I think you're confusing electromagnetic waves with the wavefunction in quantum physics. This thread is about the latter, not the former. — Wayfarer

Are we not talking about the double slit experiment where light is sent through slits and certain interferences are observed?

it’s not *actually* a wave — Wayfarer

Understood. But it must be "something" that changes its property at a certain frequency, so that a frequency can be detected and filtered by the receiver (to distinguish radio stations or colors). Also, as we know, the higher the frequency, the higher the energy (at the same amplitude).

Infrared ... red ... violet ... ultraviolet ... X-ray ... LF ... HF ... UHF ... gamma ...

In a radio receiver antenna, the electromagnetic waves induce alternating electric current. It's the same effect that occurs when you move a magnet near an electric wire quickly back and forth. The magnetic field, flux, or density changes relative to a certain place in 3D space (e.g. where a copper wire is located). However, that field, flux, or density itself is probably indescribable -- like a ghost ...

I'd like to know what variable makes an electromagnetic wave.

I mean ...

In water waves it's the variable water surface height that makes the wave.
In sound waves it's the variable air pressure that makes the wave.

What varies in an electromagnetic wave?

Is it the magnetic field density that varies at a certain frequency?

lower appetites — Count Timothy von Icarus

What do you mean by "lower"?

Is appetite not an essential phenomenon in life?

What is love in your view? Is it something lower or something higher?

What is happiness? Is it in category "high" or category "low"?

What's a computer? High or low?

Is a bird lower than an elephant?

I've never understood this high/low idea. Is it a religious idea?

In my view, instinct, desire, love, hate etc. are so essential important phenomena; they make the difference between a living creature and a robot.

Is your religion a machine?

If you use the word "self-deception" you presuppose the possibility of a fight "X against X". Self versus self.

I don't think that's possible.

In my view, a human consists of multiple active instances. Nobody ever found any "I"-core in the skull, spine or in the mind. I guess there's no central X. Particularly, there's no X that could fight against X. There are many instances: A, B, C ... zillions of them. When there is a fight, it's a fight D vs Z, or X vs G etc.

In my mind there may be an instance "L" that aims at having sex with a strange lady. And there's another instance "E" that aims at the loyality with my wife. (These examples are not autobiographical; I'm not married, hehe.) So when there is a fight, it isn't X vs X. It's L vs E -- in this example.

I think rationality must refer to the respective instance which is calculating the ratio of the current options.

When there is an occassion to have sex with a strange lady, and all ratios with other options are evaluated -- including time, duration, place, intensity, long-term consequences etc. -- then it's a rational decision of instance "L" to do it.

What's the rational decision of "E"? That instance comes to the rational conclusion it's better to stay loyal due to the wonderful long-term effects of being loyal.

Now there's another instance "T" that evaluates the ratio of L's choice to E's choice.

And so on.

The cascade of ratios gets bigger and bigger, so we often get confused and make decisions that will be, in summary, not optimal. -- Luckily, we are brain owners; we are able to learn from our mistakes. We keep improving our rational network.

What do you think of the self-sacrifice example we've been discussing? — J

I agree with Dawnstorm's comment:

I read the posts more as cost-benefit calculations (as in rational choice theory). It's not all that hard to account for altruism: even if there's no benefit to be had, there are still costs to minimise. It's just a matter of priorities. I though "joy" was just the word used in the context of Beethoven vs. Bach, while "good feelings" vs. "bad feelings" is the more general model. I'd like to append that in situations where there are no good feelings involved, it's likely "bad feelings" vs. "worse feelings". That said there might be some marginal good feelings in throwing yourself on a grenade: "I'll be remembered a hero!" As you say, it's the stuff we admire, and some people might enjoy the prospect of being admired. — Dawnstorm

I think the word "rational" comes from "ratio".

For example, "1/2", "1:2", "5/4", "5 versus 4", "A/B" are ratios.

When I try to make a rational decision, I compare and evaluate the ratio of A to B.

For instance, Beethoven/Bach, folk/jazz, folk/blues, Picasso/Rembrandt, islam/christianity, islam/buddhism, chistianity/hinduism, Tuesday/Monday, summer/winter, winter/spring, Harris/Trump, apple/orange, headache/cholera, airplane/bus, bus/ship, Florida/California, marxism/capitalism, anarchy/monarchy, Joe/Jack, female/male, Asia/Africa, Asia/Australia, thriller/comedy, altruism/egoism etc.

Whatever I choose, in the end I choose from two options. If there are multiple choices -- three, for instance -- I compare A with B, B with C, C with A. So each single step handles two options; not more, not less.

And whatever I choose in the end, I choose the one that I like better than the other.

I assume our mental system consists of two subsystems: The first includes qualities; these are qualia, emotions, feelings, senses, impressions. The second subsystem is a computer; it calculates the direction I need to go when I cross the street; it computes the number of days till Christmas. This computer contains no qualities, i.e. no emotions etc. This calculator is the assistant of the first subsystem, the emotional one. The evolution probably developed the emotional subsystem first and added the second subsystem later.

This calculator, this second subsystem, does the rational work.

The first subsystem contains the emotions.

If I were to make a rational decision just to reach another rational goal, I would be caught in an infinite regress. I would be trapped in a mathematical bubble without any feelings, impressions, emotions. I wouldn't be a living creature; I would be a robot.

Therefore this calculator only makes sense if its results are used outside its mathematical bubble, namely in the emotional subsystem.

What do I do in my life? What do I want to do? I do what I like. I don't like pain. So I try to avoid pain. I don't like to die, so I try to stay alive. I want to kiss Mary, so I ask her if I may. I don't like to kill Joe, so I won't do it. I like the story of religion A or ideology B, there I feel at home, so I support this instead of the other. There is no meta religion or meta ideology that determines which religion or ideology is the best for everyone or that tells which one is absolutely correct. There is no absolutism. Everything is relative. X in relation to Y. And if it's about life and not about math, the goal is not math but good quality, i.e. aim at joy, good feelings, happiness. It's that simple.

I can't describe what a good feeling is. It's just there. It's one of the qualia. Qualitative properties like red, sweet, loud, sad, joyous etc. cannot be described in words. They existed before language was invented. They are themselves.

Now, rational decisions can be linked with each other and the whole network may become very complex. For example:

What do I like better?
[Beethoven or Bach]
[[Beethoven] on Tuesday or Sunday]
[[[Beethoven] on Sunday] with red wine or white wine]
... and so on.

It may get so complex that a final rational decision is impossible within the next five minutes or weeks or years.

Intuitive decisions can help sometimes.

I guess intuition is a set of instructions stored in memory. If an instruction is successful, it gets stored for later quick reuse. Very efficient. Many of them are also stored in our genes probably. But all in all they too can be considered rational, I think, because the one instruction was just more successful than the other. So do it this way, as stored in memory, in the genes, in intuition.

you can't imagine a scenario where it's rational to choose Bach when you like his music less? — flannel jesus

Yes, I can.

There can be countless factors that I may consider and take into account.

My point is, that every factor refers to what I like the most. I like good feelings and dislike bad feelings.

I like to help people, I dislike extreme egoism. I like to be alive and dislike dying. I like atheism better than theism. Like, like, like ... In the end it's always about liking A better than B.

All these factors can be set in a formula -- approximately. Not exactly, that would be utilitaristic. Feelings cannot be measured exactly, just approximately. I will give every comparison a "good-feeling" quotient:

Beethoven-music versus Bach-music -> 5 : 1 (I like all of Ludwig's symphonies)
Beethoven-CD-price-99$ versus Bach-CD-price-1$ -> 2 : 4 (I like to save money)
Beethoven-CD-on-Amazon versus Bach-CD-in-small-shop -> 0 : 5 (I dislike Bezos)
and so on ...

Summary so far: 7 : 10

So, in the end, choosing Bach will generate more joy. Therefore it's rational to take Bach.

Here's a Beethoven CD and there's a Bach CD. I like Beethoven better than Bach.

This is a rational choice: I take the Beethoven CD.

That's an irrational choice: I take the Bach CD.

"Phenomenological theories". I've been calling them "empirical theories".
"Fundamental theories". I've been calling them "metaphysical theories".

In my opinion, Newton's and Einsteins's theories are empirical and rational theories because they are based upon direct sensory observations (empirical), and their observed elements are interlinked by mathematical and logical axioms (rational). The rational part is important as the observation alone makes no theory.

Actually, I think, there are no "phenomenological theories" at all, but there are "phenomenological facts". When I say "I'm hungry today" there are at least three phenomenological elements involved: The "myself"-sensation, the "presence"-sensation, the "hunger"-sensation. They are all facts. Even if someone would claim they are an illusion; the subjective sensations would exist anyway. So, what part in these facts might be "theoretical"? I don't know. I think a theory only sprouts when the theory maker interprets these subjective phenomena as objective empirical observations, i.e. when other humans observe the same. But we can never be absolutely sure whether this is the case. See qualia problem: Joe sees blue bananas, but he learned that the quale "blue" is called yellow in english. Mary also calls it yellow, but she experiences green qualia. -- My question is: Why should we call those theories "phenomenological" rather than "empirical"? Are these considered synonyms in this discussion? Empirical stuff may contain errors (this is not oil, it's coffee). Phenomenological stuff is always true.

As to "fundamental theories" (metaphysics): I would say such theories are always religious or philosophical, i.e. much more speculative than scientific theories. (I can't say that scientific theories contain no speculation at all, otherwise they would be facts and no theories.)

Here's another suggestion regarding two categories: This time with two kinds of mindsets.

Hypothesis: "All random events so far were not really random but triggered by a hidden, deterministic program."

Mindset 1 says: This hypothesis must be true.
Mindset 2 says: This hypothesis may be true.

The difference between the two mindsets is this:
Mindset 1 needs the PSR and is thusly caught in the infinite regress which contradicts with the idea of a "first cause".
Mindset 2 needs no PSR; hence it's nonparadoxical and open in all directions.

Therefore:
Mindset 1 is erroneous due to its self-contradiction ("infinite regress" versus "first cause").
Mindset 2 is error-free because it doesn't claim a "first cause" nor an infinite regress; mindset 2 allows the possibility of either or neither, but not necessarily both at the same time.

I think there are two kinds of why-questions:

Why does ...?
Why should ...?

"Why-does" implies a reason or cause.
"Why-should" doesn't imply a reason or cause.

Therefore, it's not paradox if a PSR-denier asks a "why should" question.

The statement "the first cause which has inherent existence exists" is a tautology and is therefore necessarily true. And no prior cause is needed to fulfill the PSR. — A Christian Philosophy

Good. So incausality is possible. Next question: Why should the first cause, of all possibilities, be a god and not the universe itself or chaos itself or any other fluctuation itself? There's no reason to assign this very first function to a god, in my opinion, unless it makes the believer happier.

I'm an agnostic atheist. I'm not an atheistic missionary; everyone should be happy with their personal religion. I just see a problem when someone confuses belief with science. The attempt to prove the existence of god is not a belief and not a religion. The attempt is literally hopeless: It's no hope per se, nor will the attempt be successful. See Münchhausen trilemma. If you need a proof, you don't believe in god.

The PSR can be useful. Among other things, it can be used to draw conclusions about intelligent design as per the OP. — A Christian Philosophy

Who designed the intelligent designer?

Who designed the designer of the intelligent designer?

For practical purposes, yes. As long as the prediction algorithm works within a tolerance useable for our purposes, I call it a robust thesis. I just speak of "robustness" instead of "truth".

But it's also predictive. — Wayfarer

Yes, we can assume that the mathematical and logical laws will be valid forever, so we can use them in our prediction models. But that's just the skeleton. The flesh comes from the values that you feed into the formula, and these values may be wrong or variable or not relevant at all. We can't know for sure if the values are accurate.

It's time to lay out and lay bare what a reason is. — tim wood

I'm hungry. This box contains an apple, that second box is empty. As I'm hungry, I have a good reason to take the first box. That's a reason.

(This example doesn't show any "cause and effect"; it's not a "when"-event. It's an "if"-reason.)

that physical phenomena behave in mathematically describable ways — Wayfarer

I agree with that statement, but I disagree with your conclusion. I think a mathematical description is just that: a description; the description itself is not the described physical phenomenon itself. The symbolic description "3 apples" are not the three physical apples themselves. When a fourth physical apple occurs, the description "3 apples" won't be updated automatically. Vice versa, when I write "4 apples", those three physical apples remain just three. I can't see any bridge here. Besides, being a fallibilist, I doubt that inductive descriptions (theses) about empirical observations are necessarily true. They may be wrong. I can't be sure if all swans are white. I haven't seen other places yet, and I can't predict the future. Einsteins's descriptions showed that Newton's description was inaccurate.

Isn't a reason the connection between cause and effect? — Wayfarer

I'd say reason is a logical, timeless context; for example: The sum of all angles within a triangle is always 180 degrees. There is a reason that the value is always 180. But the triangle doesn't "cause" this value; the value is not an "effect". The time dimension has nothing to do with that logical context.

Cause and effect, on the other hand, require a time axis. A cause is an event in time, and the effect is an event as well. A cause always happens before the event.

The triangle is not an event. And the value 180 is not an event either. Geometry contains reasons. Causality contains events.

You probably knew this already and I was just misunderstanding your questions. I'm posting my reply anyway, just to be on the safe side, hehe ...

If there is an almighty god, what is the reason, explanation, ground for his existence or occurrence?

Who designed god?

Who designed the designer of god?

Of course, randomness -- Heisenberg's indeterminacy principle -- contradicts with the PSR dogma. But there's no reason (!) to solve that contradiction by ignoring the randomness. Randomness is empirically observable with eyes and ears. Another way of solving the contradiction is this: Discard that PSR dogma. It's outdated.

In the original post I'm missing this:

Type 4: Random.

What about the workers in the mines that deliver all the silicon which will be used in the computer chips that host this website? Do we mention them? No. I think we should. -- I just did it.

it's dumb as it doesn't take in account threads created with total comments under them — DifferentiatingEgg

I don't take this thread seriously, and I don't want to defend it, but I want to reply to that particular thought quoted above: I think a thread gets its own life; users talk with each other, inspire each other, no matter whether the original poster keeps participating or not. So it's not just the OP that triggers the spark; all users in that thread do that. And when they reply to a comment, they usually mention the respective user which may be the thread starter or any other user in the thread. So there's the "mention" function again.

1.1

I'm interpreting the program suggested in the OP as a proposal, not as a duty. I don't know how the situation on this subject is in the USA, but there are many countries worldwide that have been offering international exchange programs for pupils and students etc. since the end of world war II. The participation is voluntary, of course.

I didn't name their cause. Do you believe in determinism? I don't.

I hear and see incausal things all the time: For example in transistor noise (audio amplifiers, analog screens etc.). There are countless micro events in there that occur at random positions and random time. If these were causal and deterministic the noise would turn into a pattern in the long run.

I want to know what caused the singularity. — AmadeusD

Why do you assume there is any causality "before" the big bang?

Of course, it's silly. With that silly explanation I just want to set a striking starting point for my question:

How high must the described order be in order to be an explanation rather than just a description?

I guess there is a gradual transition.

The question is whether the banana event repeats itself we always have a causal explanation. — JuanZu

Good point.

In my example there is that sentence in the witchbook; whenever someone says that sentence, the banana turns blue. The effect is repeatable.

But even if it doesn't seem repeatable, there might be another hidden factor that is just not discovered yet. In other words, we can only assume it's not repeatable. Just like we can only assume that there are no red swans.

Socrates asserts that the explanans must be of a higher order than the explanandum — Wayfarer

What Sokrates means by "higher order" is what I mean by "level of detail". They are just different words for the same question. The more detailed, the higher the level. Well, I will rephrase my question:

How high must the described order be in order to be an explanation rather than just a description?

If I mention the gravity being the cause for the falling apple, do I mention a higher order or not?

OK, disregard the word "because". The word isn't essential here. I just meant the "answer" to the "why"-question. The answer describes cause and effect.

How detailed must an answer be in order to be an explanation rather than a description?

That's not an explanation, that's just a sentence describing the phenomenon you want to explain. — flannel jesus

An explanation is an answer to a "why"-question.

Why does the apple fall to the ground? Because of gravity. That explains it.
Why does this planet have gravity? Because it's a mass. That explains it.
Why does mass have gravity? Because ...

Which of these answers is a true explanation and which is just a description?

Every statement starting with the word "because" is a description of a causal scenario. It describes cause and effect.

One of the best things about children is that you get to reexperience the magic of the world through their eyes. — DifferentiatingEgg

Right. But I consider this line poetry. In this line, magic is a metaphor, I think.

This gets at a common concern among fantasy writers and fans. Does a writer go with a "hard magic system" or a "soft magic system." A "hard magic system" is one where there are definite rules to magic, e.g. a strict cause/effect relationship.

The complaint against "hard magic" is that it reduces magic to something that isn't magic. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Interesting. Interesting especially for me as I'm not a fan of the fantasy genre. I'm rather a fan of science fiction, particularly of Kubrick and Star Trek. Now what makes the basic difference between the fantasy genre and the science fiction genre? I guess it's what I just learned from you: The spectrum between hard and soft magic ... or between hard and soft speculation? Hehe.

This part:

As to magic being the unexplainable, the very occurrence of being per se is devoid of explanation. Ergo, the whole of existence is then, in and of itself, pure magic. Ergo, magic occurs. — javra

I mean, when my will is moving my hand, I can call it "magic" according to Crowley's definition. I can also call it non-magic as I have a scientific explanation for it. (I think, like Popper suggested, science always remains speculation, therefore scientific theories need to be open for tests and improvements.)

Exactly. In the end everything can be called "magic" and "non-magic" as well. As there is no difference, there's no meaning either. Instead, there's this: Speculation.

It has a meaning, yes. I just skipped it and went directly to the root. So, what is the root of that "meaning"? After all, isn't it an attempt of keeping something in an isolated realm of the "unexplainable"? Isolation is an essential factor in esoterism. Isolation inhibits not only falsification but also "naming". This way something remains mysterical and therefore magic too.

I think "before" the big bang there is no time dimension. Therefore there is no cause. It is an incausal spontaneous beginning of something. One might assume a god or any other metaphysical entity may have started it, but I guess that's not logical as this idea would re-introduce a time dimension. So the next question is: Since when does logic exist? I would say logic is a timeless principle. Logic isn't linked with any empirical principle. For example, the logical axiom "a statement is either true or false, never both" is valid in general, independent of space and time. Conclusion: The statement "there is no time before the big bang, yet there is a cause before" is a false statement.