Contrast that to the 'is he guilty?' question, where we start with a 1 in 2 (50%) chance of guilt/innocence. — Devans99

That is fine because "guily" or "not guilty" are a complete set of options. There are uncountably many more options than "God did it", which is a silly non-option. Saying "God did it" is 50/50 is exactly the same as saying the probability of the unseen die roll yielding a 1 is 50/50.

No. If we are considering a question with a 90% / 10% initial distribution of probabilities then we can't just ignore that distribution and start at 50%. — Devans99

That's precisely the point. You cannot just say "Since we do not know if it is this guy, the probabilities are 50/50". And yet that is exactly how you proceeded.

Well, there you go; God disappeared all the antimatter. God Certainly Exists — Banno

Woah there! Take it easy, Banno. The probability of God's existence is only 50%. Despite this, the universe was created, so the probability goes up to 75%. Within that universe, matter and antimatter was created, so the probability goes up to 87.5%. Then for each electron that didn't annihilate a positron, there's a 50% chance that God stopped it. That's, what, say a trillion electrons? So the most you could say here is that God exists with a probability of 99.99999999999999999999999999999%.

But in saying that, you're simply setting up the problem in such a way as to exclude exceptions. — Wayfarer

No shit.

So you've defined 'the immaterial' out of consideration! — Wayfarer

The question isn't lacking a hypothetical immaterial: it provides one consistent with the definitions given. I agree this is an extremely narrow range of possible unambiguous immaterial substances, but then that was precisely the point.

I find it difficult to envisage what an "unknown immaterial field" could be. If the GUT requires it, then isn't it then coupled to the world by virtue of that? Or perhaps you mean something like the Many Worlds interpretation of QM where the copies of you are undetectable - in a sense uncoupled from what is directly observable? — Andrew M

If you look into something like Kaluza-Klein theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza%E2%80%93Klein_theory) you'll get a sense of what I had in mind. The mathematical model itself demands the existence of a new field (the radion field) that has not been observed. The theory unified general relativity and electromagnetism, but because the radion field is predicted but not found, the theory is not deemed scientific. One reason might be that nothing has the property of coupling to the radion field (unlikely in this case), which made me wonder: if something like KK theory were formalised that predicted two new fields -- one detectable and detected, the other undetectable even in principle -- would the predictiveness and simplicity of the theory justify belief in something out there that we cannot possibly detect under any circumstances?

The brief conversation at the start of the thread raised the following points:
1. does the existence of the detectable field grant some higher ontological status to the model's features, such that detecting it itself is an indirect observation of the undetectable field? (e.g. we also learn things like geometries and symmetries of the universe that necessitate the undetectable field)
2. there is nothing stopping us in principle from adding the newly detected field to an extended Standard Model by hand, in which case the original model -- the raison d'etre of that new field's discovery -- is nominally unscientific again.
Quashing my heart, I am inclined toward the latter: the model is just the only available model right now, and belief in the undetectable field is still unjustified. But the former is compelling, and in reality we would look for other evidence consistent with that model, which might make belief in the undetectable field more justified. It is an artefact of the question that this is not the case.

That is what I was taking issue with. — Wayfarer

This is why the question is worded as it is. What I said was a materialist viewpoint, your idealist one is different. The ontology of reference frames may be under dispute, so does not fall under the definition of an unambiguously immaterial thing.

No worries dude.

Now you're just saying that that grounding and use is what makes them material - physicists couldn't explain their experiments without them.

That's OK. But it doesn't quite fit your definition above. A reference frame isn't itself detectable, it's instead part of the formal machinery that physicists use to detect things — Andrew M

That's not what I meant, but you're right it wasn't clear. When I say the 'idea' of reference frames is material, I mean it is encoded in books, brains, etc. The phenomena they describe are observable phenomena. But reference frames themselves are not real, i.e. they don't exist independently of us out in nature.

