Why would God be interested in free lunches?

[QED]

Most of us are familiar with the saying "there's no such thing as a free lunch" and physics backs this up with the notion of conserved properties. The best known of these is probably energy which most schoolkids will tell us "can neither be created nor destroyed". Other example of conserved properties are electric charge and angular momentum. This jives with the idea of a provident God -- only he who has the power to break these universal rules and inject energy, charge and momentum into the unfolding universe. And what a lot of this we might imagine there to be!

But actually there isn't. All these laws of conservation hold within the universe, however they do not apply to the universe as a whole. The total mass-energy has a net sum indistinguishable from zero (when the negative contribution of gravitational potential energy is accounted for) and any imbalance in the numbers of electrons and protons would have a dramatic affect on structures of cosmic scale as the electric force is so much stronger than the force of gravity holding these structures together. If there was any net angular momentum to the universe then it would have shown as an increase in the microwave background radiation in the direction of its rotation axis. This radiation has now been measured to be the same in every direction to on part in a hundred thousand.

So why would a God with unlimited powers be so frugal? It's as though he's been down to the charity shop and blagged himself a universe for nothing. Perhaps it's the greatest testament to his ingenuity, but perhaps it's telling us something about the reason why we see the appearance of so much stuff when, with the proper accounting, it all sums to zero.

[wuntext]

Addendum:

My apologies Harvey1, I skim read your post and didn't read the ending properly. If you wish to end this here, fine. But I feel I must comment on this:

"I'm a little addled by your insistence to write philosophical dilemmas into mathematical equations"

I myself am "a little addled" by this statement! You seemed to have no hesitation in using mathematical equations when you thought they would further your case.
If my use of mathematical equations in response to your posts left you 'addled', can you tell me what course of action I should have taken when addressing the mathematics in your evidence, so you could have avoided your state of 'addledness'?

[harvey1]

I will respond to your point’s one at a time...

Good idea.

Because Zeno’s paradox relies on a specific eigenstate. An eigenstate of discrete points that, in effect, can be ‘frozen’ at any one particular point, this directly contradicted by quantum indeterminacy. Zeno’s paradox is an unstable quantum system that cannot evolve past [μ1s], (Fig. 1, Page 7, your link, Post 52) it begins to decay from [t>μ1s]

This is an observable or measured state:

Repeated measurement of a system effects its dynamics much more complex and delicate way than just slowing the evolution. The above described Quantum Zeno Effect... Nevertheless modern experimental techniques enable to prepare artificual unstable systems with long enough Zeno time. (op cit. p.7)

So, I'm not sure why you bring up the quantum Zeno effect since I'm not talking about a measurement. I'm talking about the state of the particle if no measurement is performed. That is, the actual state of affairs for a particle. It evolves according to Schrodinger's equation (Hψ = -ih∂tψ), right? The evolution of the particle is not slowed since Zeno's paradox does not require that we actually make a measurement.

An eigenstate of discrete points that, in effect, can be ‘frozen’ at any one particular point, this directly contradicted by quantum indeterminacy.

Quantum indeterminacy contradicts our ability to know (i.e., restriction on epistemology), but not necessarily requires that we believe the actual state (i.e., it's ontology) of the object is vauge (called quantum vagueness of a quantum object in literature). However, if the ontic position of quantum vagueness is correct, then this still does not resolve Zeno's paradox since one quantum vague event (i.e., "the immediate cause") is still seen as distinct from a later quantum vague event (i.e., "the immediate effect"). This implies a metaphysical relation exists between the cause and effect, thereby undercutting the position held by material causation which is that the cause and effect are materially connected. This cannot be so since that would imply there is just one quantum vague object with no causation--thus contradicting the principle of material causation once again (i.e., metaphorically speaking, material cause faces Charybdis & Scylla).

because every discrete point in Zeno’s system, has to have exact position DE Dt ³ h / 4 p, and exact momentum Dx Dp ³ h / 4 p within that point (where h is the Planck Constant).

But every quantum particle does have a position and momentum. Whether that is quantumly vague is a separate issue from whether a particle actually is at a location having a momentum. Just about every observed object in our universe actually has a location in space and actually has a momentum (since galaxies are in motion with respect to each other--for example, M31 is on a collision course with our Milky Way galaxy).

