Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

And there you have it!

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Janna Levin Janna Levin, Columbia astrophysicist, gives us the cutting-edge science on the origin of the universe: there was nothing, really nothing, nothing at all … but the potential to exist. Was it Aristotle who said that nothing admits no predicates? So where did nothing get the potential to exist and then bring the universe into existence? Not to worry. Janna does give us this assurance: “We know that something happened.” Yes, this is science at its best. Let’s not bring God or design into this discussion — we wouldn’t want to be accused of “acting stupidly.” Oh, one more thing, she’s an assistant professor (go here). Want to bet that she doesn’t have problems getting tenure? Compare this to Guillermo Gonzalez at Iowa State.

YouTube Source

Comments
Clive Hayden (280), "Being open minded and open to the possibility that the design inference is valid" Let me put your mind at ease. I am open to the possibility. The trouble is, there is no evidnce for it. That's all IDists have to provide. So far they haven't. "and that evolution, no matter what it claims in just so stories, cannot explain all of what we see with living organisms." Again, I am open to the possibility that evolution can't explain all of what we see in biology. So far, though, it has an excellent track record. "That’s what they usually refuse to do." Nope, they just want evidence. That's all "It is the ID folks that are open-minded and more reasonable, in my opinion. You’ll probably disagree with me, which evidences my point even more." The alternative explanation, of course, is that it is the IDists that are closed minded. The fact that you consider my disagreement with you to be evidence for the closed-mindedness of evolutionists suggests that you consider yourself to have the absolute answer, and is in indication that the reality is diametrically opposed to your view point.Gaz
September 6, 2009
September
09
Sep
6
06
2009
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT
StephenB @ 275:
Since you have apparently decided to argue by attrition, getting in the last word would be important for you. So, I think I will grant it.
OK. "Rutabaga." P.S. Thanks, Gaz.Diffaxial
September 6, 2009
September
09
Sep
6
06
2009
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
Gaz,
Why? What steps do they refuse to do?
Being open minded and open to the possibility that the design inference is valid and that evolution, no matter what it claims in just so stories, cannot explain all of what we see with living organisms. That's what they usually refuse to do. It is the ID folks that are open-minded and more reasonable, in my opinion. You'll probably disagree with me, which evidences my point even more.Clive Hayden
September 6, 2009
September
09
Sep
6
06
2009
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
"And evolutionists are the reason why the tango doesn’t flow on this site." Why? What steps do they refuse to do?Gaz
September 6, 2009
September
09
Sep
6
06
2009
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT
Gaz,
It takes two to tango, darling.
It takes only one to stop a tango, dear. And evolutionists are the reason why the tango doesn't flow on this site.Clive Hayden
September 6, 2009
September
09
Sep
6
06
2009
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT
Clive Hayden (276), "It is only as unusual as closed minded folks like darwinists make it my friend." It takes two to tango, darling.Gaz
September 6, 2009
September
09
Sep
6
06
2009
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT
Gaz,
I hope you’ll reconsider your decision, because it looked to me as if you were both getting somewhere with the discussion – and that is very unusual for this site.
