First Cause thread
The only certainly true thing we can say on this subject, at least at this time, is “we don’t know”. All hypothetical models proposed to date have fatal flaws (including cyclical models), which is why there is no accepted model.The primary tools theoretical physicists and cosmologists are using to probe the question are through the spectrum of String and Loop quantum gravity models (there are many others as well).
I very much hesitate to give the Aristotelian dichotomies much credence because they are based on “common sense” notions that have repeatedly shown to be almost irrelevant when we speak about the nature of reality beyond the human scale (namely Quantum Mechanics and Relativity).
Just one example, what if there are multiple dimensions of time? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mul…
“because they are based on “common sense” notions that have repeatedly shown to be almost irrelevant”
The idea that a meaningful pattern might be based on what has been repeatedly shown is itself nothing but common sense. Can we cite common sense to invalidate itself?
To me the likely answer is that causality itself is an aspect of sense-making, which is contingent upon time-space expansion (ultimately an inward diffracting experienced internally as time and externally as space). Causality doesn’t need a cause, so that the universe never ‘came into existence’ – rather existence continuously fragments, projecting a figurative inference of unity behind it and heat death ahead of it
Multisense Realism 
Recent Comments