uncaused cause

[theMutant]

hecd2:

But they are not synonymous. The fundamental claim that all phenomena have specific causes represents a classical understanding that has had to be abandoned in the 20th century (along with the uniform passage of time, the infinite divisibility of space and time, and the idea that the universe is mapped in a Euclidean space.) Even in this universe, quantum phenomena are formally uncaused. Spontaneous generation of particle/antiparticle pairs from the vacuum are not contigent on any prior event. Don’t blame your inability to understand the physics on a flaw in the logic.

Since you seem to know how generation (to cause into being or produce) is different than causing, please explain. Is there really no logical flaw in saying that generation is not the same as causing when part of the very meaning of “to generate” is “to cause?”

hecd2:

I see - you have read and understood Andrei Linde’s proposals presented in 209 formal refereed papers in sufficient detail that you can reject them and ‘weep’ for the state of science? That is hubris.

No, I haven’t read them but I have read papers and heard presentations by emminent scientists in the international community who disagree with those conclusions as being illogical. It is not my own judgment on which I depend. However, I admit that I do not have any names to cite so I wouldn’t blame anyone for judging my statements accordingly. I weep because of the fact that common terms are used as if they have no real meaning and as if we poor imbeciles are too stupid to see a logical flaw when it stares us in the face.

 

[theMutant]

hecd2:

An eternal universe. An eternal universe can exist in the total absence of time (indeed in the absence of time, the universe is, by definition, eternal). In GR, time is not an absolute dimension, and the time dimension is not predicated on change. But even if we accept your definition, change does not necessarily depend on causation. Yours is an a priori claim based on a pre20th century view of the cosmos. Routinely observed quantum phenomena *in this corner of the multiverse *demonstrate the prevalence of uncaused events. As for how the multiverse can be eternal, you’ll need to bone up on chaotic inflation:
Linde, Linde and Mezhlumian, Phys Rev D 49, 1783 (1994), ‘From the Big Bang to the theory of a stationary universe’, on-line here:

arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9306/9306035.pdf

continued%between%

And you need to bone up on the scientific arguments against chaos theory which are much more sound than those in favor of it. Indeed your whole case is based on chaos - a “logical” chaos for lack of a better term. You begin this last section by saing that a “temporally infinite” universe is an eternal universe - which is completely illogical. You then turn around and prove the illogic of your own statement by correctly stating that, by definition, there is no time in an eternal universe. You then go on to argue that the “dimention” of time (a misnomer) can exist without change when such an idea is an absolute absurdity. If there is no change, then you have eternity, not time. This demonstrates a basic lack of knowledge of the terms being used.

I do not base my claims on a “pre 20th century view” of the cosmos. My views are advocated in the scientific realm in the 21st century. Just because your favorite scientists don’t hold my view doesn’t make me wrong. Since you appear to be very familiar with the field of science, you should know this basic fact. You say that there is proof that change is not brought about by causation but none of the examples you cited in your previous posts gave any evidence to that claim and, in fact, refuted it. In each case the change was caused by the existence of something (e.g., quarks and anti-quarks) or certain other conditions. Unless the same change can occur in the absence of those things or those conditions your argument fails. If change does not depend on causation, then on what does it depend?

 

[theMutant]

john doran:

well, that’s not really true; linde makes the concession in the paper for which you posted the link that his inflatonary model doesn’t actually eliminate the initial singularity, but only relegates it to the indefinite past.

Well, it looks like he (knowingly or not) admits that Thomas Aquinas could be right along side of this theory.

 

[Matt16_18]

john doran:

… what’s more, linde’s position seems to involve the insoluble problem of postulating an actually infinite set of past events intervening between now and the “indefinitely” past initial singularity; some interpretations of cantorian set theory to the contrary notwithstanding, an actually infinite set cannot be generated by successive addition.

Hmmm … Cantorian set theory and proof of the existence of God …

Kurt Gödel’s Ontological Argument

Kurt Gödel is best known to mathematicians and the general public for his celebrated incompleteness theorems. Physicists also know his famous cosmological model in which time-like lines close back on themselves so that the distance past and the distant future are one and the same. What is less well known is the fact that Gödel has sketched a revised version of Anselm’s traditional ontological argument for the existence of God …

 

[theMutant]

hecd2:

Why? If the classical principle of causality is flawed in this universe (as it is)

a point that has yet to be proven and is disputed within the scientific community

hecd2:

and we can sensibly posit a universe in which causality as we understand it does not apply,

Can you? You haven’t done so thus far.

hecd2:

then all you are doing is persistently applying causality and contingency in that universe where we have already concluded that it need not apply.

You mean in that positted universe for which we have no proof and about which we don’t know if it does, or even truly can, exist?

 

[theMutant]

hecd2:

God is not NECESSARY in some cosmologies. I’ve posted some examples of states where God is not necessary. Linde, Hawking and Hartle do not publish evidence for God’s non-existence - they merely show that he is not a necessary hypthesis.

And yet you continue to fail to address the question of how these “states” came into existence and the fact that, if these theories of “spontaneous ‘uncaused’ generation” are dependent on the “states” you mention, those states are themselves the cause of the spontaneous generation you are claiming is uncaused.

 

[hecd2]

theMutant:

Since you seem to know how generation (to cause into being or produce) is different than causing, please explain. Is there really no logical flaw in saying that generation is not the same as causing when part of the very meaning of “to generate” is “to cause?”

I already did. Spontaneous generation of particle/antiparticle pairs from the vacuum are not contingent on any prior event. The principle of causation requires the direct association of an event with a prior event sine qua non.

No, I haven’t read them but I have read papers and heard presentations by emminent scientists in the international community who disagree with those conclusions as being illogical. It is not my own judgment on which I depend. However, I admit that I do not have any names to cite so I wouldn’t blame anyone for judging my statements accordingly.

I judge them accordingly. It’s a pretty poor argument to claim an argument from authority where you can’t even name the authority.

I weep because of the fact that common terms are used as if they have no real meaning and as if we poor imbeciles are too stupid to see a logical flaw when it stares us in the face.

Scientists have, for centuries, used common terms to mean very precise things that are quite different from their common meaning. For example: power, energy, spin, force, charm, parity, symmetry, heat, colour, time, space, dimension, pressure, density, causation, inflation, chaos and so on. Theoretical physics has internal self-consistency that has empirical supporting correlates; but it is impossible to judge theoretical physics by applying lay terms, interpreted using layman’s interpretations and using common interpretations of common words. Sorry about that. Unfortunately it’s just a fact.

It has been impossible for 400 years, but especially impossible since 1906. It is really not possible to use verbal logic to discuss theoretical physics. Quantum mechanics (proven empirically to a vastly delicate and exquisite degree of precision) can hardly be described in words - to really understand it you need the maths. You really do need to understand what is meant by a Lagragian or a Hamiltonian, and by the Schroedinger wave equation. You, unfortunately, need to have a feeling for the various solutions to the Einstein field equations. Kerr, Friedmann, Friedmann-Robertson-Walker, Scharwzchild, de Sitter solutions etc.

Sorry about that.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[theMutant]

hecd2:

I already did. Spontaneous generation of particle/antiparticle pairs from the vacuum are not contingent on any prior event. The principle of causation requires the direct association of an event with a prior event sine qua non.

It does not require the direct association of an event with a prior event. That is the entire point of Thomas’s argument because you can not stretch that back infinitely. Ultimately you have to have an event that was NOT caused by a prior event but by something else that is not an event. That something else is God.

hecd2:

Scientists have, for centuries, used common terms to mean very precise things that are quite different from their common meaning. For example: power, energy, spin, force, charm, parity, symmetry, heat, colour, time, space, dimension, pressure, density, causation, inflation, chaos and so on. Theoretical physics has internal self-consistency that has empirical supporting correlates; but it is impossible to judge theoretical physics by applying lay terms, interpreted using layman’s interpretations and using common interpretations of common words. Sorry about that. Unfortunately it’s just a fact.

So, what you are saying is that when a scientist says “eternal” he doesn’t mean “eternal” and that when he says “time” he doesn’t mean “time.” How, then, do you know what he meant by “God” when he said that He is not necessary for the “hypothesis” (whatever that means). What is the “internal self-consistent” meaning of that term in the scientific realm? If you say that there can be an uncaused generation because science means something other than what I mean when I use those two terms, then how can you argue that this disproves Thomas’s uncaused cause argument when he was using the same meaning which I am and from which I derive my understanding. If the terms mean different things, then they cannot be used to disprove one another and your whole argument thus far is worthless!

hecd2:

It has been impossible for 400 years, but especially impossible since 1906. It is really not possible to use verbal logic to discuss theoretical physics. Quantum mechanics (proven empirically to a vastly delicate and exquisite degree of precision) can hardly be described in words - to really understand it you need the maths. You really do need to understand what is meant by a Lagragian or a Hamiltonian, and by the Schroedinger wave equation. You, unfortunately, need to have a feeling for the various solutions to the Einstein field equations. Kerr, Friedmann, Friedmann-Robertson-Walker, Scharwzchild, de Sitter solutions etc.

You clearly only listen to those who come to the conclusions that God doesn’t have to exist according to certain theories. And, yet, scientists who know the maths of which you speak come to the consclusion that God must exist. Thomas’s uncaused cause argument (which is only one of his methods for demonstrating the existence of God) still stands unscathed.

I freely admit that I do not know all of the maths.

 

[hecd2]

theMutant:

And you need to bone up on the scientific arguments against chaos theory which are much more sound than those in favor of it.

What would they be then? I have a very strong suspicion that you don’t have the foggiest notion about what chaos theory actually is or states.Chaos theory is entirely accepted and non-controversial physics. Did you know that?

Indeed your whole case is based on chaos - a “logical” chaos for lack of a better term.

yes I was indeed right - you don’t have the faintest idea about the meaning of chaos

You begin this last section by saing that a “temporally infinite” universe is an eternal universe - which is completely illogical. You then turn around and prove the illogic of your own statement by correctly stating that, by definition, there is no time in an eternal universe. You then go on to argue that the “dimention” of time (a misnomer)

actually a misspelling that’s down to you - time is a perfectly good dimension - and infinite time and eternity are synonymous in science and based on stationarity.

I do not base my claims on a “pre 20th century view” of the cosmos. My views are advocated in the scientific realm in the 21st century. Just because your favorite scientists don’t hold my view doesn’t make me wrong. Since you appear to be very familiar with the field of science, you should know this basic fact.

Your tactics here should be very simple. Post references to other contemporary respectable scientists who claim that these ideas are scientifically improbable.

You say that there is proof that change is not brought about by causation but none of the examples you cited in your previous posts gave any evidence to that claim and, in fact, refuted it.

No, that is entirely down to your inability to understand the concept of causation.

In each case the change was caused by the existence of something (e.g., quarks and anti-quarks) or certain other conditions. Unless the same change can occur in the absence of those things or those conditions your argument fails. If change does not depend on causation, then on what does it depend?

Quantum phenomena are not contingent. They are genuinely uncaused - you cannot point to a specific prior event as the causative event on which, say the alpha decay of a radioactive nucleus depends. These are true stochastic phenomena

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[theMutant]

hecd2:

What would they be then? I have a very strong suspicion that you don’t have the foggiest notion about what chaos theory actually is or states.Chaos theory is entirely accepted and non-controversial physics. Did you know that?

And yet I have read rejections of the theory written by scientists.

 

[hecd2]

theMutant:

It does not require the direct association of an event with a prior event. That is the entire point of Thomas’s argument because you can not stretch that back infinitely. Ultimately you have to have an event that was NOT caused by a prior event but by something else that is not an event. That something else is God.

Not so. If the fundamental structure of the universe is based on non-contingent phenomena (in other words there are present events that have no cause) there is no need postulate an ultimate cause. We observe countless trillions of events that are not caused by preceding events - no need to go back.

So, what you are saying is that when a scientist says “eternal” he doesn’t mean “eternal” and that when he says “time” he doesn’t mean “time.” How, then, do you know what he meant by “God” when he said that He is not necessary for the “hypothesis” (whatever that means). What is the “internal self-consistent” meaning of that term in the scientific realm?

God has no formal meaning in science.

If you say that there can be an uncaused generation because science means something other than what I mean when I use those two terms, then how can you argue that this disproves Thomas’s uncaused cause argument when he was using the same meaning which I am and from which I derive my understanding. If the terms mean different things, then they cannot be used to disprove one another and your whole argument thus far is worthless!

Science shows that the universe is not contingent on prior causes and so all arguments about an uncaused cause (other than the universe itself) are unncessary.

You clearly only listen to those who come to the conclusions that God doesn’t have to exist according to certain theories. And, yet, scientists who know the maths of which you speak come to the consclusion that God must exist.

Indeed - none of this disproves the existence of God and there are, as you say, many who know the science annd who are believers. Many of those are more talented and more intelligent than either of us. However, although the science cannot be used to disprove the existence of God (which I freely acknowledge) nor can it be used to prove God’s existence since what we now know of the universe undermines the uncaused cause argument.

Thomas’s uncaused cause argument (which is only one of his methods for demonstrating the existence of God) still stands unscathed.

Not so.

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

 

[hecd2]

theMutant:

And yet I have read rejections of the theory written by scientists.

Tell us more. Where did you read it and who were these professional scientist opponents of physical chaos theory? I say that they do not exist in any substantial form. Would you really like to make this a matter of personal credibility? You do seem to be wedded to the concept of argument from unsupported assertion. Your statement that you have read unknown authorities at an unknown time that reject chaos theory for unknown reasons is, not to put too fine a point on it, blowing smoke.

Put up references or retract.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Mijoy2]

hecd2:

There are several flaws in this argument:

1. causation is what we observe in this universe. It is perfectly possible to conceive of another universe in which the concept of causation that we observe in this universe does not exist. (Indeed, the concept of causation, in the sense of deterministic contingency, is considerably weakened in this universe by the findings and principles of Quantum Mechanics). For example, spontaneous, ‘uncaused’ generation of particle/anti-particles pairs from the vacuum are a fundamental part of modern physics and are the basis for the Hawking radiation of black holes
2. There are several models for multiverse theory (particularly those posited by Andrei Linde and others) which credibly propose a temporally infinite universe
3. Even in the temporally finite universe, where models begin with the Big Bang, there are respectable hypotheses (for example those of Hawking and Hartle that rely on the Wick rotation to imaginary time) that have no boundary conditions
4. Logically if we are able to posit a Being that exists infinitely, the same logic would support a physical universe with the same properties. In our experience, physical realities pre-date and encompass ‘Beings’.

A knowledgeable analysis of the evidence seen in the context of ‘causation’ and ‘determinism’ as modified by our modern understanding of the quantum universe, is able to conclude logically in agreement with Laplace’s statement about why the concept of God did not appear in his work:

‘I had no need of that hypothesis.’

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Mijoy2]

hecd2:

There are several flaws in this argument:

1. causation is what we observe in this universe. It is perfectly possible to conceive of another universe in which the concept of causation that we observe in this universe does not exist. (Indeed, the concept of causation, in the sense of deterministic contingency, is considerably weakened in this universe by the findings and principles of Quantum Mechanics). For example, spontaneous, ‘uncaused’ generation of particle/anti-particles pairs from the vacuum are a fundamental part of modern physics and are the basis for the Hawking radiation of black holes

say what?? the concept of causation does not exist? Where does this lame argument end? The concept of concepts may also not exist. Therefore this argument may not exist. Therefore the argument against this argument is unnecessary. I guess.

hecd2:

1. There are several models for multiverse theory (particularly those posited by Andrei Linde and others) which credibly propose a temporally infinite universe

Where did this mulitverse reside?
Can temporally and infinite go together in the same sentance? Maybe, but only temporarily.

hecd2:

1. Even in the temporally finite universe, where models begin with the Big Bang, there are respectable hypotheses (for example those of Hawking and Hartle that rely on the Wick rotation to imaginary time) that have no boundary conditions

respectable? maybe. accurate or even plausable, unlikely.

hecd2:

1. Logically if we are able to posit a Being that exists infinitely, the same logic would support a physical universe with the same properties. In our experience, physical realities pre-date and encompass ‘Beings’.

hecd2:

A knowledgeable analysis of the evidence seen in the context of ‘causation’ and ‘determinism’ as modified by our modern understanding of the quantum universe, is able to conclude logically in agreement with Laplace’s statement about why the concept of God did not appear in his work:

‘I had no need of that hypothesis.’

I’d fully agree Laplace’s work on infinite series and the resulant transforms did not require the concept of God. But Laplace did.

Alec, where does the question of why fit into this intellectual argument of yours? How about the concept and question of love? The love that is deep within ones heart. The love that is not of no reason. The love of which without there is no purpose to any of this?

You may be totally right. If so, thank GOD, it comes to an end. If not, glad I am here. And thnkful I was “created”. Only time will tell for sure.

 

[Mijoy2]

hecd2:

However, although the science cannot be used to disprove the existence of God (which I freely acknowledge) nor can it be used to prove God’s existence
Alec

I wonder if God planned it that way?

 

[theMutant]

hecd2:

Tell us more. Where did you read it and who were these professional scientist opponents of physical chaos theory? I say that they do not exist in any substantial form. Would you really like to make this a matter of personal credibility? You do seem to be wedded to the concept of argument from unsupported assertion. Your statement that you have read unknown authorities at an unknown time that reject chaos theory for unknown reasons is, not to put too fine a point on it, blowing smoke.

Put up references or retract.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Alec,

I have enjoyed this debate very much. I read the articles I mentioned quite some time ago and, since I can not presently find the references, I willingly retract my assertion that chaos theory is not universally accepted in the scientific community. If I find the references I will post them.

It seems pointless to continue this debate now that I know we do not mean the same things by the terms we have been using in common. I do wonder, though, why you chose to argue against Thomas’s argument on the basis of terms that don’t mean the same thing that Thomas meant when he formulated his argument.

I can see that, because we understand these common terms differently, that we could easily both be right.

Thank you for the opportunity to stretch the old brain with a real challenge.

Peace,

 

[JPrejean]

However, although the science cannot be used to disprove the existence of God (which I freely acknowledge) nor can it be used to prove God’s existence since what we now know of the universe undermines the uncaused cause argument.

I don’t think it really undermines the argument. I happen to agree with you that there is no physical reason that we couldn’t scrap causation as a concept entirely and just posit some n-dimensional object existing in an absolute sense. The problem is that it simply leads to trivial metaphysics. I’m not even sure that you could even come up with a coherent definition of existence if what you describe is actually the case. It is, in essence, the trivial solution of the problem; it provides no information and no explanation. So even if the argument St. Thomas made isn’t a matter of absolute logical compulsion, I don’t see any reason why one would ever pick the “uncaused cause” alternative if there is any conceivable logical possibility available.

 

[RMP]

Alec it amazes me that you are so educated about science, physics, ect. Obviously, you have put forth much effort in gaining knowledge of the world around you. From your posts, I would even go so far as to say, you trust the emperical evidence around you with an almost certitude. Especially about abstract theories of the universe and its creation and evolution, Yet, when you are asked a simple question like Did Jesus Christ exist? and was he truthful?, your answer is: possibly, and sometimes.

If the real truth of this universe may have been present in Jesus Christ and his revelation on salvation, I would think a man of your intellegence would be a little bit more eager to investigate.

 

[Matt16_18]

hecd2:

Quantum phenomena are not contingent. They are genuinely uncaused - you cannot point to a specific prior event as the causative event on which, say the alpha decay of a radioactive nucleus depends.

That is merely an assumption that is made by some scientists. This assumption is based on an underlying belief that “randomness” exists in the universe, but no mathematician has ever been able to give a precise definition of randomness. Ultimately, the belief in randomness is a theological position that one assumes to be true.

 

[Vincent]

Mortimer Adler has an interesting version of the argument from contingency:

1. *]“The existence of an effect requiring the concurrent existence and action of an efficient cause implies the existence and action of that cause.”
   
   *]“The cosmos as a whole exists.”
   
   *]“The existence of the cosmos as a whole is radically contingent, which is to say that, while not needing an efficient cause of its coming to be, since it is everlasting, it nevertheless does need an efficient cause of its continuing existence, to preserve it in being and prevent it from being replaced by nothingness.”
   
   *]“If the cosmos needs an efficient cause of its continuing existence to prevent its annihilation, Then that cause must be a supernatural being, supernatural in its action, and one the existence of which is uncaused; in other words, the supreme being, or God.”