VonEvilstein

Er, how, by following both the scientific method and what it has lead us to discover about gravitation?

How would you propuse to explain accelleration without an acting force? Please, if you have an alternative explanation that fits the observations, but does not require a force acting on any body, tell me what it is.

Let me reitterate:

The reason I think that gravity is causing the observed movements of the stars in Andromeda, is that the observations fit the predictions - it works.

Would the experiment I suggested, way back on the first pase of this thread, convince you, hypothetically, of course?

nermal

I didn't read the other thread, but I don't think I have to to address this. I think you guys are missing the big picture here. Xian isn't in need of a lesson on kinematics, he needs a more thourough understanding of what science is and isn't.
Simply summarized, science is an attempt to explain and predict the workings of the universe. If a theory works to explain something here or there (far away) and makes testable predictions about the actions of particles in the respective places, then that is the accepted explanation until proven otherwise .
We say gravity is causing the motion of the Andromeda galaxy because it fits our observations there in precisely the same way it fits our observations here. If someone could show conclusively that the Andromeda galaxy were being pulled about by giant unicorns, scientists would be forced to accept that theory as the explanation for its motion.
This Xian, is the historical difference between science and religion.
I will sum it up thus:

A scientist says: show me a better theory which explains and predicts, and I'll accept it as the best explanation to date.

A religious authority says: show me a better explanation for the events I observe, and I will either ignore you, trash your reputation, or have you killed.

Understand the difference?

Ed


A

Clutch

xian wants to use the principle that all contingent events are uniquely determined by a cause.

His interlocutors have pointed out that this principle is dubious; there are examples of events for which it is at least unclear, as a matter of best explanation, that they are uniquely determined by a cause.

xian replies by pointing to events that everyone agrees are determined.

How this is supposed to bolster his principle, though, is opaque.

Compare:

"All swans are white"

"No, here are some black ones"

"Oh, really? Well, look at these white swans over here. Do you seriously believe that these white swans are black? Therefore, all swans are white."

It's just a red herring.

Psycho Economist

See, I disagree. I think he agrees with induction, I think he agrees that gravity exists in Andromeda.

I think he's trying to build some sort of booby trap to use in a later argument about the existance of gods. I think he's waiting for one of us to say "I believe in macroscopic uncaused events," or "Yes! Everything has some sort of cause! Just shut up!"

He'd try to play the first into "Well then, my deity can-huh exist uncaused." And he'd twist the second into "See, my omnimax deity has to be the uncaused prime mover, because logic doesn't apply to him."

I'm trying to head him off at the pass, demonstrating why we infer gravity as existing in a way that we need not infer that a deity exist, so he isn't left with a leg to stand on when he tries to tie this thread to his punchline.

Asha'man

xian,

There seems to be an awfully large gap between what you think we believe (or, more specifically, what you claim we believe), and what we actually believe. This is especially confusing to me because what we believe is really fairly simple.

At the quantum scale, it has been well established that things happen at random, without cause. For example, it is impossible to predict the radioactive decay of a single atom.

However, this randomness is constrained. There are limits to the randomness. This does not mean it isn’t random. There is an infinite sequence of random values between 0 and 1, and another infinite sequence of random values between 1 and 2.

The macroscopic scale exists entirely as the sum of things at the quantum scale. Therefore, we see behavior that is the statistical sum of random events, which reveals exactly what the constraint is. Radioactive decay for a collection of atoms is precisely predictable. Therefore, at the macroscopic scale, uncaused events are never observed, because we can only observe statistical sums.


The origin of the universe presents an interesting case, given the above observations. We have observed that everything in the universe is moving away from everything else. Projecting backwards, it is reasonable to conclude that everything was once in the same place. If you project backwards all the way, there was no macroscopic scale, there was no collection of particles to take a statistical sum of. Everything existed only at the quantum scale, where randomness and uncaused events have been observed to happen.

