The Incredible Shrinking Timeline

_{September 15, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

A new study has come out that tracks ‘tracks’; i.e., reptile ‘tracks’. It seems that the transition from a straddled to an upright position of reptilian limbs took place almost immediately. So scientists say that have studied fossilized tracks prior to, and immediately after, the end-of-the Permian mass extinction.

Fossil Reptilian Tracks

[BTW, let’s remember that the Darwinian objection to an absence of intermediate forms is the imperfection of the fossil record, with the difficulty of ‘soft-tissue’ fossilizing as a partial reason. But here we’re talking fossil footracks, which would seem even harder to form, and yet they’re found!]

Professor Mike Benton offers this:

“As it is, the new footprint evidence suggests a more dramatic pattern of replacement, where the sprawling animals that dominated Late Permian ecosystems nearly all died out, and the new groups that evolved after the crisis were upright. Any competitive interactions were compressed into a short period of time.”

Scientists (=evolutionists) were of the assumption that this pre-to-post Permian transition took 20-30 million years. It now appears to have been almost immediate.

Ah, yes, the incredible shrinking timeline for the Cambrian Explosion, the Reptilian Explosion and the Mammalian Explosion (This last one has been coming out over the last year or so, and now we’re seeing the Reptilian Explosion come to the fore). Let’s hear it for Darwinian ‘gradualism’. When will these guys ever give up?!? Behe, in his Edge of Evolution, documents that it has taken 10^16 to 10^20 replication events (progeny) of the eukaryotic malarial parasite for it to come up with a two amino acid change as a way of resisting cholorquinone. Assuming one year/generation for the reptiles, this meant evolutionists before had 20-30 million generations for ‘something’ to happen. And now? Darwinism is hopeless to explain these new discoveries. And, yet, they persist. Scientific faith is a wonderful thing, isn’t it?

Comments

StephenB:
Yes, and I answered by explaining that there is no contradiction because what you described does not constitute determinism.
Where did you explain that? What I described is: "Therefore, every event that occurs was guaranteed by existing conditions to occur." Aside from it roughness, why do you reject this as a description of determinism?
What is your definition of determinism?
I would hope to heaven that we don't disagree on the definition of determinism. I described it roughly above. Here's a more formal definition: Determinism is the proposition that, for the set of all antecedent states A and the set of all consequent states C, ¬(∃a∈A ∃x∈C ∃y∈C: x≠y ∧ a↦x ∧ a↦y)
Since you are also freely using the terms, “compatibilism” and “incompatibilism” define them as well since I don’t think they mean what you think they mean. Equally important, explain how the compatibilist and incompatibilist differ on the matter of free will.
Without looking up an authoritative definition, compatibilism is the position that free will is compatible with determinism, and incompatibilism is obviously its negation. (I've also seen the terms are used in a way that implies a position for or against determinism.) What exactly is your point?
Having gone through that exercise, you may want to revise your earlier comment.
Which comment?
Everything that begins to exist must have a cause, The universe began to exist, Therefore, the universe had a cause. It doesn’t get any more logical than that.
That is indeed some mighty fine logic. I should have acknowledged that syllogism when I said that you don't support your assertions with logic. My bad, and my apologies.
In any case, do we now agree that quantum events and universes cannot be uncaused [according to my definition which you call trivial but which a lot of heavy thinkers consider essential to science]?
For the umpteenth time, yes, according to your definition. Which heavy thinkers define uncaused such that "To be uncaused, it must have NO NECESSARY OR SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS whatsoever"?R0b_{September 23, 2009
September
09
Sep
23
23
2009
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

StephenB:
Also, I have to ask. Assuming that those statments that you alluded to at 162 were quotes of mine (where you went fishing looking for loopholes), were they made in the context of physical events. In other words, was I writing about physical events and yet forgot to insert the word “physical” during a series of comments and responses, and therefore you are now suggesting that I meant all conceivable events, including cognition and human agency. Surely, you would not resort to such a tactic as that.
No, they are not quotes. They are my understanding of your positions, based on previous conversations. I've asked you if they are not your positions. I'll ask again: Do #1 and #2 in comment 162 accurately reflect your positions or not?R0b_{September 23, 2009
September
09
Sep
23
23
2009
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

