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

[polymath257]

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

1. I showed you were wrong with actual definitions. That does not change when you re-assert your point. Address the references or you loose by definition alone.

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

2. No, the fluctuations are certainly  caused by the energy swirling around in the quantum vacuum. Only the timing of their appearance seems to be indetiministic. This is a silly objection you can't possibly succeed with. It is humorous how it gets propagated from atheist to atheist who somehow think this a silver bullet for causality. 

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.

3. No, it is not that QM does not obey Bell's theorem, it is that the concept of locality is wrong. I believe Bell thought Einstein was wrong and Lorentz’s theory of relativity was correct. AND there are QM, non-local theories as well (Brohm). Either way, you are not going to develop a successful argument against causality by attacking probability theory through a disagreement on aspects of relativity theory. 

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).

4. What is time without any space, matter and motion? If it a separate thing, it should be able to exist. Is there time in the multiverse?  It would almost definitely have a different set of physical laws. Under your theory, why couldn't time be absent in the multiverse? Then there is this reference (note the bold). 

Causality (also referred to as causation,[1] or cause and effect) is the natural or worldly agency or efficacy that connects one process (the cause) with another process or state (the effect), where the first is partly responsible for the second, and the second is partly dependent on the first. In general, a process has many causes,[2] which are said to be causal factors for it, and all lie in its past. An effect can in turn be a cause of, or causal factor for, many other effects, which all lie in its future. Causality is metaphysically prior to notions of time and space.[3][4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

[quote pid='1719708' dateline='1521558406']
5. Dealt with in the previous.

6. No, it is not 'caused'.

5. Whoa, whoa. Are you suggesting that all matter and energy emerged from some sort of vacuum uncaused?  I just want to be sure before I pick that apart. 

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.

6. Let's go with the reference in #5 above. 

---

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

Then you would also be talking about the point at which time begins. Therefore x would begin at the same point that time begins. The logical sentence even works for the beginning of time (time being x).
[/quote]

1. And I think those definitions are faulty. As I have pointed out, actual scientific theories do NOT rely on any principle of causality. So the problem is with *your* references.

2. No, there is no energy 'swirling around' in the vacuum. The fluctuations are NOT caused by the energy of the vacuum. In fact, they are spontaneous fluctuations *of* that energy. i tisn't just the timing that is probabilistic. it is also their size, their duration, and essentially every characteristic of those fluctuations that is inherently probabilistic.

3. Sorry, but the Bohmian formulation is seldom used by actual physicists for a reason: it doens't generalize well to the relativistic case, it fails to deal well with spin, it cannot deal with anti-matter, etc. In fact, the problem isn't locality: quantum mechanics as usually described *is* a local theory. But it is not a *realist* theory: things don't have definite properties except when observed.

4. First of all, space and time together form the spacetime geometry. Neither is separated from the other. Second, both are affected by and affect mass and energy. So, again, whenever thSo the ere is time, there is space, mass, and energy.

And yes, the same goes for the multiverse: to the extent that time makes sense in that context (and it may not relate directly to time within our universe), it is still one aspect of the overall geometry and there is always matter and energy whenever there is time.

5. I am saying that is one of the many possibilities. At this point we can't test between the options to know which is correct. But most quantum theories of gravity have this as the scenario.

6. Again, your references are rather naive in their ideas about how science actually works and about the nature of causality.

---

I always like when QM is pointed to, as without a cause.  

And then we are shown an experiment where you can cause exactly what is being talked about.

You mean where we can produce situations where the probabilities are likely?