[quote]forlife wrote:
Math is language, nothing more.
It’s a trick question. I represented my high school in a math competition, where we had to be interviewed by a panel of university math professors. They asked me if math was discovered or created. I answered that math was discovered.
I was wrong.[/quote]
Math is language? What does it communicate?
How do you create something that already exists?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
All the laws by which the universe functions are based on math. If it were not everything would be random.
Now I want you to address my entire points. Not skip the hard questions and reask me questions. I am waiting for you to answer one.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, thanks for your response. I have a few points, but am trying to prioritize the most important, so will ask this question first:
What if “information” is noncontingent?
You seem to be taking the position that matter and energy are ultimately comprised of information. So what if this information was never created, and is noncontingent?[/quote]
Well we’re starting a slippery slope. If not this, then what about what’s next? We don’t really know shit about ‘information’ except mathematics tells us it’s there, maybe. We don’t know if it’s divisible, or not. But the same simple rules apply, why is it there, where did it come from, and how did it get there?
If the questions are not applicable, how come?[/quote]
Since we don’t know shit about it, except that it can’t be created, doesn’t that give you pause in concluding the cosmological argument must be true? I sure don’t feel knowledgeable enough to draw any conclusions at this point.
On your questions:
Why is it there?
Why are you assuming there has to be a reason it is there? If it wasn’t created, there is no why.
[/quote]
Correct, except we haven’t sufficiently established it wasn’t. We don’t even know if it even exists. Can you establish it exists for no reason other than it’s there? With out more knowledge of it, we can’t know that. That’s the problem with empirical facts. It constantly requires info to establish.
Exactly. We can’t know. We can only speculate, based on what we actually do know. We know that ME can’t be created, and if ME is ultimately comprised of information, it logically follows that information can’t be created either.
My argument is that information is uncaused. As to whether or not it can cause, I don’t know enough to speculate. We do know that ME can cause interactionally, and that ME is uncaused existentially. The same is likely true for information, if in fact ME is comprised of information.
[/quote]
Ok your argument is that information is uncaused, what are the premises? How would that debunk the principal of sufficient reason.[/quote]
The premise is that information cannot be created, based on the fact that ME cannot be created.
We’re talking specifically about Schopenhauer’s principle of sufficient reason of being, as opposed to acting, becoming, or knowing.
That principle is inherently limited in application, because it specifically invokes space and time. It says nothing about objects that were never created, and thus isn’t violated by such objects.
ME (and presumably information) was never created. Thus, it has no requisite reason for being.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, thanks for your response. I have a few points, but am trying to prioritize the most important, so will ask this question first:
What if “information” is noncontingent?
You seem to be taking the position that matter and energy are ultimately comprised of information. So what if this information was never created, and is noncontingent?[/quote]
Well we’re starting a slippery slope. If not this, then what about what’s next? We don’t really know shit about ‘information’ except mathematics tells us it’s there, maybe. We don’t know if it’s divisible, or not. But the same simple rules apply, why is it there, where did it come from, and how did it get there?
If the questions are not applicable, how come?[/quote]
Since we don’t know shit about it, except that it can’t be created, doesn’t that give you pause in concluding the cosmological argument must be true? I sure don’t feel knowledgeable enough to draw any conclusions at this point.
On your questions:
Why is it there?
Why are you assuming there has to be a reason it is there? If it wasn’t created, there is no why.
[/quote]
Correct, except we haven’t sufficiently established it wasn’t. We don’t even know if it even exists. Can you establish it exists for no reason other than it’s there? With out more knowledge of it, we can’t know that. That’s the problem with empirical facts. It constantly requires info to establish.
Exactly. We can’t know. We can only speculate, based on what we actually do know. We know that ME can’t be created, and if ME is ultimately comprised of information, it logically follows that information can’t be created either.
My argument is that information is uncaused. As to whether or not it can cause, I don’t know enough to speculate. We do know that ME can cause interactionally, and that ME is uncaused existentially. The same is likely true for information, if in fact ME is comprised of information.
[/quote]
Ok your argument is that information is uncaused, what are the premises? How would that debunk the principal of sufficient reason.[/quote]
The premise is that information cannot be created, based on the fact that ME cannot be created.
We’re talking specifically about Schopenhauer’s principle of sufficient reason of being, as opposed to acting, becoming, or knowing.
That principle is inherently limited in application, because it specifically invokes space and time. It says nothing about objects that were never created, and thus isn’t violated by such objects.
ME (and presumably information) was never created. Thus, it has no requisite reason for being.[/quote]
What’s creation have to do with contingency?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Math is language, nothing more.
It’s a trick question. I represented my high school in a math competition, where we had to be interviewed by a panel of university math professors. They asked me if math was discovered or created. I answered that math was discovered.
I was wrong.[/quote]
Math is language? What does it communicate?
How do you create something that already exists? [/quote]
Look up Mathematics as Language on Wiki.
Math is nothing more than a description of what we perceive in the universe. If I see four apples, I can quantity those objects with a number, but the number is only a description of what I’m seeing. The number four doesn’t objectively exist. It is a construct we use to quantify what does exist. Identically to calling the apples red.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
All the laws by which the universe functions are based on math. If it were not everything would be random.
Now I want you to address my entire points. Not skip the hard questions and reask me questions. I am waiting for you to answer one.[/quote]Go ahead and while you’re at it what is “math” based on?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, thanks for your response. I have a few points, but am trying to prioritize the most important, so will ask this question first:
What if “information” is noncontingent?
