Anthropic Principle – God Created The Universe – Michael Strauss PhD.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjn8poWD7tM

Yet the individual quantum events operate well within the overriding transcendent laws and principles of this universe. i.e. though the individual events defy time and space, these events are rigorously subjected to finely tuned transcendent laws which prevent expression of the unlimited probabilistic resource witnessed in quantum mechanics. (Koonins “Many Worlds” explanation for the Cambrian Explosion completely ignores this obvious fact) It seems the materialists is trying to have his cake and eat it too, all the while completely ignoring the necessity of a transcendent Creator to explain the universe in the first place.

In this following video, Dr. Strauss brings some much needed clarity to the role of the “observer” in Quantum Mechanics.

Quantum Mechanics – The Limited Role Of The Observer – Michael Strauss
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elg83xUZZBs

Quantum mechanics cannot be used as an analogy to support the notion that something can exist and not exist at the same time.

I agree. Luckily I have never suggested that something can exist and not exist at the same time.

Quantum mechanics cannot be used as an analogy to support the notion that something can exist and not exist at the same time.

We can only observe quantum particles being ‘seen’ and then ‘not being seen’. This in no way suggests QPs are existing and then not existing. Rather it suggests they are moving from one dimension to another and back again.

It is curious you would exclude such a likely scenario from consideration.

‘Out of sight is not out of Mind’.

Rob , thanks thats very gracious of you.

Vivid

Hi Vj,

Interesting post. I disagree with Mark, I don’t think you were trying to make a valiant effort to shore up my case rather you just offered up a different perspective.

VJ: “Thus for Vivid, a self-caused entity would actually be less absurd than an uncaused entity. For at least a self-caused entity would have a generator: itself. That’s absurd, but not as absurd for Vivid as the idea of an entity beginning in time, but having no generator at all. “

Correct, at least there is a magician and a hat.

VJ: “The profound metaphysical insight that Vivid is appealing to here is that the notion of actuality is a more fundamental notion than that of possibility. Actuality precedes possibility, in the order of things, and the possible is constrained by the actual.”

I may be wrong about this but I really do not think that those who accept the possibility of something coming from nothing reflect deeply on what nothing is. Now the perceptive observer should see that the term “ what nothing is” attributes a something to nothing an “is ness” if you will. However that is the only way one can make a statement about nothing, we have to treat it as something to even talk about the concept of nothing. This is why that to try to even conceive of nothing we must think of something. Because nothing at its core is unintelligible we are always making efforts to make it intelligible. The only way to do that is to treat it as something.

Regarding your comments about possibility’s, it is important to always keep in mind that nothing has no possibilities.

Vivid

Vivid

I am sorry. I am bored with this. I will let others judge the merits of your argument.

Vjtorley

This is a valiant effort to shore up vivid’s case. To do so, you have to put a lot of words into his mouth.

I will restrict myself to saying that I was only talking about logical possibility. As you say there are many grades of possibility. If we are talking about something as mind-bogglingly inconceivable as the beginning of the universe then I would not feel confident about making any pronouncements about possibility except logical possibility. In earlier comments there are many examples of things that at one time would have been considered fundamentally impossible at some deep metaphysical level but now turn to be possible (e.g. triangles, the sum of whose angles are less than or more than 180 degrees)

It has been pointed out above that the appearance of large objects (e.g. a man, or a horse) without a cause does not violate LNC either. Neither does the existence of a winged horse. So I would ask the skeptics: do you think these events are possible?

I’m not sure if I’m a skeptic in this context or not, but let me try. Suppose we are considering the event of a horse suddenly materializing without cause. I think everyone would agree that this event is either a) incredibly unlikely but possible, or b) impossible. My own answer is “I don’t know”, so I guess I haven’t ruled out position a). How would one prove that b) is correct (if “prove” is the correct word here)?

Several contributors have argued that the sudden appearance of a virtual particle without a cause does not violate the law of non-contradiction (hereafter LNC). Even if this were correct, it would not establish that the event in question is possible. As philosophers are well aware, there are many kinds of possibility: logical possibility is the “thinnest” kind there is. Other kinds of possibility include ontological possibility and nomological possibility. Any kind of possibility which makes no attempt to mirror the deep structure of reality is incapable of telling us what can and cannot happen; all it tells us is what we can and cannot imagine.

It has been pointed out above that the appearance of large objects (e.g. a man, or a horse) without a cause does not violate LNC either. Neither does the existence of a winged horse. So I would ask the skeptics: do you think these events are possible?