At that moment, and at that moment only, any single uncaused event would have enormous repercussions to the universe. It is entirely logical to speculate that the entire universe is the result of an uncaused event (at the quantum scale) that subsequently expanded into everything we observe today.

Aethari

Perhaps you could clarify what you're trying to say, but this doesn't have anything to do with atheism. Most theists assume that events are caused (other than God!). Since Andromeda presumably isn't God, I'm failing to see how the theistic assumption of causality in any way differs from the atheistic one.

I'm still very unclear as to what you're driving at with this argument: we assume causation because it's natural, logical, and even pragmatically necessary.

It's becoming tempting to think that you simply don't understand what is meant by causation, because if you did, your question about causation in Andromeda would be transparently silly. Try looking at it this way:

Let's pretend, for a moment, that Andromeda and all the apparant actions that take place within that system are uncaused. What do we need to think, in order to support this?

First, we would have to assume that Andromeda exists necessarily, in the sense of the ontological arguments for God's existence. (It is not clear how we would even begin to apply such an argument to a limited physical system like Andromeda.)

Second, we would have to devise a scheme for explaining the apparant motion of Andromeda in relation to itself and outside entities. Since we're assuming causality does not exist within Andromeda, we have to assume that everything which happens in Andromeda happens necessarily. Now, it's easy enough, once we've presumably proved Andromeda's necessary existence via an ontological argument, to explain Andromeda's apparant self-relative changes as necessary expressions of its essence. But how do we explain the changes of Andromeda that appear to coincide perfectly with external bodies? In order to explain this oddity (since Andromeda obviously can't be worked upon causally by outside forces), we can create the analogy of the Two Clocks. Andromeda and the outside universe are like two finely tuned clocks, which while both keeping accurate time, do not casually interact. That is, while concurrent actions between Andromeda and the outside universe might appear to be cosmically linked, they are not; Andromeda merely undergoes self-necessary remanifestations that perfectly satisfy our theoretical predictions.

Now, we have given our necessary beliefs for an uncaused and perpetually non-causal Andromeda. If it is a choice between that horrible jumble of unfounded assumptions and the single assumption of causality, how is there a difficulty? Why would you not assume causality, given that terrible alternative?

~Aethari

xian

Greetings, Mr. Lobstrosity. nice to know we can dialogue with mutual respect.



certainly. i accept these terms.

scientists have longed searched for the "glue" that binds a cause to its effect. To my knowledge (and you can correct me if I'm wrong), quantuum mechanics has obscured any verifiable existence of this "glue" to the point where scientists call its very existence into question. Classical 'causation' requires a one-to-one direct correlation/correspondence of a single, independent 'cause' and a single independent 'effect.' This should not be an absolute definition of causation. Too many people are willing to equivocate "lack of classical causation therefore equals no cause". This is a non-sequitur fallacy. It is no secret (and I believe quite obvious) that many scientists- physicists included, skip logic classes in college or just didn't pay attention that day in class when they learned about fundamental logical reasoning. To rule out classical causation is not to say causation is ruled out. In fact, not being able to assess classical causation itself still doesn't even rule it out. Though it is impossible to fully asses a one-to-one independent correspondence between cause and effects, it is possible to asses entangled or dependent correspondence. THere is an obvious link between the macroscopic world and the microscopic world. Cause and effect is most definately a certainty in the macroscopic world....to say otherwise would require the burden of proof on the one claiming it, since everywhere we observe events on a macroscopic level, we know there is a cause for them and there is no reason to think otherwise. THis is how the natural world works. But at the same time, we know that every macroscopic cause is a plurality of quantons and candidate causes. A classical cause is composed of macroscopic stimuli, which in result are quantum plural animate ensembles making up smaller, candidate 'causes.' This makes it impossible for us to identify and asses which specific candidate 'cause' is uniquely responsible for any specified classical effect. Does this mean therefore that effects are uncaused? Of course it doesn't. You cannot jump to that conclusion. We lack great understanding of the microscopic world, and to say that things happen w/o any cause whatsoever is a leap of faith that plunges the natural world into a supernatural soup. A cause does not have to be a one-to-one correlation...and I do not see why that must be. Entanglement may be much greater than we thought, and effects that we see may be caused by something we did not see. A good scientist will search for causes and continue to search.
When I talk about the "void" i understand there is no such thing as a complete void in this natural world. I use in as a philosophical sense to describe potential effects that have no origin in the natural universe, events that simply arise from nothing, meaning that there is no source of transferrence of natural energy upon the effect in question. An event that is completely lacking in any prior stimulli of natural energy is an event that I define as "from the void". An example of this would be a quantum fluctuation that resulted in new energy that previously did not exist (as in the Big Bang). Virtual particles are not the same as this. They arise from the zero-point energy sea and quickly return from whence they came. They do not remain and do not represent effects that lack causes, and are not new energy, but manifestations of already existing energy that make brief, caused appearances. Yet many atheists like to say virtual particles add to the sum energy of the universe and then pay back the "debt". Fluctuations are constantly burping energy into existence, then reclaiming the debt (the universe have bad credit?). This is nonsense. Pure, unfettered religion.

