(March 19, 2018 at 5:34 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(March 19, 2018 at 12:18 pm)SteveII Wrote: Yet, the new thing, whether it be an idea, a novel, a symphony or a Mandelbrot is created. It begins to exists. They are not the same thing as the material that is holding the information (Therefore we have examples of things beginning to exits that are not themselves material. So, a material cause is not needed, only an efficient cause is needed. 

What it means for material to "hold information" is an important question.  If there is a clear sense in which the phrase is meaningful, I would grant that it's probably not valid to say that the information is the same thing as the material.   It would be an illogical leap to therefore conclude that the idea, symphony, or whatever is immaterial.  It's really not understood how we make sense of the meaning of things like language, yet it's possible that language and meaning exist as a closed system of material effects in which the meaning of an utterance exists as a process in the brain, and that the effect of finding things meaningful is a consequence of sharing similar brain processes among language speakers.  In that case, the "meaning" of an utterance only exists as a behavior of the system, and has no independent existence beyond that behavior.  The behavior of a system is fully described by efficient causes existing between material components, so to speak of that behavior as something immaterial is simply wrong.  If symphonies and novels and ideas only exist insofar as they are material processes of a system of brains and such, then your conclusion that immaterial things exist is also wrong.

Are you really dancing around if abstract objects exist or not because they are grounded in the mind? Is that your hard determinism/physicalism getting in the way (honest question)? It seem like defining abstracta might have a few methods but generally:

Quote:There is a great deal of agreement about how to classify certain paradigm cases. Thus it is universally acknowledged that numbers and the other objects of pure mathematics are abstract (if they exist), whereas rocks and trees and human beings are concrete. Some clear cases of abstracta are classes, propositions, concepts, the letter ‘A’, and Dante’s Inferno. Some clear cases of concreta are stars, protons, electromagnetic fields, the chalk tokens of the letter ‘A’ written on a certain blackboard, and James Joyce’s copy of Dante’s Inferno. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abstr...s/#WayExam

Quote:I don't recall what the point in bringing up the immateriality of symphonies and such was, but it seems to rest on a non sequitur.  I don't see any reason to necessarily conclude that a symphony is anything more than stuff doing what stuff does.  The tendency to view symphonies and such as non-material is a hangover founded upon our ignorance of the nature of human cognition.

The topic came up that all effects have material causes (in Aristotle's sense of there being four types of causes) so that Premise (1) and (3) were equivocating on the word 'cause'. I pointed out that at least every effect has an efficient cause and used abstract objects as an example. 

The concepts of justice, morality, logic etc, are not themselves material. That's why there is a whole type of object defined for them: abstract objects. 

Quote:Abstract and concrete are classifications that denote whether a term describes an object with a physical referent or one with no physical referents. They are most commonly used in philosophy and semantics. Abstract objects are sometimes called abstracta (sing. abstractum) and concrete objects are sometimes called concreta (sing. concretum). An abstract object is an object which does not exist at any particular time or place, but rather exists as a type of thing, i.e., an idea, or abstraction.[1] The term abstract object is said to have been coined by Willard Van Orman Quine.[2] The study of abstract objects is called abstract object theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_and_concrete

---

(March 19, 2018 at 5:48 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(March 19, 2018 at 4:27 pm)SteveII Wrote: The universe by definition is a contingent object.

The universe may or may not be contingent.  Regardless of which happens to be the case, its contingency cannot be established "by definition" alone.  If you're asserting the universe is contingent based simply on a definition, then that's a problem.

Fine. I retract the "definition" claim. However, there is no portion of its definition/description that implies a property that would suggest that it necessarily exists. Is that fair to say?

(March 19, 2018 at 6:21 pm)Mathilda Wrote:

(March 19, 2018 at 5:59 pm)Grandizer Wrote: It was a challenge to one of the premises of the argument I presented earlier: the premise that everything that begins to exist must have a material cause. Steve seems to think that if he can demonstrate that some objects we're familiar with do not have material causes, then material cause (unlike efficient cause) isn't so essential. Fair enough, but the best he can point to in this case are abstract objects like symphonies, and as you have just argued, that itself is problematic a counter to use.

Thanks Grandizer. I was wondering why he was going on non-material causes.

Of course the problem is that all matter has energy. Stevell is talking about material causes. Does he mean a cause that requires matter? Or causes that consist only of matter?

If the latter, then Stevell is effectively arguing that symphonies and books weren't caused by matter at zero Kelvin.

