[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Lol…
If you take Christ out of Christmas all you have left is mas. Do atheists really want Christmas to be just about a Catholic service?[/quote]
If God is science, and the language of science is mathematics, then one might also say that Xmas is a formula in which there is no need to solve for X, because its value is assumed.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Lol…
If you take Christ out of Christmas all you have left is mas. Do atheists really want Christmas to be just about a Catholic service?[/quote]
If God is science, and the language of science is mathematics, then one might also say that Xmas is a formula in which there is no need to solve for X, because its value is assumed. [/quote]
[quote]pat wrote:
And if you are truly interested, then perhaps taking the monster face off the Sacred Heart of Jesus picture you have as an avatar might be a good place to start for sincere interest in God’s existence.[/quote]
I’d say there was at least as much irony in Maiden’s selection of a Zombie Jesus avatar as there was in Sloth’s selection of a Kronos devouring his children avatar. Clearly neither man believes in the gods his respective avatar depicts.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
You speak of empirical causation, which is a type, the stuff of science, empiricism, but not the only type. Keep in mind if you dispel causal reality you completely destroy science.
[/quote]
Another small note: You are thinking in absolutes where none can exist, and it is frustrating your ability to discuss these things. Hume never dreamed of “dispelling” causality. What he did do was show that causal relations are inferred and imperceptible and thus assumptive–in all cases and always. This refers not to a “type” of causality but to its very essence, and it destroys neither science nor religion nor anything else. It is a simple feature of life on Earth, experienced through the absorptions and emanations of a mammalian brain. That something relies on an assumption is altogether unremarkable. Nearly everything, if not plainly everything, that we believe is built upon a foundation of assumption.[/quote]
No it does not affect dependence, it only affects empiricism. Things that are true by definition are absolute. He only showed the weakness in empirical causation, not dependence or truth by definition. The essence of causation is that, because ‘A’ therefore ‘B’. What he showed very well is that you could never prove such a thing in as matter of science, or empiricism. Via empiricism, you would have to know every example of ‘A’ begetting ‘B’, there ever was, is and ever will be to prove an absolute. This has no effect, zero, nada, niet, effect on causation as a whole, it means you could never prove anything absolutely as a scientific fact. And yes, Hume tended to shoot himself in the foot and he did it gladly for the pursuit of reason, since he was a hard core empiricist.
What his insights had no effect on was causal reality as a matter of dependence, contingency, or definition.
The difference is can be illustrated thusly:
If you take fuel and add a spark then it will catch on fire. ← This is an empirical observation. You cannot know this will be true in all instances unless you know all the instances where this took place in the past, present and future. This is also the inference you speak of. We can observe that when you apply a spark to fuel, it will catch fire. We can observe it reliably many times over. You can therefore proselytize that fuel plus a spark will cause fire. You cannot prove that the spark and fuel meeting are the cause of the fire. Only that when a spark and a fuel meet, fire results.
This is very scientific, the causal relationship is inferred and likely true, but it’s not certain.
causation by definition, dependence, or contingency looks like this:
An atom consists of an electron, a proton and a neutron. Therefore, to have an atom, you must have a proton a neutron and and electron. ← If any of the minimum requirements for an atom to exist are not present, then you have no atom. This is absolute. This does not even mean an atom actually exists, it does mean that if you have one, it must have the minimum requirements to be one, or it is not one.
[quote]pat wrote:
Well if you are as interested as you say, then it’s certainly available for you to find out. Like I said to smh, trying to find out the truth takes work. That applies to religion as is does to anything else. It will not fall into your lap anymore than you will suddenly know calculus. You have to work for it.
[/quote]
You make it sound so simple. Just look for God and you will find it. As if anyone that doesn’t believe in god the way you do is due to them just being lazy. I agree trying to find the truth takes work. That is where we go our separate ways. I don’t think you can find the truth by simply looking for confirmations of beliefs that were passed down to us by our ancestors.
