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?
OT: video report on last nights debate:
Dr William Lane Craig Humiliates Professor Peter Atkins,, Again by Jason Burns
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg4VofSlkX0
I always thought Uri Geller was already in another universe. Well when 11:11/11/11/11 comes around let’s hope he thinks of going. I jest. He’s probably a very nice man with some rather “mixed-up confusion.”
As I mentioned in another thread, arguments like those made by Lane Craig are built atop of metaphysical assumptions which, a priori, reject legitimate alternatives.
While he is correct to say we can not prove that something can come from nothing, he neglects and/or ignores the equally true counterfactual; that we can neither disprove it.
I’m fond of Pope John Paul II’s explanation that proofs of God’s existence must be methaphysical and/or theological, and thus beyond the scope of Science. The Church is humble enough to admit that, ultimately, it’s proofs of God are really an expression of faith.
And that’s why basing arguments on the scientific fact rather than the metaphysical assumption of causality is doomed to fail (which doesn’t even address the current uncertainty about causality’s nature…)
rham, “Cyclic model, vacuum fluctuation models, and the Hartle-Hawking state model which suggest otherwise.”
These are all just proposals, untested hypothesis. WLC is going with what has proven testable. General relativity along with the evidence from cosmic microwave background radiation. All of which support his argument that the universe began to exist. And the universe beginning to exist does not prove God, rather a moment of creation simply strengthens the argument that there is a creator. It just tips the scale.
rhampton7 I have to correct this false statement of yours:
Now that is much better since it is truthful.
And for prime example of atheists ‘a priori’ rejecting legitimate alternatives, I turn no further than the much ballyhooed atheistic position of methodological naturalism:
Materialism compared to Theism within the scientific method:
The artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy onto the scientific method has blinded many scientists to the inference of God as a rational explanation in these questions of origins. In fact, the scientific method, by itself, makes absolutely no predictions as to what the best explanation will be prior to investigation in these question of origins. In the beginning of a investigation all answers are equally valid to the scientific method. Yet scientists have grown accustomed through the years to the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy onto the scientific method. That is to say by limiting the answers one may conclude to only materialistic ones, the scientific method has been very effective at solving many puzzles very quickly. This imposition of the materialistic philosophy onto the scientific method has indeed led to many breakthroughs of technology which would not have been possible had the phenomena been presumed to be solely the work of a miracle. This imposition of materialism onto the scientific method is usually called methodological naturalism, methodological materialism, or scientific materialism etc… Yet today, due to the impressive success of methodological naturalism in our everyday lives, many scientists are unable to separate this artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy from the scientific method in this completely different question of origins.
In fact, I’ve heard a dogmatic atheist actually say, “Science is materialism”. Yet, science clearly is not materialism. Materialism is a philosophy which makes the dogmatic assertion that only blind material processes generated everything around us, including ourselves. Materialism is thus in direct opposition to Theism which holds that God purposely created us in His image. Furthermore science, or more particularly the scientific method, in reality, only cares to relentlessly pursue the truth and could care less if the answer is a materialistic one or not. This is especially true in these questions of origins, since we are indeed questioning the materialistic philosophy itself. i.e. We are asking the scientific method to answer this very specific question, “Did God create us or did blind material processes create us?” When we realize this is the actual question we are seeking an answer to within the scientific method, then of course it is readily apparent we cannot impose strict materialistic answers onto the scientific method prior to investigation. No less than leading “New Atheist” Richard Dawkins agrees:
In fact when looking at the evidence in this light we find out many interesting things which scientists, who have been blinded by the philosophy of materialism, miss. This is because the materialistic and Theistic philosophy make, and have made, several natural contradictory predictions about what evidence we will find. These predictions, and the evidence we have found, can be tested against one another within the scientific method.
For a quick overview, here are a few:
,,,for a far more detailed list of the consistent failed predictions of neo-Darwinism see Dr. Hunter’s site here:
As you can see when we remove the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy, from the scientific method, and look carefully at the predictions of both the materialistic philosophy and the Theistic philosophy, side by side, we find the scientific method is very good at pointing us in the direction of Theism as the true explanation. – In fact science is even very good at pointing us to Christianity as the true explanation for how reality is unified into a ‘theory of everything’:
Music, poem and verse:
referenced link:
RH7:
Please note, nothing means literally that: no matter, energy, space, time, or mind etc.
Do you see why something coming from nothing is generally rejected? (As a rule those who argue to something from nothing actually have a something they are smuggling in.)
