And there you have it!

_{William Dembski

August 23, 2009

Eyes Rolling, Religion, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

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

Many of StephenB's objections are based on a mistaken notion. He is under the impression that Diffaxial have attributed to him the position that events can occur without causes:
In other words, he claims that I am saying that some events can occur without causes,
---------
The only way he can claim a contradiction is to dishonestly accuse me of the opposite of what I assert, namely the irrational Darwinst notion that physical events can occur without causese.
---------
Clearly there is no contradiction, nor is there any indication that events can occur without causes.
---------
There are no causeless events–period. That is my position and has always been my position. Therefore, your accusations that I have changed my position are dishonest and dishonorable.
---------
which makes it clear that physical events cannot occur without a cause.
The fact is that Diffaxial and I have attributed no such position to him. If anyone can explain how StephenB gets from this:
Rob said about me, “you stated that events that occur under necessary but insufficient conditions are spontaneous but not uncaused.”
to this:
In other words, he claims that I am saying that some events can occur without causes,
I'll be most grateful. [emphasis added in both quotes above]R0b_{August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

---Diffaxial: "Indeed, this all started with R0b’s request that you disambiguate, as there is a fair and compelling reading of your previous remarks that has you asserting that virtual particles may be characterized as sometimes reflecting necessary, but not sufficient conditions, as well as the further argument that they would nevertheless not be uncaused. Indeed, there is no other sensible reading of what you said then, as there is no reason to insist that events with necessary but insufficient causes are nevertheless not uncaused if you were also arguing that such a state of affairs is impossible. (It is worth noting that Stephen was the only participant who had suggested that formulation; i.e., he raised the possibility himself.)" The key phrase he is trying to manipulate is this one in the first paragraph—”under the circumstances” which was meant to convey the idea “if, as it turns out, the event really does occur, [a perfectly reasonable interpretation], he is interpreting to mean, “if the event happens solely under the influence of a natural cause.” Thus, he is twisting the prepositional phrase "under the circumstances," vulnerable to two possible meanings, and running with the one which clearly does not represent what that author (me) meant. Even at that, any possible ambiguity is eliminated by the second paragraph, which both of you consistently leave out. That makes both of you dishonest.StephenB_{August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

If one introduces the concept of sufficient causes, one is automatically arguing that sufficient causes are required. ---Diffaxial: "That’s fine." Good, then absorb the concept.StephenB_{August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

vividbleau, I doubt that you'll find anyone to side with you on your contention that the two statements presented by Diffaxial in 147 are, in fact, not contradictory.R0b_{August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT}

WRT the LNC, StephenB:
Besides, you and Rob don’t believe in contradictions anyway, because neither of you are comfortable with the law of non-contradiciton.
The only position I can recall taking on the LNC is that "a thing cannot be and not be" is ill-defined. That is not my position with regards to the formal LNC, ¬(A ∧ ¬A).R0b_{August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

StephenB @ 152:
If one introduces the concept of sufficient causes, one is automatically arguing that sufficient causes are required.
That's fine. As R0b stated, your statements on this thread have been inconsistent with those on the previous, and contradict themselves as well as those of KF. Indeed, this all started with R0b's request that you disambiguate, as there is a fair and compelling reading of your previous remarks that has you asserting that virtual particles may be characterized as sometimes reflecting necessary, but not sufficient conditions, as well as the further argument that they would nevertheless not be uncaused. Indeed, there is no other sensible reading of what you said then, as there is no reason to insist that events with necessary but insufficient causes are nevertheless not uncaused if you were also arguing that such a state of affairs is impossible. (It is worth noting that Stephen was the only participant who had suggested that formulation; i.e., he raised the possibility himself.)Diffaxial_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
—Rob said about me, “you stated that events that occur under necessary but insufficient conditions are spontaneous but not uncaused.” In other words, he claims that I am saying that some events can occur without causes,
Not at all. To be uncaused, it must have no necessary or sufficient conditions whatsoever. I learned that from a wise man who said: "To be uncaused, it must have NO NECESSARY OR SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS whatsoever." Of course, I may be twisting his words with my paraphrasing.R0b_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT}

