|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Big Bang Found | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: You mean that the ball suddenly appears on the cushion simultaneously with the dent ? I've never seen that. Based on my experience the ball, when placed on the cushion would deform the cushion by it's weight over a period of time. Look, you're talking about causation effecting a change, not maintaining an existing condition without considering at all how it came to be. So that example completely misses the point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: It IS obvious, but an admission that your example was irrelevant and misleading would have been worthwhile. However, your "explanation simply does not address my point at all.
quote: However this does not consider how the ball causes the dent to "begin to exist" which is the form of causation that we are interested in. If we do consider it, it is obvious that the ball exists prior to the dent, and therefore we cannot conclude that the ball need not precede the dent. Even the state of the ball resting on the cushion would - in ordinary expectations at least - precede the dent. Indeed, I must also point out that this whole line of argument is fruitless. If the alleged cause of our universe does not exist prior to our universe, how can we safely conclude both that our universe begins to exist and the alleged cause does not ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Which would mean that there is no causal explanation of why a nucleus decayed at any particular time.
quote: It's a virtually inevitable consequence of statistics, and the large number of atoms involved.
quote: But you cannot predict which will decay, nor, even with perfect information could you work out exactly how many will decay. You cannot even be absolutely certain of your result - if you choose the limits correctly you can get a very high probability, but it will still be less than one. In short you are still dealing with a random process, but the large numbers involved make it appear to be (almost) deterministic. There is absolutely no reason to suggest that there is anything more at work. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: You picked a very odd way to making this point. Instead of making it directly you seemed to imply some deeper cause above and beyond the probabilities.
quote: I would disagree. It is certainly true that there is nothing that causes the atom to decay at one time rather than another. As a side-note I would point out that the latter part of the kalam argument - at least in William Lane Craig's formulation - denies that this form of causation is possible at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: While this is a side issue, I believe that you have misinterpreted the point. In the case of most classical problems a stochastic model is used for convenience, because it captures the important details without going into a huge amount of work. The underlying causes may be disconnected from the points of interest, or simply be unnecessary details. In the case of spontaneous nuclear decay there is no more detailed level at all. In the case of the call centre it IS necessary to know that there is another level because there are situations where the calls may deviate from a simple stochastic model (a major outage in service, a new product, changes in contracts...) Casinos didn't care about the physics of the roulette wheel - the physics affects the outcome of an individual spin, but overall the outcome of the many many spins a month was the same as chance. Until some people came up with a way to get computer assistance in betting, tilting the odds in their favour. There is a difference between ignoring the underlying details and there being no underlying details TO ignore.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
I note that you replied to the text of one message, but used the reply button on the other, confusing the threading. I have restored the title.
quote: No. As I said it looked very much as if you were implying an additional cause of the regularities. Simply arguing that the probabilities were determined would have better been done directly - and much better when considering a single atom than looking at the aggregate behaviour of large numbers.
quote: You seem to be trying very hard to avoid the use of "uncaused" even when it is perfectly appropriate. Still, it is good that you agree that I was correct on this point.
quote: In trying to claim that the cause of our universe was a personal cause, Craig argues that impersonal causes always act immediately when the relevant conditions are present. THis is clearly not the case with spontaneous nuclear decay since we know that it can only be described probabilistically, with no causal element dictating the timing of the decay.
quote: You seem to be missing the point, In the case of classical system there is a deeper causal explanation of the events, in the case of spontaneous nuclear decay the deeper model only affects the probabilities. This is a quite important difference.
quote: Essentially this comes down to practicality and convenience. I would also point out that in many systems modeled stochastically the individual elements are far simpler than people - and that in the call centre case statistical independence is an idealisation, that may not apply. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: The one explicitly labelled as a side point in the title. That's pretty obviously the wrong thing to do if you're answering the main thread of discussion.
quote: Your statement did not imply that the probabilities were determined by physics, rather it implied that there was something more than probability affecting the aggregate results.
quote: This is evasion. The point being made is that the timing of the decay is uncaused. Do you disagree with that ?
quote: Defending arguments that you don't understand is probably a big mistake. Especially when you aren't even aware of the most important part of them.
quote: Is this relevant ? If so, why ?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024