Jobar

xian, you have not yet clarified how we limited and finite humans can possibly define a greatest (=infinite) possible being; but if you can claim to do so, and then believe that said being is the JCG, then we have precisely as much justification in believing said being is She Whose Hooves Are Never Shod.

And that is a statement of the *proper* Argument from the IPU(PBUHHH). Which you have but reinforced, seems to me.

Grumpy

Oops. xian asked for a definition pages ago. OP = Original Post (or Poster).

Along the same lines, I thought PBUHHH = Peace Be Upon Her Horsey Horn. Then again, I'm an Eastern Rite IPUist.

Carrying on with the most recent train of thought, why can't the Greatest Possible Being be called the Invisible Pink Unicorn, when it can be legitimately called the Judeo-Christian God? And why can't the GPB be called any other imaginable god (which is I guess what the IPU comparison is all about)? We've given them congruent properties, by definition.

Is it because not-pink > pink?
Surely not because visible > invisible, since the IPU and JCG share that attribute.

xian

well sure you can empirically say anything. I can empirically say that the earth is flat. That won't make it true.

well then you have a serious problem on your hands. The only way you can say "causeless" is if the locality principle is absolute (and even then it wouldn't be for sure, though you'd have a stronger case). But since you admit the locality principle is fiction, you can no longer say causeless with any rational basis. If communication is taking place, then a cause already exists.

and even still, you are leaving out another possible explanation and that is that "there is a reality separate from its observation." So yea, either information can travel faster than light, or there is another reality.

EITHER ANSWER does not negate the principal of causality. You are pulling this out of .......(where?)

I want you to do something for me.
I want you to cite a specific uncaused event. Tell me what exactly happens, briefly, that has been "proven" to have no cause.

"
"I honestly don't care whether it's possible to have a cause without an effect. "

ahhh but I think you do. You are being so adamant about it. I find that insistence peculiar given that all practical science requires the principal of causality to be assumed. Without that principal assumed, your computer wouldn't even work right now, let alone the wheel ever being invented. Suddenly Jesus turning water into wine begins to look pretty plausible, considering at least that event was caused!

your faith is great.

did you not pass the electron through a Stern-Gerlach apparatus with observation? This event was required for the effect to take place...was it not?

who are you to say this event is uncaused?

rational science proceeds in the following way:

IF
No cause Found,
THEN
Continue searching for a Cause


but what do you do?

IF
No Cause Found,
THEN
No Cause Exists!!


Man, I'm soooooooo glad scientists at Intel, Pfizer, Boeing, and Ford skipped that particular science class.

If causality is not to be assumed, then how do you know there is gravity in the Andromeda galaxy? How can you assume that? Sure the stars are moving, but who's to say they are being caused by anything? Did astrononmers assume the principle when they stated that all galaxies contain a supermassive black hole? Do you assume that principle when you start your car in the morning?

The ONLY scientists that do not assume causality are book writers. Scientists that actually contribute to science (and are real scientists) assume it....naturally!

the truth is that Bell's inequality does not show causeless events. It only shows that either the locality principle is false, or there is yet another reality beyond our observation.

Neither explanation equates to causeless.

That is the most supernatural claim of all. More supernatural than all of Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity put together.

but there is a clock. why do you think it is so predictable? how can you say absolutely there is no clock? How can you say that time itself is not a causual agent? What kind of scientist are you, to rule these out FIRST, and accept a causeless event?

Quantum physics is in its infancy.