We also need to keep in mind the limitations of the logical notation we use, when discussing logical possibility. For instance, how do we logical represent the statement “a precedes b,” or for that matter “a causes b”? Sure, we can use relational operators to express these statements mathematically (e.g. Pab or Cab), but unless we know how time and causality actually work, we are just playing with letters. What kind of logic should we use, when talking about time, or causality? We don’t know yet. What does that tell us? It tells us that we don’t yet have a general theory telling us how to think about these subjects. Until we do, the fancy logical notation(s) that philosophers use is a mere fig-leaf covering their embarrassing ignorance.

Some contributors have berated Vivid for stubbornly insisting that an entity which appears without a cause would have to be a self-created entity. Not so, they vehemently protest: an uncaused entity is not the same thing as a self-caused entity. I’ve been thinking long and hard about the point Vivid is making, and I think I’ve got it.

The underlying principle that Vivid is appealing to is this:

If an entity (call it E) begins to exist at time t, then necessarily, there exists some entity at or prior to t which is capable of generating E.

(I wrote “at or prior to” because I don’t want the discussion to get sidetracked around the metaphysical question of whether causes temporally precede their effects or are simultaneous with them.)

In other words, an entity having a beginning in time must be actualizable, or realizable if you will; otherwise it will never be actual.

Thus for Vivid, a self-caused entity would actually be less absurd than an uncaused entity. For at least a self-caused entity would have a generator: itself. That’s absurd, but not as absurd for Vivid as the idea of an entity beginning in time, but having no generator at all. Why?

The reason is that Vivid envisages possibility as something active, not passive. Things don’t just happen because there is nothing to prevent them from happening. They happen because there is something that is able to make them happen (i.e. actualize them). Without that something, it is meaningless to describe an event as possible. All we can say is that there is no impediment to the event’s occurring.

The profound metaphysical insight that Vivid is appealing to here is that the notion of actuality is a more fundamental notion than that of possibility. Actuality precedes possibility, in the order of things, and the possible is constrained by the actual.

Well Mark I did promise you I would try real hard to imagine six impossible things before breakfast so I have been spending some time with the Queen in Wonderland.

MF: The remainder of your first argument rests on this fallacy.

To say X does not exist is the same as saying X has no existence. If X has non existence it is nothing and the X stands for nothing. Since a non existence is no thing i.e. nothing and X stands for nothing, to say nothing exists is no different than saying X does not exist.
This is fairly priceless. So to say nothing exists is no different from saying the King of France does not exist? As it happens there is no King of France – so nothing exists!

I am glad you brought up the King of France because a really weird thing happened to me when I got home from work. I was on my computer and then all of a sudden Napoleon and his horse popped into existence right there in my living room. What a mess the horse made but I mean it ,WOW, poof, Napoleon and his horse “just happening” in my living room. Can you believe it?

Mark this is fairly priceless. If you are correct that for me to say nothing exists is no different than saying the King of France exists, etc, then to say “does not exist” is no different from saying the King of France does not exist, no different than saying the King of France violates LNC. I am demonstrating that for the purposes of the subject matter we are talking about the words are interchangeable. That it is valid for one to use either “does not exist” if that is what they prefer or “nothing” if that is there preference.

MF: “I don’t agree with this step at all. If you change X to refer to “nothing” rather than the particle then the sentence is no longer true.”

Actually I did not change anything. If you follow the progress I started by asking a question about what X was.

Vivid from 215: “What does it mean to say “if X does not exist” ? What is this X that does not exist? X stands for something. What does it stand for? YOU WOULD THINK IT STANDS FOR THE same X that this X is or is not creating. What is this X that exists that the other X is or is not creating? The X stands for the quantum particle you refer to in 187 . “A quantum particle appears without a cause.””

“Now IF the X is a quantum particle it is valid to insert “quantum particle” where we see X.” End 215.

Please note the terms “you would think” and the word if”
But I conclude that X is not the quantum particle based on what you claim the X is

Vivid from 215: “So it is not the quantum particle that is the X in “if X does not exist” According to you the X is nothing.” End 215

In order to correctly define what X stands for one needs to accurately represent what the person says X is. And in # 157 you say

MF: “Nothing creates it (not even itself). It just happens.”

So I did not change anything. If I would have changed what X is it would have been to represent it as the quantum particle. Since it would be improper to say X stands for the quantum particle, since that would be a misrepresentation of what you said we need to insert what you said X stands for

Vivid from 215:“So now we need to insert nothing where before we inserted “quantum particle””

MK: “Does not exist when? It does not exist at one moment and then exists at another. This isn’t a problem.”It is exactly what I have been claiming is possible. I did not say this would violate the LNC”

And I addressed this in #174

MF: It might just not be there one second and there the next second.”

Vivid: Then it is not simultaneous which does not violate the law of non contradiction.

Vivid