First order logic, set theory and God

[polymath257]

Well, the point is that there *are* events that have no cause. That is enough to destroy your argument. The scale of them is irrelevant to that.

Now, there *are* descriptions as to how large scale fluctuations can exist in situations of high curvature (which is NOT the present universe).

Your asking 'how it happened' is equivalent to asking for a cause. And that whole point is that there *is* no cause. There *is* no 'mechanism'. But we can observe it and model it *as probabilities*. And that is precisely what quantum mechanics does. It is a local, non-realist, a causal description that works incredibly well.

Furthermore, there is a HUGE difference between 'not knowing a cause' and 'knowing there is no cause'. The experiments with Bell's inequalities and Lambert's inequalities show there is no cause and no realism. There is, however, locality.

Not at all. It actually makes the same claim. You have the particles sufficient of themselves.

I agree, the scale of them is irrelevant, because the research isn't scaling the claims.  They're just isolated observations.  Nothing more.  That doesn't mean we can't use them and draw more information, but that's the nature of scientific study.

But hey, believe whatever you like and disagree with me all you want.  It's immaterial to this discussion unless you can go from A to Z with your claims, and at best you've made it to B.  So until then, you can chalk it up as the ultimate explanation of all things, and to me it is an isolated event that people are using to create a fairy tale.  Who's right?  Who's wrong?  We don't know, which is why I reject your conclusion.

So what if they are small and 'isolated' observations? They show that not all events have causes.

And that is enough to break your syllogism.

I'm not the one going from A to Z. I am the one showing you cannot go backwards from Z to A because the chain breaks at C.

There are several questions.

One is whether your axiom system applies to the real world. I have given an argument to show that it does not. You seem fixated by this one objection while ignoring the following ones.

Then there is the question of whether the axioms you have chosen are justified by what we know. I have given an argument to show that your P1 is way too strong even in an idealized world where there are always causes. We only have justification to say that finite events have causes, not that infinite events do. In particular, there is no reason to suspect that infinite regresses have causes. So you need a *separate* argument to deal with them.

Finally, there is the problem of your actual 'proof' where you use a system V with no justification on how it is constructed. We *know* that systems of set theory that allow 'large' sets are inconsistent, so you need to show your axioms for system construction. You *may* be able to fix this with an appropriate set theory, but naive set theory is problematic (and there are contradictions other than just Russell's paradox).

It isn't a matter of *my belief*, but whether you have demonstrated your claims. And the fact of the matter is that you are quite far from having done so.