The words 'no', 'shit' and 'Sherlock' spring to mind. But of course that would be stupid. So apparently a 'material cause' is:

(March 16, 2018 at 9:17 am)SteveII Wrote: [*]Matter: a change or movement's material "cause", is the aspect of the change or movement which is determined by the material that composes the moving or changing things. For a table, that might be wood; for a statue, that might be bronze or marble.

So yeah, only taking into account the material.

Maybe Stevell would like to give us a solid (haha!) example of a material cause?

What type of cause is behind electricity for example? Material, form, agent or purpose? You know, things may have moved on since Aristotle. All four definitions of cause looks utterly arbitrary and useless for the modern world. Is there any practical use any more for talking about causes in this way?

Theyre outdated, for sure. The problem for Steve is if he is going to resort to Aristotelian notions of causses, and rely purely on intuition to argue for premise 1 of the KCA, he needs to he consistent and acknowledge that its intuitive that all things material beginning to exist must demand some material cause. Even Aristotle was logically compelled to argue that the universe must be eternal because, if the universe contains all things material, then it didnt have a material cause and so it couldnt have had a beginning to its existence without such cause.

(March 19, 2018 at 6:07 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(March 19, 2018 at 2:50 pm)SteveII Wrote: You are not differentiating between our inductive experience and our inductive reasoning. They are not the same thing. For the past nearly 100 years people have dedicated their lives to figuring out what might have come before our universe. A super-obvious assumption MUST be present to even begin that enterprise: that there exists, as an objective feature of reality, a Causal Principle.

Are you saying that The Causal Priniple is not born out of our inductive experience? If not, then why do its proponents assume it’s an obvious truth? What about the principle makes it obvious other than our direct experience of a universe that we can best describe in terms of cause and effect? Isn’t that what human intuition is, after all? Instinct derived from our aggregate experiences? We are forever limited to our experience as beings within this universe, and as constituents of it.  I don’t see any way we can soundly reason beyond that experience. I agree with you that there are probably objective features to reality, but I don’t see that a positive case for the CP as an objective feature has been sufficiently argued.  ‘Everything we know about has a cause, therefore things we don’t know about, or may never be able to know about, also have to have causes’ is still a composition fallacy. 

I am saying that while we can look to our inductive experience as a guide, people who think about such things like before the universe are also using inductive reasoning. You seem to think the only tool that can be used is experience. However, since they know that the our laws of physics do not necessarily apply to other states of reality, they are reasoning into a lot of assumptions. 

Quote:

Quote:When debating something like this, one possible goal is to show the high intellectual price your opponent has to pay for objecting to a premise. This is one such case. Let's see:

A) Because the KCA is a inductive argument and the premises are probabilities, what you are actually claiming when you say Premise (1) is false is that it is more probable that it is false.

I feel like you’re talking past me.  I’m not asserting premise (1) is false.  I’m saying you have no way to demonstrate or justify that assumption is an obvious truth, or that it’s more likely true than not.  If you can’t, then the argument is stalled at (1).  Even if I grant you (1), you’re now stuck at (2).   ‘I set them up unjustified, and if you can’t knock them down, I win’ is not how this works.  The onus is on you.

I thought that was what you were thinking--that's why I brought it up. The onus is not on me if the position is that these are near universally held beliefs. There is a good reason why most challengers to the KCA do not try to attack Premise (1). Being skeptical of Premise (1) carries a high price because to make any headway against the argument, you can't just bring up the objection, you have to say that the Premise (1) is not likely. Simply bringing up a remote possibility does nothing to an inductive argument. 

Quote:

Quote:That a causal principle is not an objective feature of reality is more likely true.  You have to propose that it was at least possible for our universe to just pop into being. But what makes universes so special that only they can pop into being? Why doesn't just anything pop into being today?

First of all, this is the same composition fallacy, restated.  Things within our universe can’t pop into being, therefore the universe it’s self cannot.  I’m not even sure what you mean by, “pop into being”.  Jehanne just put up a thread with some current scientific hypotheses describing an eternal, infinite universe, despite your foot stamping about the math. 

If you want to go with questioning a causal principle as an objective feature of reality, you have to answer questions like why only universes pop into existence and why not other things like dogs, pasta, and VW Beetles. They are infinitely more simple than universes. 

Your second sentence would be an objection to Premise (2). To that, I say there is the math problem about an infinite series of causes as well as the most promising and well-received models do posit a universe starting a finite time ago. Again, simply putting up a possibility does not get make Premise (2) unlikely. That is a much bigger task because I will continually trot out the majority of the cosmologists and their take on things. And like I said above, I can throw in the rather significant infinity problem to push it way over the top. So, I have both scientific grounds and philosophical grounds to support Premise (2). Jehanne has a fringe theory and an uphill philosophical battle to contend with. 

