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

[polymath257]

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)

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

2. 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

3. 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).

4. 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!

5. 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.

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

---

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.

7. 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.

1. Completely false. All we need for science to work is observation of patterns. No assumption of causality is required.

2. The point is that the fluctuations themselves are not caused: they are completely probabilistic.

3. you are correct that lack of predictability does nto imply a lack of causality. But that isn't the argument I made. Any causal theory has to obey Bell's inequalities, but quantum mechanics does not. And the observations agree with the quantum mechanical prediction not the prediction based on the assumption of causality.

4. yes, of course causality requires time. What does it mean to say event A causes event B (more appropriately, a set of events A causes an event B)? it means that whenever the conditions A happen, the action of natural laws (identical with causal laws) produces the event B at a later time. Time is absolutely required for causality. And since time is an aspect of the universe, all causes are within the universe. If youo go to the level of a multiverse, that only changes things to say that all causes are within the multiverse (since we are talking about the universe being all of existence).

5. Dealt with in the previous.

6. No, it is not 'caused'.

7. No, this is a response to the question of why universes can pop into existence but automobiles cannot. The basic simplicity of early universes is one reason why the probabilities are so different.

One aspect that you seem to ignore is the very definition of causality. In order for a set of events, A, to cause an event B, it is required that *whenever* the conditions A happen, we inevitably get the event B.

if that is NOT the definition of causality you use, please give a better one. In particular, causality requires the action of natural laws to go from one state at one time to another state at another time. Both time and natural laws are required for causality to have any meaning.

---

Um, snowflakes don't begin to exist. They are a re-arrangement of existing matter. If the sense in which you're using 'begin to exist' includes snowflakes forming, then it includes our universe transforming from a previous state of existence.

Yes they very much do begin to exist.  It has to do with the word 'snowflake' and the necessary properties that form the underlying meaning of the word. If something does not match these properties, necessarily, it is not a snowflake. We have define the word 'snowflake' to have a couple of necessary properties to be considered a snowflake (frozen, crystallized water molecules in such and such a pattern...). The water molecules at some point don't have these properties, then they do. 

Here is the logical definition:

Something begins to exist if and only if x exists at some time t and there is no time t* prior to t at which x exists.

An easier example is that you began to exist even though every one of your molecules existed before you did. There are properties that make you a 'you'. And the 'beginning to exist' is linked to when you matched those properties.

What happens in this definition if time t has no prior times at all? In other words, if time t is the 'first time'?