[quote]
And if you are truly interested, then perhaps taking the monster face off the Sacred Heart of Jesus picture you have as an avatar might be a good place to start for sincere interest in God’s existence. [/quote]
I have sincere interest in whether god exists. I have no sincere interest anymore in whether a man born of a virgin 2000 years ago was the embodiment of god as he walked the earth and walked on water. Only when people of that belief tell me i’m going to hell for not believing that same thing.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Agreed math is a discovery and not some random belief or man made invention.
[/quote]
Everything we know is ‘discovered’ we create nothing. Nobody has ever had an original thought even. We didn’t invent the car, we discovered it could be done. We didn’t invent the wheel, we discovered that something round, rolls. We didn’t invent fire, we discovered fire. We didn’t invent science, we discovered it.
That all exists beyond our knowledge of it as does much, much more we have yet to discover.[/quote]
Pre-humanist thinking. It’s also one of the tricks that the early Church used to create believers (followers). If it’s written down it must be true since we can’t create anything. [/quote]
No, it’s plain fact. Give me an original thought or create something original with no precedent. I won’t hold my breath. We can reorganize things, but those ‘things’ already exist. [/quote]
And that’s the trick. Anything I write you will simply dismiss as not really being original. You’ll claim that it already existed and whoever was the first to come up with it was not a creator but a discoverer. But I’ll play. Poetry. Man invented poetry. Now tell us all how man discovered it rather than created it. Was he digging for gold one day and pulled out a metaphor? [/quote]
It’s silly to see it as a trick. It simply a fact. Poetry? The reorganization of words, meanings and sounds to elicit a particular response or emotion? No that’s not original. It’s reorganizing things we are already aware of to make us aware of something we may previously not been aware of. We discovered that is we can organizes sounds with attached meanings in a particular way, we can convey meanings that the words and sounds themselves we previously couldn’t articulate. But, yes the sounds, meanings and understanding exist, we just discover them. The arts are just another way to understand the world around us.
It’s not a trick, it just a simple fact.[/quote]
So the poet’s choices are not his creation but rather he just happens to discover them? When Shakespeare has Juliet ask, “what’s in a name,” he was simply rearranging some words?
The arts are not a way to understand the world around us (that’s science) but the world within us. When a poet writes about a tree it isn’t about the tree.
[/quote]
No. Understanding does not come only from academics, artists reflect their feelings and thoughts through various mediums. Relating to them and understanding them is a way of understanding ‘our world’. Does not ‘our world’ consist of thoughts, emotions and other less tangible, measurable things?
Science it limited in what it can do. It’s a pretty narrow band of information.
[quote]
I suppose you’ll also claim that a Coltrane solo is not original since he was using musical notes and scales that already existed, an instrument that he did not invent and an art form that he did not originate. [/quote]
I don’t have to claim it, just prove it wrong. It’s called epistemology. The more one know about what we know, what we can know and how we get knowledge, the wiser one will be.
Where does art come from, magic?[/quote]
But you can’t prove it wrong. A Coltrane solo does not exist until he creates it. You say he discovers it but something that does not exist cannot be discovered. And it can’t already exist because it is unique to Coltrane’s experiences leading up to the moment he created it. It is a manifestation of his existence and feelings at the very moment he created it. [/quote]
There is an infinite amount of note variations, combinations, and inflections available in order to create a piece of music. Whether you do it once, or repeat it a hundred times, that combination and flare have always been available. There are an infinite more possibilities of musical arrangements, which makes me wonder why modern artists are so damn uncreative. There is a reason an artist who is on his game, oftens talks about being ‘tuned in’ or ‘tapping a muse’, or ‘exploring the possibilities’ of music or their instruments or their genre… It’s because they are, literally taping in to an endless supply of notes, sounds and arrangements.
There is an infinite amount of musical arrangements for anyone to discover. When you hear an artist talk about it, they talk about it in those terms. None of them are arrogant to believe they created anything, maybe save for Kanye, but he sucks so his arrogance serves no one.
Like I said, epistemology. The more you know about that, the more you know you don’t know anything.
