Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

String theory portal to another universe?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Skeptical mathematician Peter Woit warns us, in jest, that 11/11/11, some date coming up on which you probably have some real-world crap due, could be a “Portal to Another Universe?”:

According to World News Forecast, 11:11am on 11/11/11 could, if Uri Geller is right, be a portal to another universe. This is from Geller’s web-page on the subject:

I find this to be interesting since this theory is supposed to explain the universe! The first eleven that was noticed is that string theory has to have 11 parallel universes (discussed in the beginning of the “11.11″ article) and without including these universes, the theory does not work.

The second is that Brian Greene has 11 letters in his name.

Well, it is hard to imagine anything more convincing. And what does that say about string theory in general now that nobody found the Higgs boson?

Comments
RH7: Pardon, but could you please cite for us what is on case d, and then identify the key distinction between a sufficient cluster of causal factors and a necessary causal factor? (The simple fire triangle should be enough for this.) We need not know a sufficient much less a necessary and sufficient cluster of causal factors, to know that something has causal factors and is not a-causal. In the case of a radioactive nucleus, it must first exist, in space and time, and perhaps must be in an excited state -- I think particularly of Gamma decay here -- for radioactive decay to happen. These are all necessary factors, even trivially so in some cases. So, I do not need to demonstrate a sufficient causal cluster for atom x, so that at t1, it will decay, not t2 etc. Nope, I have already shown that under certain prior conditions, we have a population X where each atom xi has a certain probability of decay such that dX/dt = - l*X. This is what of course leads to the classic exponential decay curve. Next, relatively speaking, there are but few things of importance that we can know with certainty, but there are many things we can and do know with high -- and open-minded -- confidence. On pain of immediate and palpable absurdity, 2 + 3 = 5. But, laws of science, historical explanations, or evidence that eh book keeper has been embezzling, etc etc cannot make that grade. However for many of these things we can have sufficient confidence that we would be irresponsible to treat them as false, i.e we have moral certainty. That is why I speak sometimes of strong-form knowledge as warranted, true belief, and contrast weak-form workaday knowledge: reasonably warranted, credibly true belief. The latter is provisional, but may be to moral certainty. If you object that I am using weak-form knowledge claims in my reasoning, of course. So are you, so is science. If we were to banish such weak form knowledge, science and civilisation would collapse. So would most businesses. In short, you have an incoherence in your view of knowledge that is leading you to selective hyperskepticism in what you will accept and what you want to demand an unreasonably high degree of warrant for. Remember, in talking about necessary causal factors, I have invited you and others to do the match exercise, a concrete, easily replicated experiment. (It is interesting onlookers, how evasive objectors have been on this exercise for months now.) As to your turnabout accusation that I have a priori decided as to how the universe MUST operate, the match exercise should show that I have instead practically investigated how it DOES reliably operate, and in so doing, I have asked a few further questions than are usual in such experiments. namely, I have explicitly used a frame of thought of inference to best abductive explanation, on factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power; indeed it is what I have actually taught when I taught about the nature and limits of science, cf here. This happens to be the underlying logic of science, and it happens to be inherently open-ended, as there is a counter-flow between the direction of logical implication and that of empirical support. As I have explicitly said, taught, linked and even cited. In short, you have repeatedly set up and knocked over a strawman, in the teeth of easily accessible corrective evidence. When you go on to accuse me of taking an absolutist view, the problem with that claim is that it is so full of ambiguities. Do you mean by that that you reject my holding that something A cannot at the same time and in the same sense be NOT-A? Of course I hold that, as does any person who wishes to be coherent. When I wrote this sensence I do not at the same time mean its opposite. And if you want to highlight ambiguous cases like Scroedinger's poor cat with the vial of poison triggered by an alpha source, we do not know the cat's state until we open the box. All that means is that we are inherently limited and should not speak beyond our limits. Quantum states show superpositions that may resolve stochastically from a population, but these states are not acausal: you need cat, chamber, prussic acid vial [or on Einstein's variant, bag of gunpowder -- but then the bang would be an immediate observation!], GM counter tube, trigger mechanism and RA sample for the experiment. BTW, see how a simple substitution changes everything: no sustained superposition of uncertain states! So long as the tube is quiet the cat is alive. If there is a bang, it is dead, no ambiguity, because no ignorance. We could not predict when such a transition would occur, but we sure can detect that it occurs in the gunpowder variant case. (In short, the prussic acid vial mechanism is a key necessary causal factor in the case to get the superposition, precisely because it would be silent. And, precisely because we are facing a state detection problem as limited observers.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus
October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT
kairosfocus, Case d fails with respect to radioactive decay. Either there is no cause, or the cause is beyond the artificial limits you imposed upon it. To put it another way, using science, please demonstrate what it is that causes radioactive decay to occur at time t1 versus t2, t3, etc. Also, please demonstrate that backwards causation is definitively incorrect. Your view, no matter how you rationalize it, is built on assumption of things we can not know with absolute certainty. Thus repeating the same arguments ad nauseum will never resolve the dilemma. The problem is that you have decided a priori how the universe and beyond must work, and that any view that differs must be wrong. While I do agree that you could be correct, so could any number of other arguments which have as much validity as yours. Furthermore, you seem to think that the assumptive foundation of metaphysics is either a crack-pot idea of my own making or a fringe view within philosophy, when, if anything, the absolutist position you have taken is the problem.rhampton7
