Here's one that's not so easy, unless you understand it: what do you mean by "cause"?
To avoid being mysterious, I'll observe that you're trying to put reality into the language. The reality has no problem with itself, but language certainly sometimes has problems with reality. So what does "cause" mean? — tim wood
The absence of causality does not refute materialism. It refutes the proposition that knowledge of natural causes refutes theism. — GeorgeTheThird
Yes, causality is just the simplest form of linear connection. Same thing with Complex Adaptive Systems and chaotic attractors. That's why it's called 'non-linear dynamics'. The relationships exist, they just aren't straightforward.I know next to nothing about quantum physics but I can tell you that there are mathematical equations in that field and equations are, in my opinion, causal relations. — TheMadFool
Yes, causality is just the simplest form of linear connection. Same thing with Complex Adaptive Systems and chaotic attractors. That's why it's called 'non-linear dynamics'. The relationships exist, they just aren't straightforward. — Pantagruel
The appeal to science for support of materialism is fallacious because comprehension of the operation natural world is not proof that the world was not created by a supernatural being. The Judeo-Christian assertion is that increased knowledge of the natural world leads to increased appreciation of the Creator's genius. No scientific experiment can falsify that assertion. — GeorgeTheThird
At the level of individual particle events, the universe is a black box. We have learned how to push the buttons and read the gauges on the face of the box, but we have no idea what is going on inside the box. — GeorgeTheThird
The statistics for the aggregate outcome are not an explanation of the particular outcomes. — GeorgeTheThird
Statistics (as you point out) show some understanding of particle events in the aggregate. The obvious question is, "What makes the individual particles behave as they do, so that they produce the aggregate behavior?"
For example, if 100 coins are thrown in the air and allowed to land on the floor, there will be about 50 heads and 50 tails. If the actual numbers are 52 heads and 48 tails, we might ask why that is so. The statistics for the aggregate outcome are not an explanation of the particular outcomes.
The classical laws of physics can, in principle, provide the answer so long as the initial conditions of the coins, and the environmental conditions, are known. The outcome is predictable and comprehended.
There is neither comprehension nor predictability for individual particles. The operation of the universe is not understood. — GeorgeTheThird
There is neither comprehension nor predictability for individual particles. The operation of the universe is not understood. — GeorgeTheThird
I am not attacking scientific knowledge. Not in the least. I work in the applied sciences, as an engineer. I make my living putting to use what the theoreticians have proposed and the experimentalists have demonstrated. I doubt anyone has more respect for those people than me.Firstly, if you're going to use the lack/absence of causality in the quantum world to attack scientific "knowledge" — TheMadFool
I haven't actually introduced God; I have not presented an argument for the existence of God. I have argued that the refutation of God on the basis of knowledge of the natural world has failed. This opens up the possibility of a real God for some who previously considered his existence impossible. Positive arguments for God are for a different discussion.which is, as you presume, about causal relationships and then use this gap to introduce god — TheMadFool
Knowing next to nothing, it is unwise to assume others know nothing without having done some reading on your own. (I did the same thing when I first became interested in relativity, and made a fool of myself on the physics forum.)you might want to investigate the reasons behind why there's no definitive understanding of causality at the quantum level. I know next to nothing about quantum physics — TheMadFool
No, the equations are not causal. They describe probabilities of states, not causes of states. No cause for the state of a quantum system is known.but I can tell you that there are mathematical equations in that field and equations are, in my opinion, causal relations. — TheMadFool
There is certainly a difference in predictability. The behavior of individual particles is completely unpredictable, while the behavior of particles in the aggregate is predictable to within some very small (but greater than-zero) percentage.there's a difference between the behavior of individual particles and aggregates of particles. We may be uncertain about causality in the former but causality is well-established in the latter. — TheMadFool
For all practical purposes, you are correct, of course. Technically, however, the location of a billiard ball is not known with certainty. The wave equation for the ball only describes the probability that it will be at some specific location. It's just that the range of uncertainty is extremely small, smaller than our ability to measure. (As I recall, it is even smaller than a single atom, but don't quote me on that.)For instance each particle inside a billiard ball behaves in accordance to quantum physics but the billiard ball participates in a causal chain when somebody plays it. — TheMadFool
On the contrary, the complete failure to comprehend individual particle behavior means that we have no understanding at all of why the macro world behaves as it does.The god of the gaps has mainly been about the macro, human-scale world where causality applies and in this domain, science has clearly identified and described causal relationships. The fact that you're trying to use quantum physics, a smaller region compared to what was initially all phenomena, is an indication that, indeed, the god of the gaps is shrinking in relevance. — TheMadFool
What causes a collection of completely unpredictable particles to exhibit highly predictable behavior? — GeorgeTheThird
On the contrary, the complete failure to comprehend individual particle behavior means that we have no understanding at all of why the macro world behaves as it does. — GeorgeTheThird
The universe is a collection of quantum particles. Again: What causes a collection of completely unpredictable particles to exhibit highly predictable behavior? — GeorgeTheThird
What are the bases that you say that the universe is made of a collection of completely unpredictable particles? — god must be atheist
Every high level event in the universe is the sum of many individual particle events. (Gravity can be ignored in this discussion because there will be no gravity events without massive particles, and massive particles are the result of quantum events.)
