Kalam Cosmological argument

quote:

---

In decoherence, we don't talk about collapse. ...sort of related to Everett's many-worlds.

---

Indeed I think the only relevance that decoherence has for the question of determinism is the Many Worlds Interpretation, which is the only way to preserve mathematical determinism in quantum mechanics. You don't get rid of the probablilistic nature of quantum mechanics and the result of the Bell's inequality experiments just by seeking a better mathematical description of measurement than wave collapse. It can only lead to the MWI which simply hides the discontinuity of wave collapse and the indeterminacy of real events in the divergence of reality into a multiplicity of unobservable worlds. The mathematical determinism of the MWI really had nothing to do with the question of the determinism of observable events. The MWI is equivalent to CI because these other worlds are irrelevant. They are beyond the mandate of physics because they are unobservable.P.S. Greeting. Sorry for butting in. Not only do I not know the context of this particular post, but I did not really find the OP very intersting. It is not much of an improvement on Aristotle's argument. So why am I here? Because posters in thescienceforum.com insisted that I join this forum just to answer this particular claim of yours, even though I warned them that it would be pointless. If people could not convince Einstein that determinism in physics was dead then how could I hope to convince you?Edited by mitchellmckain, : No reason given.Edited by mitchellmckain, : impoved accuracy

The point is that I was not responding to the OP, and that if I hadn't been directed to this thread and the discussion between cavediver and Percy, I would not have been involved in the thread at all. I tried to join the forum in a natural manner looking for threads that I was interested and this one did not spark interest. I would not have used the word "insipid" at all. I am a great admirer of Aristotle and this is an attempt to patch his argument for the existence of a first cause.I do not think any proof for the existence of God can ultimately achieve the goal. In fact I do not put much faith in the idea of proof for most things. As a rational argument I think Aristotle already made it. It is persuasive as far as it goes. And I don't think that doubting its premises will get you very far. In other words it depends on the intuition that an infinite regress of causes is, at the very least, implausible. However I feel extreme doubt whether the argument can be put on any more solid foundation than that as seems to be your objective. So, I am sorry but I don't get anything that seems substantive from your formulation.For example, the idea that addition cannot achieve infinity: so what? Your addition starts with the number one and therefore assumes a first cause, therefore this assumes the very point you are tring to prove. Or to put it another way, I can disprove your point by saying that you can achieve infinity by addition because infinity plus 1 equals infinity. There is nothing inconsistent for example about the idea of line which extends without limit in either one direction or both directions. ... Sorry.

---

See my relativistic physics of space flight simimulator at Astahost.com