(July 26, 2009 at 2:35 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: [quote='Purple Rabbit' pid='24092' dateline='1248630081']
Enough words, what is your answer to my question? To be more precisely what occured in reality which you can substantiate with clear evidence that connects the biblical god to omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and to the whole of non-contingent actuality?

I believe I have already anwered this question sufficiently. Since you posite a need for "clear evidence" and since it is subjective what this means, there is no point in going more into it anyway.[/quote]
That's two answers. If you have already answered the question than please provide the number of the post in which you did. It will cost you only limited effort.
If the term clear evidence is too subjective for you to handle than tell me what criteria for evidence you use.

Jon Paul Wrote:[quote='Purple Rabbit']
OK, let's do this step by step. Your claim is that the physical concepts you are presenting here as facts are verifiable from empirical observation in nature and from natural reason and that they fit your model of pure and impure actualities and potentialities. This implies you have deep knowledge of the concepts of space, time and causality. I therefore need to know exactly what you mean with your answer.

No, it does not imply I have deep knowledge of space time and causality.[/quote]
Oh, exclude the possibility beforehand that empirical evidence disproves your model? I thought it was based on empirical observation. But if you meant that only certain empirical observation is allowed, than say so and provide the criterion with which you choose the relevant empirical observations.

Jon Paul Wrote:It implies we can observe what happens in reality without having deep knowledge before hand; otherwise it would not be aposterioritic.

The difference between a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge has nothing to do with the level of knowledge. So this really is a dust cloud you are throwing at me. Your answers more and more become entrenched in your obvious lack of knowledge on the nature of the things you base your argument on (causality, spacetime, etc). If you base yourself, as you say, on what you can observe in reality you are referring to a posteriori knowledge, i.e. empirical knowledge and your model is effectively open to alteration since more empirical data mean that the model can be falsified. If your model cannot be falsified you must be relying on a priori knowledge that can withstand empirical findings on any level of knowledge. This implies that it has to be absolute complete a priori knowledge that will never be falsified by empirical observation. So you have to choose: either your model is a relative model that can be falsified by empirical data or you are claiming absolute a priori knowledge and you can answer any question on any level. It seems you have chosen for a falsifiable relative model from a posteriori knowledge. Yet you claim absolute truth by it. This is a clear contradiction.

Jon Paul Wrote:[quote='Purple Rabbit' pid='24092' dateline='1248630081']
1. How would you define causality? Are you referring to accidental causality, essential causality or stochastic causality?

These distinctions are not of any consequence to my claim as they all involve causality at the root of the reality we observe, even if our information of specific causal processions within the universe in its totality is incomplete. I have already defined causality several places, as well, but causation always means means dependence of one set of parameters, A, on another set, B.[/quote]
You dodge the question. These are vastly different concepts of causality not just variant of the same. It shows you have no knowledge of these concepts at all.

Jon Paul Wrote:[quote='Purple Rabbit' pid='24092' dateline='1248630081']
2. You say causality implies change. IOW, if there is causality there is change. Do you mean there can be no uncaused change? And is this verified by empirical observation in nature?What I have said is rather that causation is a process which inherently involves change. For me to answer more specifically, you'd have to define "uncaused change". A change with no cause? A change in what?

I don't know what you mean exactly with uncaused change.[/quote]As in quantum mechanics which in essence is acausal. How does QM fit in your model? Or take atom decay, it's is uncaused and it is change. How does it fit your model?

Jon Paul Wrote:[quote='Purple Rabbit' pid='24092' dateline='1248630081']
4. You say causality implies division. IOW, if there is causality there is spatial and temporal division. Can there be no division without causality? Does this mean that simultaneous events cannot have a causal relation?

No, it doesn't mean that simultaneous events can have no causal relations. What I meant was not just spatiotemporal division, but division at the very root of the thing: cause and effect, dependent-upon and depended-upon.[/quote]
You are aware of the fact that simultaneity is dependent on the frame of reference, are you? If you insist that cause and effect are temporally and spatially divided, these concepts are dependent on the frame of reference. Or are you just supplying a statement about division that has no specific meaning? Sometimes it refers to temporal division, sometimes to spatial division and sometimes to logical division between cause and effect. Again your total lack of the basics of these concepts in our reality shows. Still you pertain that your model is rigid and can withstand any empirical observation. Are you god or only godlike?

Jon Paul Wrote:[quote='Purple Rabbit' pid='24092' dateline='1248630081']
5. When observing the motion of a binary star system, which is the causing event and which is the resulting event?

This is a physical question of observing specific celestial objects and the nature of their gravitation which is irrelevant to my claim, as my claim does not deal with such specific physical phenomena of celestial objects in the spatiotemporal realm.

Quote:Again this is dodging the question. I am not asking about the nature of their gravitation. I am just asking how you can distinguish cause and effect in this situation? It is a classic question in the realm of causality for the math shows that it can be formulated time-independent and no physical meaning can be given to cause and effect. Which is quite disturbing for your model.

Jon Paul Wrote:I am rather dealing with the general phenomenon of our realm in itself.

That's a nice sentence but void of any meaning. Which realm in itself are you referring to?

[quote='Jon Paul']And as I've said, whether we have complete information about the instances of causal processions or not is irrelevant to whether we know that causation happens even if we don't have the data of the totality of the information that can exist about the universe.

In the case of stochastic causality, there is no denial that causation is absolutely happening without any ambiguities, only that our information of specific instances of such is limited. But we can observe and understand the general fact of it, and additionally understand specifities in great detail even though we are not omniscient and don't have all the information of the totality, which is what probabilistic causality is all about when it comes to understanding specific physical phenomena within the universe.

