|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Chance moves in mysterious ways. | |||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2864 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
Since that isn't the issue you confirm my point that the OP doesn't address the issue of God choosing to intervene in a consistent fashion. So you are twisting your position from claiming a premise does not exist in the OP to claiming that the OP does not "address" the issue of the premise. You are clearly using little sense of logic. I'll leave you there. Thank you and have a good day.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2864 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
PaulK writes: If you had any familiarity with logic you'd understand that failing to address a claim includes not mentioning it as a premise. But by all means run away - you're only embarassing yourself with your twistings and writhings. I was right. You don't understand what a premise is. Forgive me if I aim the rest of my post towards people who can argue logically. 1. A single photon can be projected at a sensitive film through two slits (the famous quantum two slit experiment). The result is a point recorded on the film as a visible mark. 2. Theory says there is no way to force the repeat of this outcome, i.e a dot at the same, or approximately the same point. There is a random component in the outcome that is nothing to do with the starting conditions. 3. This implies truly non-deterministic behaviour in nature (as distinct from very complex or chaotic behaviour described by a non-deterministic model). 4. Several outcomes may fit an overall pattern but the order in which that pattern appears is a random component of the result. 5. So we have a phenomenon which science accepts is not only unknowable so far, but is unknowable by nature and which has real physical consequence in nature. 6. Isn't that what God is all about? So why doesn't science accept god, too?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2864 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
PaulK writes: I'll point out again that rather than an unknown cause (which would be a form of determinism, which you are denying) chance is the absence of a sufficient cause. Are you suggesting there is something like an insufficient cause? (Please answer the question and don't use your evasion tactic of simply calling it irrelevant).
|
|||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2864 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
Silence.
I take it the import of that question was lost on you, PaulK. Let me help you with a step by step simplification. 1. Effect 'B' happens (in above example dot marked on film). 2. B was caused. Call the cause A. 3. PaulK says there is no sufficient cause of B. 4. Therefore A is an insufficient cause of B. 5. So A caused B but was not sufficient to cause B. That appears to be the conclusion from PaulK's logic, unless he can pinpoint what he disagrees with and which step.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2864 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
We'll add "sufficient cause" to the list of things you don't understand. Your tendency to either draw conclusions from questions or to evade them altogether and claim they are "not the point", is the reason logical argument with you is so difficult. Now, once again, can you please pinpoint the step in the above (numbers at the side to help you) that you disagree with. No waffle. Just a number and an explanation of why you think the step is illogical. Edited by sinequanon, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2864 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
Obviously, you have no logical reason for you position.
I can only assume you have a random "gut feeling" for the validity of your argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2864 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
Final chance. In the 5 points listed above, please pinpoint what you say is the "mess" in the logic. Post one digit.
Failing that you accept all five points and your argument has collapsed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2864 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
The example in point 1 is bad. We are not interested in the immediate cause of the dot on the film. What we are interested in is how the photon came to hit that spot rather than somewhere else. 1. Effect 'B' happens (in above example dot marked on film). It happens or it doesn't happen, whether or not you think the example is "bad" or "uninteresting".Are you disputing that an experiment can be conducted where effect B happens? Point 2 is also bad, it should say "partially caused". The causal factors available are insufficient to dictate the location at which the photon arrives. Insisting on a single cause is also questionable. 2. B was caused. Call the cause A. So you are saying the effect, B was not caused. You are saying a dot on a film was only partially caused.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2864 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
I didn't say that the effect was bad.. I said that the example was bad because it wasn't the effect we were discussing and it has an immediate cause that IS sufficient (as I alreafy explained). Please concentrate on the five points and stop messing up by second guessing or confusing them with anything else. Start again. Is point 3 the first point you disagree with? 3. PaulK says there is no sufficient cause of B.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2864 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
I only disagree with it in the case of the example you have NOW chosen. In the original case - as I have explained it is valid. Although it should be better phrased "sinequanon states that there is no sufficient cause of B" since you were the one who insisted that there was a random factor. So now that you have got your aberration, which appears nowhere in the five points, out of your head we may continue. 1. Effect 'B' happens (in above example dot marked on film). 2. B was caused. Call the cause A. We are agreed up to here. So, with your aberration out of the way... UPDATE 3. PaulK says A is sufficient cause of B. 4. B is not a random effect of A. Agreed so far?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2864 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
1. Effect 'B' happens (in above example dot marked on film).
2. B was caused. Call the cause A. 3. PaulK says A is sufficient cause of B. 4. B is not a random effect of A. 5. B is caused deterministically by the particle. 6. B is a repeatable measure of some property of the particle. Agreed so far?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2864 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
I am glad you agree.
7. The property for which B is a measure is the position of the particle. 8. The accuracy of B is nothing to do with the uncertainty principle of the particle, but depends on the accuracy of our instruments. Agreed?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2864 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
7. B is a measure of a past position of the particle.
For 8. are you saying B is dependent on the uncertainty principle?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2864 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
I take it we are agreed up to and including point 7.
In point 8. B is the measurement of the position of the particle (not some combination of measurements/position/momentum or any other diversion). Could you please attempt 8. again. For 8. are you saying B is dependent on the uncertainty principle?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2864 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
B is either dependent or it's not dependent.
I am not asking for a hint of what your answer is. I am asking for a simple answer. Dependent or NOT dependent. (You are only repeating yourself in trying to skirt round a simple yes/no question. You didn't even mention B in your vague reply! If I were to put all the points at once all hell would break loose). Are you saying you DON'T KNOW the answer to the question? Edited by sinequanon, : No reason given. Edited by sinequanon, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024