The causality argument is finally settled

[uruk]

We have a universe where each current state is dependent upon a previous state. That is why science can predict future states of that universe.

This is not entirely true. Science has found that it becomes increasingly difficult to make predictions the closer you look at the universe. (sub-atomic scale).
Also that some things that happen do not depend on a previous state or even seem to have a cause. (see virtual particle pair production) Try as you might to deny it. There are things in this universe which do not have a cause or happen at random. This happens regardless if the universe is a sensed thing or not.

Now, the effects ad infinitum argument seeks to negate the existence of a singular cause for the universe. So, any current "thing" or system is explained not by any singular cause, but by a multiplicity of causes.

The "ad infinitum" argument or the "turtles-all-the-way-down" idea is a consequence if you look at the data a certain way and in our limited perspective. It seems counter-intuitive because we cannot see "outside", "before" or "after" this universe. We are "locked" into it. When you look at things like virtual particle pair production it becomes quite possible for something to "pop" into "existance" with no observable or detectable cause. As a result we cannot discount this type of thing happening as far as the universe is concered even if it seems counter-intuitive to us. The universe is under no obligation to make sense to us. It is we who need to try and understand it.

 

[lifegazer]

Everytime someone objects you tell them this. Yet this is one of the few points where nobody disagrees with you. Let me assure you, I understand this. The next time you think I do not understand this, read my post again and keep in mind that I do understand this, then formulate a response.

How can you claim to understand what I said when you said, in your previous post:
"We are not living in a strictly causal universe... For instance, physics cannot predict where an individual photon appears on a screen, only the chance that it will appear at a certain spot."

Well? If you understood what I've said, you wouldn't be objecting here. Why? Because if you truly understand, you should know that any "thing" sensed within your awareness is determined to exist in the sensed-space of your awareness.
We cannot say where a sensed-photon will appear in sensed-space, but we certainly can say that a sensed-photon is determined to exist wherever it shall appear in sensed-space.

There is nothing that we know about in the sensed-universe which can be said to be acausal.

Yes, sensations are caused, and the cause of senations may also be caused, etc. Untill somewhere you must end up with acausal events.

Agreed, there must be an acausal source. But if you think this, then you cannot support the 'effects ad infinitum' argument, can you?

 

[lifegazer]

This is not entirely true. Science has found that it becomes increasingly difficult to make predictions the closer you look at the universe. (sub-atomic scale).

Read my previous post, to H.
It explains why everything that is sensed to exist in sensed-spacetime has been determined to exist.

This happens regardless if the universe is a sensed thing or not.

Rubbish.
How do you know something exists in the universe without sensing that it exists?
If you sense it, it's been determined to exist upon your awareness.

When you look at things like virtual particle pair production it becomes quite possible for something to "pop" into "existance" with no observable or detectable cause.

How silly. If the sensations have a cause then the sensed-awareness of "particles popping into sensed-spacetime" certainly have a cause - the same cause as the sensations themselves.

 

[Anders]

[snip}

Rubbish.
How do you know something exists in the universe without sensing that it exists?
If you sense it, it's been determined to exist upon your awareness.
[snip

Ah, to good old, "if a tree falls in the wood and you are not there to see if falls, does it then really make a sound?" argument.

Of course we know that the tree makes a sound, stupid! Our senses do not effect the fallin of the tree.

The tree makes a sound wheter I sense it or not! An event takes place whether or not I sense it.

 

[lifegazer]

Ah, to good old, "if a tree falls in the wood and you are not there to see if falls, does it then really make a sound?" argument.

Of course we know that the tree makes a sound, stupid! Our senses do not effect the fallin of the tree.

The tree makes a sound wheter I sense it or not! An event takes place whether or not I sense it.

Ah, the ol' "assert a fact and make it so" method of rationalisation.

 

[Anders]

Ah, the ol' "assert a fact and make it so" method of rationalisation.

Yes, I agree, the "tree that makes a sound in the woods" is really to go out on limb. Earth shattering stuff, oh it makes a sound!

I'm sorry I should have added some unintelligible text about age-old god-proof and perhaps some home made philosophy about cause and effect and movers and shakers. But I didn’t, because my argument are down to earth, and need no back up from home made philosophy.

 

[lifegazer]

Yes, I agree, the "tree that makes a sound in the woods" is really to go out on limb. Earth shattering stuff, oh it makes a sound!