A much sounder approach is that if we live in a contingent cosmos, it points beyond itself to a necessary being that is its source.
And BTW, quantum theory does not eliminate causality, especially when you look at NECESSARY causal factors. If you look carefully at real world quantum situations, you will see there are things that have to be in place for the phenomena to occur.
Again, something does not come from nothing. Scientifically valid, and reasonable.
If you wish to assert the contrary, do not merely say the opposed view is a priori, provide some actual evidence, where there is a case where something does come from nothing, nowhere, no-when.
GEM of TKI
He also cites the Big Bang theory as evidence for the second premise. Craig interprets the Big Bang as the temporal beginning of the universe, and discounts the Cyclic model, vacuum fluctuation models, and the Hartle-Hawking state model which suggest otherwise.
Actually, Craig does speak about those, and other models. He does not “a priori” rule out other models – he points out what we’re left with given certain arguments and axioms. Instead, he points out what has to be accepted to get some of these models off the ground: That actual infinities exist, or giving up causality, etc. 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”. They’re metaphysical and philosophical speculations that often get passed off as physics.
What seems to confuse people here is that Craig and others rely on multiple lines of evidence – some scientific, some philosophical. The Big Bang != the Kalam Cosmological argument, and Craig knows it and notes as much when he discusses these topics. Likewise, as BA77 points out, one problem with many people on the side opposite Craig is the habit of passing off as wholly ‘scientific’ that which is metaphysically and philosophically laced.
Causality has be tested in a number of ways and been found wanting. Thus Cosmology has to account for the problems uncovered by mathematical/scientific analysis, and that prompts scientists to consider these hypotheses.
While general relativity, cosmic background radiation, et. al. confirm a big bang event, that should not be confused with confirmation a finite origin. As I mentioned previously, William Lane Craig prefered creation history is just as tentative (scientifically) as the objectionable hypotheses.
Carl Hoefer’s entry on Causal Determinism in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) is an excellent primer.
Causality has be tested in a number of ways and been found wanting.
No.
What has been and can be tested are models. Scientists do not, and cannot, perform experiments to see if causality really holds in the relevant sense, or if something can come from absolute nothing. Now, you can have a result which defies current explanation given the models we’re working with – even very well-tested models. This is not the same as testing causality itself.
“This event took place utterly without cause” is metaphysics, even when a scientist says it. And if mingling metaphysics with science is okay, then the result is green-lighting not only ID and multiverses, but full-blown creationism.
Yes I do. It’s commonly referred to as the Cosmological Argument. But I also readily admit that what seems logically plausible to human thinking is not the same as proof that reality functions as such. Do you agree?
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. (see Cosmology and Theology)
Incidentally, metaphysical assumptions are not bad and my arguments should not be construed as a criticism thereof. After all, it’s the basis for faith. However Science requires us to matter-of-factly acknowledge its limits, and that’s the position I have been defending. Isn’t that what you want from Science in regards to the origin of life and its subsequent evolution?
But there is a way to arrive at first cause (God) through the scientific method:
‘Pure transcendent information’ is now shown to be ‘conserved’. (i.e. it is shown that all transcendent quantum information which can possibly exist, for all possible physical/material events, past, present, and future, already must exist.) This is since transcendent information exercises direct dominion of the foundational ‘material’ entity of this universe, energy, which cannot be created or destroyed by any known ‘material’ means. i.e. First Law of Thermodynamics.
These following studies verified the ‘controlled’ violation of the first law of thermodynamics that I had suspected in the quantum teleportation experiment:
It is also very interesting to note that the quantum state of a photon is actually defined as ‘infinite information’ in its uncollapsed/unobserved quantum wave state:
It should be noted in the preceding paper that Duwell, though he never challenges the mathematical definition of a photon qubit as infinite information, tries to refute Bennett’s interpretation of instantaneous infinite information transfer in teleportation because of what he believes are ‘time constraints’ which would prohibit teleporting ‘backwards in time’. Yet Duwell fails to realize that information is its own completely unique transcendent entity, completely separate from any energy-matter, space-time, constraints in the first place. Moreover This following recent experiment, on top of the previously listed ‘conservation of quantum information’ papers, pretty much blew a hole in Duwell’s objection to Bennett, of teleporting infinite information ‘backwards in time’, simply because he believed there was no such path, or mechanism, to do so:
It should also be noted that the preceding experiment pretty much dots all the i’s and crosses all the t’s as far as concretely establishing ‘transcendent information’ as its own unique entity. Its own unique entity that is completely separate from, and dominate of, space-time, matter and energy.