October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT
rham, "Any first cause is a self-referential (scientific) paradox, and if we presume that the first cause must be God, that introduces another metaphysical assumption, and another round of argumentation." There are no scientific paradoxes, which don't first begin with metaphysical paradoxes. Nothing from nothing is a metaphysical paradox. WLC states that it is intuitively absurd to believe that nothing can come from nothing because of what nothing is - it is an absolute - absolute nothingness would mean just that - no matter (a given), no energy, no mind, no elements, no information, no rationale from which anything can be conceived, no quantum mechanics, no science, no philosophy, no God, no beliefs, nothing. It's the absence of anything. That's what he means by nothing. If anything could come out of nothing, it wouldn't be nothing, but something. It's not an issue of a scientific paradox, but a metaphysical paradox. Science cannot violate what is metaphysically possible. Otherwise science itself would be absurd and we couldn't do it. A first cause is not a metaphysical paradox, but a metaphysical necessity. Science has nothing to do with establishing it, but science must adhere to what is metaphysically necessary. You can do science without believing that, but ultimately science is not a law unto itself. It must adhere to reason. Those who don't believe in God still believe that science must adhere to reason. They might not believe that God is metaphysically necessary, but I believe that given that God is metaphysically necessary and therefore the very beginning of reason, all reality must adhere to reason. As such, science, which investigates reality must adhere to reason. The theist of course goes a step further than the non-theist in insisting that science must adhere also to what is metaphysically necessary. Science, therefore cannot deny the existence of God. Most scientists would agree that you cannot prove that God does not exist scientifically, since the existence of God could be (and is) a metaphysical question that lies outside of and above science. A first cause is also not self-referential. It is referential to the existence of contingency. A first cause cannot be contingent; therefore it is necessary. So it's not self-referential, but referential to everything that exists other than itself. If there is contingency there must also be necessity. You cannot have an infinite chain of contingent causes. That is what is a metaphysical paracox, and therefor absurd. The claim that the first cause must be God is not at all an assumption, but stems logically from all that must be if we think logically about what would be the nature of a first cause given what we already know about what exists. When we piece together all that the first cause must be we find that the things pertaining to who God is are the same.CannuckianYankee
October 30, 2011
October
10
Oct
30
30
2011
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT
I was born on 11/11. My name is Steve Proulx (the shor, English translation anyway). There are eleven letters in this version of my name. OK, seriously now. Will I be transported to another universe that day? Will I need some kind of spiritual or other tether? Btw, I will be taking the day off on that day so I will report back if I experience anything unusual.Steve
October 30, 2011
October
10
Oct
30
30
2011
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT
RH7 (& Onlookers): Re:
that’s the problem. Not only can we not determine the outcome, we can not definitively know the cause . . . [highlights added]
Let us mark key distinctions:
a: Knowing that -- per identified necessary causal factors -- that something, X, is subject to causal influences, vs. b: Knowing a sufficient set of causal factors that WILL cause X, vs. c: Knowing the necessary and sufficient cluster of causal factors for X, vs. d: Knowing a sufficient set of causal circumstances in which a distribution of cases Y occurs, in which we may observe some y1, or y2, or y3, etc. That is, we have a sufficient causal framework for a stochastic process from population Y of possibilities, that will lead to some outcome from the population, and thus may lead to observed samples y1, y2, etc that in turn may help us model Y.
Case a is the necessary causal factor case, it identifies enabling factors that PERMIT or ENABLE but do not FORCE the occurrence of X. Cases b or c, by contrast, are sufficient to FORCE -- determine -- that an event X will occur. Case c is more stringent yet: it is a cluster that must be met in any situation that X occurs. Case d is sufficient, not for any given yk, but to set up a stochastic sampling from Y. In any of cases a - d, causes are at work, perhaps through mechanisms that we have not elucidated, and in some cases may not even be able to elucidate. In many quantum mechanical situations, what we have is case d. The possibilities a - d also point to the sharp distinction between knowing that an observed outcome is caused, and knowing the sufficient and/or the necessary and sufficient cluster of factors that force the outcome to occur. What is clear is that, RH7, you keep emphasising that for many quantum cases we do not -- and perhaps cannot -- know cases b or c, when all that is needed to demonstrate that causality is at work would be a or d. The quantum cases, in fact, typically are cases of d. All that is required for the main discussion to proceed is that we know that something is caused, and in particular that we are able to identify that there are observed or identifiable conditions under which X of yk do occur, and different ones under which they do or do not (explicitly including, that these have a beginning, or may come to an end), i.e. that they are contingent. That which is contingent -- and, please notice the empirical, observational focus. This is not assumption, it is empirically based. Now, we move to a different level: we live in an observed cosmos that credibly had a beginning, on the usual timeline some 13.7 BYA. Whether we are in cases a or d, we are in a situation of contingency and presence of cause. Going beyond, the observed cosmos is credibly locally exceedingly fine tuned (cf also here [kindly, watch the vids]), such that relatively minor variations in parameters and physical laws that we have no reason to believe are constrained, would make the cosmos radically inhospitable to C-Chemistry, cell based life. The Hoyle law-monkeying issue in particular arises in respect of the resonance responsible for the cluster of most common elements of the universe we observe: H, He, C, O. These elements turn out to be -- surprise -- the core elements of life, and to have astonishing properties reflected in the physics and chemistry of water, H2O, and the rich world of Carbon chemistry. See why Hoyle inferred a "put-up job" as best most plausible explanation? As he said:
