|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Kalam Cosmological argument | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3671 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
can we now say that the device that records the collapse now has, in fact, collapsed the wave function before we look at the device to see what it has recorded? In decoherence, we don't talk about collapse. Collapse is one way of getting to the classical regime from the quantum, decoherence is another. But in effect, yes, it is interaction from the environment that pushes the quantum state towards what we would consider a classical state. If there is an observing device, it is going to be an extreme form of environment, in that it is forcing itself into interaction with whatever you are observing. There are still mystical elements: you can start to consider the joint wave-function of the electron, apparatus and your mind, and you can end up with superpositions of your mind: one in which you observe up and one in which you observe down. This is usually known as many-minds, sort of related to Everett's many-worlds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
happy_atheist Member (Idle past 4941 days) Posts: 326 Joined: |
Percy writes: So to reiterate what I said before, here are a list of effects which have no cause we know of, plus one more that occurred to me: Nothing causes a particular atom of Uranium-238 to decay at a particular time. It just happens. Nothing causes a particular electron to tunnel through the barrier of a tunnel diode. It just happens. Nothing causes an entangled particle's wave function to collapse to either up or down spin upon being observed. It just happens. Virtual particles. There is nothing that causes them to flit into existence. They just do, governed by the laws of quantum physics. Which slit a particle travels through in diffraction experiments.This negates the claim of the opening post that every effect must have a cause. Even if all of those things you've pointed out above actually do have a cause that we discover in some new revelation of physics that STILL doesn't make the opening assumption of the argument valid. The very reason the Kalam Cosmological argument exists is because we don't know if the universe has a cause or not. If we DID know it had a cause then the argument would not be required. It is not valid to say "everything we know of has a cause, therefore EVERYTHING has a cause. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. And it's certainly not valid to just claim that everything has a cause. I could just as validly claim that NOT everything has a cause, and my claim would be just as well supported as the first (since we can't possibly know that either are true). And even if we could prove that everything in the universe has to have a cause, it still wouldn't necessarily follow that the universe has a cause. The universe is not in the universe. Does it even make cognitive sense to claim that the universe has a cause? This is where it starts to hurt my head, but can time have a cause? I certainly don't think it makes sense to claim so, anymore than "before the big bang" makes sense if it is taken as t0 (first point in time). Edited by happy_atheist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3671 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
And even if we could prove that everything in the universe has to have a cause, it still wouldn't necessarily follow that the universe has a cause Absolutely. This is the critical point. Fallacy of composition and all that.
Does it even make cognitive sense to claim that the universe has a cause? If you can identify the cause then you can surely extend your definition of the universe to include the cause, and now you are back to square one! However, I do get nervous when we start talking about the universe NOT having a cause after mention of virtual particles, quantum theory, and the like. The idea that the universe may have just blipped into existence, or tunnelled its way from nothing is just as bad. All these phenomena require existing laws, so again we just extend our definition of the boundary of the universe to include this pre-universe where such laws exist, and again we have the same problem. The Universe just is. Whether finite or infinite, that is it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
happy_atheist Member (Idle past 4941 days) Posts: 326 Joined: |
cavediver writes: I think that just sums it up perfectly. And it's surprisingly hard to admit it, probably because it goes against all common sense or intuition. But then that just goes to show how useless common sense can be when talking about things we don't know the answer to yet.
