uncaused cause

[hecd2]

theMutant:

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.

Dear David,

Very handsomely put. Huge respect from me (for what that’s worth ) for this. In fact chaos theory is a branch of dynamical systems theory which investigates systems that change with time. Newtonian celestial mechanics is the theory of how the celestial bodies move under the influence of gravity and is the great classical jewel of dynamical systems theory.

Chaos theory arises from the observation that entirely deterministic systems (ie systems whose evolution depend entirely on a starting condition) are not necessarily predictable. The reason for this is that some systems, even very simple systems that depend on a very small number of parameters to define their evolution, evolve in such a way that microscopically different starting conditions (so microscopically close that we are unable to distinguish between them) evolve to widely and radically different conditions very quickly. The mathematical treatment of these phenomena is the beautiful science of chaos theory. A good book on the topic is David Ruelle, Chance and Chaos. Since Chaos Theory is a mathematical tactic to analyse chaotic (as defined above) phenomena, it is no more opposed by scientists than is tensor analysis, Bayesian statistics, or the integral calculus.

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.

Hmm. Interesting question. I think it’s because the scientific hypotheses of Linde , Hawking and Hartle and many other cosmologists posit a self-consistent universe that has no need of an external agent. These hypotheses logically destroy Thomas’ causal argument for the necessary existence of God.

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

Of course, you do realise that I am not arguing for the non-existence of God (which I cannot do) but against the agument that God is logically necessary. We could easily both be right, for example if we agree that God’s existence is not logically necessary, but God exists anyway.

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

Peace,

You’re welcome.
Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

 

[hecd2]

JPrejean:

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.

Dear J

I would caution against conclusions based on delicate metaphysical sensibilities. History is littered with the detritus of metaphysical imperatives which have collapsed under the weight of observations of that hard taskmaster, the observed universe. Even the second best physicist of all time rejected the full conclusions of quantum mechanics: Einstein died in 1955, 26 years before Alain Aspect demonstrated with impressive empirical precision, the predictions of John Bell that QM effects violate his classical inequality, owing to non-local quantum entanglement of states.

Linde’s hypothesis doesn’t scrap internal causality but respectably and plausibly hypothesises stationarity in the universe which self-evidently does not require an external agent.
Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

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.

Dear RMP,

No need to be amazed. It’s true that I have invested a lot in science, but so have many, many others. I do trust good empirical evidence - it seems to me that the plain evidence of our senses about the natural universe takes precedence over revelation and religious belief. As for ‘abstract theories’, well, some are speculative and possible but not ncessarily true, and some are so supported by evidence as to be described as facts.

My answers, ‘possibly’ and ‘sometimes’ are not throwaway answers. They are very carefully thought through. I maintain my views on ‘possibly’ and ‘sometimes’. Do you want to discuss them in detail?

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.

I have been investigating for 40 years.
Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

 

[hecd2]

Matt16_18:

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.

Dear Matt,

Blowing smoke?

Do you have the faintest notion about what the community of mathematicians have and haven’t done? I tell you what - post a reference to a scientific or mathematical paper that shows, claims or even hints that individual radioactive decay events depend on a specific prior event.

That would require you to post a hypothesis for predicting the occasion of an event of radioactive decay - it’s never been done and almost all (all?) professional physicists accept it can’t be done - these events are truly random and formally uncaused.

Do you have evidence that you can post to the contrary?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

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.”

1. 
   Dear Vincent,
   1. is a logical dog’s breakfast. It doesn’t describe a necessary condition. The notion of an external agent for the continued existence of the universe is logically even less necessary (if that is possible) than the notion of an external agent as the primary uncaused cause. It sounds fine, but you’ll find it impossible to find logical or empirical evidence to support it.
   Alec
   homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

 

[RMP]

I have a question that may relate to chaos theory. You have rejected Thomas idea of GOD being neccessary, but does this exclude him in the possibility of effecting the universe, for instance chance occurrence, miracles?

 

[Ken]

Hecd2,

You have mentioned particles generating in a vacuum. Do we also see particles disappearing in a vacuum? Degenerating?

 

[hecd2]

RMP:

I have a question that may relate to chaos theory. You have rejected Thomas idea of GOD being neccessary, but does this exclude him in the possibility of effecting the universe, for instance chance occurrence, miracles?

Dear RMP,

No it doesn’t exclude Him. I think that it is impossible for any scientific theory, hypothesis or method to exclude God or special miracles from the universe.

My contention is that modern concepts of physics refute Thomas’s argument of the uncaused cause for God as a necessary agent; but they do not refute the possibility of God’s existence (and I believe there is a strong argument that no scientific argumants can ever refute the possibility of God’s existence; it is, I think, logically impossible to *prove *that God doesn’t exist.)

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

I find it very interesting that only one ‘loving’ Catholic on this message board has contributed to the good cause of helping the homeless victims of Hurricane Ivan in Grenada.

 

[hecd2]

Ken:

Hecd2,

You have mentioned particles generating in a vacuum. Do we also see particles disappearing in a vacuum? Degenerating?

Dear Ken,

Most virtual particle pairs that are spontaneously generated from the vacuum self annihilate and return to the vacuum scalar field. Any contact between particles and anti-particles for any reason result in annihilation with the release of photons. Does this help?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[JPrejean]

I would caution against conclusions based on delicate metaphysical sensibilities. History is littered with the detritus of metaphysical imperatives which have collapsed under the weight of observations of that hard taskmaster, the observed universe. Even the second best physicist of all time rejected the full conclusions of quantum mechanics: Einstein died in 1955, 26 years before Alain Aspect demonstrated with impressive empirical precision, the predictions of John Bell that QM effects violate his classical inequality, owing to non-local quantum entanglement of states.

I think you may have something a bit loftier in mind than I was suggesting, or at least, your choice of language seems to imply that you do (littered with the detritus of metaphysical imperatives? hard taskmaster? good thing we’re not critiquing prose instead of philosophy! ). Quantum mechanics was my favorite class in both my undergrad and graduate physics program. I’m not squeamish about abandoning determinism, and you’ll never hear me saying “God does not play dice with the universe” (He doesn’t, but that has nothing to do with probablism). If anything, I’m more suspicious of the Many Worlds guys for trying to cling to some kind of pseudo-deterministic model (I was always partial to the Copenhagen interpretation myself). But that wasn’t really what I was talking about.

The entire notion of philosophical inquiry is premised on some notion that meaning is discoverable by human reason, much like science is premised on the notion of continuity in physical laws. What you’re suggesting reminds me a bit of creation “scientists” trying to invoke catastrophism to explain why the Earth is only 6000 years old. Can I conclusively disprove it? No. Am I going to spend any amount of time worrying about whether it’s true? No. In essence, if catastrophism is true at X time, then this whole notion of observational inquiry into X time is useless. In a very real sense, then, I don’t care whether it’s true or not, because if it is true, I am left completely ungrounded in the application of reason to experience to answer questions. Sure I can acknowledge the theoretical possibility that it might be true, just like I can acknowledge the theoretical possibility of skepticism about my own senses or of solipsism, but it’s essentially trivial in terms of having any bearing on my life or attitude.

It’s the same deal with philosophy. If you posit nihilism, you’ve given up on philosophical discussion. That’s not some picky metaphysical bias on how I think things ought to be; it’s just the plain fact that some presuppositions are inconsistent with some forms of inquiry. And my point is that what you are suggesting, even if true, would cut the legs out from under metaphysics just as surely as catastrophism would undermine physics. It’s like being solipsistic or skeptical of your own senses or even your own existence. Consequently, I don’t see your position as particularly affecting St. Thomas’s argument, because it requires presuppositions that you’d have to reject to consider St. Thomas’s argument in the first place.

 

[theMutant]

hecd2:

Hmm. Interesting question. I think it’s because the scientific hypotheses of Linde , Hawking and Hartle and many other cosmologists posit a self-consistent universe that has no need of an external agent. These hypotheses logically destroy Thomas’ causal argument for the necessary existence of God.

I could only agree with this conclusion if their hypotheses were based on the same understanding of the relavent terms that are necessary to be discussing Thomas’s argument. By your own admission, they were not so based.

My point is this. If, in the lexicon of modern science, the phrase “temporally infinite” is not an oxymoron, then it is obvious that scientists mean something completely different by time (temporal), infinity, or possibly both than Thomas did. They have not simply gained a greater understanding, they are actually talking about something completely different. Likewise with cause.

You admitted as much in post #26 where you stated

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.

If it is true that you cannot judge theoretical physics by applying lay terms then it is also true that theoretical physics cannot disprove Thomas’s argument by applying its own terms to his argument because his argument was not based on the definitions used by modern theoretical physics, but on those which form the basis of the lay understanding and which were the basis of my debate with you.

You will really do need to understand this. If theoretical scientists, when they talk about “cause,” mean something other than what Thomas did when he made is argument about the necessity of the uncaused cause (and you clearly stated that this is the case), then no matter how logical and provable their arguments are in the scientific world, they simply are not discussing the same thing that Thomas was and, therefore, their conclusions do not apply to his argument. This inability to use definitions across fields works both ways. In looking back, it appears that this misunderstanding formed the basis of the beginning of this very thread.

Brown10985:

Is Aquinas’ uncaused cause argument for God’s existence really all that great? I mean, why couldn’t we have been created from another universe that isn’t limited by the physical laws that we have?

Just as Brown10985 appears not to have understood that Thomas’s argument is not based on the same definitions that he seems to have been applying against that argument, those of us arguing to defend Thomas’s argument have done so not realizing that we were using the same words but still not talking the same language and, therefore, not actually discussing the same thing.

Additionally, you will find that most of those who participate in this forum will be working from the Thomistic definition of such terms regardless of whether or not they are particularly familiar with his Summa. Therefore if you jump into a debate that uses these words you have listed, you will likely be discussing something different than they intend. Those of us who use the Thomistic understanding of these terms should also keep this fact in mind before we jump into such a debate in the future. This basic misunderstanding was also the basis for my statement that I weep for the state of modern science.

After all, debate requires communication and communication is not possible without a common understanding of terms.

 

[theMutant]

To conclude, I would like to apologize for the level of sarcasm I displayed in post #27. I had not yet reflected sufficiently on the full implication of what you wrote in #26.

 

[Bill_Rutland]

By definition, God is that of which nothing greater can be conceived. Therefore if God were created by something or someone else, or if there was a time when He did not exist, He would no longer be God. Therefore the whole concept of God necessitates the concept of the uncaused cause.

PAX CHRISTI

Bill

 

[hecd2]

JPrejean:

I think you may have something a bit loftier in mind than I was suggesting, or at least, your choice of language seems to imply that you do (littered with the detritus of metaphysical imperatives? hard taskmaster? good thing we’re not critiquing prose instead of philosophy! ).

Tee -hee - it did come out a bit chewy

Quantum mechanics was my favorite class in both my undergrad and graduate physics program. I’m not squeamish about abandoning determinism, and you’ll never hear me saying “God does not play dice with the universe” (He doesn’t, but that has nothing to do with probablism). If anything, I’m more suspicious of the Many Worlds guys for trying to cling to some kind of pseudo-deterministic model (I was always partial to the Copenhagen interpretation myself). But that wasn’t really what I was talking about.

The entire notion of philosophical inquiry is premised on some notion that meaning is discoverable by human reason, much like science is premised on the notion of continuity in physical laws. What you’re suggesting reminds me a bit of creation “scientists” trying to invoke catastrophism to explain why the Earth is only 6000 years old. Can I conclusively disprove it? No. Am I going to spend any amount of time worrying about whether it’s true? No. In essence, if catastrophism is true at X time, then this whole notion of observational inquiry into X time is useless. In a very real sense, then, I don’t care whether it’s true or not, because if it is true, I am left completely ungrounded in the application of reason to experience to answer questions. Sure I can acknowledge the theoretical possibility that it might be true, just like I can acknowledge the theoretical possibility of skepticism about my own senses or of solipsism, but it’s essentially trivial in terms of having any bearing on my life or attitude.

It’s the same deal with philosophy. If you posit nihilism, you’ve given up on philosophical discussion. That’s not some picky metaphysical bias on how I think things ought to be; it’s just the plain fact that some presuppositions are inconsistent with some forms of inquiry. And my point is that what you are suggesting, even if true, would cut the legs out from under metaphysics just as surely as catastrophism would undermine physics. It’s like being solipsistic or skeptical of your own senses or even your own existence. Consequently, I don’t see your position as particularly affecting St. Thomas’s argument, because it requires presuppositions that you’d have to reject to consider St. Thomas’s argument in the first place.

Let’s think about this. I am not advocating nihilism. All I have said is that modern cosmologies and QM undermine the logical argument from causation. Linde’s isn’t the first. Nor is the Hartle-Hawking one or the Hoyle, Bondi and Gold steady state one.

None of these things disprove a theistic metaphysics - they just refute the argument FOR god from the uncaused cause.

But actually, in one important sense we differ, in that I am very dubious about the lasting value of attempting to uncover truth by pure logic.

Alec

 

[Ken]

I agree that terminology is important, and Thomas may have had definitions that differ from modern science’s definitions. But I’d think one could consider Thomas’ concepts about causation in the context of modern scentific discoveries.

 

[theMutant]

Ken:

I agree that terminology is important, and Thomas may have had definitions that differ from modern science’s definitions. But I’d think one could consider Thomas’ concepts about causation in the context of modern scentific discoveries.

Yes, that would be good to do, but how can it be done when the terms used to explain Thomas’s concepts mean entirely different things in the context of modern scientific theory? Let’s take it back to the topic of the thread; the uncaused cause. For Thomas, this wasn’t simply a concept, it is one of the defining characteristics of God. However, as has been revealed in the debate, modern science means something different by the term “cause” than Thomas. Therefore, we cannot relate the scientific theories of causation to Thomas’s argument because, even though both are talking about “cause,” they are actually discussing entirely different concepts. This was the basis of my conclusion. If I didn’t make that clear, I apologize.

 

[Ken]

theMutant:

Yes, that would be good to do, but how can it be done when the terms used to explain Thomas’s concepts mean entirely different things in the context of modern scientific theory? Let’s take it back to the topic of the thread; the uncaused cause. For Thomas, this wasn’t simply a concept, it is one of the defining characteristics of God. However, as has been revealed in the debate, modern science means something different by the term “cause” than Thomas. Therefore, we cannot relate the scientific theories of causation to Thomas’s argument because, even though both are talking about “cause,” they are actually discussing entirely different concepts. This was the basis of my conclusion. If I didn’t make that clear, I apologize.

I think you were clear, but I don’t think it is clear that Thomas’ concepts and modern science’s concepts cannot be compared and contrasted. We should be able to take the phenomena observed by modern science and see if they confirm or refute what Thomas had to say.

I’d suggest that Thomas deserves the respect of an honest examination in the context of modern scientific knowledge. I think he would agree. If it is not possible to compare Thomas and modern science, that should be a conclsuion we arrive at after making a good faith attempt - not before. And as science advances and expands its knowledge, we should try again.

If Thomas was wrong about some things - so be it. If he was right, and he stands up in the context of modern science, we should know that, too. I think he’d jump at the opportunity.

 

[FelixBlue]

Doesn’t one have to solve the grave philosophical problem of solipsism before one can come to understand this concept of the “uncaused cause”. After all, the uncaused cause is merely a sign, a word, an abstraction pointing to a possible reality…but as it stands, it is only an idea. Thus, the idea, or abstraction, comes before the reality…at best. Thus, the “uncaused cause” as sign is caused by the conceived sign. You end up with the thinker who thinks the thought and speaks the word. You have to ultimately deal with the question of radical subjectivity before you can move on to this question which assumes objectivity.

 

[bengeorge]

I have heard of the argument that because two particles can form spontaniously from a vacuum, that implies that causation doesn’t hold. As far as I can tell, this is the argument Alec is using. Forgive me if I’ve misinterpreted.

I’m not a scientist, but that idea (of small particles forming spontaniously in space and then annihilating) doesn’t really seem to lead to the idea of an entire universe forming from nothing, lasting for billions of years, and creating an contemplative species that can contemplate its own contemplations.

It seems like me saying that a written description of a tiger (the rules) somehow manifests that tiger (the actual universe)

Also, it is the rules of this universe that allow such spontanious formation, so, where did the rules come from?

And if you posit a infinitely unfolding multiverse, how is that any more credible than God?

It seems to me that most people make a decision with their hearts, and then use science and pseudoscience to back up their emotional decision.

But then again…if we live in a purely material universe… why do we even HAVE such strong emotional reactions to the question of God/No-god? Why imagine beauty in anything that is not a food substance, an offspring, or a potential sexual partner? Why have ANY emotional reactions that go beyond the immediate physical needs of food, sex, tribal unity?
ben

 

[Ken]

bengeorge:

I have heard of the argument that because two particles can form spontaniously from a vacuum, that implies that causation doesn’t hold. As far as I can tell, this is the argument Alec is using. Forgive me if I’ve misinterpreted.

I’m not a scientist, but that idea (of small particles forming spontaniously in space and then annihilating) doesn’t really seem to lead to the idea of an entire universe forming from nothing, lasting for billions of years, and creating an contemplative species that can contemplate its own contemplations.

It seems like me saying that a written description of a tiger (the rules) somehow manifests that tiger (the actual universe)

Also, it is the rules of this universe that allow such spontanious formation, so, where did the rules come from?

And if you posit a infinitely unfolding multiverse, how is that any more credible than God?

It seems to me that most people make a decision with their hearts, and then use science and pseudoscience to back up their emotional decision.

But then again…if we live in a purely material universe… why do we even HAVE such strong emotional reactions to the question of God/No-god? Why imagine beauty in anything that is not a food substance, an offspring, or a potential sexual partner? Why have ANY emotional reactions that go beyond the immediate physical needs of food, sex, tribal unity?
ben

I don’t know why. Do we need a reason?