To whom does it "make a sound" if there's nobody around to hear a sound?
Are you even aware that 'sound' is an abstract sensation?

Then, after considering that, perhaps you'll present your proof to this forum explaining how you know that there is a universe beyond the sensation of one (full of trees and whatnot)?

You haven't got a clue mate. You don't think about what you're saying. You're just parroting stuff that the other parrots around you have parroted for millennia.

You need to up a few gears if you want to participate at this level of philosophy.

 

[Anders]

To whom does it "make a sound" if there's nobody around to hear a sound?
Are you even aware that 'sound' is an abstract sensation?

Then, after considering that, perhaps you'll present your proof to this forum explaining how you know that there is a universe beyond the sensation of one (full of trees and whatnot)?

You haven't got a clue mate. You don't think about what you're saying. You're just parroting stuff that the other parrots around you have parroted for millennia.

You need to up a few gears if you want to participate at this level of philosophy.

Yes, I got no clue, but I'm a willing to learn. You, Lifegazer seem to know everything. However, reality is what I'm interested in, not your privately home cooked philosophy, which resides on age-old god-proofs.

You claim that your philosophy is that correct one. Scientists and skeptics claim that everything is just theories. Newton's mechanistic philosophy was fine, until Einstein came along, and so on.

This is how it works: You make a claim, we see if it holds.

What you do in this and many more threads is hand waving, you think you can prove something which can't even describe.

You talk about alternative universes, and say that we can't sense them. That is like saying that you have an invisible pink dragon in your living room, it can't be proven nor proven not to exist, so it is effectively a meaningless claim.

It’s starting to get boring Lifegazer.

Oh, sound is not an abstract sensation, it's physical waves, energy if you will, that is transported in space, using a medium, like air or water.

 

[lifegazer]

Yes, I got no clue, but I'm a willing to learn. You, Lifegazer seem to know everything. However, reality is what I'm interested in, not your privately home cooked philosophy, which resides on age-old god-proofs.

I'll tell you about the only reality which can be confirmed as fact:
The universe exists within whatever it is that I am. It's an introspective awareness of an abstract universe existing inside of me (whatever I am).
This is your reality.

Science is the study of the order existing amongst the universe existing inside of you.

This is not "handwaving". It's the truth. If you choose to ignore it, then sobeit. But cometh the day, don't say you weren't given a chance.

You claim that your philosophy is that correct one. Scientists and skeptics claim that everything is just theories.

Read what I said about science, above. Science is not a philosophy and tells us nothing about 'reality'. It only tells us about the order existing amongst sensed-things. In fact, science is the study of the order existing amongst UNreality.

Only philosophy can help you find 'reality' objectively Anders. Science has its uses but "finding reality" is not one of them.
This, I promise you, above all else.

Newton's mechanistic philosophy was fine, until Einstein came along, and so on.

Newton's theories about the sensed-world were not a philosophy about reality. They were his understandings about the order present in the UNreal sensed-world existing within awareness.

You talk about alternative universes

I talk about the reality of what we sense. That's not an alternative universe, but rather "the truth".

and say that we can't sense them. That is like saying that you have an invisible pink dragon in your living room, it can't be proven nor proven not to exist, so it is effectively a meaningless claim.

If what you sense is abstract and UNreal, then 'reality' is necessarily a non-sensed existence. Reality cannot be sensed.

Oh, sound is not an abstract sensation, it's physical waves, energy if you will, that is transported in space, using a medium, like air or water.

Physical waves are physical waves. Sound is something different altogether.
Likewise, fire melting a body is fire melting a body. Pain is something different altogether.

'Sounds' are abstract experiences. So is pain. So are all sensations.

 

[uruk]

Read my previous post, to H.
It explains why everything that is sensed to exist in sensed-spacetime has been determined to exist.

I read it and does nothing to address what I've said to you.

We cannot say where a sensed-photon will appear in sensed-space, but we certainly can say that a sensed-photon is determined to exist wherever it shall appear in sensed-space.

This is basicaly a meaningless statement. Your just saying "we don't know where a photon will exists in sensed space but we know it will exist somewhere." It says nothing and it does not relate to what I am telling you.

What I am telling you is what we have observed or know about virtual particle pair production is that it has no preceeding cause (or no sensesd preceeding cause, if that makes you happy) when it "comes into our awarness". It is essentially the same thing as an apple "popping" into existance right in front of you for no apparent reason then "popping" out again.

