Infidelettante

Xtian, the movement of the universe is so very simple to explain. Goddess in her aspect as Crone stirs all creation in her cauldron both creating and detroying all things in turn. Naturally this motion is transfered to the galaxies. We have her to thank for the blessing of existence. BTW, as Mother God she gave birth to your God and he has been a very, very naughty boy.

There will come a time when she will punish him for his pride, let there be no doubt of that. She will humiliate him before all creation and he will confess his sins against us. Then will he know that he is no greater that what he claims to have created. He is no better than us. No better than a willful child who, in his play pretends to be what his is not and throws a tantrum when reminded of his true nature.

I think this so much more colorful than your myth. And Goddess as Prime Mover or First cause makes more sense as it is true that all living things comes to us from females.

JT

Jinto

Wow. I don't think I've seen such incoherence since the last time I visited Rapture Ready.

Xian, as a general rule, it is not good to accuse your opponent of an Ad hom if you don't know what it is.

At least when we throw terms around, we bother to aim, as opposed to simply repeating the mantra "all events have to have a cause." To quote you: "says WHO? Since when did you know ALL THE TRUTH of the universe? Did Guth put you up to this? Prove it!"

Again, let me brief you on how science works. Observed: objects tend to keep moving with the same velocity unless acted upon by an outside force. Observed: massive bodies exert a force on other massive bodies, which we call gravity. Observed: the stars in the Andromeda galaxy are experiencing an acceleration.

Possible conclusions:

1. Newton's laws of motion do not hold in the Andromeda galaxy.
2. Newton's laws are just a persistant illusion that just happens to be obeyed in EVERY SINGLE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE CONTRIVED AS A TEST.
3. Quantum uncertainty is being manifested on the macroscopic level in an orderly fashion.
4. Angels are guiding the paths of the stars in the andromeda galaxy.
5. The stars in andromeda are under the influence of gravity.

#1 implies that the laws of physics vary from place to place, a phenomenon which has never been observed and has never become nessecary to explain anything, and is therefore neatly eliminated by occam's razor.

#2 The odds of this happening if there was not some reality to the laws of physics are... let's just say, if you accept this as true, then you also accept that the universe could return to nothing at any moment, because every thing in it and the relationships between those things are just stubborn illusions.

#3 This is a known phenomenon, but as I shoed in my earlier post, the odds of it accouting for the motions of stars in the Andromeeda galaxy (or ANY macroscopic phenomenon) are so low as to be practically nonexistant.

#4 Clearly an ad hoc hypothesis, and also removed by occam's razor.

#5 Is a rational explanation that requires no new phenomena, since mass and gravity are already known to exist, and stars are already known to have them. Clearly, it is the logical choice.

Baka. I could turn that around: "I can see why you are so attached to the nonexistence of uncaused events... it's a bit scary to open your mind to the possibility that the universe doesn't need a cause any more than your God, and I can completely understand why some might be reluctant to abandon reason and all practical science to lay hold of deities, which is equivalent to professing the occult. I understand why you cry "goddidit" when you don't like science's explanations... it brings comfort to your thinking that finally that troubling thought of the universe not needing a cause can be put to rest... so who needs to abandon faith anymore?"

But of course, I have too much class to participate in needless ad hominems.

Actually, the million bucks is for someone who can demonstrate a SUPERnatural event: this is a completely natural phenomenon.

And you have an annoying tactic of asking for "absolute proof of a negative" which flies in the face of occam's razor. Tell me, when are you going to realize that "absolute proof" is a standard by which I cannot even prove that you exist?

(Yes, I know you you might try "Cognito ergo sum", but unfortunately there is no proof of the premise).

I have not considered the possibility that something could be something other than what it is defined as, tell me how you would support this ludicrous proposition.

Actually, it's only scientists who assume that time travel is impossible that make that claim. This is because if communication of meaningful information were possible between space-like separated events, then from at least one reference frame that communication would appear to move backwards in time.

However, if you are referring to quantum entanglement, then it has already been proven that if FTL communication is possible, then that is not a method through which it could be accomplished, because there is no way, even in theory, to control the information content of either particle.

Bell's theorem: there are no hidden variables that could possibly accout for the effects of an alternate reality on this one.

Time cannot be a causal agent, because otherwise radioactive decay rates would be affected by when the atoms in question were generated. ZPE is not a "thing," just an abstract term for the energy carried by virtual particles, and therefore cannot possibly cause anything.

