BothAndBlog Forum

What caused the Big Bang, in your opinion?

an-salad;d15866 wrote:In my opinion, our earthly powers of logic and reason are insufficient to answer such a question.

For almost everything in our space-time Cosmos --- except Dark Energy & Matter --- our scientific logic & reason have proven capable of answering most causal questions. So, I suppose it's temporal empirical Science that you find "insufficient" for such pre-Bang questions*1 for which we have no objective measurable data. And un-earthly powers, such as divine revelation might be suspect, as disguised human opinions.

But, this is a Philosophy forum. So, would you allow theoretical philosophical conjectures*2 in your thread?


*1. Questions Outside the Scope of Scientific Inquiry :
# Subjective Experiences and Values:
Science is focused on objective, measurable data, so questions about the meaning of life, the value of art, or personal experiences like happiness are not within its purview.
# Morality and Ethics:
Science can analyze the consequences of actions, but it cannot dictate what is right or wrong.
# Supernatural and Divine:
Questions about the existence of gods, ghosts, or other supernatural entities are beyond the scope of scientific investigation, as they deal with concepts that cannot be observed or tested.
# Meaning and Purpose:
While science can explain how things work, it cannot provide answers to questions about the meaning of existence or purpose.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... 27t+answer

*2. Questions Philosophy Can Answer :
Philosophy grapples with fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, and reality, often exploring topics like the nature of consciousness, the meaning of life, and the foundations of morality, without necessarily providing definitive answers, but rather encouraging critical thinking and exploration.
Here are some examples of questions that philosophy explores :
# Metaphysics (the nature of reality) {including Causation?}
# The Origin of the Universe: What came before the Big Bang? {First Cause?}
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... 27t+answer

T Clark;979280 wrote:As for me - It's not clear the big bang was caused at all.

That is a true statement. Yet, a cosmic explosion of matter & energy that continues to this day is an effectual event that deserves some kind of explanation. Empirical scientists are bound by the requirement for hard evidence to opt out of such questions. But Mathematical scientists and Theoretical Cosmologists do not shy away from implications of Causation. So they postulate a plethora of causes (e.g. quantum fluctuation) that serve for storytelling, but admit no proof. Yet, bringing clarity to confounding questions is the job description for philosophers. So let the speculation begin . . . . with a bang!

PS___The Count has already begun the count-down to a philosophical distinction between physical Causation and metaphysical Creation.

T Clark;979936 wrote:Is everything we call scientific explanation really just metaphysics?

No. But when scientists go beyond compiling facts to explaining their significance, they are straying into metaphysics, and doing Philosophy. Us amateurs on the Philosophy Forum are not qualified to laboriously extract the facts from raw physics. But we can lean back in our easy-chairs and reason from facts to meanings. The Big Bang theory is generally accepted as an Axiom : a hypothetical fact. But for empirical scientists, that's the end of the story of Cosmology, told in reverse, and summarized as "Poof! let there be matter and motion".

For philosophers though, it's just the beginning of the story of "Life, the Universe, and Everything". Yet, unlike a super-duper-computer, we may not be content with a numerical summary : "42". We want the sexy juicy details, even if we have to make them up, by combining facts with a dash of Logic & a soupçon of imagination. That's called "cooking with Reason".

Unlike religious believers though, when philosophers are given an ex nihilo fact, they respond with ex nihilo, nihil fit. And instinctively look for a ding an sich to explain the contingent claim. Traditionally, that explanation has been an unconditional self-existent Cause, or First Principle. Which, of course, is a Metaphysical reason for being. And the rest is, as they say, history.


Metaphysics, often considered a branch of philosophy, explores fundamental questions about reality, existence, and the nature of being, going beyond the scope of empirical, physical science.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... etaphysics

T Clark;980109 wrote:You and I have always had different ideas of what is metaphysics and what isn't. It makes it hard for us to have a fruitful discussion.

Yes, I know. For those who have had formal education in philosophy, it's hard to grasp a novel definition of an old term. I have had no academic instruction (indoctrination) in philosophical vocabulary. And until I started posting on this forum, most of my experience was in Science and Engineering. So, as an amateur, I tend to take liberties in my usage of ancient Greek and Catholic terminology, adapting it to our modern knowledge of how the world works.

