|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Big Bang Found | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
Sorry, the phrase did not need quotation marks. I should have simply used italics instead of quotes. (Quotes are quicker and easier for me to type than italics.) And to be more accurate, I should have said "ontologically" rather than "logically". Thus, "X can be ontologically prior to Y without necessarily being temporally prior to Y." Better? kbertsche writes:
What does "logically prior to it mean"? That is just double talk. Express the meaning of that phrase in terms that do not need quotation marks. but can still be "logically prior" to it. The phrases logically prior and logical priority are frequently used in philosophy and theology, as you would learn from a Google search. I did not invent them. According to the Routledge Dictionary of Philosophy by Proudfoot and Lacey:
Routledge Dictionary of Philosophy writes:
Priority. Various types of priority should be distinguished. ... Metaphysical priority is sometimes assimilated to logical priority, and sometimes to ontological priority. A is said to be ontologically prior to B if A in no way depends on B for its existence, but B does depend on A for it's existence, or, to put it another way, A is ontologically prior to B if A's existence is a necessary condition of B's existence, but not vice versa. ... "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
And for the third time now, I have pointed to an event which is the cause of the radioactive decay:
No, that it is not a statement of causation. You have described the reason why an alpha particle can leave the nucleus. But the state you describe exists at all times. Why does the decay particle leave.kbertsche writes:
For an unstable nucleus, you apparently don't want to accept its creation in an unstable state as the cause of its eventual decay, presumably because the time interval can be very long. But if you insist on having an event as the cause, there certainly is an external event that triggers the nuclear decay; the creation of the unstable nucleus itself. For the Big Bang, you don't want to accept that it has a cause, because the time interval for any ontologically prior cause must be zero. It appears that you reject causation if the time interval between cause and effect is too long (billions of years), and you reject causation if the time interval is too short (zero). Do you have a suggested, NoNukes-approved time intverval over which causation is valid? Maybe 1 millisecond to 1 second? And do you have a good, logical argument for why causation must have such a restricted time interval between cause and effect? Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Dr. A writes:
Perhaps my wording was not the best. But how is nuclear decay fundamentally different (in terms of cause and effect) from any other physical decay process? Fluorescence, for example? In fluorescence, a high-energy photon (often UV) raises a molecular electron to an unstable excited state. It relaxes back to its ground state in a short, random, finite amount of time, releasing a lower energy photon (often visible). This we call "fluorescence". We know the characteristic lifetime of the exicited state, but like nuclear decay, we can't predict EXACTLY when any particular molecule will decay. What is the cause of this fluorescence? Don't we normally say the visible photon emission is caused by the molecule's absorption of the UV photon? An event occurs which raises a physical system to an unstable excited state, from which it will eventually decay. kbertsche writes:
You'd make a great pathologist. "I have determined the cause of this man's death --- he was born!" But if you insist on having an event as the cause, there certainly is an external event that triggers the nuclear decay; the creation of the unstable nucleus itself. When the unstable nucleus is created, we can be sure that it will eventually decay. I don't see how this is fundamentally different (in terms of cause and effect) from radioactive decay. Take C-14, for example. Cosmic rays strike atoms and create spallation products in the upper atmosphere. Some of these spallation products are free neutrons. Some of these neutrons strike N-14, which has a large cross-section for an (n,p) reaction. This converts the N-14 to C-14. What we've done is essentially to put an assemblage of protons and neutrons into an excited state. We have exactly the same number of protons and neutrons before and after the reaction; before we had a free neutron and an N-14 nucleus; afterward we have a free proton and a C-14 nucleus. Like the excited state of the fluorescing molecule, this excited state will eventually decay to a more stable state. I think some folks like to raise the example of radioactive decay because quantum mechanical systems seem complicated and sophisticated, and it is easier to use double-talk to fool people into thinking that quantum mechanical events have no "cause". But how is radioactive decay fundamentally any different from fluorescence or any other relaxation of a physical system? How is "putting the system into an unstable excited state" any worse of a causative explanation for radioactive decay than it is for fluorescence? {ABE: I would view fluorescence (emission of a visible photon) to be "caused" by a combination of 1) the molecule's absorption of a UV photon and 2) the peculiar characteristics of the molecule's energy levels which allow it to relax by emitting a lower energy photon. Similarly, I would view nuclear decay to be "caused" by a combination of 1) the creation of an unstable nucleus and 2) the particular characteristics of this unstable nucleus, which allow its constituents to tunnel through a potential barrier to a lower potential energy state. I see no fundamental difference here in terms of causation.} Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Son Goku writes:
Nuclear decay (like many other physical decay mechanisms) is stochastic. Nuclei will decay at different times. The lifetime of any particular nucleus cannot be predicted, but the behavior of a large number of nuclei is highly predictable and deterministic. kbertsche writes: I think some folks like to raise the example of radioactive decay because quantum mechanical systems seem complicated and sophisticated, and it is easier to use double-talk to fool people into thinking that quantum mechanical events have no "cause" If I take two identical radioactive nuclei, literally identical in every respect and isolate them in a box where absolutely nothing affects them. One could decay in a millisecond and the other one million years later. Why? What caused that difference in the decay time? Again, non-predictable or non-deterministic does not mean uncaused. Like it or not, believe it or not, most scientists who are familiar with radiation agree that the cause of radioactive decay is an unstable nucleus. For example, the Association for Science Education (UK):Association for Science Education writes: When do we get alpha decay? A nucleus decays because it is unstable. The daughter nucleus will be more stable than the parent (or closer to stability). Dr. Lee of Rice University:Dr. Lee writes: A nucleus decays because it is unstable It may be energetically favorable for a nucleus to break apart into smaller constituents Peppe, D. J. & Deino, A. L. (2013) Dating Rocks and Fossils Using Geologic Methods. Nature Education Knowledge 4(10):1
Peppe & Deino writes: Because it is unstable, occasionally C14 undergoes radioactive decay to become stable nitrogen (N14). Eisberg & Resnick, Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei, and Particles (New York: Wiley, 1974):
Eisberg & Resnick writes: The [alpha decay] process takes place spontaneously because it is energetically favored, the mass of the parent nucleus being greater than the mass of the daughter nucleus plus the mass of the alpha particle. (p.604) As the decay rates for both processes [alpha and beta decay] increase rapidly with increasing decay energy, the nucleus in question will beta decay because that process has a larger decay energy, and so a much larger decay rate. (p.611) The neutron decays because [it is energetically favored], and the lifetime T of the decay is about 1000 sec. (p.618) ABE: Prof. Loveland of Oregon StateProf. Loveland writes:
(emphases mine above) RadioactivityWhat causes something to be radioactive? Nuclei emit radiation spontaneously because it is energetically favorable for them to do so. In radioactive decay, the nucleus goes from a less stable energy state to a more stable state. To most physicists, statements of nuclear instability or of the availability of lower energy states are perfectly acceptable causal explanations for nuclear decay. I realize that many non-physicists on this forum are determined to deny this fact and fight against it, but that's their problem. Edited by kbertsche, : Added Loveland quote"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
Of course I described a neutron induced reaction; that's what (n,p) means! In order for C-14 to decay, it must first be created. So I first described the creation of the unstable C-14 nucleus from N-14 through an (n,p) reaction.
What you have described is not a decay process. It is instead a neutron induced reaction. Fluorescence is induced by radiation. NoNukes writes:
The decay is stochastic. The decay is caused by 1) the creation of the unstable C-14 atom, and 2) the fact that the unstable C-14 atom can decay to a lower energy state.
Now that C-14 then decays away over time. Half of the created C-14 will be gone in 5730 years through a process that does not involve neutrons striking N-14. What causes that decay? What causes two identical C-14 atoms to decay millions of years apart? NoNukes writes:
No. As I've already explained, I don't see any fundamental difference between the two processes. In both situations, something first causes a physical system to be transformed into an excited state (an unstable C-14 atom in the radiation case, a molecule with an electron raised to a high energy state in the fluorescence case). In both situations, the excited state spontaneously, stochastically decays to a lower energy state (C-14 to N-14 in one case, an excited molecule to a ground state plus a visible photon in the other case). The physical mechanisms and the timescales are different, but the basic process is the same: 1) create an excited state, 2) wait for a spontaneous, stochastic decay of the excited state to a lower energy state. Your answer is that the difference is intrinsic in a way that is not embodied in the state of the atoms. Don't you see anything fundamentally different between decay and the two induced processes you discuss here? (Note: some of your comments suggest that you do not understand the process of fluorescence. I recommend that you look it up on Wikipedia.)
