Atheism and the existence of peanut butter

[The Grand Nudger]

You keep saying words...but do you actually need me to intervene, or would you say the same stupid shit if I'd said nothing at all?

[The Architect Of Fate]

What part of that is bullshit is too hard for your brain to handle Klor. You couldn't touch grass let alone a sore spot on Grand 

And you calling anyone else stupid is irony on an epic scale.

---

You keep saying words...but do you actually need me to intervene, or would you say the same stupid shit if I'd said nothing at all?

The answer is probably yes.

[The Grand Nudger]

Consider this, Kloro...you wasted your time trying to apply christian apologetics to your stupid islamic god...not understanding that their claim disproves your own, and all the while laboring under the assumption that christianity would be more compelling to the people here.

You're ridiculous.

More personally...I'm not nor have I ever been a christian, and so..garbage tailored to christians doesn't move me - and a competent person might realize this.

I keep saying that your god isn't real..because it isn't - but particularly in your own case, islamo-god stands in for whatever you are too personally stupid to know, and whatever you personally get wrong is, apparently, a logical demonstration of your gods nonexistence.  Self inflicted wounds, as another (god bothering) poster recently commented on.

So, no answer then. Are necessary and sufficient conditions too hard for your brain to handle? Because I really think I touched on a sore spot.

Using christian apologetics doesn't disprove any other religion, that's a silly assertion you have there, it doesn't unless we're using the parts of their apologetics about Jesus.. but I guess you are too personally stupid to know. *shrugs*

It's not necessary...to the islamic or any other god, for the world to be this way.   All of you posit that, somehow, earth is fallen.

It's not sufficient to theism , to the islamic god, even if there are existent gods.

Fuck a bunch of jesus, neither you nor I believe in that bullshit.

Next?

[Deesse23]

Good question.

If there is a God who cares about us, he must have communicated with us in some form.

And if he does not care?
If he does care: Nope, he does not have to communicate. Or do you think to communicate is the only or the best way to care? If so: Isnt he pretty.....well, sloppy or incompetent in his efforts to do so?

Lots of "ifs" and (lack of) imagination on your side of what your god wants and how he will fulfil his "needs".

[The Grand Nudger]

This is the "if there was a god who didn't give us a magic book that would be bad and god would be a dick" argument...for?..gods...

Okay, fine, you're right. It's pretty bad that the existent god is a dick, who failed to gift us with a manual?

Self, inflicted, wounds.

[The Architect Of Fate]

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.

Hey, Poly a Theist of all people is accusing you of making stuff up 

[polymath257]

---

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.

It does not follow from causality being true inside the universe that it depends on natural laws. Natural laws could simply be the form causality takes inside a spacetime. As I mentioned before, Kant argued that causality is a synthetic a priori,, you can't deduce it from experience. You can't prove that causality is true even within the universe, but you still need it as an assumption to do science. You either accept it as universally true or hypocritically reject it to avoid dealing with the possiblity of a first cause.

Actually, the fact that quantum mechanics is an acausal theory is enough to show that causality is NOT synthetic a priori. In point of fact, I don't think there is asuch a thing as synthetic a priori knowledge. Kant saying something doesn't make it automatically true. In fact, Kant thought that Euclidean space was also synthetic a priori. And now we know that not to be the case.

And the fact that QM is a supreme example of a scientific theory AND is acausal is enough to show that causality isn't required to do science. Just repeatability and testability.

---

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.

Exactly. Special relativity is a non-quantum theory. It is a classical theory. When quantum mechanics is added on, we get quantum field theories. So, in the classical theory, all influences remain in the light cone. In the quantum version, the correlations outside of the light cone are zero.

A good reference is Peskin and Schroeder, 'An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory'. The relevant section is even labeled 'Causality', pp 27-29. Here' the description of causality is that no measurement can affect any other measurement outside of the light cone. How is this achieved? By having the commutator of the fields be zero (no correlation) for events outside of each others light cones.  In order for this to happen, anti-particles must have the same mass as the ordinary particles. this discussion of causality comes up in the determination of the propagator.

Or, if you prefer Nachtman's book 'Elementary Particle Physics', the relevant equations are 3.50, once again describing the commutator of events outside of each others light cones and requiring the commutator be zero. Once again, this means no correlation.