----Diffaxial: “To whatever degree quantum physics allows acausality, it also constrains the domains within which that acausality may be manifest (namely to the level of certain quantum events.) That constraint rules out the causal anarchy you describe. ” ----"You should find that reassuring, recalling that you have already conceded that quantum physics allows a degree of acausality:" [What I wrote was this] “I acknowledge that an “event” can be uncaused if we define an event as a CHANGE OF MOVEMENT, which understood on those terms would not violate the principle of causality…So, from a quantum perspective, I submit that the existence of the particle was caused and the movement of the particle may or may not have been caused. That is the scientifically and philosophically reasonable position.” Surely by now, you understand the fact that the location of the particles may or may not be caused, [we don’t know],.but the EXISTENCE of the particles or their COMING INTO BEING cannot be uncaused. ----“In other words, YOU have said that causality breaks down at the quantum level and nowhere else (when “event” is defined to include “events”), even though you have no rationale for asserting that. “ On the contrary. Did you not read the words, “change of movement?” I have said exactly what I said. If an event is defined as a change of movement, then the movement [when and where it may go] may or may not be acausal. That is not causality breaking down, because the law of causality refers to the particles coming into existence. Causality can only break down if the quantum particles come into existence without a cause. ----"Are the motions of billiard balls governed by causality? Or is it also true that the existence of a billiard ball is caused but the motion of a billiard ball may not have been caused?" Of course the motion of billiard balls is governed by causality. In keeping with the related point, it is not the FACT of the movement of quantum particles that may or may not be uncaused; it is determination of ‘WHERE they are going to move. The reasonable position is to assume that the beginning of the movement is not uncaused. Further, billiard balls cause other billiard balls to move, whereas the quantum void causes particles to move. Further, micro events are different from macro events. Quantum events are unpredictable and caused;. Macro events are, for the most part, predictable and caused. Quantum mechanics shows us only that in the micro world of particle physics we are limited in our ability to measure quantum effects. Since quantum particles have the potential to behave either as particles or as waves, we cannot accurately measure both their position and their momentum. When the researcher chooses to determine their position, he loses information about its momentum. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle does not disprove the principle of causality in any way; it merely shows that causality is, in this case, hidden from human investigation. The cause of the quantum effect is not absent nor is it, in some mysterious way, linked to the human observation of the effect after the fact.. This is all postmodernist nonsense that has nothing at all to do with science. ----“Note that you are barred from referring to our understanding of macrophysical events, and the difference between macrophysical and quantum events, as you don’t understand that reasoning (you need a translator) and have characterized that as a non-answer.” On the contrary, I do understand the false reasoning that generates the responses, which is why I am asking you to tell me why you think what you think, not just what you think. You have yet to tell me why you are certain that causality “breaks down” at the quantum level, while you are also certain that it is in force for wet streets and billiard balls, yet you claim to have no opinion about whether the existence of a universe which contains those wet streets and billiard balls was caused. Ridiculous! You have yet to tell me why, if causality can break down even once, it cannot break down again and again in future scenarios. You have yet to tell me how science can survive when causality is abandoned even once. How would you know which events were caused and which events were not caused? Evidence alone cannot answer that question because evidence is always interpreted in the context of causality. You have yet to tell me how one can interpret the evidence of quantum mechanics from any other perspective other than from the principle of causality, when it was that very same principle that allowed us to make the transition from Newton to Einstein and illuminated the uncertainly principle, which you now propose to use as a means of destroying foundation that established it. You blithely skip over all these essential questions.StephenB_{September 23, 2009
September
09
Sep
23
23
2009
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

StephenB @ 236:
If you think what you wrote constitutes a credible or even comprehensible response, ask someone else to translate it.
Here is an excerpt for 12 year olds: "To whatever degree quantum physics allows acausality, it also constrains the domains within which that acausality may be manifest (namely to the level of certain quantum events.) That constraint rules out the causal anarchy you describe. " You should find that reassuring, recalling that you have already conceded that quantum physics allows a degree of acausality:
I acknowledge that an “event” can be uncaused if we define an event as a change of movement, which understood on those terms would not violate the principle of causality…So, from a quantum perspective, I submit that the existence of the particle was caused and the movement of the particle may or may not have been caused. That is the scientifically and philosophically reasonable position.
In other words, YOU have said that causality breaks down at the quantum level and nowhere else (when "event" is defined to include "events"), even though you have no rationale for asserting that. An earlier unanswered question that speaks to your absence of rationale: Are the motions of billiard balls governed by causality? Or is it also true that the existence of a billiard ball is caused but the motion of a billiard ball may not have been caused? If your law applies to the motion of billiard balls, on what basis would you state that billiard balls striking one another (and hence changing position and momentum) are bound by your law of causality, given 1) no objects "begin to exist" and 2) you allow that similar events at the quantum level may be acausal, and hence unbound by your law? Note that you are barred from referring to our understanding of macrophysical events, and the difference between macrophysical and quantum events, as you don't understand that reasoning (you need a translator) and have characterized that as a non-answer.Diffaxial_{September 23, 2009
September
09
Sep
23
23
2009
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT}

---Diffaxial: "Vis the bolded portion, my best guess is that you’re ready for a dilated exam." This time Diffaxial invests only 399 words to avoid giving an answer. ---"Plus you’ve reverted to writing my posts for me. Creepy." I was trying to show you how to provide a straight answer to a straight question. Obviously, it didn't work. If you think what you wrote constitutes a credible or even comprehensible response, ask someone else to translate it.StephenB_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT}

---Diffaxial: "If you haven’t grasped by now that it is my position that the your premodern notion of “causality” becomes unintelligible in that context, you never will." If you haven't grasped it by now, causality is not modern or premodern any more than reason is modern or premodern. To reject one is to reject the other.StephenB_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
09:12 PM
9
09
12
PM
PDT}