From 1953 onward, Willy Fowler and I have always been intrigued by the remarkable relation of the 7.65 MeV energy level in the nucleus of 12 C to the 7.12 MeV level in 16 O. If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you would have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just where these levels are actually found to be. Another put-up job? . . . I am inclined to think so. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has "monkeyed" with the physics as well as the chemistry and biology, and there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. [F. Hoyle, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20 (1982): 16] I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars. [["The Universe: Past and Present Reflections." Engineering and Science, November, 1981. pp. 8–12]
And, here's the trick: even on case d, that obtains, as a multiverse set up so that the local cluster of possibilities at the "knee" where our observed cosmos happens to be, requires a "cosmic bakery" that itself would be fine tuned. (Leslie's isolated fly on the wall swatted by a bullet discussion here points out why this inference is highly reasonable.) This points onward to an alternative that is astonishing but perfectly logical: Case e. Let us observe, that which is under case a is contingent, and has possible conditions under which it may not be actualised. Now, let us ask: what of something, Z, that has no necessary causal factors, i.e no circumstances in possible worlds, in which it is not actual? Since Z has no beginning, it is not caused, it is a necessary being. A good first example is abstract, necessarily true propositions like the truth in the statement 2 + 3 = 5. But of course such is both mental -- truths are held in minds and are meaningful assertions -- and inert in itself. Is there another possible class? Not matter per observations in our world, as we know it is causally dependent. That is, we have reasons to infer to the possibility and credibility of a mental necessary being, which is present in all possible worlds. One with power, intent and knowledge to create a world such as the one we inhabit. Or, again, we see that there is a possible class of being that does not have a beginning, and cannot go out of existence; such are self-sufficient, have no external necessary causal factors, and as such cannot be blocked from existing. And it is commonly held that once there is a serious candidate to be such a necessary being, if the candidate is not contradictory in itself [i.e. if it is not impossible], it will be actual. Or, yet again, we could arrive at effectively the same point another way, one which brings out what it means to be a serious candidate to be a necessary being:
If a thing does not exist it is either that it could, but just doesn't happen to exist, or that it cannot exist because it is a conceptual contradiction, such as square circles, or round triangles and so on. Therefore, if it does exist, it is either that it exists contingently or that it is not contingent but exists necessarily (that is it could not fail to exist without contradiction). [--> The truth reported in "2 + 3 = 5" is a simple case in point; it could not fail without self-contradiction.] These are the four most basic modes of being and cannot be denied . . . the four modes are the basic logical deductions about the nature of existence.
That is, since there is no external necessary causal factor, such a being -- if it is so -- will exist without a beginning, and cannot cease from existing as one cannot "switch off" a sustaining external factor. Another possibility of course is that such a being is impossible: it cannot be so as there is the sort of contradiction involved in being a proposed square circle. So, we have candidates to be necessary beings that may not be possible on pain of contradiction, or else that may not be impossible, equally on pain of contradiction. In addition, since matter as we know it is contingent, such a being will not be material. The likely candidates are: abstract, necessarily true propositions and an eternal mind, often brought together by suggesting that such truths are held in such a mind. Strange thoughts, perhaps, but not absurd ones. So also, if we live in a cosmos that (as the cosmologists tell us) seems -- on the cumulative balance of evidence -- to have had a beginning, then it too is credibly caused. The sheer undeniable actuality of our cosmos then points to the principle that from a genuine nothing -- not matter, not energy, not space, not time, not mind etc. -- nothing will come. So then, if we can see things that credibly have had a beginning or may come to an end; in a cosmos of like character, we reasonably and even confidently infer that a necessary being is the ultimate, root-cause of our world; even through suggestions such as a multiverse (which would simply multiply the contingent beings). Of course, God is the main candidate to be such a necessary being. (As we saw, truths that are eternal in scope, i.e. true propositions, are another class of candidates, and are classically thought of as being eternally resident in the mind of God.) Once that is seriously on the table, it radically shifts the balance of our epistemological evaluations of best explanations of a great many things: origin of the observed cosmos, origin of life, origin of body plans, origin of humanity with mind and under moral governance. And, a prime line of evidence pointing to the credibility of this view, is the strong inductive evidence we have that here are signs of design that are reliable. Sings that appear in two relevant contexts: our world of human art, which allows us to see and analyse why such signs are credibly reliable and are tested and shown strongly reliable, and in the world around us, in cell based life and the credible fine tuning of the cosmos. In particular, we are looking at functionally specific complex organisation and information that often embeds irreducibly complex cores of co-matched parts that are necessary factors for he observed performance. In short, the updated design view of our world and ourselves, is anchored on an empirical basis, and has a wider context of worldviews analysis on cause that makes it inherently highly plausible. Even, on case d. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
12:00 AM
12
12
00
AM
PDT
we may not be able to determine or predict an qm outcome but we can identify the set of causal factors. the unity of the set of causal factors is the cause.