Let's see... lack of hidden variables pretty much proves that there is no trigger for any of these events. But since you want a causal agent so bad, I'll humor you: these things were caused by probability. And probability is a simple manifestation of statistics, which is a simple manifestation of math, which is a simple manifestation of logic, which must exist necessarily, and therefore probability is a necessary cause. Therefore, the universe must exist, and your god is unnessecary.

The example lobstrosity just cited here has nothing to do with quantum entanglement. Perhaps a review of your physics textbook is in order?

No, because spontaneous events have a finite probability of occurring, and that probability can be calculated. That probability is so low for any macroscopic event that we can reasonably expect macroscopic events to obey causality.

And empirical evidence suggests that making stramen and arguments from incredulity does not constitue good debate tactics.

The funny thing is that for all the claims of ad hominems you claim, you are the one who is spouting most of them.

Of course, you want to say that uncaused events can't exist, so a whole fricking uncaused OMNIPOTENT BEING has to exist. Do you see the illogic here?

So do we.

And the ones who understand quantum mechanics will be the ones who decrypt every single classified document in every computer on Earth and thereby gain the ability to take over the world.

The real difference between me and you is: when I see an uncaused event, I call it an uncaused event. You say it was caused by another uncaused event which doesn't need a cause because it is so much MORE improbable than the entire universe. Huh?

Jinto

Abiogenesis is MORE improbable than the maintained macroscopic motion of an entire galaxy without gravity? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.... Thanks, I needed that.

(Um, he's not serious is he?)

Aethari

Maybe a bit late in the coming, but hopefully I can (concisely) address xian's question...

"Why do we assume causality?"

Well, xian, I think the answer is pretty straightforward: we assume that Andromeda is made up of essentially the same 'stuff' as the Earth. We assume causality exists because we believe that since Andromeda is merely a different-ordered collection of the same types of 'things' which make up the Earth, that the 'things' at Andromeda will have the same basic properties as the 'things' on Earth.

That's the layman's explanation.

If we wanted to give a more styled argument:

1) The Earth is made up of fundamental particles whose properties are closely approximated by mathematical relations. (Physical theories.)
2) We believe Andromeda is made up of the same fundamental particles with the same basic properties as what we see on Earth.
3) Based upon what we know of how the particles on Earth operate, we are led to think that the motion of Andromeda can only be explained by way of cause.

Moreoever, we don't even have a *choice* about assuming causality. Uncaused action is the last decision science *ever* wants to make, because to assume it at any other point undermines the method. (That is, to say "Well, we don't really know why X happens, so we'll conclude X is uncaused." is not scientific. By that token, scientists obviously aren't going to say it.)

~Aethari

xian

you know, i actually kinda liked that response. you have just shown me some honesty in atheism! i believe, though I cannot prove (yet I believe)... that all atheists assume causality.....not all atheists admit it. and it goes without saying that its the scientists who look for causes that will build the machines.

Lobstrosity

You sound like a fun guy--I can appreciate your sense of humor at times. I think we could really get along if you would learn to treat others as equals instead of constantly treating them as inferiors. If you could keep the condescension out of your posts and realize that other people also know things (maybe even things you are not currently familiar with), it would go a long way towards keeping these debates civil. I would be interested in debating you were it not for your proclivity to insult the person rather than address the issues coupled with your tendency to whine when others respond in kind. I admit, my previous post contained a small number of lightly-veiled jabs (two, if I remember right), but merely because you opened the door when you felt it necessary to tell me what I want, what I need, that I'm a bad scientist, and what I am and am not likely to do in life (e.g. I would never have invented the telescope, I the kind of person who would see UFOs, etc) even though I honestly have no idea what you're talking about in this regard (fortunately I don't really care, so this doesn't bother me). Would it at all be possible to drop the hostilities and simply have a friendly discussion on this issue? Can we try to show each other a modicum of respect? I'm perfectly willing to do so if you are.

Once again, I still maintain that you have neglected to define the word "caused" and seem to be demonstrating a lack of understanding as to what the theory of quantum mechanics actually implies. Remember, I'm simply taking the point of view that there are no hidden variables, which necessarily implies a certain level of uncertainty in all quantum processes. Specifically, you cannot know two non-commuting observables exactly at the same time because right now quantum theory tells us they do not actually exist simultaneously. Experiments the test the Bell inequalities actually show this, which is why I currently take the view point that this most likely to be the correct one. As Einstein might have said were he alive to see the results of these experiments, it seems God does play dice with the universe. This is what I mean when I say things aren't truly "caused" in the classical sense. This says nothing about anything's popping from nothing out of a void. The "void" is an undefined entity which you make up. You hypothesize that there's a "void" that exists outside of space time in which our universe popped into existence. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. Maybe there is no such thing as a void. Maybe the seed of our universe was always here, eternal just like your God. Who's to say--at this point we have no idea. Maybe our universe "popped" from something that exists in a void which isn't really a void but is instead full of "void vacuum energy." Maybe our universe is an elementary particle of some uber-universe. There are quite a few possible explanations we could come up with were we to speculate on it. I make no claims as to the beginning of the universe. I know you think I want to discard causation because that frees me to view the creation of the universe in a secular light. I honestly swear to you that this is not the case. To me the origin of the universe is a great unknown and I am not willing to speculate on the physics that might have generated it beyond saying that I see no need at this point to assume intelligence had anything to do with it. As such, when I learned the implications of quantum mechanics I had not even considered that such notion would allow for the spontaneous creation of the universe.

