Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Kalam Cosmological argument
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 136 of 178 (334038)
07-21-2006 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Hyroglyphx
07-21-2006 2:24 PM


Strawman
Newtons Law isn't an example of cause and effect???? LOL! Okay, you're cut off. You can't even be reasoned with.
That's a strawman argument. You dishonestly misrepresent my statement. I said Newton's law was not a law of cause and effect. You misrepresent it as not an example of cause and effect.
Oh yes, this coming from someone who has repeatedly rejected the very notion of physical science and physical law because he doesn't know how to get around it, either scientificaly or philosophically, someone who refuses to answer the questions asked of him without, himself, answering those questions with more questions, and someone who presents baseless assertions, like, "it has long since been rejected by science."
Another strawman.
I challenge you to prove that I have "rejected the very notion of physical science." (Start a new thread, as appropriate).
You have repeatedly presented philosophical "laws", and misrepresented them as laws of physics. Sure, I have questioned these. I have asked for you to provide some basis for them. So now, because I dare point out that you have been presenting a bogus argument, you arbitrarily declare that I have rejected science.
You're cut off.
Yes. You are stumped. You are unable to deal with my refutation of your arguments. Therefore you choose to cut me off.
I'll take it as an admission that you were refuted.
Talking to you deeply is like talking to my dog. Its pointless. You'll do anything, make up anything, give yourself countless excuses, just to win an argument. I can't be around somebody that subjective.
Nevertheless, the record stands. You were unable to defend your argument. When I posed critical questions about your unstated assumptions, you just ran away.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-21-2006 2:24 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 137 of 178 (334039)
07-21-2006 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Hyroglyphx
07-21-2006 2:42 PM


Re: Incomplete
We have a theory of the space-time called General Relativity. It is an awesome theory in its predictive and explanatory power, and has been confirmed to amazing degrees of accuracy. It has absolutely no problem with infinite time and/or infinite space, and indeed most of its solutions (universes so to speak) are infinite to some extent or other.
Craig's argument is nonsense and reveals little understanding. It is merely wrapping its ignorance in waffle. You keep saying "you can't add to the infinite" as if this is supposed to mean something. It is difficult to reply to because it makes no sense. If time is infinite in extent, who is asking you to add anything to it? Dimensions aren't added to!!! Let us say that the time dimension is finite in extent. Now, what does adding to it mean? Please explain and then I may be able to sort this mess out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-21-2006 2:42 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 138 of 178 (334046)
07-21-2006 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Hyroglyphx
07-21-2006 2:42 PM


Re: Incomplete
So please enlighten us by going over Craigs theorem in sequential order and explain to me how an actual infinite can exist in the physical universe
Craig's argument that an "actual infinite" doesn't exist is that he finds Hilbert's Hotel Paradox problematic. Err, so??? I find the Times Crossword problematic but it doesn't lead me to conclude it doesn't exist. If you think that forms a proof of anything, then you are sadly mistaken.
But Craig's biggest problem is his antiquarian view of time, as if events in time are somehow ticked off. He is suffering from the very human conceptualisation of time of which you outrageously accused me
You are bringing up irrelevant uses cincerning time. You are mentioning the methods of how humans conceptualize time. We have no need of this in this particular discussion because if space exists, then so does time. How can time exist without space?
quote:
The future is potentially infinite, since it does not exist; but the past is actual in a way the future is not, as evidenced by the fact that we have traces of the past in the present, but no traces of the future. Hence, if the series of past events never began to exist, there must have been an actually infinite number of past events.
Thus speaks the man with no clue as to the nature of relativity and space-time.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-21-2006 2:42 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 139 of 178 (334049)
07-21-2006 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by cavediver
07-21-2006 2:02 PM


Re: Some whys and why nots
cavediver writes:
There is nothing causing it to have one spin or the other
You mean in just the same way that when I toss a coin, there is nothing causing it to land head or tails? Which one is obeserved just happens
No, of course not. I'm a little puzzled why you're going down this path, since I know you're already very familiar with what I'm going to say. A macro process like a coin toss is deterministic and has a cause and effect. If we could measure the initial conditions sufficiently accurately and could perform a sufficiently accurate analysis, then we could predict the outcome of a particular coin toss. But since we don't have the initial conditions or the means of analysis, in other words, since there are knowable things that we simply don't happen to know, a coin toss is effectively random.
The quantum world is inherently different. Is isn't a case of knowable things that we don't happen to know. In the quantum world it's a case of unknowable things. You can't know both the momentum and position of a particle. You can't predict when a uranium atom will decay. You can't predict which spin an observed particle will take on. These things aren't unknown because we don't know enough. They are unknown because they are inherently unknowable.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by cavediver, posted 07-21-2006 2:02 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by cavediver, posted 07-21-2006 3:34 PM Percy has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 140 of 178 (334054)
07-21-2006 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Percy
07-21-2006 3:17 PM