More supporting evidence for the transcendent nature of information, and how it interacts with energy, is found in these following studies:
This following experiment clearly shows information is not an ‘emergent property’ of any solid material basis as is dogmatically asserted by some materialists:
The following articles show that even atoms (Ions) are subject to teleportation:
Further reflection on the quantum teleportation experiment:
That a photon would actually be destroyed upon the teleportation (separation) of its ‘infinite’ information to another photon is a direct controlled violation of the first law of thermodynamics. (i.e. a photon ‘disappeared’ from the ‘material’ universe when the entire information content of a photon was ‘transcendently displaced’ from the material universe by the experiment, when photon “c” transcendently became transmitted photon “a”). Thus, Quantum teleportation is direct empirical validation for the primary tenet of the Law of Conservation of Information (i.e. ‘transcendent’ information cannot be created or destroyed). This conclusion is warranted because information exercises direct dominion of energy, telling energy exactly what to be and do in the experiment. Thus, this experiment provides a direct line of logic that transcendent information cannot be created or destroyed and, in information demonstrating transcendence, and dominion, of space-time and matter-energy, becomes the only known entity that can satisfactorily explain where all energy came from as far as the origination of the universe is concerned. That is transcendent information is the only known entity which can explain where all the energy came from in the Big Bang without leaving the bounds of empirical science as the postulated multiverse does. Clearly anything that exercises dominion of the fundamental entity of this physical universe, a photon of energy, as transcendent information does in teleportation, must of necessity possess the same, as well as greater, qualities as energy does possess in the first law of thermodynamics (i.e. Energy cannot be created or destroyed by any known material means according to the first law). To reiterate, since information exercises dominion of energy in quantum teleportation then all information that can exist, for all past, present and future events of energy, already must exist.
Reflections on the ‘infinite transcendent information’ framework, as well as on the ‘eternal’ and ‘temporal’ frameworks:
The weight of mass becomes infinite at the speed of light, thus mass will never go the speed of light. Yet, mass would disappear from our sight if it could go the speed of light, because, from our non-speed of light perspective, distance in direction of travel will shrink to zero for the mass going the speed of light. Whereas conversely, if mass could travel at the speed of light, its size will stay the same while all other frames of reference not traveling the speed of light will disappear from its sight.
Moreover time, as we understand it, would come to a complete stop at the speed of light. To grasp the whole ‘time coming to a complete stop at the speed of light’ concept a little more easily, imagine moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light. Would not the hands on the clock stay stationary as you moved away from the face of the clock at the speed of light? Moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light happens to be the same ‘thought experiment’ that gave Einstein his breakthrough insight into e=mc2.
,,,Yet, even though light has this ‘eternal’ attribute in regards to our temporal framework of time, for us to hypothetically travel at the speed of light, in this universe, will still only get us to first base as far as quantum entanglement, or teleportation, is concerned.
That is to say, traveling at the speed of light will only get us to the place where time, as we understand it, comes to complete stop for light, i.e. gets us to the eternal, ‘past and future folding into now’, framework of time. This higher dimension, ‘eternal’, inference for the time framework of light is warranted because light is not ‘frozen within time’ yet it is shown that time, as we understand it, does not pass for light.
It is also very interesting to note that we have two very different qualities of ‘eternality of time’ revealed by our time dilation experiments;
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’.
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).
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:
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.)
Here is the interactive website, with link to the relativistic math at the bottom of the page, related to the preceding video;
The collapsing and folding of space, into a higher dimension, is also, mysteriously, corroborated by NDE testimonies’
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:
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).
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.
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’.
Verse and Music:
Fair enough. It’s more accurate to say that the predictions made by classical causality have been tested and found wanting.
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.”
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 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!!!
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?
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.
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”.
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,
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.
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.
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 TKI
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.
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!?!
Of somewhat related interest:
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.
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:
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:
4 –> Point 14 addresses the suggestion that quantum effects are causeless, on the significance of the necessary causal factor as a causal factor:
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 TKI
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
JDFL: You are right, once we see the significance of necessary causal factors, we decouple cause from determinism. G
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’;
Further note:
Music and verse:
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.
RH7 (& Onlookers):
Re:
Let us mark key distinctions:
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:
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:
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 TKI
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.
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.
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.
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 TKI