It is only as unusual as closed minded folks like darwinists make it my friend.Clive Hayden
September 6, 2009
September
09
Sep
6
06
2009
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT
StephenB, I am surprised by your post at 274, because I always thought you a decent, intelligent and articulate poster. But Diffaxial doesn't deserve your comments. Insofar as I have read, I haven't seen him ignore you or misrepresent you. As for the "irrelevant trivialities", in my view his points have always been relevant. Certainly, they may be detailed points, but that as they say is where the devil is, and arguements usually tend to stand or fall on the detail points. He's entirely right to raise them. He has a rigour to his arguments that IDists would do well to achieve. I hope you'll reconsider your decision, because it looked to me as if you were both getting somewhere with the discussion - and that is very unusual for this site.Gaz
September 6, 2009
September
09
Sep
6
06
2009
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT
----Diffaxial: "Again, there you have it. Having stated “no firm law that can either forbid it or mandate it,” you concede that your law of causality does not forbid uncaused events at the quantum level. And, like it or not, we do know “for sure” in this instance. I agree that the fact that you concede these acausal phenomena is silent on the question of whether “something can come from nothing.” That simply is not true. I have stated categorically that causation is multifaceted and, more to the point, an event cannot be acausal unless no necessary or sufficient conditions are present. You ignore all my questions, misrepresent what I do say, and labor endlessly on irrelevant trivialities, apparantly in an attempt to create the illusion that you a presenting reasoned arguments, which you are not. Rather than accuse you of being dishonest for a second time on the same thread, I will simply assert that you are evading all the hard questions because you can provide no rational defense for your position. Evasion is permitted on this site, so there is nothing to be done about it. Since you have apparently decided to argue by attrition, getting in the last word would be important for you. So, I think I will grant it.StephenB
September 6, 2009
September
09
Sep
6
06
2009
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT
StephenB @ 269:
You seem to have misread what was said. Causality, at the quantum level, and with respect to movement, may or may not HAVE been violated because we simply don’t know for sure. On the other hand, there is no reason, in principle, why it cannot be suspended in that context because there is no firm law that can either forbid it or mandate it.
Again, there you have it. Having stated "no firm law that can either forbid it or mandate it," you concede that your law of causality does not forbid uncaused events at the quantum level. And, like it or not, we do know "for sure" in this instance. I agree that the fact that you concede these acausal phenomena is silent on the question of whether "something can come from nothing."
You have insisted that physics “permits” acausality/indeterminancy,” apparently without understanding that acausality is not necessarily synonymous with indeterminancy, so combining the terms hardly helps your case.
The point is moot, in that you have stated above that, so far as the "law of causality" is concerned, some quantum events, such as changes in position/momentum (movement), may be uncaused.
Further, you have yet to explain why you think the universe itself can come into existence without a cause...
That would be because I have taken no position on the subject. I haven't the faintest idea how the universe came into existence. What I do believe is that uncertainty regarding such questions cannot be reduced by reciting premodern first principles in one's armchair, as those premodern principles depend upon intuitions derived from macroscopic experiences that may have no relevance at the quantum level. Example: The best example of somethings coming from nothings are pairs of virtual particles emerging from the quantum vacuum. Your response has been that a quantum vacuum isn't "nothing," and that as a something it provides the necessary conditions for the emergence of such particles. But I see problems with this rejoinder - I find it very problematic to refer to the quantum vacuum as a "necessary condition," because it isn't conditional at all. The quantum vacuum is omnipresent, and cannot be present in one instance and not in another, or give rise to fluctuations in one instance but not another. - The fact that the quantum vacuum isn't conditional, and hence is omnipresent, amounts to the statement that "nothing" has no referent at the quantum level. The quantum vacuum precludes "nothing." Therefore the entire argument that "something cannot come from nothing" becomes irrelevant at the quantum level because, at that level, there is no "nothing." The question then becomes, "what can emerge from the quantum vacuum?" One response is that virtual particles can emerge from the quantum vacuum due to the uncertainty principle, a fact that is amply empirically confirmed. Another answer that remains theoretical is, "a quantum singularity that gave rise to the universe" may emerge as a fluctuation in the quantum vacuum. You may respond that this reflects "something coming from nothing" and is therefore irrational. But as we have just established, there is no "nothing," and the rule "something cannot come from nothing" has no referent at the quantum level. Therefore this theory of the origin of the universe is therefore not in violation of that "law."
or why life can come from non-life.
This is an historical question of a wholly different order than that of cosmological origins. I expect a naturalistic account of the origins of life to emerge, although probably not within my lifetime. That account will not describe "something coming from nothing," as no researcher in the field would be satisfied with that. Rather, it will describe the organization of physiochemical events that enabled self-replicating processes to emerge. What that solution will be remains to be discovered.
Why mind can come from matter
Big topic.