NoNukes writes:
This makes no sense. I only raised two cases (radioactivity and fluorescence), not three. I don't know what you are talking about. ABE: To be clear, because you are determined to miss this and call others fools. In two cases you cite the particles and an inducing agent and the structure of the nuclei. In the final case you talk only about the structure of the nuclei and nothing else for results that are strikingly different every time an atom decays. Yet you see no difference. Nothing to explain. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
To be clear, I claim that the reason the atoms decay is because they are in an unstable state, and the reason they are in an unstable state is because something caused them to be created in this state. Most physicists will agree with this. kbertsche writes:
You are certainly full of yourself this morning. I used radioactive decay because it was easy to understand. And rather than make up junk to fool you, I actually cited physicists, in this case Bohr and Heisenberg who say that there is no cause. I think some folks like to raise the example of radioactive decay because quantum mechanical systems seem complicated and sophisticated, and it is easier to use double-talk to fool people into thinking that quantum mechanical events have no "cause". In contrast, you say that the reason the atoms decay is because they were created. Yes, some physicists will say that nuclear decay is uncaused. But this is somewhat misleading, and is not a robust philosophical statement. It is primarily a pedagogical statement to help students distinguish non-intuitive aspects of modern physics from deterministic classical physics. It would be more clear to say "unpredictable" or "non-deterministic" or "non-classical" than to say "uncaused". Science is fundamentally dependent on the principle of causation, and causation exists for non-deterministic, stochastic processes just as it does for deterministic processes. Further, the statement "everything which begins to exist has a cause for its existence" is a philosophical statement, not a scientific statement. The philosophical and scientific uses of the term "causation" are somewhat different. Bertrand Russell may have overstated this difference, but he claimed: Bertrand Russell writes: The concept cause, as it occurs in the works of most philosophers, is one which is apparently not used in any advanced science."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
I don't believe that causation necessarily requires time, even in our daily experience. All that is required by causality is that an effect cannot occur before a cause. Nothing rules out a simultaneous cause and effect. For example, consider a heavy ball on a cushion. The ball causes a depression in the cushion. The ball is the cause, the depression is the effect. The cause and effect are simultaneous; as long as the ball is on the cushion, it continues to cause the depression. Time is not an issue in this situation. kbertsche writes:
Not quite. Under the proposed theory, the time interval is not zero. There is no time at all in which a cause could act. Time does not exist, and causation implicitly requires an effect and time. If you want to talk about an exception for the required opportunity to act, then I am going to require that we consider an exception for the entire requirement for cause, because you are not then talking about an argument based on experience. Your argument is then theological. For the Big Bang, you don't want to accept that it has a cause, because the time interval for any ontologically prior cause must be zero."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Dr. A writes:
Agreed. It would be more normal to say that the electron fell to its ground state because it was in an excited state, a lower energy state was available, and this transition was energetically favorable.
Well, it's one thing to say that the cause of the fluorescence is the UV light. It's much more tendentious to point to a particular electron and say "The cause of the fall to its ground state was being hit by a high-energy photon".Dr. A writes:
Yes, there is always a causal chain of events. Depending on the situation and the question, we may speak of causation at different levels of the chain. Suppose someone says: "John's death was caused by his interest in botany". How do you make that out? we ask. "Well, he'd never have been at the top of that cliff if he hadn't wanted to see the rare Clifftop Saxifrage". Well, this may indeed have been a necessary and sufficient condition to get him to the top of the cliff, but surely the cause of his death was whatever got him to the bottom."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
frako writes: What is the cause that creates the 2 opposite virtual particles, we know why they vanish from existence because they collide. Your question is not very clear. Can you please better describe the situation that you are referring to? I'm not an expert on virtual particles or Feynman diagrams. Some of the folks here probably are much more familiar with them than I. So I'll just make some general comments on virtual particles. First, as Prof Strassler explains, virtual particles are just that--virtual, not real. They are primarily a conceptual, computational tool. Do conceptual entities which do not really exist need a cause? I dont think so. Second, these virtual particles are equivalent to fluctuations in the vacuum energy which fills all space. What causes these fluctuations? As Prof Strassler says:
Prof. Strassler writes: A "virtual particle", generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields. Indeed, for the most commonly cited observable effects of virtual particles, we can point to external influences as their cause. For example, Wikipedia writes:
(i.e. the arrangement of the plates sets boundary conditions for the quantized field, causing only certain modes to be allowed)
The Casimir effect, where the ground state of the quantized electromagnetic field causes attraction between a pair of electrically neutral metal plates. Wikipedia writes: Hawking radiation, where the gravitational field is so strong that it causes the spontaneous production of photon pairs (with black body energy distribution) and even of particle pairs. And vacuum polarization, which is caused by a strong external electric field. Can any of you think of any observable effects of virtual particles where we cannot point to external influences as the cause? Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
frako writes:
No, I specifically mentioned the Casimir effect as caused by external influences. It is caused by the quantization of the wave function and the fact that an external apparatus has been set up to provide boundary conditions which eliminate many of the potential modes. (Your video explains how the plates do this). Without such external influences to set boundary conditions the effect won't exist. kbertsche writes:
The Casimir Effect Can any of you think of any observable effects of virtual particles where we cannot point to external influences as the cause? Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
Perhaps you mean cosmologists or particle physicists, not just physicists? At least we were noisy enough to get a couple of physicists to comment. I consider that a win.As long as I've been participating in this discussion you've had a physicist commenting. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
If you would actually try to understand the topics discussed and to carry on a real conversation, this interchange would be much more productive. But unfortunately, you seem to be only interested in winning arguments by mischaracterizing and belittling those you disagree with. Like the YECs, you can't attack the content, so you attack the person. A physicist who believes that the surfaces of pillows can attain infinite rates of acceleration? I think I can be forgiven for not recognizing your expertise. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Faith writes:
Sorry for the broad brush. You have certainly been much more civil and cordial in your exchanges with me than has NoNukes. I've tried to explain repeatedly that nuclear decay DOES have a cause, but he (and others here) have fought this in every way possible. Will they pay more attention to cavediver?