You are talking like you are its master...like you are an ancient veteran of the quantuum world. Probably in 30 years you will see how little you truly knew. causeless is the last thing a scientist should look for.

tell you what: you atheists can just say "causeless" and stop looking for a cause. Let the theists then, continue the quest, and continue the discovery. While you have long given up, with empirically declaring "no cause exists" the theistic scientists will search for a cause and will end up finding it.


scientists like you who were around at the time of Galileo would have never invented a telescope. Who cares about searching for a cause when we can toss our hands in the air and declare empirically "NO CAUSE EXISTS".......and you ruled out the zero point energy sea? Did you rule out the possibility of another reality we cannot observe? Did you rule out simply something that we haven't found yet? And you already admitted the locality principle is not an absolute....that opens WIDE the door for numerous potential causes.

but no!!!

like a UFO seeker, you go for the most incredible exceptional explanation. The type of explanation that has historically hindered scientific progress: the supernatural one.


then don't start critizing a religious person for claiming miracles...since suddenly every single religious and supernatural claim now has natural merit in your world.



QUESTION:

which claim is more "supernatural?"

1. Water turning into wine (existing matter --> existing matter)

2. Things popping into existence uncaused ex-nihilo. (nothing --> existing matter)

K

xian:

You're out of your league in the physics department. You might want to learn just a little bit about the most successful theory in physics before you go spouting on about it.

xian

lol! sweeping generalization. appeal to authority. strawman.

how many fallacies can you commit in 2 sentences?

p.s. is "dodge" a fallacy too? if so, that would make 4.

Colander of Truth

I think that's a stretch.

Lobstrosity

I thought you were opposed to ad hominems, Xian, and yet hear you are hypocritically making statements against me rather than addressing the issues at hand. I had hoped for a bit more tact. Anyway, as I said, if you wish to continue this in more depth, please take it to the Science forum. I will not respond to the majority of your statements here.

I will, however, briefly respond to your last question about which is more supernatural. First off, any physicist you ask will tell you that particles are constantly popping into and out of existence ex niliho in any vacuum. This is the current picture of our universe and there's nothing supernatural about it. Sure, it's strange, but strange != supernatural. Furthermore, I have absolutely no problem with Jesus' turning water into wine. Why does that need to be supernatural? Show me empirical evidence such a process and self-consistent theoretical calculations that could explain the process and I'll believe it. Hell, scientists have shown that it's possible to turn one element into another--they do it all the time using either radioactive decay or particle accelerators. Science is not about rejecting what is strange and counterintuitive. It is about going where the evidence takes us. Quantum is strange. It would blow your mind if you actually understood it. It's far stranger than the idea that Jesus turned water into wine. The only difference between the two is that one is an allegory whereas the other has a self-consistent theoretical basis which has stood up to a century of empirical scrutiny. Allegories don't cut it in the evidence department. So yes, while quantum might seem to the lay-man to be "supernatural," I can assure you that it is wholly natural.

You ask what kind of scientist I am? I'm the kind of scientist who has spent the last ten years studying what is known about quantum mechanics, amongst other areas of physics. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about and I've thought this through quite thoroughly. None of your pointed out objections are even remotely valid and simply serve to set up a straw man which you then proceed to knock down, which makes me want to ask: what kind of scientist are you? You clearly have a very limited understanding of the EPR paradox (for example, "information" cannot actually be communicated between two entangled states. This finding resolved the "paradox" long ago; thus relativity is not being violated in any way), which leads me to wonder just how much of your grandstanding is based on actual knowledge. Further more, you state that quantum is in its infancy when it has actually been around for nearly a century. It has well surpassed its infancy by this point. Perhaps you can post in the Science forum exactly how logic forbids a probabilistic foundation for the physical world (hint, it actually doesn't, but I'm curious to hear your reasoning since you seem desperate to cast of our current findings and continue frantically searching for causal agents). I don't mean to sound condescending (though I don't feel too bad about saying this since you opened the door), but far more intelligent and knowledgeable people than you have pondered the ramifications of a probabilistic, acausal foundation for the microscopic world and have concluded that such a foundation is perfectly within reason.

Colander of Truth

ad hominem

Jinto

Please look up "empirically" in the dictionary.

Not at all. You seem to think that einstein's "spooky action at a distance" can cover anything. Sorry, wrong! It only applies to two or more particles in a quantum superposition, which has precisely jack to do with the examples I cited.

