Kalam Cosmological argument

You haven't, you're presenting the standard Copenhagen Interpretation... no problem at all. Except that these days, the CI is not necessarily the end of the story. Yes, standard wave mechanics. This is "collapse of the wave-function" according to the CI.This two-fold nature of QM (wave-mechanics and collapse) has always been a sticking point. In decoherence, the "collapse" is done away with, leaving a much more elegant theory and regaining determinism.In the case of your electron, the superposed wavefunction evolves deterministically (or decoheres) towards a Spin-Up wavefunction or Spin-Down wavefunction, depending upon the environment in which it interacts. This environment necessarily includes the observer. To keep the mixed state, you have to protect it from the environment. To observe it, you must necessarily interact with it and hence start the process of decoherence. This is why we have a quantum scale and a classical scale, the classical scale is just where it is too damn hard to protect a state from the environment, other than for staggeringly short time-scales. In the middle, you have the atomic scale where you can keep states from decohering for just a little while.It is still impossible to calculate which state the electron will end up in - there are billions of interactions at play in the underlying fields.Yes, it is much more complex than this. I apologise. And I'm sorry if my explanations don't do it justice. But if someone states something based upon a layperson understanding of science that is incorrect, or not necessarily true, I will continue to point that out irrespective of the ease or difficulty of explaining why that is the case. But in all cases, if someone wants to know why, I will attempt to explain...

So you're saying that it is theoretically knowable rather than inherently unknowable? I can only go by what I've read, and I've never read anything that says this. That there are things that are inherently unknowable prompted Einstein's remark about God, dice and the universe. Yes, I know he was objecting to the CI.I wonder if when you distill quantum theory for the layperson that you arrive at much different simplifications than what has found its way into the popularizations. I'm just trying to regurgitate what I've read, and you keep telling me it's wrong, so either I'm not "reading for comprehension" very well, or what I'm reading is wrong in your eyes. If the latter is the case then this isn't a battle I'm qualified to fight, and the most rational choice from my perspective is to go with what most sources are telling me.Perhaps another thread focused specifically on this is good idea, but not right now for me as I'm still behind the eight ball on a current project, not even any time for web development.--Percy

Yes, that's right - IF we accept decoherence as the principle behind QM. But it has yet to be established... the problem is it doesn't actually make any difference to 99.9% of practitioners who use QM. No, not wrong at all. I'm just trying to explain that the idea of non-determinism isn't so clear cut. I'm simply saying we can't be so dogmatic about your list of uncaused actions. It is worth being cautious. Not for the first time You'll just have to wait for my book to come out... Decoherence is sufficiently new, still being developed, not known or understood by the popularisers, and it is always safer to play the party line. I'm not trying to say they are wrong and decoherence is correct. I'm simply pointing out that a very sound alternative to the CI exists, and is still being developed.

I guess my response is the same one I give creationists who read about scientists working to disprove relativity or causality or c as a speed limit and so forth, and conclude from this that relative or causality or c *has* been disproved. That scientists are working on an idea contrary to the mainstream should never be construed as a validation of that idea. And, of course, it must be understood that an idea in the mainstream is open to modification and even replacement. Behind everything I say about science lies an understanding that its views are always held tentativity. I do not feel the need to sprinkle disclaimors about the tentative nature of science throughout my posts. Someday we may find that my list of uncaused effects actually have causes. That someday is not today.--Percy

cavediver Just a quick question here, is it necessary for a human to observe the "collapse of the wave function" or would any recording device do?

Yes, this can be your layman inspired response, Percy. It demonstrates your ignorance of quantum and relativistic research over the past twenty years. It also demonstrates your ignorance of the state of thought concerning "collapse" and the CI amongst quantum theoreticians over the past eighty years. Not that you can be blamed for such ignornace, because you are not a research quantum/relativistic physicist... why should you know? But your response is still one from ignornace. As you should know, I'm not saying this becasue I've read it somewhere, but because I used to live and work in the centre of all this.A much more reasonable comparison would be with the singularity of the Big Bang. It is taught ad-nauseam in popular science. Would I ever criticise someone for mentioning it? No. If someone used its presence as a rebut to an argument, would I complain? Yes. It is part of the Standard Model, but we all know it is not the end of the story. I would not allow any dogmatic argument that depended on its presence nor one that depended upon its absence. The speed of light is a completely different situation.Try popping over to xxx.lanl.gov and searching on decoherence amongst all physics lists over all time (lanl goes back to about 1989-90). Have a flick through the reams of papers listed. Have a look at some of the journal titles. Have a look at some of the authors.I also have just found this for you: intro to decoherence. It is not easy, but it skip reads quite
well over the quantum mathematics. There is lots of background there, and it actually starts precisely with your example of superposition. How would you know, Percy? Twenty years after the fact when you read it in a layman book? Or perhaps from a board such as EvC when someone who has a clue takes the time to tell you that this is how many (tentatively a large majority) of respectable QM theoreticians view the quantum-to-classical transition.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Any recording device. You should like this because it really does take the mystical out of QM and helps regain the magic of a reality based upon wave-mechanics.Here's the link again that I passed to Percy above: intro to decoherence Not easy reading to a non-graduate physicist, but you will be rewarded with the texty parts if you stick with it.

The concept of an Omniscient First Cause is incompatible with free will ---> Religious dogma logically unsalvageable. Edited by Isana Kadeb, : No reason given.Edited by Isana Kadeb, : No reason given.

