uncaused events

Originally posted by apathist
Quantum physics does not say that oh no! this event has no deterministic cause and therefore it must be uncaused!

stawman.
I never said this and you know it.
Quantum physics also does not say that this event is deterministic i.e. it must be caused.
In other words, quantum physics doesn't say one way or the other whether there are hidden causes to specific observed outcomes of apparently random quantum events being whatever they are; get it?

Originally posted by humy
You shifted your claim to a flawed position to the obvious. That doesn't change the fact that my original assertion is correct.

You are always right, humy. I never shifted anything, but lord knows humy is never wrong.

Originally posted by humy
stawman.
I never said this and you know it.
Quantum physics also does not say that this event is deterministic i.e. it must be caused.
In other words, quantum physics doesn't say one way or the other whether there are hidden causes to specific observed outcomes of apparently random quantum events being whatever they are; get it?

Quantum physics doesn't give a fudge about determinism or indeterminism. And you still don't know what a strawman is.

Is it important to you that people don't try to understand causation? Like tw, do want your readers to bow before you?

I hate this approach. Where can I go for actual discussion.

Originally posted by apathist
Quantum physics doesn't give a fudge about determinism or indeterminism.

AT LAST you GOT IT!

You first said "Science assumes effects were caused".

then I said "Not in this case." (implicitly thinking of quantum physics)

then you said "In every case."

Then I said "Wrong!
Quantum physics does NOT assume a particular outcome being what it is rather than being some other possible outcome of apparently random quantum event has a cause. "

now you said; "Quantum physics doesn't give a fudge about determinism or indeterminism. " which admits I was correct to say ""Not in this case." and you were wrong to say "In every case.".

Is it important to you that people don't try to understand causation?

strawman.

Originally posted by apathist
Quantum physics doesn't give a fudge about determinism or indeterminism. And you still don't know what a strawman is.

Is it important to you that people don't try to understand causation? Like tw, do want your readers to bow before you?

I hate this approach. Where can I go for actual discussion.

Quantum physics: Do an experiment to test the movement of really small particles that are impossible to see. Then when the results come back blurry, simply conclude that, in fact, reality is blurry.

My understanding of quantum mechanics is that they are mere place holder explanations until a better understood classical mechanism can be experimentally validated.

I'm sure someone will chime in and say I'm wrong though. I'm not defining something right, or I'm missing some obscure detail that will be seen as extremely offensive.

Originally posted by humy
AT LAST you GOT IT!

You first said "Science assumes effects were caused".
then I said "Not in this case." (implicitly thinking of quantum physics)
then you said "In every case."
Then I said "Wrong!...

Quantum physics requires that effects can be uncaused?

bs

Once in a while, according to humy, a die roll produces a bunny.

Originally posted by apathist
Once in a while, according to humy, a die roll produces a bunny.

He never said that!

True, but if an event is uncaused, can't really put limits on it. That last non-fart produced an entire universe, and humy can't argue otherwise!

God this is stupid. Effects are caused. Otherwise science has nothing important to say.

Originally posted by wildgrass...
My understanding of quantum mechanics is that they are mere place holder explanations until a better understood classical mechanism can be experimentally validated.

I'm sure someone will chime in and say I'm wrong though. I'm not defining something right, or I'm missing some obscure detail that will be seen as extremely offensive.[/b]

Ah. We must be clockwork.

Across the board, science advances without that limitation. Don't you think that reality might be a bit more complicated than classical man managed to grasp?

Originally posted by apathist
Ah. We must be clockwork.

Across the board, science advances [b]without that limitation. Don't you think that reality might be a bit more complicated than classical man managed to grasp?[/b]

Not clockwork, but Bigfoot probably isn't blurry in reality. There is no large out of focus monster roaming the countryside.

Originally posted by wildgrass
My understanding of quantum mechanics is that they are mere place holder explanations until a better understood classical mechanism can be experimentally validated.

I'm sure someone will chime in and say I'm wrong though. I'm not defining something right, or I'm missing some obscure detail that will be seen as extremely offensive.

Yes, you are wrong.
Quantum mechanics is probably the most successful theory in physics ever. It explains most of fundamental physics and predicts certain constants to 14 decimal places - and I believe that is a limit on our equipment, not the quantum dynamics predictions, but I could be wrong.

http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2011/05/05/the-most-precisely-tested-theo/

That the world is NOT classical is, I believe, proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

Originally posted by wildgrass
[Not clockwork, but Bigfoot probably isn't blurry in reality. There is no large out of focus monster roaming the countryside.

I get the point. It's a benchmark. Creatures aren't blurry.

Originally posted by twhitehead
...

That the world is NOT classical is, I believe, proven beyond any reasonable doubt.[/b]

So would you please, please interpret my words as if we agree on that point.

Since the world is not classical, what set of rules are we using?

I just wasted my breath, didn't I.

Originally posted by apathist
I just wasted my breath, didn't I.

Yes.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes.

^^^
I was wondering how to define intellectual dishonesty.