By your lights, physics “permits” the suspension of causality any time and any place of your choosing, not just in the area of quantum mechanics.
I have shined my meager light on this very topic several times on this very thread (e.g. in 67 and 111 above, for example), and each time have stated that, to whatever degree quantum physics allows acausality, it also constrains the domains within which that acausality may be manifest (namely to the level of certain quantum events.) That constraint rules out the causal anarchy you describe. Why you ignore those statements and attribute to me opposite assertions, well, there is another topic vis which I haven't a clue.
Version one is descriptive and clearly true, trivial or not. It was conceived to remind one of the law of non-contradiction, which, incredibly, some dispute. Thus, the tautology serves the purpose in some contexts, because there are some who will deny even the tautology, not knowing that tautologies are undeniably true—though trivial...you should worry less about your perception of my history and more about the question on the table
You have, in an offhand way, made many remarkable concessions on this thread. The latest is that "every effect has a cause" is tautological, and that "self-evidence" derived from tautology is trivial. I agree: because in this instance the self-evidence arises from the definitions of "cause" and "effect," it therefore has no necessary bearing upon the world (it doesn't follow that the the bare assertion that remains once the tautological "self-evidence" is subtracted is necessarily false). Moreover, with respect to the remaining parcel of bare assertion, which requires empirical confirmation (having been stripped of its tautological self-evidence), you also now concede above that there are (or at least can be, although the facts say "are") quantum events (changes in position and momentum, otherwise known as "movement") that are acausal. Lastly, you've demonstrated that unchanging principles change, as demonstrated by the above version history. I understand why you would wish to divert attention from that. What's left?Diffaxial
September 6, 2009
September
09
Sep
6
06
2009
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
StephenB (269), "No, it has not. As stated, the law applies to existence, not to movement." With statements like that, I'm beginning to think that you don't actually mean "causality" - what you are talking about seems to me to be a statement of the law of conservation of energy (i.e. something can't come out of nothing because that requires energy existing when it hadn't existed before). Is that what you are getting at? In a similar vein, your statement here is wrong: "Further, you have yet to explain why you think the universe itself can come into existence without a cause, or why matter can come from non-matter, or why mind can come from matter, or why life can come from non-life." It's wrong in the respect (at least) that matter can actually come from non-matter. I've seen it many times - or at any rate, I've seen it recorded photographically - in particle physics experiments. Mostly I was looking at muon decays, pions also frequently, but as far as this discussion goes the "matter coming from non-matter" was electron/positron pairs (matter)arising from photons (energy). So it does happen. I think you might mean "energy can't arise from nothing", in view of the mass/energy equivalence arising from relativity, and that agin bring syou back to the law of conservation of energy. I guess you have a similar argument about the universe (another energy conservation problem). Intersetingly, it appears that the amount of energy currently in the universe, as established by observations of the universe, is very simlar to the gravitational potential energy of the universe (a quantity typically having a negative sign because it is a potential rather than kinetic or mass/energy). The rough equivalence suggests that the two quantities may cancel each other out - one being positive and the other negative - to give a net energy for the universe of zero (i.e. the universe itself would not violate the law of the conservation energy if that is the case). I'm not saying it explains the singularity that resulted in the universe, but it's an interesting observation nonetheless. I won't address the mind/matter issue, because I know from previous discussions we won't see eye to eye. On the life not arising from non-life claim, I suspect Craig Venter may have more to say on that in the coming months.Gaz
September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT
---Correction: "If you can [suspend} the law of causality for the beginning of a universe, why can you not suspend it at any time for any reason?"StephenB
September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