Or, if you prefer Kaku's book, 'Quantum Field Theory', the description of microcausality in section 3.4 once again hinges on the nature of the commutators and thereby the correlations between events separated in a way that light could not travel between them.

Or, if you prefer Weinberg's book, The Quantum Theory of Fields (Vol 1), you can find the same discussion in section 3.5.

In ALL of these, the term 'causality' is used precisely when the events outside of each others light cones have vanishing commutators. In other words, they are uncorrelated.

Are those valid enough sources for you? All are standard texts for graduate physics in this subject (although Kaku's book is pretty poor, frankly).

Now, I don't believe for a second you have actually read/understood anything about quantum field theories that goes beyond the popular treatments. I have. And the notion of causality used in quantum mechanics isn't the type of causality you require for your program. It is a matter of probabilities and correlations and NOT of what is 'necessary' for other events to happen. And yes, it has to do with vanishing commutators outside of light cones, just as I said.

[T.J.]

The OP lost me at peanut.

[R00tKiT]

 In point of fact, I don't think there is asuch a thing as synthetic a priori knowledge. 

I suspect that you have a self-refuting sentence here (I might be wrong). The assertion : "there is no synthetic a priori knowledge" is either synthetic a priori or not. If it is, it refutes your own claim. If it isn't, we can dismiss your claim as a baseless a posteriori assertion.

And the fact that QM is a supreme example of a scientific theory AND is acausal is enough to show that causality isn't required to do science. Just repeatability and testability.

I don't think it's fair to say that QM is acausal. It surely changes our commonsense picture of causality, but there is always a kernel of causal order that underlies any physical theory.
And if we define a cause as an explanation of an effect, then it's wrong to say QM is acausal, since its main goal is to explain the behavior of atoms/ subatomic particles.

Exactly. Special relativity is a non-quantum theory. It is a classical theory. When quantum mechanics is added on, we get quantum field theories. So, in the classical theory, all influences remain in the light cone. In the quantum version, the correlations outside of the light cone are zero.

A good reference is Peskin and Schroeder, 'An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory'. The relevant section is even labeled 'Causality', pp 27-29. Here' the description of causality is that no measurement can affect any other measurement outside of the light cone. How is this achieved? By having the commutator of the fields be zero (no correlation) for events outside of each others light cones.  In order for this to happen, anti-particles must have the same mass as the ordinary particles. this discussion of causality comes up in the determination of the propagator.

Or, if you prefer Nachtman's book 'Elementary Particle Physics', the relevant equations are 3.50, once again describing the commutator of events outside of each others light cones and requiring the commutator be zero. Once again, this means no correlation.

Or, if you prefer Kaku's book, 'Quantum Field Theory', the description of microcausality in section 3.4 once again hinges on the nature of the commutators and thereby the correlations between events separated in a way that light could not travel between them.

Or, if you prefer Weinberg's book, The Quantum Theory of Fields (Vol 1), you can find the same discussion in section 3.5.

In ALL of these, the term 'causality' is used precisely when the events outside of each others light cones have vanishing commutators. In other words, they are uncorrelated.

Are those valid enough sources for you? All are standard texts for graduate physics in this subject (although Kaku's book is pretty poor, frankly).

Now, I don't believe for a second you have actually read/understood anything about quantum field theories that goes beyond the popular treatments. I have. And the notion of causality used in quantum mechanics isn't the type of causality you require for your program. It is a matter of probabilities and correlations and NOT of what is 'necessary' for other events to happen. And yes, it has to do with vanishing commutators outside of light cones, just as I said.

Physics isn't my field of expertise, my studies in physics stopped a while ago at some basic applications in QM of Schrödinger's equation, in addition to other undergraduate level courses in newtonian mechanics, electromagnetism, thermodynamics, etc. Is there some accessible interpretation of the "vanishing commutators outside of light cones" ? And does it allow for violating causal order? 

After doing a bit of research I again found what seems to contradict your assertions above:

Quote: "For a quantum field theory the equal time commutation relations are the equivalent of the initial conditions on classical field equations. It is a requirement on the dynamical equations that the property of commutation between two local observables is extended to all pairs of points with spacelike separation. This is the equivalent of the requirement of causal propagation in a (well-behaved) classical field theory."

Source: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_i...eld_theory

In other words, there is still a requirement of causality even in quantum field theory.

[Jehanne]