StephenB @ 233:
Diffaxial sets a new record at 230 by unloading 1248 words concerning another thread to say absolutely nothing and WITHOUT ANSWERING THE QUESTION.
I see an ophthalmologist in your future. Plus you've reverted to writing my posts for me. Creepy. In 230 I reproduced one of several statements and restatements of my reply to this particular question:
We have a well-developed understanding of macrophysical events such as water and wetness, the sorts of causal accounts that explain particular instances of wet streets, and the empirical regularity of those causal relationships. We also have a highly refined and extraordinarily precise understanding (both theoretical and empirical) of the domains in which quantum indeterminacy must be considered, such that it is completely clear from the physics that the “acausality” of some dimensions of quantum physics cannot stage a jail break and begin wetting roads and popping walls into existence out of thin air (your previous cartoon) without cause. You claim that this level and kind of certainty doesn’t attain the standard of absolute certainty set by your unchanging, self-evident truths. Neither, in my opinion, does this particular “self-evident, unchanging truth,” as it is only tautuologically self-evident, and/or it appears to change.
And earlier:
But the physics itself tells us that that doesn’t follow: the indeterminacy and profound randomness of quantum events is displayed at the quantum level to degrees that can be predicted probabilistically with great precision, probabilities that render meaningful macrophysical violations a non factor in our experience of and reasoning over ordinary macrophysical events. Macrophysical events (such as the wetting of streets) obey classical causality with a fidelity sufficient to prompt us all, Darwinists and those among us who are less bright alike, to always expect that macrophysical events have macrophysical causes.
And again:
I have shined my meager light on this very topic several times on this very thread (e.g. in 67 and 111 above, for example), and each time have stated that, to whatever degree quantum physics allows acausality, it also constrains the domains within which that acausality may be manifest (namely to the level of certain quantum events.) That constraint rules out the causal anarchy you describe. Why you ignore those statements and attribute to me opposite assertions, well, there is another topic vis which I haven’t a clue.
Vis the bolded portion, my best guess is that you're ready for a dilated exam.Diffaxial_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT}

Diffaxial sets a new record at 230 by unloading 1248 words concerning another thread to say absolutely nothing and WITHOUT ANSWERING THE QUESTION. [If causality can be dispensed with in one context, why not another?] I would think it would be a lot easier to simply confront the issue. Diffaxial might say, for example, that when he wants it to, something can from from nothing, but when he doesn't want it to, it cannot. Or, he might say, that science does not really depend on causality, so there is no reason why he can't be selective about when to apply it and when not to apply it. Or, he might say that causality breaks down at the quantum level and no where else, even though he has no rationale for asserting that. [the evidence can't do it, because the interpretation of evidence assumes causality.] Or, he might say that evidence does not depend on the law of causation; it can speak for itself, needing no rational standard for interpretation. Or, he might say that, although it was the principle of causality that allowed us to conceive of quantum mechanics in first place, and, although we could never have established the principle of indeterminancy without it, we can, at this point, abandon that same law that took us to this point because, well, because we really do like the idea of universes popping into existence without a cause. There are several ways someone might approach that question, but brooding interminably over past discussions is not one of them.StephenB_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT}

StephenB @ 231:
What an incredible cop out. I didn’t ask you if you knew how it came to be. I asked you if you can take a position on whether or not it was caused. Obviously you cannot. Remarkable.
If you haven't grasped by now that it is my position that the your premodern notion of "causality" becomes unintelligible in that context, you never will.Diffaxial_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT}

Do you, in fact, assert that the universe had no cause? ---Diffaxial: "I’ve already stated that I haven’t the faintest idea how the universe came to be. What I do know is that uncertainty regarding such questions cannot be reduced by intoning premodern incantations from one’s armchair, as they depend upon intuitions derived from macroscopic experiences that may have no relevance at the quantum level." What an incredible cop out. I didn't ask you if you knew how it came to be. I asked you if you can take a position on whether or not it was caused. Obviously you cannot. Remarkable.StephenB_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT}

In response to StephenB @ 211: Oh yes. Let's not forget your questions:
If you can dispense with causality in two or three contexts, as you clearly do, why not twenty or thirty or a million?
Asked and answered several times. Among my several previous responses:
We have a well-developed understanding of macrophysical events such as water and wetness, the sorts of causal accounts that explain particular instances of wet streets, and the empirical regularity of those causal relationships. We also have a highly refined and extraordinarily precise understanding (both theoretical and empirical) of the domains in which quantum indeterminacy must be considered, such that it is completely clear from the physics that the “acausality” of some dimensions of quantum physics cannot stage a jail break and begin wetting roads and popping walls into existence out of thin air (your previous cartoon) without cause. You claim that this level and kind of certainty doesn’t attain the standard of absolute certainty set by your unchanging, self-evident truths. Neither, in my opinion, does this particular “self-evident, unchanging truth,” as it is only tautuologically self-evident, and/or it appears to change.
So far as I can determine, you've never responded to the above, other than to repeat your asked and answered question.
If you appeal to quantum mechanics as your main justification for abandoning the principle of causality at the micro level, why, then, do you also abandon causality at the macro level as an explanation for the beginning of the universe?
This betrays ignorance of the argument you claim to refute, which is exclusively quantum in nature. (I have no idea if it is correct, BTW).
Do you, in fact, assert that the universe had no cause?
I've already stated that I haven't the faintest idea how the universe came to be. What I do know is that uncertainty regarding such questions cannot be reduced by intoning premodern incantations from one’s armchair, as they depend upon intuitions derived from macroscopic experiences that may have no relevance at the quantum level.Diffaxial_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT}