Listen, your claim is that the whole of reality fits in your model. You definitely need to know if our reality has exceptions to your rule. You definitely need to be sure it all fits in there before making the claim. You are presenting this not as a falsifiable model of our reality, which is what scientific models are, but as absolute fact. This shows you are, possibly unaware of it, in a special pleading scheme. Think again, think for yourself, come away from dogma.

(July 26, 2009 at 3:41 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: That's two answers. If you have already answered the question than please provide the number of the post in which you did. It will cost you only limited effort.
If the term clear evidence is too subjective for you to handle than tell me what criteria for evidence you use.

It's one answer concerning one thing and another to another thing.

But I am not going to go into that debate now, as I've said, because it's a debate of it's own and we have already another debate.

Purple Rabbit Wrote:The difference between a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge has nothing to do with the level of knowledge.

No, it has to do with whether you need to bring it to the table from before the effect or if you can know it after the effect. And I am talking about making conclusions after the effect.

Purple Rabbit Wrote:So this really is a dust cloud you are throwing at me. Your answers more and more become entrenched in your obvious lack of knowledge on the nature of the things you base your argument on (causality, spacetime, etc). If you base yourself, as you say, on what you can observe in reality you are referring to a posteriori knowledge, i.e. empirical knowledge and your model is effectively open to alteration since more empirical data mean that the model can be falsified.

Indeed it is falsifiable.

Purple Rabbit Wrote:If your model cannot be falsified you must be relying on a priori knowledge that can withstand empirical findings on any level of knowledge. This implies that it has to be absolute complete a priori knowledge that will never be falsified by empirical observation. So you have to choose: either your model is a relative model that can be falsified by empirical data or you are claiming absolute a priori knowledge and you can answer any question on any level. It seems you have chosen for a falsifiable relative model from a posteriori knowledge. Yet you claim absolute truth by it. This is a clear contradiction.

It is falsifiable, but that does not make it falsified. Indeed, it has not been falsified, and to falsify it would require a radical burden to disprove that the fundamental things we think we know about reality, such as time, space and causation, are in fact delusions of our mind.

Purple Rabbit Wrote:You dodge the question. These are vastly different concepts of causality not just variant of the same. It shows you have no knowledge of these concepts at all.

The concepts make no difference to what I mean by causality, because they all involve the definition of causality I mentioned.

Purple Rabbit Wrote:As in quantum mechanics which in essence is acausal. How does QM fit in your model? Or take atom decay, it's is uncaused and it is change. How does it fit your model?

I am the one who doesn't understand causality, and yet you show your incredible ignorance on quantum theory. Quantum theory and atom decay are _not_ acausal in reality, only in our imperfect predictive abilities.

You haven't read up on your homework. Quantum theory affirms causation, and affirms our knowledge that causation is real, but also affirms that we don't have the totality of the information required to understand all causative events from our imperfect level of observation - that we don't have the predictive abilities to understand all causative events (surprise! we are not omniscient!). Here are some statements of scientists concerning whether quantum mechanics is "in essence" acausal.

Quote:It is a common perception that quantum mechanics has conclusively demonstrated events happen without cause in the sub-atomic realm. It is a view regularly expressed by followers of science, or more accurately, by those who like to read popular books on science. After reading an article in Wikipedia which suggested this was actually a myth (see below), I thought it would be interesting to travel around some physics forums and ask serious observers of quantum theory what they think.

This occurred over a few days in March, 2004.

The results were very interesting. Almost no one agreed with the idea that events happen without cause in the quantum realm. They all believed this constituted a gross misunderstanding of quantum theory. They affirmed the more sensible view that while things are "indeterministic" in the quantum realms in terms of our ability to predict events, the quantum realm is nevertheless fully causal.

The first post I sent into these forums (Science Forum and sci.physics.particle) was this:

[..]

(July 26, 2009 at 1:41 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: You are aware of the fact that simultaneity is dependent on the frame of reference, are you? If you insist that cause and effect are temporally and spatially divided, these concepts are dependent on the frame of reference. Or are you just supplying a statement about division that has no specific meaning? Sometimes it refers to temporal division, sometimes to spatial division and sometimes to logical division between cause and effect. Again your total lack of the basics of these concepts in our reality shows. Still you pertain that your model is rigid and can withstand any empirical observation. Are you god or only godlike?

What I have said is that cause and effect are as such divided, you can call it logically if you will, but this division is also manifest spatiotemporally.

(July 26, 2009 at 1:41 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Again this is dodging the question. I am not asking about the nature of their gravitation. I am just asking how you can distinguish cause and effect in this situation? It is a classic question in the realm of causality for the math shows that it can be formulated time-independent and no physical meaning can be given to cause and effect. Which is quite disturbing for your model.

It's not disturbing. All it shows is that we don't have the totality of information about the universe, which we probably never will, which is required to understand the totality of causative events. And ergo probablistic and stochastic logic is the remedy.

(July 26, 2009 at 1:41 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: That's a nice sentence but void of any meaning. Which realm in itself are you referring to?

I mean the basic nature and attributes of the reality of our universe, such as causation.

(July 26, 2009 at 1:41 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Listen, your claim is that the whole of reality fits in your model. You definitely need to know if our reality has exceptions to your rule. You definitely need to be sure it all fits in there before making the claim. You are presenting this not as a falsifiable model of our reality, which is what scientific models are, but as absolute fact. This shows you are, possibly unaware of it, in a special pleading scheme. Think again, think for yourself, come away from dogma.

