28 Jan 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou appear to be confusing two very different things: existence and logic.
I think that it's logical that there is some self existent , uncause reality which is the ultimate reality of everything. For some it may be the long sort after Grand Unification Theory , for others it may be something else . For me it is God. However , God aside , the idea that there is a supreme reality upon which all other realities eminate from is ...[text shortened]... nd how it was caused or why it is the way it is. This could be an uncomfortable idea for some.
For example 1+1=2 is an ultimate truth. It is a logical truth totally independent of the universe or whether or not God exists or any other 'reality'. It is a logical truth.
The existence of an atom, or the exact workings of its constituent parts is a totally different type of 'truth'. It is not a logical truth.
You appear to be using the two concepts interchangeably and using one to back up the other etc.
28 Jan 08
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterNo, that's just our subjective bias toward causality; the fact that one truth relies on another to be true doesn't necessarily make the second truth more important than the one which follows from it. If it did, then everything in the universe - indeed, the universe itself - would become less important as time went on, because the state of the unvierse at any moment relies for its causality on the state of the universe from the previous moment. But that doesn't mean that the state of the universe today is any less important, any less "ultimate" than the state of the universe yesterday; we might judge it to be so, according to our own desires and needs, but the universe is indifferent to those judgments.
Some truths are more important than others because some truths rely on other truths in order to be true. The truth about the laws of physics/matter and energy that existed at the time of the big bang are very important compared to the truth of your pencil on you desk because your pencil relies on the other more ultimate truth and would not even exist if the other truth (the big bang) had not existed.
Then suppose - as we postulated earlier - that the chain of causality is endless, and that every truth relies on a larger and more profound truth as its cause, forever without end. Then there is truly no ultimate, final truth. We can step back and look at the universe and claim "there is no ultimate truth," but that judgment itself is not the ultimate truth; it is a passing observation about the universe. A truth, but only one of many.
28 Jan 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterIt's not merely a semantic redescription, but a conceptual reinterpretation, and one that makes sense given a particular set of physical facts and assumptions.
No time beforehand, no preceding cause required.-----pawk
I 've always seen that as a bit of a kop out really because it doesn't really make it any less of a conundrum. It may semantically make the problem seem to go away but in reality I don't think it does go away. The question regarding something coming out of nothing for no apparent reason or with no cause is still a problem , time or no time.
Are you open to the possibility that the problem could be that we insist on applying a fundamental mental category--that of causality operating in time--to a subject matter, the universe, that doesn't conform to it at one level? Could the problem lie within, rather than without?
28 Jan 08
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeI have no problem with believing in the concept of things outside causality and time , I believe in God remember. What I object to is postulating such a thing without appreciating how radical and incredible such an idea is. It runs against everything we know and experience about the universe and yet you guys like to normalise it without realisng that an Uncaused cause defies logic as we know it.
It's not merely a semantic redescription, but a conceptual reinterpretation, and one that makes sense given a particular set of physical facts and assumptions.
Are you open to the possibility that the problem could be that we insist on applying a fundamental mental category--that of causality operating in time--to a subject matter, the universe, that doesn't conform to it at one level? Could the problem lie within, rather than without?
28 Jan 08
Originally posted by darthmixWhat basic level? If you are refering to the quantum level I think you are making an unjustified assumption which is not yet proven. For example , there is plenty of debate concerning the nature of the vaccuum and whether such a thing can really exist in the universe and yet you guys still talk about particles coming out of "nothing" . Prove this "nothing" exists.
Bingo. I think that's the problem; the rules of cause & effect aren't really absolute. On a very basic level the universe seems to operate quite indifferently to them. The claim that everything must have a cause is simply not true.
28 Jan 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadReally!!!! This is one of the most rubbish points you've made in the past year!
You appear to be confusing two very different things: existence and logic.
For example 1+1=2 is an ultimate truth. It is a logical truth totally independent of the universe or whether or not God exists or any other 'reality'. It is a logical truth.
The existence of an atom, or the exact workings of its constituent parts is a totally different type of 't ...[text shortened]... appear to be using the two concepts interchangeably and using one to back up the other etc.
I don't see how logic does not depend on existence. Logic forms out of observation of consistent physical laws.Men saw that when one places one stone next to another there are two stones. Bingo! 1+1=2. If men had placed a stone next to another and the one stone had made the other dissappear so as to only leave one stone left and this happened all over the universe then your so called "independent " logic - 1+1=2- would not exist.
I doubt that 1+1=2 really can be totally independent of the universe since it exists in mens minds who are part of the universe. It is also based on observation of the external world by men , like all maths , it is connected to nature in some form.
If you want to say that there is some pure logic and reason that is compeletely separate from the unverse then that's very interesting because that supports the idea of God to me.