StephenB @ 224:
We are, at the moment, discussing Diffaxial’s assault on the principle of causation and his reluctance to answer simple questions.
I was pointing your monotonous repetition of your arguments, in light of previous threads: "All this has happened before, and all this will happen again." My critique concerns your application of a premodern "law of cause and effect" in its various (unchanging) forms. I've exposed at least three important flaws, each if which you have explicitly acknowledged as accurate: 1) On the Shermer thread: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/disappointed-with-shermer/ I and several others repeatedly pressed the point that the "self-evidence" of your "unchanging, self-evident truths" is tautological, and therefore trivial. Not only did you fail to offer a response anywhere on that 746 post thread, you were unable to bring yourself to utter the word "tautology" at all. More recently, however, you conceded, with a pratfall recovery worthy of Inspector Clouseau ("I meant to do that"),
There is nothing to explain. “All effects have causes” is equally tautological…the tautology serves the purpose in some contexts, because there are some who will deny even the tautology, not knowing that tautologies are undeniably true—though trivial.
https://uncommondescent.com/religion/and-there-you-have-it/#comment-333043 (Pause for genuine chortle.) So: "Every effect has a cause" is a tautology, and the tautological self-evidence of that "law" is trivial. That is what we argued, and that is what you conceded. That's progress. 2) I also noted that your unchanging law of causality has changed. Indeed, it has changed twice. The first version, repeated endlessly on the Shermer thread (linked above), was "every effect has a cause." However, that unchanging law morphed recently (and briefly) into "every physical event has a cause." Is that a change? Yes it is. Indeed, you explained your poorly conceived decision to change your formulation:
In my attempt to use familiar scientific terms, I have stated that no physical event can occur without a cause. On the other hand, I didn’t sufficiently define physical event, which could be understood either as movement or as something coming into existence. In keeping with that point, I have come to understand that I cannot argue effectively using scientific terminology– it is only in the language of the philosophy of science that can I sufficiently make the point.
https://uncommondescent.com/religion/and-there-you-have-it/#comment-332970 As though "movement" and changes in same (changes in position/momentum) cannot be given scientific meaning, or rightfully described as physical events. Onlooker (old pal), take notice what Stephen is up to: he regrets his change from "effect" to "physical event" because he wants to exclude some physical events (changes in "movement") from his definition of "effect" and therefore from governance by his law of causation. If he fails to do so he is faced with the obvious fact that some quantum events may in fact be characterized as "acausal." OK, Stephen. Having noted the failure of Version 2.0 relative to Version 1.0, you then introduced and explained Version 3.0, "All beginnings of existence have causes" (same link):
So, I think that from this point, I should specifically associate the law of causality with the “beginning of existence,” a formulation than cannot possibly be misunderstood, rather than in terms of “physical events,” which can.
No rationale is offered for this particular revision, which occurred on September 4th, other than the obvious one of "so my law can remain true in the face of the facts." So: We have on record that you first associated "beginnings of existence" with your unchanging law of causality 18 days ago, yielding Version 3.0. So far as I can tell, the short-lived Version 2.0 was introduced on 8/23. Your unchanging laws change, and change fast. Establishing that is more progress. 3) Vis the "acausality" of quantum events, I originally stated:
What does NOT follow is that “effect” is the only or the best descriptor of all events, because the dictionary can’t tell us whether and how the conceptual tool “cause and effect” actually attaches to objects in the world, or to the universe as a whole. While generally applicable and helpful vis-a-vis macroscopic events with which we have direct experience, it clearly breaks down at the quantum level, and it may also break down with respect to the universe as a whole. Its status as “tautologically true,” the only sense in which it is “self-evidently true,” doesn’t help with that question. Therefore, while the statement that “all effects have causes” is true, by definition (and is therefore tautologically true), it does not follow that the application of this conceptual tool in every instance is necessary or helpful.
https://uncommondescent.com/ethics/i-keep-having-to-remind-myself-that-science-is-self-correcting/#comment-318794 You denied the above:
This is precisely what is at issue. The laws of cause and effect DO NOT break down at the quantum level. You do not believe that the principles of right reason apply to the real world, so, immediately, you misapply the principle of logic to quantum mechanics. Indeed, you are trying to use quantum mechanics to provide a rational justification for an irrational position, apparently not realizing that quantum physics, nor any other science, can violate its own foundational logic. All science, including quantum mechanics is based on the laws of cause and effect.
https://uncommondescent.com/ethics/i-keep-having-to-remind-myself-that-science-is-self-correcting/#comment-318968 More recently, you changed your tune (and your instrument from piano to kazoo), in keeping with Version 3.0 of your causality law.
I acknowledge that an “event” can be uncaused if we define an event as a change of movement, which understood on those terms would not violate the principle of causality. If, however, we describe an event as something coming into existence from nothing, then the principle of causality would be violated…So, from a quantum perspective, I submit that the existence of the particle was caused and the movement of the particle may or may not have been caused. That is the scientifically and philosophically reasonable position.
https://uncommondescent.com/religion/and-there-you-have-it/#comment-332851 In short, more philosophy by definition. And your rationale for Version 3.0 is explicit: "I acknowledge that an 'event' can be uncaused if we define an event as a change of movement, which understood on those terms would not violate the principle of causality." Can't have that. So: I stated, "cause and effect…clearly breaks down at the quantum level." You have since conceded that, at the quantum level, "an 'event' can be uncaused if we define an event as a change of movement…the movement of a particle may or may not have been caused." Physical events at the quantum level (such as changes in position and momentum) may be uncaused, if we don't classify them as "events" (What class do they fall into?) More progress. Let us review: Several of us collectively argued that "every effect has a cause" is tautologically true, and self-evidence based on tautology is trivial. Stephen conceded that "every effect has a cause" is tautologically true, and that self-evidence based upon tautology is trivial. Progress. I noted that there have been at least three versions of StephenB's "unchanging" causality law, the most recent introduced 18 days ago. His rationales for each change, which implicitly acknowledge the changes themselves, are repeated above. Progress. Several of us argued that "every effect has a cause" breaks down at the quantum level, because not every event is necessarily describable as an "effect." StephenB makes essentially exactly the same point upon conceding that changes in position and momentum at the quantum level may be acausal because they aren't "events" in light of his peculiar definition of "event", and hence aren't effects governable by his law of cause and effect. Progress. Progress is good.Diffaxial_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT}