Now, if someone wants to believe this...they have that right. If you want to believe that you are on "borrowed energy" fine. If you want to believe that the universe "borrows" real energy, adding to the sum total of energy in the universe, and then "pays back the debt" later on....go ahead. You can believe that if you want, but that is all it is: faith and belief. That is all it is. You believe, I believe.

I contend that atheists possess as much belief about the universe as a theist does, the former just isn't readily admitting to it.

I hear often atheistic philosophers say that there are uncaused events, and perhaps the term "uncaused" is what is not defined. Uncaused as I interpret does not simply mean "unidentifiable cause" or "lacking in the ability to asses a classical cause"...but it means that "no cause exists!" This is an exceptional claim. Requiring exceptional evidence. As the first law of thermodynamics states: the total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant. Quantuum physics is not a violation of this, do you believe that quantum physics violates the first law of thermodynamics? For example, force constants and atomic masses can be exctrated from the quantuum phenomenon of Raman spectroscopy by wavenumber and spectral band intensity. There is nothing to suggest things are appearing uncaused from nothing. Has anyone ever found alpha particles appearing without pre-existing nuclei? That would seem to me to be a requirement for the "something from nothing" theorists.
The whole of the universe proceeds within boundaries, though its microscopic parts seem to be governed by probability. This does not logically exclude causation. The relationships in this universe are what is mysterious. We see an effect, we say there is no cause, yet we do not understand the relationships. It is bad science to delcare there is no cause, when the relationships are yet unknown. A good scientist will discover the relationships, and as such, clarity will come about.


So far, I have asked this community to provide events that are causeless. I have yet to hear one. To suggest that radioactive decay is a causeless certainty is premature at the least. It reminds me of the Catholic Church in the dark ages when they practiced "science." When something happened that they didn't understand, they just said "God did it". Well, what kind of explanation is that? IN the same way, we do not understand radioactive decay. This universe is amazingly mysterious, and to just say that because a few white-robed homosapiens haven't figured out a reason for radioactive decay is not to equate therefore no reason exists! I mean, c'mon! This is getting rediculous. Fortunately, there are plenty of physicists that do not make such assumptions. they will continue to search for the causes, and I believe they will find them, even if they do not find a one-to-one correspondence....they may find a one-to-many correspondence...which is still a cause.

i believe you. i retract those statements.


well sure. And this was in reference to the andromeda galaxy (which is a macro cause-effect). Now, if you call all macro cause and effect approximations, then what you are essentially saying (as I understand it) is that everything knowable in the universe is at best an approximation. Its an interesting theory, but I don't think you can say it is factual, though I am not opposed to such a theory. Newtonian physics is not proven "false" by any means. Because it does not apply on a microscopic level still does not make it false. I don't believe in "borrowed energy". The zero-point energy sea is an already existing realm of energy that the universe "draws" from. When a virtual particle appears, for example, i believe it arises from this already existing sea of energy. It is NOT coming from nothing. There is no "new energy" being added to the universe. I believe the newtonian law of thermodynamics stands solid....and is not an "approximation". I am inclined to say that if you are challenging the first law of thermodynamics, you have a burden of proof. YOu have to prove me that the zero point energy sea does not cause quantum events. And I just don't think you can do that. To say that all causes-->effects are approximation for me is to include randomness, that does not include causelessness. Randomness does not equal causelessness.