----Diffaxial: “Actually, I have explained several times that the physics permits acausality/indeterminacy under only very specific circumstances. You need to explain why that isn’t a sufficient response. Characterizing it as “superficial” simply restates that you don’t find it sufficient.” Physics doesn’t decide the laws of causality it assumes them apriori. You have insisted that physics “permits” acausality/indeterminancy,” apparently without understanding that acausality is not necessarily synonymous with indeterminancy, so combining the terms hardly helps your case. Further, you have yet to explain why you think the universe itself can come into existence without a cause, or why matter can come from non-matter, or why mind can come from matter, or why life can come from non-life. By your lights, physics "permits" the suspension of causality any time and any place of your choosing, not just in the area of quantum mechanics. So why imply that quantum mechanics is an exception to the rule for you? If you can suspect causality for the beginning of a universe, why can you not suspend it any time for any reason? -----“In any event, YOU now have the same problem, although must justify your assertion bereft of the physics, because you are making distinctions in order to rescue your first principles that are not found in the physics.” Do you really want to go on record saying that physics does not depend on first principles?" You think that science just hangs out there on its own without any logical base, do you? ----“You have to explain why causality is absolute and inviolable with respect to some classes of phenomena (something coming into existence, which is when you REALLY want it to count), but optional with respect to others (position and momentum, otherwise known as “movement”).” There is nothing to explain. Causality is multi-dimensional. Aristotle once described four types of causes. The problem is not that I am to generous with its definitions but that you are too lax with your applications, allowing for the prospect that something can come from nothing. To say that something cannot come from nothing is not to say that causality doesn’t also affect movement. So, from a quantum perspective, I submit that the existence of the particle was caused and the movement of the particle may or may not have been caused. That is the scientifically and philosophically reasonable position. You think that quantum particles, and universes, can come into existence without a cause. That is not a scientifically and philosophically respectable position. ----“May or may not” allows for uncaused events at the quantum level. We needn’t require that all changes of momentum be uncaused in order to say that some are uncaused, and that your law is therefore violated.” You seem to have misread what was said. Causality, at the quantum level, and with respect to movement, may or may not HAVE been violated because we simply don't know for sure. On the other hand, there is no reason, in principle, why it cannot be suspended in that context because there is no firm law that can either forbid it or mandate it. Causality with respect to the cause of existence cannot be suspended. That latter statement needs no justification any more than the law of non-contradiction needs any justification. -----“If some changes in position/momentum without cause are permitted, then the discussion is over regarding this assertion: “cause and effect break down at the quantum level.” You are now allowing at least one instance in which events may be uncaused. Your law has been broken.” No, it has not. As stated, the law applies to existence, not to movement. ----Diffaxial: “While generally applicable and helpful vis-a-vis macroscopic events with which we have direct experience, it clearly breaks down at the quantum level, and it may also break down with respect to the universe as a whole. Its status as “tautologically true,” the only sense in which it is “self-evidently true,” doesn’t help with that question.” Yes, what you say does follow. If causality breaks down at the quantum level, it may also break down with respect to the universe as a whole. Thank you. Now explain how it is that science is possible if causality can break down at any time. ----“I would add that you have already stated that “all causes have effects” is tautological (in 103 above), and have yet to explain why “all effects have causes” is not therefore also tautological, other than to discuss the fog on the bluff.” There is nothing to explain. “All effects have causes” is equally tautological. Another strawman bites the dust. ----“Bottom line: You are now also allowing quantum events (changes in position and momentum) that may sometimes be uncaused. Scotsmen can’t help you.” Here we go again. Quantum events (changes in momentum and position) can be uncaused in that sense. Quantum particles coming from nothing cannot be uncaused in that sense. You position is that both aspects of causality can be violated yet you defend the latter by referring to the former. That is not a defense; it is a distraction. -----*Version history: -----Version 1.0: “All effects have causes.” -----Version 2.0: “All physical events have causes.” -----Version 3.0: “All beginnings of existence have causes.” Version one is descriptive and clearly true, trivial or not. It was conceived to remind one of the law of non-contradiction, which, incredibly, some dispute. Thus, the tautology serves the purpose in some contexts, because there are some who will deny even the tautology, not knowing that tautologies are undeniably true---though trivial. Version two was always, when possible, placed along side the proposition that “something cannot come from nothing.” What you must defend is your unscientific and anti-intellectual proposition that something can come from nothing---and that clearly is your position. Put another way, you think that some beginnings need not have causes. You have insisted that causality can be violated without even bothering to define causality. It was I who accepted the burden of defining terms. So you should worry less about your perception of my history and more about the question on the table.StephenB
September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
StephenB @ 265:
You have yet to tell my why causality doesn’t count when you don’t want it to count and it does count when you want it to count.