How interesting that you yourself, Mr. Physicist, have descended to this very tactic you describe in this sentence. No argument against us YECs so you belittle us as a group.cavediver writes:
Or will they continue to think that they understand physics better than we do? We'll see. "This is why claiming that nuclear decay is "uncaused" and therefore we have an example of how the Universe can come into being "uncaused" is completely bogus. (FYI, I have plenty of arguments against YEC, both biblical and scientific, but this is not the thread for such things.) Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
PaulK writes:
I didn't answer this earlier because I though the answers were so obvious that it didn't need explaining. But perhaps it would be helpful to state the obvious. kbertsche writes:
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. quote: For example, consider a heavy ball on a cushion. The ball causes a depression in the cushion. The ball is the cause, the depression is the effect. The cause and effect are simultaneous; as long as the ball is on the cushion, it continues to cause the depression. Time is not an issue in this situation. 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. The example of ball and cushion (or pillow) goes back to Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason. Obviously, the example does not consider how the ball came to be there, but only considers the state of the system after the ball is in place. In this static system, the deformed state is caused by the presence of the ball. If someone were to ask, "Why is there a deformation in the cushion?", the answer "Because there is a heavy ball on it" is perfectly accurate and acceptable. The ball can be said to cause the state of deformation, with no reference to time. Of course, other answers for causation are also acceptable. E.g. a more complete explanation of the atemporal state of the system, "Because there is a heavy ball on it exerting a downward force due to gravity, and for the resilient cushion to exert an equal and opposite upward force it must be under compression". Or a mechanistic, temporal description of how the system got into this state, "Because Paul placed a heavy ball on the cushion and this compressed it". Or even a teleological description of why the system got into this state, "Because Paul wanted to squish a bug and the only thing he had handy was a heavy ball". All of these explanations can be accurate and acceptable explanations of the cause of the deformation of the cushion. But this should all be quite obvious to everyone here. Any state or event can be explained by a number of different but equally accurate causal explanations. Causation can be explained by an immediate cause, a more fundamental cause, any of the preceding events in a causal chain, or the purposes of an actor. Any and all of these causal explanations can be accurate, and none of these explanations rules out or "trumps" the others."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Son Goku writes:
Better, but to avoid confusion I recommend completely eliminating the word "uncaused". How about, "The time of decay of any particular nucleus is stochastic"?
Well, let's make it simpler. The timing of nuclear decay is uncaused. Son Goku writes:
Here are some questions for those of you who still want to maintain that nuclear decay is "uncaused". How can a large collection of these "uncaused" events have extremely predictable, deterministic behavior? What causes this predictable and deterministic behavior, if the system is nothing more than a collection of "uncaused" events?!? Although in truth I would still say the decay itself is uncaused, quantum mechanics simply states that the alpha particle's wavefunction spreads out of the atomic nucleus. However it still has a probability for being located inside the nucleus and a probability for being located outside the nucleus. However that is all. Either one of the probabilities can occur, being outside (decay) or inside (not decaying). Which one occurs is uncaused. What is "caused" is the shape of the wavefunction itself, the distribution of the probabilities. However that isn't a cause of the decay, just a "cause" of its likelihood. If you give me 10^12 radioactive atoms (there are about this many atoms of C-14 in 20 g of modern carbon), I can predict extremely accurately how many will remain in one half-life (about 5730 years)--exactly half of the original amount, with an accuracy of about 1 ppm. If each decay is truly "uncaused", what causes a macroscopic collection to have such predictable, deterministic behavior?"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024