An Ultimate Cause

An Ultimate Cause

I’ve run into the cosmological argument several times lately, probably due to the people I’ve been engaging with on Twitter. Roughly speaking, it goes something like this:

  1. Pretty much everything we see around us was caused by something else.
  2. If you follow the causal chain backward, you’ll eventually wind up with something that doesn’t itself have a cause.
  3. Let’s call this “God”.

This is nice and all, but one problem I have with this argument is that it tells us nothing about “God” aside from not having a cause. So I thought I’d come up with some. This isn’t formal; hell, it doesn’t even rise to the level of “hypothesis”.

The universe we live in is subject to various laws, like gravity, the Pauli exclusion principle (that certain types of particles can’t be in the same place at the same time), and so on.

If you look at it mathematically, the universe is a gigantic automaton, where the current state of the universe follows, by certain rules, from the previous state of the universe. Even if the rules aren’t deterministic (e.g., there’s a certain probability that a virtual particle pair will appear out of nowhere at a given time), that means there are multiple possible futures. In any case, our universe is but a minuscule twig on an inconceivably-vast tree of imaginable universes: ones where gravity is slightly stronger or weaker; ones with two dimensions of space and two of time; ones that recollapsed twelve seconds after their Big Bang, and so on.

Go ahead and throw in a multiverse, if you like. Or multiple multiverses with their own possible laws. You can put that inside a meta-multiverse as well, and a meta-meta-multiverse, and so on. It doesn’t matter. It’s all just math. As long as everything is internally consistent, it’s all good.

If you had the hardware (and, of course, we don’t), it would be possible to simulate all this. Not that it matters, because our physical universe is as real to us as a simulated world would be to its inhabitants. Really, what matters is the mathematical relationships between each successive state of the universe.

But of course mathematical relationships don’t depend on hardware, or physical reality: when we say that 1+1=2, we’re saying that if we had an apple and added another apple, then we’d have two apples. It’s true whether the apples actually exist or not.

In other words (and yes, I realize I’m driving headlong into stoner rambling territory), what if we’re all inside a simulation that’s running on nothing? We perceive the universe because it is internally-consistent. Or to put it another way, the universe (or universes) is as real as addition.

So let’s say that some brilliant mathematician figures out that “nothing exists” (in the sense of “why is there something instead of nothing”) is mathematically-incoherent, that it only seems to make sense in English because we don’t see the full ramifications of that statement? That, in other words, something exists because it can’t be otherwise? And from that, all the universes follow.

This theorem, that “there has to be something because it can’t be otherwise” would then, as far as I can tell, fulfill all the necessary requirements of an ultimate cause, a prime mover, and whatever your favorite cosmological argument requires. It’s the first cause, it exists outside of space and time, and so on.

But notice what it isn’t: it’s not a mind. It’s not alive. It doesn’t give a damn about whether you and the rest of humanity live or die; it doesn’t even have the cognitive apparatus to know this. It doesn’t communicate with humans, doesnt’ tell them where to stick their genitalia. It doesn’t respond to prayer. And it certainly won’t send you to hell if you’re not nice enough to it.

It is, in short, something completely different from what most people have in mind when they use the word “God”. And I’ve never seen a sophisticated theologian describe what they mean by “God” in any way similar to the above, so consider this my modest contribution to theology.

So now, if you use an ultimate-cause argument, I’m going to ask whether my theorem-as-first-cause fits the bill; and if so, why I should believe in a Galilean carpenter instead.

One thought on “An Ultimate Cause

  1. Ah! You are finally reaching my own conclusions about the universe. 🙂 Though I think mine go a bit further.

    There are theories that leave 26 dimensions, though more than a few of those curled inward on themselves and aren’t in our reality. (However, they may have existence in a way we can’t imagine.) And from there it starts getting weird. There is a possibility of a deity. However, it’s small enough that it’s a lot less likely than setting a marble on your coffee table and having it fall through the top because all of the atoms lined up and let things pass through without repelling them. (And the fourth dimension is not time. Time is not a dimension. It’s just a way for us to handle event processing. Sick to death of those that parrot “the fourth dimension is time!” when there is absolutely no proof for that statement, but proof to show it exists outside of space.)

    Even if there was a deity, the idea of something that all-powerful taking an interest in human life is laughable. Kind of like us humans caring about every individual bacteria cell and its wants and needs. (And that conjures up visions of Cthulu-like alien beings who eat people or brainwaves or whatever. Seriously, why would you want to attract the attention of THAT?) I don’t bother with the idea of worship of a deity, and I don’t think deity is bothered by my lack of interest. Strange quantum events? Well, yeah, those are entirely possible though probability is vanishingly small.

    At the end of the day, arguing about entities or non-entities is about as satisfying as kicking a door over and over with your bare toes. Having been at the mercy of those that were as thick as the door, I find it very satisfying to be on my own away from all of that form of thought.

Comments are closed.