Eternal inflation is a very funny joke - eternal is impossible in time - where eternal inflation takes place. Those nuts think infinity is possible - It's all finite. — Devans99

Can you justify this without personal incredulity? Otherwise you may as well cut out the middleman and say: "I personally can't conceive of a universe without an intelligent creator, therefore the intelligent creator exists, and we call him God". This actually has the benefit of having only one fallacy.

That has absolutely nothing to do with my probability calculation - have you read it? — Devans99

Yes, and it ain't how Bayes intended. Utter nonsense put forward by Stephen Unwin, creationisms most willing idiot. It's an argument ab rectum.

OK. — Mww

I feel bad, like I've offended you somehow, but I'm not sure if that's because my partner has conditioned me to take "OK!" as "I'm angry!" :rofl:

However, your position is that a 3D body moves without changing either its spatial or its temporal position. That's quite a magic trick! — Luke

Not from an eternalist viewpoint, where it's just a fixed 4D body in 4D spacetime. It's just that there's an element of translation in how we imagine motion to seem. It's no longer "It was there and now it's here," so much as "It's there and here" because all of time is laid out.

The best way to tackle it is graphically. If you've ever drawn a diagram where you plot something over time, you have laid out time a bit like an eternalist universe. You can point to this time or that, see durations as lengths on the page, and you know there's nothing moving along the time axis to get from one point to another. You can also see whether something is changing with time (a wiggly line) or not (a straight line parallel to the time axis). Its exactly the same thing in the 4D eternalist universe where the thing changing with time is position. But nothing's moving along the time axis; it's all just laid out.

I am using a methodology of my own inventing with that calculation. Take a look - its perfectly reasonable. The approach is to first assume 50%/50% for an unknown, boolean question. — Devans99

I would say it shows, had I not seen Stephen Unwin use the same approach. If it is reasonable, apply it to the analogy given. The probability of Col. Mustard being the killer is 50/50 by your reasoning. The probability of Prof. Plum being the killer is also 50/50. The probability of Mrs. White being the killer is 50/50. The probability of Miss. Scarlet being the killer is 50/50. The probability of Rev. Green being the killer is 50/50. The probability of Mrs. Peacock being the killer is 50/50.

Do you see what's gone wrong here? And why?

The word 'eternity' has two meanings: infinite in time or external to all forms of time. The first is impossible — Devans99

Actually they're the same. An object, let's consider for simplicity a 3D object, that is timeless: f(x,y,z)... not time. Now let's consider a 3D object in time that is always identical to itself at any given time: f(x,y,z,t)=f(x,y,z,T)=f(x,y,z). A thing that is eternally identical to itself at any time is timeless. The inflaton field is such a thing. It is forever expanding, but at every time and position is homogenous.

I started at 50%/50% before taking any of the evidence into account. — Devans99

And that was the first mistake. If you're going for Bayesian estimates, you can't just say X and !X are 50/50. At the start of a game of Clue(do), the probability of the culprit being Col. Mustard or not Col. Mustard is not 50/50.

God is timeless and finite. — Devans99

If he's timeless, he's eternal. The inflaton field is also timeless btw insofar as its value doesn't change with time.

1. Start at 50%/50% for the unknown boolean question ‘is the universe a creation?’ — Devans99

Repeating the same error does not alleviate that error.

Nothing can be eternal - infinity is complete bullshit. — Devans99

Then God is screwed.

But the probability of the universe being a creation is rather high (its either a creation or not - that's 50% / 50% - plus all the other abundant signs that it was created - start of time, big bang, universe not in equilibrium, argument from causality, Aquinas's 3rd argument) and the probability of the fine tuning for life happening by accident is incredibly low. GO FIGURE. — Devans99

This is the probability theory of the amateur theologian, not of the mathematician. The error is always the same: we cannot prove God does not exist, therefore his probability of existing is 50%. That is false. To see this, simply consider the God hypothesis plus two unproven and mutually exclusive scientific hypotheses, say eternal inflation plus a symmetric universe with only a locally defined arrow of time.

The truth of any of them is unknown, but they can't each have a probability of 50% since the total probability of any of them must be <= 100%.