What you are attacking is basically causation, and this has been tried by many before, and it's especially a popular misunderstanding of quantum theory. However, it is simply an argument from ignorance. And it is simply not what any observation or theory states; all we can learn is the imperfectness of the understanding we have of causative events, but none of that compromises the basic fact of causation, and quantum physicists agree. They are pragmatic in acausal models, because they don't have the predictive ability and understanding needed to be idealistic.

Well, as a matter of fact I have done my homework on this. The problem is that causality and deteminism are often confused. QM is acausal but deterministic. That may be hard to understand, but it also is available with a straight ahead explanation on Wikipedia. Furthermore, I am familiar with David Quinn and his lunatic site about A=A. David Quinn and his followers are no experts on QM. Please do not bother me with fringe philosophy.

The reason that QM is acausal is that there is no way to tell which of the superpositioned states on the cause side causes the effect. If you have a way please provide it here. I will accept evidence for the contrary only when you answer the question with argumentation from physics. A simple I could not find someone on a forum who could explain it to me, will not do. And oh, I have found forums about physics where they do understand this.

It boils down to the question of hidden variables. Are there any hidden variables that govern superpositioned states? Well so far all attempts trying to find these alleged hidden variables have failed. Indeed in Bell's experiment it was conclusively shown that there are no hidden variables in QM leading to the astounding result of nonlocality. Nonlocality has been shown indeed. So the answer is, at least for now, that QM is acausal, unless you want to revise the definition of causality to mean that every superpositioned state can be the cause of the effect, the reason I asked for your definition or that you allow backwards time travel (Bohmian interpretation of QM). QM is deterministic however in a mathematical sense. And these two facts often confuse people.

Also atom decay is acausal. If you have a cause for this please provide it and again ignorance on science fora will not do as an answer.

---

(July 26, 2009 at 4:02 pm)Jon Paul Wrote:

(July 26, 2009 at 3:41 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: That's two answers. If you have already answered the question than please provide the number of the post in which you did. It will cost you only limited effort.
If the term clear evidence is too subjective for you to handle than tell me what criteria for evidence you use.

It's one answer concerning one thing and another to another thing.

But I am not going to go into that debate now, as I've said, because it's a debate of it's own and we have already another debate.

Dodging the question.

Jon Paul Wrote:

Purple Rabbit Wrote:The difference between a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge has nothing to do with the level of knowledge.

No, it has to do with whether you need to bring it to the table from before the effect or if you can know it after the effect. And I am talking about making conclusions after the effect.

After empirical research you mean.

Jon Paul Wrote:

Purple Rabbit Wrote:So this really is a dust cloud you are throwing at me. Your answers more and more become entrenched in your obvious lack of knowledge on the nature of the things you base your argument on (causality, spacetime, etc). If you base yourself, as you say, on what you can observe in reality you are referring to a posteriori knowledge, i.e. empirical knowledge and your model is effectively open to alteration since more empirical data mean that the model can be falsified.

Indeed it is falsifiable.

Which means that your claim cannot be absolute at the moment.

Jon Paul Wrote:

Purple Rabbit Wrote:If your model cannot be falsified you must be relying on a priori knowledge that can withstand empirical findings on any level of knowledge. This implies that it has to be absolute complete a priori knowledge that will never be falsified by empirical observation. So you have to choose: either your model is a relative model that can be falsified by empirical data or you are claiming absolute a priori knowledge and you can answer any question on any level. It seems you have chosen for a falsifiable relative model from a posteriori knowledge. Yet you claim absolute truth by it. This is a clear contradiction.

It is falsifiable, but that does not make it falsified. Indeed, it has not been falsified, and to falsify it would require a radical burden to disprove that the fundamental things we think we know about reality, such as time, space and causation, are in fact delusions of our mind.

Indeed to make an absolute claim about the absolute, you would require absolute knowledge. How else could you assess absoluteness. This is part of your claim.

Jon Paul Wrote:

Purple Rabbit Wrote:You dodge the question. These are vastly different concepts of causality not just variant of the same. It shows you have no knowledge of these concepts at all.

The concepts make no difference to what I mean by causality, because they all involve the definition of causality I mentioned.

These are not just variants of causality. And you haven't defined causality at all. You just provided a dust cloud.

Jon Paul Wrote:

(July 26, 2009 at 1:41 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: You are aware of the fact that simultaneity is dependent on the frame of reference, are you? If you insist that cause and effect are temporally and spatially divided, these concepts are dependent on the frame of reference. Or are you just supplying a statement about division that has no specific meaning? Sometimes it refers to temporal division, sometimes to spatial division and sometimes to logical division between cause and effect. Again your total lack of the basics of these concepts in our reality shows. Still you pertain that your model is rigid and can withstand any empirical observation. Are you god or only godlike?

What I have said is that cause and effect are as such divided, you can call it logically if you will, but this division is also manifest spatiotemporally.

Manifest spatiotemporally, well that's a clear statement...not. Does it or does it not mean that cause and event are necessarily separated spatially and/or temporally?

Jon Paul Wrote:

(July 26, 2009 at 1:41 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Again this is dodging the question. I am not asking about the nature of their gravitation. I am just asking how you can distinguish cause and effect in this situation? It is a classic question in the realm of causality for the math shows that it can be formulated time-independent and no physical meaning can be given to cause and effect. Which is quite disturbing for your model.

It's not disturbing. All it shows is that we don't have the totality of information about the universe, which we probably never will, which is required to understand the totality of causative events. And ergo probablistic and stochastic logic is the remedy.

(July 26, 2009 at 1:41 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: That's a nice sentence but void of any meaning. Which realm in itself are you referring to?

I mean the basic nature and attributes of the reality of our universe, such as causation.

