xian

even in all your supernatural explanations, you are still assuming a cause. Curious, why are you assuming a cause at all?

Jinto

It probably has something to do with the improbability of this occuring spontaneously.

Do a calculation for me:

Compute the improbability of a single proton maintaining a constant change of velocity within the confines of conservation laws and quantum uncertainty [b]without[b] being acted upon by an outside force. Keep in mind that the proton is a massive particle and will therefore have a very small uncertainty in its position.

Now, compute the same improbability for an entire atomic nucleus. This is not simple multiplication, as you have to factor in the strong nuclear force as well.

Now, multiply by the number of atomic nuclei in a star (it's a big number).

Now, multiply by the number of stats in the andromeda galaxy.

That's a big number isn't it?

I think you see now why spontaneous random events cannot be expected to happen on the macroscopic level.

Psycho Economist

Inertia. A body (any thing big enough and small enough for classical physics to apply... which includes atoms, molecules, stars and galaxies) will stay in rectilinear motion with constant velocity (including velocity = 0) until acted upon by an outside force (e.g. gravitational force, strong nuclear force, electromagnetic force).

xian

what kind of observation requires a "necessary cause?"

we observe stars moving at the center of our own galaxy. Many scientists have assumed those whirling stars need a cause, thus the proposition of a supermassive blackhole. Are they not in error for assuming causation? When you see something in motion, is it not a scientific blunder to just assume something caused it?

but the same behavior we observe here (stars spinning in the center of our galaxy, and moving around our galaxy) begs the same question: why do you assume it is being caused by anything? We haven't even "proven" gravity is causing our stars to move. Is it not bad science to assume that motion is being caused? Also, the galaxies are moving apart. What kind of scientist would just assume that galaxies moving apart = initial force? That is making an assumption that the motion of the galaxies was caused. Sounds like fishy science to me.

As the scottish fallacy would say: "No True Scientist Would Assume Causation for Anything!"

ok ok, so there are indeed scientists who assume causation, but are they not being sort of...well...foolish to do so?

thats just the thing...you are assuming something is holding the stars together! Why do the positions and movements of the stars need a cause? You are implying that there is a cause for those motions, when you have no evidence to suggest they need one.

But give me a reason why we should assume that what we observe over there needs a cause? Heck we see things moving right here in our own galaxy, and yet I see no reason to think why those movements should be caused by anything.

xian

this is all irrelevant. we are not dealing with the uncertainty principle. we are dealing with the principle of causality. since when do uncaused events obey mathematical laws? the universe itself seems pretty macroscopic to me, and I wager that more than a few atheists in here think the universe is just one giant effect. if something occurs from the void, how can you subject it to a probability?

you are also assuming those stars must be spinning and maintaining velocity according to pure uncertainty....which is still assuming causation.

"what is the probability of an uncaused event occuring ex-nihlo in a void after 1 minute? 1 hour? 1 day?" you cannot answer that question....or do you have the answer?

Oolon Colluphid

Uniformitarianism. Since you like the Scots, it was James Hutton who proposed that natural stuff that goes on now is pretty likely to have done so in the past. And if here, then there too, unless there's a reason to think otherwise. Since not thinking otherwise -- there being no reason to do so -- provides a useful, parsimonious explanation, that's what we go with.

So, I repeat PE's question: Give me some reason to think gravity (which we can empirically detect here, whether we believe in it or not) is not at work over there. Otherwise, since it fits with what we see, we can safely assume that's what it is.

TTFN, DT

xian

oopss, repeated my post, sorry

VonEvilstein

Change in movement requires force. If you are going to dispute this, please have some alternative to Newtonian and Einsteinian mechanics ready at hand, that can account for all the observed evidence, and this new notion of forceless acceleration (=change of movement). Even if not every event would need a cause, acceleration most certainly does.
Gravity fits the bill for being said force - using gravitational formulae, and enough time, you could work out the details of the objects within Andromeda a thousand years in the future. To verify, you could cut off your head, after signing the contract with the cryogenics people, and (hopefully) be revived just in time to see your predictions come true.
Thats the main reason we suspect it's gravity - the observations match the predictions. If it isn't gravity, it's doing a damn good impression of gravity!
Now, given that a change in movement requires a force to being acting on the moving body, and the movement (with its change) matches what our knowledge of gravity predicts, have you got anything any better to suggest?

xian

this assumes causation.

why are you assuming that?

VonEvilstein

Because it has been demonstrated to be the case. If you dispute this, admit you are disputing the whole of mechanics, and then try to figure out how a motor car might possibly work.