Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[RoadRunner79]

Bad link.  This may be Feser and Roadie's understanding but it is not that of science.  There is a vanishingly small probability that local causes could yield a better prediction of events than quantum theory does, but it is so small as to be considered negligible.  As such, the theory that these events are uncaused provides a better explanation of these events than any theory in which they are locally caused (i.e. actualized from an existing potential).  So, no, it isn't simply that we don't know what the actual cause is, but rather that such a cause would yield a less accurate description of events than assuming no cause does.  This effectively rules out local causes of the type to which you, Feser, and Roadie are referring.  The exception to this is that it doesn't rule out non-local causes such as those in Bohmian mechanics, but in that case I would suggest that the burden is on the non-local advocate to demonstrate, at minimum, that such causes can coherently be described.  I've read Bohm and don't find his arguments for a non-local causation compelling or well argued.  If you have some other non-local theory, then I suggest you present it.  Otherwise, the science seems to be that these events are uncaused.  (I'll also note in passing that Roadie and Feser appear to be misusing the concept of potency, or, perhaps more accurately, using it as a buzzword without examining the content.)

The point was the causal principle. The quantum field provides the potency for the particle to appear and disappear and another reappear. Something actual from something actual. A causal link. It makes no sense to say the particle's appearance is uncaused. In fact, the whole characterization that it is uncaused seems to be solely for the purpose of coming up with something that is uncaused to make a philosophical/religious point. It where/when it will appear is simple indeterminate--we know that it will.

I always like these ideas.   Look this is uncaused.....  if I do this, this happens without any cause.

[Angrboda]

Science is not another word for math or whiskey; it does not prove, it merely shows us what the evidence indicates Evidence that our brains produce all of our mental states: all the evidence we have.

Scientists have never observed mental states they only observed behaviour

Does that include the scientists themselves observing their own mental states?

[Dmitry1983]

P-zombies have same brain activity as conscious person

Then there is no reason to think they are not conscious people.

They don't experience qualia by definition

---

Scientists have never observed mental states they only observed behaviour

Does that include the scientists themselves observing their own mental states?

That's subjective experience we are talking about science

[SteveII]

Off the top of my head: Plutarch is not attesting to the events he writes about. In his defense it was 400 years earlier.

So...that's actually 401 reasons.

So if he was attesting to the events he writes about and it was 50 years earlier, that would be 50 reasons. Are you willing to apply that reasoning elsewhere?

The answer I gave was 'reasons' why Plutach's writing was different than the NT docs. I rounded.

[Mister Agenda]

P-zombie can't experience qualia

That's not really an answer

How does he know p-zombies can't experience qualia? Because they're imaginary beings that can have any property they are conceived to have. P-zombies are conceived to not experience qualia but be indistinguishable from a being that does experience qualia. The difference is defined as completely undedectable. They might as well be p-unicorns and the explanation can stop at 'it's magic!'.

[possibletarian]

That's not really an answer

How does he know p-zombies can't experience qualia? Because they're imaginary beings that can have any property they are conceived to have. P-zombies are conceived to not experience qualia but be indistinguishable from a being that does experience qualia. The difference is defined as completely undedectable. They might as well be p-unicorns and the explanation can stop at 'it's magic!'.

Correct, he has hypothetically deduced that his hypothetical p-zombie, will hypothetically not feel hypothetical qualia , nothing unscientific about that at all

[Dmitry1983]

How does he know p-zombies can't experience qualia? Because they're imaginary beings that can have any property they are conceived to have. P-zombies are conceived to not experience qualia but be indistinguishable from a being that does experience qualia. The difference is defined as completely undedectable. They might as well be p-unicorns and the explanation can stop at 'it's magic!'.

hypothetical qualia

[Mister Agenda]

And the motive for spending tens (possibly hundreds) of millions of dollars just to hurt a supercomputer would be what?

Job creation. Scientists already spent 100 billion dollars on useless ISS

Look everyone! Dmitry answered a question! And added an additional claim, that the International Space Station is useless. It never accomplished anything and we never learned anything from it. Sounds about on a par with the rest of your claims, Dmitry.

[possibletarian]

hypothetical qualia

Well what else would it be in a hypothetical, made up being ?

[polymath257]

Bad link.  This may be Feser and Roadie's understanding but it is not that of science.  There is a vanishingly small probability that local causes could yield a better prediction of events than quantum theory does, but it is so small as to be considered negligible.  As such, the theory that these events are uncaused provides a better explanation of these events than any theory in which they are locally caused (i.e. actualized from an existing potential).  So, no, it isn't simply that we don't know what the actual cause is, but rather that such a cause would yield a less accurate description of events than assuming no cause does.  This effectively rules out local causes of the type to which you, Feser, and Roadie are referring.  The exception to this is that it doesn't rule out non-local causes such as those in Bohmian mechanics, but in that case I would suggest that the burden is on the non-local advocate to demonstrate, at minimum, that such causes can coherently be described.  I've read Bohm and don't find his arguments for a non-local causation compelling or well argued.  If you have some other non-local theory, then I suggest you present it.  Otherwise, the science seems to be that these events are uncaused.  (I'll also note in passing that Roadie and Feser appear to be misusing the concept of potency, or, perhaps more accurately, using it as a buzzword without examining the content.)

The point was the causal principle. The quantum field provides the potency for the particle to appear and disappear and another reappear. Something actual from something actual. A causal link. It makes no sense to say the particle's appearance is uncaused. In fact, the whole characterization that it is uncaused seems to be solely for the purpose of coming up with something that is uncaused to make a philosophical/religious point. It where/when it will appear is simple indeterminate--we know that it will.

Technically, the field doesn't *provide* the potential for a particle. It *is* the potential for a particle. So, you are saying, in essence, that the particle is caused by its potential to exist.

The appearance is uncaused: whether a particle appears and where/when it appears is not determined by anything prior to that appearance. The field is just a fancy way of describing the possibility that a particle will appear. That's it.

In radioactivity, the potential for a decay is there once the nucleus is formed. But *when* that nucleus will decay is not determined by anything prior to the decay. Otherwise identical nuclei will decay at different times.

So, again, the *time* of the decay is uncaused. We can find the probability of decay in any time interval. But there is nothing that determines whether the particle decays now or in a billion years.