Well that's the problem. Not only can we not determine the outcome, we can not definitively know the cause. As an alternative, Bohm's quantum mechanics is deterministic and non-local - though I'm not sure you would find his idea of a universal wave function any better.rhampton7
October 28, 2011
October
10
Oct
28
28
2011
08:40 PM
8
08
40
PM
PDT
rhampton7, It seems you want play the local causality of space time against the non-local causality of quantum mechanics to slip in some bizarre notions about causality that you have,,, But to call you bluff, Perhaps if you truly wish to play the 'space-time world' of General Relativity against the 'beyond space-time world' of Quantum Mechanics, so as to support your seemingly bizarre notions, you would do well to tell us how the two distinct theories are unified into a 'theory of everything';
Centrality of Each Individual Observer In The Universe and Christ’s Very Plausible Reconciliation Of General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics https://docs.google.com/document/d/17SDgYPHPcrl1XX39EXhaQzk7M0zmANKdYIetpZ-WB5Y/edit?hl=en_US
Further note:
"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." Max Planck - The Father Of Quantum Mechanics - Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], speech at Florence, Italy (1944) Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry - Physics Professor - John Hopkins University Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the "illusion" of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry's referenced experiment and paper - “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 - “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe? Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum teleportation: http://www.metanexus.net/Magazine/ArticleDetail/tabid/68/id/8638/Default.aspx
Music and verse:
U2 - Magnificent http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=7K6DDLNX ' "Woe to the rebellious children," says the LORD, "who take counsel, but not of Me, and who devise plans, but not of My Spirit, that they may add sin to sin." ' -- Isaiah 30:1
bornagain77
October 28, 2011
October
10
Oct
28
28
2011
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT
JDFL: You are right, once we see the significance of necessary causal factors, we decouple cause from determinism. Gkairosfocus
October 28, 2011
October
10
Oct
28
28
2011
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT
And, BTW, the sun is 8 light minutes from earth and the light from the sun does have to stream to earth to have an effect
Unless one or more photons were entangled, in which case an effect could be instantaneous (be it from sun to earth or vice versa). Photo of entangled photons that was featured in PhysicsWorld, 2002. See Causality and the Wave Equation for a look at some of the math that drives physicists to consider a indeterministic reality - including retrocausality.rhampton7
October 28, 2011
October
10
Oct
28
28
2011
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT
20th century physics has called into question determinism. But determinism and causality are not necessarily the same thing. we may not be able to determine or predict an qm outcome but we can identify the set of causal factors. the unity of the set of causal factors is the cause.junkdnaforlife
October 28, 2011
October
10
Oct
28
28
2011
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT
F/N 2: Given the force of the necessary causal factor issue, we need to ask why there is so strong an attempt to dismiss causality, even under the sign of quantum effects -- effects! [Think about the causal implications of arranged bits and pieces in experiments that are so carefully set up to observe said effects and questions about interactions with entangled particles that yield coupled detections -- once you know the state of A, you know the state of B at that moment, but before observation, there was nothing but the premise of complementary states.] Answer: an imagined chaos in which it is plausible that anything happens anywhere, or from nowhere, for no reason, with no constraints, is what seems to now be needed to keep "scientific" materialism going. As in universes popping out of nothing in particular, with any particular pattern, and in infinite supply. Not to mention, complex, functionally specific information popping out of noise. All of course utterly unobserved. Materialist miracles and chaos-magick in short. Miracles/magick. And, if you object, then the fault has to be yours: you are ASSUMING that we do not live in a chaos. NOT. We observe a cosmos, an ordered, intelligible system of reality, never mind the puzzles we also face. It is reasonable to then hold that order and intelligibility should be guiding lights. And when, repeatedly, "causeless" events have necessary causal factors, that focal emphasis on necessary causal factors tends to be reinforced. Remember, these factors are what we look for for beginnings: if "off" no event is possible. Only when on does the event become possible. And so that which begins has a necessary cause,the issue is what. And, credibly, our cosmos began.kairosfocus
October 28, 2011
October
10
Oct
28
28
2011
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
F/N: An almost predictable distraction from the core issue of the reality of necessary causal factors, which underlie even quantum results. And, BTW, the sun is 8 light minutes from earth and the light from the sun does have to stream to earth to have an effect. In addition, there are any number of on the ground and thought exercises on the significance of the observer in an IFR and cause-effect links as seen by yrs truly, observer.kairosfocus
October 28, 2011
October
10
Oct
28
28
2011
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
2 –> For instance, in a relativistic context in macro-level space, that means that there is a speed of light temporal limit on causal influence. (E.g. how light from the sun propagates and carries energy that has effects on earth.) Cause and effect must at least be synchronous in the relevant inertial frame of reference. Often causes are antecedent to effects in relevant IFRs.