You seem to be taking the position that matter and energy are ultimately comprised of information. So what if this information was never created, and is noncontingent?[/quote]
Well we’re starting a slippery slope. If not this, then what about what’s next? We don’t really know shit about ‘information’ except mathematics tells us it’s there, maybe. We don’t know if it’s divisible, or not. But the same simple rules apply, why is it there, where did it come from, and how did it get there?
If the questions are not applicable, how come?[/quote]
Since we don’t know shit about it, except that it can’t be created, doesn’t that give you pause in concluding the cosmological argument must be true? I sure don’t feel knowledgeable enough to draw any conclusions at this point.
On your questions:
Why is it there?
Why are you assuming there has to be a reason it is there? If it wasn’t created, there is no why.
[/quote]
Correct, except we haven’t sufficiently established it wasn’t. We don’t even know if it even exists. Can you establish it exists for no reason other than it’s there? With out more knowledge of it, we can’t know that. That’s the problem with empirical facts. It constantly requires info to establish.
Exactly. We can’t know. We can only speculate, based on what we actually do know. We know that ME can’t be created, and if ME is ultimately comprised of information, it logically follows that information can’t be created either.
My argument is that information is uncaused. As to whether or not it can cause, I don’t know enough to speculate. We do know that ME can cause interactionally, and that ME is uncaused existentially. The same is likely true for information, if in fact ME is comprised of information.
[/quote]
Ok your argument is that information is uncaused, what are the premises? How would that debunk the principal of sufficient reason.[/quote]
The premise is that information cannot be created, based on the fact that ME cannot be created.
We’re talking specifically about Schopenhauer’s principle of sufficient reason of being, as opposed to acting, becoming, or knowing.
That principle is inherently limited in application, because it specifically invokes space and time. It says nothing about objects that were never created, and thus isn’t violated by such objects.
ME (and presumably information) was never created. Thus, it has no requisite reason for being.[/quote]
What’s creation have to do with contingency?[/quote]
If something wasn’t created, its creation is definitionally noncontingent. A god couldn’t create it, because it can’t be created.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, thanks for your response. I have a few points, but am trying to prioritize the most important, so will ask this question first:
What if “information” is noncontingent?
You seem to be taking the position that matter and energy are ultimately comprised of information. So what if this information was never created, and is noncontingent?[/quote]
Well we’re starting a slippery slope. If not this, then what about what’s next? We don’t really know shit about ‘information’ except mathematics tells us it’s there, maybe. We don’t know if it’s divisible, or not. But the same simple rules apply, why is it there, where did it come from, and how did it get there?
If the questions are not applicable, how come?[/quote]
Since we don’t know shit about it, except that it can’t be created, doesn’t that give you pause in concluding the cosmological argument must be true? I sure don’t feel knowledgeable enough to draw any conclusions at this point.
On your questions:
Why is it there?
Why are you assuming there has to be a reason it is there? If it wasn’t created, there is no why.
[/quote]
Correct, except we haven’t sufficiently established it wasn’t. We don’t even know if it even exists. Can you establish it exists for no reason other than it’s there? With out more knowledge of it, we can’t know that. That’s the problem with empirical facts. It constantly requires info to establish.
Exactly. We can’t know. We can only speculate, based on what we actually do know. We know that ME can’t be created, and if ME is ultimately comprised of information, it logically follows that information can’t be created either.
My argument is that information is uncaused. As to whether or not it can cause, I don’t know enough to speculate. We do know that ME can cause interactionally, and that ME is uncaused existentially. The same is likely true for information, if in fact ME is comprised of information.
[/quote]
Ok your argument is that information is uncaused, what are the premises? How would that debunk the principal of sufficient reason.[/quote]
The premise is that information cannot be created, based on the fact that ME cannot be created.
We’re talking specifically about Schopenhauer’s principle of sufficient reason of being, as opposed to acting, becoming, or knowing.
That principle is inherently limited in application, because it specifically invokes space and time. It says nothing about objects that were never created, and thus isn’t violated by such objects.
ME (and presumably information) was never created. Thus, it has no requisite reason for being.[/quote]
What’s creation have to do with contingency?[/quote]
If something wasn’t created, its creation is definitionally noncontingent. A god couldn’t create it, because it can’t be created.[/quote]
Not true. Technically based on conservation, nothing is created, it only changes. To say that that which is not created is non contingent means that all things are non contingent. Are you arguing that everything that exists is non-contingent?
However, it does not speak to dependency / contingency, nor does it speak to reason. Not knowing something’s contingency is not the same as not having one. Even non-material things have contingencies.
So are you arguing that because you do not know something’s contingencies it must not have one?
This is why it doesn’t work: Say ‘A’ created ‘B’, once ‘B’ is created it doesn’t necessarily mean that ‘B’ needs ‘A’ to exist. It may, or it may not.
Now to say the ‘X’ depends on ‘Y’, if not ‘Y’ then not ‘X’. That’s contingency. There is no reason to believe that ‘information’ is the end of the line with out ‘it’ possessing the particular property that makes it so.
What about ‘information’ makes it non-contingent?
What is the reason ‘information’ exists?
Pat,
Remember that I’m talking about creational contingency, not about interactional contingency. The laws of conservation don’t state that we don’t know if ME was created. They state that ME cannot be created. That means nobody, including a god, could create ME. By definition, it is creationally noncontingent. How could it be otherwise?
I already addressed the reason question earlier. There’s no requirement for something to have a reason to exist if it isn’t bound by time.