(July 26, 2009 at 1:41 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Listen, your claim is that the whole of reality fits in your model. You definitely need to know if our reality has exceptions to your rule. You definitely need to be sure it all fits in there before making the claim. You are presenting this not as a falsifiable model of our reality, which is what scientific models are, but as absolute fact. This shows you are, possibly unaware of it, in a special pleading scheme. Think again, think for yourself, come away from dogma.

What you are attacking is basically causation, and this has been tried by many before, and it's especially a popular misunderstanding of quantum theory. However, it is simply an argument from ignorance. And it is simply not what any observation or theory states; all we can learn is the imperfectness of the understanding we have of causative events, but none of that compromises the basic fact of causation, and quantum physicists agree. They are pragmatic in acausal models, because they don't have the predictive ability and understanding needed to be idealistic.

I am not attacking causality but your accuracy in handling it. Your model suggests a lot, but is not accurate at all. It cannot provide any deeper insight into these relevant questions on the nature of causality. You not even provide a decent definition of causality and from that you have the nerve to suggest that I am arguing from ignorance. Your concept is a hollow case with fancy shiny nameplates on the outside. But it has no predictive or explanatory power whatsoever.

(July 26, 2009 at 5:32 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Well, as a matter of fact I have done my homework on this. The problem is that causality and deteminism are often confused. QM is acausal but deterministic.

I have not confused determinism and causation. On the other hand, I am pretty sure you have confused the definition of causation.

(July 26, 2009 at 5:32 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Furthermore, I am familiar with David Quinn and his lunatic site about A=A. David Quinn and his followers are no experts on QM. Please do not bother me with fringe philosophy.

The answer is not from David Quinn but from quantum physicists, unlike the link you gave me.

(July 26, 2009 at 5:32 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: The reason that QM is acausal is that there is no way to tell which of the superpositioned states on the cause side causes the effect.

Even if that is conceded, that doesn't mean it's acausal.

(July 26, 2009 at 5:32 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: If you have a way please provide it here. I will accept evidence for the contrary only when you answer the question with argumentation from physics. A simple I could not find someone on a forum who could explain it to me, will not do. And oh, I have found forums about physics where they do understand this.

I dont trust your source, see what the very guy who claims he knows acausality to be proven himself says about the experiment which supposedly proves it - your source:

DStah Wrote:I can't explain Bell's theorem because I ain't educated (or smart) enough. It's one of the places I have to take the opinions of the professionals at face value.

(July 26, 2009 at 5:32 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: It boils down to the question of hidden variables. Are there any hidden variables that govern superpositioned states? Well so far all attempts trying to find these alleged hidden variables have failed. Indeed in Bell's experiment it was conclusively shown that there are no hidden variables in QM leading to the astounding result of nonlocality. Nonlocality has been shown indeed.

Bells experiment doesn't conclusively show anything. In fact, it leaves several options open for interpretation. It's up to you if you want to go with the most fantastic conclusions, or go with the more trivial (and likely) explanations.

Quote:Causality itself was finally 'rejected' by quantum physicists in 1964. Physicist John Bell assumed, for experiment, three premises: 1) identity (particles are what they are), 2) causality (physical effects propagate by physical means), and 3) that particles on one side of a screen would not affect particles on the other side ("that the state of the instruments measuring the particles was uncorrelated"). As Bell expected, experimental evidence proved these three assumptions could not co-exist in reality (N.B. - the reality the quantum physicists rejected) and they correctly concluded that at least one of the three premises must be rejected. Now, which premise do you think the quantum physicists gleefully rejected? Not the latter triviality about correlation, of course, but identity and causality, which they knew 'all along' were Satan's work. As one quantum theorist exalted at the result: "Reality has been refuted!" To paraphrase Victor Hugo: "To reject reality in the name of reality! What could be more ingenious?"

(July 26, 2009 at 5:32 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: So the answer is, at least for now, that QM is acausal, unless you want to revise the definition of causality to mean that every superpositioned state can be the cause of the effect, the reason I asked for your definition or that you allow backwards time travel (Bohmian interpretation of QM). QM is deterministic however in a mathematical sense. And these two facts often confuse people.

See, you yourself are saying that it depends on definition. Because if you use my definition of causality, then quantum physics doesn't reject it (causation always means means dependence of one set of parameters, A, on another set B).

(July 26, 2009 at 5:32 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Also atom decay is acausal. If you have a cause for this please provide it and again ignorance on science fora will not do as an answer.

Again, I have never said we have intensive total information about the causes of every causative event in the universe. To the contrary. We are not omniscient. We do not need to have so, to still affirm the reality of causation. That would be arguing against causation on grounds of ignorance. There are many other things we did not understand in the universe earlier, causally, which we now do. By your approach, that would warrant, that at the time we did not know why the sun rised, we should then conclude that reality is acausal. Or we might not know the cause of gravity. Or why water evaporates. No. We may not know the causes of all things, but that in no way means that there are none.