Again, an assumption -- attributable in part to the hypothesis of Cosmic Censorship and the Chronology protection conjecture. Yet, as Roger Penrose demonstrated - and this is just one example, mind you - naked singularities would mean quantum mechanics would affect the causality of macro-level space. See also Vlatko Vedral's Living in a Quantum World.rhampton7
October 28, 2011
October
10
Oct
28
28
2011
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT
Onlookers: If the matter were not so sadly revealing the above exchanges on causality would be funny. I write here, not for those who will not listen, but for those who will profit by some balancing and in part corrective remarks. Let's use Wiki, speaking against interest, as a point of departure on the pivotal issue of sufficient vs necessary causal factors:
Causality is the relationship between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first.[1] In common usage Causality is also the relationship between a set of factors (causes) and a phenomenon (the effect). Anything that affects an effect is a factor of that effect. A direct factor is a factor that affects an effect directly, that is, without any intervening factors. (Intervening factors are sometimes called "intermediate factors.") Though the causes and effects are typically related to changes or events, candidates include objects, processes, properties, variables, facts, and states of affairs; characterizing the causal relationship can be the subject of much debate . . . . Causes are often distinguished into two types: Necessary and sufficient.[7] A third type of causation, which requires neither necessity nor sufficiency in and of itself, but which contributes to the effect, is called a "contributory cause."[8] 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. However, another cause z may alternatively cause y. Thus the presence of y does not imply the presence of x. Contributory causes: A cause may be classified as a "contributory cause," if the presumed cause precedes the effect, and altering the cause alters the effect. It does not require that all those subjects which possess the contributory cause experience the effect. It does not require that all those subjects which are free of the contributory cause be free of the effect. In other words, a contributory cause may be neither necessary nor sufficient but it must be contributory.[9][10] J. L. Mackie argues that usual talk of "cause," in fact refers to INUS conditions (insufficient but non-redundant parts of a condition which is itself unnecessary but sufficient for the occurrence of the effect).[11] For example, a short circuit as a cause for a house burning down. Consider the collection of events: the short circuit, the proximity of flammable material, and the absence of firefighters. Together these are unnecessary but sufficient to the house's burning down (since many other collections of events certainly could have led to the house burning down, for example shooting the house with a flamethrower in the presence of oxygen etc. etc.). Within this collection, the short circuit is an insufficient (since the short circuit by itself would not have caused the fire, but the fire would not have happened without it, everything else being equal) but non-redundant part of a condition which is itself unnecessary (since something else could have also caused the house to burn down) but sufficient for the occurrence of the effect .
1 --> Notice how causes must be in a position to influence that on which they have effects, by various mechanisms which in many cases we may partially at least elucidate. 2 --> For instance, in a relativistic context in macro-level space, that means that there is a speed of light temporal limit on causal influence. (E.g. how light from the sun propagates and carries energy that has effects on earth.) Cause and effect must at least be synchronous in the relevant inertial frame of reference. Often causes are antecedent to effects in relevant IFRs. 3 --> From computer systems (think about typing on a keyboard and having letters appear in succession on a screen through internal processing) we know that INFORMATION as physically expressed may also have a causal effect, providing there is a mechanism for taking inputs, processing and generating outputs and related actions. Such informational causation requires the presence of processing systems that couple to it, often by responding to the pattern in the data structure of the symbols used. 3 --> You will notice the three-fold pattern of causes, sufficient, necessary and contributory. For our purposes the first two are pivotal: when a sufficient cluster of causal factors is present, their joint action is sufficient for the effect to occur, and unless necessary causal factors are present, an effect CANNOT occur. (This means that a sufficient causal factor cluster must contain all necessary factors.) 4 --> The burning matchstick exercise discussed here is helpful: each of fuel, heat and oxidiser are necessary, and together are jointly sufficient for a fire to begin and/or continue. The fire, having a beginning and having the possibility or reality of an end, is CONTINGENT. Clipping points 10 - 13:
9 –> That highlighted contingency then raises an implication in logic and epistemology — thence questions in worldview analysis, based on the issue of cause. Namely: THAT WHICH HAS A BEGINNING OR MAY CEASE FROM BEING HAS A CAUSE. 10 –> To see why, go fetch a match box. Pull a match, close the box, strike on the friction strip. Allow to burn about 1/2 way then tilt up the head. The flame will gutter down maybe even go out. The Fire Triangle 11 –> This is because heat, oxidiser and fuel [incorporating a chain reaction] are each necessary and together sufficient causal factors for a fire. (Cf on cause here.) 12 –> So, when you tilt up the match head, you are removing a necessary causal factor and the flame then ceases. It began when the sufficient cluster of necessary factors was brought together, and it ceases if one or more of such is/are removed. 13 –> A fire is an event with a beginning, and it may cease from being. Those factors that — once absent — can block its beginning or if removed can cause its cessation, are NECESSARY causal factors. And, for the flame to be, a SUFFICIENT cluster of factors that includes a cluster of the necessary factors, is required.
4 --> Point 14 addresses the suggestion that quantum effects are causeless, on the significance of the necessary causal factor as a causal factor:
14 –> Ironically, since science is so concerned with causal mechanisms, and cause-effect patterns, it is astonishing how rarely students are exposed nowadays to a reasonable 101 level discussion of the logic of cause and effect, and what it does to warrant our knowledge of mechanism claims etc!