From the way you talk, I'm sure you've at least had courses in science and math, which means you must clearly understand the concept of approximations. For example, sin x is approximately x for x << 1. (1 + e)^n is approximately 1 + ne for e << 1. These are all examples of approximations and they are quite useful, so it might be a tad bit mellowdramatic to call them "completely false." I don't think it's quite as black and white as that. Another example is Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics is an excellent approximation of the "truth," whatever that may be, because it describes most observed gravitational phenomena extremely accurately. It is so accurate that we can use Newtonian physics to send satellites to distant planets using highly-complicated sling-shotting maneuvers. However, we know that Newtonian physics is not correct. It though it's a close approximation in many regimes, it provides a false picture of our universe (perhaps this is what you mean when you call it fully false?). For example, Newtonian physics cannot explain the orbit of Mercury. So along comes GR, which is qualitatively quite different from Newtonian mechanics, however it reduces to Newtonian mechanics in under more familiar situations. This is what one means by "an excellent approximation." Most people can use Newtonian mechanics without having any idea that their worldview is incorrect because it works so well under most situations. Similarly, most people can use classical physics and classical notions of causation simply because it works so well under most common situations. The problem is that classical physics, though an excellent approximation, still provides an incorrect worldview. So is quantum the truly correct way to view things? Well, maybe, or maybe it's just another better approximation of the truth that provides a similarly incorrect worldview. I understand this is entirely possible. But the fact remains that we have no evidence as of yet that it is incorrect, nor to we have any evidence as to how it might be inaccurate. The best thing to do at this time is to accept the theory as it is (i.e. as a self-consistent, incredibly well-tested theory) while keeping ever-vigilant for empirical data that might falsify the claims of quantum and lead us to a newer, better theory.

Once again, I'm all about searching for answers to things. I love the idea of solving the mysteries of science. The reason why I'm not currently searching for hidden variables is because not only does theory currently tell us there can be none, but experiments confirm this view as expected. On top of this, I have no fundamental problem with the idea of no hidden variables, just like I have no problems with the idea that two masses attract via gravity. This view poses no logical problems. It leads to no paradoxes. It has no inconsistencies. So I don't just simply reject the theory and the empirical data, I take the data, I look at it, and I say "hmm, well that's a mighty convincing argument you've got there." If we reject the idea of no hidden variables, then why not also reject Maxwell's equations? And what about special relativity while we're at it...it's a clearance sale, everything must go! I'm all for broadening our knowledge horizons and looking for the truth, but this doesn't mean rejecting everything we find that seems counterintuitive. This seems to be your only basis for clinging to local realism (although if I'm wrong in this assessment, please let me know--I only take this position because you haven't actually explained to me what's wrong with the current state of quantum physics).

Once again, I say nothing about things appearing from "nothing" since I don't even know what nothing is. I do not adhere to the tenets of quantum mechanics as a way to explain the origins of the universe, since the idea of an unintelligent "god" who craps out universes from some other realm is just as appealing to me as the idea that our universe started as a quantum seed that "radioactively" decayed (whatever that might mean). I also don't claim to know for a fact that no intelligent God was behind creation--I just don't view that as necessarily likely.

You got it, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you because I don't see it happening any time soon.

I do not ask this to be condescending--it's really an honest question: have you actually studied quantum mechanics? Could you actually explain to me what logical problems you have with the idea of non-commuting operators and the uncertainty principles that arise from them? I truly truly want to know. I know you'll keep looking, and that's fine, but what I want to know is what makes you believe that there's something more to it than what quantum currently predicts? Are you also looking to prove special relativity false by showing that things can travel faster than the speed of light? What about showing that Maxwell's equations are really incorrect?