[quote]pat wrote:<<< There is no reason to believe that ‘information’ is the end of the line with out ‘it’ possessing the particular property that makes it so. >>>[/quote]There’s no reason to believe it’s not either if Aquinas and his galaxy of Greeks are to be taken as authoritative which both you and forlife most definitely are. In the arena of self existing and authenticating laws of logic they win Pat. Or at least God doesn’t.
EDIT: BTW, when I said go ahead above? I meant ask a question you feel I haven’t answered. I don’t think I was clear.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
And I’ll play your game some more since you like to label shit and “sound smart”. When you answer my direct question challenging you to state your premise clearly, I want you to identify whether that premise is based on a priori knowledge or a posteriori knowledge. When you do this (clearly state your premise and the basis for it) I will respond further.
Or, you can keep talking in circle while avoiding any serious debate or challenge.[/quote]
The premise? Oh yeah, it’s causation. Thought I mentioned that, but if I was remiss, it’s causation.
serious debate? LOL! Is that what this is? Silly me. Continuously throwing extremely bad versions of ‘logic’ at me is not exactely what I’d call serious debate. But keep going…[/quote]
Is this really all there is to you? Seriously? Pull your dress down and answer the question instead of trying to be so cute. Causation. Causation what. STATE your premise. [/quote]
Causation is the premise. Really, how hard is that to figure out? If you can identify one single little tiny thing that exists uncaused then you’ve either found God or you have shredded the argument to smithereens. Entire forests have been laid to waste over the topic. I am only concerned with the base up it, causes necessitate their effects, and sufficient reason, which is just another way to word causation. That’s the fucking premise. You’re the first person I have seen that doesn’t get that.[/quote]
Well, even if you don’t agree, you’re the first person I have seen that dogmatically avoids acknowledging that what you perceive as “caused” is wholly dependent upon your perception of the known universe. We’ve already established that there is a hidden universe; physics and laws that are beyond our perception. I understood your stupid argument the moment you typed it. And I understood the weakness to that argument the moment you typed it. And I understood that forests have been destroyed over the topic. Entire forests have not been laid to waste describing it as fact. So what exactly don’t I get Baby Einstein?[/quote]
That shot strait over your head.
Let’s take a different approach. Explain to me, since we cannot necessarily percieve causal relationships, how they are limited by perception?
This ought to be good.
[/quote]
The only head anything is going over is yours. And you’re distorting the question to serve your attempts at “intellectual” obfuscation. We DO perceive simple causal relationships you stubborn boob! That’s the point - our perception of causation. But our perception of causation may be very different than how the universe actually behaves. If you were a two dimensional character (and apparently you are), a sphere would appear to you as a flat circle. However, the sphere is still there, you just can’t see it and you cannot perceive it - no more than you or I can “perceive” 11 dimensions, if they exist. Just because you perceive “causation” (which your premise is based upon) does not mean it’s the immutable law of the universe. You live and exist among causation. The reason forests have been plundered arguing this PHILOSOPHICAL question is because man cannot perceive anything other than a caused existence. You can no more “perceive” an uncaused existence anymore than you can perceive 11 dimensions or, in the case of the 2 dimensional character, a sphere. It’s a circular endeavor. [/quote]
You have just managed to disprove your own argument. I am literally laughing out loud…WOW!
‘no more than you or I can “perceive” 11 dimensions’ LOL!!! You cannot perceive what was inferred from using mathematics (a form of deductive argument)which is beyond our perception. I am still laughing.
So to paraphrase:
‘You cannot go beyond your perception, see there’s something beyond our perception can you imagine it!’
Holy crap dude. When trying to prove we our bound by our perception, it’s probably best not to use an example of something beyond our perception.
You can ignore my previous post, you did all the work for me.
Hey if you wanna keep hanging yourself, I keep giving you the rope.[/quote]
You’re butchering my point and talking in circles. You’re also talking in circles.
Can you perceive the 11 dimensions that some say might exist? The answer is no. You cannot perceive 11 dimensions anymore than the 2 dimensional character can perceived 3 because you cannot EXPERIENCE them. You might be able to theorize about them with math, but you do not experience them, therefore you do not perceive them.
Still following?
You experience causation in everyday life. You perceive it. Nothing appears to “exist” to you without it. However, as in the case of the 11 possible dimensions, 7 of which we do not experience, there could be something BEYOND causation at work in the universe. It’s pretty simple and I didn’t even make it up on my own. It’s pretty much been the rebuttal to the cosmological argument. Want references?[/quote]
The fact that you persist in this is stunning to me… You disproved your own point and you wanna ride that same pony? Really? That I cannot perceive by the use of logic things beyond perception by using an example of something that you cannot perceive postulated by logic?
Causation is not based on perception. If ‘A’ necessitates ‘B’, and no one is around to perceive it it still happens. This is really basic stuff.
Fuck yes I want references to the rebuttal of the cosmological argument. String theory on which you seem fixated does not do it.
You don’t even understand the very simple basics of causation and your telling me that for the past 2000 years, everybody has been wrong.
I believe your ego is really doing you a disservice hear, but poking around, I saw that this isn’t the only argument your losing.
Where is you proof that causation is based on perception alone?[/quote]
SMFH
There is no evicence, beyond your exprience with the universe, that “A precipates B”. That’s your perception. The cosmological argument is not scientific fact. It is a disputed theory. Period. And you know that.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/
The cosmological argument is less a particular argument than an argument type. It uses a general pattern of argumentation (logos) that makes an inference from certain alleged facts about the world (cosmos) to the existence of a unique being, generally identified with or referred to as God. Among these initial facts are that the world came into being, that the world is contingent in that it could have been other than it is, or that certain beings or events in the world are causally dependent or contingent.
