Atheism and the existence of peanut butter

[polymath257]

The point is that causality isn't a principle of thought. It is a testable hypothesis about how the universe works.

No, it isn't. After doing a bit of reserch on the matter I found out that causality is an axiom of Quantum theory (attempt to bring together QM and GR).

https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9709026
Quote : Quantum mechanics permits nonlocality - both nonlocal correlations and nonlocal equations of motion - while respecting relativistic causality.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1011.6451
Quote : Quantum theory can be derived from purely informational principles. Five elementary axioms-causality, perfect distinguishability, ideal compression, local distinguishability, and pure conditioning.

https://archive.org/stream/naturalphilosoph032159mbp/naturalphilosoph032159mbp_djvu.txt 
Quote: physics has given up causality is entirely unfounded. Modem physics, it is true, has given up or modified many traditional ideas ; but it would cease to be a science if it had given up the search for the causes of phenomena. (The author is Max Born, the famous German physicist)

So no, causality is not a testable hypothesis, but an axiom embedded in the framework of all modern physical theories.

Don't get stuck on the word here. Read deeper and find out what they mean by the word 'causality' in these papers. You will find that it is NOT the same as what you think of as causality.

For example, relativistic causality is the claim that events that are separated by a timelike relativistic separation are uncorrelated. it is a question about probabilities and correlations, not in necessary conditions. Similarly, in your second paper, the notion of causality is that there is no 'signal' from the future. Again, this is ultimately saying there is no correlation between events that are timelike separated.

Finally, the notion of causality in your third article is dependent on the existence of natural laws. So, once again, it does not address the fact that ALL causality, such as it exists, is within the universe and a consequence of the natural laws. it does NOT support your claim for causality outside of the universe, nor even the claim of simultaneous causality within the universe.

Finally, the fact that the quantum relativistic version of causality is an 'assumption' is precisely what makes it part of a testable theory. it is NOT a law of thought, but an aspect of the proposed scientific theory: an aspect to be tested (are events correlated or not?) and not something required to even think about natural laws.

In other words, you are quoting articles you clearly do not comprehend simply because they have a couple of phrases that seem to align with your position. if they are read more closely, they directly contradict your basic claims.

[Jehanne]

In other words, cherry-picking quote mining?? Typical of religious apologists. I am glad that Polymath is not sending all of Us a bill.

[The Grand Nudger]

Kloro wouldn't pay it, so it's good he doesn't expect one.  

Like anyone else who comes here to insist on djinn...the idea that any logical or factual thing premises their god belief is a dispensible piece of flak.  They insist, and will explicitly insist, that any and every bit of reality defer and be corrected by their stupid god beliefs.  Their's...mind you, not anything to do with gods.

[Anomalocaris]

If it can't be measured, then, it doesn't exist, or, at least it doesn't matter if it exists or not.

One can't measure stupidity.

Can Christian faith Be measured?   If so, that is a perfect measure of stupidity.

[Peebothuhlu]

If it can't be measured, then, it doesn't exist, or, at least it doesn't matter if it exists or not.

One can't measure stupidity.

Yes Bel.

Hence why we totally don't have such things as 'Darwin awards'.



Not at work.

[Angrboda]

In other words, cherry-picking quote mining??  Typical of religious apologists.  I am glad that Polymath is not sending all of Us a bill.

He does the same with the Stephen Hawking quote about the no boundary proposal. He quotes a sentence that isn't Hawking stating his own view but offering a retrospective on the state of the evidence. But Klor quotes it as if it were his views because Klor is a shitstain creationist moron.

[R00tKiT]

For example, relativistic causality is the claim that events that are separated by a timelike relativistic separation are uncorrelated. 

I am really curious to know from where you're pulling these definitions exactly? Please supplement your claims with reliable sources.  Relativistic causality means that causal processes or signals can propagate only within the light-cone. This means that causes must precede effects in space-time.

Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09505-2
Quote: In all relativistic theories, causality is imposed, i.e., the requirement that causes must precede effects in all space–time rest frames.

Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication..._Causality
Quote: I discuss the idea of relativistic causality i.e. the requirement that causal processes or signals can propagate only within the light-cone.

Correlations are involved at the quantum level, there is absolutely no mention of the word correlation in any textbook treatment of Special Relativity.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, pull the brakes. It's important to ask if you could be made aware of how you got this entirely wrong, would you then abandon the beliefs allegedly proved by and so predicate on getting that thing wrong?

Because, if not, they were never important to your beliefs to begin with...you've been wasting everyone's time, including your own. Also committing blasphemy and bearing false witness about your god..if those are things that are important to you.

[R00tKiT]

Well, pull the brakes.  It's important to ask if you could be made aware of how you got this entirely wrong, would you then abandon the beliefs allegedly proved by and so predicate on getting that thing wrong?

Because, if not, they were never important to your beliefs to begin with...you've been wasting everyone's time, including your own.  Also committing blasphemy and bearing false witness about your god..if those are things that are important to you.

Can you just shut it ?  You don't seem to grasp the idea of proving something step by step - that's it. Theism comes much later, once we prove deism. And we can't prove deism without things like causality *sigh*

[The Grand Nudger]

Proving deism disproves theism by default, they're directly contradictory claims.

If you wanna go all thomas jefferson on us, by all means have at it...but, again, if being right or wrong about this isn't actually important to you, what's the point of pretending that it is? I mean what's the point, for your beliefs...not whether being a dipshit is useful to irritating people who know more than you do. I consider that manifestly proven by this and any number of other threads on the topic.