09 Feb 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonReally? What form would this evidence take?
[b]….ut do you not see your mistake here?
The comparison with jam is flawed (even though I brought it up)
Why?
Because there is no rational reason at all to think that quantum events would be made of jam.
..…
-and there is no rational reason at all to think that quantum events would have a “cause” for the reasons I just gave.
...[text shortened]... ld believe this.
The rest of your reasoning is flawed because it totally ignores these facts.[/b]
----------hammy--------------------------
We might find some jam in there somewhere?
09 Feb 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonUNLIKE with other categories of events, our default position should be that the quantum event should NOT have a cause unless there in evidence to the contrary.
[b]….Quantum events belong to the same category as all events.
..…
That depends on what criteria you use to categories events but in this context it would be inappropriate to lump quantum events in with all other events for exactly the reasons I gave in my last post.
….They are events within the known universe.
..…
That is a ...[text shortened]... OT have a cause unless there in evidence to the contrary.
”
Please read the above carefully.[/b]
---------------------hammy-----------------------------------
However , given that there are many cases in science of unknown causes for events becoming known and frontiers being pushed back etc etc that this would seem a bit hasty.
Quantum events still belong to the larger set of "events that occur within our universe" and since cause and effect has been a widely proven principle across the board with many events it seems hasty to chuck it out on the basis of a few equations and an absence of evidence.
I would have thought a " we just don't know at the moment" approach might be more rational. Until there is proof the jury is out yes?
09 Feb 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThe rest of your reasoning is flawed because it totally ignores these facts.
[b]….ut do you not see your mistake here?
The comparison with jam is flawed (even though I brought it up)
Why?
Because there is no rational reason at all to think that quantum events would be made of jam.
..…
-and there is no rational reason at all to think that quantum events would have a “cause” for the reasons I just gave.
...[text shortened]... ld believe this.
The rest of your reasoning is flawed because it totally ignores these facts.[/b]
-------------------hammy-------------------------
Slightly biased reasoning don't you think? It's almost as if you WANT to write off everything I say because of one equation and some things you don't know.
09 Feb 09
Originally posted by knightmeisterI too would go with that approach but you repeatedly make the false claim that it is reasonable to assume that all events have causes.
I would have thought a " we just don't know at the moment" approach might be more rational. Until there is proof the jury is out yes?
09 Feb 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadWell , based on the known and proven evidence (ie that which we already know) it would be rational to err on that side of things would it not?
I too would go with that approach but you repeatedly make the false claim that it is reasonable to assume that all events have causes.
Given a choice between theory , unknowns and conjecture on one side versus what is known and proven and evidenced on the other , which default position is more rational?
My feeling is that atheists and scientists have latched on to this idea of uncaused events because it solves a lot of metaphysical problems for them. Who needs God or eternity when you can have something uncaused appear out of nothing for no reason?
Of course , this may be true afterall , but it seems to me taht there is a willingness to latch on to this idea that is out of step with the evidence or proof.
09 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterI would have no problem with you even thinking it is more likely than not that all events have causes. But when you assume it as fact and then draw logical (illogical) conclusions from that assumption then I beg to differ.
Well , based on the known and proven evidence (ie that which we already know) it would be rational to err on that side of things would it not?
Given a choice between theory , unknowns and conjecture on one side versus what is known and proven and evidenced on the other , which default position is more rational?
That is not the choice. Stop wasting your time with strawmen.
My feeling is that atheists and scientists have latched on to this idea of uncaused events because it solves a lot of metaphysical problems for them.
I am an atheist and have not 'latched onto' the idea at all.
What problems does it 'solve'?
Who needs God or eternity when you can have something uncaused appear out of nothing for no reason?
If you think the idea of God solves that then you are mistaken.
Quantum events being uncaused has nothing to do with the ridiculous concept of something appearing out of nothing for no reason. That ridiculous concept is merely your favorite strawman.
Of course , this may be true afterall , but it seems to me taht there is a willingness to latch on to this idea that is out of step with the evidence or proof.
On the contrary, it is you that does all the 'latching'. Sadly you still 'latch' even though it doesn't support theism - you merely believe it does.
You are yet to explain why you started this thread in the first place. You clearly thought that your initial argument had important ramifications but as far as I know you have not presented those ramifications even though you have been asked for them several times. Or did I miss a post?
09 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeister….However , given that there are many cases in science of unknown causes for events becoming known and..…
UNLIKE with other categories of events, our default position should be that the quantum event should NOT have a cause unless there in evidence to the contrary.
---------------------hammy-----------------------------------
However , given that there are many cases in science of unknown causes for events becoming known and frontiers being pushed bac at the moment" approach might be more rational. Until there is proof the jury is out yes?
Sorry, I have already been over that several times:
-Those events don’t belong to the same category of events as quantum events that can be observed to obey very different behavioural rules.
09 Feb 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThey Do belong in a different catagory of events because they are micro events , just as cholera outbreaks (disease) belong in a differnet catagory of events from volcanic eruptions (geological). However ALL events that occur in our universe can also be grouped into one catagory called "events"
[b]….However , given that there are many cases in science of unknown causes for events becoming known and..…
Sorry, I have already been over that several times:
-Those events don’t belong to the same category of events as quantum events that can be observed to obey very different behavioural rules.[/b]
Now if the basis of your argument is "my catagorisation is more valid than yours" then that's fine , but that's just your opinion.
You also place massive significance on the idea that "no quantum events have a known cause" , but I dealt with that a few posts back and you had no answer it seems.
--------------------------------------------------------------->>
EXAMPLE - If I look in a small desert for evidence of a large army trekking through it the day before I could say that the ABSENCE of footprints was very significant and wouild show that it was HIGHLY PROBABLE that there was no army there.