In quantum mechanics such a system cannot hold both the [Dp] and [Dt] properties simultaneously, it is unstable, and will decohere into a classical non-quantum state, as I highlighted using you own evidence in Post 53:

The system will decohere rapidly of course even under controlled experimental conditions. But, Zeno's paradoxes does not assume or even imply the quantum Zeno effect. The quantum Zeno effect is perhaps not even related to the Zeno paradoxes (although I'm sure Zeno would have loved the quantum Zeno effect and probably be pleased that it was named after him).

“…during this short time period the survival probability exhibits a t^2 drop. For longer times we see a gradual transition from the t^2 dependence to linear t dependence, which corresponds to the usual exponential decay law.”

The author, I think, is talking about the quantum Zeno effect here:

Nevertheless modern experimental techniques enable to prepare artificual unstable systems with long enough Zeno time. (op cit. p.7)

So, for Zeno’s arrow to remain coherent, you must reject quantum indeterminacy. And if you reject quantum indeterminacy you have to replace it with something else.

I don't think Zeno's arrow does have to reject quantum indeterminacy (i.e., Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty) or quantum vagueness (i.e., the ontic state of an object being vague). All that Zeno's arrow need reject is material causation.

If you wish to end this here, fine.

No, not at all. I think discussing these issues in a pleasant tone is great. But, I don't see the requirement for equations at this point if we aren't talking about actually making measurements which is what I gather that you are talking about.

I myself am "a little addled" by this statement! You seemed to have no hesitation in using mathematical equations when you thought they would further your case. If my use of mathematical equations in response to your posts left you 'addled', can you tell me what course of action I should have taken when addressing the mathematics in your evidence, so you could have avoided your state of 'addledness'?

The equations mentioned in those papers was not the reason I linked to them. The reason I linked to them was to show that editors and referees thought that there was something unequivocally unsolved by the Zeno paradoxes to make them relevant to modern physics. I posted these responses because you replied with the quite normal and expected reply that calculus resolved this issue two centuries ago. So, I linked to those papers to show the inherent problems that Zeno's paradoxes present.

The main point of this discussion is to discuss the philosophy behind material causation and to discuss how Zeno's paradox of the arrow should demonstrate what I think is an insolvable dilemma for the materialist. Equations can't effectively communicate this issue since this is a philosophical issue.

[wuntext]

This is an observable or measured state:

I see some philosophical sophistry on the way. Put you point in mathematical notation please.

[harvey1]

This is an observable or measured state:

I see some philosophical sophistry on the way. Put you point in mathematical notation please.

I really don't see the need, I'm afraid.

[wuntext]

I really don't see the need, I'm afraid.

Then there really is not much point carrying on is there? We are speaking two different languages.

BTW
Hψ = -ih∂tψ isn’t Schrödinger’s equation, in this notation Schrödingers equation is Hψ = -ih∂tψ/∂t.

Hψ = -ih∂tψ looks like part of a derivative of Schrödingers equation - possibly a Quaternion Algebraic formula used for 3D orientation - global navigation, robotics, computer graphics etc.

[harvey1]

Then there really is not much point carrying on is there? We are speaking two different languages.

Well, that's too bad. You're a really smart guy. It was really a pleasure debating you. I hope I didn't get on your nerves too much, I tend to do that in the heat of a discussion.

Hψ = -ih∂tψ isn’t Schrödinger’s equation, in this notation Schrödingers equation is Hψ = -ih∂tψ/∂t.

I tried to make the "t" into a subscript by changing the font size to 8. How do you put a subscript t without creating a gif file using the formatting available on this website?

[wuntext]

How do you put a subscript t without creating a gif file using the formatting available on this website?

I don't know. I use a program called MathType that formats the equations automatically. But there's not much point buying it unless you are going to use it regularly.

[Goat]

Simple Dear Watson. Material causation is incorrect, but metaphysical causation is correct. Unfortunately most atheists won't accept metaphysical causation because deep, deep, deep down it is as if someone turned on the lights.

While I believe that, I can not show any evidence that there is that.

I would be very leary about attrubiting motivations to someone who disagrees with you. If it is a deep philosphical reason, then the reason you say will be more of a projection of yourself, rather than the thought proccesses of the person you are attributing the motivation to.

[QED]

I would be very leary about attrubiting motivations to someone who disagrees with you. If it is a deep philosphical reason, then the reason you say will be more of a projection of yourself, rather than the thought proccesses of the person you are attributing the motivation to.