---

Quote:De Broglie and Born state clearly that physical dependence, without 'infinite sharpness', gives rise to causal accounts in quantum mechanics. It is a step towards meeting Bohr's challenge. Quantum mechanical discoveries, from Kirchoffs spectral analysis to Einstein's spontaneous emission, have driven a wedge between the notions of determnism and causation. The quantum-mechanical experiments of the 1920s served to bring into focus a notion of causation compatible with atomic phenomena. Thus it would seem that quantum mechanics does not relinquish the notion of causation. It only eliminates the traditional interpretation of causation in terms of determinism. If causation means physical dependence of one set of observable parameters, A, on another set, B, then quantum physics has not abandoned causation. This general notion of physical dependence must be specified in terms of laws which lay down how the occurence of one set of events, A, is dependent on the occurence of another set of events, B. As Born states: 'the objects of observation for which a dependennce is claimed (...) are the probabilities of elementary events, not those single events themselves' (as we may expect from classical physics and everyday experience). This gives rise to a characterization of causation compatible with quantum mechanical evidence, which lays the basis for a conditional model of causation. What is newis that Born, de Broglie and other observers of the scene, like Frank and Cassirer, take the empirical discoveries of quantum mechanics as empirical constraints on an adequate notion of causation. Empirical discoveries have an impact on fundamental philosophical notions because these notions belong to the larger categorical framework within which the empirical phenomena are interpreted. An appropriate understanding of such phenomena involves the employment of fundamental philosophical notions. It may appear that with the separation of the notions of causation and determinism we pay an unacceptable price: t he loss of a causal, traceable link between cause and effect. In de Broglie's thought experiment, some of the traditional features of causation are still present: antecedence (the cause is prior to/simultaneous with (....)

From Friedel Weinert, Scientist as Philosopher on the philosophical implications of quantum physics.

---

(July 26, 2009 at 5:32 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Indeed to make an absolute claim about the absolute, you would require absolute knowledge. How else could you assess absoluteness. This is part of your claim.

No, it's not part of my claim in what you quote. It's yet another misunderstanding of my epistemological argument, which has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

(July 26, 2009 at 5:32 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: These are not just variants of causality. And you haven't defined causality at all. You just provided a dust cloud.

I have defined it, as the dependence on one set of parameters, A, on another set, B.

(July 26, 2009 at 5:32 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Does it or does it not mean that cause and event are necessarily separated spatially and/or temporally?

It does not necessarily mean that "cause and event are separated spatially/temporally". This may be a partially semantic issue. Maybe there is no separation on a physical level, spatially and temporally, but a separation manifests between larger sets of causes and effects without actual causes and effects being separate "events" (or how to phrase it). Either way it makes no difference to my perspective.

(July 26, 2009 at 5:32 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: I am not attacking causality but your accuracy in handling it. Your model suggests a lot, but is not accurate at all. It cannot provide any deeper insight into these relevant questions on the nature of causality. You not even provide a decent definition of causality and from that you have the nerve to suggest that I am arguing from ignorance. Your concept is a hollow case with fancy shiny nameplates on the outside. But it has no predictive or explanatory power whatsoever.

I have defined causality several times.

Though the debate on causation is interesting (since there is much confusion about it) it's worth noting that my there are versions of my theological argument which are independent of the occurence or nonoccurence of causality. But of course, there's also the fact that causality (if defined in the original, broad sense of interdependence) also occurs on several levels, even if not on the quantum level (which even there, it does, in my definition of it - even though we don't have reliable observatory and therefore predictive abilities of quantum events). Therefore, attacking causation is not going to extuinguish the other argument from actuality which isn't built on causation, and it isn't going to refute all kinds of causation either, if you build the argument on Quantum Theory, since it explicitly does not reject the notion of causation I build on.

It's also interesting to note that this "attack" on causation and order in the universe is nothing new. In fact, it was much the argument that Plato used for his monotheistic notion of the abstract world.

Quote:Pythagoras and his followers were the first to realize the ubiquity of mathematical relationships in the natural world. They discovered that harmonious musical tones are produced by lyre strings with simple mathematical ratios, and noticed the precise mathematical regularity of the progression of seasons and tides. They then extrapolated, coming to regard mathematics as the essence of a mystical supernatural realm which governed reality. The Pythagoreans shunned the lowly material world and worshipped the abstract mathematics that they thought was the key to reality.

Plato adopted and systematized this Pythagorean mysticism. His solution to the problem of concepts was to project an entire supernatural world -- the world of the Forms -- in which resided the abstract, everlasting, mathematically perfect abstractions to which our concepts referred. Metaphysically, the world of Forms was regarded as fully real, while the familiar physical world of perception was downgraded. Physical entities in this world, according to Plato, were mere shadows, imperfect copies of the Forms. True knowledge, therefore, meant knowledge of the immaterial Forms, and not of the grubby ever-changing imperfect material world.

The causal primacy of Plato's supernatural world of Forms was presented most eloquently in his creation myth, the Timeaus. Here he tells the story of how, in the beginning, there was only a chaotic undifferentiated blob of matter. Then a god (a symbol for the Forms) enters and imposes identity and structure on the matter, bringing about the orderly physical world we see around us today. The important point here is that, according to Plato, physical matter - the stuff of this world - left to itself is essentially passive or worse: positively chaotic. An external force is therefore required to explain the apparent orderliness of the world around us.

In Plato's physics, then, the mathematical laws of nature are not a human grasp of the causal sequences arising from the identity of physical objects. Rather, the laws are metaphysically distinct supernatural abstractions which impose identity on otherwise chaotic matter. So in physics as in other areas, true knowledge is knowledge of the abstract Form - in this case, the mathematical laws - and not of any causal sequence involving physical matter. Indeed, for Plato, the abstract mathematical law is the causal factor: it is what imposes order on the material world.

Plato's Primacy of Mathematics also comes out in his attempt to reduce the physical elements to "pure geometry." He argues that the four elements (earth, air, water, and fire) could be identified with four regular geometrical solids: earth with the cube, fire with the tetrahedron, etc. So again here, the idea is that the physical world of material substances is not fully real. The physical world is ultimately reducible to nothing but geometrical shapes: the triangles and squares which make up the geometrical solids.

