I am reading the Anti-Dühring by Engels, in it he proves the false arguments of the person who the book is named after. Engels goes from a varied array of subjects from philosophy, to biology, chemistry, physics, and so on.
At some point, Engels, while correcting Dühring, speaks about the theories of the beginning of existence and points out that Dühring is a supporter of creationism, e.i.: that there was a point where there was only nothing (absolute rest) and that out of this nothing, something came to be (motion). The only logical conclusion to an outlook like the one proposed is the existence of a God, which Düring rejects.
My question would be as following, what is the Marxist take on this, because if we assume the previous mentioned, we need to either accept the existence of God, or to believe there is some sort of unknown scientific law that allows the creation of motion out of absolute rest. Both seem very unlikely.
A third option is that time and matter have always existed since infinity, and that they will keep on existing until infinity. Which is the option that makes the most sense from the point of view of dialectical materialism.
From my understanding, though, neither of these three theories can be understood as “bad infinities” (in the Hegelian jargon), since they do not represent a contradiction in itself.
Do we have scientific proof that further discredits any of these three possibilities?
First off excuse the long and somewhat technical answer but i feel this is a topic where with my background in physics and cosmology i can add a little something of value to the discussion.
Basically i think both you and Engels are committing a logical fallacy. It does not follow that “the only logical conclusion [of there having emerged something from nothing] is the existence of a God”. Why do you assume that it is “unlikely” that there might be some sort of law of physics that allows the creation of “motion out of absolute rest”? How did you determine how likely or unlikely this is? Where would you even begin to try and guess what the laws of physics outside of our universe might be?
As far as i can tell we have no data whatsoever on which to base this assumption. We only know how the laws of physics operate within a universe that already exists and is already “in motion”. It would be a logical fallacy to extrapolate from post-Big Bang physics to pre-Big Bang physics. The assumption that the same laws of physics would have applied before is one that would require evidence before we accept it as fact, and that is something we cannot do at the moment.
Admittedly it seems like a reasonable heuristic in lieu of actual observation to simply extrapolate backward but you must understand that this is different from actual solid evidence. If you are still unconvinced by this argument that we have insufficient data to make such conclusions, consider this:
What you (and Engels and Dühring) are talking about when you say “motion out of absolute rest” is what we would call in modern physics language the law of conservation of energy. Conservation of energy holds true in closed systems which are - and sorry for getting a little technical here - “symmetrical with respect to time reversal”. Meaning that if we can reasonably expect said system (in this case the universe) to behave the same today as it did yesterday then we can also expect energy to be conserved.
In science it is difficult to conclusively “prove” a theory but fairly easy to disprove one, all you need is a counter-example, an instance where it indisputably fails. The problem with this assumption that the law of energy conservation is universal is that we actually know of one very big exception where it appears violated: cosmological expansion. It is an observable fact that the universe at the largest scales is experiencing an accelerating instrinsic expansion of space. This is not a time-symmetric process, it is non-reversible.
In fact in order to correctly describe this expansion the addition of a constant energy term is needed in the cosmological equations (the so-called Lambda term also called vacuum or “dark” energy). So far it looks very much like this is an indisputable and massive violation of the law of conservation of energy. I’m only saying it “looks like” because you never know if it turns out we got it wrong somehow, there is an alternative explanation or some accounting for the unexplained constant injection of energy into the fabric of the universe - maybe it’s not a closed system.
But in any case this is a notable enough apparent exception to the rule that we can have reasonable doubt as to the universality of energy conservation, let alone when it comes to universes being created, which is something where our sample size of observations is clearly not sufficient. We only know of the one universe and we have not observed its “creation” for lack of a better word. Why then is it so hard to imagine that “nothingness” has some intrinsic property that causes it to be unstable and to tend toward “something”? After all we also know of events in fundamental physics happening spontaneously and seemingly uncaused (quantum vacuum fluctuations, radioactive decay, spontaneous symmetry breaking in quantum fields…just to name a few)
That being said, yes, obviously the simplest solution to your dilemma is the third proposed explanation which you mentioned, namely that time and matter (or some other form of energy) are indeed infinite backwards in time and have no beginning. But then you get into yet more philosophical dead ends like asking what it means for time to “begin” and how “timelessness” can be a thing. I don’t think much of value can be gained from this train of thought.
Either way, it does not follow that a God must exist. I even would turn the question around and ask: how can a “god” exist? What is a “god”, and how does it function? How can it exist unless it too obeys some higher laws of physics that dictate its behavior? I suppose most people who talk of “gods” assume there to be some kind of consciousness involved, but how can consciousness exist outside of a physical neural network like a brain of some sort? You see you get into circular logic very quickly.
Let’s just leave it at this: for the moment we know of no way of assessing the validity of any claims about the existence or non-existence of any god or gods. As Marxists we don’t need to get lost in metaphysics of this kind, there is nothing to be gained from wasting time arguing one way or the other, let’s focus on the material and observable because that is what we can use to actually improve the human condition.
I also arrived at that conclusion, but forgot to mention it, by the way I did not mean to say Engels said that, but rather than that’s the logical conclusion you arrive by following Dühring’s logic. I just thought that time and matter being infinite was more sound, but I think that is also a very intelligent take.
Sorry to not make a better response, my knowledge in physics so far is reduced to basic movements and that kind of stuff, I kind of get what you are saying but not in a way to reply with coherence.
Forget me if I commit a mistake, I am not trying to say God exists, if anything I am trying to find the logical conclusion why it doesn’t, I’m just trying to understand all of this better, I am not trying to “disprove” dialectical materialism.
I just completely discarded the idea of God existing and went with the idea of time and matter being infinite, which I guess it’s also a mistake.
The idea of time and matter (or more precisely energy) being infinite is definitely not a mistake, and there is nothing i know of that excludes either possibility: a backwards infinity of time or a “something from nothing” scenario both seem like perfectly viable options that are so far consistent with all scientific observations. Yes the Big Bang is fact but that can’t tell us if there was or wasn’t anything “before” it. There is nothing in science that requires the existence of a god, it all makes just as much sense without one.
On the flip side if someone really wants to i’m sure they can find a way to insert a “god” (whatever that means) somewhere in the theory without causing too many problems if it makes them feel better, it’s just that they would need to be careful to not have this “god” act in such a way that it would ever have an impact on the universe that would deviate from the laws of physics/random chance.
I just don’t think it’s productive to either try to prove or disprove the existence of a god or gods. I think even just the concept of “God” is very ill defined - by necessity if not even deliberately so! Because if it were ever to be defined in a rigorous way that would mean it would be falsifiable and testable and that defeats the entire purpose of belief in the supernatural.
For me this line of thinking is a dead end, i am not able to discern any way to gain any real knowledge about the world from this intellectual excercise. What i am more interested in are the material consequences of people believing in a god or gods. And those can range from mildly positive or at least benign to actively and aggressively harmful depending on the belief system.
As with most things it’s not the conceptual idea in itself but its function in the real world that matters.
The idea of god doesn’t really address the problem of creation because it simply pushes the question out. God is necessarily a complex and volitional entity that requires at least as much explanation as our own universe. Where does god come from is just as big a question as where does the universe come from.
My view is that the only reasonable position is to accept that the greater universe has to be infinite in every sense. It cannot have a beginning or an end, it cannot be contained within anything. I think a good way to think of it is as a fractal like a Mandelbrot set. It’s a complex and infinite structure with emergent order within it.
These kinds of things are incredibly unintuitive to us because everything we experience is finite, our intuition is therefore to think in finite terms.
Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t get why the creation of the universe matters at all to materialism. Even if we assume that everything came from nothing, so what? It was a one-time thing billions of years ago that happened under circumstances that will never be recreated so I don’t understand why people talk about it as if the validity of materialist thought depends on it.