Actually, I have explained several times that the physics permits acausality/indeterminacy under only very specific circumstances. You need to explain why that isn't a sufficient response. Characterizing it as "superficial" simply restates that you don't find it sufficient. In any event, YOU now have the same problem, although must justify your assertion bereft of the physics, because you are making distinctions in order to rescue your first principles that are not found in the physics. You have to explain why causality is absolute and inviolable with respect to some classes of phenomena (something coming into existence, which is when you REALLY want it to count), but optional with respect to others (position and momentum, otherwise known as "movement").
To say that something cannot come from nothing is not to say that causality doesn’t also affect movement. So, from a quantum perspective, I submit that the existence of the particle was caused and the movement of the particle may or may not have been caused.
"May or may not" allows for uncaused events at the quantum level. We needn't require that all changes of momentum be uncaused in order to say that some are uncaused, and that your law is therefore violated.
Thus, for you, if the movement of the particle is, in your judgment, uncaused, the discussion is over. Causes for existence need not apply.
If some changes in position/momentum without cause are permitted, then the discussion is over regarding this assertion: "cause and effect break down at the quantum level." You are now allowing at least one instance in which events may be uncaused. Your law has been broken. Your solution has been to idiosyncratically redefine "causality" and "event" such that "changes in movement" at the quantum level are not events to which causality necessarily applies, so that you can then declare that no violations of causality have been observed. Really no more than an invocation of No True Scotsman. The fact that you are now permitting exceptions, and doing so by redefining "cause and effect" such that these events exhibit acausality that nevertheless is not in violation of Version 3.0* of the law of causality, speaks to a remark I made in an earlier thread:
What does NOT follow is that “effect” is the only or the best descriptor of all events, because the dictionary can’t tell us whether and how the conceptual tool “cause and effect” actually attaches to objects in the world, or to the universe as a whole. While generally applicable and helpful vis-a-vis macroscopic events with which we have direct experience, it clearly breaks down at the quantum level, and it may also break down with respect to the universe as a whole. Its status as “tautologically true,” the only sense in which it is “self-evidently true,” doesn’t help with that question. Therefore, while the statement that “all effects have causes” is true, by definition (and is therefore tautologically true), it does not follow that the application of this conceptual tool in every instance is necessary or helpful.
https://uncommondescent.com/ethics/i-keep-having-to-remind-myself-that-science-is-self-correcting/#comment-318794 I would add that you have already stated that "all causes have effects" is tautological (in 103 above), and have yet to explain why "all effects have causes" is not therefore also tautological, other than to discuss the fog on the bluff. Bottom line: You are now also allowing quantum events (changes in position and momentum) that may sometimes be uncaused. Scotsmen can't help you. *Version history: Version 1.0: "All effects have causes." Version 2.0: "All physical events have causes." Version 3.0: "All beginnings of existence have causes." "Unchanging." Peh.Diffaxial
September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT
Hehe. I am almost shocked at the amount of discussion about, quite literally, nothing.IRQ Conflict
September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
01:27 AM
1
01
27
AM
PDT
"Observing something coming from literally and truly nothing is impossible." Perhaps Diff can explain how one goes about observing that which is unobservable. Vividvividbleau
September 4, 2009
September
09
Sep
4
04
2009
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PDT
---Diffaxial: "It is your definition that is restrictive: it includes the latter, but excludes the former." No, it doesn't. My understanding of cause allows for both the cause of movement and the cause of existence. To say that something cannot come from nothing is not to say that causality doesn't also affect movement. So, from a quantum perspective, I submit that the existence of the particle was caused and the movement of the particle may or may not have been caused. As far as I can tell, it is you who accept only one aspect of causality, namely the cause of movement. Thus, for you, if the movement of the particle is, in your judgment, uncaused, the discussion is over. Causes for existence need not apply.StephenB
September 4, 2009
September
09
Sep
4
04
2009
09:33 PM
9
09
33
PM
PDT
---Diffaxial: "If that is a demonstration of the application of an “self-evident, unchanging truth” – one in which definitions are pulled like taffy to force certain over-valued conclusions – I’m not impressed. Since there is obviously a deeply interpretive dimension to the application of such “truths” (as, for example, you define and redefine terms until you attain the conclusion you sought from the outset), they simply cannot provide the “self-evident” foundations for scientific epistemology that you claim they can." The demonstration of the self-evident truth is made manifest in the consequences of denying it. Point at issue: Once you deny causality at any level, you have opened the door to deny it in any way and any time that you choose. Indeed, those who deny causality at the quantum level are conspicuous for denying it at macro-level as well, as in, positing that universes arise out of nothing, matter arises from non-matter, life arises from matter, and so on. Call it selective causality, if you like. It makes no sense at all, and you have made no case for it. Another point at issue: You have yet to tell my why causality doesn't count when you don't want it to count and it does count when you want it to count. The view needs defending a whole lot more than my traditional view that everything that begins to exist requires a cause. So far, you haven't touched that problem even at the most superficial level. Rather than accept reason's principles, materialists make a mockery of science as they propose irrational and speculative alternatives to the first cause principle positing such comical notions of infinite multiple universes, Cosmic rebound theories, and other such nonsense---anything to avoid the testimony of reason. As much as anything else, science is a search for causes. It is comical to watch atheists loosen up on the principle of natural causality when the big bang points to God and then tighten it up again when ID suggests that intelligence may also be a cause. It is either negotiable to the extreme or non-negotiable to the extreme, depending on which aspect of their ideology they are trying to defend. Whatever it is that drives that ideology, it sure isn't reason.StephenB
September 4, 2009
September
09
Sep
4
04
2009
09:15 PM
9
09
15
PM
PDT
Diffaxial, "The realities of quantum indeterminacy"? That's a funny way to put it. Maybe I missed this answer somewhere in the backlog, but: When you claim that the quantum world shows that causality is violated, are you honestly and truly saying "something is coming from nothing"? If so, I'd like to know what sort of evidence you're rallying to support this claim - as everything I've read on quantum physics (and what I read could be wrong, of course) indicates that such questions are unanswered by experiment or observation. (Really, how could they be answered? Observing something coming from literally and truly nothing is impossible. At best, it's an inference - and a metaphysical inference at that.)nullasalus
September 4, 2009
September
09
Sep
4
04
2009
09:15 PM
9
09
15
PM
PDT
StephenB @ 261:
I don’t think causality can be defined that narrowly. With that constricted definition, acausal events could possibly happen at the quantum level. If a quantum particle changes location, it is conceivable to me that such an “event,” if that is what we mean by event, could be causeless because I don’t think the law of causality forbids it.
I am not stating that the prototype instance of "cause and effect" (cue ball strikes eight ball; eight ball falls into corner pocket) is the only sort of event that displays causality. Objects being caused to exist is certainly another. It is your definition that is restrictive: it includes the latter, but excludes the former. The example of cue ball -> eight ball -> pocket is certainly among the relationships conventionally designated as "cause and effect" in any discussion I have read, and in many discussions is cited as prototypical. To exclude such changes of motion and position from the definition of "event" is very idiosyncratic. Rather inescapably, you are re-defining causality in such a way to exclude quantum events that clearly DO violate causality as conventionally construed (I don't think at all successfully, but that is another topic). You simply redefine "event" in such a way that (you hope) will compel your "law of causality" to remain true in the face of the realities of quantum indeterminacy. It also seems rather transparent that your motivation to do so is to preserve your ability to announce specific conclusions regarding what can and cannot characterize cosmological origins. If that is a demonstration of the application of an "self-evident, unchanging truth" - one in which definitions are pulled like taffy to force certain over-valued conclusions - I'm not impressed. Since there is obviously a deeply interpretive dimension to the application of such "truths" (as, for example, you define and redefine terms until you attain the conclusion you sought from the outset), they simply cannot provide the "self-evident" foundations for scientific epistemology that you claim they can.Diffaxial
September 4, 2009
September
09
Sep
4
04
2009
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT
StephenB, I'd mention that quite a lot of this QM talk is tremendously speculative - there's a wide variety of interpretations and measurement issues, each of which conflict with each other over what's "really" going on. I think anyone positively and certainly affirming "these events are uncaused!" has as much standing as, say, someone affirming "we're in a computer simulation and we're seeing the point where programming takes over!" or "occassionalism is true!" or various other conclusions. I know of one physicist who has become convinced of Berkeleyan idealism (and in the process, God's existence) based on QM. I mean, if we're going to question causality, let's not pretend only one answer runs through that particular open door.nullasalus
September 4, 2009
September
09
Sep
4
04
2009
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT
---Diffaxial "That seems like thin ice indeed. Most accounts of “cause and effect” (and of “event”) count the cue ball knocking the eight ball into the corner pocket (which entails a change of movement of the eight ball) as an event reflecting a real cause and a real effect, indeed as a model of cause and effect. Yet no somethings have appeared from nothing; only changes in movement have occurred" I don't think causality can be defined that narrowly. With that constricted definition, acausal events could possibly happen at the quantum level. If a quantum particle changes location, it is conceivable to me that such an "event," if that is what we mean by event, could be causeless because I don't think the law of causality forbids it. In my attempt to use familiar scientific terms, I have stated that no physical event can occur without a cause. On the other hand, I didn’t sufficiently define physical event, which could be understood either as movement or as something coming into existence. In keeping with that point, I have come to understand that I cannot argue effectively using scientific terminology-- it is only in the language of the philosophy of science that can I sufficiently make the point. So, I think that from this point, I should specifically associate the law of causality with the “beginning of existence,” a formulation than cannot possibly be misunderstood, rather than in terms of “physical events,” which can. Again, I submit that any competent philosopher of science would acknowledge "conditions" as a cause for quantum events. As I have said previously, an event can be causeless only when no necessary or sufficient conditions are present. Formally stated, the law of causality is this: Anything that begins to exist must have a cause. I say that to deny that is to deny rationality, and I include any attempt to reduce quantum events to the level of "acausal" insofar as they reflect the proposition that the "existence" of quantum particles is uncaused.StephenB
September 4, 2009
September
09
Sep
4
04
2009
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT
Gaz: The link you recommended deals with the subject of “determinism,” which is not the same thing as causality. Determinism places cognition in a physical causal chain along with everything else, ruling out the possibility that intelligence can also be a cause and disavowing any kind of free will. The rule of causality is not nearly as severe as all that, arguing, among other things, that nothing can come into existence without a previous cause. In a general sense, it just means that one thing depends on another, even if we don’t know which thing depends on what other thing, and/or even if we can’t identify the causal event in causal terms. Science must assume causality to function, that is, it must assume that everything that comes into existence had a cause. Indeed, is the assumption of causality that allowed us to posit the counterintuitive phenomenon we find in quantum mechanics. We were surprised at what we found only because we had a consistent standard of causality that allowed us to be surprised. We rightly assumed causation as the requisite standard of rationality and science, yet we noticed that quantum particles “appeared” not to have a cause. It was our rational assumption about causality that helped us to make the more sophisticated observation that the quantum event is unpredictable but not uncaused. Thus, we know more than what we would have known if we had taken the anti—intellectual posture that something can come from nothing. Without the assumption of causality, we would, and some do, take on the simplistic and erroneous conclusion that not only the changed position of the particles is uncaused [possible and reasonable] but also the existence of the particles was uncaused [not reasonable]. Nothing that exists is uncaused, and if it could be, rationality and science would collapse. If we abandon causality even once, there is no reason why we cannot abandon it again each time we fail to identify a specific cause in causal terms—the very opposite of the rational standard that brought us to where we are.StephenB
September 4, 2009
September
09
Sep
4
04
2009
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT
StephenB @ 256:
As a point of clarification on 255, I acknowledge that an “event” can be uncaused if we define an event as a change of movement, which understood on those terms would not violate the principle of causality. If, however, we describe an event as something coming into existence from nothing, then the principle of causality would be violated.
That seems like thin ice indeed. Most accounts of "cause and effect" (and of "event") count the cue ball knocking the eight ball into the corner pocket (which entails a change of movement of the eight ball) as an event reflecting a real cause and a real effect, indeed as a model of cause and effect. Yet no somethings have appeared from nothing; only changes in movement have occurred. After all of the foregoing, are now saying that if the eight ball simply began moving across the table uncaused that this would NOT count as a violation of causality, because something didn't appear from nothing?Diffaxial
September 4, 2009
September
09
Sep
4
04
2009
03:00 AM
3
03
00
AM
PDT
StephenB (256), "Thus, the question framed in philosophical/scientific terms would be this: If something can come into existence without a cause in one context, why not another? How would you determine which ones that came into existence were caused and which ones were not?" It's a good question, and you may find the answer (part of it at any rate) here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Determinism.2C_quantum_mechanics.2C_and_classical_physics In practice, you'd never be able to tell for sure, but in practice probabilities come into play. At the levels at which quantum mechanics dominates, events can really only be handled in a probabilistic manner. Cause and effect break down - we've discussed radioactivity before, and it's raised here too on this webpage. Once you get to macro levels (such as us) the probabilistic effect is swamped by the sheer mass of particles involved. For example, we can tell when half of a lump of uranium will decay to another element because we know the half-life (even though we can't tell which atomes within it will disintegrate).Gaz
September 4, 2009
September
09
Sep
4
04
2009
02:52 AM
2
02
52
AM
PDT
StephenB
Your questions make no sense. Sorry to be so “uncivil.” Why not just give each other high fives for getting in the last word, which I am sure you will
How nice for you. You are by no means being "uncivil". Let's take the questions one at a time shall we? See if they make any sense if examined one at a time.
I think it is unconscious until I point it out to them, then it becomes conscious.
Q: How many Darwinists have you converted from "irrational" science to "rational" science. Your statement implys such conversion of at least one. Is it just the one or many? And lets try one more question. So, these “plenty of” rational scientists who, by you definition are “following where the evidence leads” and have accepted your paradigm. Q: What results have they produced that you can point to that supports the existence of an Intelligent Designer of any sort?Blue Lotus
September 4, 2009
September
09
Sep
4
04
2009
01:05 AM
1
01
05
AM
PDT
As a point of clarification on 255, I acknowledge that an "event" can be uncaused if we define an event as a change of movement, which understood on those terms would not violate the principle of causality. If, however, we describe an event as something coming into existence from nothing, then the principle of causality would be violated. Thus, the question framed in philosophical/scientific terms would be this: If something can come into existence without a cause in one context, why not another? How would you determine which ones that came into existence were caused and which ones were not?StephenB
September 4, 2009
September
09
Sep
4
04
2009
12:16 AM
12
12
16
AM
PDT
Diffaxial: The problem I had in mind is this: How do you reconcile rationality and science with your proposition that causeless events can occur? If a causeless event can occur in one context, why not another? How do you determine when causality is in play and when it is not. It does no good to appeal to the evidence, because we judge evidence on the assumption of an uncompromised causality.StephenB
September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT
nullasalus, thanks also for the kind words.StephenB
September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT
House Street Room: Thanks for the kind words. I have begun a mini-vacation and will extend it into a full vacation very shortly. [That means ignoring insignificant questions].StephenB
September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT
1 2 3 10

Leave a Reply