Re: Some whys and why nots
I'm a little puzzled why you're going down this path, since I know you're already very familiar with what I'm going to say
But you are good enough still to say it and it allows me to be more precise in my reply. And it's also just the way I teach, despite it infuriating most of my students. Actually, "because of" rather than "despite"
First off, let's not conflate issues: knowing momentum and position of a particle is a different concept to the deacy and spin. It is not that the momentum and position are simultaneously unknowable - the actual concept does not exist. And this has nothing to do with this "cause" discussion we are having.
Not knowing the moment of radioactive decay or the spin of an electron is only a case of unknowable from the POV of random "collapse" of the WF. There is no collapse in decoherence, just interaction between the WFs of the object under scrutiny, its environment, and the observer, which successively narrow the WF until we call it a collapse. This is deterministic, essentially obeying the SE just as in normal QM.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Percy, posted 07-21-2006 3:17 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Percy, posted 07-21-2006 4:16 PM cavediver has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 141 of 178 (334075)
07-21-2006 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by cavediver
07-21-2006 3:34 PM


Re: Some whys and why nots
cavediver writes:
First off, let's not conflate issues: knowing momentum and position of a particle is a different concept to the deacy and spin. It is not that the momentum and position are simultaneously unknowable - the actual concept does not exist.
Yes, I know, but only just barely. I'm beginning to sense that the real issue is that you hold no affection for the layperson-level renderings of quantum theory. I understand that you'd like to converse at a more fundamental level, but few of us can follow you there. If you'd prefer not to engage in the commonly accepted layperson translations of quantum theory while deprecating those who do then we're simply going to be unable to communicate.
And this has nothing to do with this "cause" discussion we are having.
I understand that, too. The focus had shifted to "that which isn't knowable", and position/momentum fits in that category.
Not knowing the moment of radioactive decay or the spin of an electron is only a case of unknowable from the POV of random "collapse" of the WF. There is no collapse in decoherence, just interaction between the WFs of the object under scrutiny, its environment, and the observer, which successively narrow the WF until we call it a collapse. This is deterministic, essentially obeying the SE just as in normal QM.
Yes, of course, that it will collapse when observed is well understood. We know and can predict that if you observe an entangled particle that it's WF will collapse. The observation is the cause of the collapse, which is the effect.
But what it will collapse to is not deterministic. We do not know what causes an entangled particle to choose up or down spin when observed. When we observe "up", there is nothing that caused it to be "up" instead of "down". There was no cause of "up". There is nothing you can do to change the likelihood of observing "up".
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by cavediver, posted 07-21-2006 3:34 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by cavediver, posted 07-21-2006 4:39 PM Percy has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 142 of 178 (334082)
07-21-2006 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Percy
07-21-2006 4:16 PM


Re: Some whys and why nots
If you'd prefer not to engage in the commonly accepted layperson translations of quantum theory while deprecating those who do then we're simply going to be unable to communicate.
Ah, well, here we have a problem. If you want to use commonly accepted layperson translations of quantum theory to extrapolate to discussions of the "beginning of the universe" then you may as well skip off into la-la land. As I often repeat, you cannot do physics with analogies - you cannot extrapolate layperson understanding. You just end up talking nonsense.
If you would rather me not interject when I detect such bullsh..., er, extrapolations, just say the word and I'll leave you all to wallow in talking crap.
I understand that you'd like to converse at a more fundamental level
No, not really. I just get itchy when I see either side starts using invalid layperson knowledge to "prove" a point. I say, "no that's invalid", and the inevitable response is "why?". Some are interested in delving deeper, others are not.
Yes, of course, that it will collapse when observed is well understood
NO. THERE IS NO COLLAPSE IN DECOHERENCE. It is all deterministic. That is the point...
Now decogerence is not cut and dry, but it is a very respectable possibility. Thus we cannot claim with certainty that there are
uncaused occurances.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Percy, posted 07-21-2006 4:16 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Percy, posted 07-21-2006 5:18 PM cavediver has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 143 of 178 (334087)
07-21-2006 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by cavediver
07-21-2006 4:39 PM


Re: Some whys and why nots
cavediver writes:
If you want to use commonly accepted layperson translations of quantum theory to extrapolate to discussions of the "beginning of the universe"...
I wasn't extrapolating to the beginning of the universe, just disputing one of NJ's initial assumptions, that everything must have a cause. As rebuttal I listed things which have no cause.
Are you really so sure that there are no approaches to helping laypeople find their way to the correct conclusions?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by cavediver, posted 07-21-2006 4:39 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by cavediver, posted 07-21-2006 6:35 PM Percy has replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 144 of 178 (334094)
07-21-2006 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Hyroglyphx
07-21-2006 11:37 AM