Quote:You must mean that we humans cannot describe our experiences within the universe without using causal principles in our descriptions, right?  That, I would agree with.  But, how can we possibly reason beyond that? 

I don't think we are too far off. Just you think that your objections carry more weight than I think they do. 

Quote:

Quote:Go ahead, try to describe such a state of affairs. What can or cannot happen when you need no prior state for absolutely nothing (or is it everything)? I'm interested to hear you try.

An eternal universe.  Infinite space and time.  No beginning, and no end.

I’m not sure what you mean here.

You can't describe a structure to a state that has no causal principle. The only law would be that there are none. I really don't see how anything could exist without a causal principle. You can't have matter, movement, or enduring through time. I am not sure you can even have what would pass for space without a causal principle. The very question of whether anything could exist without it seems legit. This is why I claim that a causal principle seems to be an objective feature of reality/existence.

(March 19, 2018 at 9:19 am)Mathilda Wrote:

(March 19, 2018 at 9:11 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I don't see anyone arguing any of that.

I've been arguing that all along.

(March 19, 2018 at 9:11 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: You mean they don't just poof into being without cause?

No. They don't poof into existence.

What causes a snowflake to exist?

What I mean, is that I don't see anyone on the opposing side, making the argument that you are attempting to refute.  And I'm glad that you think that snowflakes need a reason, for beginning to exist.   I agree.  And I'm sorry, but since I'm not making the argument that you are trying to refute, I don't really see the need to go into a number of things that cause a snowflake to form.

(March 19, 2018 at 8:39 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(March 18, 2018 at 8:44 pm)SteveII Wrote:

---

That is the ONLY option. You cannot talk about "scientific" for things prior to the first moments of the universe. Full Stop. All of our intuitions about reality (not just our universe) screams out a causal principle. There is no way around this and for this reason alone, Premise (1) is more likely true than not. 


Regarding your first point about category error, yes--comparing God to physical laws is an obvious and silly category error and shouldn't be done. This is not that.

Regarding you second point, is there any reason whatsoever to think that causal principles only apply within the universe? Why are scientist talking about string theory, multiverses, etc.? Because they seem to think there is such a thing. Why? Because it seems like an objective feature of reality--no matter what physical conditions you find yourself in. These are the points you must answer to be successful in refuting the KCA--not complaining that you can't win after bringing up weak arguments.

---

This is why I like the KCA!  I think that the range and depth of the rebuttals are somewhat humorous.  I've seen the same person argue, that things don't need a cause to begin to exists.  Which one may point out, that the causal principle is foundational to the study of science.  If nothing is a cause, then what are the limits of nothing?   The Causal Principle is not only used to deduce what will happen when some change is introduced, but is also used to infer a cause based on the effect.  And not only must there be a cause to produce an effect, this cause must be sufficient for the effect.  It begs the question how one determines that nothing a cause (how would one falsify it)?

From here, the same person may change up; and say it's the fallacy of composition.   That the things within the universe no require a cause, but the universe does not.   Which leads us to ask why is that?  How is the universe being defined, that makes it different?   First I don't think that it is explicit in the premise (everything that begin to exist; must have a cause) that the whole has the same attributes as the parts.  I do not see anyone making this argument.  It may be said, that this is based on our observation from within the universe.  However if this is true; then, how can a cosmologist say anything about the origin of the universe (which is half of their job description).  If the claim is that the universe doesn't require a cause whereas, that which makes up the universe does.  I ask why is that? 

It is natural to look for a cause for an effect.  It is natural to expect a sufficient cause for a given effect, even if that cause cannot be demonstrated.  We may even infer certain properties about a cause that is unknown based on what we see in the effect.  I am curious for those who invoke nothing as a cause, how often you would accept this in any other circumstance?   Many here are fond of quoting "that which is given without reason, can be dismissed without reason".  Apparently until it comes to the universe and everything in it, then... one doesn't need a reason (at least if the alternative might be something like God).

No, science does NOT rely on a 'Causal Principle'. For example, quantum mechanics is an inherently acausal scientific theory. In *most* quantum events, all that can be predicted is a *probability* of what can happen, not what actually *will* happen. There simply is not a strict cause-effect relationship.


And we can go further: there are very strict limits based upon observation concerning what 'hidden variables' could potentially explain the actual evidence of the real world. In particular, if you assume causality and relativity, the observations requires a very, very strict supercausality where *everything* is precisely determined at the outset.