I have tremendous reason to believe in what has been objectively demonstrated and can be repeatably demonstrated over and over again. However I do not maintain that any of this is absolute truth and I am willing to change my beliefs should new contradictory evidence arise. That's the beauty of science--it's an ever-changing asymptotic approach to the truth. Ain't it grand? But I'm glad this inspires you, especially if it helps you to be a better scientist.

Yes, this is why I've begun referring to "classical causation." Since we have not operationally defined what we're talking about, I felt it was far to general to say that "causation" is fiction. Classical causation says that a specific outcome was caused by a specific...well, cause. If you apply that exact same cause again to that exact same state you will get the exact same outcome. Quantum physics says this is not true. Might quantum physics be wrong in this regard? Sure, but before I believe so you need to provide me with a theory that includes local realism that can fully replace quantum physics. You do that and you earn a nobel prize and my undying adoration. You do that and I'll have to admit that maybe classical causation is a universal truth no matter what the size scale.

Currently, yes. Communication faster than light means we need to throw out all of relativity, since that is one of the laws of the theory. Given the success of relativity, it's hard to justify completely junking it. If you can come up with an alternate theory that makes all the same predictions except allows for faster than light travel, then nobel prize and undying adoration and all that junk. Basically, I reject faster than light communication because it results in clear-cut logical paradoxes. If you can communicate faster than the speed of light, I can mathematically demonstrate that you can receive a response from someone to a communication you haven't sent yet. This would be quite strange, to say the least--far stranger than the idea of no local realism (in my opinion).

I have not ruled out anything. Hell, superstring theory predicts ten (or is it eleven now?) total dimensions (not including time), which I could see calling "alternate realities." I don't understand what it means for time to be a causal agent, anymore than I understand what it means for position to be a causal agent. Sure, I guess you could use that terminology, but I think it becomes mere semantics at that point.

I didn't say anything about quantum entanglement besides the fact that you cannot use it to communicate information. You brought it up with your mentioning of the EPR paradox. It is true that it was the EPR paradox that led to the development of the Bell inequalities, however. Einstein thought that the particles must have definite attributes at their creation because otherwise how would they know what states to collapse into? It just turned out he was incorrect in his assumptions.

There's no need to turn this discussion into an attack on atheism just like I won't use it to attack Christianity. There's a plethora of religious scientists out there who would tell you the same things I'm telling you.

Once again, we first have to define cause. I don't proclaim that events happen purely at random with no laws behind them. Even in quantum mechanics there are probability distributions governing the behavior of ensemble averages. You can still make predictions and carry out experiments. There's no supernatural mystery there (other than the fact that God is playing dice with us ). Believe me, I'm not saying that I'm content to stop searching for anything. The question is what to search for. Quantum mechanics does not lead to any logical inconsistencies regarding causation. If you think it does, please enlighten me as to what these inconsistencies are. The locality principle is in no way needed. As such, I'm just curious why you have the need to reject quantum mechanics in search for something else. I honestly believe this is due to the fact that you're being led by intuition (and intuition is hardly valid in the quantum regime), though I admit I could be wrong.

Dominus Paradoxum

What xian is disputing here is called "the principle of induction", and what you are all doing here is trying to prove the principle of induction inductively, something Hume showed to be vain a long time ago. I would say that the big bang probably does reqire a cause, but we have no reason to believe that cause would be anything like a personal agent. You know, xian, there are alternative conceptions as to why the universe exists. You should try reading Spinoza's Ethics

Dominus Paradoxum

P.S. : Incidentally, for all you physics-buffs out their, I hope you realize that quantum mechanics doesn't necessairily entail random events. If fact, the only interpretation which does so -the copenhagen interpretation- is now almost universally held to be false. Unfortunately, through Heisenburg, the theory was tainted by positivism, but we now have no reason to believe that there is anything "special" about "measurements". The two chief competing interpretations; the Everett interpretation and The Bohmian interpretation, are both thoroughly deterministic.

VonEvilstein

Xian,

I'm still waiting for you to admit you're throwing all of mechanics in the trash.

A theory of mechanics that will also provide a mechanism for unforced accelleration would net the prize, the glory and the undying adulaiton, too, you know.

Until then, F = m*a will continue to be as accurate as most of us are ever likely to need.

xian

i'm still waiting for you to admit you're throwing all logic and natural science in the trash.


LOBSTROSITY: It is 12:09 am here. I'm going to respond to you w/o adhominem tomorrow sometime. for now, i'm too tired and you posted too much for me to spend the 2 hours necessary to respond. plz dont consider it a dodge, i'll respond tomorrow.

Hussein going down soon too....that has kind of captured some of my mental energy and attention.