Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdcsu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watdcsu!dmcanzi
From: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: The Cosmological (First Cause) Argument
Message-ID: <1306@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 25-Apr-85 02:03:47 EST
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.1306
Posted: Thu Apr 25 02:03:47 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 25-Apr-85 04:34:59 EST
References: <946@ames.UUCP>
Reply-To: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi)
Distribution: net
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 40
Summary: What's the first positive real number?

In article <946@ames.UUCP> barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) writes:
>	But the paradox remains unsolved. We have strong scientific evidence
>that the universe has not existed forever; it seems to have begun some few
>billion years ago (estimates change frequently, but it's maybe ~20 billion).
>This fact should make those who believe that all of reality can be encompassed
>in a very strict cause-and-effect system uncomfortable. Either at least one
>uncaused event has, indeed, occured (the universe began), or
>cause-and-effect's validity must be pushed back before the universe began, and
>something must be hypothesized that caused the universe to begin. But either
>answer shows that a strict cause-and-effect explanation of reality is
>inadequate. If the universe has not always existed, you *must* have either a
>first, uncaused event, or an infinite regression of causes which reach past
>the physical universe to a metaphysical before-the-universe.

What follows is pure speculation, based on a mathematical idea that
everybody should be able to understand.  Suppose that time is only
defined within the universe, so that it is meaningless to speak of
anything coming "before" the universe.  Now, a belief in strict
cause-and-effect may be stated by saying that the state of the universe
at any time is completely determined by the state of the universe at
any earlier time.  Add one further supposition, that the variable, t,
that represents time, can take on all values greater than zero (at
least to the present), and *only* values *strictly* greater than zero.
Then there is no need for a first cause, because for every state of the
universe, there are previous states of the universe.  For the state of
the universe at any time, t, there is an earlier state at time t/2.
(Remember, t > 0, therefore t > t/2.) Since there is no "first state"
of the universe, there is no need for a "first cause".  And (try not to
let this boggle your mind) what I've just described is a universe of
finite age *with* *no* *beginning*.

Whaddaya think of that?

--
	David Canzi

Man: An animal [whose]... chief occupation is the extermination of
other animals and his own species, which, however, multiplies with such
insistent rapidity as to infest the whole habitable earth and Canada.
	Ambrose Bierce