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

[The Grand Nudger]

...............the conclusion that caused things have causes..or the conclusion that "goddidit"............

Because, if you're angling for the latter...accurately communicated, it would be a formal logical fallacy...and deceptively communicated..... you're straight up hiding shit under your sweaty grundle.

[SteveII]

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:


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. 


More nonsense. This from the second sentence of the relevant article:


3. Notice my bold. Perfect predictability implies a perfect understanding of causal principles. How much clearer could that be? 


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. 


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. 


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


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.

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.

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.

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).

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'.
[/quote]

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.

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

---

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'?

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).

[The Grand Nudger]

Steve..if time begins when the universe begins then there is no cause..as you've defined it, for the universe.  Are you satisfied with that?

OFC not..we know you're not...you never will be.  So..you know...say what you mean and mean what you say.

[RoadRunner79]

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

Pobrecito.  Mean old QM makes you look like a dunce?  

Get in line.

[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?

[The Grand Nudger]

Unnecessarily naive, in fact...as I'm discussing with others in another thread...logically, causality need not be the thing that people think it is.  Maybe its a thing that acts from the future into the past.......as conditional logic would strongly imply.

[SteveII]

Regarding, "begins to exist", that can be dealt with in two ways.

1) is to provide a univocal meaning of the phrase in both premises. So, let's go with comes into being. 
2) is to provide a more detailed meaning that would apply to both premises: x 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.

either one eliminates your objection. 

Either you are being disingenuous, or you don't understand the objection.  I'll explain it again.  When you say in premise 1 that all things that begin to exist have a cause, you are making an statement about the transformation of matter and energy from one form to another. If you include the universe in the set of all things that begin to exist then you are also talking about the creation of new matter.  The two  types of beginning to exist are fundamentally different. We see things in the universe transform all the time, and often can show the cause (really causes) of that transformation.   We do not see matter itself begin to exist.  We cannot say whether such a creation has a cause.  

Changing your phrase from beginning to exist to coming into being doesn't help you, because you are still talking about to fundamentally different types of comming into existence.

Matilda gets at this problem when she asks when a snowflake begins to exist.  It's rather hard to say as it doesn't spring into existenceall at once.  The crystalline shape of the water forms becomes a snowflake bit by bit. Water is added as it forms.  Similarly, a person is formed slowly over a long gestation period during which material is is continuously added.  Even after a person comes into existence material continues to be added and subtracted.  There is no precise beginning or end to this kind of material transformation.  And all of the little bits of transformation have their own causes.

The universe began with all of its material parts and it still had all of its material parts.  It began at a discrete time, i.e the first moment of time.  Prior to that there was no time.  

Your second more precise definition actually makes the problem clearer.  Because time begins with the beginning of the universe, it makes no sense to discuss whether there was a time before the universe existed.

What you have have here is an elementary category error, in that you have  a set which includes the set as a member of the set.  Your set incudes all material things, and the universe which is the set of all material things. Anytime you include a set in it's own set it leads to logical error.  For example, if you describe the set of all whole numbers and include set of of all whole numbers within the set then you end up with syllogisms like this.

All whole numbers are finite
The set all whole numbers is a whole number
Therefore the set of all whole numbers is finite.

I understand your point. You are pointing out the difference between inside the universe and outside the universe and then insisting that it matters. You don't give reasons why it matters. Later on, you just say it is a category error. It's not, because I don't need a specific kind of cause to be true or to create "sets" with them. All that is needed to span any difference is that a causal principle is an objective feature of reality. This would apply both in and out of the universe. There are good reasons to believe this exists and no good reasons to think that it does not.

---

quent:

P implies Q
Q 
therefore P

Also called the fallacy of the converse. An example is:

1. If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox (P), then Bill Gates is rich (Q).
2. Bill Gates is rich. (Q)
3. Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox. (P)

This is the KCA

P implies Q 
P 
therefore Q

1. Everything that begins to exist (P) has a cause. (Q)
2. The universe began to exist. (P)
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. (Q)

Nope. Definitely not Affirming the Consequent. 

You point out two possibilities: those things that don't begin to exist and those things that do. That is very simply put the distinction between something that is necessary and something that is contingent. You could insert the phrase "All contingent objects" in the Premise (1) and it would mean exactly the same thing. The universe by definition is a contingent object. The reason that Premise (1) is formulated that way is because necessary objects don't have a cause--so don't belong in Premise (1)

You may be correct on this technically not being affirming the consequent, but it still smuggles the conclusion into the first premise.

The problem is, even if the terms are changed to contingent and necessary, the problem remains.