Since no meaningful information is communicated, this does not result in a paradox. As for the presence of alternate reality, if it is truly seperate from observation, then it cannot have observable effects and is therefore irrelevant. If it has observable effects, then it can be observed through those effects. It's as simple as that.

What principle of causality? You mean the one that says "everything except my God has to have a cause?" Sorry, but that is not logically consistent, it contradicts empirical evidence, and just does not make sense.

I gave you three. You didn't even bother to see what they were.

Actually, science does not ASSUME causality, it is always up to the researcher to demonstrate it, either from empirical or theoretical data.

BTW, I should point out that without spontaneous events, even God can't be the first cause. I'm hoping you can guess the reason, but if you really need me to tell you, I will.

He did not say that the collapse into a specific spin state was uncaused, he said that the collapse into that specific spin state was uncaused; there was no way, EVEN IN THEORY, that the outcome of the event could have been predicted.

Admittedly, I prefer examples that rely a little less on semantics, hence my selection of radioactive decay, vaccum fluctuation, and quantum tunneling.

Actually, his position rests on the fact that exceptions to causality can be derived from a theory which has proven to be incredibly accurate in spite of its counterintuitivity. Just as you believe that exceptions to locality can be derived from a different part of the same theory.

This isn't a case of saying that an event has no obvious cause, therefore it has no cause. It's a case of the very theory which predicted the event telling us it has no cause.

The observed events are consistent with a known cause. But if I may engage in a little philosophy: what the hell do you mean when you say "cause?" Logically, you are referring to an event X such that for every X, there is an effect, Y (Y being a seperate and distinct event from X). Classical veiws also require that X be spatially and temporally proximate to Y, and that Y always be subsequent to X, but quantum mechanics throws those assumptions out the window. One of the predictions of causality is that there will always be a correlation between X and Y. Therefore, if the probability of Y is not correlated to any event (easy to prove by showing that this probability remains constant with time regardless of surrounding conditions, as has already been done with radioactive materials), Y must be by definition causeless, regardless of your philosophical assumptions.

Do you have a point here, or just an ad hominem?

That's not what it shows at all. Even in the most absic simplification, it shows that either locality is false, or events do not happen until they are observed, niether of which have anything to do with your phantom reality.

The probability of a single decay remains constant with time, if tehre was a clock then a bunch of radioactive material all formed at the same time would all decay at the same time.

This is interesting: not only do you make false accusations, but you also admit that your own philosophy is in direct opposition to scientific progress.

Check the facts: spontanaety does not violate occam's razor. You God does (which is why he should switch to gilette).

The latter, as it has been OBSERVED.

xian

no they wont.

if you are referring to virtual particles...sorry, they are not ex-hiliho. They come from the background zero point energy sea- a rich energy realm that even has potential to be mined. They are not popping in from nothing. Zero point energy *IS SOMETHING*. sorry. nice try.

face it, you WANT things coming into existence from nothing.

just don't say anything to Mr. James Rhandi. he'll be out a million bucks



if you spent 10 years in quantuum physics, its bizzarre that you would make such a dubious claim.

I'm sure you have a lot of respect for Harold Putthoff, no? I'm sure you know all about him, if indeed you are a quantum scientist. He is only the guy that discovered virtual particles.

I think its time you read what he has to say about them. How they do not violate the principle of causality or conservation of energy.



Either you are intentionally trying to mislead people

or you really do not know what you are talking about.

"any physicist you ask will tell you that particles are constantly popping into and out of existence ex niliho in any vacuum"

there is no such "any vaccuum"...ther is only a quantuum vaccum. no one has ever created a classical vaccum.

second, "any physicist you ask" is utterly false. particles are NOT popping into existence ex-nihlo.

where...o where do you get this stuff?

sure, take it on the science forum, but from what I've heard so far, this all belongs on the religion forum.