The Universe just is. Whether finite or infinite, that is it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
happy_atheist writes: Even if all of those things you've pointed out above actually do have a cause that we discover in some new revelation of physics that STILL doesn't make the opening assumption of the argument valid. To me this runs against one of the basic inductive assumptions of science. We assume that the laws of the universe, those that we've uncovered so far in those parts of the universe open to our observation, hold everywhere throughout the universe, including those parts we haven't observed or can't observe. We use this perspective for everything we've discovered, such as the speed of light and other constants, and for derivative phenomena, such as the freezing point of water under 1 atmosphere pressure. We believe that what we've found to be the case from the observations we can make from earth hold true everywhere throughout the universe. So if the foundational assumption of the Kalam Cosmological argument were accurate, namely that all phenomena we know of so far have a cause, then a consistent scientific approach would conclude that this is something that should be true everywhere throughout existence, and I switch to the word "existence" because all of existence (multi-braned or whatever it turns out to be) is what we're really talking about when the origin of our own universe is the topic. So to concede that every effect we've ever observed has a cause, and then to claim that that doesn't mean that the universe has a cause, is scientifically inconsistent because it runs against the inductive approach, unless there is evidence. Declarations like "The universe just is" do not constitute evidence. This is just approaching science as if it were a bunch of special cases that just are the way they are, rather than a cohesive, interwoven, intelligible and self-consistent whole. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3671 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
So to concede that every effect we've ever observed has a cause, and then to claim that that doesn't mean that the universe has a cause, is scientifically inconsistent How so? Every observed cause and effect are intrinsically tied to time. Time is an internal property of the Universe. You cannot use induction to leap from processes that are bound to time, to something for which time is but a constituent part. You could postulate that time preceeds the universe, but we simply widen the definition of universe to include that pre-time. You could postulate a separate external time dimension, but again, we just widen our definition of universe.
Declarations like "The universe just is" do not constitute evidence True. It is simply a statement of all that we can say at the moment, given our understanding of General Relativity and hints shown through possible higher theories such as Strings, M, Loop, etc. The meta-physical question is "if it just is, then why is it?"
rather than a cohesive, interwoven, intelligible and self-consistent whole. This is what we search for in a TOE. But even if it has all the qualities you describe, we may still be left with "but why is it here?". I'm not sure we will ever get to the point where we will know why there is something rather than nothing. Or why the equations "fly".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator Posts: 897 Joined: |
I'm very happy that the topic is being gotten back to, just a quick note to remind people to keep their subtitles current and relevant. Thanks.
New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Observations about Evolution and This could be interesting.... |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mitchellmckain Member (Idle past 6450 days) Posts: 60 From: Salt Lake City, Utah, USA Joined: |
quote: Indeed I think the only relevance that decoherence has for the question of determinism is the Many Worlds Interpretation, which is the only way to preserve mathematical determinism in quantum mechanics. You don't get rid of the probablilistic nature of quantum mechanics and the result of the Bell's inequality experiments just by seeking a better mathematical description of measurement than wave collapse. It can only lead to the MWI which simply hides the discontinuity of wave collapse and the indeterminacy of real events in the divergence of reality into a multiplicity of unobservable worlds. The mathematical determinism of the MWI really had nothing to do with the question of the determinism of observable events. The MWI is equivalent to CI because these other worlds are irrelevant. They are beyond the mandate of physics because they are unobservable. P.S. Greeting. Sorry for butting in. Not only do I not know the context of this particular post, but I did not really find the OP very intersting. It is not much of an improvement on Aristotle's argument. So why am I here? Because posters in thescienceforum.com insisted that I join this forum just to answer this particular claim of yours, even though I warned them that it would be pointless. If people could not convince Einstein that determinism in physics was dead then how could I hope to convince you? Edited by mitchellmckain, : No reason given. Edited by mitchellmckain, : impoved accuracy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Not only do I not know the context of this particular post, but I did not really find the OP very intersting. It is not much of an improvement on Aristotle's argument. So why am I here? Because posters in thescienceforum.com insisted that I join this forum just to answer this particular claim of yours, even though I warned them that it would be pointless. If people could not convince Einstein that determinism in physics was dead then how could I hope to convince you? What about the argument do you find insipid? Is it this underscored, supercilious attitude that plagues this thread? This thread was meant to be one of pure metaphysics and philosophy. My detractors have managed to derail it into a discussion on theoretical physics, none of which, that can be corroborated through empiricism. Are you finding a similar distatse or are you worn thin on metaphysic talk? What exactly is your objection that your home forum was questioning? “If chance be the father of all flesh then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear of, state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, youths go looting, bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker” -Steve Turner
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
This thread was meant to be one of pure metaphysics and philosophy.