Note what the examples below have in common*1. They are all abstract concepts with no physical properties. Hence Meta-Physics (beyond substance) refers to all of the non-physical features of the cosmos that emerged from evolution only after the appearance of homo sapiens in the Holocence epoch : i.e. the Anthropocene*2. The Brain is physical, but the Mind is meta-physical. Brain is a material object, but Mind is an immaterial process : a function. Hence, meta-physical*3. By that term, I don't mean super-natural, but merely non-concrete mental abstractions, concepts, ideas, designs, etc.

PS___ For the purposes of my personal cosmological thesis, I got my understanding of the term Metaphysics from Aristotle's book on Nature (Phusis), not from Catholic theological doctrine. In my opinion, the Greek philosopher was talking about the kind of abstract ideas in the definition below, not about religious dogma. But, if that archaic word offends you, just substitute the term Mental or Ideal in place of Metaphysical, as I often do, to make a distinction from Material or Real.


*1. Metaphysics :
the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.
___Oxford Dictionary

*2. What is Holocene vs Anthropocene? :
The Holocene is the only state in which we know humanity can thrive with anything like the 7.5 billion humans being supported today. We have now left the Holocene and are in the transition to the Anthropocene. This new geological epoch was named to acknowledge human influence on the state of the planet.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... 5-1443-2_3
Note --- Until the Anthropocene the universe was all Physics all the time. Since then, Meta-Physics (human thoughts & ideas) has accelerated the evolution of our little blue planet (e.g. global warming). Did Aristotle have any inkling of where his notion of "beyond-physics" would take us? Some technical features of 21st century human culture might seem super-natural to him. But, they are merely products of post-natural (i.e. cultural) human engineering.

*3. Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

jgill;980112 wrote:Not if they speculate within the normal scope of science. But, if they conjecture that action at a distance has religious connotations, or that the universe is a reification of mathematics, then, yes.

I agree. The Big Bang Theory is within the normal scope of empirical science, in that it is a summation of cosmological evidence. They tracked expanding matter backward to see where it came from. But the religious implications of a something-from-nothing beginning provoked Fred Hoyle to ridicule it with a catchy name, that unfortunately stuck.

Since then, numerous atheistic or agnostic scientists have proposed a variety of philosophical extensions of cosmology beyond the empirical evidence : Cyclical Universe ; Brane Cosmology ; Pre-Inflationary Scenarios ; Ekpyrotic Model ; Mathematical Universe models, etc. There's nothing wrong with scientists dabbling in philosophy by speculating beyond the evidence. Even Isaac Newton's Mechanistic Universe theory went beyond the scope of observational science to specify the Lawgiver.

Note the "-ism" suffix below, indicating a belief system. His mathematical theory openly postulated religious connotations. But there's nothing wrong with that, as long as the theory is useful for scientific applications. Scientists did their work for three centuries, despite Newton's theological leanings.


Newton's philosophy, or "Newtianism," emphasized a mechanistic view of the universe, governed by natural laws, and a focus on empirical observation and mathematical reasoning, as seen in his Principia Mathematica. . . .
While known for his scientific achievements, Newton was also a deeply religious man, believing in a God who created the universe and set its laws in motion
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... philosophy

T Clark;980324 wrote:I have no formal education in philosophy either. Your use of "indoctrination" in this context shows why it's hard to take your philosophical opinions seriously.

"Indoctrination" literally means teaching or instruction. But it may be interpreted as implying that the doctrine is supposed to be accepted un-critically. So, I suppose that's why you find it hard to take seriously. Yet, if you were not indoctrinated in college, how did you arrive at your philosophical worldview?

I think you will agree, though, that most of the contentious argumentation on this forum seems to divide along the line between Physics (Materialism) and Metaphysics (Mentalism). Would you also agree that, since the 17th century, academic philosophy has tended to favor Empiricism over the ancient focus on Rationalism. That's the academic bias I was referring to. If you believe in the metaphysics of Materialism, you may think it's biased in favor of "hard Truth" (nothing immaterial), as opposed to the "sweet lies" of Spiritualism.