KF, I agree something spontaneous can't exist and that the normal definition allows for outside help. I didn't know where Rob was going with it.lamarck_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT}

What is being lost in the clutter is that Diff still has not kept his promise to StephenB "You promised to defend the proposition that you can, at the same time, remain rational and disavow causality. It was your promise, not mine. " Diff will this defense be forthcoming? Vividvividbleau_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT}

Diff summarizes what he calls contradictory positions held by KF and StephenB “1) KF stated that if an an event has occurred, BOTH necessary causal factors AND sufficient causal factors had to be present. 2) You allowed that events may occur (such as the appearance of virtual particles) when necessary conditions are present, but sufficient conditions are absent. “ As I stated Diff’s description of the two so called contradictory positions held by KF and StephenB are not in fact in contradiction. What are the requirements in play in order for their to be a violation of the LNC which Difff is using in order to demonstrate that KF and StepehnB contradict one another. The LNC simply states that A cannot be non A at the same time and in the same relationship. A can be B at the same time but not in the same relationship. For example I can be a father and a son at the same time but not in the same relationship. Lets examine Diffs summary of what he considers two contradictory positions and determine if they do indeed violate the LNC. Difff says “ KF stated that if an an event has occurred,…” Diff goes on to contrast this statement to StephenB’s which he says “You allowed that events may occur….” Now there are two key words to focus on in these two respective summaries, they are HAS and MAY. Kf according to Difff is talking about what HAS happened where as StephenB is talking about what MAY happen. A “HAS” is not a “MAY“!! Since according to Diff they are talking about an actual versus a potential, and something that HAS happened verse something that MAY happen the above summary by Diff of the two different positions cannot be contradictory because they do not violate the LNC. They are not A and non A at the same “TIME” and in the same “RELATIONSHIP“ They maybe confusing, they maybe ambiguous, they may need more clarification but they are not contradictory. Vividvividbleau_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT}

---Diffaxial: "“You allowed that events may occur (such as the appearance of virtual particles) when necessary conditions are present, but sufficient conditions are absent." No, I did not. The following should be obvious. [to everyone but a Darwinist.] If one introduces the concept of sufficient causes, one is automatically arguing that sufficient causes are required. Necessary causes: If x is a necessary cause of y, then the presence of y necessarily implies the presence of x. The presence of x, however, does not imply that y will occur. Sufficient causes: If x is a sufficient cause of y, then the presence of x necessarily implies the presence of y. It is not necessary to conclude the correspondence with, “don’t forget now, ‘sufficient’ means ‘sufficient.’” What incredible nonsense.StephenB_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

