Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic

[SteveII]

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.

That statement is so wrong in so many ways. Really, you should have taken that Philosophy course that you thumbed your nose at --it would have provided a better foundation for thinking through these things. Now you're left with incredibly crappy reasoning skills. 

 First, YES, science does rely on a Causal Principle. These are the very first sentences of the relevant articles:

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge")[2][3]:58 is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[a] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Causality is the relationship between causes and effects.[1][2] It is considered to be fundamental to all natural science, especially physics.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)

You cannot do even one experiment without having a philosophical assumption of a causal principle (part of the Philosophy of Science).

Regarding quantum mechanics--this is such a red herring. Virtual particles or other quantum particles come from the quantum vacuum and the energy that’s stored up in the vacuum and it’s definitely a causal process that produces these, even if it is indeterministic in that the time at which these things come into being is spontaneous. But this is clearly a causal process. 

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.

More nonsense. This from the second sentence of the relevant article:

Causal determinism has a strong relationship with predictability. Perfect predictability implies strict determinism, but lack of predictability does not necessarily imply lack of determinism. Limitations on predictability could be caused by factors such as a lack of information or excessive complexity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictability

Notice my bold. Perfect predictability implies a perfect understanding of causal principles. How much clearer could that be? 

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).

More philosophical missteps. Causality does not require time. If anything, time is a product of causality OR, if you prefer, time is not a thing, it is illusory (as I think you have claimed in the past). Anyway, it is certainly not the way you are characterizing it. 

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!

You are making a huge assertion with literally no justification: "ALL causes are within the universe". How in the world could you make that statement with a straight face?  You certainly don't get to that from your reasoning above. Also, the cosmologist that talk about multiverses and possible conditions before the Big Bang have not gotten your memo. 

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.

What are you talking about? What vacuum caused all "known matter and energy"? 

---

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. 

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. 

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. 

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

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.

This is great. Your argument is that universes are fundamentally simple and therefore can pop into existence. It's really hard to argue with that logic--so I will just leave it at that.