However, my non-academic personal worldview is intended to include both the observed facts of Materialism and the inferred reasons of Mentalism. It's an attempt to emulate the broad scope of Aristotle's Physics, which included both observed facts of Nature, and the reasoned interpretations of Human Nature, which later came to be labeled : Metaphysics. When Ari talked about Gods, though, he was referring to universal Principles*1, not to the anthro-morphic deities of the Greek religions.

Even modern Science judges its facts according to general principles : Laws of Nature*2. But where did those universal rules come from? In the metaphysics of Materialism, they seem to be taken for granted : i.e. on Faith. Similarly, the ancient Hebrews accepted Moses' ten commandments as revelations from God.

Yet, since I have learned to doubt Blind Faith, I tend to ask embarrassing questions : such as what caused the Big Bang, and where did its Energy & Laws come from? Ironically, such inquiries into universals seem to require something like Aristotle's Gods (abstract principles) to explain them. Or to turn a blind eye to Ontological questions*3.

That may be why Materialists tend to prefer to leave the "why" questions unasked. Which allows them to adopt the condescending position of Nominalism vs Idealism*4. Is that why you find my reasoning beyond Physics, into Metaphysics, not worthy of serious consideration?


*1. Aristotle conceived of a single, unmoved mover as the ultimate cause of motion and order in the universe, distinct from the traditional Greek gods, and often interpreted as a divine, perfect actuality of thought.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... totle+gods

*2. The natural laws of the universe, often referred to as universal laws or principles, are fundamental, immutable rules that govern the workings of the cosmos, encompassing everything from the smallest particles to the largest structures.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... e+universe

*3. Ontological questions delve into the fundamental nature of existence and reality, exploring what exists and what doesn't, including questions about the existence of God, the nature of consciousness, and the meaning of reality.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... +questions

*4. Idealism and nominalism are contrasting philosophical positions on the nature of reality, specifically concerning universals (general concepts or ideas) and particulars (individual instances). Idealism posits that universals are real and exist independently of particulars, while nominalism denies the existence of universals, asserting that only particulars are real.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... nominalism
Note --- Are Natural Laws real & particular, or Ideal and universal?

METAPHYSICS AS POETRY
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/983349

T Clark;982440 wrote:This is pretty close to my understanding of metaphysics except in most cases people who take a particular metaphysical position are not aware that they are. Metaphysics is generally the unconscious, unexpressed, unintentional foundation of what we believe and how we act.

In another thread, we clashed about my unconventional (Aristotelian) definition of Meta-Physics*1 (abstract ideas vs concrete things) ; i.e. non-physical ; mental ; conceptual. But, at the time, I didn't know how you understood the term, or why you found my version so repugnant. So I assumed you considered Metaphysics to be a reference to Theology-in-general, or Catholic Scholasticism in particular. Which does not apply to my Information-Science-based hypothesis. But the quote above seems to narrowly define Metaphysics as something like "faith in fictional concepts", or perhaps "unsupported personal opinions"*2. Is that close to your understanding?

The OP gives an example of Metaphysics as Poetry : "You just write it as-if". Yet the term "as-if" can be used positively to describe a scientific Hypothesis *3, or negatively to indicate dis-belief in something Impossible. The first usage is close to my own philosophical notion, but the latter is teen-lingo and often accompanied by an eye-roll and an exclamation point.

However, I understand the OP as saying that Metaphysics is an imaginative way to describe the world, and not to be taken literally. That's not exactly how I use the term, but I can live with that. For example, the Standard Model of fundamental sub-atomic particles ascribes fanciful properties to Quarks, such as "charm" and "strange". I would accept them as placeholder names, not as physical properties.

Likewise, when scientists explore the world beyond the physical limit of the Big Bang --- e.g. String Theory --- they are doing Philosophy, not Physics, and not Poetry. Yet their fanciful descriptions of an invisible realm of 11 dimensions, could even be categorized, with tongue-in-cheek, as Poetry. However, when I make postulations about the Cause of the Big Bang, I think of it as Philosophy, and I suppose it could also be Poetry. But not in the sense of religious Faith or unsupported Opinions.