(And BTW, once we recognise the reality of necessary causal factors the notion that quantum mechanical events are cause-less evaporates, as they have many necessary factors, and they follow patterns of behaviour constrained by those factors. E.g. no neutron outside a nucleus, and no 10 minute half life free neutron decay is possible, i.e. starting with the almost trivial — easily overlooked – requirements for (a) a neutron, and (b) a free neutron. Physical processes (quantum or not) ALWAYS begin with antecedent causal conditions. Physics, contrary to the common talking point, is not a field in which effects happen without antecedent causes, especially once we see the subtle but vital distinction between necessary and sufficient causal factors. Namely: (i) without a necessary factor present an effect cannot happen, but (ii) with a sufficient cluster of causal factors — including a cluster of the necessary ones — the effect will happen. We may not know the sufficient sets for a given case [though we may know what is sufficient for the possibility of a probabilistically occurring, contingent effect to occur -- drop a fair die and a 6 is POSSIBLE], but we usually can identify at least some of the necessary factors. )
5 --> It is generally the case that for a great many quantum phenomena, we only know some causal factors, perhaps amounting to a situation where we set up a stochastic process. However, we can as a rule identify certain necessary causal factors in the situation, indeed these are often the key to equations used in analysis. Of these the simple E = h*f - w expression for the photo emissive photoelectric effect, is a classical example: 6 --> For instance energy conservation is here a necessary causal factor -- adequate energy must be present and it may change form but not vanish or come from nowhere and nothing. Similarly, unless we have a photon sufficient to overcome the work function, there is no emission. And of course we need the material and its electrons to be liberated. (The effect is that light of a sufficiently high frequency will knock electrons out of the surface of a metal in a vacuum, even if very faint, but if the light is of too low a frequency, even quite strong light will not knock out electrons. This led Einstein to point to the quantisation of light, for which he won his Nobel Prize.) 7 --> It is also not without significance that the class of things we are describing is an EFFECT. Causality is a significant focus of even quantum physics. 8 --> next time someone tries to tell you that causality is outdated and inapplicable because of quantum physics, ask for examples; then ask, are there circumstances under which if something is missing, even something trivial, this will not happen? 9 --> Those things are of course necessary causal factors. (And we just saw some in action. Another "triviality" that is significant is that all of this is happening in space, which has certain measurable properties that have an influence. All of this happens in time too.) 10 --> What happens in quantum mechanics is that we typically do not know the SUFFICIENT cluster of factors acting that trigger events, and see stochastic processes and note that here are various possible paths that seem to superpose to yield the final result. The case of electron double slit experiments and entanglement is a good illustrative example. (This animation is a nice summary. Also cf Wiki here for more 101.) 11 --> Ask yourself about necessary conditions for this sort of case . . . GEM of TKIkairosfocus
October 28, 2011
October
10
Oct
28
28
2011
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT
But not all [are] metaphysical models of causality
Yes they are. To use an analogy: you are defending the position that time truly is absolute and that all this general relativity stuff is just a bunch of metaphysics. Sure there may be empirical evidence that supports the notion of time as a relative phenomena, but what of it? What you seem incapable of admitting (perhaps understanding?) is that both the classical ideas of time and causality were necessarily moved from scientific fact to metaphysical assumption as a consequence of 20th century physics. Yes, Scientific Realism is only one set of metaphysical assumptions used in the sciences - which is more than enough to support the claim which you did not even dispute. Furthermore, the article on Scientific Realism also discusses competing philosophies like Empiricism, Historicism and Social Constructivism and their sets of metaphysical assumptions.rhampton7
October 28, 2011
October
10
Oct
28
28
2011
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT
Of somewhat related interest:
Clarifying the Tubulin bit/qubit - Defending the Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR Model (Quantum Biology) - Stuart Hameroff - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXFFbxoHp3s
bornagain77
October 28, 2011
October
10
Oct
28
28
2011
04:00 AM
4
04
00
AM
PDT
rhampton7, and exactly how do you know what anything you think can be 'true' without the metaphysical assumption that truth exists? Perhaps you need to look at your own assumptions!?!bornagain77
October 28, 2011
October
10
Oct
28
28
2011
03:58 AM
3
03
58
AM
PDT
It shows that all prior scientific models of causality were inadequate, including the traditional/common view of cause and effect. But not all metaphysical models of causality. Should I take, similar to what BA77 says, the failure of 'all prior scientific models of causality' as scientific evidence against materialism? And science does involve a number of metaphysical commitments (see Scientific Realism), and hopefully some of those will be resolved scientifically as we progress. I agree that science involves a number of metaphysical commitments, absolutely. But you chose a poor example: Scientific realism is not necessary to conduct science. The 'hope' that some metaphysical commitments will be 'resolved scientifically' also seems out of place, but I'll leave that aside.nullasalus
October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
10:54 PM
10
10
54
PM
PDT
RH7: Dismissing the challenge to show something coming out of nothing, nowhere, no-when, and no-why too, as a mere appeal to the logically plausible is a neat rhetorical trick. (And BTW, this includes the quantum examples you tried to cite before.) You are admitting and/or implying that your view is irrational and without factual merit, then defying anyone to differ with you. We can therefore confidently conclude that you are being irrational, and know it; absent showing what you were challenged to do. End of story, you just discredited your viewpoint. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
09:55 PM
9
09
55
PM
PDT
It shows that all prior scientific models of causality were inadequate, including the traditional/common view of cause and effect. And science does involve a number of metaphysical commitments (see Scientific Realism), and hopefully some of those will be resolved scientifically as we progress.rhampton7
October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT
bornagain77, I have no idea how you became so confused. I have not argued for atheism or against theism. I have not argued that indeterminism is reality and determinism is not. Instead I have argued that metaphysical assumptions about causality and determinism can not be said to be definitively true. Please take the time to re-read my comments from the beginning.rhampton7
October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PDT