Rubbish.
How do you know something exists in the universe without sensing that it exists?
If you sense it, it's been determined to exist upon your awareness.

Another useless, meaningless statement that has nothing to do with what I'm saying to you. Mainly because you don't want to educate yourself.

How silly.

It seems silly because we don't fully understand our universe. (or "sensed" universe.) but that is how our (sensed) universe has been observed to work.

If the sensations have a cause then the sensed-awareness of "particles popping into sensed-spacetime" certainly have a cause - the same cause as the sensations themselves.

Well, now you just jump right in and say "god did it". This is just your assumption. An assumption that is built on a house of cards
I might add.
I prefer the truthful and honest answer of "we don't know yet".

Ah, the ol' "assert a fact and make it so" method of rationalisation.

Interesting that you should see this in other's argument And not in your own. What is it they say?: takes one to know one.

The universe exists within whatever it is that I am. It's an introspective awareness of an abstract universe existing inside of me (whatever I am).

To be absolutely truthfull LG, all you can REALLY say is that you have a representation of a reality in your mind that is a composite of signals coming into your awareness via your senses. You cannot say with any certainty wether the reality it represent is an actual "physical" reality which corresponds with what you senses tell you, or if it is an illusion fed to you via a diety. You are simply asserting that there is a diety involved or that the reality we percieve does not actually exist. You have no proof, no evidence, and some very weak, faulty arguments.

 

[lifegazer]

"We cannot say where a sensed-photon will appear in sensed-space, but we certainly can say that a sensed-photon is determined to exist wherever it shall appear in sensed-space."

This is basicaly a meaningless statement. Your just saying "we don't know where a photon will exists in sensed space but we know it will exist somewhere." It says nothing and it does not relate to what I am telling you.

We cannot know where a sensed-photon will appear in sensed-spacetime but that doesn't mean that a sensed-photon is not an effect.
In fact, it's simple common-sense which dictates that any sensed-object is determined to exist amongst sensed-spacetime, because the sensations - which themselves have a cause - are responsible for what you sense and where you sense it.

NO sensed-thing can appear in sensed-spacetime and be labelled an acausal entity.

What I am telling you is what we have observed or know about virtual particle pair production is that it has no preceeding cause (or no sensesd preceeding cause, if that makes you happy) when it "comes into our awarness".

Of course it has no sensed cause!
The real cause of UNreal sensed-things cannot itself be an UNreal sensed-thing.
But it is beyond doubt that a sensed-thing must have a cause, because you are only aware of anything that you sense via the preceeding sensations - which themselves do have a cause.

Well, now you just jump right in and say "god did it".

Incorrect. There's quite alot of reasoning that goes on before that conclusion is made.

I prefer the truthful and honest answer of "we don't know yet".

You don't know yet you persist in blindly-believing in a reality beyond your sense of one, stubbornly refusing to accept any other explanation for it all. You're anti-God. Just admit it.

 

[uruk]

We cannot know where a sensed-photon will appear in sensed-spacetime but that doesn't mean that a sensed-photon is not an effect.

Meaningless and irrelavent.

In fact, it's simple common-sense which dictates that any sensed-object is determined to exist amongst sensed-spacetime, because the sensations - which themselves have a cause - are responsible for what you sense and where you sense it.

Meaningless and irrelevent. I'm not talking about the cause of the sensation but what the sensation tells us.

NO sensed-thing can appear in sensed-spacetime and be labelled an acausal entity.

It can if there is no detectable or predictable cause or initial state for it's existance. Again I'm talking about the event not the sensations.

Of course it has no sensed cause
The real cause of UNreal sensed-things cannot itself be an UNreal sensed-thing.
But it is beyond doubt that a sensed-thing must have a cause, because you are only aware of anything that you sense via the preceeding sensations - which themselves do have a cause.
!

whew! this is getting exhausting having to write all these "sensed things" mumbo jumbo. You are confusing the sensation with the information of the event the sensation is conveying. The sensation (observation) is of two particles which appear into (percieved awareness) existance and disappear out of (percieved awareness) existance unpredictably, without a causual event or "cause" within a very short amount of time (Plank scale) and with an unpredictable amount of energy. There is no known source, just theories and the uncertainty principal which states that it can happen. How and why is anybody's guess.

Incorrect. There's quite alot of reasoning that goes on before that conclusion is made.

But it is unsupported and requires alot of assumptions to be accepted without basis, evidence or proof.
A house of cards, if you will.