More specifically, what science requires is that consistent initial events have consistent subsequent events, whether 'caused' or not. It requires *predictability*, not *causality*. And the consistency required is not on a case-by-case basis, but can be at a level of overall probability.

You may ask what is so special about the universe that it does not need a cause. Easy: the universe is ALL of space and time and ALL matter and energy throughout both. Anything in the universe has a duration within the universe, but the universe itself does not. But we can dig a bit deeper on this. Causality requires time and time is *part* of the universe. So ALL causes are causes inside the universe. So, in particular, time itself cannot have a cause, even if it 'has a beginning' (I put scare quotes because the concept of 'before time' is clearly inconsistent).

The same argument can be stated as follows: everything within the universe that begins has a cause within the universe. But the universe itself is not something *within* the universe. So it need not, in fact, cannot have a cause because ALL causes are within the universe!

It may be 'natural' on the macroscopic level to 'look for a cause', but we have learned through experience that such is not always available. What we *can* find is aspects that affect probabilities. We can and do find patterns of behavior in those probabilities. And we can ask to what extent those patterns apply to the early universe. When we apply them, we find that the *known* conservation laws allow for the production of all known matter and energy from a 'vacuum' containing neither matter nor energy without a causal precursor. On a theoretical level, that alone destroys the KCA.

No causality in the old Aristotelian sense is required for science. In fact, it is even shown to not be the case in practice.

---

(March 19, 2018 at 7:07 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(March 19, 2018 at 6:07 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Are you saying that The Causal Priniple is not born out of our inductive experience? If not, then why do its proponents assume it’s an obvious truth? What about the principle makes it obvious other than our direct experience of a universe that we can best describe in terms of cause and effect? Isn’t that what human intuition is, after all? Instinct derived from our aggregate experiences? We are forever limited to our experience as beings within this universe, and as constituents of it.  I don’t see any way we can soundly reason beyond that experience. I agree with you that there are probably objective features to reality, but I don’t see that a positive case for the CP as an objective feature has been sufficiently argued.  ‘Everything we know about has a cause, therefore things we don’t know about, or may never be able to know about, also have to have causes’ is still a composition fallacy. 

I am saying that while we can look to our inductive experience as a guide, people who think about such things like before the universe are also using inductive reasoning. You seem to think the only tool that can be used is experience. However, since they know that the our laws of physics do not necessarily apply to other states of reality, they are reasoning into a lot of assumptions. 

Quote:I feel like you’re talking past me.  I’m not asserting premise (1) is false.  I’m saying you have no way to demonstrate or justify that assumption is an obvious truth, or that it’s more likely true than not.  If you can’t, then the argument is stalled at (1).  Even if I grant you (1), you’re now stuck at (2).   ‘I set them up unjustified, and if you can’t knock them down, I win’ is not how this works.  The onus is on you.

I thought that was what you were thinking--that's why I brought it up. The onus is not on me if the position is that these are near universally held beliefs. There is a good reason why most challengers to the KCA do not try to attack Premise (1). Being skeptical of Premise (1) carries a high price because to make any headway against the argument, you can't just bring up the objection, you have to say that the Premise (1) is not likely. Simply bringing up a remote possibility does nothing to an inductive argument. 

Quote:First of all, this is the same composition fallacy, restated.  Things within our universe can’t pop into being, therefore the universe it’s self cannot.  I’m not even sure what you mean by, “pop into being”.  Jehanne just put up a thread with some current scientific hypotheses describing an eternal, infinite universe, despite your foot stamping about the math. 

If you want to go with questioning a causal principle as an objective feature of reality, you have to answer questions like why only universes pop into existence and why not other things like dogs, pasta, and VW Beetles. They are infinitely more simple than universes. 

Your second sentence would be an objection to Premise (2). To that, I say there is the math problem about an infinite series of causes as well as the most promising and well-received models do posit a universe starting a finite time ago. Again, simply putting up a possibility does not get make Premise (2) unlikely. That is a much bigger task because I will continually trot out the majority of the cosmologists and their take on things. And like I said above, I can throw in the rather significant infinity problem to push it way over the top. So, I have both scientific grounds and philosophical grounds to support Premise (2). Jehanne has a fringe theory and an uphill philosophical battle to contend with. 

Quote:You must mean that we humans cannot describe our experiences within the universe without using causal principles in our descriptions, right?  That, I would agree with.  But, how can we possibly reason beyond that? 