HOWEVER- Let's say I knew nothing about overnight sandstorms. Let's say i had just assumed that the footprints would be there and nothing could obscure them. I might say "if there was an army here we would have found footprints by now"
BUT
The absence of any footprints at all might infact turn out to be irrelevant - and once I found out about sandstorms I would realise this and see my mistake. The absence of footprints in the sand would infact have meant NOTHING.
So educate me - what is the quantum equivalent of the sandstorm and hwo do we know that it's not some unknown sandstirm that is obscuring the evidence?
09 Feb 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat is not the choice. Stop wasting your time with strawmen.
I would have no problem with you even thinking it is more likely than not that all events have causes. But when you assume it as fact and then draw logical (illogical) conclusions from that assumption then I beg to differ.
[b]Given a choice between theory , unknowns and conjecture on one side versus what is known and proven and evidenced on the other ...[text shortened]... fications even though you have been asked for them several times. Or did I miss a post?
--------------------whitey------------------
If uncaused quantum events are not proven then they remain a theory. There was a post many moons ago that suggested that quantum particles could appear out of literally "nothing" but it turned out that the idea of a true quantum vaccuum of nothingness was full of intrinsic scientific problems.
09 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeister….Now if the basis of your argument is "my catagorisation is more valid than yours" then that's fine , but that's just your opinion.
They Do belong in a different catagory of events because they are micro events , just as cholera outbreaks (disease) belong in a differnet catagory of events from volcanic eruptions (geological). However ALL events that occur in our universe can also be grouped into one catagory called "events"
Now if the basis of your argument is "my catagorisation hwo do we know that it's not some unknown sandstirm that is obscuring the evidence?
..…
Not quite “just” my opinion -you have ignored the non-arbitrary criterion that I and the scientists use to categories events in this particular context. I have already explained that criteria to you and indicated the reasons for it but you appear just to ignore this.
09 Feb 09
knightmeister, I notice that you have avoided my comments so far relating to time. I would like to expand on some of my points.
The flow of time is an illusion.
Lets say that two particles are (A) traveling toward each other, (B) they collide, rebound (C) then travel apart.
There is no good reason other than our natural bias to say that there was a cause effect chain A, B, C. We could just as well say the chain was C,B, A. We know that they are related by the laws of physics, but we do not know that A is more important than C.
If we were to isolate the system, I see no reason to call A a brute fact and B and C effects when we could just as easily call B or C the brute fact and the rest effects. It makes more sense to call the whole system a brute fact.
09 Feb 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think a brute fact does emerge from that scenario. However, I would not call the chain itself brute or without explanation. The criticism I have in mind is the one put forth by David Hume, in which he stated basically that explanation of all the parts constitutes explanation of the whole. That is, suppose each and every fact in the chain is explained by some set of other facts in the same chain. Then we have explanation for each and every fact in the chain, and it would be unreasonable to then claim that we do not have explanation for the chain itself. However, I believe that there is another fact (external to the chain itself) that is left unexplained and is basically brute. I'm not quite sure how to best state the fact, but it would be something like the fact that there are any of these facts (referring to the facts in the chain) to begin with. This I have always understood to be a major contention of knightmeister's as well: that even if you can provide explanation for each and every dependent entity in a collection by appealing to the activity of other dependent entities in that collection, that doesn't explain why there are any of these dependent entities to begin with.
Now suppose that there is a recursive chain of facts that depend on each other in a circular fashion. Do we then call the whole system a 'brute fact'?
09 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterI said uncaused CAUSE , not event. God to me is the uncaused cause of existence , but he is not an event - events have causes. A self sustaining independent entity does not "happen" like an event does - it just IS.
You yourself concluded in the first post of the thread that there must exist one uncaused cause hence you know your claim above is false--------------whitey---------------------
uhhhhhhhhhhh....if only you could read....I said uncaused CAUSE , not event. God to me is the uncaused cause of existence , but he is not an event - events have causes. A se does - it just IS.
I have never said that there must be at least one uncaused "event".
I have never said that there must be at least one uncaused "event".
I need more clarification on your distinction between causes and events. Under some very common views of causal relata, I think your views here basically make no sense. For example, under a standard view**, the two causal relata (in roles of cause and effect) are of the category event. In other words, a standard view of causal relata is that events (in the role of cause) cause other events (in the role of effect). Under such a view, your statements here make little or no sense.
Under this view, for example, God in and of himself doesn't cause stuff (and of course, no one is claiming that he himself is an event): He undertakes actions (events) that cause stuff (other events). How does your view that God himself is a cause make any sense?
I want to know exactly why you think causes are not in the category of events. Frankly, I think your argument makes very little sense as you have explained it thus far. You want to say that we should always think events have causes, but you are more than willing to state there exists at least one uncaused cause. This will only make sense under some interpretation of causation in which causes are not in the category of events. So what is your interpretation? And what do you really mean when you say God is a cause?
-------
**For example, see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-metaphysics/
09 Feb 09
Originally posted by knightmeisterWhere in your earlier considerations do they support the idea that one and only one brute fact exists (instead of just supporting the idea that at least one brute fact exists)?
Why are you supposing there is one singular fact upon which "all others rely"? What makes you think there is only one brute fact?
------------lemon--------------------------------
Purely observation really. If you look at the known universe that's the way things are. The brute fact (if it is a brute fact) of the big bang is the root of everything ...[text shortened]... It might be false , but it's based on observing nature. It seems a reasonable assumption.
09 Feb 09
Originally posted by LemonJelloThere's only one big bang isn't there? The known universe seems to work in a way where all events seem to be traceable to one known brute fact - the big bang. The theme of lots of things being derived from one thing is a basic pattern.
Where in your earlier considerations do they support the idea that one and only one brute fact exists (instead of just supporting the idea that at least one brute fact exists)?