Platonism, to summarize, shuns the physical world in favor of a supernatural world of pure abstractions. The latter is fully real where the former is not, and true knowledge in physics, therefore, is knowledge of the true causal primaries: the abstract mathematical laws which impose identity and order on the lowly material realm.

This Platonic attitude is alive and well in physics today. We see it, for example, in the standard interpretation of general relativity, Einstein's theory of gravity. Here, Einstein attempts to reduce gravitational forces to the geometrical properties of empty space. When two bodies attract gravitationally, he says, they don't "really" move toward each other. Rather, they move along locally straight lines and it is the geometry of space -- the global curvature of locally straight lines -- which explains the "apparent" attractive force. Thus, the gravitational field, the physical medium by which gravitational influences are transmitted, disappears and is reduced to the purely geometric curvature of empty space.

A more general form of Platonic mysticism exists in the tendency of some physicists to reify the mathematical laws of nature. For example, some physicists believe that the laws existed prior to the creation of the physical universe in the so-called big bang. Nobel laureate Leon Lederman writes: "In the very beginning there was a void -- a curious form of vacuum -- a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place, and this curious vacuum held potential." [2]

Stephen Hawking agrees about the priority of the mathematical laws, asking "What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?" [3] Or, as one contemporary philosopher of science describes the difference between natural law and mere fact, "Implicit in the concept of a natural law is the idea that the laws of nature govern the universe." [4, emphasis in orig.] Even the great Einstein concurs, writing that "Nature is the realization of the simplest conceivable mathematical ideas." [5]

(July 26, 2009 at 6:34 pm)Jon Paul Wrote:

(July 26, 2009 at 5:32 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Well, as a matter of fact I have done my homework on this. The problem is that causality and deteminism are often confused. QM is acausal but deterministic.

I have not confused determinism and causation. On the other hand, I am pretty sure you have confused the definition of causation.

(July 26, 2009 at 5:32 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Furthermore, I am familiar with David Quinn and his lunatic site about A=A. David Quinn and his followers are no experts on QM. Please do not bother me with fringe philosophy.

The answer is not from David Quinn but from quantum physicists, unlike the link you gave me.

You don't shy away from dishonest methods to sustain your special plea. First you give me the link to the David Quinn site:

Jon Paul Wrote:Here are some statements of scientists concerning whether quantum mechanics is "in essence" acausal.

and then you edit your post and remove the link. It seems you are not quite sure about who you should quote.

Jon Paul Wrote:

(July 26, 2009 at 5:32 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: The reason that QM is acausal is that there is no way to tell which of the superpositioned states on the cause side causes the effect.

Even if that is conceded, that doesn't mean it's acausal.

That depends on your definition. Yours was: "dependence of one set of parameters, A, on another set, B" which is very vague again. With this definition one can claim that the weight of a grain of sand on the beach causes the earth to rotate around the sun since the grain adds to the mass of the earth. The rotation parameters of the earth around the sun thus is dependent on the mass of the grain of sand. You can fit the vacuum cleaner in too: my vacuum cleaner causes the earth to rotate around the sun. I can even fit my grandma in, no matter that she is dead. So you have showed that you can define causality wide enough to contain anything you like. You show no interest in the empirical characteristics of it as science would test its models. You are simply special pleading again.

And that's the trouble over and over again with your aguments. You claim to be interested in the fundamental characteristics of nature and that your falsifiable model is based on empirical observation, but you show no specific interest in striking empirical results that counter your claim that everything is caused. You cannot claim from observation that everything is under the pure/impure actuality and no expert in the field will claim that. And yes, science itself has no ultimate answer. The point is you make the claim ahead of empirical evidence and trivialize contrary evidence.

Jon Paul Wrote:

(July 26, 2009 at 5:32 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: It boils down to the question of hidden variables. Are there any hidden variables that govern superpositioned states? Well so far all attempts trying to find these alleged hidden variables have failed. Indeed in Bell's experiment it was conclusively shown that there are no hidden variables in QM leading to the astounding result of nonlocality. Nonlocality has been shown indeed.

Bells experiment doesn't conclusively show anything. In fact, it leaves several options open for interpretation. It's up to you if you want to go with the most fantastic conclusions, or go with the more trivial (and likely) explanations.

The other options compromise other aspects of your model. At the moment as a result of the problem of interpretation of empirical results from QM competing interpretations of QM are around that indeed are at the moment are empirically undistinguishable. That's why I mentioned the Bohn interpretation of QM. It allows backward time travel. Any idea what the implications are for causality and your notion of time (time ~ "fundamentally a part of causality/impure actuality, just like space")? I am not asserting that science has definitely nailed these fundamentals but only that it is too easy to claim that empirical evidence leads to your model with its ancient notions on time, causality, space and identity. QM shows that we have to be careful with such claims.

Jon Paul Wrote:

(July 26, 2009 at 5:32 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: So the answer is, at least for now, that QM is acausal, unless you want to revise the definition of causality to mean that every superpositioned state can be the cause of the effect, the reason I asked for your definition or that you allow backwards time travel (Bohmian interpretation of QM). QM is deterministic however in a mathematical sense. And these two facts often confuse people.

See, you yourself are saying that it depends on definition. Because if you use my definition of causality, then quantum physics doesn't reject it (causation always means means dependence of one set of parameters, A, on another set B).

Yes it depends on definition. If you define a tree as a light bulb you'll find that forests grow in houses. That's why I asked your definition of causality to begin with. Also you have shown that you can choose a definition of causality to fit your grandma in. That does not mean that you are touching upon a fundamental characteristic of nature. Once again, you are not interested in empirical phernomena from which you can learn something about the meaning of causality, you are interested in defining the term wide enough to fit your claim. This is special pleading.