People that try to discredit Marxism by talking about the big bang remind me of those freaks that argue that women don’t deserve civil rights because lobsters have hierarchies. Or the people that say we shouldn’t move past capitalism because monkies occasionally steal from each other.
I don’t see how it could have any bearing on material analysis of human history
Well, it’s just that this is pretty related because dialectical materialism is based on the idea that matter is in constant movement and that it undergoes a series of cyclical contradictions that make it evolve around time, this idea is then applied to the understanding of history of human society in the form of historical materialism.
If we assume that something came from nothing, then we are kind of accepting the idea of a God, for motion cannot be achieved through rest. Everything could change the way reality exists depending on a few factors.
Personally I do not think it disproves dialectical materialism, because it is scientifically confirmed that everything is in constant motion under current conditions of universal expansion, it works because it is proven by praxis that dialectical and historical materialism provide a correct analysis of the history of human society. I just find an interesting topic because it also starts playing with theories and science of quantum physics and so on. For example we could understand reality as time and matter advancing in a vector of the same direction, while “negative time” and antimatter advancing in the same vector of opposing direction, which are both the product of the Big Bang, which could then came to be the singularity that caused Big Bang once the universe starts its contraction. This would, I think, support the idea that time and matter are infinite and deny the idea of a creationist perspective, which would support the non existence of God and be compatible with dialectical materialists analysis.
I’m not trying to disprove it, but these are interesting philosophical questions that Marx, Engels, etc, had, and which would be helpful to solidify our understanding of reality and create better analyses.
Edit: There’s the possibility of an unknown law of physics which could produce movement out of absolute rest possible, too.
If we assume that something came from nothing, then we are accepting that in one (1) very extreme and specific situation the normal rules of our reality didn’t apply. Or rather, that our current understanding of reality doesn’t properly account for how the universe was 13+ billion years ago.
I struggle to understand how this single instance can be extrapolated into the idea that stuff can just be conjured into existence on the regular. And I really struggle to understand how any of this is relevant to the US fighting Russia, or rail workers going on strike, or the persecution of queer people, or…
Imo, everyone that seriously engages in this thought experiment has lost the plot. Besides, it’s not like either possibility for how the universe was created is a satisfying answer.
The cosmological model of today basically sustains that at some point, a Great Expansion occurred, forming little by little the universe we know as we know it. This great expansion isn’t in the same understanding as Ex Nihilo, but that before our universe, a singularity was, and expanded. Being a singularity, it just points out that existence was already.
This doesn’t mean that it isn’t happening as of now in another point in our infinite cosmos, or that it was the first time ever happened, nor that there was anything that triggered the great expansion using any sort of intelligence, being basically, an incredibly bigger event as a supernova, which also changes the matter and energy(which is also considered matter), into forming different stelae bodies.
But I’m more into the issue of biology, which lifes behaves pretty much like anything else, even if we have autoconcience.
I can explain a lot more about evolution, if you like, even if it’s offtopic in another place lol.
But on topic again: using a Dialectical Materialist model is basically what are we seeing as of now, with no notion of spirituality/idealist/divine intervention happening.
So basically what you are telling me is that the Big Bang only proves the creation of the universe as we know it, but that time and matter were constants before if we analyze it through the lenses of dialectical materialism?
Through the lenses of logic following the evidences, more like. But… What I have learnt from Dialectical Materialism, is that it’s basically following science, since… Well, existence is both Dialectical (it changes over time even if being the same object, place, etc. Sòcrates with the river?) and Material(not magical aka idealistic, like Platon).
We can’t know what the (absolute) “beginning of existence” is, of course. If we theorize that our universe was created by
X, we can’t explain howXcould “exist” (or, if we say thatXcan “exist” because ofY, we can’t explain howYcould “exist” (or… repeat ad infinitum))In practice, being unable to define the “beginning of existence” has no impact on our ability to materially analyze what we are capable of understanding