From these facts philosophers infer either deductively or inductively that a first cause, a necessary being, an unmoved mover, or a personal being (God) exists. The cosmological argument is part of classical natural theology, whose [b[goal has been to provide some evidence for the claim that God exists[/b].
3.1 The Deductive Argument from Contingency
The cosmological argument begins with a fact about experience, namely, that something exists. We might sketch out the argument as follows.
The argument begins with ALLEGED FACTS. Later, your reference expressly states that the argument begins with a “fact” (alleged) about EXPERIENCE. “Experience” is absolutely tied to your PERCEPTION of the universe around you. You “perceive” causation, and therefore are in this mental loop that everything must be caused.
I am waiting for you to provide me the reference that states that it has been proven that CAUSATION IS AN IMMUTABLE PROVEN LAW OF THE COSMOS.
Here’s a bunch of people still pulling on these unknown strings of causation:
As for causation itself, have at the following:
"One crack in this belief system has been produced by radioactivity. An atom of some radioactive substance such as radium will eventually decay, and in the process it will emit energy. But there is no known triggering event that could serve as the cause of this decay event. In a large collection of radium atoms the rate of decay can be accurately predicted, but the identity of the decayed atoms cannot be determined beforehand. Their decay is random and uncaused. Of course it is possible to assert that there must be a hidden factor interior to the radium atoms that predetermines their time of decay, but that factor has not been found.
Another crack in this belief system has been produced by quantum mechanical events such that the same sequence of causal events (or causal factors) regularly produces different effects (i.e. results), but the results may repeat themselves in some random (unknowable) sequence. Furthermore, the percentages of results of each kind can be calculated and they are highly predictable.
Results of this kind are seen in the macro world of human beings only in the case of crooked roulette wheels or other such crooked gambling devices."
An interesting read:
http://www.geniusrealms.com/reasoningshow/quantumphysics_and_causality_transcript.html
That’s all for now. But stop the intellectual dishonesty by implying that causation is not a product of our experience and that it has been the proven immutable law of the universe. The funny thing is, you think I don’t understand your argument. You also think I reject it when in fact from the beginning I was merely pointing out its weaknesses. The fact of the matter is, I’m willing to say, “I don’t know”, or more accurately “we can’t know right now”. I don’t even reject the notion of God or a first cause - I only reject religion.
There are many fascinating elements to this philosophical discussion that are halted by your attacks and arrogance, such as issues of our consciousness and theories about observers with respect to quantum mechanics - all of which could have bearing on this subject. You bring dogma where there could actually be an interesting discussion. This debate has been raging for a very long time, and you think it has ended when it has not.
You may have come to your own conclusions, and you have certainly appeared to do your homework. However, that does not mean that another reasonable mind cannot reach a different conclusion - and many reasonable minds differ with your opinions. As for me, I’m convinced we cannot know. As for me, to make the logical arguments at the foundation of the cosmological argument, we must start with an immutable fact. “Causation” does not yet appear to be that. Causation thus far is empirical at best.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Math is language, nothing more.
It’s a trick question. I represented my high school in a math competition, where we had to be interviewed by a panel of university math professors. They asked me if math was discovered or created. I answered that math was discovered.
I was wrong.[/quote]
Math is language? What does it communicate?
How do you create something that already exists? [/quote]
Look up Mathematics as Language on Wiki.
Math is nothing more than a description of what we perceive in the universe. If I see four apples, I can quantity those objects with a number, but the number is only a description of what I’m seeing. The number four doesn’t objectively exist. It is a construct we use to quantify what does exist. Identically to calling the apples red.[/quote]
And that isn’t a metaphysical construct how exactly? Further, just because we use math to quantify things doesn’t mean it’s imagined, if is were it would be arbitrary, but it’s not it’s static. Can you think of any instance where 4 single things grouped would not be 4 things?
I’ll look that up. But I expect then that you’ll read the stuff I offer.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Math is language, nothing more.
It’s a trick question. I represented my high school in a math competition, where we had to be interviewed by a panel of university math professors. They asked me if math was discovered or created. I answered that math was discovered.
I was wrong.[/quote]
Math is language? What does it communicate?
How do you create something that already exists? [/quote]
Look up Mathematics as Language on Wiki.
Math is nothing more than a description of what we perceive in the universe. If I see four apples, I can quantity those objects with a number, but the number is only a description of what I’m seeing. The number four doesn’t objectively exist. It is a construct we use to quantify what does exist. Identically to calling the apples red.[/quote]
And that isn’t a metaphysical construct how exactly? Further, just because we use math to quantify things doesn’t mean it’s imagined, if is were it would be arbitrary, but it’s not it’s static. Can you think of any instance where 4 single things grouped would not be 4 things?
I’ll look that up. But I expect then that you’ll read the stuff I offer.[/quote]
Well, aren’t they “4 things” because you’re an observer? If infinite is indeed a reality, what relevance does our observation of “4 things” amongst an infinite have? If I can’t count “infinite things” what relevance does “4 things” have except to the perception of an observer? Is all the “information” within the known and unknown cosmos finite?
What about at the quantum level where “things” spring forth and disappear without apparent causation? Is “4 things” relevant? Or does “4 things” describe the observer’s perspective and experience?
Is “4 things” tied to classical physics? And can you use “classical measurements” to properly measure quantum physics?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/
The cosmological argument is less a particular argument than an argument type. It uses a general pattern of argumentation (logos) that makes an inference from certain alleged facts about the world (cosmos) to the existence of a unique being, generally identified with or referred to as God. Among these initial facts are that the world came into being, that the world is contingent in that it could have been other than it is, or that certain beings or events in the world are causally dependent or contingent.
From these facts philosophers infer either deductively or inductively that a first cause, a necessary being, an unmoved mover, or a personal being (God) exists. The cosmological argument is part of classical natural theology, whose [b[goal has been to provide some evidence for the claim that God exists[/b].
3.1 The Deductive Argument from Contingency
The cosmological argument begins with a fact about experience, namely, that something exists. We might sketch out the argument as follows.
The argument begins with ALLEGED FACTS. Later, your reference expressly states that the argument begins with a “fact” (alleged) about EXPERIENCE. “Experience” is absolutely tied to your PERCEPTION of the universe around you. You “perceive” causation, and therefore are in this mental loop that everything must be caused.
I am waiting for you to provide me the reference that states that it has been proven that CAUSATION IS AN IMMUTABLE PROVEN LAW OF THE COSMOS.
Here’s a bunch of people still pulling on these unknown strings of causation:
As for causation itself, have at the following:
"One crack in this belief system has been produced by radioactivity. An atom of some radioactive substance such as radium will eventually decay, and in the process it will emit energy. But there is no known triggering event that could serve as the cause of this decay event. In a large collection of radium atoms the rate of decay can be accurately predicted, but the identity of the decayed atoms cannot be determined beforehand. Their decay is random and uncaused. Of course it is possible to assert that there must be a hidden factor interior to the radium atoms that predetermines their time of decay, but that factor has not been found.
Another crack in this belief system has been produced by quantum mechanical events such that the same sequence of causal events (or causal factors) regularly produces different effects (i.e. results), but the results may repeat themselves in some random (unknowable) sequence. Furthermore, the percentages of results of each kind can be calculated and they are highly predictable.
Results of this kind are seen in the macro world of human beings only in the case of crooked roulette wheels or other such crooked gambling devices."
An interesting read:
http://www.geniusrealms.com/reasoningshow/quantumphysics_and_causality_transcript.html
That’s all for now. But stop the intellectual dishonesty by implying that causation is not a product of our experience and that it has been the proven immutable law of the universe. The funny thing is, you think I don’t understand your argument. You also think I reject it when in fact from the beginning I was merely pointing out its weaknesses. The fact of the matter is, I’m willing to say, “I don’t know”, or more accurately “we can’t know right now”. I don’t even reject the notion of God or a first cause - I only reject religion.
There are many fascinating elements to this philosophical discussion that are halted by your attacks and arrogance, such as issues of our consciousness and theories about observers with respect to quantum mechanics - all of which could have bearing on this subject. You bring dogma where there could actually be an interesting discussion. This debate has been raging for a very long time, and you think it has ended when it has not.
You may have come to your own conclusions, and you have certainly appeared to do your homework. However, that does not mean that another reasonable mind cannot reach a different conclusion - and many reasonable minds differ with your opinions. As for me, I’m convinced we cannot know. As for me, to make the logical arguments at the foundation of the cosmological argument, we must start with an immutable fact. “Causation” does not yet appear to be that. Causation thus far is empirical at best.[/quote]
I tried to get you to read that same fucking link 20 pages ago, but be it hubris, ego, or what ever, you refused. You could have saved your self 20 pages of misinformation, misery and tortured logic that made no sense. Now that I have something to work with, let’s take from the top.
“The cosmological argument is less a particular argument than an argument type.” ← That’s the first thing I said and I explained exactly why it is that way. Because no matter where you start, you always end up at the same place. Being a type give it applicable flexibility, you can start with matter or non-material entities, so long as ‘it’ exists cosmology can be applied to it.
“It uses a general pattern of argumentation (logos) that makes an inference from certain alleged facts about the world (cosmos) to the existence of a unique being, generally identified with or referred to as God” ← This statement is correct because get ‘God’ out of cosmology is inferred, it’s the ‘Uncaused-causer’ part that is deduced.
“The cosmological argument is part of classical natural theology,” ← never said it wasn’t, it’s called deism.
“The cosmological argument begins with a fact about experience, namely, that something exists.” ← You highlighted the wrong word. You should have highlighted ‘begins’. Of course all knowable things ‘begin’ with what you already know. It’s where it leads that invalidates the idea that perception is limiting. It leads to a place that cannot be perceived, at all, that’s why perception has never, ever been an issue with it.
The 11 dimensions of String theory were started from what was already known, leading to that which is not.
“The argument begins with ALLEGED FACTS”, ← If you consider ‘existence’ itself as an alleged fact, then yes. This was worded carefully not to trump ‘skeptics’ which allege that nothing at all exists. If you believe nothing exists, then ‘alleged’ would be the right word. The argument from contingency and principal of sufficient reason requires that existence itself exists, but these two forms I support because if does not require a specific existence. We can know what it is or not, but so long as it exists, it’s sufficient for the argument to be true.
“that CAUSATION IS AN IMMUTABLE PROVEN LAW OF THE COSMOS.” ← I think the argument from contingency or sufficient reason does this nicely. If it did not exist we could not know anything about our universe because what we know about it is based on causality.
Theism Cosmological » Internet Infidels ← This link is full of Red herrings (attacking a less defensible position to alleged a greater positions’ invalidity), but I can address a few. This is quite typical of most atheists though, from my experience. They take something nobody agrees with and say anything associated with it with a larger postion. If you have a particular one in mind I can address. Anything referring to the Kalam form I agree with, who ever thing Kalam did anything amazing is a fool. He simply took Aristotle’s original argument and threw the word ‘God’ in. It does not invalidate contingency or sufficient reason.
The argument they presented is incorrectly stated (not surprisingly since they have an ax to grind). I also noticed that old Keith Augustine (ironic name) failed to mention the argument from contingency or sufficient reason; shocker there.
The one I wanted to address is the ‘ex nihilo’ one, because the author fucks it up with in the first two paragraphs. What he is referring to is ‘Null Theory’ which basically states if you remove all matter in a vaccum, something else starts to happen. The reason why it fails is because a ‘vaccum’ is something, it occurs in time and space. These are all ‘somethings’ so while something from very little is a possibility, it does not show ‘something from nothing’ at all. Scientific ‘nothings’ and ‘something’s’ are not the same as philosophical ones. This is why I suppose many scientists think they have something definitive because the same word is used, but are meant in different ways.
It is 100% impossible to create an environment of ‘nothing’, because ‘nothing’ literally does not and cannot exist. So you can never replicate it. And since elementary particles always exist in some capacity and are not bound by 4 dimensional existence, this popping in and out does not really surprise me. I actually asked Dr. Lawrence Krauss ( Theoretical Physicist) directly if there is never ‘nothing’ in a quantum vacuum and he answered, “the vacuum in quantum theory is alas, full of virtual particles” ← Those were his exact words, I still have the email.
“Another crack in this belief system has been produced by quantum mechanical events such that the same sequence of causal events (or causal factors) regularly produces different effects (i.e. results), but the results may repeat themselves in some random (unknowable) sequence. Furthermore, the percentages of results of each kind can be calculated and they are highly predictable.” ← I highlight different things, I hightlight this “regularly produces different effects (i.e. results), but the results may repeat themselves in some random (unknowable) sequence” and “the percentages of results of each kind can be calculated and they are highly” . Predictability suggests causation.
Something, unknown or not knowable is not the same as uncaused. Secondly, the results repeat themselves which I am thinking they are referring to the double-slit experiment. Where you can take an election gun at the double slit and not be able to tell where it goes, but that’s only half the story. You may not be able to predict which slit a single electron may got through, but you do know it’s going to hit the background behind it. Further, if you shoot enough elections, you will always have an interference pattern. So this fails to prove causation is not in effect here, we just don’t know why it does what it does, not the same as being caused.
“Causation thus far is empirical at best” ← no it’s not. Correlational causation, (that which happened in the past reflects the future) is empirical causation. Causal relationships are not necessarily sensible. What appears to be a cause and effect relationship (like pool balls on a pool table moving each other) may not be reflecting what is actually happening. That’s why you have to move from perception or you get hung up on things that may appear to be real, but in fact something else is going on all together.
Empiricism is the realm of science, not philosophy, though it can be usedâ?¦.
Finally you have brought decent arguments to the table, feel free to keep them coming.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/
The cosmological argument is less a particular argument than an argument type. It uses a general pattern of argumentation (logos) that makes an inference from certain alleged facts about the world (cosmos) to the existence of a unique being, generally identified with or referred to as God. Among these initial facts are that the world came into being, that the world is contingent in that it could have been other than it is, or that certain beings or events in the world are causally dependent or contingent.
From these facts philosophers infer either deductively or inductively that a first cause, a necessary being, an unmoved mover, or a personal being (God) exists. The cosmological argument is part of classical natural theology, whose [b[goal has been to provide some evidence for the claim that God exists[/b].
3.1 The Deductive Argument from Contingency
The cosmological argument begins with a fact about experience, namely, that something exists. We might sketch out the argument as follows.
The argument begins with ALLEGED FACTS. Later, your reference expressly states that the argument begins with a “fact” (alleged) about EXPERIENCE. “Experience” is absolutely tied to your PERCEPTION of the universe around you. You “perceive” causation, and therefore are in this mental loop that everything must be caused.
I am waiting for you to provide me the reference that states that it has been proven that CAUSATION IS AN IMMUTABLE PROVEN LAW OF THE COSMOS.
Here’s a bunch of people still pulling on these unknown strings of causation:
As for causation itself, have at the following:
"One crack in this belief system has been produced by radioactivity. An atom of some radioactive substance such as radium will eventually decay, and in the process it will emit energy. But there is no known triggering event that could serve as the cause of this decay event. In a large collection of radium atoms the rate of decay can be accurately predicted, but the identity of the decayed atoms cannot be determined beforehand. Their decay is random and uncaused. Of course it is possible to assert that there must be a hidden factor interior to the radium atoms that predetermines their time of decay, but that factor has not been found.
Another crack in this belief system has been produced by quantum mechanical events such that the same sequence of causal events (or causal factors) regularly produces different effects (i.e. results), but the results may repeat themselves in some random (unknowable) sequence. Furthermore, the percentages of results of each kind can be calculated and they are highly predictable.
Results of this kind are seen in the macro world of human beings only in the case of crooked roulette wheels or other such crooked gambling devices."
An interesting read:
http://www.geniusrealms.com/reasoningshow/quantumphysics_and_causality_transcript.html
That’s all for now. But stop the intellectual dishonesty by implying that causation is not a product of our experience and that it has been the proven immutable law of the universe. The funny thing is, you think I don’t understand your argument. You also think I reject it when in fact from the beginning I was merely pointing out its weaknesses. The fact of the matter is, I’m willing to say, “I don’t know”, or more accurately “we can’t know right now”. I don’t even reject the notion of God or a first cause - I only reject religion.
There are many fascinating elements to this philosophical discussion that are halted by your attacks and arrogance, such as issues of our consciousness and theories about observers with respect to quantum mechanics - all of which could have bearing on this subject. You bring dogma where there could actually be an interesting discussion. This debate has been raging for a very long time, and you think it has ended when it has not.
You may have come to your own conclusions, and you have certainly appeared to do your homework. However, that does not mean that another reasonable mind cannot reach a different conclusion - and many reasonable minds differ with your opinions. As for me, I’m convinced we cannot know. As for me, to make the logical arguments at the foundation of the cosmological argument, we must start with an immutable fact. “Causation” does not yet appear to be that. Causation thus far is empirical at best.[/quote]
I tried to get you to read that same fucking link 20 pages ago, but be it hubris, ego, or what ever, you refused. You could have saved your self 20 pages of misinformation, misery and tortured logic that made no sense. Now that I have something to work with, let’s take from the top.
“The cosmological argument is less a particular argument than an argument type.” ← That’s the first thing I said and I explained exactly why it is that way. Because no matter where you start, you always end up at the same place. Being a type give it applicable flexibility, you can start with matter or non-material entities, so long as ‘it’ exists cosmology can be applied to it.
“It uses a general pattern of argumentation (logos) that makes an inference from certain alleged facts about the world (cosmos) to the existence of a unique being, generally identified with or referred to as God” ← This statement is correct because get ‘God’ out of cosmology is inferred, it’s the ‘Uncaused-causer’ part that is deduced.
“The cosmological argument is part of classical natural theology,” ← never said it wasn’t, it’s called deism.
“The cosmological argument begins with a fact about experience, namely, that something exists.” ← You highlighted the wrong word. You should have highlighted ‘begins’. Of course all knowable things ‘begin’ with what you already know. It’s where it leads that invalidates the idea that perception is limiting. It leads to a place that cannot be perceived, at all, that’s why perception has never, ever been an issue with it.
The 11 dimensions of String theory were started from what was already known, leading to that which is not.
“The argument begins with ALLEGED FACTS”, ← If you consider ‘existence’ itself as an alleged fact, then yes. This was worded carefully not to trump ‘skeptics’ which allege that nothing at all exists. If you believe nothing exists, then ‘alleged’ would be the right word. The argument from contingency and principal of sufficient reason requires that existence itself exists, but these two forms I support because if does not require a specific existence. We can know what it is or not, but so long as it exists, it’s sufficient for the argument to be true.
“that CAUSATION IS AN IMMUTABLE PROVEN LAW OF THE COSMOS.” ← I think the argument from contingency or sufficient reason does this nicely. If it did not exist we could not know anything about our universe because what we know about it is based on causality.
Theism Cosmological » Internet Infidels ← This link is full of Red herrings (attacking a less defensible position to alleged a greater positions’ invalidity), but I can address a few. This is quite typical of most atheists though, from my experience. They take something nobody agrees with and say anything associated with it with a larger postion. If you have a particular one in mind I can address. Anything referring to the Kalam form I agree with, who ever thing Kalam did anything amazing is a fool. He simply took Aristotle’s original argument and threw the word ‘God’ in. It does not invalidate contingency or sufficient reason.
The argument they presented is incorrectly stated (not surprisingly since they have an ax to grind). I also noticed that old Keith Augustine (ironic name) failed to mention the argument from contingency or sufficient reason; shocker there.
The one I wanted to address is the ‘ex nihilo’ one, because the author fucks it up with in the first two paragraphs. What he is referring to is ‘Null Theory’ which basically states if you remove all matter in a vaccum, something else starts to happen. The reason why it fails is because a ‘vaccum’ is something, it occurs in time and space. These are all ‘somethings’ so while something from very little is a possibility, it does not show ‘something from nothing’ at all. Scientific ‘nothings’ and ‘something’s’ are not the same as philosophical ones. This is why I suppose many scientists think they have something definitive because the same word is used, but are meant in different ways.
It is 100% impossible to create an environment of ‘nothing’, because ‘nothing’ literally does not and cannot exist. So you can never replicate it. And since elementary particles always exist in some capacity and are not bound by 4 dimensional existence, this popping in and out does not really surprise me. I actually asked Dr. Lawrence Krauss ( Theoretical Physicist) directly if there is never ‘nothing’ in a quantum vacuum and he answered, “the vacuum in quantum theory is alas, full of virtual particles” ← Those were his exact words, I still have the email.
“Another crack in this belief system has been produced by quantum mechanical events such that the same sequence of causal events (or causal factors) regularly produces different effects (i.e. results), but the results may repeat themselves in some random (unknowable) sequence. Furthermore, the percentages of results of each kind can be calculated and they are highly predictable.” ← I highlight different things, I hightlight this “regularly produces different effects (i.e. results), but the results may repeat themselves in some random (unknowable) sequence” and “the percentages of results of each kind can be calculated and they are highly” . Predictability suggests causation.
Something, unknown or not knowable is not the same as uncaused. Secondly, the results repeat themselves which I am thinking they are referring to the double-slit experiment. Where you can take an election gun at the double slit and not be able to tell where it goes, but that’s only half the story. You may not be able to predict which slit a single electron may got through, but you do know it’s going to hit the background behind it. Further, if you shoot enough elections, you will always have an interference pattern. So this fails to prove causation is not in effect here, we just don’t know why it does what it does, not the same as being caused.
“Causation thus far is empirical at best” ← no it’s not. Correlational causation, (that which happened in the past reflects the future) is empirical causation. Causal relationships are not necessarily sensible. What appears to be a cause and effect relationship (like pool balls on a pool table moving each other) may not be reflecting what is actually happening. That’s why you have to move from perception or you get hung up on things that may appear to be real, but in fact something else is going on all together.
Empiricism is the realm of science, not philosophy, though it can be usedâ?¦.
Finally you have brought decent arguments to the table, feel free to keep them coming.
[/quote]
Stop with the personal attacks. You have obviously done your homework and I have not read up on it as much as you did. However, the cosmological argument is not accepted fact. Period. I raised what I immediately and intellectually perceived to be the weaknesses in the model, and I was spot on with respect to the published opposition. I perused your sight, and I still do not agree with you. I will continue to review your references as time permits.
Yes, we can use empiricism but it does not provide a necessary fact. We can therefore state that empirically, all things appear to be caused. We cannot simply state that “all things are caused”. We do not yet know that.
You were being intellectually disingenuous when you reply, “prove something isn’t caused”, knowing there is not yet such proof, but there are tantalizing theories that continue to develop that may undermine and eventually replace our ideas of causation.
I still say causation is a product of our experience with the universe. If there are indeed physical qualities of the universe we do not experience (and there are), it is not irrational to wonder aloud if something else other than causation (or nothing at all) is the controlling agent.
And Pat, I am not an atheist. And stop dismissing ideas that do not comport to your own beliefs. We’re discussing science here right?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
SMFH
There is no evicence, beyond your exprience with the universe, that “A precipates B”. That’s your perception. The cosmological argument is not scientific fact. It is a disputed theory. Period. And you know that. [/quote]
You could have stopped with the first 4 words; exactely, no evidence.
““A precipates B”. That’s your perception.” <-No, that’s your perception of my perception. I have never said anything remotely close to that.
“The cosmological argument is not scientific fact.” ← I never claimed that either, it’s just a plain fact, and science is bound by it though.
“It is a disputed theory. Period.” Has been for well over 2000 years, what it has not been, is proven wrong.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, thanks for your response. I have a few points, but am trying to prioritize the most important, so will ask this question first:
What if “information” is noncontingent?
You seem to be taking the position that matter and energy are ultimately comprised of information. So what if this information was never created, and is noncontingent?[/quote]
Well we’re starting a slippery slope. If not this, then what about what’s next? We don’t really know shit about ‘information’ except mathematics tells us it’s there, maybe. We don’t know if it’s divisible, or not. But the same simple rules apply, why is it there, where did it come from, and how did it get there?
If the questions are not applicable, how come?[/quote]
Since we don’t know shit about it, except that it can’t be created, doesn’t that give you pause in concluding the cosmological argument must be true? I sure don’t feel knowledgeable enough to draw any conclusions at this point.
On your questions:
Why is it there?
Why are you assuming there has to be a reason it is there? If it wasn’t created, there is no why.
[/quote]
Correct, except we haven’t sufficiently established it wasn’t. We don’t even know if it even exists. Can you establish it exists for no reason other than it’s there? With out more knowledge of it, we can’t know that. That’s the problem with empirical facts. It constantly requires info to establish.
Exactly. We can’t know. We can only speculate, based on what we actually do know. We know that ME can’t be created, and if ME is ultimately comprised of information, it logically follows that information can’t be created either.
My argument is that information is uncaused. As to whether or not it can cause, I don’t know enough to speculate. We do know that ME can cause interactionally, and that ME is uncaused existentially. The same is likely true for information, if in fact ME is comprised of information.
[/quote]
Ok your argument is that information is uncaused, what are the premises? How would that debunk the principal of sufficient reason.[/quote]
The premise is that information cannot be created, based on the fact that ME cannot be created.
We’re talking specifically about Schopenhauer principle of sufficient reason of being, as opposed to acting, becoming, or knowing.
That principle is inherently limited in application, because it specifically invokes space and time. It says nothing about objects that were never created, and thus isn’t violated by such objects.
ME (and presumably information) was never created. Thus, it has no requisite reason for being.[/quote]
That’s circular. It’s here because it’s here? No, it’s not. Is not ‘information’ the building block for all matter and energy? Wouldn’t this ‘information’ be a “genetic” code for that which contains it? That would be the reason, or at least one of the reasons.
No we’re talking about Leibniz and Spinoza. And if we were talking Schopenhauer’s principles of sufficient, I’d be using the one referring to knowing.
This is a much better explanation, the Wiki page is missing stuff.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Math is language, nothing more.
It’s a trick question. I represented my high school in a math competition, where we had to be interviewed by a panel of university math professors. They asked me if math was discovered or created. I answered that math was discovered.
I was wrong.[/quote]
Math is language? What does it communicate?
How do you create something that already exists? [/quote]
Look up Mathematics as Language on Wiki.
Math is nothing more than a description of what we perceive in the universe. If I see four apples, I can quantity those objects with a number, but the number is only a description of what I’m seeing. The number four doesn’t objectively exist. It is a construct we use to quantify what does exist. Identically to calling the apples red.[/quote]
And that isn’t a metaphysical construct how exactly? Further, just because we use math to quantify things doesn’t mean it’s imagined, if is were it would be arbitrary, but it’s not it’s static. Can you think of any instance where 4 single things grouped would not be 4 things?
I’ll look that up. But I expect then that you’ll read the stuff I offer.[/quote]
I do read the stuff you offer. In fact, in the math theory link you provided yesterday, there were quite a few theories on math, including several that assert math is only a description of reality (constructivist theory, language theory, etc.) and not something that was discovered.
As with the cosmological argument, we are very limited in our understanding, and there are many viable alternate theories. We simply don’t know enough to draw any reliable conclusions on such enormous questions, at this point.