Well said. Deep, deep, deep down it's really still very dark for me. Harvey's ideas simply don't mesh in my mind. Perhaps, Goat, you could explain how material causation is incorrect -- given that the "material" is, when studied at the quantum level, totally unfamiliar and counter intuitive to the point of not being fully understood. Born abandoned the causality of traditional physics in 1926:

One does not get an answer to the question, What is the state after collision? but only to the question, How probable is a given effect of the collision? From the standpoint of our quantum mechanics, there is no quantity which causally fixes the effect of a collision in an individual event.

So how does this make metaphysical causation correct instead? Material realism of the sort that Harvey mentions by way of a contrast has been dead for 80 years now. I want to know what the actual difference is between the material and immaterial now.

[harvey1]

I would be very leary about attrubiting motivations to someone who disagrees with you. If it is a deep philosphical reason, then the reason you say will be more of a projection of yourself, rather than the thought proccesses of the person you are attributing the motivation to.

Well said. Deep, deep, deep down it's really still very dark for me. Harvey's ideas simply don't mesh in my mind.

What else is left once we've looked at every known possibility and we see this deep prejudice against a God solution? Folks, it's not as if everyone on earth is saying you must believe God exists. Rather, the issue is why be an atheist if you can be an agnostic? I don't accuse as many agnostics as having psychological motivations (although some like Carl Sagan I think had them), rather I'm just asking after all of these issues have been properly raised with no solution coming from the other camp, then why do they possibly reject God as a solution? It would be like rejecting string theory when every other possible solution has been exhausted. And by reject I mean they aren't agnostic on string theory, they think string theory is absolutely wrong. The only conclusion one could draw I think is that they are psychologically motivated against strings. Perhaps they didn't think of it, perhaps they would be more embarrassed by withdrawing some of their previous comments, etc.. But, at some point the issue raises a question about psychological motivations, and we can't all walk around letting the emperor to be naked. Someone ought to say something about it.

Perhaps, Goat, you could explain how material causation is incorrect -- given that the "material" is, when studied at the quantum level, totally unfamiliar and counter intuitive to the point of not being fully understood. Born abandoned the causality of traditional physics in 1926:

Energy-matter residing in space-time. That's "material" by definition. If someone wants to construe that metaphysical relations/entities are actually energy-matter residing in space-time, then we can discuss this issue on how they resolve the dilemmas posed by that position. If they can't resolve those dilemmas, then why not just admit that metaphysical relations/entities at least make sense? If they aren't willing to acknowledge the obvious, then at least don't attack metaphysical relations as being "unlikely, etc." when their ideas of "no nonmaterial entities" are out of whack. What is so absurd about the world being different than how the material atheist mind wishes to conceive of the world?

One does not get an answer to the question, What is the state after collision? but only to the question, How probable is a given effect of the collision? From the standpoint of our quantum mechanics, there is no quantity which causally fixes the effect of a collision in an individual event.

So how does this make metaphysical causation correct instead?

Probability, though, is a restriction of what can happen, and therefore it is still very much wound up in the idea of an "immediate cause" to a quantum event. For example, let's suppose that Schrodinger's cat is poisoned if a particle is emitted, then the immediate cause of a probablistic event (i.e., the emission of a particle) brings about an immediate effect (i.e., the opening of a canister containing poisonous gas). Causation is preserved. Now, this doesn't in any way solve the dilemma of the paradox, but it does demonstrate simply that causation is still applicable. If there are other worlds, or if there is some symmetry breaking event, etc., etc., in every conceivable situation the material cause solution will not work in principle for any solution. The reason is that Zeno's arrow paradox forces us to look upon events (either static or fuzzy) as being either connected or not. If materially connected, then there's just one event--everything is without cause. If not materially connected, there's no relation at all between the immediate cause and immediate event. That is, there's not even a probability relation since that would be a metaphysical relation and would be forbidden by a materialist view.

Material realism of the sort that Harvey mentions by way of a contrast has been dead for 80 years now. I want to know what the actual difference is between the material and immaterial now.

Exactly, so why are people still postulating that the world is composed solely of energy-matter in a space-time? There are metaphysical entities in this world, and therefore idealists won the three millenia debate. Now we have to answer what it means that nominalists are wrong.