*1. Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts)
were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

*1. No, metaphysics is not simply a matter of personal opinion. While it delves into topics beyond empirical observation, its core principles and methods rely on logic, analysis, and reasoned argument, rather than subjective preferences. Metaphysics explores fundamental questions about reality, existence, and knowledge, using philosophical tools to examine these concepts.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... re+opinion

*3. As-If :
An "as-if hypothesis" is a concept where an unproven hypothesis is treated as true for the purpose of explanation, experimentation, or research, even though it hasn't been confirmed. This approach allows scientists to explore ideas and conduct research without needing to first establish the absolute truth of a hypothesis.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... hypothesis

T Clark;983486 wrote:You and I have discussed this numerous times and each time This is pretty close to my understanding of metaphysics except in most cases people who take a particular metaphysical position are not aware that they are. Metaphysics is generally the unconscious, unexpressed, unintentional foundation of what we believe and how we act.

T Clark;982440 wrote:I explain how I understand metaphysics. After all this time we have no excuse. Either I explain badly or you are not listening carefully. Either way, we never seem able have a fruitful discussion.

Voltaire : “If you want to converse with me, first define your terms”. I agree that we need to make sure we are talking about the same topic.

How did you arrive at that unconventional definition of "Metaphysics" as subconscious Faith?*1 Is it a common Catholic usage? My Protestant background did not introduce me to that notion ; so I missed it the first time around. It might make for an interesting conversation on a different thread. But it's not anywhere near my own usage. I have explained repeatedly that I use the term literally, to refer to the topics that philosophers are concerned with. And which are beyond or outside (meta) the purview of scientists. Why do you equate Poetry (poiesis = creativity) with Faith?*2

What alternative label would you use to include all of the following topics of philosophical interest*3 : First Principles ; Substance ; Causation ; Form & Matter ; Potentiality. In this and other threads I have referred to meta-physics simply as "Philosophy". But some mis-read it as a reference to Religious philosophy. However, I explicitly exclude the Catholic Theology that centuries later came to be identified by the "meta-" term. If these traditional metaphysical (non-physical) topics are of interest to you --- now that I know Metaphysics means something bad to you --- I will try to avoid that trigger word in the future. For the record, I'm not a fan of blind Faith.


*1. Metaphysics, while not inherently synonymous with faith, can be understood as a study that often overlaps with religious beliefs and practices. Metaphysics, broadly defined, is the branch of philosophy that explores the fundamental nature of reality, existence, and the world beyond what can be observed through empirical science. Faith, on the other hand, is a belief that is not based on proof, but rather on trust or conviction.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... as+faith*2.

*2. While the connection between poetry and metaphysics is not a strict equivalence, there's a significant overlap and influence between the two. Metaphysics, the study of reality beyond the physical world, often finds expression and exploration through poetic language and themes.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... etaphysics
Note --- Poetry : literary work in which special intensity is given to the expression of feelings and ideas by the use of distinctive style and rhythm; poems collectively or as a genre of literature.
From Gnomon post above : "However, I understand the OP as saying that Metaphysics is an imaginative way to describe the world, and not to be taken literally. That's not exactly how I use the term, but I can live with that."

*3.Aristotle's metaphysics explores fundamental questions about reality, existence, and the principles underlying all things. Key topics include substance, causation, form and matter, and the nature of being. He also investigates the existence of mathematical objects, the cosmos, and the relationship between the physical and supra-physical realms.
Here's a more detailed look at some key topics:
Substance :
Aristotle distinguishes between primary and secondary substances. Primary substances are individual beings, while secondary substances are the categories or classes to which they belong.
Causation :
Aristotle identifies four types of causes: material (what something is made of), formal (the structure or form), efficient (the agent that brings about change), and final (the purpose or end).
Form and Matter :
Aristotle's metaphysics is deeply influenced by the concept of hylomorphism, which holds that all things are composed of both form (the essence or defining characteristic) and matter (the material substance).
The Nature of Being :
Aristotle investigates the different ways in which the word "be" is used, exploring the nature of being qua being (being as such) and the different types of being.
The Unmoved Mover :
Aristotle posits a first cause, the Unmoved Mover, a divine entity that is the ultimate source of motion and change in the universe.
Potentiality and Actuality :
Aristotle explores the concepts of potentiality (the capacity to become something) and actuality (the state of being), arguing that all things are in a constant state of becoming and changing.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... ics+topics
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aris ... ategories/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-natphil/