Re: Some whys and why nots
You quoted me saying:
Since you give precedence to the revelations of men from apprx. 2000 years or so ago that are falsified in many respects by science I'm not sure why you leave the indeterminate security of faith and revelation and try these old philosophical arguments.
And you concluded from that:
Since you arrogantly suppose that men of approx 2,000 years ago must have been of a lesser intelligence, perhaps the obvious eludes you. Without their inventions, we wouldn't have come to ours.
I have no where written that earlier men were of lesser intelligence because I don't believe that. I quite concur that the developement of today depend on earlier developements many of which required great intelligence. I think it's clear that I am claiming that science two thousand years later has access to far more data, better tested models, better instruments, etc. and has falsified some important ancient beliefs. This has to do with the state of knowledge, not the state of intelligence. Different phenomena.
Again, I have never said that an action has a sole cause. There are multiple reasons for anything that occurs, occurs. I'm simply recognizing that a cause is neccessary for anything to become actual.
Cause is a concept. What is it we observe? I think it is interactions between forces and matter. At the level of the brain these interactions can result in changes in conception that mediate force interactions with matter. I don't know enough about QM to say anything in that regard. It may be events occur that dont' involve forces. I'll have to wait for someone with more knowledge of physics about that.
In a number of places in your reply you have acknowledged that somethng happens for a number of reasons but then the next reference you make is to something happening because of "a cause" singular.
I'm not arguing that there wasn't a single first cause, I'm arguing that it is by no means necessary that there was a first cause though that notion my feel the most logical. We just don't know enough yet to determine that.
Buddhism and Advaita Hinduism believe that that Being was never born and so can never die. What we see in the universe is a series of transformations, permutations of matter/energy/space/time.
Think of a whirlpool in a flowing stream. You watch the stream and you notice an eddy begining which grows into a little whirlpool in which water whirls for a while and then that pattern breaks up and the current at that point flows more smoothly. Did anything come into existence or cease existing? No.
A pattern emerged and then changed. What are things, living, non living? They are temporary patterns assumed by matter/energy. What we call birth is not something added to the universe, nor is what we call death or destruction something be subtracted from the universe. They are just changes in pattersn.
What are causes? They are patterns that give rise to different patterns. That is what we observe about the universe continuous ongoing change but at very different time scales. The changes in the earth's orbit take place over much longer time spans than do changes in cells that are dividing for example.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-21-2006 11:37 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 145 of 178 (334097)
07-21-2006 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Percy
07-21-2006 5:18 PM


Re: Some whys and why nots
Are you really so sure that there are no approaches to helping laypeople find their way to the correct conclusions?
You're kidding, right? Have you read any of the BB&C threads in which I've participated? If so, how can you possibly write this? It's all I try and do... that and bash anti-cosmology YECs. Remember that time I spent trying to explain cosmological red-shifts... and what do you think I've been doing in these last few posts with you?
Perhaps I missed off one too many smilies as you seem to have taken umbridge at something. I can assure you nothing was written suggesting you should know better, other than when you started getting testy.
Of course there are approaches but it just requires flexibility on the part of the layperson to realise and accept that things are not necessarily so clear cut as the layperson interpretation would have them believe. And it takes some effort to digest the ideas.
And in a thread like this, where in-depth discussions of quantum physics is sort-of OT, I'll simply butt-in and point out that such and such is not really valid.
As rebuttal I listed things which have no cause.
And I simply pointed out that things are not so simple, and thus the rebuttal fails. In the same way that as soon as someone mentions virtual particles in the context of the universe-from-nothing, I jump in and point out that this is bogus.
If you want a thread on modern quantum ideas, you only have to say
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Percy, posted 07-21-2006 5:18 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Percy, posted 07-21-2006 8:18 PM cavediver has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 146 of 178 (334121)
07-21-2006 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by cavediver
07-21-2006 6:35 PM


