(December 9, 2018 at 10:33 pm)polymath257 Wrote:(December 9, 2018 at 1:36 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: You're still missing the point of the argument. If the initial "cause" is the trigger, then it defaults as the "cause" for everything since it started the whole thing. So even if cause isn't necessary now, it couldn't have evolved into a world that doesn't need cause for certain things. I'm assuming that's why he mentioned the "the straw that broke the camel's back" If not, we have to explain a random accident independent of cause. As soon as you say "quantum" you have to assume a value to energy, so that would either make it the cause or part of the cause. Unless you're suggesting that a large amount of energy just popped out of nowhere by accident and for no apparent reason. Of course that's not even observable on a small scale. What we see is preexisting energy changing forms.
No, I am getting the argument. But there are three rebuttals.
One with the axioms and the inability to construct the necessary system V without a specific axiom allowing such.
One that says that P1 should only state that *finite* systems have causes (because that is the most we can extrapolate to from our knowledge).
And one that says P1 is simply false in the real world: we know of systems that are uncaused in the real world.
And no, the energy is NOT the cause in a quantum system: if anything it is an effect that is caused by the configuration of the system. But the specific results of a quantum system are *not* caused: there is nothing prior to them that determines what they will be.
And yes, quantum systems do allow for energy to appear (and disappear) in short time intervals. This is a measured effect related to the uncertainty principle. In particular, it explains the spread of masses for systems of very short duration.
As for 'pre-existing energy changing forms', that begs the question of *why* the forms change. And there is no 'cause' for those changes.
But the rebuttals don't work. You're assuming out of nowhere there is energy. Well, where did it come from? Even in quantum mechanics you assume energy, even if it's very small amounts. What are you suggesting, "pop" and then there was energy? You can say something is a good rebuttal if you can't even demonstrate the process. If I'm wrong, show me a video of someone making energy out of nothing. And it would even be harder back then if we're assuming "no cause." If you can't demonstrate it with a cause (someone prepping it), how do you expect it to happen without?