All knowledge is discovered, not created. Never has been, never will be.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Fine. […] Show how 'that which exists is contingent on something for it’s existence’ [is an assumption.] To disprove this you not only have to demonstrate that something existing is not contingent, but you have to prove that it’s even possible. You can try to invoke QM in this if you wish, but be specific so that I can dispel the myth. Show me a completely random uncaused event and I will show you how it is contingent.
[/quote]
I’m not disproving it–I never was. I’m showing that it’s an assumption. An assumption is something that can’t be proved–a maxim taken as a given.
So, you’ve averred the emboldened claim, and you hold it to be something other than assumptive. Prove it. If it isn’t an assumption, it will by definition be something that you can prove to me. And if it’s an a priori truth as you’ve previously claimed, its converse will imply a logical contradiction. So, take me to this logical contradiction.
Edit: And in exposing the contradiction, it is imperative that that argument not entail any assumption itself, otherwise the process will begin anew.[/quote]
I went over this in my other post. You want a contradiction? Ok.
Something exists. ← Logically necessary fact, absolute. Nothing exists ← logically contradictory and impossibly untrue.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Fine. […] Show how 'that which exists is contingent on something for it’s existence’ [is an assumption.] To disprove this you not only have to demonstrate that something existing is not contingent, but you have to prove that it’s even possible. You can try to invoke QM in this if you wish, but be specific so that I can dispel the myth. Show me a completely random uncaused event and I will show you how it is contingent.
[/quote]
I’m not disproving it–I never was. I’m showing that it’s an assumption. An assumption is something that can’t be proved–a maxim taken as a given.
So, you’ve averred the emboldened claim, and you hold it to be something other than assumptive. Prove it. If it isn’t an assumption, it will by definition be something that you can prove to me. And if it’s an a priori truth as you’ve previously claimed, its converse will imply a logical contradiction. So, take me to this logical contradiction.
Edit: And in exposing the contradiction, it is imperative that that argument not entail any assumption itself, otherwise the process will begin anew.[/quote]
I went over this in my other post. You want a contradiction? Ok.
Something exists. ← Logically necessary fact, absolute. Nothing exists ← logically contradictory and impossibly untrue.[/quote]
What? You have not understood. Let’s uncomplicate this. You say that proposition P–“that which exists is contingent on something for its existence”–is a not an assumption but a demonstrable a priori truth. Formulate a logical argument whose necessary conclusion is proposition P by showing its converse to imply a logical, i.e. formal, contradiction.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
That’s not technically correct. And it’s for DAMN sure not the prevailing interpretation.
[/quote]
I’ll respond to the rest later this morning. For now: It is both correct and the prevailing interpretation. You may look into it if you like. If you do that, and end up thinking otherwise, then show me how and why and explain to me what is the prevailing interpretation.[/quote]
I already have. Random causeless events is not the prevailing thought in QM, you can ask Dr. Matt if you don’t believe me. It’s flat incorrect, it’s not positing that the event is not caused, but it’s used to address issues of simultaneous cause/ effect over vast expanses of space\ time.
The hidden variable is brought in to localize causal relations as such demonstrated in the EPR paradox, which really isn’t a paradox.
If you split a particle over vast space and send them hurtling light years apart, change the polarity of one particle, it’s related particle will simultaneously change it’s polarity. That’s not ‘random’ or uncaused by any stretch. It’s unexplained in how over vast distances these two particles can ‘communicate’ cause and effect. It’s only a problem over space\ time. You remove that obstacle and there is no problem.
The hidden variable is brought in to try an localize the effect to the other particle. But it does not need to be necessarily localized. If the particles are beholden to the laws that bind them, then it’s the law, or their very nature that causes them to interact instantly over vast distances where otherwise they have no hope of interacting with one another.[/quote]
The most widely accepted interpretations of QM aver a combination of probabilistic determination and intrinsic randomness in some cases. An intrinsically random event is one not compulsorily prefigured by the prior conditions of its happening and thus not caused by any event or condition, or any combination of events and conditions, with the necessary property that they force the event in question to transpire. Thus, causality as we know it is called into question. If a radioactive mote flutters off into oblivion in an intrinsically random act of suicide, then no variable or combination of variables can be identified as its necessary prior causes.
On a grander scale, this jumped off because you seemed to claim that proofs of God are settled matters. In fact some of the most respected philosophers and physicists in the world disagree with you and have in the last few years formulated very specific arguments in objection to just what you’re saying.
I happen to disagree with them–in other words, to agree with you. But the issue is not “settled” in the way it’s settled that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and to claim as much is to overreach drastically.
I await your response to my previous post, whenever you have the time.
[quote]pat wrote:
There is an infinite amount of note variations, combinations, and inflections available in order to create a piece of music. Whether you do it once, or repeat it a hundred times, that combination and flare have always been available. There are an infinite more possibilities of musical arrangements, which makes me wonder why modern artists are so damn uncreative. There is a reason an artist who is on his game, oftens talks about being ‘tuned in’ or ‘tapping a muse’, or ‘exploring the possibilities’ of music or their instruments or their genre… It’s because they are, literally taping in to an endless supply of notes, sounds and arrangements.
There is an infinite amount of musical arrangements for anyone to discover. When you hear an artist talk about it, they talk about it in those terms. None of them are arrogant to believe they created anything, maybe save for Kanye, but he sucks so his arrogance serves no one.
Like I said, epistemology. The more you know about that, the more you know you don’t know anything.
All knowledge is discovered, not created. Never has been, never will be.
[/quote]
Well, knowledge and art are not the same thing so I don’t know why you mention them like that.
You also mention how nothing is created as it always existed and was just waiting to be discovered. But now you mention infinity. If these things already exist then that also means there is a finite number of them.
I also like how you mention how artists think and how they create yet, you don’t actually provide any proof. You also don’t really understand music or art since you can only talk about the superficial. In order for Coltrane to play something that what was already in existence requires more than the notes, scales, rhythm, melody, etc., to have already existed but it would have required that Coltrane already existed. You wouldn’t understand that.
I agree with Pat! ; ) jaa jaa jaa
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
jaa jaa jaa
[/quote]
JA JA WEEEEEEED!!
At least one Catholic awhile back said there was no condemnation on Marijuana,
The best, natural 3 hour mental orgasm around…So euphoric and harmless compared
to Alcohol that’s it’s still banned in almost every Country in the World…in the fuckin’
21st Century.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Fine. […] Show how 'that which exists is contingent on something for it’s existence’ [is an assumption.] To disprove this you not only have to demonstrate that something existing is not contingent, but you have to prove that it’s even possible. You can try to invoke QM in this if you wish, but be specific so that I can dispel the myth. Show me a completely random uncaused event and I will show you how it is contingent.
[/quote]
I’m not disproving it–I never was. I’m showing that it’s an assumption. An assumption is something that can’t be proved–a maxim taken as a given.
So, you’ve averred the emboldened claim, and you hold it to be something other than assumptive. Prove it. If it isn’t an assumption, it will by definition be something that you can prove to me. And if it’s an a priori truth as you’ve previously claimed, its converse will imply a logical contradiction. So, take me to this logical contradiction.
Edit: And in exposing the contradiction, it is imperative that that argument not entail any assumption itself, otherwise the process will begin anew.[/quote]
I went over this in my other post. You want a contradiction? Ok.
Something exists. ← Logically necessary fact, absolute. Nothing exists ← logically contradictory and impossibly untrue.[/quote]
What? You have not understood. Let’s uncomplicate this. You say that proposition P–“that which exists is contingent on something for its existence”–is a not an assumption but a demonstrable a priori truth. Formulate a logical argument whose necessary conclusion is proposition P by showing its converse to imply a logical, i.e. formal, contradiction.[/quote]
If P exists, it’s existence has properties that not only define it, but limit it. P is dependent on it’s properties for not only for it’s existence, but it’s definition to be what it is. Since P cannot be a factor of itself it is dependent on it’s properties for it to be what it is.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
That’s not technically correct. And it’s for DAMN sure not the prevailing interpretation.
[/quote]
I’ll respond to the rest later this morning. For now: It is both correct and the prevailing interpretation. You may look into it if you like. If you do that, and end up thinking otherwise, then show me how and why and explain to me what is the prevailing interpretation.[/quote]
I already have. Random causeless events is not the prevailing thought in QM, you can ask Dr. Matt if you don’t believe me. It’s flat incorrect, it’s not positing that the event is not caused, but it’s used to address issues of simultaneous cause/ effect over vast expanses of space\ time.
The hidden variable is brought in to localize causal relations as such demonstrated in the EPR paradox, which really isn’t a paradox.
If you split a particle over vast space and send them hurtling light years apart, change the polarity of one particle, it’s related particle will simultaneously change it’s polarity. That’s not ‘random’ or uncaused by any stretch. It’s unexplained in how over vast distances these two particles can ‘communicate’ cause and effect. It’s only a problem over space\ time. You remove that obstacle and there is no problem.
The hidden variable is brought in to try an localize the effect to the other particle. But it does not need to be necessarily localized. If the particles are beholden to the laws that bind them, then it’s the law, or their very nature that causes them to interact instantly over vast distances where otherwise they have no hope of interacting with one another.[/quote]
The most widely accepted interpretations of QM aver a combination of probabilistic determination and intrinsic randomness in some cases. An intrinsically random event is one not compulsorily prefigured by the prior conditions of its happening and thus not caused by any event or condition, or any combination of events and conditions, with the necessary property that they force the event in question to transpire. Thus, causality as we know it is called into question. If a radioactive mote flutters off into oblivion in an intrinsically random act of suicide, then no variable or combination of variables can be identified as its necessary prior causes.
[/quote]
It’s only an empirical problem. And reasons unknown, or causes not local, are not ‘uncaused’ just not understood. Just like Hume postulated, unless you know everything about said mote you cannot say it’s act is random, just unknown. It’s position, it’s charge, it’s radioactivity are all properties of said mote. It’s expiration is a function of it’s properties. It’s not uncaused. It doesn’t happen for no reason.
Do you have a specific objection in mind? Because respected or not Cosmology has never been disproven. All objections have fallen short. They either do not address the argument correctly as in objecting to what it actually says. Or they are just flat wrong.
[quote]
I happen to disagree with them–in other words, to agree with you. But the issue is not “settled” in the way it’s settled that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and to claim as much is to overreach drastically.
I await your response to my previous post, whenever you have the time.[/quote]
You can agree or disagree with what you want. I am going to post this link that addresses, very well, misconceptions about the cosmological argument. This is a particularly good write up, and it’s concise and short. It get’s to the point quickly. If you have time, it’s worth the read because it deals with a lot of the things you are talking about.
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Well if you are as interested as you say, then it’s certainly available for you to find out. Like I said to smh, trying to find out the truth takes work. That applies to religion as is does to anything else. It will not fall into your lap anymore than you will suddenly know calculus. You have to work for it.
[/quote]
You make it sound so simple. Just look for God and you will find it. As if anyone that doesn’t believe in god the way you do is due to them just being lazy. I agree trying to find the truth takes work. That is where we go our separate ways. I don’t think you can find the truth by simply looking for confirmations of beliefs that were passed down to us by our ancestors.
[/quote]
It actually is that simple, but it’s not just looking for truths in ancient texts. That’s not what I mean, if it was only that, I probably wouldn’t waste my time either. I am talking about fundamental truths. The essence of existence. Forget religion, just look for truth. Study it and you will find it.
[quote]
I am not your judge. It’s up to you what you want to do. People telling you your going to hell are violating the fundamental principles of their faith. People confuse knowing right from wrong, good from evil as an elevation of self to appointment of judge and jury. Specifically, we are all flawed and we all ‘sin’ or do bad things. Nobody who sins is in a position to judge.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
That’s not technically correct. And it’s for DAMN sure not the prevailing interpretation.
[/quote]
I’ll respond to the rest later this morning. For now: It is both correct and the prevailing interpretation. You may look into it if you like. If you do that, and end up thinking otherwise, then show me how and why and explain to me what is the prevailing interpretation.[/quote]
I already have. Random causeless events is not the prevailing thought in QM, you can ask Dr. Matt if you don’t believe me. It’s flat incorrect, it’s not positing that the event is not caused, but it’s used to address issues of simultaneous cause/ effect over vast expanses of space\ time.
The hidden variable is brought in to localize causal relations as such demonstrated in the EPR paradox, which really isn’t a paradox.
If you split a particle over vast space and send them hurtling light years apart, change the polarity of one particle, it’s related particle will simultaneously change it’s polarity. That’s not ‘random’ or uncaused by any stretch. It’s unexplained in how over vast distances these two particles can ‘communicate’ cause and effect. It’s only a problem over space\ time. You remove that obstacle and there is no problem.
The hidden variable is brought in to try an localize the effect to the other particle. But it does not need to be necessarily localized. If the particles are beholden to the laws that bind them, then it’s the law, or their very nature that causes them to interact instantly over vast distances where otherwise they have no hope of interacting with one another.[/quote]
The most widely accepted interpretations of QM aver a combination of probabilistic determination and intrinsic randomness in some cases. An intrinsically random event is one not compulsorily prefigured by the prior conditions of its happening and thus not caused by any event or condition, or any combination of events and conditions, with the necessary property that they force the event in question to transpire. Thus, causality as we know it is called into question. If a radioactive mote flutters off into oblivion in an intrinsically random act of suicide, then no variable or combination of variables can be identified as its necessary prior causes.
[/quote]
It’s only an empirical problem. And reasons unknown, or causes not local, are not ‘uncaused’ just not understood. Just like Hume postulated, unless you know everything about said mote you cannot say it’s act is random, just unknown. It’s position, it’s charge, it’s radioactivity are all properties of said mote. It’s expiration is a function of it’s properties. It’s not uncaused. It doesn’t happen for no reason.
Do you have a specific objection in mind? Because respected or not Cosmology has never been disproven. All objections have fallen short. They either do not address the argument correctly as in objecting to what it actually says. Or they are just flat wrong.
Pat–I have read Feser, including that. I followed his debate with Robert Oerter closely.
Regarding this: “It’s only an empirical problem. And reasons unknown, or causes not local, are not ‘uncaused’ just not understood,” you are simply not correct. I reiterate that the current interpretation avers not conditions unknown but conditions nonexistent. That is, that hidden variables not only do not exist but cannot exist for the events in question. This is why my original point about QM averring the existence of an intrinisically random event–not compulsorily prefigured by the prior conditions of its happening and thus not caused by any event or condition, or any combination of events and conditions, with the necessary property that they force the event in question to transpire–is simply true. Again, intrinsic randomness destroys causation as you know it, and please note again that intrinsic randomness has exactly nothing to do with empirical ignorance. This is the meaning of the word “intrinsic,” and intrinsicity is entirely independent of perception.
[quote]pat wrote:
If P exists, it’s existence has properties that not only define it, but limit it. P is dependent on it’s properties for not only for it’s existence, but it’s definition to be what it is. Since P cannot be a factor of itself it is dependent on it’s properties for it to be what it is. [/quote]
Assumptions, using your language (which I find to be imprecise, but I think I take your meaning):
Existences have properties. (? You said “it’s existence has properties.”)
The properties of something are different from that thing.
Something cannot be a factor of itself.
Each of these will have to be proved logically and with a priori premises and conclusions. Again, any assumption in the sub-proof will itself have to be proved in exactly the same way.
Do you honestly not see where this is going? It’s turtles all the way down. I promise. I’ve been to the bottom.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
That’s not technically correct. And it’s for DAMN sure not the prevailing interpretation.
[/quote]
I’ll respond to the rest later this morning. For now: It is both correct and the prevailing interpretation. You may look into it if you like. If you do that, and end up thinking otherwise, then show me how and why and explain to me what is the prevailing interpretation.[/quote]
I already have. Random causeless events is not the prevailing thought in QM, you can ask Dr. Matt if you don’t believe me. It’s flat incorrect, it’s not positing that the event is not caused, but it’s used to address issues of simultaneous cause/ effect over vast expanses of space\ time.
The hidden variable is brought in to localize causal relations as such demonstrated in the EPR paradox, which really isn’t a paradox.
If you split a particle over vast space and send them hurtling light years apart, change the polarity of one particle, it’s related particle will simultaneously change it’s polarity. That’s not ‘random’ or uncaused by any stretch. It’s unexplained in how over vast distances these two particles can ‘communicate’ cause and effect. It’s only a problem over space\ time. You remove that obstacle and there is no problem.
The hidden variable is brought in to try an localize the effect to the other particle. But it does not need to be necessarily localized. If the particles are beholden to the laws that bind them, then it’s the law, or their very nature that causes them to interact instantly over vast distances where otherwise they have no hope of interacting with one another.[/quote]
The most widely accepted interpretations of QM aver a combination of probabilistic determination and intrinsic randomness in some cases. An intrinsically random event is one not compulsorily prefigured by the prior conditions of its happening and thus not caused by any event or condition, or any combination of events and conditions, with the necessary property that they force the event in question to transpire. Thus, causality as we know it is called into question. If a radioactive mote flutters off into oblivion in an intrinsically random act of suicide, then no variable or combination of variables can be identified as its necessary prior causes.
[/quote]
It’s only an empirical problem. And reasons unknown, or causes not local, are not ‘uncaused’ just not understood. Just like Hume postulated, unless you know everything about said mote you cannot say it’s act is random, just unknown. It’s position, it’s charge, it’s radioactivity are all properties of said mote. It’s expiration is a function of it’s properties. It’s not uncaused. It doesn’t happen for no reason.
Do you have a specific objection in mind? Because respected or not Cosmology has never been disproven. All objections have fallen short. They either do not address the argument correctly as in objecting to what it actually says. Or they are just flat wrong.
Pat–I have read Feser, including that. I followed his debate with Robert Oerter closely.
Regarding this: “It’s only an empirical problem. And reasons unknown, or causes not local, are not ‘uncaused’ just not understood,” you are simply not correct. I reiterate that the current interpretation avers not conditions unknown but conditions nonexistent. That is, that hidden variables not only do not exist but cannot exist for the events in question. This is why my original point about QM averring the existence of an intrinisically random event–not compulsorily prefigured by the prior conditions of its happening and thus not caused by any event or condition, or any combination of events and conditions, with the necessary property that they force the event in question to transpire–is simply true. Again, intrinsic randomness destroys causation as you know it, and please note again that intrinsic randomness has exactly nothing to do with empirical ignorance. This is the meaning of the word “intrinsic,” and intrinsicity is entirely independent of perception.[/quote]
Please provide a link or give me the phenomena you are talking about so I can look at it. I have looked into this type of scenario before when looking at null theory, but a deeper look show that it is very much a causal event. I need to know what you are talking about specifically. What’s the theory?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
If P exists, it’s existence has properties that not only define it, but limit it. P is dependent on it’s properties for not only for it’s existence, but it’s definition to be what it is. Since P cannot be a factor of itself it is dependent on it’s properties for it to be what it is. [/quote]
Assumptions, using your language (which I find to be imprecise, but I think I take your meaning):
Correct. For a circle to be a circle it must have at least two properties. It must be round and it must exist. Something that does not exist cannot be defined because there is nothing to define. And a circle without roundness is by definition, not a circle. Roundness is a property of the circle on which it depends and without it, there is no circle.
This just means that you cannot have circular reasoning. Something being a factor of itself is logically impossible. That is to say the circle is a circle because it’s a circle. That’s incorrect by definition. A circle is a circle because it has the properties of a circle, roundness and existence.
[quote]
Each of these will have to be proved logically and with a priori premises and conclusions. Again, any assumption in the sub-proof will itself have to be proved in exactly the same way.
Do you honestly not see where this is going? It’s turtles all the way down. I promise. I’ve been to the bottom.[/quote]
I have been to the bottom too, I just don’t see the ambiguity. I take the true propositions and dismiss the false.