The formulation of premise 1 is the problem. Just because it does not explicitly contain the term "necessary" (or, things that don't begin to exist), does not mean it is not implicitly there. You can't create a set of "all things that begin to exist" without implicitly creating the set of "things that do not begin to exist".

It stands to reason that if you define something you exclude everything else that does not meet that definition. Does this mean you are making some sort of claims about everything else that does not fit the definition or does it give the everything else so sort of status that it did not have before? No, that's silly. 

And, if the theist using this argument only believes one thing (his or her god) is in the set of all things that don't begin to exist (or necessary), the the first premise (implicitly) contains the conclusion.  

Even if I am wrong here, KCA also contains an equivocation fallacy in the second premise, so it still fails.

Regarding equivocation between "Begins to Exist" in Premise 1 and 2, that can be dealt with in two ways. 

1) is to provide a univocal meaning of the phrase in both premises. So, let's go with comes into being. 
2) is to provide a more detailed meaning that would apply to both premises: x 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.

either one eliminates your objection.

[The Grand Nudger]

.......and if there is no prior time, no t- ......................

[Jenny A]

Either you are being disingenuous, or you don't understand the objection.  I'll explain it again.  When you say in premise 1 that all things that begin to exist have a cause, you are making an statement about the transformation of matter and energy from one form to another. If you include the universe in the set of all things that begin to exist then you are also talking about the creation of new matter.  The two  types of beginning to exist are fundamentally different. We see things in the universe transform all the time, and often can show the cause (really causes) of that transformation.   We do not see matter itself begin to exist.  We cannot say whether such a creation has a cause.  

---

Changing your phrase from beginning to exist to coming into being doesn't help you, because you are still talking about to fundamentally different types of comming into existence.

Matilda gets at this problem when she asks when a snowflake begins to exist.  It's rather hard to say as it doesn't spring into existenceall at once.  The crystalline shape of the water forms becomes a snowflake bit by bit. Water is added as it forms.  Similarly, a person is formed slowly over a long gestation period during which material is is continuously added.  Even after a person comes into existence material continues to be added and subtracted.  There is no precise beginning or end to this kind of material transformation.  And all of the little bits of transformation have their own causes.

The universe began with all of its material parts and it still had all of its material parts.  It began at a discrete time, i.e the first moment of time.  Prior to that there was no time.  

Your second more precise definition actually makes the problem clearer.  Because time begins with the beginning of the universe, it makes no sense to discuss whether there was a time before the universe existed.

---

What you have have here is an elementary category error, in that you have  a set which includes the set as a member of the set.  Your set incudes all material things, and the universe which is the set of all material things. Anytime you include a set in it's own set it leads to logical error.  For example, if you describe the set of all whole numbers and include set of of all whole numbers within the set then you end up with syllogisms like this.

All whole numbers are finite
The set all whole numbers is a whole number
Therefore the set of all whole numbers is finite.

I understand your point. You are pointing out the difference between inside the universe and outside the universe and then insisting that it matters. You don't give reasons why it matters. Later on, you just say it is a category error. It's not, because I don't need a specific kind of cause to be true or to create "sets" with them. All that is needed to span any difference is that a causal principle is an objective feature of reality. This would apply both in and out of the universe. There are good reasons to believe this exists and no good reasons to think that it does not.

`

I'm not sure you do see my point.  We say a man painted a hose and therefore he is the cause it's new color.  Fertilization is why an embryo is formed, trees grow from nuts, erosion levels mountains, rivers cut valleys.  It is these examples of an orderly universe from which we deduce cause and effect.  None of these examples involve the creation of new matter.  No new matter is introduced into the world by the birth of a baby, the eruption of a volcano, or by building a house.  All of these things are just rearranging the molecular furniture.  And at least at the macro level, every such transformation appears to have a cause or really many causes. And as long as we are just talking about rearanging the furniture, that everything has a cause or causes is a reasonable premise.

But the beginning of the universe is a a real beginning to exist.  It is the beginning of time, matter, and energy.  In effect it is the beginning of objective reality.  Calling both (1) the creation of matter, and (2) the rearranging of matter "beginning to exist" is not inappropriate.  They are fundamentally different things.  So yes it every much matters (no pun intended).

Extrapolating the rules for matter coming into being from the rules about how to rearrange matter is not possible.  It is a category error.

(You could of course argue that the universe is made up of pre-existing matter.  But if you go that way, then you will have to add all existing matter to the set of things that did not begin to exist in which case under your formulation, matter being eternal would not need a cause.)