This does not define the probabilities as 1/(no. hypotheses), rather exemplifies the invalidity of the fallacy, endlessly repeated whether out of ignorance or dishonesty by creationists.

A hypothesis that requires two tests of equal importance, only one of which is completed, might be said to have a probability of 50%. The God hypothesis has been examined for millenia, tested in many ways, compared to evidence, and can be well said to have negligible probability.

Eternal Inflation theory does not rule out the need for a first cause - it explicitly requires a first cause - the anti-gravity material that starts off inflation has to come from somewhere. — Devans99

The inflaton field can be eternal, and can have yielded an infinity of universes via quantum superposition. Some models do not even require superposition, only local collapse of the field's metastable state.

How do you know these obvious and abundant signs of fine tuning are not teleological in nature? — Devans99

A man in an alley pulls you aside. "Come in to my home, I will give you a thousand dollars." You go in, he smacks you over the head, takes your wallet, and drags you outside. Next day you see him again. "Come in to my home, I will give you a thousand dollars." Technically the probability of him giving you a thousand dollars is nonzero. But, in practical terms, you know he will not.

But let's give him the benefit of the doubt just in case. You go in, he smacks you over the head, takes your new wallet, and drags you outside. Next day you see him again. And this happens every day for the rest of your life. At what point can you be quite certain that a crazy guy who is notoriously full of crap and who appears to do more harm that good is telling you something that is untrue?

That's how I know the claim of a teleological universal origin made by creationists can be dismissed as having at best negligible likelihood. That and the fact nature herself has given me every opportunity to observe that she just doesn't work that way.

There a many of signs of fine-tuning of the universe for life — Devans99

Only if they are interpreted as being teleologically fine-tuned, which they are not. Hence the circularity. You find God in the evidence to support your proof of his existence, be he there or not. Which he's not.

The chances of the universe supporting life by purely a co-incidence are very remote... That correspondingly makes the chances of the universe supporting life by design very high... and by accident is exceedingly unlikely. — Devans99

But these are arguments from ignorance. We do not know why the laws of nature are as they are, nor do we know if our universe is special. Leading theory has that it is not, and that theory at least has the features of being a) possible and b) mechanically worked out, which the God hypothesis is not blessed with.

The possibility of inflation theory being right not only rules out the non-existent necessity of an intelligent first cause, it renders whatever back-of-the-envelope estimate you have of our improbability meaningless.

Finally, any number, no matter how small, is large compared with zero. Even if we agree that the probability of this universe existing by chance is one in a trillion, that can still be (and is) much larger than the probability of it being created by a nonexistent creator. You cannot assume that God creating the world is more probable than accident in your proof that God exists. That would, again, be circular.

If we assume that God does not exist, the probability of him having created the universe is zero, compared to which sheer chance is good odds.

All I’m saying is some “unambiguous immaterial substances” seem to be quite justified. — Mww

Well, I'd say not in this case. The idea of reference frames strikes me as material, as does the actual thing it represents. You might, if you were an idealist for instance, disagree. That was precisely the ambiguity I sought to exclude, although, as Pfhorrest pointed out, it could be argued that my hypothetical example suffers another ambiguity.

As I understand it then, according to 4D geometry, a 3D body changes spatial position with respect to temporal position only, but it does not actually change either spatial or temporal position. And despite not actually changing either spatial or temporal position, the 3D body still moves (or there "is" motion). Have I understood that correctly? — Luke

Not completely. The gradient in 4D may be with respect to other spatial dimensions just as it can in 3D.

The 3D position changes with respect to time; the 4D object does not change with respect to anything.

The altitude of the mountain changes the closer to the summit you go, but a given position of the 3D mountain does not change. Equivalent statement, projected down a dimension.

The signs of fine-tuning in the universe suggest intelligence — Devans99

There are no signs of teleological fine-tuning. That is an interpretation that once again assumes the necessity of an intelligent creator, making the argument still circular.

The start of time suggests intelligence — Devans99

Precisely the thing you seek to prove. Circular.

I doubt the first cause can be a random process: — Devans99

I doubt that it could be an intelligent creator. Would you accept that as dismissal of Aquinus' and by proxy your proof? If not, why should anyone accept the above?

That's informationally a something from nothing. All humans have ever been able to manage is pseudo-random. — Devans99

The conservation-of-information argument is a good argument against certain interpretations of QM, such as the Copenhagen interpretation. All other forms contain probabilistics and conserve information.

That said, information is not proven to be a conserved quantity like energy or momentum anyway. If your argument relies on it, it ought to be stated as an assumption at least.

But your criteria says spacetime, being affected by material objects, is under the purview of the material world, and, if inertial frames are only contained by or in spacetime, it would appear such frames are every bit as affected by material objects, thus also under the purview of the material world, suggesting an ontological value. — Mww

Referring to the emphasised section, I'm unaware of anyone saying that spacetime contains reference frames. Reference frames are a mathematical tool for describing spacetime and the moving bodies within it. It is an artefact of these tools that an origin and some scales must be chosen to realise that utility, and these are arbitrary unless one specifically desires to consider a particular body to be in fact at rest, such as a laboratory or a hypothetical twin. What we detect is the phenomena that reference frames in relativity are so good at describing, such as the observer-dependence of whether the motion of a freefalling body is linear or parabolic, the discrepancies between accurate clocks close to or far from the Earth's surface, or the velocity-dependence of decaying unstable particles. These are frameworks within which we can ask insightful questions, i.e. ideas, rather than anything physicists consider to be out there somewhere. As ideas, they are again existing in minds, books, papers, lecture notes, memories, etc. and as such influence matter.

But the whole point of relativity is that physical laws are not in terms of frames. If I wish to state coordinates, I can only do so with respect to frames. But the vectors themselves are invariant under frame transform, and it is those that dictate the particular manifestation of physical law under study.

I think that’s because it’s a fact that is inconvenient to naturalism. It’s the crack in the egg. — Wayfarer

It arose out of the idea, espoused by myself on said thread, that if a thing does not interact with matter at all, belief in it is unjustified. This thread takes a special case of some abstract thing that, perfectly allowably in a fundamental physical model, does not couple to any material. That was what interested me; that is why I asked that specific question. The "Materialism and consciousness" thread perfectly covers what interests you, and I can battle it out with you over matters of mind there if you like :)

But in order for it to move, it needs to change both spatial and temporal position. — Luke

With respect to what? A moving body's position changes with respect to time: that is the very gradient that tells us it is moving. In 4D, it is not that a 3D slice moves from time to time -- a presentist idea -- it is that the 4D geometry of the object is that of a moving body.

If a body moves from t to t', it must be moving with respect to something. Relativity has this "something". Classical mechanics does not.

You could invert the equation, and say that a body moves through time with respect to position: dt/dx. Of course, this is no longer kinematics, and the "movement" through time is undefined for restful bodies.

What this doesn’t allow for, is the fact that they enable predictions regarding things, about which we had no previous knowledge. They can’t simply be in the mind, as they’re efficacious and predictive with respect to objective phenomena. — Wayfarer

This is an unrelated and rightly disputed claim. The wording of the OP was precisely to avoid the necessity of deciding whether phenomena like human ideas are material or not. The "Materialism and consciousness" thread is an obvious home for this sort of discussion. Here, if it is predictive, it is considered by the definitions in the OP to be material in the modern sense.

If the 3D position of the object changes ("varies") from t to t', then it moves from t to t'. — Luke

No. It moves from position to position. In classical kinematics, a body at rest is not said to move from t to t'. In relativistic kinematics, it is.

However, you continually deny that the 3D position of the object changes from t to t', — Luke

No, I attest that it does, i.e. its position is time-dependent. I deny that this necessitates something moving from t to t' in order to do so. This is a presentist idea invading an eternalist domain where it cannot exist. In 4D, geometry is sufficient for motion.

