The Spanish Wikipedia defines the universe
thus:
The universe is the totality of space and time, all forms of
matter, energy and momentum, plus the laws and physical constants that govern
them. However, this term is also used in slightly different contextual senses
and refers to concepts such as cosmos, world or nature. Its study, at the
highest scales, is the object of cosmology, a discipline based on astronomy and
physics, which describes all the aspects of this universe, together with its
phenomena.
Before applying to the universe, the Greek word
cosmos meant order and beauty.
Notice that this sense is maintained in one of its derivatives, the word cosmetic.
The Latin word mundus also has the two
meanings: as a noun, it means the world, the totality. As an adjective,
clean,
neat, elegant. Presumably the first sense was copied from Greece, and
to translate the world cosmos
they adopted the same word that represented in Latin its other meaning. Finally
the word nature (physis in Greek) has
phenomenal connotations (rather than to the universe, it refers to what happens
in it). From this word come physics (the study of nature) and metaphysics
(beyond physics).
First generation civilizations (especially
those of Mesopotamia and Egypt) did not have the concept of universe. When they
wanted to express the totality, they did so by enumerating its parts: the sky,
meteorological phenomena (the region of the air), the waters, the earth and the
underground. Or they simply said (as in the first chapter of Genesis) the heavens and the earth. With the word cosmos, the Greeks were the first to designate
with a single term the totality of what exists. But for some time the following
question had no answer: does this term
really have a referent, or does it play the role of a hodgepodge, a mishmash of
unrelated objects?Plato |
Traditionally it is said that Plato’s Timaeus is the earliest treatise on
cosmology, for it describes the cosmos, as opposed to the earlier cosmogonies, which
are interested only in its origin. Let’s look at a curious quotation from
Timaeus:
The cosmos is, in fact, the most beautiful thing that has
been made and its creator the best of causes. The universe thus generated has
been formed according to the model of reason, wisdom and immutable essence,
from which it follows as a necessary consequence that the universe is a copy.
A few centuries later, Ptolemy
proposed his model of the universe, which was used over a thousand years. In this
model, as in Plato, the cosmos is a physical object whose existence is not
questioned. Newton’s universe is also a coherent whole, a physical object with
an absolute space and time, whose behavior can be described completely thanks
to the theory of universal gravitation.
Starting from the nineteenth century, the
existence of the universe begins to be doubted. The question arose as a reaction
to the following syllogism:
Every physical object has a cause.
The universe is a physical object.
Therefore the universe has a cause.
This argument can be reduced to the second proof
of the existence of God by Thomas Aquinas. Of course, atheistic thinkers of the
nineteenth century could not accept this reasoning, and as they did not dare to
deny the principle of causality (the major premise of the syllogism), they
attacked the minor premise by denying the existence of the universe as a
physical object. What would then be the universe? A simple word without a reference,
a term designating the set of all things, but that set would not exist, only
things would exist. Thus, the previous syllogism would be replaced by the
following:
Every physical object has a cause.
The universe is not a physical object.
Therefore the universe does not need a cause.
By 1915, when Einstein presented the General Relativity theory, he formulated a cosmological
equation that, as its name indicates, applies to the whole universe.
This is one of its forms:
But the existence of this equation implies that
the universe must be a physical object, which
means that the minor premise of the first syllogism must be true, contrary to
what the nineteenth-century atheists thought. Consequently, atheism has been
forced to deny the major premise, the principle of
causality. Hence statements like the following:
Although the universe is a physical object, it may have
arisen without a cause, as a quantum fluctuation of the void.
Werner Heisenberg |
To assert this, atheistic physicists rely on a
consequence of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which in one of its forms
can be expressed as follows:
DE.Dt≥ħ/2
This means that an object with energy DE can appear spontaneously from the
vacuum during a time Dt<ħ/(2DE). These objects are called virtual particles, and would last for a
ridiculously small time. A virtual electron, for example, would last about 1.3×10-21
seconds (just above one septillionth of a second). And the more energy the virtual
particle has, the less time it will last. Due to their short duration,
the existence of virtual particles has not been proved.
If the universe (which is already 13.8 billion
years old) can be a quantum fluctuation, its energy must be
zero. Therefore, since the universe contains an enormous amount
of matter and radiation, the atheistic physicists are trying to find something
that can compensate it somehow. Some say that perhaps dark energy (which we do
not know what it is, assuming that it is something) will turn out to be a
negative energy, and perhaps its value will exactly compensate for all the matter
and the energy that we do know does exist, so that the total energy of the
universe will turn out to be zero, because otherwise their whole reasoning
would break down.
This lucubration they call science.
Manuel Alfonseca
Aquinas didn't say that 'every physical object has a cause'. He said that 'every object that comes into existance has a cause'.
ReplyDeleteRight. But as every physical object comes into existence, it follows that every physical object has a cause.
DeleteThis applies even although the universe had existed for an infinite time, for even so the universe would have been created from nothing and therefore would have had a cause.