rhampton7, indeterminism, as far as can be derived from the theistic theory of quantum mechanics, simply allows free will choice to be possible, the loss of determinism in your materialistic worldview is of no consequence to you since in your atheistic view you are merely a victim of whatever indeterminate brain state the quantum particles of your brain happen to reside in; Frankly, I find your argumentation that this 'indeterminism' helps your atheism, and compromises theism, severely stretched to the point of absurdity!bornagain77
October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT
If you haven’t misread Craig, then he is mistaken. If he can prove that Determinism is real and Indeterminism is not, then he may well win the next Nobel Prize for he would have done something on the order of Einstein’s theory of General Relativity. He'd be winning a greater prize than that, because the statement is metaphysical - not scientific. Further, Craig is not mistaken; you yourself go on to say that, alright, 'either view cannot be ruled out'. Nor will it ever be able to be ruled out, because the question goes beyond physics. The best you can get is 'this or that scientific model has the most utility'. But metaphysics goes beyond models - it deals with definite statements of reality. Higher stakes, different questions. A metaphysical interpretation I give to the findings of physics is not a "finding of physics".nullasalus
October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT
exactly how does materialism being falsified of causality for ‘non-local’, beyond space-time matter-energy, events refute the principle of causality for theism
They don't. Please read carefully: It would be more accurate to say that the findings of physics, to date, are more supportive of indeterminism but that either view can not be ruled out. Only someone ideologically committed to a particular metaphysical view would claim otherwise. Incidentally, William Dembksi makes a case for theistic indeterminism in The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World.rhampton7
October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT
Fair enough. It’s more accurate to say that the predictions made by classical causality have been tested and found wanting. Right, but that utterly defangs the previous claim. Now it's not that we've shown causality itself doesn't hold, but that a prior scientific model was inadequate. That just shows how extreme the move of denying causality entirely is. It is likewise a metaphysical argument to say “this specific event took place directly and utterly because of this specific cause as understood in a traditional cause-effect relationship.” So, science involves a lot of metaphysical commitments?nullasalus
October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT
rhampton7 you state: 'the predictions made by classical causality have been tested and found wanting.' And exactly how does materialism being falsified of causality for 'non-local', beyond space-time matter-energy, events refute the principle of causality for theism??? It is severely disingenuous of you to maintain that since materialism is falsified of causality then Theism is, to put it VERY mildly!!!bornagain77
October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT
He also, to his credit, points out that when people start asserting the existence of actual infinities or claiming that causality doesn't hold that these are not "findings of physics".
If you haven't misread Craig, then he is mistaken. If he can prove that Determinism is real and Indeterminism is not, then he may well win the next Nobel Prize for he would have done something on the order of Einstein's theory of General Relativity. It would be more accurate to say that the findings of physics, to date, are more supportive of indeterminism but that either view can not be ruled out. Only someone ideologically committed to a particular metaphysical view would claim otherwise.rhampton7
October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT
Fair enough. It's more accurate to say that the predictions made by classical causality have been tested and found wanting.
Bell's Theorem has been tested in numerous real EPR experiments over the years, by John Clauser, Alain Aspect, Michael Horne, Albert Shimony, and Richard Holt (in various CHSH-type experiments) and most recently by Nicolas Gisin and his colleagues in Geneva with entangled photons sent over miles of fiber optics.
It is likewise a metaphysical argument to say "this specific event took place directly and utterly because of this specific cause as understood in a traditional cause-effect relationship."rhampton7
October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT
It is also interesting to note that recent breakthroughs in quantum biology strongly support a transcendent soul of man that is able to make the transition to a higher dimension:
Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff – video (notes in description) http://vimeo.com/29895068
Also, hypothetically traveling at the speed of light in this universe would be instantaneous travel for the person going at the speed of light. This is because time does not pass for them, yet, and this is a very big ‘yet’ to take note of; this ‘timeless’ travel is still not instantaneous and transcendent to our temporal framework of time, i.e. Speed of light travel, to our temporal frame of reference, is still not completely transcendent of our framework since light appears to take time to travel from our perspective. Yet, in quantum teleportation of information, the ‘time not passing’, i.e. ‘eternal’, framework is not only achieved in the speed of light framework/dimension, but is also ‘instantaneously’ achieved in our temporal framework. That is to say, the instantaneous teleportation/travel of information is instantaneous to both the temporal and speed of light frameworks, not just the speed of light framework. Information teleportation/travel is not limited by time, nor space, in any way, shape or form, in any frame of reference, as light is seemingly limited to us. Thus ‘pure transcendent information’ is shown to be timeless (eternal) and completely transcendent of all material frameworks. Moreover, concluding from all lines of evidence we have now examined; transcendent, eternal, infinite information is indeed real and the framework in which ‘It’ resides is the primary reality (highest dimension) that can exist, (in so far as our limited perception of a primary reality, highest dimension, can be discerned).
“An illusion can never go faster than the speed limit of reality” Akiane – Child Prodigy
Logic also dictates ‘a decision’ must have been made, by the ‘transcendent, eternal, infinite information’ from the primary timeless (eternal) reality ‘It’ inhabits, in order to purposely create a temporal reality with highly specified, irreducible complex, parameters from a infinite set of possibilities in the proper sequential order. Thus this infinite transcendent information, which is the primary reality of our reality, is shown to be alive by yet another line of evidence besides the necessity for a ‘first mover’ to explain quantum wave collapse.
The First Cause Must Be A Personal Being – William Lane Craig – video http://www.metacafe.com/w/4813914
As a side light to this, leading quantum physicist Anton Zeilinger has followed in John Archibald Wheeler’s footsteps (1911-2008) by insisting reality, at its most foundational level, is ‘information’.