So if there were none of these, would e still equal mc2? Do such facts only come into existence when discovered by us? — Wayfarer

The laws underpinning or being (perhaps approximately) described by theories would not seem to me to come under the definition of unambiguously immaterial substance, since they ate indirectly observable, i.e. they effect matter. This is why I tried to be careful in limiting consideration to undetectable things.

Do you agree that the general theory of relativity exists? — Wayfarer

Yes, in books, brains, lecture notes, academic papers. In lots of places. :)

However as Judaka said, colonialism isn't capitalism. — ssu

It's not a counterargument though. Any capitalism in any part of the world at any time relied on destroying first the means of self-provision: the very theft I here claim. Colonialism was the violent means of the theft in the Americas, invasion in GB, and yes neither necessitated capitalism, but capitalism is derived on that theft. It was a necessary but insufficient condition. You cannot have a capitalism without first ruling out self-provision.

Who is thief let's say in Iran? — ssu

Iran is a theocracy. The parallel cannot be mysterious.

The biggest foreign companies operating in volatile Iraq are CNPC (Chinese), Petronas (Malaysian), Lukoil (Russian), KOGAS (South Korean) among BP (British), Shell (Dutch) and Exxon (American). — ssu

And do you think these modern Lords would have agreed to terms that the land and its resources belonged to everybody? Or does it rather necessitate that a minority can claim the power to bequeath those lands?

Capitalism today works globally through a rapid increase in cross-border movement of goods, services, technology, and capital along with companies operation in various countries. This makes many times the old 19th Century or early 20th Century criticism of capitalism a bit off. — ssu

It makes no odds that I see. The fact that our ancestors mostly lacked technological capability to cross borders does not mean that they were socially barred from hunting and gathering anywhere they so pleased. The original settlers of the US crossed the Atlantic to hunt and gather, and without a pervasive system of private possession of land.

Reference, or inertial, frames? They are immaterial, but they make perfect sense, and without them, SR is mighty hard to explain. — Mww

That is true, but I included spacetime under the material category because I can do an experiment with material objects to determine e.g. the time difference between two events for me and for you (muon decay experiment, for instance). Beyond that, I don't interpret relativity as saying that reference frames have any ontological value. They are a useful tool for doing relativity, and as such I think fall under the broad category of human ideas, encodable in materials, and likely encoded in materials when being considered or memorised.

And perhaps that's all my hypothesised immaterial substance is: an idea that helps one to think about reality by casting it in the only available simplified mathematical model, itself merely a tool to account for the properties of matter.

I was reading the other day somewhere that the fact of the earth being at the centre of the Universe was no cause for celebration, as the earth was regarded as being very lowly in the celestial hierarchy, and the centre of the earth was hell. — Wayfarer

Yes, that's why the Inquisition put heliocentrists on trial, because they liked Hell not being at the centre of the universe.

I do not doubt theologians' ability to change their minds eventually, when continuing to deny something well established looks increasingly stupid. I disagree that this credits them with any wisdom after the fact.

My point was that dismissing multiverse theory on grounds of taste is just repeating the same silly mistake the church makes throughout its history. If multiple universes are possible, and the evidence is consistent with their possibility, even their inevitability, the claim that this one must be special (e.g. the only one, or perhaps "at the centre") is the special pleading that needs justifying or dismissing.

I'm just asking you to explain the difference between {change in temporal position from t to t'} and {the object has moved from t to t'}. — Luke

Because motion in 4D is not given by a time duration, it is given by the geometry of the 4D object over that time duration. If the 3D position of the object varies, it is moving. If it does not, it is not.

I guess you're not going to address this question then:

Namely, how does {change in temporal position from t to t'} not mean exactly the same thing as {the object has moved from t to t'}?
— Luke — Luke

In translating phenomena from an eternalist viewpoint to that of subjective experience, the second is meaningful. It is meaningless in a purely eternalist viewpoint. That's been the problem throughout: you attempt to retain presentist ideas in eternalism. The only question that matters is: what does motion look like in eternalism. A: it looks like geometry.

*Actual motion we get for free. Never post before coffee...

...as do attempts to defray the appeal of the ‘fine-tuning argument’ by referring to the possibilities of multiverses, of which ‘this universe’ ‘just happens to be one’. — Wayfarer

This sounds familiar, something about the distaste of having the Earth not at the centre of creation but as a planet that 'just happens to be one' of several in the solar system. I mean, any scientific theory that is contra to my religious beliefs is going to be silly, right?

Again, only if you assume motion in the first place. Otherwise there is no change. Which is what you keep saying. — Luke

No, I am assuming geometry and the kinematic definition of motion. Actually motion we get fir free. Unless you address that, I'm going to have assume you're not really interested in your own question.

Your OP doesn’t really address what the title suggests, namely, immaterial substance.
...
This naturally lead to the conception that the universe can be understood wholly and solely in terms of the objects of the physical sciences, ‘bearers of primary qualities’, which is the underlying paradigm of scientific materialism. Within that paradigm, the idea of a ‘thinking substance’ or an ‘immaterial substance’ is nonsensical, as no such object can be demonstrated. — Wayfarer

Yet you got from classical Greek meaning of 'substance' to the very raison d'etre of my question yourself! :) The quality in question is undefined. It can be squareness or happiness for all I care. The point was, is demonstration that it should exist sufficient to justify belief in it, even though we cannot demonstrate it itself.

Only if you assume it is. — Luke

It's a direct consequence of its kinematic definition: dx/dt. Any continuous 4D object will have this property, even if its value is zero. Motion in 4D is geometry. This is not an opinion.

2. 'Change in temporal position' means the object does not move from t to t' (there is no motion)
...
You need to explain how 3 can make sense. — Luke

I don't, you do. (2) is meaningless garbage you insist upon to hold onto a conclusion you clearly do not understand but for some reason desperately need.

I think that any mechanism of a purely dumb nature cannot be the first cause - it would have to initiate an action by its own accord — Devans99

And thus your argument is circular: you assume that only a god can create a universe to defend the conclusion that whatever created the universe must be a god. It is not a separate point.

ps I don't mean it! Just a joke. — Devans99

It's a good one too! I'm cool with banter, don't worry.

The first cause has to cause the second cause. So it must somehow be animate - and I cannot see how something can be animate and not intelligent. — Devans99

A permanent (timeless or cyclic) thing can be a first cause. The mechanism of the effect can be probabilistic. I'm not saying it is per se, just that it's a bit more economic with assumptions than God.

God also gets us into more bother than he solves. We know he is causal himself: he decides to create a universe. Why this one, why then? What lead up to that? And what led up to that?

It is used for different things, you're right.

The universe is usually used to describe everything that resulted from the Big Bang, even if it is outside our light cone. It often gets used synonymously with "the observable universe" which is everything in our past light cone. It also gets used in the idea of "parallel universes" synonymously with the "world" of Many Worlds Interpretation.

Finally it is used to differentiate different universes with different big bangs in multiverse theory. There is some overlap. Universes in multiverse theory are also "parallel" in the same way universes in the MWI are parallel, as well as (or rather because of) having no overlap with our universe.

The reason is that different people work in different fields. An astronomer deals with the observable universe, a cosmologist with the whole universe, a quantum theorist with parallel states, etc. Getting them to standardise is hard. Atomic physicists still use chemical nomenclature, for instance. Absolutely no reason for it, it's unnecessarily difficult.

I think language comes about by we having the same idea by a pre-estalished harmony and we come up with words to match the thoughts. — Gregory

Didn't structuralism kill this idea off? Why would we have different languages for the same thought?

They must have different circles in your parts... — Devans99

Possibly, we don't see many in my neck of the woods. They sure have lots of em in yours though.

Since you are not assuming the existence of an intelligent creator to dismiss scientific models of first causes that don't require an intelligent creator, can I infer that you accept the point that an intelligent creator is not necessary for a first cause after all? Or do you have a justification for why the first cause must be intelligent that doesn't assume an intelligent creator?