Reason has rules, which among other things, allow us to eliminate possibilities so that we can move logically from point A to point B. ---Rob: "Yes. They’re called rules of inference. Other than the LNC (depending on how broadly you define it), your PRRs are not inference rules." It didn't use the word, "inference," I used the word reason, which has a broader context. Thus, to assert that physcial events can occur without a cause, violates the canons of reason, the test of which, is not confined to truth tables.StephenB_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT}

---Mark Frank: "Because the point at issue was whether there any authorities (i.e. philosophers) arguing that infinite regress of causes is logical." No, the issue, as stated, was that the argumnet, as presented, explains why "most" philosophers rule it out.StephenB_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

Rob: Also, I have to ask. Assuming that those statments that you alluded to at 162 were quotes of mine (where you went fishing looking for loopholes), were they made in the context of physical events. In other words, was I writing about physical events and yet forgot to insert the word "physical" during a series of comments and responses, and therefore you are now suggesting that I meant all conceivable events, including cognition and human agency. Surely, you would not resort to such a tactic as that.StephenB_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT}

---Rob: “I have repeatedly provided stepwise logic to support my points. I have asked you to tell me what’s wrong with my logic, but you won’t. One of my recent points is that you have contradicted yourself on the issue of determinism. I laid out the logic for you in 162, in terms that you can hopefully understand, and asked if my premises did not represent your position. I’m still waiting.” Yes, and I answered by explaining that there is no contradiction because what you described does not constitute determinism.[I assume you went fishing again on another thread to find some of my quotes]. So, I disagree with the conclusion. Perhaps you had better define your terms. What is your definition of determinism? Since you are also freely using the terms, "compatibilism" and "incompatibilism" define them as well since I don't think they mean what you think they mean. Equally important, explain how the compatibilist and incompatibilist differ on the matter of free will. Having gone through that exercise, you may want to revise your earlier comment. ---Rob: “In my mind, debates should include attempts to support one’s points through logical arguments, math, or empirical data.” Everything that begins to exist must have a cause, The universe began to exist, Therefore, the universe had a cause. It doesn’t get any more logical than that. In any case, do we now agree that quantum events and universes cannot be uncaused [according to my definition which you call trivial but which a lot of heavy thinkers consider essential to science]? If so, we have nothing to fuss about on that front.StephenB_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT}

----Diffaxial: "What I have stated is simple: Stephen’s “proof” of the existence of a personal God has been discussed at length.... We are, at the moment, discussing Diffaxial's assault on the principle of causation and his reluctance to answer simple questions. Each time Darwinists start losing an argument they hearken back to old business to divert attention away from that what is on the table right in front of them.StephenB_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

StephenB @ 211:
When Diffaxial has nothing to say, he always invests multiple paragraphs to say it.
And thus begins Stephen's inevitable descent into ad hominem remarks. What I have stated is simple: Stephen's "proof" of the existence of a personal God has been discussed at length - beaten to death, really - in previous threads, as anyone who follows the above links will discover. Nor did it bear up well, IMHO. But that is for others to judge.Diffaxial_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

CY:
If the abstract infinite example of the space being divided infinitely, were an example of an actual infinite, I could not get from one side of my room by walking to the other, because there would be an infinite amount of space to traverse. Therefore, it is not an actual infinite, but a potential one.
Even if the universe were not quantized, this conclusion would not follow. You can divide a finite space forever, and the total amount of space remains constant and finite, so there is no infinite amount of space to traverse. Mathematically, the total size is the number of regions (n) multiplied by the size of each region (s). Every time n doubles, s is halved, so the limit of n*s as n goes infinity is a constant.
If we translate this concept from space to time, you can see that we cannot traverse an actual infinite amount of time, because the present time would never have arrived – the infinite set of time before the present would render this impossible.
If we're on a beginningless timeline, than every point on the timeline has an infinite past. Hard to digest, and it may not be the case in reality, but I don't see how it's logically inconsistent.R0b_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

Arthur Hunt [207]:
Do you see why your parenthetical aside makes no sense?
Did you bother to read the first paragraph of this three page paper? If you had, then you should have seen that it makes very much sense. Here's what it says: Verapamil (VP) is a weak base which, in addition to acting as a reverser of chloroquine resistance (CQR) in the malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum, has itself an intrinsic antiplasmodial activity (1, 12, 14, 26). This activity is independent of its CQR reversal effect, as the susceptibility of chloroquine (CQ)- sensitive parasites to CQ is unaltered even in the presence of highly toxic concentrations of VP, whereas VP alters the susceptibility of CQ-resistant parasites to CQ at both toxic and nontoxic concentrations (15). Now, here are the three critical sentences from White's article: In the presence of PfCRT mutations, mutations in a second transporter (PfMDR1) modulate the level of resistance in vitro, but the role of PfMDR1 mutations in determining the therapeutic response following chloroquine treatment remains unclear (13). At least one other as-yet unidentified gene is thought to be involved. Resistance to chloroquine in P. falciparum has arisen spontaneously less than ten times in the past fifty years (14). “In the presence of PfCRT mutations . . .” Where did these ‘mutations’ come from? Well, later in the same sentence he says “following chloroquine treatment”. Isn’t it very clear that what he is saying is that if you take a strain of parasite that is resistant to CQ (that is, has positions 76 and 220 of PfCRT mutated), and then you treat this strain with Verapamil, the strain’s resistance to CQ is now lost. The paper I cited talks about the “introduction of ONE or three 7G8 mutations into the pfmdr1 gene of the D10 (CQ-resistant) parasite” , and then goes on to talk about the effects of several substances on the sensitivity of this strain to CQ, among which is Veparamil, and then concludes: “This result suggests that specific mutations in pfmdr1 mediate sensitivity to these compounds via a common mechanism.” White’s article is a more or less review article, and he must be addressing these types of findings. So White says: “ . . . but the role of PfMDR1 mutations in determining the therapeutic response following choloroquine treatment remains unclear.” So, we are now UNCLEAR about the role of PfMDR1 mutations, not PfCRT mutations. Then White says: “At least one other as-yet unidentified gene is thought to be involved.” This refers to the PfMDR1 mutations most assuredly. Now, as to the other matters: you’re just as dismissive of those as you were with this matter at hand. Just saying I’m wrong doesn’t simply make it so. I would hope you would have something a little bit more substantive than that. I quoted White in my last post to you, where White says:
By examination of the sequence of the regions flanking the Pfdhfr gene, it has become apparent that, even for SP, multiple de novo emergence of resistance has not been a frequent event, and that, instead, a single parasite (with a mutation in Pfdhfr at positions 51, 59, and 108) has in recent years swept across each of these continents (24–26). The ability of these resistant organisms to spread has been phenomenal and may well relate to the apparent stimulation of gametocytogenesis that characterizes poor therapeutic responses to SP (27).
You have failed to deal with the implications of this quote. Why? After all, I spelled them out for you in my last post. I await specificity; not just dismissiveness.PaV_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT}

StephenB:
Rob’s comments are irrelevant because Rob will not engage in debate.
In my mind, debates should include attempts to support one's points through logical arguments, math, or empirical data. I have seen no such attempts from you. If you disagree, please show me where you have provided such. I have repeatedly provided stepwise logic to support my points. I have asked you to tell me what's wrong with my logic, but you won't. One of my recent points is that you have contradicted yourself on the issue of determinism. I laid out the logic for you in 162, in terms that you can hopefully understand, and asked if my premises did not represent your position. I'm still waiting. I have tried to be responsive to your queries, but I'm sure that I've missed some. Please tell me which ones I've missed so that I can remedy the situation. In short, I have done everything I reasonably can to engage you productively. Again, once you have told me what questions I haven't answered, I'll provide a list of questions and challenges that you have ignored completely.R0b_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

StephenB:
Rob, the last I heard from you, you acknowledged tjat the law of causality was “trivially true,” yet when I suggested that you apply it to a real world situation, you grew silent.
I said that it applies to all conceivable events. Why would you think that this doesn't include real world situations?
If you were equipped, you would step up to the plate and answer my questions.
Please tell me which questions I haven't answered.
How is it that you acknowledge that whatever begins to exist must have a cause, but you slink away when asked if the universe, which began to exist, has a cause?
Where did I slink away? I have been saying for months that your notion of causation applies to everything.
If you can abandon causality once or twice, as you clearly do, why not twenty or thirty times?
Since I have repeatedly said that I can't conceive of an uncaused event, as you define it, I don't know how to make sense of that counterfactual condition. If you were to ask how we can abandon determinism in some cases and not others, the answer is simple: we follow the math and the empirical data. Just as classical thermodynamics can be derived from statistical mechanics, macroscopic determinism can be derived from quantum indeterminism.
Since you always snipe away from your armchair while timidly refusing to state your own position and avoid all relevant questions, your comments are irrelevant
Once again, please tell me what questions I haven't answered so that I can answer them. When we're done, I'll provide a list of questions that you have not only not answered, but have ignored completely.R0b_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

---Cannuckian Yankee: "“Theism offers a solid (and the only) solution to the problem that has been logically posited in our history.” ---Ritchie: "You are on dangerous ground when you talk of God and equate ID with theism. This is an equation many ID-ers in the mast have taken great pains to avoid…" He did not equate ID with theism. ID is science; Infinite regress is a philosophical issue that informs science. Please do not make such reckless statements. For that matter, none of my arguments on this thread have been ID arguments. I am currently focusing on the Darwinist proclivity to interpret ID evidence through the irrational lens of postmodernism, a philosophy that among other things, holds that something can come from nothing. For those who believe that, ID's evidence about intelligent causes is meaningless. Who needs intelligent causes if no cause at all is needed? Indeed, as has been made clear, the only way to deny intelligent causation is to disavow causation altogether. Such an irrational response to the ordered universe can only be the result of designophobia, a condition acquired in the academy that cannot be treated by theraputic exposure to evidence. It can only be exposed for what it is.StephenB_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT}

---Ritchie: "I have noticed the phrase ‘Anything that begins to exist has a cause’. Though this point is central to your argument, it is still speculative." We both begin with an apriori assumption. I submit that something cannot come from nothing, while you say that perhaps it can. If I am right, humans can reason; if you are right, all reasoning stops. If something can come from nothing, then we can never know which events were caused and which ones were not, or, for that matter, if any event at all was caused. Indeed, as Darwinists have displayed on this and other threads, reasoning has already been abandoned by a large segment of the population. ---"Why can’t the cause of the Big Bang be the equivalent of an incredibly violent explosion in a pre-existing subatomic vacuum, and the universe gradually forming from that explosion?" If something can come from nothing, then why are you appealing to a subatomic vacuum? Who needs it? If something can come from nothing, why do you feel the need to posit a something. Why can't the universe just appear, with or without the vacuum? If you don’t think that physical laws govern the universe, or that its law-like regularities are only human constructs, there is nothing more to be said. ---"Perhaps you are right here." If you think that the order and regularity found in the universe are not real, and that something can from nothing, you cannot argue effectively on behalf of anything.StephenB_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee [from 201] "It is logically impossible because we live in finite time that had a beginning. You can’t separate out finite time from infinite time meaningfully, because ‘parts’ of infinite time are logically absurd." Not everyone agrees with you. There are many scientists who believe that the universe will expand as far as it possibly can, and then start to contract, when everything including time will run backward. Not only this, but the universe may have been doing this over and over again forever. I don't claim this is true necessarily, but it is in theory possible at least. At that is enough to undermine your claim that it is 'logically impossible'. "If you take all the numbers from 1 to infinity (which is illogical, because it has a starting point – but let’s assume that you could), and you separate all the odd numbers from the even, you are left with two infinite sets; an infinite set of odd numbers, and an infinite set of even numbers. Therefore, actual infinite sets are really not possible – only potential infinites are possible." Not so. I do agree that an infinite number would have some very strange qualities (it would be the same size as one of its parts, for example). But that is not evidence that it is impossible. Only that it is hard for us to conceive. "Now let me give you another option. Suppose we have a designer who lives outside of time." Very well. "This designer solves the infinite regress problem – and logically, such a designer is the only solution to this problem." Not so. You claim (if I follow you correctly) this intelligent designer has no cause because it exists outside of time and therefore did not BEGIN to exist? Wouldn't that mean that the universe needs no cause? If there is no time outside of the universe, then the Big Bang, which caused time to exist, came from a timeless place and therefore needs no cause, surely? "Quantum voids are no solution, because voids imply just that – a void. No intelligence, no purpose – no decision making." Okay. But what leads you to conclude and intelligence, purpose or decision making was present. I think if we begin with a Big Bang, there need not be any of these things for atoms to form into stars, planets, and eventually even life. I cannot prove my position, but the onus here, I think, is on you to show intelligence, purpose and direction WAS present at the beginning of the universe. "It is really atheism that has a problem with infinite regresses, not theism." Not so. Imagine a universe that has been expanding and contacting over and over again forever. This is infinite regress, and atheism has no problem with it. "Theism offers a solid (and the only) solution to the problem that has been logically posited in our history." You are on dangerous ground when you talk of God and equate ID with theism. This is an equation many ID-ers in the mast have taken great pains to avoid...Ritchie_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