Jon Paul Wrote:

(July 26, 2009 at 5:32 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Also atom decay is acausal. If you have a cause for this please provide it and again ignorance on science fora will not do as an answer.

Again, I have never said we have intensive total information about the causes of every causative event in the universe. To the contrary. We are not omniscient. We do not need to have so, to still affirm the reality of causation. That would be arguing against causation on grounds of ignorance. There are many other things we did not understand in the universe earlier, causally, which we now do. By your approach, that would warrant, that at the time we did not know why the sun rised, we should then conclude that reality is acausal. Or we might not know the cause of gravity. Or why water evaporates. No. We may not know the causes of all things, but that in no way means that there are none.

Uranium changes spontaneously into lead through decay. There are statistical laws that describe the phenomenon. But you cannot predict for an individual atom its decay. Some decay sooner, some decay later. No one knows why they do what they do. So empirical evidence to sustain the claim that this phenomenon is causal is absent. Indeed the pattern of decay for a group of atoms follows the characteristcs of a random process. There is evidence for randomness, there is absence of evidence for the claim that these events are caused. Yet you here claim again from ignorance that they are caused. This is special pleading to support your model which is so crude that not a single prediction on a natural phenomenon or a single explanation of such a phenomenon can be made.

It was Kant who proposed that causality may be nothing more than a notion of the human mind that does not exist in reality. The scientific consensus at the moment is that some events are uncaused. Tunneling of particles through a barrier is one. Another uncaused phenomenon is the random creation of virtual particles from the vacuum (vacuum fluctuations). Virtual particle pairs are predicted to have a calculable effect upon the energy levels of atoms. The effect expected is minute - only a change of one part in a billion, but it has been confirmed by experimenters. In 1953 Willis Lamb measured this excited energy state for a hydrogen atom. No doubt remains that virtual particles are really there.

Your aim is only to sustain your proposed model which is devised to support your claim of a divine being. It is not capable of predicting empirical results or explaining anything about nature. Your model claims that everything in our physical universe is caused and you claim that it is a falsifiable model. Still, even though current scientific consensus is that there are some uncaused phenomena, you try to mold that to your preconcluded result: the causes still have to be found, the empirical data are incomplete, the definition is wide enough to fit the result. This is special pleading, not accepting the fact that your scheme, crippled as it already is by poor definition and unable to describe any phenomenon in nature with any accuracy, is flatly falsified and shown incomplete.

Jon Paul Wrote:

(July 26, 2009 at 5:32 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: These are not just variants of causality. And you haven't defined causality at all. You just provided a dust cloud.

I have defined it, as the dependence on one set of parameters, A, on another set, B.

There's the dust cloud again.

Jon Paul Wrote:

(July 26, 2009 at 5:32 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: I am not attacking causality but your accuracy in handling it. Your model suggests a lot, but is not accurate at all. It cannot provide any deeper insight into these relevant questions on the nature of causality. You not even provide a decent definition of causality and from that you have the nerve to suggest that I am arguing from ignorance. Your concept is a hollow case with fancy shiny nameplates on the outside. But it has no predictive or explanatory power whatsoever.

I have defined causality several times.

Yes and you could fit your grandmother and a vacuum cleaner in as a cause for the revolution of the earth around the sun.

What you qualify as an attack on causality is an attack on the accuracy of your claims. Your model has no predictive or explanatory power whatsoever and you are special pleading to arrive at it.

(July 27, 2009 at 5:37 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: You don't shy away from dishonest methods to sustain your special plea. First you give me the link to the David Quinn site and then you edit your post and remove the link. It seems you are not quite sure about who you should quote.

I haven't changed anything, the link is still there... here is the exact quote in your own post:
(quote='Jon Paul') (url=http://members.optushome.com.au/davidquinn000/Quality%20Posts/Quantum01.htm)Here(/url) are some statements of scientists concerning whether quantum mechanics is "in essence" acausal.

(July 27, 2009 at 5:37 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: That depends on your definition. Yours was: "dependence of one set of parameters, A, on another set, B" which is very vague again. With this definition one can claim that the weight of a grain of sand on the beach causes the earth to rotate around the sun since the grain adds to the mass of the earth. The rotation parameters of the earth around the sun thus is dependent on the mass of the grain of sand. You can fit the vacuum cleaner in too: my vacuum cleaner causes the earth to rotate around the sun. I can even fit my grandma in, no matter that she is dead. So you have showed that you can define causality wide enough to contain anything you like. You show no interest in the empirical characteristics of it as science would test its models. You are simply special pleading again.

No. I have provided an academic source for this definition.

(July 27, 2009 at 5:37 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: And that's the trouble over and over again with your aguments. You claim to be interested in the fundamental characteristics of nature and that your falsifiable model is based on empirical observation, but you show no specific interest in striking empirical results that counter your claim that everything is caused.

I have never claimed that 'everything is caused'. And you have given nothing which counters my claims.

(July 27, 2009 at 5:37 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: [quote='Jon Paul'][quote='Purple Rabbit' pid='24103' dateline='1248643957']
The other options compromise other aspects of your model. At the moment as a result of the problem of interpretation of empirical results from QM competing interpretations of QM are around that indeed are at the moment are empirically undistinguishable. That's why I mentioned the Bohn interpretation of QM. It allows backward time travel. Any idea what the implications are for causality and your notion of time (time ~ "fundamentally a part of causality/impure actuality, just like space")? I am not asserting that science has definitely nailed these fundamentals but only that it is too easy to claim that empirical evidence leads to your model with its ancient notions on time, causality, space and identity. QM shows that we have to be careful with such claims.