---Diffaxial: "The words I quoted immediately precede (with nothing intervening) the above, all of which appeared in a response you made to me back when. No need to go searching, and the context was the same. R0b also quotes this in support of his position in 101, above, because it seals the deal vis your disagreement with KF on the necessity of sufficient causes." Oh, I get it. It's OK to include the preceding words, but its not OK to include the words that follow, which clarify the thought beyond debate. The key phrase you trying to manipulate is this one in the first paragraph---"under the circumstances" which was meant to convey the idea "if, as it turns out, the event really does occur, [a perfectly reasonable interpretation], you are interpreting to mean, “if the event happens solely under the influence of a natural cause.” Even if one interprets it your way, which is a stretch, that interpretation is rendered irrelevant in the next paragraph, which makes it clear that physical events cannot occur without a cause. Thus, a careful reader would understand what is being said in both paragraphs. Clearly, you is grasping for straws. Indeed, one of the reasons I wrote the second paragraph was to insure that there is no misunderstanding about the first paragraph, given the Darwinist capacity to do what you are currently doing, that is, lie about what was said. My final phrase reads: “To be uncaused, it must have no necessary or sufficient conditions.” As I often say, Darwinists do not understand context. Whether it is willful or a function of their illogical world view is not always clear. In this case, it is willful because both you and Rob made it a point to leave the second paragraph out even after I reminded you about it. Thus, I don't hesitate to says that you are both dishonest. Here is what I wrote: "With regard to the self-evident truths that undergird science, they not only work, they are essential to understanding anything at all about what may or may not be going on. If an event requires certain physically NECESSARY conditions to occur, but if those conditions are not SUFFICIENT for its occurrence, and, if under the circumstances, the event occurs, then that event is [A] unpredictable, [B] spontaneous, and [C] Not uncaused. In any quantum event, physically NECESSARY conditions exist that are not SUFFICIENT to make that event occur, meaning that the conditions cannot GUANRANTEE the event. So, when a particle appears in a quantum vacuum, it is spontaneous but not uncaused because it has many necessary conditions. To be uncaused, it must have NO NECESSARY OR SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS whatsoever. In other words, something cannot come from nothing." [I capitalized those words at the time.] In response to that, you write, "You allowed that events may occur (such as the appearance of virtual particles) when necessary conditions are present, but sufficient conditions are absent." Thus, you are lying. No surprise.StephenB_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

"I’ll cheerfully explain it: 1) KF stated that if an an event has occurred, BOTH necessary causal factors AND sufficient causal factors had to be present. 2) You allowed that events may occur (such as the appearance of virtual particles) when necessary conditions are present, but sufficient conditions are absent. Hence your statements do not agree with respect to the requirement that sufficient conditions must always be present. Your statements contradict one another with respect to the requirement for sufficient conditions. That’s the explanation. And I am indeed cheerful" As well will be Stephenb I would suppose since the statements you cite are not contradictory...more on this later. Vividvividbleau_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

StephenB @ 142:
He was speaking about THIS QUOTE of mind. “In any quantum event, physically NECESSARY conditions exist that are not SUFFICIENT to make that event occur, meaning that the conditions cannot GUARANTEE the event” Clearly there is no contradiction, nor is there any indication that events can occur without causes. You apparenly understand better than he that there is no contradiction, so you go looking for other quotes in other contexts and avoid the two under discussion.
The words I quoted immediately precede (with nothing intervening) the above, all of which appeared in a response you made to me back when. No need to go searching, and the context was the same. R0b also quotes this in support of his position in 101, above, because it seals the deal vis your disagreement with KF on the necessity of sufficient causes.Diffaxial_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

I note that I inadvertently omitted "in other words" from a quote of Stephen above.Diffaxial_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT}

StephenB @ 142:
There is no contradiction. If there was, you could explain it.
I'll cheerfully explain it: 1) KF stated that if an an event has occurred, BOTH necessary causal factors AND sufficient causal factors had to be present. 2) You allowed that events may occur (such as the appearance of virtual particles) when necessary conditions are present, but sufficient conditions are absent. Hence your statements do not agree with respect to the requirement that sufficient conditions must always be present. Your statements contradict one another with respect to the requirement for sufficient conditions. That's the explanation. And I am indeed cheerful. --- Now again in slow motion: KF:
If an event DID happen, sufficient causal factors, AND necessary causal factors had to be present.
Notice the statement that if an event has occurred, sufficient conditions must have been present. StephenB:
If an event requires certain physically NECESSARY conditions to occur, but if those conditions are not SUFFICIENT for its occurrence, and, if under the circumstances, the event occurs, then that event is [A] unpredictable, [B] spontaneous, and [C] Not uncaused.
Notice that StephenB allows that an event may occur absent sufficient conditions (and goes on to argue that such an event is still not uncaused, because necessary conditions were still present.) You disagree vis the requirement for sufficient conditions. That's a contradiction. That is what "contradiction" means. ---
—Rob said about me, “you stated that events that occur under necessary but insufficient conditions are spontaneous but not uncaused.” he claims that I am saying that some events can occur without causes, which is the very antithesis of my claim and he knows it–and so do you.
Yes I do know that, and so does R0b. You incorrectly paraphrase the meaning of his statement, which does not claim that you are saying that some events can occur with out causes. What you do say, and R0b correctly paraphrases you as saying, is that some events can occur when only necessary, but not sufficient conditions are present - contrary to KF. OTH, I recognize that you and KF AGREE that for a condition to be uncaused, BOTH necessary and sufficient conditions must be absent. Hence you said:
My final words in my comment on the other thread [which they left out, no accident] were these: "To be uncaused, it must have no necessary or sufficient conditions.” kairosfocus put it this way: “If an event DID happen, sufficient causal factors, AND necessary causal factors had to be present.
Your agreement on that point does not, however, remove the above contradiction vis what can occur when necessary conditions are present, but sufficient conditions are absent. This quote is otiose vis that issue.
On the other hand, you and Rob contradict yourselves everytime you open your mouth by denying or discounting the law of non contradiction.
The only statement I have ever made vis the law of non-contradiction was to agree that it holds, with a caution that grammatically well formed statements can sometimes be neither true or false, and can therefore be troublesome in a contentious discussion.Diffaxial_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

Vivid: Yes, that is an idea. Clearly, Darwinists do not know that they are using the law of non-contradiction in their futile attempts to argue against me. They deny it even as they use it. It is the same with causality. They think it comes and goes with the wind. I must have hit a nerve, though. When Rob and Diffaxial go looking for what they hope will be a dangling prepositional phrase in something that I once wrote, you know they are desperate. Keep in mind, though, that they know their accusations are baseless. They are just playing a game. Unhappy with my demonstration that Darwinists can't reason by virtue of their philosophy, they are just trying to put me on defensive, even though they obviously have nothing to talk about. My final words in my comment on the other thread [which they left out, no accident] were these: To be uncaused, it must have no necessary or sufficient conditions." kairosfocus put it this way: "If an event DID happen, sufficient causal factors, AND necessary causal factors had to be present. So, both Rob and Diffaxial know they are being dishonest when they say that I changed my position or that I contradicted Kf. But, again, I am not easily distracted. What they are running away from is the theme that I established early. Reason has rules, which among other things, allow us to eliminate possibilities so that we can move logically from point A to point B. We cannot say, for example, IF A is true, then B MUST be true, unless we can also say that C through Z are impossible. If we didn’t agree, in advance, that C through Z are impossible, such as [a thing cannot be and not be], [the whole cannot be less that any of its parts], [something cannot come from nothing], [physical events cannot occur without causes etc.], then we couldn’t reason our way from A to B or enter into rational discouse with others. But postmodernist cosmologists and atheist Darwinists,[Diffaxial and Rob] who reject these rules, cannot, in any context, say If A is true, then B must be true, because they refuse to rule out C through Z. That is another way of saying that they cannot reason in the abstract.StephenB_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

"Besides, you and Rob don’t believe in contradictions anyway, because neither of you are comfortable with the law of non-contradiciton. What a joke." StephenB here is a thought.For all those that do not believe in the LNC why dont you stipulate that the only arguments you will respond to are the arguments that dont use the LNC in anyway. See how that goes. The same can be stipulated for those who embrace that something can come into being from nothing without a cause. The only arguments you will respond to are the arguments that dont reason from point A to point B.This argument is a form of causality, beCAUSE A thus B. In fact ignore any use of the word or form of beCAUSE. Vividvividbleau_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT}

---Rob: "There has been a lot of ugliness in this thread, and it would be great to find out that it has all been a misunderstanding. But no matter how I slice it, I can’t find any other coherent parsing of his counterargument to the QM challenge." The ugliness began with your dishonest assertion that I hold that physical events can occur without causes. I wrote the following two paragraphs. In any quantum event, physically NECESSARY conditions exist that are not SUFFICIENT to make that event occur, meaning that the conditions cannot GUARANTEE the event. So, when a particle appears in a quantum vacuum, it is spontaneous but not uncaused because it has many necessary conditions. To be uncaused, it must have NO NECESSARY OR SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS whatsoever. In other words, something cannot come from nothing. There are no causeless events--period. That is my position and has always been my position. Therefore, your accusations that I have changed my position are dishonest and dishonorable.StephenB_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT}

"Yet everyone except Darwinists know what the law of non-contradiction means." They certainly use it when it suits them i.e Diffs use of it in #140.It's always important to observe what people do not what they say. Vividvividbleau_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

---Diffaxial; ""The very contradiction accurately identified by R0b. His statement above is an accurate representation of yours quoted here." Nope. There is no contradiction. If there was, you could explain it. All you can do it claim a contradiction, or rather join in on the lie. In any case, you chose the wrong quote that Rob misrepresented ---Rob said about me, "you stated that events that occur under necessary but insufficient conditions are spontaneous but not uncaused." In other words, he claims that I am saying that some events can occur without causes, which is the very antithesis of my claim and he knows it--and so do you. The only way he can claim a contradiction is to dishonestly accuse me of the opposite of what I assert, namely the irrational Darwinst notion that physical events can occur without causese. He was speaking about THIS QUOTE of mind. "In any quantum event, physically NECESSARY conditions exist that are not SUFFICIENT to make that event occur, meaning that the conditions cannot GUARANTEE the event" Clearly there is no contradiction, nor is there any indication that events can occur without causes. You apparenly understand better than he that there is no contradiction, so you go looking for other quotes in other contexts and avoid the two under discussion. But those quotes do not help your case either. On the other hand, you and Rob contradict yourselves everytime you open your mouth by denying or discounting the law of non contradiction and the principle of causality. Notice that I am specifying your contradiction whereas you are falsely attributing a contradiction to me. Besides, you and Rob don't believe in contradictions anyway, because neither of you are comfortable with the law of non-contradiciton. What a joke.StephenB_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

Thanks Diffaxial. I would be both thrilled and profusely apologetic to StephenB if he could present to us an alternate interpretation that makes sense. There has been a lot of ugliness in this thread, and it would be great to find out that it has all been a misunderstanding. But no matter how I slice it, I can't find any other coherent parsing of his counterargument to the QM challenge.R0b_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

StephenB @ 139:
and so Rob [and you] decide to misrpresent what I say...
Not representation in my case, vis this issue, Just reproduction. To wit:
If an event requires certain physically NECESSARY conditions to occur, but if those conditions are not SUFFICIENT for its occurrence, and, if under the circumstances, the event occurs, then that event is [A] unpredictable, [B] spontaneous, and [C] Not uncaused.
Which says what it says, both standing alone and in the context of the discussion in which it appeared. The above patently contradicts KF:
3] If an event DID happen, sufficient causal factors, AND necessary causal factors had to be present.
The very contradiction accurately identified by R0b. His statement above is an accurate representation of yours quoted here. But his statement is not really needed, as your own words (yours and KF) above exhibit the contradiction with no intermediaries.Diffaxial_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT}

----Diffaxial: "I’ll revise the above to state that “You stated that events that occur under necessary but insufficient conditions are spontaneous but not uncaused” does imply the conditionals in StephenB’s original statement." I understand the game, believe me. I expose Darwinist irrationality, get accused of misrepresenting what was said, and so Rob [and you] decide to misrpresent what I say. Yet my charges stand. Indeed, I can offer another texture of your irrationality. Both you and Rob run from the law of non-contradiction. You claim it does not apply to the real world. Rob claims not to know what it means because, in his judgment, it has not been sufficiently defined. Yet everyone except Darwinists know what the law of non-contradiction means. Irrational Darwinists leave clues all over the place denying logic, causality, and other principles ofr reason. The only question left is to determine whether Rob, like you, believes that causality is a come and go proposition.StephenB_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

I'll revise the above to state that "You stated that events that occur under necessary but insufficient conditions are spontaneous but not uncaused" does imply the conditionals in StephenB's original statement. "events that occur that..." etc. This is a good paraphrase.Diffaxial_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

R0b stated vis StephenB:
You stated that events that occur under necessary but insufficient conditions are spontaneous but not uncaused.
StephenB denies this. He states that the following quote is "not at all the same."
In any quantum event, physically NECESSARY conditions exist that are not SUFFICIENT to make that event occur, meaning that the conditions cannot GUARANTEE the event.
Indeed these two statements are not equivalent. Therefore StephenB stated that R0b was lying, momentarily wished him banned, and requested an apology. The problem with StephenB's accusation is that R0b's paraphrase IS equivalent to the following passage. Attend the the portions that I have bolded:
If an event requires certain physically NECESSARY conditions to occur, but if those conditions are not SUFFICIENT for its occurrence, and, if under the circumstances, the event occurs, then that event is [A] unpredictable, [B] spontaneous, and [C] Not uncaused.
This scenario laid out: - If an event requires certain physically NECESSARY conditions to occur... - And if the conditions are not SUFFICIENT for it's occurrence... - And if under those circumstances the event occurs... - That event is [A] unpredictable, [B] spontaneous, and [C] Not uncaused. This is fairly summarized by, "Events that occur under necessary but insufficient conditions are spontaneous but not uncaused." The only point of divergence that I can see between StephenB's statement above and R0b's paraphrase hangs on the series of "IFs" in StephenB's statement. StephenB did not explicitly "state that events occur" under those conditions, he expressed it conditionally: "IF an event...and IF conditions are not sufficient...and IF it occurs. However, the context in which StephenB's statement appeared makes it unambiguously clear that this conditional description is intended to refer to actual events, namely the emergence of virtual particles from a quantum vacuum. Hence, in the next paragraph we read:
...when a particle appears in a quantum vacuum, it is spontaneous but not uncaused because it has many necessary conditions. To be uncaused, it must have NO NECESSARY OR SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS whatsoever. In other words, something cannot come from nothing.
Given this quite specific referent (virtual particles), there is NO room here for, "I said 'if' such an event occurred, not 'that' such an event occurred." And, of course, the point of the forgoing was to insist that, because virtual particles have necessary conditions, they are not uncaused, even given that there are no apparent sufficient conditions. To so insist is intelligible only in response to states of affairs in which one of the conditions is absent - in this case, sufficient conditions. One may quibble over interpretation, but I find R0b's statement a good-faith paraphrase, and obviously not a lie. Hence it is StephenB who owes the apology (for characterizing R0b as lying), not R0b. Lastly, Stephen's above scenario is, indeed, flatly at odds with KF's statements, which he has conveniently reproduced again in 135:
3] If an event DID happen, sufficient causal factors, AND necessary causal factors had to be present.
The bolded above clearly and unambiguously conflicts with the bolded below:
If an event requires certain physically NECESSARY conditions to occur, but if those conditions are not SUFFICIENT for its occurrence, and, if under the circumstances, the event occurs, then that event is [A] unpredictable, [B] spontaneous, and [C] Not uncaused.
---- I still fail to see: - anything that responds to the observation that your “Unchanging, Self-Evident Truth” has changed. It has changed from “every effect has a cause” to “every physical event has a cause.” - anything that responds to the observation that your correct assertion that “every cause has an effect” is tautological compels the conclusion that “every effect has a cause” is also tautological.Diffaxial_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT}

PS: Lamark: The definition of spontaneous is self causing , , , AmHD: >> 1. Happening or arising without apparent external cause; self-generated. 2. Arising from a natural inclination or impulse and not from external incitement or constraint. >> Spontaneous more properly is a synonym for natural: that which goes on by itself in the observable world, based on whatever initial conditions happen to obtain and whatever dynamical forces and inertial resistances and structures happen to be there. (Cf my falling rock example.) Self-causation is tricky and embeds a contradiction: until something exists, it cannot act as a cause, so if something is said to cause itself, it falls into having to be there before it is there. An evident absurdity. The confusion I suspect has a grain of truth in it: the possibility of necessary beings that do not begin to exist and are the ultimate causal ground of the world of contingent beings which we live in. [That is in a cosmos that is credibly contingent [singularity c 13,7 BYA for instance], we have an implied non-contingent grounding reality.] This becomes controversial in our time because of course it looks uncommonly like a classic argument to God, the cosmological argument. the issue is which possible non-contingent being makes best sense of our observed cosmos: and notice my raising the issue of inference to best explanation on warrant by observation and argument, as opposed to claimed demonstrative proof. It is much easier to dismiss a claimed proof than a challenge to provide a best explanation on comparative difficulties.kairosfocus_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
03:26 AM
3
03
26
AM
PDT}

Rob, Please. Kindly note what I observed at 76 above:
1] Unless all NECESSARY causal factors are present, an event CANNOT happen. 2] If SUFFICIENT causal factors are present, the even WILL happen. 3] If an event DID happen, sufficient causal factors, AND necessary causal factors had to be present. (The two sets of factors need not be equivalent. Overkill is possible.)
1 --> Note my use of "factors" i.e. I am aware that cause may be complex and dependent on synergistic interaction. [NB: Cf the classical four causes analysis. Material (the stuff required to make it happen) and efficient (actuating or triggering and sustaining) causes are particularly relevant for understanding necessary factors. Formal -- pattern -- and final -- purposeful -- causes are relevant to understanding the action of agents.] 2 --> Presence of sufficient causal factors [including overkill] will cause an event to happen. (And indeed, unless minimally sufficient factors are present it will not happen.) 3 --> Necessary factors are those which if just one is absent an event CANNOT happen. (A minimally sufficient causal pattern will have just the set of necessary and sufficient factors present. The fire triangle is a common illustration.) 4 --> For an event to be UNCAUSED -- i.e. it is something that begins to happen and does happen -- to be UNCAUSED, it must have neither necessary nor sufficient causal factors present. By the logic involved, such an even will not be observed to occur -- note, by speaking of that which begins to happen, I am excluding here necessary beings; which have no beginning. 5 --> "Spontaneous" events are generally those deemed to occur as brute facts of nature, usually in the context of stochastic chains of undirected contingent causal factors. It just happens to be so, but could have just as easily been otherwise. Chance + blind mechanical necessity are enough to explain the event, in short. [There was an earthquake, and the boulder resting on the ledge tumbled off and bounced around along the side of the cliff, until it hit bottom; where it happened to land.] 6 --> In the case of quantum events, such as the appearance of spontaneous particle-antiparticle pairs, it should be noted that there is an underlying quantum vacuum seething with energy. This is a necessary condition; as is the presence of a space-time continuum in which the particles may emerge etc, etc. Quantum events are thus not UNCAUSED, though the relevant sufficient factors may well be unknown to us and possibly unobservable to us, given the issues over uncertainty etc. We see spontaneous, stochastic quantum phenomena, but that is hardly the same as that such are uncaused. (As was explained in painful details in previous threads.) 7 --> In short, you have again misrepresented me in this thread, just as int he other one that I just had to correct this morning. 8 --> And, there is no contradiction of any significance between what Stephen has said and what I have said, idea hit-man rhetorical talking point attempts to drive in a wedge notwithstanding. ++++++++++++ GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
03:15 AM
3
03
15
AM
PDT}

Rob I don't think you're going to get an answer till you apologize. But I'm curious what you're getting at here. The definition of spontaneous is self causing. Still there is a cause there.lamarck_{August 29, 2009
August
08
Aug
29
29
2009
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT}

StephenB, I didn't ask for a reprieve. What is the difference between a spontaneous and non-spontaneous event?R0b_{August 29, 2009
August
08
Aug
29
29
2009
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply