The Kalm Cosmological Argument a

An attempt at formalized algebraic notation

alphi January 29, 2012

Disclaimer: Im not a scientist or a mathematician, so theres probably a boatload of mistakes. Please do not use this for anything important. License: CC BY 3.0. Let B A be the set of all entities which satisfy the temporary contingency requirement (they began to exist): x B (0 T : e(x, 0 ) = 0) (1 T : e(x, 1 ) = 1) (0 < 1 ) Let A A be the causality relation: x y x causes y Let U A be the universe.
c c

(4)

1
1.1

Kalm formalized a
Denition of terms
We shall refer to the Kalm cosmological argua ment as KCA. Let A be the set of all entities (or things) and causes. A = {x | x is an entity or cause} (1)

(5)

1.2

Transcription of KCA into formal notation

x B y A : y x
c

Let T A be the set of all points in time T (i.e. time itself1 ). T = { | is a point in time} (2)

1. Everything that begins to exist, has a cause. (6)

2. The universe began to exist. U B 3. Therefore, the universe had a cause. x A : x U

c

Let e : A T {0, 1} be the existentiality function: e(x, ) = 1 x exists at 0 x does not exists at (3)

(7)

(8)

1 The reader might want to object at this point that time is not a thing or entity or cause per se. There is, however, considerable theoretical and experimental evidence to suggest that time is indeed some physical property of the universe, in much the same way as space is, mainly derived from observations deduced from the equations of the theory of relativity. In relativity, for example, objects move through time much like they move through space and can speed up, slow down and theoretically even reverse direction. Mathematically, time is just another coordinate.

2
2.1
2.1.1

Problems
Problems in premise 1
Contradiction by current experimental evidence

Many eects in quantum-theory do not obey causality as presupposed by KCA, but are instead of a 1

stochastic nature. Let B be a pair of virtual particles and A be the cause for their appearance2 . Since current experimental evidence shows that pairproduction of virtual particles is purely stochastic, therefore we can conclude: ( B ( A : )) (x B y A : y x) Premise 1 is thus shown to be false3 . Moreover, given that the universe prior to its ination phase was most likely very compact, quantum eects have almost certainly played an important role. 2.1.2 Application of causality outside of time
c c

Given (4) and (7), since the universe began to exist, so did space-time (since it is a component of the universe) and therefore time itself (since it is an inseparable component of space-time): T B (0 T : e(T, 0 ) = 0) (13)

(9)

(1 T : e(T, 1 ) = 1) However, since T contains all points in time, there cannot, in fact, exist a point in time outside of time: ( T : e(T, ) = 0) (14)

First we must intuitively grant the pre-condition that any given point in time is existant at that very point in time: T : e(, ) = 1 As per (2) we can then see: T : e(T, ) = 1 (11) (10)

Therefore, it is not possible to assume causality outside of T , and by extension U .

2.2

Unsupported Premise 2

Premise 2 asserts that U B, but drawing that conclusion from current research is premature5 . The Bigbang theory is commonly understood in two ways: 1. That the universe inated from a hot, dense statethis conclusion is supported by a preponderance of experimental evidence, such as experiments which map the CMB. 2. That space-time originated in a singularitythis conclusion is premature. The underlying mathematical theory of general relativity is known to be incomplete in this area and hitherto no direct experimental evidence has been gathered for it. There is ongoing research into the physics involved at this point in the history of our universe and there is a number of proposals under active development.
5 A commonly cited paper in support of universal beginning is [1]. This paper, however, only demonstrates that, granted some assumptions, the Big-bang inationary model cannot be past-eternal. It in no way demonstrates any kind of absolute beginning of the universe, only the beginning of the current inationary period. Given that we have no comprehensive description of the universe prior to that, any assumptions about it are simply conjecture.

A fundamental property of all observed instances of causality is that they obey the causes precede eects time-ordering condition4 : x y (y T : e(y, y ) = 1 x T : e(x, x ) = 1) (x < y )
2 Another example would be -decay and spontaneous emission of an electron or positron. 3 One common objection to this conclusion is that virtual particles originate in a quantum vacuum and therefore that this is the cause for virtual particles. If, however, the mere existence of a physical substance from which an entity begins to exist is grounds to dismiss it as an example of an acausal relationship, then it is easy to see that KCAs rst premise is only usable for inferences within a universe, as there is no known instance of causation which happens in the absence of the quantum vacuum. The rst premise thus cannot be used for any inferences regarding causal relationships outside of it (exactly what proponents of KCA are trying to do). 4 Rejecting this would require the redenition of causality in a never-before observed (non-temporarily-ordered) way.

(12)

Conclusions

I have attempted to show aws in assumptions and unsupported claims commonly made in KCA. In summary, Ive identied that KCA has the following problems: KCA assumes universal validity of causality, which lies in contradiction to current experimental evidence. KCA attempts to apply causality, a property fundamentally dependent on properties of our universe, outside of it. KCA assumes that current work in Big-bang cosmology provides conclusions which it in fact does not.

References
[1] Arvind Borde, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Vilenkin. Inationary spacetimes are not past-complete. January 11, 2003