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

[polymath257]

Look into Bell's inequalities. It turns out that any causal system has to obey certain laws of correlation simply because it is a causal system.

The universe has been observed not to obey those laws, so it is not causal.

It does seem that QM often like evolution, can be used as an answer for everything. A quick look at Bell's theorem, shows, a couple of things.  First, that it only claims to rule out local variables.  Second, that it's implications are still disputed.

So what are we saying, if there is not reason; at the quantum level?  Would you agree, that the things at the quantum level, are the foundation for what is classical mechanics and what we see?   If one is saying that there is not reasons at this level, then wouldn't that be magnified and we see nothing but chaos the more this is multiplied out.  I'm not an expert in QM by no means.  But it seems that often, there is a difference in vocabulary, that is between the technical and the everyday use of terms.  I don't see a description as indeterminate as meaning that it is without cause or without reason.  That we can make certain predictions, because they do follow a general path, that there can be a study of them, because there is reason behind it.

Note:  This is only some random thoughts and speculation:  But I wonder if some of the "mysteries" of QM may be explained, because a continuum is per-supposed (with all the ending / nonending sequences) where at the very small point of view the effects of moving through with minimal base units may be seen.

There are some obvious points here:

1) What is your definition of the term 'cause'? Specifically, how do we determine if some event is caused or not?

2) Having probabilities determined does not imply a cause. For example, suppose we have a completely random coin (no cause for whether we get a heads or a tails for each flip). We *still* get predictability in the probabilities: in fact, we have the prediction that, on average, there will be half heads and half tails. So, it appears your concept of 'complete chaos' requires some more thought. Random events can still have determined probabilities. This is ultimately the bridge between the quantum and the classical worlds. There are so many atoms in any macroscopic sample that the averages determine the overall behavior.

3) You seem to conflate a 'reason' with a 'cause'. Those are two very different concepts, at least as far as I can see.

4) In regard to Bell's inequalities, like I said, the only way out is a form of super-determinism. The implications are disputed only in the question of whether such super-determinism is a reasonable out.

5) Local hidden variables are required if we want to preserve causes as being in the past. A non-local theory would have faster-than-light causes, which forces causes to be in the future in some reference frames.

[RoadRunner79]

Is there a reason that it cannot be both?  

I would disagree, and say that there is a point, where a snowflake begins to exist.   To clarify if you have a prior point with no snowflakes, and a later point, where you have at least one snowflake then the snowflake had a beginning.  By your same logic, then you could say that you  existed 2 million years ago.

I used to have a link, of an atheists website, which was taking on some common bad arguments against the KCA.  One of the topics, was what was meant by beginning, and the author had a number of links to older explanations by WLC of what he meant.  Within this, is the idea of change;  a change in description to be exact. A change from !A  to A.   It wasn't spelled out specifically, but I would carry this on even to include such things Newtons first law of motion.   If we have a description of something, the movement (or resting state) of that object is part of that description.  Any change in the motion of that object, requires a cause or an explanation for this change in description.

Do you think 'everything that changes, has a cause' would a fair restatement of the first premise of the KCA?

Off hand, I don't think I have an issue (although perhaps I still prefer the classical vocabulary).  I may have to think about it a bit; if there is a way this may be misunderstood, before committing to it.  In the KCA I think the focus is going from !A to A; so,  perhaps begin to exist is better in that case.

[I_am_not_mafia]

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. 

You really are a good example of the Dunning Kruger effect. So quick to tell people that they aren't even unqualified beginners at what you think is 'philosophy'.

If I had to put money on a race between you and Polymath to be the first to publish in a secular peer-reviewed journal of philosophy, I wouldn't hesitate to bet on Polymath.

---

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.

For someone claiming to know anything about cosmogony, you know very little about astrophysics.

[RoadRunner79]

I used to have a link, of an atheists website, which was taking on some common bad arguments against the KCA.  One of the topics, was what was meant by beginning, and the author had a number of links to older explanations by WLC of what he meant.  Within this, is the idea of change;  a change in description to be exact. A change from !A  to A.   It wasn't spelled out specifically, but I would carry this on even to include such things Newtons first law of motion.   If we have a description of something, the movement (or resting state) of that object is part of that description.  Any change in the motion of that object, requires a cause or an explanation for this change in description.

Was it this? I found it the other day when searching for the phrase "begins to exist".

I really want to know whether quantum mechanics really is stochastic rather than deterministic because I want to know if quantum computing is ever likely to happen in practice.

No... but thanks for trying
I can't remember exactly what I was searching for, and of course the site may have fallen out of googles favor.  While he did not ascribe to the KCA, he was discussing a number of objections, that he did not think where very good either.

[The Grand Nudger]

So, to recap, some other non specific person made some non specific objections in some place you can't recall and he was totally bad and it...and.......

[SteveII]

What I mean, is that I don't see anyone on the opposing side, making the argument that you are attempting to refute.  And I'm glad that you think that snowflakes need a reason, for beginning to exist.   I agree.  And I'm sorry, but since I'm not making the argument that you are trying to refute, I don't really see the need to go into a number of things that cause a snowflake to form.

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

Just as easily applied to "the universe", if we're allowing baseless conjecture (which, lol, ofc we are).  

The universe having "began to exist" in this sense is to say that there was some point at which it didn't look like this..and then it did..even if all of the stuff it's made of already existed in some other form.  It only "begins to exist" in that it now has properties x that match where before it didn't..or had some other properties.

IOW, the universe looks the way it does today for reasons.

Well..no shit. Granted granted granted granted................granted.

[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'?

[I_am_not_mafia]

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. 

But it is quite arbitrary when they begin to exist. You could point to the instance when two water molecules join together in freezing temperatures but could we then classify that as a snowflake?

It also shows us that there is not a single cause you can point to for a snowflake beginning to exist.

Yet the KCA relies on the reader accepting that it is unequivocal when something begins to exist and that it will have a single cause. If not then you could use it to argue for polytheism.

[polymath257]

Do you think 'everything that changes, has a cause' would a fair restatement of the first premise of the KCA?

Off hand, I don't think I have an issue (although perhaps I still prefer the classical vocabulary).  I may have to think about it a bit; if there is a way this may be misunderstood, before committing to it.  In the KCA I think the focus is going from !A to A; so,  perhaps begin to exist is better in that case.

One aspect of this is that there have to be *times* when !A happens and  when A is the case. So both !A and A happen at some time. In other words, time is required for the argument.