28 Jan 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterWhat? Prove nothing exists? What are you talking about?
What basic level? If you are refering to the quantum level I think you are making an unjustified assumption which is not yet proven. For example , there is plenty of debate concerning the nature of the vaccuum and whether such a thing can really exist in the universe and yet you guys still talk about particles coming out of "nothing" . Prove this "nothing" exists.
Knightmeister, what I'm trying to help you see in this thread it's that it's your argument - not mine - which is based on unjustified assumptions. In this case, you're making the mistake of assuming that cause & effect as you know them are inherant qualities of the universe. That seems to be an unjustified assumption; quantum mechanics, which is not the vague and unproven field of science you pretend it is, has demonstrated that true uncertainty and randomness are actual qualities of the universe. There is not significant debate about quantum uncertainty.
28 Jan 08
2 edits
Originally posted by darthmixWhy does randomness and uncertainty imply that such events are uncaused in nature? Couldn't they just be chaotic but still caused?
What? Prove nothing exists? What are you talking about?
Knightmeister, what I'm trying to help you see in this thread it's that it's your argument - not mine - which is based on unjustified assumptions. In this case, you're making the mistake of assuming that cause & effect as you know them are inherant qualities of the universe. That seems to be ...[text shortened]... actual qualities of the universe. There is not significant debate about quantum uncertainty.
Also , is there not the possibility that what seems random at the moment actually has patterns to it that we cannot discern? How does one get to the point where one knows something is actually random rather than just highly complex and not understood? Maybe when some GUT comes along it will not look random at all , afterall random just means we can't predict it which could say more about our lack of ability to predict. I just don't think it proves what you think it proves , just like when phycists say that quantum particles "appear out of nothing" and then you read up on the nature of so called vaccuums and you see all sorts of holes appear in the idea and how theoretical it's very hard to say that a vaccuum of any sort is actually "empty".
BTW- Please don't patronise me , I may not be a physicist but I am no dunce.
29 Jan 08
3 edits
Originally posted by knightmeister
Why does randomness and uncertainty imply that such events are uncaused in nature? Couldn't they just be chaotic but still caused?
Often when we use words like "random" and "chaotic," we're speaking in terms of our own subjective perception. A ball on a pool table can seem to behave unpredictably - it can ricochet off in a direction you didn't anticipate or intend, especially if you're not very good at pool. But a Newtonian physicist would look at a pool table and explain to you how the ball's behavior isn't really random; it had a cause, and if you could unravel all the physical properties of the ball - if you could factor in the minor imperfections on its surface, the fabric of the pool table, the subtle movements of the air in the room, the precise angle and the precise amount of force with which you hit it - you could theoretically reconstruct the shot and explain exactly why things played out the way they did. The shot was determined by a certain combination of physical properties and forces which came together at that instant. From a practical standpoint that kind of predictive calculation is prohibitively difficult, but it is theoretically possible.
When we talk about quantum uncertainty, we're talking about true randomness and unpredictability - wherein the process described above is not just impossible for us, but actually impossible, and irrelevant. We can conduct two controlled, identical experiements, with all the relevant factors being exactly the same, and yet a different result can be produced, as when a photons are fired against a target and produce a waive against the screen instead of landing at the same location. There is no cause for on photon to land at this location while that photon landed at that one; it's just a result of quantum uncertainty.
Also , is there not the possibility that what seems random at the moment actually has patterns to it that we cannot discern? How does one get to the point where one knows something is actually random rather than just highly complex and not understood? Maybe when some GUT comes along it will not look random at all , afterall random just means we can't predict it which could say more about our lack of ability to predict.
The foundations for quantum uncertainty are incredibly involved and mathematical, but they cannot be dismissed as a result of our limited knowledge of the subject. Here I quote Rem B. Edwards "What Caused the Big Bang," who says - as Paul Davies did in the article I linked you to earlier - that "Real uncertainty, indeterminateness, and unpredictability obtain at the quantum level of physical reality, but not merely as expressions of human ignorance or of the limits of experimental investigation. Einstein defended 'hidden variables' that would reconcile quantum with classical physics; but most quantum physicists agree with Heisenberg's repudiation of absolutely inaccessible physical uknowns; and many experiments in quantum mechanics now count decisively against hidden variables. Sub-microscopic quantum realities are very different in may respects from the macroscopic realities of ordinary perceptual experience."
The experiments of quantum uncertainty, entanglement, etc, like for example the EPR paradox, are incredibly involved - probably beyond my ability to explain them in a satisfactory way. I found this article in nature which offers some explanation without getting too mired in equations but you might not find it satisfying:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7129/full/445723a.html
29 Jan 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterIf it is really so rubbish then why are you having such a hard time refuting it?
