|
Author
|
Topic: Big Bang...How Did it Happen?
|
General Nazort
Inactive Member
|
What the frog meant is that there is no such thing as law of causality. It's all in your head. If that is the case, then what you just typed was not really typed by you, is that correct? Your actions had no effect and did not cause the text to be typed?
If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
If that is the case, then what you just typed was not really typed by you, is that correct? Your actions had no effect and did not cause the text to be typed? Strawman argument. We're not saying that no effects have causes; we're saying not all effects are known to have causes. One example of cause and effect doesn't substantiate that all effects have causes. I'm surprised you needed to be told that.
|
General Nazort
Inactive Member
|
How did you come to believe that it applies to the universe? When I press a key on my keyboard, text appears on the screen. When I don't press a key, nothing happens. Apparently, I am causing, by pressing a key, an effect - the letter on the screen.
If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 360 by crashfrog, posted 09-21-2004 4:30 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
When I press a key on my keyboard, text appears on the screen. When I don't press a key, nothing happens. Apparently, I am causing, by pressing a key, an effect - the letter on the screen. So certainly some effects have causes. But that's not what I asked. What I asked was, how did you come to believe that there are no effects without causes?
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 503 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
You need to take a logic class big time! Your arguments are so rediculous and unfounded, I'm amazed the frog has the patience to tell you the difference between "some" and "all" in argumentive logic. Here is an analogy to your argument. (1) Some guys don't like girls. (2) Therefore, all guys don't like girls. Going back to your argument: (1) Some effects have causes. (2) Therefore, all effects have causes. See anything wrong with this picture?
The Laminator
B ULLS HIT For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!
|
Loudmouth
Inactive Member
|
quote:
When I press a key on my keyboard, text appears on the screen. When I don't press a key, nothing happens. Apparently, I am causing, by pressing a key, an effect - the letter on the screen.
When the sidewalk is wet it is raining. Therefore, the wet sidewalk causes it to rain. This is the danger of making statements about cause and effect.
|
Minnemooseus
Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: 11-11-2001 Member Rating: 10.0
|
|
Message 367 of 414 (143813)
09-22-2004 12:27 AM
|
Reply to: Message 366 by Loudmouth
09-21-2004 7:18 PM
|
|
I'm afraid, it seems to me, that the General is ahead of you on this point. His cause/effect seems legitimate, while yours is not.
quote:
When the sidewalk is wet it is raining.
Of course we've all many times seen wet sidewalks when it isn't raining. Moose
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 366 by Loudmouth, posted 09-21-2004 7:18 PM | | Loudmouth has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 368 by crashfrog, posted 09-22-2004 12:46 AM | | Minnemooseus has not replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
I'm afraid, it seems to me, that the General is ahead of you on this point. His cause/effect seems legitimate, while yours is not. Have you been reading the thread? That's rather the point - one, that "ad hoc, ergo propter hoc" is a fallacy; and two, that no finite set of caused effects substiantiates the claim that all effects have causes.
Of course we've all many times seen wet sidewalks when it isn't raining. That's the point. You can't conclude causality just because one followed the other.
|
General Nazort
Inactive Member
|
I'm amazed the frog has the patience to tell you the difference between "some" and "all" in argumentive logic. I know the difference between "some" and "all". I already anticipated this whole line of reasoning - that causality is true in some cases but not in all cases - back in message 329:
I guess you could argue that while these previous scientists were wrong about spontaneous generation in what they were studying, the nature of QM is different because these are the most basic building blocks of nature or something like that. In other words, spontaneous generation is only true at the most fundamental level. But I want to know why QM supposedly doesn't have to follow the law of causality and everything else does. Doesn't the fact that the vast majority of things follow causality suggest that QM does too, but we just can't detect it? The fact that QM is also incomplete in explaining our universe suggests that something is wrong with it - perhaps there is underlying theory that causes the effects in QM. I mentioned an article exploring this in the magazine Scientific American, which no one has commented on, and mentioned how a more cause-effect "classical" theory can give rise to QM, which no one commented on except to squabble about how I used the word classical. I also mentioned how in the past all scientific evidence pointed to there being no cause for certain phenomena, and how this was later proven wrong, and how this is exactly like the situation we find ourslves in with QM. If the law of causality has always held true in the past, why are you doubting it now?
If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?
|
General Nazort
Inactive Member
|
When the sidewalk is wet it is raining. Therefore, the wet sidewalk causes it to rain. This is the danger of making statements about cause and effect. Well, did it start raining before or after the sidewalk got wet? If it started raining after the sidewalk got wet then wet sidewalks making rain may be true, but I'll bet that the sidewalk got wet AFTER it started to rain, suggesting the rain makes the sidewalk wet, which would be correct.
If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 366 by Loudmouth, posted 09-21-2004 7:18 PM | | Loudmouth has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 375 by Loudmouth, posted 09-22-2004 1:31 PM | | General Nazort has not replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
But I want to know why QM supposedly doesn't have to follow the law of causality and everything else does. There is no law of causality, though. There's merely the observation that some things follow causality, and some do not appear to.
If the law of causality has always held true in the past, why are you doubting it now? Because it's not a law. You're overreaching to call it a law. It's not even something you've substantiated with evidence; there's simply an observation that some things follow causality, and other things do not appear to.
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 503 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
GN writes: If the law of causality has always held true in the past, why are you doubting it now?
Since you've made up a law to suit your need, I feel that it is my right to make up a law to suit mine. You are not sane because according to the law of General-Nazort-is-not-sane, you do not make any sense. Based on this law that I made up, none of what you say will ever be taken seriously by me. Geez, why do people feel like they can make up laws at their pleasure?
The Laminator
B ULLS HIT For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!
|
Rei
Member (Idle past 7039 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: 09-03-2003
|
|
|
Message 373 of 414 (143826)
09-22-2004 2:36 AM
|
|
|
Sorry to bother, General, but can I get a response on this post? Is my perception of your stance correct? Does this actually seem reasonable to you (and others)?
"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5934 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: 08-30-2003
|
General Nazort
God has always existed Now let us see if I understand you correctly.Before the moment of creation neither space nor time existed.Let us assume for the moment that there was a time of sorts in which god existed.If he does not change then he cannot by any means alter the place in which he lives. Any action he would commence would involve change since,presumably,he ia all there is then.Therefore he can take no meaningful action and creation of the universe wuld not be possible since it would involve a definite change. Going further let us also assume that he always existed eternally.That means his existence stretches back a never ending amount.How does something that never began ever progress from an infinite past to reach our present day without a beginning?
I am sorry to hear about the hard times you have gone through in life. I admire your ability to pull through and move on. Good luck in your studies in math and such. LOL yes poor me. That did sound rather depressing did it not? I did not suffer unduly and those things I mentioned were sufferings I chose of my own accord. I will eventually get a grip on the calculus and tensors but until then I need to devote time to my kids and make sure they have a better run at the race. This message has been edited by sidelined, 09-22-2004 07:32 AM
|
Loudmouth
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Well, did it start raining before or after the sidewalk got wet? If it started raining after the sidewalk got wet then wet sidewalks making rain may be true, but I'll bet that the sidewalk got wet AFTER it started to rain, suggesting the rain makes the sidewalk wet, which would be correct.
Of course your are right. All I was trying to point out is that we need to be careful when linking cause and effect. We need to find a mechanism behind the effect before giving it a cause. If no mechanism is found then we are left with two choices: 1. There may be no cause; 2. The cause is, to this point, unknown.
|
™ Version 4.2