Re: Some whys and why nots
cavediver writes:
Are you really so sure that there are no approaches to helping laypeople find their way to the correct conclusions?
You're kidding, right? Have you read any of the BB&C threads in which I've participated? If so, how can you possibly write this?
I wrote that after reading what you said in Message 142:
cavediver writes:
If you want to use commonly accepted layperson translations of quantum theory to extrapolate to discussions of the "beginning of the universe" then you may as well skip off into la-la land. As I often repeat, you cannot do physics with analogies - you cannot extrapolate layperson understanding. You just end up talking nonsense.
So which is it? Can laypeople be provided a simplified context that still leads to correct conclusions, or is the risk of reaching nonsense conclusions too great?
Perhaps I missed off one too many smilies as you seem to have taken umbridge at something. I can assure you nothing was written suggesting you should know better, other than when you started getting testy.
I'm apologize that my efforts at restraint after reading your "You can sit behind a wall of ignorance..." comment came off as testy. I'll make a greater effort at nonchalance in the future.
And I simply pointed out that things are not so simple, and thus the rebuttal fails.
It's the unsupported assertion of "not so simple" (and the implicit "and therefore wrong") that fails. If you believe your points can be made understandable to the layperson then I'm listening.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by cavediver, posted 07-21-2006 6:35 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by cavediver, posted 07-21-2006 9:07 PM Percy has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 147 of 178 (334128)
07-21-2006 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Percy
07-21-2006 8:18 PM


Re: Some whys and why nots
I'm apologize that my efforts at restraint after reading your "You can sit behind a wall of ignorance..."
Ahhh, I see that was a royal "you". As in, the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI) presents the probability as a be-all and end-all and hence we sit in ignorance of the true cause. Poor phrasing on my part I guess... you should learn to understand what I mean, not what I write
So which is it? Can laypeople be provided a simplified context that still leads to correct conclusions, or is the risk of reaching nonsense conclusions too great?
Rarely. The simplifications typically are too great. Is this surprising? The analogies/pictures can certainly bring understanding, but so much is missing that extrapolation is bound to go wrong sooner rather than later. It doesn't take long to see the shortcomings of a first order approximation to a parabola...
I personally think hat most common layman descriptions are fairly hopeless. You may have noticed that my own style is quite different, and I strive to explain things in a way that gives a bit better than a first order approximation, that does enable some level of putting 2 and 2 together and getting close to 4. I certainly see this is numerous other posters' comments in BB&C.
It's the unsupported assertion of "not so simple" (and the implicit "and therefore wrong") that fails.
I don't make "assertions", Percy, I tell it as it is. I have no allegiance here other than to an accurate portrayel of physics/mathematics. I don't back-up "assertions". I explain the background of my comments if asked.
In this case, I already have done so, though obviouly not clearly enough. The "collapse" portion of the CI is a bugbear, a cludge that does not really fit. This has been recognised since its inception. In decoherence and similar mechanisms, there is no collapse. What we think of collapse is just the observable's wavefunction becoming more and more sharply peaked (i.e. approaching what we would call a definite state - decohering) through interaction with the wavefunctions of its environment and that of the observing apparatus. We think that gravitons play a large role in this decoherence.
As there is no collapse, there is just deterministic evolution of the wavefunctions. And hence there are no uncaused actions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Percy, posted 07-21-2006 8:18 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Percy, posted 07-22-2006 8:44 AM cavediver has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 148 of 178 (334228)
07-22-2006 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by cavediver
07-21-2006 9:07 PM


Re: Some whys and why nots
cavediver writes:
As there is no collapse, there is just deterministic evolution of the wavefunctions. And hence there are no uncaused actions.
But which spin the particle's wavefunction "deterministically evolves" to is non-deterministic.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by cavediver, posted 07-21-2006 9:07 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by cavediver, posted 07-22-2006 9:10 AM Percy has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 149 of 178 (334236)
07-22-2006 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Percy
07-22-2006 8:44 AM


Re: Some whys and why nots
But which spin the particle's wavefunction "deterministically evolves" to is non-deterministic
How can it be? Where does the non-determinism creep in if there is no "collapse"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Percy, posted 07-22-2006 8:44 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Percy, posted 07-22-2006 9:47 AM cavediver has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 150 of 178 (334244)
07-22-2006 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by cavediver
07-22-2006 9:10 AM


Re: Some whys and why nots
cavediver writes:
How can it be? Where does the non-determinism creep in if there is no "collapse"?
I think you're going to have to find your own way out of what you perceive as an inconsistency. I only understand the layperson's level. You're the one that presumably understands both levels and so can figure out if and where I've made a misinterpretation of the layperson's level representation of quantum theory. If you can find such a misinterpretation and can explain it, then I'm listening.
Before the particle is observed it exists in a superposition of up and down spin. Which spin it will take on once observed is non-deterministic and has no cause that we know of. If your response is that the layperson's level representation of quantum theory is hopeless for understanding what's going on, then keep it to yourself because it's not helpful because I don't have the background to understand things at your level.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by cavediver, posted 07-22-2006 9:10 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by cavediver, posted 07-22-2006 10:31 AM Percy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024