#213 StephenB argument by authority? Why not simply respond to Cannuckian Yankee’s points? Because the point at issue was whether there any authorities (i.e. philosophers) arguing that infinite regress of causes is logical.Mark Frank_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

StephenB:
Obviously, you know nothing about compatibilism.
Obviously. I regret responding to your comment about free will, as it's a subject with notoriously slippery terms and concepts. The only way to avoid the miscommunication that you see in so many debates on the subject is to formalize the logic. But since your response to formal logic is to accuse me of bluffing, I see no hope of progress on the issue.
Also, I am not a determinist, since determinism places cognitive activity in a strict causal chain.
And yet your positions on sufficiency entail determinism, as shown in 162. And I tried to lay it out in easy-to-understand terms.
That is why your mindless ABC chart was meaningless.
I have no idea what mindless ABC chart you're referring to.
The questions I have asked you are still on the table.
Please tell me what questions I haven't answered so I can remedy the situation.
That is not what the law of causality states.
No, but it satisfies your law of causality. A law that is satisfied so easily that you can't conceive an event not satisfying it is trivial.
Do you acknowledge that the universe had a prior cause and that quantum particles are not uncaused?
I have acknowledged it many times, starting months ago. To repeat myself, "there is no conceivable scenario that is precluded by the rule". For the origin of the universe, vacuum fluctuations, and every other conceivable event, it is necessary that nothing prevent them from occurring in order for them to occur. Thus they all have at least one necessary condition, and thus they are caused, according to your usage of the term. I've spelled all this out before. Will you ask me to do it again?R0b_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

----Mark Frank: "To avoid wasted effort let’s set some criteria for proving my point. If I were to identify papers from five contemporary philosophers from respectable academic institutions arguing that an infinite regression of causes was logically possible would that be enough?" Argument by authority? Why not simply respond to Cannuckian Yankee's points?StephenB_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

StephenB [from 200] "We know that the universe began in time and we know that anything that began to exist in time had a cause." Perhaps. Perhaps not. Perhaps the local convention that 'everything that begins to exist has a cause' only came into being at the Big Bang, along with matter, time and space, not BEFORE the Big Bang? "If you think that the laws of logic do not apply to the whole cosmos, then why would you want to talk about it? There would be no reason to discuss it and no way to discuss it." My point is to show that we cannot be certain. You are inferring an intelligent cretor based on reasoning. My point is that your reasoning is flawed. I have noticed the phrase 'Anything that begins to exist has a cause'. Though this point is central to your argument, it is still speculative. "If a non-personal eternal law could create, which in any case it cannot, then it would have always been creating. A non-personal “law” cannot be creating one during one era and not creating during another era. Otherwise, it would not be an unchanging law. Only an intelligent agent that can chose to create can produce a universe that begins in time." I don't really follow the logic here at all, I'm afraid. You have gone from a 'cause' to a 'creator' who CHOSE to create. Again, your logic seems faulty. Why can't the cause of the Big Bang be the equivalent of an incredibly violent explosion in a pre-existing subatomic vacuum, and the universe gradually forming from that explosion? "If you don’t think that physical laws govern the universe, or that its law-like regularities are only human constructs, there is nothing more to be said." Perhaps you are right here.Ritchie_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

---Diffaxial: “It is “the law of eternal return” that is applicable here. The law of eternal return of StephenB’s argument for the existence of a personal God, that is. The proof and related topics have already been beaten to death here----blah, blah, blah" When Diffaxial has nothing to say, he always invests multiple paragraphs to say it. In this case, he goes on for 468 words to remind us of what StephenB said long ago. When one cannot defend one’s position, one distracts. The issue on the table is clear enough: Science depends on the principles that something cannot come from nothing and anything that begins to exist must have a cause. Diffaxial and his colleagues deny those principles, so I asked them a few questions: If you can dispense with causality in two or three contexts, as you clearly do, why not twenty or thirty or a million? If a universe or a quantum particle can pop into existence without a cause—why cannot anything pop into existence without a cause? If some events are caused and others are not, how do you distinguish one from the other? Do you, in fact, assert that the universe had no cause? If you appeal to quantum mechanics as your main justification for abandoning the principle of causality at the micro level, why, then, do you also abandon causality at the macro level as an explanation for the beginning of the universe? The unduly long threads are not my doing. It is a result of extended evasions and creative attempts to avoid debate, which include the infamous, “what- does-‘nothing’- really- mean “ syndrome.StephenB_{September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply