The Causation Argument

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Is there any difference between cause and effect at the quantum level?

I'm not following, not sure what you're after. I'll try to think of an example anyway, which may either answer your question or allow you to rephrase it.

Suppose a photon hits an electron, knocking it up to a higher orbit. The impact of the photon is the cause; moving to a higher shell is the effect.

But nothing caused the photon to hit that particular electron, so the hitting of that particular electron is not an effect.

I don't know if that's the answer you're looking for.

It just seems to me that in a sea of virtual particles if behavior is completely random then cause and effect would be a meaningless concept. Yes, I as the observer can have an influence on the system but I can't be part of the system so what I view as cause and effect is only for my own edification.

 

[Jarhyn]

Is there any difference between cause and effect at the quantum level?

I'm not following, not sure what you're after. I'll try to think of an example anyway, which may either answer your question or allow you to rephrase it.

Suppose a photon hits an electron, knocking it up to a higher orbit. The impact of the photon is the cause; moving to a higher shell is the effect.

But nothing caused the photon to hit that particular electron, so the hitting of that particular electron is not an effect.

I don't know if that's the answer you're looking for.

It just seems to me that in a sea of virtual particles if behavior is completely random then cause and effect would be a meaningless concept. Yes, I as the observer can have an influence on the system but I can't be part of the system so what I view as cause and effect is only for my own edification.

Not completely meaningless. More, some events have a probability of happening but whether they happen or not is not causally explainable. That a photon strikes an electron is likely inevitable, but why it struck whichever one it did strike is not explainable in terms of cause. I'm pretty sure even the photon itself was everywhere in the universe (and nowhere in the universe), including perhaps clear on the other side of the universe, until it had to be somewhere and that "somewhere" happened to be here.

I honestly don't think it's particularly healthy to think very long about such things.

My point I guess is that it's an example that some unobservable things (such as what happened "before" time, from the perspective of hypertime) very much are indeterminate and inconsequential.

I think a far more compelling argument as to whether there is a god (though a certainly off-topic one) is actually that turd staining the white house brown orange. The sheer weight of biblical prophecy being fulfilled there shakes my faith in the noninvasiveness of the divine more and more every day.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It just seems to me that in a sea of virtual particles if behavior is completely random then cause and effect would be a meaningless concept. Yes, I as the observer can have an influence on the system but I can't be part of the system so what I view as cause and effect is only for my own edification.

Not completely meaningless. More, some events have a probability of happening but whether they happen or not is not causally explainable. That a photon strikes an electron is likely inevitable, but why it struck whichever one it did strike is not explainable in terms of cause. I'm pretty sure even the photon itself was everywhere in the universe (and nowhere in the universe), including perhaps clear on the other side of the universe, until it had to be somewhere and that "somewhere" happened to be here.

I honestly don't think it's particularly healthy to think very long about such things.

My point I guess is that it's an example that some unobservable things (such as what happened "before" time, from the perspective of hypertime) very much are indeterminate and inconsequential.

I think a far more compelling argument as to whether there is a god (though a certainly off-topic one) is actually that turd staining the white house brown orange. The sheer weight of biblical prophecy being fulfilled there shakes my faith in the noninvasiveness of the divine more and more every day.

Thanks for the explanation.

People with gods will likely say that in some ultimate sense that photon is directed, same as the tumbling of every sand grain and the footfall of every ant. I know that's just their magic talking so I understand their position.

Considering the number of elementary particles in the universe and the number of interactions it's certainly impossible - perhaps except in an emotional oooh aaaah sense - to appreciate the unimportance of gods and magical thinking. The universe and its intricacies is mind-boggling enough. Adding supercreatures to the equation which are claimed to be exponentially more complex is hardly necessary. And it's impossible to quantify these alleged supercreatures so its nice and convenient to make such a claim. For some people there's a basic need to worship something and to subjugate oneself so I think that's what we are seeing.

In the end I think god people can't appreciate the universe for what it is because they don't know what it is. Therefore they need something much more simple to comprehend, namely magic. It's what we all started out with and unless I have the elemental faculties and the curiosity to get beyond these basic, limbic-system inclinations I'm going to stay with what works. Magic worked and gods are just more magic.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ3bPUKo5zc[/YOUTUBE]

A great video to start with, for idiots like myself.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Quantum Jesus

After watching the vid it’s pretty obvious that electron jesus is either hard or soft, black or white, never grey or mushy, never takes either path, never takes both paths, never takes no path. Electron jesus is superposition jesus, quantum jesus, beyond out intuition to comprehend and understand. The gospels are clearly the first quantum works ever written.

 

[DBT]

There are something like ten different interpretations of QM, some probabilistic, some deterministic....and what constitutes an 'observer' is not clearly defined. Apparently Superposition may hard to maintain in a lab because something like the vibrations from a passing truck on the highway may cause the state to collapse.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

There are something like ten different interpretations of QM, some probabilistic, some deterministic....and what constitutes an 'observer' is not clearly defined. Apparently Superposition may hard to maintain in a lab because something like the vibrations from a passing truck on the highway may cause the state to collapse.

It's an extremely interesting subject. We really don't understand what is happening. We're making measurements and conducting experiments but it's like we're measuring shadows.

 

[Jarhyn]

There are something like ten different interpretations of QM, some probabilistic, some deterministic....and what constitutes an 'observer' is not clearly defined. Apparently Superposition may hard to maintain in a lab because something like the vibrations from a passing truck on the highway may cause the state to collapse.

An observation is an interaction event that requires a determination. It's actually QUITE clearly defined.

As a probability wave passes through space, there is a probability of interactions. When interactions DO happen, that "everywhere and nowhere" is, for a moment, "there". Observer effects are, essentially, the effect of using an interaction to probe the wave.

It is everywhere and nowhere, until it interacts somewhere. Of course after the interaction, it cannot continue to be in all the places it couldn't possibly be after it was isolated as having been there.

Superposition collapses in a lab when a truck passes by because it creates particle spam which can trigger interactions.

 

[DBT]

There are something like ten different interpretations of QM, some probabilistic, some deterministic....and what constitutes an 'observer' is not clearly defined. Apparently Superposition may hard to maintain in a lab because something like the vibrations from a passing truck on the highway may cause the state to collapse.

An observation is an interaction event that requires a determination. It's actually QUITE clearly defined.

That's not what I meant. I was referring to so called 'wave collapse' and the many interpretations related to that...Copenhagen, Many Worlds, Bohmian, Transactional Interpretation, 'shut up and calculate,' etc, etc... .



What is the ultimate nature of reality?

''Are quantum effects constantly carving us into innumerable copies, each copy inhabiting a different version of the universe? Or do all those other worlds pop out of existence as mere might-have-beens? Do our particles surf on quantum waves? Or are we ultimately made of the quantum waves alone? Or do the waves merely represent how much information we could possess about the state of the world? And if the waves are just a kind of information, information about what? Or is the information all that there is—and all that we are?''

 

[Jarhyn]

There are something like ten different interpretations of QM, some probabilistic, some deterministic....and what constitutes an 'observer' is not clearly defined. Apparently Superposition may hard to maintain in a lab because something like the vibrations from a passing truck on the highway may cause the state to collapse.

An observation is an interaction event that requires a determination. It's actually QUITE clearly defined.

That's not what I meant. I was referring to so called 'wave collapse' and the many interpretations related to that...Copenhagen, Many Worlds, Bohmian, Transactional Interpretation, 'shut up and calculate,' etc, etc... .



What is the ultimate nature of reality?

''Are quantum effects constantly carving us into innumerable copies, each copy inhabiting a different version of the universe? Or do all those other worlds pop out of existence as mere might-have-beens? Do our particles surf on quantum waves? Or are we ultimately made of the quantum waves alone? Or do the waves merely represent how much information we could possess about the state of the world? And if the waves are just a kind of information, information about what? Or is the information all that there is—and all that we are?''

Who is to say wave collapse does not actually follow that same pattern in it's very nature: the wave determining the wave collapse function may itself function as a wave that is uncollapsed. It is indeterminate and anything that does cause the behavior of the universe in fact may.

It doesn't matter from the perspective of my computer's appearing system whether it is running on bare metal or in a virtual machine. From the perspective of a java application or doesn't matter if it is running on a Linux or windows operating system. It is not a part of the context of the machine.

We have real examples of shit acting as not-determined. It behaves as a continuous probability wave, in reality. So why wouldn't the universe's own cause operate similarly?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

That's not what I meant. I was referring to so called 'wave collapse' and the many interpretations related to that...Copenhagen, Many Worlds, Bohmian, Transactional Interpretation, 'shut up and calculate,' etc, etc... .



What is the ultimate nature of reality?

''Are quantum effects constantly carving us into innumerable copies, each copy inhabiting a different version of the universe? Or do all those other worlds pop out of existence as mere might-have-beens? Do our particles surf on quantum waves? Or are we ultimately made of the quantum waves alone? Or do the waves merely represent how much information we could possess about the state of the world? And if the waves are just a kind of information, information about what? Or is the information all that there is—and all that we are?''

Who is to say wave collapse does not actually follow that same pattern in it's very nature: the wave determining the wave collapse function may itself function as a wave that is uncollapsed. It is indeterminate and anything that does cause the behavior of the universe in fact may.

It seems that our universe - whatever it is - is just one great big wave function. How else does one explain that 'spooky action at distance?'

The latest experiments that collected light from distant quasars on the Canary Islands actually implies that these variables are predetermined. That's pretty mind-blowing. Of course I don't think there is a mysterious woo creature making it all happen. But it does invite the question of whether there is an intelligence that creates universes at its whim. Only to a bona fide cretan would this imply that we should adopt the worship mode. But human emotion being what it is there are certainly members of our species that are operating on their basic limbic functions. As Hawking stated, intelligence has certainly not yet been selected for. The process is ongoing based on environmental pressures wrt survival.

 

[Jarhyn]

That's not what I meant. I was referring to so called 'wave collapse' and the many interpretations related to that...Copenhagen, Many Worlds, Bohmian, Transactional Interpretation, 'shut up and calculate,' etc, etc... .



What is the ultimate nature of reality?

''Are quantum effects constantly carving us into innumerable copies, each copy inhabiting a different version of the universe? Or do all those other worlds pop out of existence as mere might-have-beens? Do our particles surf on quantum waves? Or are we ultimately made of the quantum waves alone? Or do the waves merely represent how much information we could possess about the state of the world? And if the waves are just a kind of information, information about what? Or is the information all that there is—and all that we are?''

Who is to say wave collapse does not actually follow that same pattern in it's very nature: the wave determining the wave collapse function may itself function as a wave that is uncollapsed. It is indeterminate and anything that does cause the behavior of the universe in fact may.

It seems that our universe - whatever it is - is just one great big wave function. How else does one explain that 'spooky action at distance?'

The latest experiments that collected light from distant quasars on the Canary Islands actually implies that these variables are predetermined. That's pretty mind-blowing. Of course I don't think there is a mysterious woo creature making it all happen. But it does invite the question of whether there is an intelligence that creates universes at its whim. Only to a bona fide cretan would this imply that we should adopt the worship mode. But human emotion being what it is there are certainly members of our species that are operating on their basic limbic functions. As Hawking stated, intelligence has certainly not yet been selected for. The process is ongoing based on environmental pressures wrt survival.

At a certain point, intelligence and the evolutionary game theory that it forces into emergence (that death is unnecessary in the face of continued doubt and investigation) begins to suffer from interference by the darwinian paradigm and the expectations that creates (survive long enough to reproduce successfully, prevent success of competitors, and then die; selfishness).

Intelligence will be selected for up to a point. Then there is a massive hill of selection against increasing intelligence before reaching the lower equilibrium point of intelligence being selected for again, not by darwinian mechanisms but by modification by intent. Getting over that selective hump that is darwinism's last gasp is going to take a lot of effort.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It seems that our universe - whatever it is - is just one great big wave function. How else does one explain that 'spooky action at distance?'

The latest experiments that collected light from distant quasars on the Canary Islands actually implies that these variables are predetermined. That's pretty mind-blowing. Of course I don't think there is a mysterious woo creature making it all happen. But it does invite the question of whether there is an intelligence that creates universes at its whim. Only to a bona fide cretan would this imply that we should adopt the worship mode. But human emotion being what it is there are certainly members of our species that are operating on their basic limbic functions. As Hawking stated, intelligence has certainly not yet been selected for. The process is ongoing based on environmental pressures wrt survival.

At a certain point, intelligence and the evolutionary game theory that it forces into emergence (that death is unnecessary in the face of continued doubt and investigation) begins to suffer from interference by the darwinian paradigm and the expectations that creates (survive long enough to reproduce successfully, prevent success of competitors, and then die; selfishness).

Intelligence will be selected for up to a point. Then there is a massive hill of selection against increasing intelligence before reaching the lower equilibrium point of intelligence being selected for again, not by darwinian mechanisms but by modification by intent. Getting over that selective hump that is darwinism's last gasp is going to take a lot of effort.

KCA is an argument for supernatural (artificial) selection. In the end there is no such animal. Humanity is 100% natural. What we do to affect outcomes is natural because nothing unnatural exists.

Maybe someone wants to attempt to argue how the KCA is natural. Good luck on that one because the KCA is 100% woo.

 

[Jarhyn]

It seems that our universe - whatever it is - is just one great big wave function. How else does one explain that 'spooky action at distance?'

The latest experiments that collected light from distant quasars on the Canary Islands actually implies that these variables are predetermined. That's pretty mind-blowing. Of course I don't think there is a mysterious woo creature making it all happen. But it does invite the question of whether there is an intelligence that creates universes at its whim. Only to a bona fide cretan would this imply that we should adopt the worship mode. But human emotion being what it is there are certainly members of our species that are operating on their basic limbic functions. As Hawking stated, intelligence has certainly not yet been selected for. The process is ongoing based on environmental pressures wrt survival.

At a certain point, intelligence and the evolutionary game theory that it forces into emergence (that death is unnecessary in the face of continued doubt and investigation) begins to suffer from interference by the darwinian paradigm and the expectations that creates (survive long enough to reproduce successfully, prevent success of competitors, and then die; selfishness).

Intelligence will be selected for up to a point. Then there is a massive hill of selection against increasing intelligence before reaching the lower equilibrium point of intelligence being selected for again, not by darwinian mechanisms but by modification by intent. Getting over that selective hump that is darwinism's last gasp is going to take a lot of effort.

KCA is an argument for supernatural (artificial) selection. In the end there is no such animal. Humanity is 100% natural. What we do to affect outcomes is natural because nothing unnatural exists.

Maybe someone wants to attempt to argue how the KCA is natural. Good luck on that one because the KCA is 100% woo.

I never invoked the KCA, so I am not sure why you are quoting me. In fact I argue that ethics are an observable result of the mere shape of what the universe is in the presence of a group of beings similar to us (intelligent, capable of communication, capable of self doubt).

Lamarckian-adjacenr evolutionary strategy is as real as darwinian mechanisms. The only intent that can be pointed to as real is the intent we have for ourselves, because it is observable.

As to what intent could possibly exist for the universe... Well, I suppose if there is intent in the creation of the universe, well, it would have to be inte t to produce a universe that contains nature which pushes such strategies into emergence, first darwinism, then eventually neo-lamarckian patterns.

 

[DBT]

That's not what I meant. I was referring to so called 'wave collapse' and the many interpretations related to that...Copenhagen, Many Worlds, Bohmian, Transactional Interpretation, 'shut up and calculate,' etc, etc... .



What is the ultimate nature of reality?

''Are quantum effects constantly carving us into innumerable copies, each copy inhabiting a different version of the universe? Or do all those other worlds pop out of existence as mere might-have-beens? Do our particles surf on quantum waves? Or are we ultimately made of the quantum waves alone? Or do the waves merely represent how much information we could possess about the state of the world? And if the waves are just a kind of information, information about what? Or is the information all that there is—and all that we are?''

Who is to say wave collapse does not actually follow that same pattern in it's very nature: the wave determining the wave collapse function may itself function as a wave that is uncollapsed. It is indeterminate and anything that does cause the behavior of the universe in fact may.

It doesn't matter from the perspective of my computer's appearing system whether it is running on bare metal or in a virtual machine. From the perspective of a java application or doesn't matter if it is running on a Linux or windows operating system. It is not a part of the context of the machine.

We have real examples of shit acting as not-determined. It behaves as a continuous probability wave, in reality. So why wouldn't the universe's own cause operate similarly?

We have interpretations that don't involve wave collapse, some where every possible state is realized in an alternate reality, while others postulate pilot wave function for both probabilistic and deterministic models;

Riding Waves

''The idea that pilot waves might explain the peculiarities of particles dates back to the early days of quantum mechanics. The French physicist Louis de Broglie presented the earliest version of pilot-wave theory at the 1927 Solvay Conference in Brussels, a famous gathering of the founders of the field. As de Broglie explained that day to Bohr, Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg and two dozen other celebrated physicists, pilot-wave theory made all the same predictions as the probabilistic formulation of quantum mechanics (which wouldn’t be referred to as the “Copenhagen” interpretation until the 1950s), but without the ghostliness or mysterious collapse.''

''For example, consider the double-slit experiment. In de Broglie’s pilot-wave picture, each electron passes through just one of the two slits, but is influenced by a pilot wave that splits and travels through both slits. Like flotsam in a current, the particle is drawn to the places where the two wavefronts cooperate, and does not go where they cancel out.''

 

[TomC]

Correct me if I am wrong, but god created the universe did he, she, or it not?

You invoke god as creator without considering the op question, which as always you sidestep.. You have to believe god always was and will be. God can not die or run out of energy, can god? A yes/no question.

It's groundhog day. We're discussing a past-eternal universe again.

The only way to defeat the First Cause argument is to argue that the universe either did not come into existence or that it popped into existence spontaneously, inexplicably - unexpectedly.

I got bored less than half way through this thread. So I might well be repeating someone.

The problem with First Cause, or KCA, is simple. It contains no information.
Simply asserting that "The reason the universe exists, rather than not, is God" is unassailable. But it doesn't have any meaning. It doesn't tell you anything about the universe, God, or even existence. It's more of a semantic conjuring trick. Abrahamic religionists commonly switch from the undefined term God to their own personal god image as though it's intuitively obvious. But it isn't. KCA doesn't even support God's current existence, only that God existed at the beginning of the material universe(~14B years ago). A lot can happen in 14B years. KCA certainly doesn't support the premise that primitive people, thousands of years ago, knew more about God and reality than modern people do.

Ascribing characteristics to God, like sentience and will and plans and morals, just isn't there. That's all totally subjective, unsupported, opinions about a fictional character from some ancient writings. A character clearly modeled on the strongest sort of king people could imagine back in the day. Which changed as humans became more sophisticated, morphing from Genesis god to Exodus god to NT god and on.

First Cause isn't an argument for anything important concerning religious beliefs. It doesn't need to be defeated.
Tom

 

[bilby]

If we define the universe as "everything that exists", then the only thing that we can logically infer about a god that is not a part of the universe, is that that god doesn't exist.

Of course, if a god is a part of the universe, then we are left with either a universe that is past eternal, or one that spontaneously begins from nothing. In which case, what is the point of the god? Certainly it's not necessary for the existence of anything.

If god is past eternal, then so could be a godless universe.

If god can spontaneously exist from nothing, then so could a godless universe.

And if god isn't a part of the universe (and thereby is not bound by that logic), then god is by definition nonexistent.

 

[Lion IRC]

Correct me if I am wrong, but god created the universe did he, she, or it not?

You invoke god as creator without considering the op question, which as always you sidestep.. You have to believe god always was and will be. God can not die or run out of energy, can god? A yes/no question.

It's groundhog day. We're discussing a past-eternal universe again.

The only way to defeat the First Cause argument is to argue that the universe either did not come into existence or that it popped into existence spontaneously, inexplicably - unexpectedly.

I got bored less than half way through this thread.

So far, the posts by atheists outnumber posts by theists.

So I might well be repeating someone.

Repetition is the hallmark of a past-eternal universe.

The problem with First Cause, or KCA, is simple. It contains no information.

The 'problem' is simple. LOL
Syllogisms contain premisses and conclusions.
Socrates is a man. (That's information.)
All men are mortal. (That's information.)

Simply asserting that "The reason the universe exists, rather than not, is God" is unassailable.

I agree.

But it doesn't have any meaning.

The difference between a deliberately caused/designed universe and an uncaused universe is a subject which has weighed on the minds of human beings for millennia. Ever heard of Brian Cox? Neil deGrasse Tyson? Victor Stenger? Lawrence Krause? This is not a trivial notion.

It doesn't tell you anything about the universe, God, or even existence. It's more of a semantic conjuring trick.

It tells you that if a thing 'begins' then it is more reasonable than not to think that event was caused.
The negation of the KCA entails premisses which are LESS plausible than those being contested.

Abrahamic religionists commonly switch from the undefined term God to their own personal god image as though it's intuitively obvious.

Nope. They don't.
The folks who have most difficulty defining God are atheists.
...which is ironic because atheists ought to know what it is they disbelieve.

KCA doesn't even support God's current existence, only that God existed at the beginning of the material universe(~14B years ago).

How can the KCA support God's existence 14B years ago but not now?
God has died has He?

A lot can happen in 14B years.

LOL

KCA certainly doesn't support the premise that primitive people, thousands of years ago, knew more about God and reality than modern people do.

The discovery of cosmic background radiation is a MODERN discovery.
The Big Bang is a modern discovery.
The word "singularity" is modern secular cosmology.

Ascribing characteristics to God, like sentience and will and plans and morals, just isn't there.

The KCA doesn't attempt to address these.

First Cause isnt an argument for anything important concerning religious beliefs. It doesn't need to be defeated.

Feel free to skip KCA threads if you think so.

 

[Lion IRC]

If we define the universe as "everything that exists"...

Who is "we"?

The KCA is an argument based on the assertion that a thing which had NOT previously existed was caused by a force which DOES exist.

/me waves goodbye to the strawman.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If god can spontaneously exist from nothing, then so could a godless universe.

That's where religious folk think they have us by the balls. They think they have us by the balls because they have religion on their side and religious magic always trumps scientific reality. Ask just about any four-year-old and they'll tell you all about their magic creatures.