Hi Cavediver,I think what your labeling ignorance is simple disagreement. I don't claim to understand things at your level, but neither do I have to look very far to discover scientists who disagree with you and agree with me. Contrary to your claim, popularizations do not take anywhere near 20 years to reflect recent advances, and much of my information comes from magazines that specialize in presenting recent scientific information at the layperson level, like Scientific American, American Scientist, and the one you detest, New Scientist. And the sure way to make a buck on a science book is to write about the most recent and novel discoveries. This year's discoveries are in next year's books, or the year after at the most. The bottom line is that what I'm reading in magazines and recent popularizations doesn't agree with you.As I said earlier, perhaps I'm doing a bad job of "reading for comprehension", in which case corrections are most welcome, but someone who reads as much science as I do cannot be called ignorant. Nerdy, sure, a bore, yes. But the definition of ignorant is not "someone who doesn't know as much as cavediver about quantum theory." "You're ignorant" has become your recourse when you fail to make yourself sufficiently intelligible to someone to persuade them, and "I teach quantum theory" your constant refrain. These are appeals to authority, your own in this case, and I think many here would like it if you would choose a different strategy once in a while so that what comes across to others is useful information instead of arrogance and frustration.So I think you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree. I encourage you to continue to promote your own perspective in this thread, but I think you'll find that a) a layperson level understanding is what's intelligible to most others here; and b) the viewpoint I'm espousing is what's in magazines and most popularizations.As I said before, I think a thread to discuss this would be a good idea. I originally said this wouldn't be a good time for me, and that may still be the case, but I am on vacation this week, and while we do plan to be pretty busy, it is at least more likely this week that I'd be able to find time to devote to study of this issue. Suggest a book (layperson level, of course), I'll make it my summer reading.--Percy

Perhaps I should point out that it is way off topic in this thread.

---

Disagree how? That there isn't a huge research area called decoherence which is one of the primary ways of viewing QM post CI? Or do you mean my understanding of decoherence is flawed? Or that the CI isn't viewed as dissatisfactory amongst quantum theorists?And can you name these scientists who disagree? And can we see their publsihed papers where they raise their objections to decoherence? Bullshit Percy. The ignorance was your claim that the concepts around decoherence were at the level of FTL claims. It is the taking of a dogmatic position based upon layman understanding that is ignorant.If I fail to make myself sufficiently intelligible, then it is my fault (lack of ability or difficulty of task). But in this case, you don't care about the explanation. I have tried to explain but you have ignored those parts of the posts and based your rebuttal on the fact that you haven't read about this in popular science literature.At the end of the day, I am simply trying to present a view of some of our current understanding. As I have said, I have no agenda other than a desire to pass on knowledge. If you don't wish to learn, and would prefer to rely on your books and magazines, then so be it. It is your loss.When I talk about having researched and taught in this area, I am simply trying to say that you can trust me to give a fair and balanced view on the subject. If I have personal biases, I will try to present both them and the other side. If I don't know what I'm talking about, I will admit as such. So what am I doing? Making it all up? Did you make that search on decoherence? Did you look up that book pdf I presented? Or are you simply clinging to your layman guides? Of course it is. Popular science jumps on sexy sounding ideas, it clings to the mysteries of QM, that is what makes them money. Decoherence sounds very dull in comparison. The conventional picture sounds more exciting. But I would hope by now that you would have learned that what you read there must be taken with a very large pinch of salt, and you certainly get no more than a partial view of the picture.I'm just trying to give you a bit more of that picture...[ABE having seen AdminNWRs comment]...so you can appreciate why I regard your assertion of uncaused actions as not necessarily valid.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.Edited by cavediver, : having seen AdminNWRs comment

Propose a thread if you'd like to pursue this.--Percy

cavediver That is too bad since I would not mind the mystical somehow working its way out of the fabric and into view.
Now comes the further question of importance in my view. Since QM describes reality and the collapse of the wave function requires an observer that you say can be other than human, 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?

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:

1. Nothing causes a particular atom of Uranium-238 to decay at a particular time. It just happens.
   ​
2. Nothing causes a particular electron to tunnel through the barrier of a tunnel diode. It just happens.
   ​
3. Nothing causes an entangled particle's wave function to collapse to either up or down spin upon being observed. It just happens.
   ​
4. Virtual particles. There is nothing that causes them to flit into existence. They just do, governed by the laws of quantum physics.
   ​
5. Which slit a particle travels through in diffraction experiments.

This negates the claim of the opening post that every effect must have a cause.Cavediver believes I should state my examples in less absolute terms, so I will add that all scientific knowledge is tentative and that what I have stated above is not a timeless truth, but only represents the state of our knowledge at the current time.And to Cavediver himself I add that I understand that you believe we already know enough to call my examples into question, and if you'd like to pursue that aspect further then please propose a thread. I did look at your pdf ( System Unavailable ), it is largely unintelligible to me, I can't even tell how it addresses the issue under dispute.--Percy

Ok, fair enough. I will still point out FYI that 4) is in a different category to the other four. The latter are all valid examples of what you are talking about. Virtual particles on the other hand do not actually exist as such. You cannot really talk about a particular pair coming into existence, as you cannot detect them. They are an accounting device to deal with vacuum fluctuations within the quantum fields. The underlying effect is real as witnessed by the Casimir Effect.Now, accepting your argument, I will just race ahead and say that even if these are examples of causeless effects, they all take place in a background of quantum fields, and more importantly, a set of physical laws. You cannot extrapolate from these to the universe as a whole (fallacy of composition) - not that anyone has tried to do this yet...Quite why I am doing N_J's work, God only knows...