside "the whole shebang," whatever that may be supposed to be, the whole shebang is not the sort of thing that can possibly be explained. I am not talking about the possible state of future knowledge. I am saying that the idea that the set of all existing things could possibly be explained is a category mistake, like saying that some day we might be able to discern how much Donald Duck weighs. How do I know that? Because a cartoon duck is not the sort of thing that has a weight, just like the set of all existing things is not the sort of thing that has an explanation.

That there might be an ultimate explanation of the whole shebang is a seductive idea, just because we live in a seemingly endless field of things, each of which appears to have an explanation. And it is in our nature always to look for explanations. And so to grasp that the totality of all existing things can't possibly have an explanation is a little difficult. This proposition is nevertheless true, not as a matter of fact, but flowing from what explanation is. Just like the impossibility of Donald Duck having a definite weight flows from what weight is.

And just like we will never be able to say how much Donald Duck weighs, we also will not be able to say what is the explanation of all existing things.

[Edwardo Piet]

You mean that if a "first cause" was ever found then it could only explain everything else and not itself? And therefore since itself is part of the universe too (i.e - the first part) then the whole universe can't ultimately be explained?

If the "first cause" can't be explained then the whole universe cannot be ultimately explained because the "first cause" is part of the universe.

Now if you are saying then that then I'm sure I agree. How can the "first cause" possibly explained? Its self explanatory. It just exists - something had to exist first as the "first cause" - unless you are going with the totally infinite regress idea or something.

I would think though that when scientists talk of a "first cause" as an ultimate explanation they mean for everything else and not for itself right? Other than it simply being the first thing that was?

That would be like asking for a POSITIVE NUMBER before 0 wouldn't it?

EvF

[Mark]

You mean that if a "first cause" was ever found then it could only explain everything else and not itself? And therefore since itself is part of the universe too (i.e - the first part) then the whole universe can't ultimately be explained?

If the "first cause" can't be explained then the whole universe cannot be ultimately explained because the "first cause" is part of the universe.

Now if you are saying then that then I'm sure I agree. How can the "first cause" possibly explained? Its self explanatory. It just exists - something had to exist first as the "first cause" - unless you are going with the totally infinite regress idea or something.

I would think though that when scientists talk of a "first cause" as an ultimate explanation they mean for everything else and not for itself right? Other than it simply being the first thing that was?

That would be like asking for a POSITIVE NUMBER before 0 wouldn't it?

EvF

A "first cause," which is essentially the same thing as a god, does not offer an explanation of why it exists. Supposing indeed that such a thing exists, you can say "I forbear to seek the explanation of this. But it doesn't matter what you say, because no matter whether "all that is" includes such a first cause or not, or such a god or not, all that is cannot be explained. If perchance you find a "first cause" and are sure that that is what it is, you have explained all except the first cause itself. It is true that it is useless to ask what caused something that is assumed to be a hypothetical first cause. But equally, it is useless to ask "what caused everything?" regardless of whether everything includes a "first cause" or not. The essential point is, the whole shebang is never going to have an explanation. A first cause, supposing it exists, wraps the whole problem of Whence and Why Everything Came into itself, and puts a bow on it, but nobody can ever open the package or even give it a shake to try to guess what's inside it. So it certainly does not provide an ultimate explanation of All That Is.

I think it actually is highly problematic that there is a first cause, but what is not highly problematic is that the entirety of things will never be explained. We will always be left with no answer to the question of whence and why everything came.

[Edwardo Piet]

Well I would think when people ask "What caused everything" they are thinking - well I at least think the following - that whatever the first cause is...that caused everything...they aren't asking for what caused the first cause too...that doesn't count as part of the everything because you can't have an explanation for the first cause; I think by definition!

I would think people mean... "everything that we know that exists now....what caused that? What is the first cause?" I don't think everything includes the first cause itself. You can't have a cause before the genuine first cause of course.

EvF

[Edward]

This string is very interesting to me, and what Mark has said, I can tell, is going to be very instrumental in my own theories. Because I think he's wrong and right at the same time. The set of all things cannot contain within itself the explanation of itself. However, there is an element within that set that might make it different than all other sets, and that is consciousness; in fact, the set's own consciousness.

I know this is like, "Oh, God here we go with the nebulous consciousness crap." But the fact is consciousness is real and is part of the set of all things--even if it is only manifested in animals on planet earth, and to an extreme in human animals (some).

Having said that, I have no idea how to prove this--yet.