Science knows of no cause for the outcome of any individual particle event. So, any given high-level event that has a known cause is the sum of many individual particle events, not one of which has a known cause. (Or has no cause at all, if the prevailing theory of quantum mechanics is correct.)
I did not mean by this that we have no functional understanding of the macro world. As I mentioned, I work as an engineer; I make use of the laws of physics as I design electro-mechanical eqipment. My livelihood depends on the predictable behavior of the macro world.This is not a valid proposition to say that because we don't understand individual particle behaviour, we have no way of understanding why the macro world behaves as it does. — god must be atheist
I do mean that the predictable behavior of the macro world is in itself an astonishing thing. There is no reason for the macro world, which is a collection of unpredictable particles, to act in a predictable way. It's as though the output from a random number generator were to present as a set of logarithm tables.
Why does the macro world behave predictably according to mathematical laws, instead of randomly as one would expect a collection of unpredictable particles to behave? That's what we don't understand, and in that fundamental sense we do not understand reality. — GeorgeTheThird
I can go some distance down that road. The critical point in this discussion is that there is no knowledge of cause or reason for the predictable behavior of the collection of unpredictable particles that constitutes the macro world. And that means that scientific materialism has failed to explain the natural world in terms of cause and effect, and so has failed in its attempt to eliminate God as cause. Again, this does not prove the existence of God. But it does open the door to the possibility of his existence for those who felt the door was closed by scientific knowledge.I think the way forward here is to investigate the ideas of causation and explanation. We sometimes say that we've explained something when we have fit it into a pattern or law. Often enough these 'laws' are 'true for no reason.' That's just how things happen. — softwhere
I agree that we humans will often end up against principles or patterns or laws that are true for no known reason; they are brute facts so far as we can tell.It seems to me that humans will always end up against principles or patterns or laws that are true for no reason, brute facts. What do you make of this? And how do notions of God/god fit in with this? Can the idea of God be more than another 'true for no reason' terminus for inquiry? — softwhere
Well, if you will pardon me for saying so, that is just bad theology from a Christian (and Jewish) perspective. In the Scripture, God presents himself first to our reason; emotions will follow as, when, and if appropriate.I just thought I'd add that I think that gods function as emotion-generating community-binding symbols. The temptation for many is to somehow take religion literally and be scientific. IMV this results in awkward attempts to prove God's existence as a physical object of some sort. — softwhere
Taken by itself, the interpretation might be very broad. But even as a stand-alone statement, the interpretation is not open-ended. "Spirit" is separate and distinct from "physical", so an interpretation that makes God into a physical object of some sort is clearly outside the limits.What does 'God is a spirit' who 'must be worshipped in spirit and in truth' mean? Well it's a text that remains endlessly open to interpretation. — softwhere
And that means that scientific materialism has failed to explain the natural world in terms of cause and effect, and so has failed in its attempt to eliminate God as cause. — GeorgeTheThird
I agree that we humans will often end up against principles or patterns or laws that are true for no known reason; they are brute facts so far as we can tell. — GeorgeTheThird
It seems to me that the "is" of the universe (as opposed to the "does") will always be in that category. — GeorgeTheThird
And yes, I suppose the existence of God is true (or not true, depending on perspective) for no reason that we can ever know. (The theist might add, in this life anyway.) — GeorgeTheThird
Well, if you will pardon me for saying so, that is just bad theology from a Christian (and Jewish) perspective. In the Scripture, God presents himself first to our reason; emotions will follow as, when, and if appropriate. — GeorgeTheThird
God is Spirit": God is spirit, not physical; he exists apart from the physical world that he created. — GeorgeTheThird
Human beings, though obviously physical, are also moral. Our honor, commitment, and devotion to God is moral in character, just as he is moral. — GeorgeTheThird
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ludwig-feuerbach/#CritChriFeuerbach begins The Essence of Christianity by proposing that, since human beings have religion and animals don’t, the key to understanding religion must be directly related to whatever it is that most essentially distinguishes human beings from animals. This, he maintains, is the distinctive kind of consciousness that is involved in the cognition of universals.[10] A being endowed with such “species-consciousness” is able to take its own essential nature as an object of thought. The capacity for thought is conceived here as the capacity to engage in internal dialogue, and thus to be aware of oneself as containing both an I and a Thou (a generic other), so that, in the act of thinking, the human individual stands in a relation to his species in which non-human animals, and human beings qua biological organisms, are incapable of standing. When a human being is conscious of himself as human, he is conscious of himself not only as a thinking being, but also as a willing and a feeling being.
The power of thinking is the light of knowledge [des Erkenntnis], the power of the will is the energy of character, the power of the heart is love. (WC 31/3)
These are not powers that the individual has at his disposal. They are rather powers that manifest themselves psychologically in the form of non-egoistic species-drives (Gattungstriebe) by which individuals periodically find themselves overwhelmed, especially those poets and thinkers in whose works the species-essence is most clearly instantiated. [11] Such manifestations include the experiences of erotic and platonic love; the drive to knowledge; the experience of being moved by the emotion expressed in music; the voice of conscience, which compels us to moderate our desires to avoid infringing on the freedom of others; compassion; admiration; and the urge to overcome our own moral and intellectual limitations. The latter urge, Feuerbach contends, presupposes an awareness that our individual limitations are not limitations of the species-essence, which functions thus as the norm or ideal toward which the individual’s efforts at self-transcendence are directed. — link
God is worthy of our honor and obedience; our full commitment and devotion. — GeorgeTheThird
Again: What causes a collection of completely unpredictable particles to exhibit highly predictable behavior? — GeorgeTheThird
Hmmmm. As someone who converted from an atheistic, human-centered, and essentially selfish worldview to a God-centered life of service to God and my fellow man [aside: however poorly executed that life of service may have been so far, the 180 degree turn in outlook is real and genuine], I find it difficult to understand and impossible to accept that humanism is a continuation of theology. I understand from your final statement in this post why you say this, but I cannot agree.To me humanism is a continuation of theology. — softwhere
I don't consider that the existence of God can be proven.I insist that God as theoretical object is a bad framework. For me this is religion infected by scientism. To use logic and science to 'prove' God is to make logic and science primary and God a merely piece of bad physics. — softwhere
I read all of your post, and perhaps ten minute's worth of the web page on Feuerbach. My impression is that your view (and Feuerbach's view) makes sense—to a point—if one begins with the assumption that the spiritual realm is mythical and metaphorical.As I see it, we try to incarnate God (the highest values) and imitate Christ. For me these terms are mythical and metaphorical, but then I think the spiritual realm is mythical and metaphorical. While this may sound like a demotion, I don't think it is. Such myths and metaphors help us create good communities and live honorable lives. — softwhere
The question is why the observed quantities of the macro world are unaffected by the unpredictability of quantum particles.Well, perhaps it's an issue of viewpoint. Predictability, where it's exhibited (the macro world), is "always" about mass, velocity, acceleration, volume, etc which aren't affected by unpredictable quantum properties of particles. — TheMadFool
As someone who converted from an atheistic, human-centered, and essentially selfish worldview to a God-centered life of service to God and my fellow man [aside: however poorly executed that life of service may have been so far, the 180 degree turn in outlook is real and genuine], I find it difficult to understand and impossible to accept that humanism is a continuation of theology. — GeorgeTheThird
I don't consider that the existence of God can be proven. — GeorgeTheThird
Feuerbach made his first attempt to challenge prevailing ways of thinking about individuality in his inaugural dissertation, where he presented himself as a defender of speculative philosophy against those critics who claim that human reason is restricted to certain limits beyond which all inquiry is futile, and who accuse speculative philosophers of having transgressed these. This criticism, he argued, presupposes a conception of reason is a cognitive faculty of the individual thinking subject that is employed as an instrument for apprehending truths. He aimed to show that this view of the nature of reason is mistaken, that reason is one and the same in all thinking subjects, that it is universal and infinite, and that thinking (Denken) is not an activity performed by the individual, but rather by “the species” acting through the individual. “In thinking”, Feuerbach wrote, “I am bound together with, or rather, I am one with—indeed, I myself am—all human beings” (GW I:18). — page
the I, the self in general, which especially since the beginning of the Christian era, has ruled the world and has thought of itself as the only spirit that exists at all [to be] cast down from its royal throne. — Feuerbach
My impression is that your view (and Feuerbach's view) makes sense—to a point—if one begins with the assumption that the spiritual realm is mythical and metaphorical. — GeorgeTheThird
As I see it, your view stops making sense when you say, "Such myths and metaphors help us create good communities and live honorable lives."
You speak of 'good' and 'honorable' as if these characteristics exist for humanity as a whole. If there is no spirit, there is no more connection between one human being and another than between one rock and another. — GeorgeTheThird
The notions of 'good' and 'honorable' are meaningless in a spiritless world. In a spiritless world, one nerve impulse is as good as any other, whether the impulse is to help an old woman across the street or throw her under a passing bus. None of it matters. The universe doesn't care whether the collection of particles we call "that woman" continues in its current configuration, or is dispersed from one end of the galaxy to the other. There is no such concept as 'value', no means by which such a quantity might be measured.
In a spiritless world, humanism is an illusion. — GeorgeTheThird
I welcome your response. — GeorgeTheThird
The question is why the observed quantities of the macro world are unaffected by the unpredictability of quantum particles. — GeorgeTheThird
There is a lot to think about in this final paragraph, and in the rest of the post. I'll need some time to work through it. It may be a few days before I give a full response, as this is a busy time with family and (I'll use your word here) community.What humanism has to forfeit is the immortality of God. If we go, then all of our myths and living community spirit goes with us. Outside of the realm of spirit (which for me is culture and community), there does indeed seem to be a nature that is utterly indifferent to us. But declaring kindness meaningless because we can't find it in our physical calculations is questionable. It accepts science as the one true metaphysics. I don't think the choice is between traditional religion and a physics driven nihilism. I do confess that philosophical humanism doesn't offer everything that traditional religion does. And we live in surreal times. Hegel and Feuerbach lived in a century that believed in endless human progress. We live under the threat of climate change, nuclear war, capitalism run amok, etc. — softwhere
I'll need some time to work through it. It may be a few days before I give a full response, as this is a busy time with family and (I'll use your word here) community. — GeorgeTheThird
In many respects, we share a common set of values. You speak of kindness, justice, honor, freedom; of ideals and goodness. We are, as you might put it, connected as human beings, our fundamental philosophical differences notwithstanding. — GeorgeTheThird
Yet this particular difference matters a great deal, because of its implications: I consider that true goodness must be something more than a shared favorable opinion. A good act must be good, and a bad act bad, in and of itself, regardless of whether I like it or not. Otherwise, on what basis do we heap reproach on the Nazis, who believed they were doing humanity a favor by ridding the earth of the Jews? On what basis do I restrain myself today from rationalizing an act which six months ago I condemned as treachery? On what basis do we punish people with loss of property and freedom when they violate the community consensus of good behavior? — GeorgeTheThird
No, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle says that the mass-energy of an electron that exists for a short time is uncertain. See Bruce Schumm, Deep Down Things, Chapter 4, under the heading The Living Vacuum.I think mass and what happens to mass, motion is predictable and mass isn't affected by quantum weirdness. For instance, an electron's position may be a probabilistic wave function but its mass is always whatever it is — TheMadFool
No, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle says that the mass-energy of an electron that exists for a short time is uncertain. See Bruce Schumm, Deep Down Things, Chapter 4, under the heading The Living Vacuum.
Schumm's book is readable by the layman, yet goes into considerable detail. I have intentionally avoided discussion of these details because I know I don't have a good grip on them. What Schumm makes clear, and every author I have read makes clear, is that we know nothing about what goes on when particles interact with each other. We only measure the results, and only as statistics in the aggregate. — GeorgeTheThird
Actually the assumption in the question is not the case. Large 'objects' are affected by quantum effects. Birds use strange quantum effects to navigate, plants us a kind of quantum computing to choose how to take in photons. We don't really know if the indeterminate patterns at the quantum level are not affecting especially lifeforms.The question is why the observed quantities of the macro world are unaffected by the unpredictability of quantum particles. — GeorgeTheThird
What this post is a reply to was my "explanation".
I think mass and what happens to mass, motion is predictable and mass isn't affected by quantum weirdness. For instance, an electron's position may be a probabilistic wave function but its mass is always whatever it is and this allows us to predict the path an electron will take in, say, a magnetic field although the electron itself is nebulous wave function.
We need to understand what about particles is predictable. As far as I know, their motion is predictable and motion is mass-dependent and mass is independent of any quantum property of particles i.e. it remains fixed at a specific value for each particle. — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.