Really!!!! This is one of the most rubbish points you've made in the past year!
I don't see how logic does not depend on existence. Logic forms out of observation of consistent physical laws.Men saw that when one places one stone next to another there are two stones. Bingo! 1+1=2. If men had placed a stone next to another and the one stone had made the other dissappear so as to only leave one stone left and this happened all over the universe then your so called "independent " logic - 1+1=2- would not exist.
You are claiming that before man figured it out, for billions and billions of years, 1+1=2 did not exist or was false? Please explain.
I doubt that 1+1=2 really can be totally independent of the universe since it exists in mens minds who are part of the universe. It is also based on observation of the external world by men , like all maths , it is connected to nature in some form.
Make up your mind, is it part of nature or in mens minds? And is it not true on the far side of Jupiter?
If you want to say that there is some pure logic and reason that is compeletely separate from the unverse then that's very interesting because that supports the idea of God to me.
Next you will be withdrawing all your above argument and saying "1+1=2 is in the mind of God, and cant exist without Him"
That was one of the most rubbish refutations you've made in the past year!
29 Jan 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou are claiming that "everything we know and experience about the universe" implies absolute causality yet when someone points out that is not the case, the best you can come up with is "well we don.t know for sure".
It runs against everything we know and experience about the universe and yet you guys like to normalise it without realisng that an Uncaused cause defies logic as we know it.
Why does randomness and uncertainty imply that such events are uncaused in nature? Couldn't they just be chaotic but still caused?
The fact is that science has not progressed to a point where it is known whether or not causality is a driving force. In fact, it certainly looks like most events have a significant random component.
Your claims that it 'defies logic' are simply false.
29 Jan 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadMake up your mind, is it part of nature or in mens minds? ---whitey---
If it is really so rubbish then why are you having such a hard time refuting it?
[b]I don't see how logic does not depend on existence. Logic forms out of observation of consistent physical laws.Men saw that when one places one stone next to another there are two stones. Bingo! 1+1=2. If men had placed a stone next to another and the one stone had made ...[text shortened]... ithout Him"
That was one of the most rubbish refutations you've made in the past year!
Men's minds ARE part of nature (in your world view they have to be)!! You are creating a duality for yourself where none exists.
Of course , you could start to say that mind (consciousness) exists as separate from the brain (which is part of nature of course) but then that would take you down a road I'm sure you don't want to go down. (LOL)
29 Jan 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadNext you will be withdrawing all your above argument and saying "1+1=2 is in the mind of God, and cant exist without Him" ----whitey----
If it is really so rubbish then why are you having such a hard time refuting it?
[b]I don't see how logic does not depend on existence. Logic forms out of observation of consistent physical laws.Men saw that when one places one stone next to another there are two stones. Bingo! 1+1=2. If men had placed a stone next to another and the one stone had made ...[text shortened]... ithout Him"
That was one of the most rubbish refutations you've made in the past year!
And in fact this may well be true , but you cannot afford yourself such an idea because you don't believe it . Therefore it is YOU that needs to withdraw your claim or at least re-think it. Don't forget that it was you that started this line of thinking not me , so the onus is still on you to show how some "logic" like 1+1=2 can exist as separate from the universe.
What else is there but the universe whitey? If pure logic is not part of the universe what exactly is it? Can you say? Mind you many have tried to tell me what "time" is and no-one has as yet told me what it is other than some concept. Of course , logic , like time , is drawn from man's experience of the universe around him. The existential facts of the universe cause the idea of "time" to arise in men's minds because we see things moving and changing around us. The same with logic , we see the universe behaving in a certain way (ie logically - consistently) and we form logical concepts from that. Logic is rooted in existence. What else could it be rooted in (for you) unless you posit a God outside the universe?
Come on man , think about it!!!
29 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou are claiming that before man figured it out, for billions and billions of years, 1+1=2 did not exist or was false? Please explain.
If it is really so rubbish then why are you having such a hard time refuting it?
[b]I don't see how logic does not depend on existence. Logic forms out of observation of consistent physical laws.Men saw that when one places one stone next to another there are two stones. Bingo! 1+1=2. If men had placed a stone next to another and the one stone had made ithout Him"
That was one of the most rubbish refutations you've made in the past year!
---whitey-------
Of course 1+1 did not exist (it depends what you mean by exist) because 1+1 is a mental/ mathmatical representation of reality that is in men's minds , and if there were no men's minds then it wasn't there. However , the brute facts of the universe were there and did exist. If one sun formed and another sun formed next to it there were two suns.But there was no "1" or "2" , only matter doing what it does. You might as well say that beauty is an ACTUAL property of the universe , or morality for that matter.