QM still doesn't do anything to compromise that which the fundamentals of my argument relies on.

(July 27, 2009 at 5:37 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Yes it depends on definition. If you define a tree as a light bulb you'll find that forests grow in houses. That's why I asked your definition of causality to begin with. Also you have shown that you can choose a definition of causality to fit your grandma in. That does not mean that you are touching upon a fundamental characteristic of nature. Once again, you are not interested in empirical phernomena from which you can learn something about the meaning of causality, you are interested in defining the term wide enough to fit your claim. This is special pleading.

Again, it's no special pleading. I provided an academic source for my definition of causality. Cause simply means that which something else depends upon, and hence the definition of causality as depence of one set of things, A, on another set of things, B.

(July 27, 2009 at 5:37 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Uranium changes spontaneously into lead through decay. There are statistical laws that describe the phenomenon. But you cannot predict for an individual atom its decay.

You cannot predict it, no. That is called indeterminacy, not acausality. You are confusing determinacy and causality, the very thing you accused me of.

(July 27, 2009 at 5:37 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Some decay sooner, some decay later. No one knows why they do what they do. So empirical evidence to sustain the claim that this phenomenon is causal is absent.

Radioactive decay has a clear cause - the potential barrier transparency.

(July 27, 2009 at 5:37 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Indeed the pattern of decay for a group of atoms follows the characteristcs of a random process. There is evidence for randomness, there is absence of evidence for the claim that these events are caused. Yet you here claim again from ignorance that they are caused. This is special pleading to support your model which is so crude that not a single prediction on a natural phenomenon or a single explanation of such a phenomenon can be made.

It is caused, as I've just said. That doesn't mean we have enough observational and predictive capabillity to predict single events. Just like you can't predict what a human is going to do next, or where a bird just came from before it sat on the roof of your house.

(July 27, 2009 at 5:37 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: It was Kant who proposed that causality may be nothing more than a notion of the human mind that does not exist in reality.

Indeed, you are basing your notion of acausality on Kantianism.

(July 27, 2009 at 5:37 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: The scientific consensus at the moment is that some events are uncaused. Tunneling of particles through a barrier is one. Another uncaused phenomenon is the random creation of virtual particles from the vacuum (vacuum fluctuations). Virtual particle pairs are predicted to have a calculable effect upon the energy levels of atoms. The effect expected is minute - only a change of one part in a billion, but it has been confirmed by experimenters. In 1953 Willis Lamb measured this excited energy state for a hydrogen atom. No doubt remains that virtual particles are really there.

There is something else which the phenomena and particles depend upon for whatever action they are in. The state at time t and the underlying reality cause the state at time t+1. Otherwise, it would be impossible to make even probablistic predictions involving multiple events.

(July 26, 2009 at 5:32 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Your model has no predictive or explanatory power whatsoever

I would not say my model should make predictions; perhaps it should make postdictions. But in any case, that is irrelevant to whether it's logically sound or not. It makes no difference if a hypothesis makes a prediction or not. For instance, the hypothesis that "I just coughed" may be true, but that doesn't mean it makes any predictions.

(July 27, 2009 at 1:59 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: (..) the fact that causality (if defined in the original, broad sense of interdependence) also occurs on several levels, even if not on the quantum level (which even there, it does, in my definition of it - even though we don't have reliable observatory and therefore predictive abilities of quantum events) (...) if you build the argument on Quantum Theory, since it explicitly does not reject the notion of causation I build on.

It needs to be understood that the math is fundamentally agnostic as to our "semantic" fights, the conclusion you make will be based on your interpretation; and whether you affirm causality or not is partially a semantic issue, as most rejections of causality are really just a rejection of quantum determinacy with the misnomer of causality. The question becomes where the quantum indeterminacy lies; in the ontological or the epistemic realm? In the case of John Bells experiment, you stand before this choice: either you can reject causality, or identity, or you can reject the fundamental observational reliability/capability of the observational mechanism, that is, posite the indeterminacy in the epistemic realm (a.k.a. reject the premise that particles of either side of the screen will not affect each other or will be reliably measureable in the experiment). This problem of the role of the observational mechanism is fundamental to the issue.

There are many successful efforts aimed at developing newer non-Copenhagist interpretations more accurately descriptive of reality without projecting human epistemic fallibility or indeterminacy unto the ontological realm, indeed without begging the question of older Copenhagist and Heisenbergist presuppositions. You should read Microphysical Reality and Quantum Formalism: Volumes 1 and 2 by A. Van der Merwe, G. Tarozzi and F. Selleri., which gives many new perspectives on the causality of the quantum realm. Quantum Paradoxes and Physical Reality by Selleri will also make many things clear on this exact topic. Peter Riggs' Quantum Causality: Conceptual Issues in the Causal Theory of Quantum Mechanics, providing a strong foundation for quantum causality. The fact is that it is entirely plausible, mathematically and observationally, to posite indeterminacy not in the ontological realm ('acausality'), but in the epistemic realm, in the observational mechanism and interaction. That I consider the more likely explanation.

A question.

What is the collective known as " Opus Dei " ( hope I've got the title in correct Latin ) all about? I ask because I am aware of at least 1 British MP who is a " member " but who is very coy about it.

(July 27, 2009 at 7:18 pm)bozo Wrote: A question.

What is the collective known as " Opus Dei " ( hope I've got the title in correct Latin ) all about? I ask because I am aware of at least 1 British MP who is a " member " but who is very coy about it.

I understand you admitted you're lazy. However, that questions implies supine and comatose.


LOOK IT UP!--Googling 'Opus Dei' gives over TWO MILLION HITS!