It is my belief that every so-called "uncaused" quantum event is arising from the ZPE which itself can be a causual agent. Not a one-to-one correpsondence, but a cause nontheless. Time shall see if I am proven wrong.

however, keep in mind, once one concludes "no cause exists" what reason do you have to keep searching? Only those who keep searching will find the answers. If you believe uncaused events happen, you have every right to. I do not like people saying uncaused events have been PROVEN, because that is just plain false and you are a smart guy, I think you know that. I believe there are no uncaused events in the universe. I think the burden of proof is on the one claiming they exist; as the rational default position is to assume that when I see an effect, there is a cause. If I cannot find a cause, then there is a relationship I do not understand. That is healthy science.

Jobar

xian:
). Now, if you call all macro cause and effect approximations, then what you are essentially saying (as I understand it) is that everything knowable in the universe is at best an approximation.

BINGO! By Jove, I think he's got it!

xian, that is just exactly what we have been trying to tell you. Some of our approximations are highly exact- we know various physical constants to extreme precision, but we cannot claim to know them exactly or absolutely.

I have seen that what you are searching for are absolutes- absolute knowledge, absolute power, absolute certainty. We are often told, by believers of all stripes, that we do not know everything, and thus cannot say we know *anything*. The first part is true- we do not, and can not, know everything. But the second part is false- because we CAN know things approximately, and we do in fact know many things to very high precision.

xian

i dont have a problem with that. in fact, i see it as evidence in my theistic viewpoint for a true freewill. aside from my theistic viewpoints, approximate knowledge of things in the universe does not equate to things happening without any cause.

and even more interesting is that the statement "we cannot know anything with absolute certainty" is a statement of absolute certainty.

Jobar

xian, I want to try to approach your question from an angle I haven't seen tried yet. You are trying to say that all effects must have causes. But, if you look at the observable universe, causes are seperable from effects only by the way we look at things. Our choices determine what is cause, and what is effect.

Let me try an example. You have before you a pool table, with the cueball and the 8. You take a cue, line up the shot, and put the 8-ball in a corner pocket. Simple.

Now, you can say that the impact of the cueball caused the 8 to go into the pocket. Impact = cause; 8-ball sunk =effect.

But that chain of cause and effect is highly constrained. In space, by the pool table; in time, by the few seconds the shot takes. If we pull our point of view back, we see that both the impact and the sinking of the 8-ball are both effects of your striking the cueball with the cue. Further back yet, and we see that the cause of you weilding the cue stick is the bet your friend made over a friendly game of pool. And back, and back, and back... what seem causes become effects.

It works the other way, too. Focus in, and effects become causes of further chains of events. You can shrink your frame of reference to the point where the Heisenberg uncertainty principle causes reality itself to blur, and you can no longer say, at that level, what is cause and what is effect. You cannot *see* it.

Now, let's pull back to the level of the entire universe. Can we say that all the universe is an effect of something? No! Because again, we cannot see it. We cannot really determine anything, if our frame of reference is either infinite, or infinitesimal.

It may be that this puts fundamental and insuperable limits upon our knowledge and abilities. I don't worry too much if this is so; after all, the zone of middle dimensions, where we can apply our frames of reference, extends from the size of electrons to the size of galactic clusters. We are a young race, and have only very recently begun to explore the vast regions we *can* conceive of, and work with.

(Added, after seeing your last post- let's say that we find this philosophical construct to be extremely probable. There are almost certainly no certainties. ) (Jobar, the Zen Physicist.)