The argument depended on causation, which why it leads into empirical science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I have no sympathy for you. Craig invokes physics in his answer. YOu yourself appealed to science in Message 5. And when I tried to get you to answer a philosophical question on how the concept of "beginning" works with a finite past (Message 4) you evaded it completely, falsely claiming to answer it with "empirical obsrvation (Message 8) So if you refuse to discuss the philopshicval issues, and insist on using science to support the assertion that the universe has a beginning it is no surprise that others will discuss the science relevant to that assertion.e
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mitchellmckain Member (Idle past 6450 days) Posts: 60 From: Salt Lake City, Utah, USA Joined: |
The point is that I was not responding to the OP, and that if I hadn't been directed to this thread and the discussion between cavediver and Percy, I would not have been involved in the thread at all. I tried to join the forum in a natural manner looking for threads that I was interested and this one did not spark interest. I would not have used the word "insipid" at all. I am a great admirer of Aristotle and this is an attempt to patch his argument for the existence of a first cause.
I do not think any proof for the existence of God can ultimately achieve the goal. In fact I do not put much faith in the idea of proof for most things. As a rational argument I think Aristotle already made it. It is persuasive as far as it goes. And I don't think that doubting its premises will get you very far. In other words it depends on the intuition that an infinite regress of causes is, at the very least, implausible. However I feel extreme doubt whether the argument can be put on any more solid foundation than that as seems to be your objective. So, I am sorry but I don't get anything that seems substantive from your formulation. For example, the idea that addition cannot achieve infinity: so what? Your addition starts with the number one and therefore assumes a first cause, therefore this assumes the very point you are tring to prove. Or to put it another way, I can disprove your point by saying that you can achieve infinity by addition because infinity plus 1 equals infinity. There is nothing inconsistent for example about the idea of line which extends without limit in either one direction or both directions. ... Sorry. See my relativistic physics of space flight simimulator at Astahost.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
I do not think any proof for the existence of God can ultimately achieve the goal. In fact I do not put much faith in the idea of proof for most things. As a rational argument I think Aristotle already made it. It is persuasive as far as it goes. And I don't think that doubting its premises will get you very far. In other words it depends on the intuition that an infinite regress of causes is, at the very least, implausible. However I feel extreme doubt whether the argument can be put on any more solid foundation than that as seems to be your objective. So, I am sorry but I don't get anything that seems substantive from your formulation. Ah, I understand. Well, I feel it is an excelent argument and perhaps Kalam and Craig did not improve what some might otherwise call Aristotle's argument, impenetrable philosophically. I guess I share your admiration for the argument and can't understand why anyone would argue a point that is so, to me, obvious and logical. I think this philosophy does alot of personal damage to anyone that wants to believe in a banal, capricious, purposeless existence. I just don't see it that way. Its the old crux between meaningful and meaningless. Ironically, those who prefer the banality and meaningless often find themselves smuggling in meaning wherever they can. I find that to be a tragic conclusion for them.
For example, the idea that addition cannot achieve infinity: so what? Your addition starts with the number one and therefore assumes a first cause, therefore this assumes the very point you are tring to prove. Or to put it another way, I can disprove your point by saying that you can achieve infinity by addition because infinity plus 1 equals infinity. There is nothing inconsistent for example about the idea of line which extends without limit in either one direction or both directions. ... Sorry. That logic breaks down because there are additions and subtractions to the universe all the time. That thought defies observation. If it did then your dog that was born in 1983 and died in 1994 is infinite. How can that be? The dog began to exist, and then it ceased to exist... Unless of course our concept of existence is totally unknown to us. “If chance be the father of all flesh then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear of, state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, youths go looting, bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker” -Steve Turner
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024