Kalam Cosmological argument

Your conclusions appear to based upon the assumption that every effect has a cause. This assumption is false. Several examples:

• Nothing causes a particular atom of Uranium-238 to decay. It just happens.
  ​
• Nothing causes a particular electron to tunnel through the barrier of a tunnel diode. It just happens.
  ​
• Nothing causes an entangled particle's wave function to collapse to either up or down spin upon being observed. It just happens.

These are all quantum effects, of course, which possibly played a role in the original singularity.--Percy

The quantum fields are not a cause of, say, an entangled electron taking on up spin instead of down spin when observed. The quantum fields describe the overall behavior and are not themselves a cause.I think you may be using a different, and in my view incorrect, definition of "cause".--Percy

If you can find no cause, then there are two possibilities:

1. There was a cause, we just haven't found it yet.
   ​
2. There was no cause.

I grant that we may one day identify causes for the events I listed. After all, science is tentative. There are no timeless truths in science. But as of today we know of no causes for these events, and we don't believe they have causes.Let me add another to my list of uncaused events:

• Virtual particles. There is nothing that causes them to flit into existence. They just do, governed by the laws of quantum physics.

--Percy

Before it is observed, decoherence provides no way of determining which spin the electron will have after it is observed. Which spin it will take on when observed is indeterminate. There is nothing causing it to have one spin or the other - which one is observed just happens. Marvelous persuasive technique there. Certainly I'm listening if you'd like to explain how you predict the spin before the observation. Or when the uranium atom will decay. Or which electrons will end up tunnelling through and which won't.--Percy

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

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. I understand that, too. The focus had shifted to "that which isn't knowable", and position/momentum fits in that category. 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

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

I wrote that after reading what you said in Message 142: 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? 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. 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

But which spin the particle's wavefunction "deterministically evolves" to is non-deterministic.--Percy

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

So you're saying that it is theoretically knowable rather than inherently unknowable? I can only go by what I've read, and I've never read anything that says this. That there are things that are inherently unknowable prompted Einstein's remark about God, dice and the universe. Yes, I know he was objecting to the CI.I wonder if when you distill quantum theory for the layperson that you arrive at much different simplifications than what has found its way into the popularizations. I'm just trying to regurgitate what I've read, and you keep telling me it's wrong, so either I'm not "reading for comprehension" very well, or what I'm reading is wrong in your eyes. If the latter is the case then this isn't a battle I'm qualified to fight, and the most rational choice from my perspective is to go with what most sources are telling me.Perhaps another thread focused specifically on this is good idea, but not right now for me as I'm still behind the eight ball on a current project, not even any time for web development.--Percy

I guess my response is the same one I give creationists who read about scientists working to disprove relativity or causality or c as a speed limit and so forth, and conclude from this that relative or causality or c *has* been disproved. That scientists are working on an idea contrary to the mainstream should never be construed as a validation of that idea. And, of course, it must be understood that an idea in the mainstream is open to modification and even replacement. Behind everything I say about science lies an understanding that its views are always held tentativity. I do not feel the need to sprinkle disclaimors about the tentative nature of science throughout my posts. Someday we may find that my list of uncaused effects actually have causes. That someday is not today.--Percy

Hi Cavediver,I think what your labeling ignorance is simple disagreement. I don't claim to understand things at your level, but neither do I have to look very far to discover scientists who disagree with you and agree with me. Contrary to your claim, popularizations do not take anywhere near 20 years to reflect recent advances, and much of my information comes from magazines that specialize in presenting recent scientific information at the layperson level, like Scientific American, American Scientist, and the one you detest, New Scientist. And the sure way to make a buck on a science book is to write about the most recent and novel discoveries. This year's discoveries are in next year's books, or the year after at the most. The bottom line is that what I'm reading in magazines and recent popularizations doesn't agree with you.As I said earlier, perhaps I'm doing a bad job of "reading for comprehension", in which case corrections are most welcome, but someone who reads as much science as I do cannot be called ignorant. Nerdy, sure, a bore, yes. But the definition of ignorant is not "someone who doesn't know as much as cavediver about quantum theory." "You're ignorant" has become your recourse when you fail to make yourself sufficiently intelligible to someone to persuade them, and "I teach quantum theory" your constant refrain. These are appeals to authority, your own in this case, and I think many here would like it if you would choose a different strategy once in a while so that what comes across to others is useful information instead of arrogance and frustration.So I think you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree. I encourage you to continue to promote your own perspective in this thread, but I think you'll find that a) a layperson level understanding is what's intelligible to most others here; and b) the viewpoint I'm espousing is what's in magazines and most popularizations.As I said before, I think a thread to discuss this would be a good idea. I originally said this wouldn't be a good time for me, and that may still be the case, but I am on vacation this week, and while we do plan to be pretty busy, it is at least more likely this week that I'd be able to find time to devote to study of this issue. Suggest a book (layperson level, of course), I'll make it my summer reading.--Percy

Propose a thread if you'd like to pursue this.--Percy

So to reiterate what I said before, here are a list of effects which have no cause we know of, plus one more that occurred to me:

1. Nothing causes a particular atom of Uranium-238 to decay at a particular time. It just happens.
   ​
2. Nothing causes a particular electron to tunnel through the barrier of a tunnel diode. It just happens.
   ​
3. Nothing causes an entangled particle's wave function to collapse to either up or down spin upon being observed. It just happens.
   ​
4. Virtual particles. There is nothing that causes them to flit into existence. They just do, governed by the laws of quantum physics.
   ​
5. Which slit a particle travels through in diffraction experiments.

This negates the claim of the opening post that every effect must have a cause.Cavediver believes I should state my examples in less absolute terms, so I will add that all scientific knowledge is tentative and that what I have stated above is not a timeless truth, but only represents the state of our knowledge at the current time.And to Cavediver himself I add that I understand that you believe we already know enough to call my examples into question, and if you'd like to pursue that aspect further then please propose a thread. I did look at your pdf ( System Unavailable ), it is largely unintelligible to me, I can't even tell how it addresses the issue under dispute.--Percy