Question about the cosmological argument
Hello Rabbi Michael,
In Notebook 2, you talked about whether real infinity is possible. If I understood correctly, you mentioned that you can get a description of an infinite process if it is described by a function that defines all of its parts.
For example, if reality could be described as a function y=2x, it would be possible to accept that it is infinite. I wanted to ask
1. Is it unrealistic to think that reality can indeed be described as a multidimensional function in a very high dimension, which receives relevant inputs and produces a multidimensional output (for example, the location of every particle in the universe given the relevant inputs)?
This function is, of course, one that we will never be able to describe. However, it is possible that it exists, and if it does exist, it obviates the need for a primary cause.
2. If indeed such a thing (a function that describes the universe) is theoretically possible, what advantage does the conclusion of a first cause have over it? Why should I believe in a first cause, and not believe in a function that describes an infinite process?
Thanks in advance!
What I remember writing is that an explanation with infinite links cannot be acceptable as an explanation (infinite regression). I didn’t understand anything from the rest of what you said.
I'll try to simplify,
Do you think it's possible that there is a deterministic function that describes the entire universe?
(Suppose, a function that emits for each point in time the position of every particle in the universe (and all the other things needed, if any, to get a complete picture of the entire universe)
If it's just locations then maybe yes. But not complete information because of the uncertainty principle.
Excellent. Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that all of reality could be described using a deterministic function. In such a case, do you think the assumption of causality is still binding?
First of all – not possible. So this is a hypothetical discussion. Second, I didn't understand what the question was about the assumption of causality? If everything is deterministic then it is clear that the principle of causality always works.
In the case where everything can be described as a deterministic function, the problem of infinite regression is seemingly solved - in notebook #2 you wrote (page 11) that in a situation where a description of all links in a chain is offered by means of a formula, infinite regression can be acceptable.
Therefore, I ask whether in this case the assumption of causality still holds, or is it dropped.
If you have a complete description of all the links, then it is not really an infinite regression but one complex explanation. But it is an impossible description. Even if there were a scientific theory that would give me such a description, it would not be a description of causes but of successive states in time. These states come one after the other, but it does not state what causes what. And even if there were such a function, what would you put there to indicate the first cause? It just means that we do not have a description of a first cause.
None of this touches in any way that I see the principle of causality.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