I don't think we are too far off. Just you think that your objections carry more weight than I think they do. 

Quote:An eternal universe.  Infinite space and time.  No beginning, and no end.

I’m not sure what you mean here.

You can't describe a structure to a state that has no causal principle. The only law would be that there are none. I really don't see how anything could exist without a causal principle. You can't have matter, movement, or enduring through time. I am not sure you can even have what would pass for space without a causal principle. The very question of whether anything could exist without it seems legit. This is why I claim that a causal principle seems to be an objective feature of reality/existence.

Universes 'pop into existence' because, initially, they are *much* simpler than things like automobiles and brains. In fact, one of the basic characteristics of the early universe is how *simple* it is: depending on how far back you go, the picture is simpler and simpler. For example, prior to the era of nucleosynthesis, the whole of the universe consisted of neutrons and photons. That's it: a very hot 'soup' of those two components. Later, the neutrons decayed providing electrons, protons, and neutrinos. The condensation into things like stars and automobiles came much much later.

What precisely happened before that is still largely speculation, but it is clear that the complexity we are all familiar with is a late development, not an aspect of the initial conditions.

And no, you don't have to assume space and time for initial conditions. At least in speculation based on laws we know, no such initial space or time is required.

Science does not need cause and is totally fine the universe not having one . and no all the objection and refutation to the KCA are devastating. The argument stays afloat on lies and denial .

---

And just because steve can't think of something. Is a limit to his mind not the universe .

(March 19, 2018 at 11:16 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: Science does not need cause and is totally fine the universe not having one . and no all the objection and refutation to the KCA are devastating. The argument stays afloat on lies and denial .

---

And just because steve can't think of something. Is a limit to his mind not the universe .

Right, I hear so often, "God exists because I can't imagine the universe creating itself out of nothing."

1) No one was claiming that it did.

2) The universe and science don't care what you can imagine.

(March 19, 2018 at 7:25 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(March 19, 2018 at 9:19 am)Mathilda Wrote: No. They don't poof into existence.

What causes a snowflake to exist?

What I mean, is that I don't see anyone on the opposing side, making the argument that you are attempting to refute.  And I'm glad that you think that snowflakes need a reason, for beginning to exist.   I agree.  And I'm sorry, but since I'm not making the argument that you are trying to refute, I don't really see the need to go into a number of things that cause a snowflake to form.

I did not say that they need a reason to begin to exist. That applies agency where there is none. Nor did I ever say that there was a single cause.

Religionists use such language because they ultimately want to convince everyone that there is a single god responsible for it all.

They do this because of their preference for binary, discrete thinking.

What I am trying to show is that things rarely, if ever happen because of a single 'cause', but because of a history of changes in the environment.

You're just trying to avoid the question so I'll make it easy for you:



So what is the reason for a snowflake to exist? What causes it to exist?

(March 19, 2018 at 8:39 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I've seen the same person argue, that things don't need a cause to begin to exists.  

So who were you talking about?

Because things don't need a cause to exist . A certain class and location  of things consistently are observed to have a cause. But no were does that argue that everything must have a cause . Or that even all unnecessary things must have a cause. Your imposing ideology here RR not fact .

(March 20, 2018 at 6:02 am)Mathilda Wrote:

(March 19, 2018 at 7:25 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: What I mean, is that I don't see anyone on the opposing side, making the argument that you are attempting to refute.  And I'm glad that you think that snowflakes need a reason, for beginning to exist.   I agree.  And I'm sorry, but since I'm not making the argument that you are trying to refute, I don't really see the need to go into a number of things that cause a snowflake to form.

I did not say that they need a reason to begin to exist. That applies agency where there is none. Nor did I ever say that there was a single cause.

Religionists use such language because they ultimately want to convince everyone that there is a single god responsible for it all.

They do this because of their preference for binary, discrete thinking.

What I am trying to show is that things rarely, if ever happen because of a single 'cause', but because of a history of changes in the environment.

You're just trying to avoid the question so I'll make it easy for you:

I don't think that you are realizing, that for the most part I am agreeing with you.   I wasn't talking about reason as it some ultimate purpose or making any statements about going back to a single cause, but as I think that you are not listening very well, and trying to make assumptions that go further back, then what I was stating.

So your "Religionists use such language because " spiel seems like a bunch of hooey in this context


I don't see a problem, if after I agreed with you; that you still wanted to go through your snowflake example.  There may be others who you wished to convey the idea.   However for you to still try to say that I was avoiding the question and just the general tone of your post, make me think that you completely didn't comprehend what I was saying.