You don't know yet you persist in blindly-believing in a reality beyond your sense of one, stubbornly refusing to accept any other explanation for it all. You're anti-God. Just admit it.

It is not "blindly" that I believe in the reality of this existance. I can see it, feel it, experiance it, I can experiance no other reality other than this one.

I stubbornly refuse to accept any explination that does not make sense to me or is built on faulty reasoning or logic, or in which there is no evidence or proof that is convinceing to me.

I am not anti-god. I just have not yet seen proof or evidence that one exists. As soon As I see evidence that convinces me, I will believe in one. Untill then; innocent untill proven guilty.

 

[JAK]

Originally posted by lifegazer
...
Given that there are no singular causes, what causes singular effects to act, collectively, as a singular mechanism in the production of a proceeding effect (or system)?
...

LG, you are ignoring me. For the third time (first stated 10/17/2004 at 11:24pm), emergent properties "causes singular effects to act, collectively, as a singular mechanism in the production of a proceeding effect." This is a serious attempt to answer your blue question. Please address this issue or revise your blue question.

Originally posted by lifegazer
...
This question demonstrates the nonsensity espoused by the proponent of an effects ad infinitum argument, for if you think about the question carefully, you'll understand that it is not "things" which cause the future states of the universe, but the forces which bind those "things" into systems or mechanisms. Moreover, it is these forces which are responsible for changing the state of those "things" into future effects.
The effects ad infinitum argument is rubbish. The cause of all change is the forces in the universe - not the "things" (effects) which constitute that universe.
...
The effects ad infinitum argument is absolute BS because nowhere in that argument is there a recognition of these facts:-
(1) Effects ("things") cause nothing.
(2) The true cause of change is the instigator of the unchanging forces that exist in our universe.
...

LG, I believe I made the same point on 10/17/2004 at 11:24pm:

Originally posted by JAK
...
What "causes" the "singular effects to act, collectively, as a singular mechanism" is the overall effect (emergent property) of the various laws of the universe. It is these laws which produce systems.
...

Originally posted by lifegazer
Now, when one of you people actually demonstrate a sincerity to discuss these points, I shall proceed.

I believe I have demonstrated a sincerity to discuss your points. Please proceed, if just for me.

Thank you.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Well? If you understood what I've said, you wouldn't be objecting here. Why? Because if you truly understand, you should know that any "thing" sensed within your awareness is determined to exist in the sensed-space of your awareness.
We cannot say where a sensed-photon will appear in sensed-space, but we certainly can say that a sensed-photon is determined to exist wherever it shall appear in sensed-space.

No, we can't. I cannot tell whether a sensed photon was determined to exist anywhere. In fact, quantum mechanics tells us why photons can acausally appear here or there. It just can't tell us where.

There is nothing that we know about in the sensed-universe which can be said to be acausal.

No, there is nothing we can sense to be acausal, but we have the ability to reason and let instruments do our observing for us. Observation in the past century or so has taught us that things can happen without a cause and why and how. We are unable to sense (and thus know) these things are causal as much as the opposite.
Einstein might have said: "God does not roll dice", but Bohr reportedly retorted:"Who is Einstein to tell God what not to do?"
You're on Einsteins side here, but quantum mechanics describes the world of the very small very well, so I guess Bohr had a point.
Now obviously future scientific research may prove Bohr wrong, but until that happens, quantum mechanics is what I believe, and with good reason.

Agreed, there must be an acausal source. But if you think this, then you cannot support the 'effects ad infinitum' argument, can you?

Let me be clear, I couldn't agree more, because effects ad infinitum require a universe that is infinitely old, which is in disagreement with the well established big bang theory.
However, as acausal events are known to occur - that is, events science understands as to how they occur without cause - there is no reason to believe in an intelligent or sole causer of the universe. It just becomes a matter of accumulating causal and acausal events over a period of billions of years.

Edit: I might have made some errors in this post because I am very drunk and it's 4:30 in the morning.

 

[Z]

LG, I DO wish you'd at least pick up a dictionary and look up the word, 'abstract'. You keep claiming that we sense an abstract universe; this is highly incorrect. What we sense are sensations, brought into our awareness by sensory systems that are observing actual phenomenon existing in a real universe. Abstract would denote a non-specific, featureless universe - Universe, in an abstract sense, being 'all that is'. However, even our 'sensed-universe' is hardly abstract.

Please, if you're not going to crack science books once in a while, you could at LEAST crack open a dictionary occasionally.

As for your 'reasoning', it is flawed, faulty, and provably wrong at every turn and on almost every level. You have realized one thing and one thing only: that what we know is limited to what our senses tell us. EVERYTHING else you have tried to put forth has been proven wrong, again and again. And the most important part of this - that your philosophy is irrelevant and utterly without importance - is something you seem to miss time and time again.

So - to summarize for the casual, passing reader: Bob lifegazer has a philosophy based on false assumptions, faulty reasoning, and an absolute willful ignorance of science or scientific reasoning. Further, his philosophy has no basis, no purpose, and no meaning. It is irrelevant and pointless to ponder his philosophy. So ignore when he instructs you to 'don your white robe' and 'fall to your knees' when 'the day cometh' - he's a Biblical apologist, cloaking his usual nonsense with 'reasoning'.

 

[Anathema]

... he's a Biblical apologist, cloaking his usual nonsense with 'reasoning'.

Yet the dishonest prevaricator won't even acknowledge direct questions about the source of his communication with the alleged being we so-called 'plonkers' should be on our knees before. Or, we sensed-plonkers, falling on our sensed-knees, to help this god sort out its thoughts for our own and its betterment. Even though personal betterment might imply ego, which we must necessarily transcend before we can help this being sort it thoughts (us?) out, so that we won't end up un-thought. The horror....

 

[lifegazer]

What we sense are sensations, brought into our awareness by sensory systems that are observing actual phenomenon existing in a real universe.

Oh go away. Stop passing-off your beliefs as reasoned philosophy. There's no point in talking to you any more.

 

[Z]

Oh go away. Stop passing-off your beliefs as reasoned philosophy. There's no point in talking to you any more.

Ah, but I will not 'go away' - in simple point of fact, you don't like what I say for the simple reason that it sheds a harsh light upon your frail 'philosophy'. 'Reasoned philosophy' is BS - or, at least, what you pass off as 'reasoned philosophy' is BS.

I use reason to conclude that what our senses tell us, since it is consistant, predictable, and verifiable by other beings capable of common communication, must be therefore sufficiently real. Further, I conclude, using reason, that, since there are a number of objects and events not within the sensed-awareness of any given person, AND since there exist objects and events which can affect a person without entering into their sensed-awareness, that the Universe is external to any given person.

Further, using reason, I have already demonstrated that you lack even the basic fundamentals of language, general common-sense, and proper reason and/or logic; and that your beliefs are even more poorly founded than most people's are. Further, using decisive reasoning, I have demonstrated that the natural, logical conclusion to be reached from your philosophy is that it is, ultimately, irrelevant.

I can understand why you wouldn't want to talk to me any more. But ignoring your problems isn't going to make them go away, Bob.

 

[Robin]

Lifegazer,

What is the justification for this distinction of 'sensed' things. You appear to know enough about science to know that it goes well beyond things that can be sensed. It is even tentatively reaching outside our universe.

So the distinction of sensed things does not appear to be particularly useful, after all we have evidence of things existing long before anything was there to sense them.

A similar, more useful distinction might be 'observable' things. We can know something about any entity that is at least indirectly observable.

You appear to speak a lot about unobservable entities. How can you know anything - through science or any other method - about unobservable things?

 

[Aoidoi]

<snip>
You assert that everything must have a cause. But then you can't have an infinite string of things happening, so something must have been that first cause.

What is the first cause you settle on? Some incredibly complex, powerful and intelligent being. Which does not have a cause. So, you immediately sink your own argument that "Everything must have a cause".

Yeah, that post was what I was trying to say, only better than I would have said it had I tried.

Without the fun semantics, it does seem to boil down to "everything has a cause except for god." Which is fine, if all you're trying to do is come up with a name for whatever started it all. Ground State Fluctuations serves just as well and without millenia of emotional baggage, but it is harder to spell.

What the prime mover argument singularly fails to do is to demonstrate an anthropomorphic deity who interacts on a personal level with humanity within a linear time frame. At best it's a fairly weak argument for Deism- a God that kicked off the universe and now does not influence it.

Personally, I'm not even sold on the premise that something had to start it all. The Greeks believed in cyclical time, who is to say that time isn't just a nice big loop? That'd be an infinite string without a beginning. Maybe in a trillion years we're all toast and the dinosaurs come back again.