Physicalism Redux

To put in put in my hypothetical no evidence just wild speculation take, I don't have any major belief on why there is something rather than nothing. I have kind of always liked the brute force approach, it's just impossible for nothing to exist, so something just does. I don't think we'll ever find a concrete answer, if there is one it might just be one of those things beyond us.

There might be no evidence but I think this is a great answer.

When Lawrence Krauss refers to a universe from nothing, if I have it broadly correct, he doesn't mean literally nothing, he means special magic nothing that had the power to change into something. They prefer this to god. Their club rules won't don't allow the special magic nothing to be called god, apparently.

Lawrence Krauss's nothing is actually just nothing except all the laws of physics still exist so they eventually create something. I remember he got a lot of shit for it when his book came out since it was basically "Here we've got the big bang made from nothing + all of the fundamental laws of the universe."

To put in put in my hypothetical no evidence just wild speculation take, I don't have any major belief on why there is something rather than nothing. I have kind of always liked the brute force approach, it's just impossible for nothing to exist, so something just does. I don't think we'll ever find a concrete answer, if there is one it might just be one of those things beyond us.

I have to admit this is a philosophical issue that has never really bothered me. I mean "stuff" exists, why couldn't it have always [been] existing?

OTOH I do accept that there's a worthwhile question as to why the structures we experience and are ourselves composed of hold across time. So maybe not "Fade to Nothing" but at least collapse into primordial chaos...whatever that could be...

Lawrence Krauss's nothing is actually just nothing except all the laws of physics still exist so they eventually create something. I remember he got a lot of shit for it when his book came out since it was basically "Here we've got the big bang made from nothing + all of the fundamental laws of the universe."

Sounds about right. I actually believe that 'creation' has probably always existed (recreation over and over) just that we don't feel normal or comfortable with such a scenario. I like Jung's take on it, we cannot know and therefore must drop it (as a question). I certainly don't have anything useful to say about it.

[Laird]

I have to admit this is a philosophical issue that has never really bothered me. I mean "stuff" exists, why couldn't it have always [been] existing?

I take the opposite view: that a past without a beginning doesn't make any sense, and the taking of the idea seriously does bother me. I think William Lane Craig lays out cogent arguments to this effect in his defence of the Kalaam Cosmological Argument's premises 2.1 and 2.2:

2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite.

2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition.

2.21 A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
2.22 The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.

I take the opposite view: that a past without a beginning doesn't make any sense, and the taking of the idea seriously does bother me. I think William Lane Craig lays out cogent arguments to this effect in his defence of the Kalaam Cosmological Argument's premises 2.1 and 2.2:

So causal chain determinism has to be false?

[Laird]

So causal chain determinism has to be false?

Perhaps not necessarily given this view: it could still be claimed that an atemporal "physical" cause began the chain from a timeless "place".

Perhaps not necessarily given this view: it could still be claimed that an atemporal "physical" cause began the chain from a timeless "place".

So Physicalism needs at least two miracles then?

One to get Reality started, and one to magically make consciousness emerge from the physical "stuff" that Physicalism says cannot have any mental aspects?

[Laird]

Well, I guess that depends on whether you consider causes from outside of time to be magical. The theistic view (as espoused by WLC) also needs that "miracle", although arguably it is less miraculous when undertaken by a conscious God than by some "physical" entity (potentially "the laws of physics", which aren't really physical, but anyhow).

Well, I guess that depends on whether you consider causes from outside of time to be magical. The theistic view (as espoused by WLC) also needs that "miracle", although arguably it is less miraculous when undertaken by a conscious God than by some "physical" entity (potentially "the laws of physics", which aren't really physical, but anyhow).

I'd agree that simply saying "God did it" isn't a real explanation, there has to be more argumentation to show that an irreducible entity like God has a better explanatory value than "Laws of Nature".

Of course one also has to show why the "God-as-metaphysical-linchpin" has to be a conscious entity as well.

But it seems to me that W.Craig's argument is that no Law of Nature can get around the problem of an infinite regress into the past? That doesn't prove God but it does - if the argument is sound - strike a body blow to Physicalism?