“It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom – at a very deep bottom, in most instances – an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that things physical are information-theoretic in origin.” John Archibald Wheeler Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe? Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: “In the beginning was the Word.” Anton Zeilinger – a leading expert in quantum teleportation: “Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day.” Norbert Weiner – MIT Mathematician – Father of Cybernetics
Verse and Music:
John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. Casting Crowns – The Word Is Alive http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5197438/
bornagain77
October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT
It is also very interesting to note that we have two very different qualities of ‘eternality of time’ revealed by our time dilation experiments;
Time Dilation – General and Special Relativity – Chuck Missler – video http://www.metacafe.com/w/7013215/ Time dilation Excerpt: Time dilation: special vs. general theories of relativity: In Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity, time dilation in these two circumstances can be summarized: 1. –In special relativity (or, hypothetically far from all gravitational mass), clocks that are moving with respect to an inertial system of observation are measured to be running slower. (i.e. For any observer accelerating, hypothetically, to the speed of light, time, as we understand it, will come to a complete stop). 2.–In general relativity, clocks at lower potentials in a gravitational field—such as in closer proximity to a planet—are found to be running slower. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
i.e. As with any observer accelerating to the speed of light, it is found that for any observer falling into the event horizon of a black hole, that time, as we understand it, will come to a complete stop for them. — But of particular interest to the ‘eternal framework’ found for General Relativity at black holes;… It is interesting to note that entropic decay, which is the primary reason why things grow old and eventually die in this universe, is found to be greatest at black holes. Thus the ‘eternality of time’ at black holes can rightly be called ‘eternalities of decay and/or eternalities of destruction’.
Entropy of the Universe – Hugh Ross – May 2010 Excerpt: Egan and Lineweaver found that supermassive black holes are the largest contributor to the observable universe’s entropy. They showed that these supermassive black holes contribute about 30 times more entropy than what the previous research teams estimated. http://www.reasons.org/entropy-universe
i.e. Black Holes are singularities of destruction and disorder rather than singularities of creation and order such as the extreme order we see at the creation event of the Big Bang (Penrose).
On the Mystery Of Space-Time https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FFKL3FeyebpNNyal1DQ64y20zlplVrjkaLXrM0P5ES4/edit?hl=en_US
It is very interesting to note that this strange higher dimensional, eternal, framework for time, found in special relativity, and general relativity, finds corroboration in Near Death Experience testimonies:
‘In the ‘spirit world,,, instantly, there was no sense of time. See, everything on earth is related to time. You got up this morning, you are going to go to bed tonight. Something is new, it will get old. Something is born, it’s going to die. Everything on the physical plane is relative to time, but everything in the spiritual plane is relative to eternity. Instantly I was in total consciousness and awareness of eternity, and you and I as we live in this earth cannot even comprehend it, because everything that we have here is filled within the veil of the temporal life. In the spirit life that is more real than anything else and it is awesome. Eternity as a concept is awesome. There is no such thing as time. I knew that whatever happened was going to go on and on.’ Mickey Robinson – Near Death Experience testimony ‘When you die, you enter eternity. It feels like you were always there, and you will always be there. You realize that existence on Earth is only just a brief instant.’ Dr. Ken Ring – has extensively studied Near Death Experiences ‘Earthly time has no meaning in the spirit realm. There is no concept of before or after. Everything – past, present, future – exists simultaneously.’ – Kimberly Clark Sharp – NDE Experiencer ‘There is no way to tell whether minutes, hours or years go by. Existence is the only reality and it is inseparable from the eternal now.’ – John Star – NDE Experiencer What Will Heaven be Like? by Rich Deem Excerpt: Since heaven is where God lives, it must contain more physical and temporal dimensions than those found in this physical universe that God created. We cannot imagine, nor can we experience in our current bodies, what these extra dimensions might be like. http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/heaven.html
It is also very interesting to point out that the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’, reported in many Near Death Experiences(NDEs), is also corroborated by Special Relativity when considering the optical effects for traveling at the speed of light. Please compare the similarity of the optical effect, noted at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape around the direction of travel as a 'hypothetical' observer moves towards the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light, with the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ reported in very many Near Death Experiences: (Of note: This following video was made by two Australian University Physics Professors with a supercomputer.)
Traveling At The Speed Of Light – Optical Effects – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5733303/
Here is the interactive website, with link to the relativistic math at the bottom of the page, related to the preceding video;
Seeing Relativity http://www.anu.edu.au/Physics/Searle/
The collapsing and folding of space, into a higher dimension, is also, mysteriously, corroborated by NDE testimonies’
The NDE and the Tunnel – Kevin Williams’ research conclusions Excerpt: I started to move toward the light. The way I moved, the physics, was completely different than it is here on Earth. It was something I had never felt before and never felt since. It was a whole different sensation of motion. I obviously wasn’t walking or skipping or crawling. I was not floating. I was flowing. I was flowing toward the light. I was accelerating and I knew I was accelerating, but then again, I didn’t really feel the acceleration. I just knew I was accelerating toward the light. Again, the physics was different – the physics of motion of time, space, travel. It was completely different in that tunnel, than it is here on Earth. I came out into the light and when I came out into the light, I realized that I was in heaven.(Barbara Springer) Near Death Experience – The Tunnel, The Light, The Life Review – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4200200/ Speed Of Light – Near Death Experience Tunnel – Turin Shroud – video http://www.vimeo.com/18371644
bornagain77
October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply