Can there be real causation for a material atheist?

[harvey1]

Here is my argument against material atheism:

1. If a material atheist world exists, then there must be a material cause for every effect; there can be no effect without a material cause.
2. Slicing up time to the minimum slices of time, we see there cannot be material causes that materially connects time slice A to its effect in time slice B.
3. Therefore, a material atheist world does not exist.

Based on this argument, can anyone show that it is possible for a material atheist world to exist?

[harvey1]

QED seems to believe that the determinant need not be infinitely applied from moment to moment but that the material itself is it's own future determinant.

This makes no sense. You either have a cause (or a combination of causes) for an effect (or combination of effects), or you don't. What I ask is, if we were to slow time to an infinitesimally slow speed, what causes a slice A to effect slice B. How is slice A an effect to slice B? Is the argument here that slice A is identical to slice B? If so, then where's the cause? There's just one large slice A the entire history of the universe. That kind of solution would be unbelievable since everything in the world would be random.

Harvey1, you argue, it appears, that time is required to pass information from one moment to the next concerning the material

No. I argue that a materialist would need to show how information passed from one infinitesimal moment to the next. Since I'm not operating from the materialist perspective I don't need to be restricted to such concepts.

but from the materialist perspective, time, as QED says, could be thought of as a measure of the change of the material.

Can state A of some material state be differentiated from state B of the same material which on a clock shows at a later time? If so, then is there a minimum amount of time on a clock where this differentiation is at a miminum, e.g., an infinitesimal amount of time? If not, then why not? It seems that we can measure shorter durations of time as we've been doing so for more than a millenia.

There could be a vast positional change of a photon but the time would not change for the photon, only for the observer of the photon.

Okay, let's concentrate only on the photon's frame of reference. The change for an observer (a different frame of reference) is not relevant here. There are Lorentzian transformations that can be applied (assuming the photon and observer shared the same frame of reference). I don't want to have a discussion on special relativity since it is not necessary to understand the problem at hand.

There could be absolutely no positional change at all for an object when viewed externally from a super fast moving observation post (I mean no absolute position change of the observed object and not relative change), but from the point of view of the observed object, the time would fly by relative to all other time (although it would seem exactly the same in essence to anyone experiencing it. ie. 1 relative minute would still seem like one minute irrespective).We do know that the passage of time is determined by physical considerations such as the motion in space of the observer. If we were to accelerate the observer towards the speed of light then such a passage of information from one moment to the next ( if determined by the time relative to the observer) would require greater and greater amounts of additional content in respect to position (ie.change) until eventually, as in the case of the photon, there would be no change in time at all but the position undergoes a huge change in absolute position. For the photon there is absolutely no infinitely small time slice at all other than the here and now. It should also be understood that this here and now, to the photon, is also infinitely long.

A photon moving at the speed of light would presumably experience a passage of an infinitesimal amount of time for whatever distance the photon travels. So, for example, the passage of time from M31 to earth would be an infinitesimal amount of time. The passage of time from earth to Mars would be an infinitesimal amount of time. The passage from Chicago to New York would be an infinitesimal amount of time. And, the passage of time to travel one Planck length would also be an infinitesimal amount of time. So, my question to QED is if we consider the infinitesimal time for the photon to cover a Planck length, what causes the photon to cover the next Planck length in an infinitesimal amount of time?

Now previously, Harvey1, you really didn't want me to bring this argument into it but I can't really see how we can discuss time seriously in the absence of special relativity. SR does open up a number of philosophical considerations.

Because as long as we assume that two objects started their separate journey in the same inertial frame, there are Lorentzian transformations that can be applied to calculate the time passage with respect to the other non-inertial frame. Therefore, SR is not relevant.

If we are to conclude that time should be measured then from the point of an external observer or that it should be from the subjective perspective of the universe as a whole we see that these "infinitely small time slices" are really just different perspectives of the "singular" nature of the universe. As such, it could be the nature of the universe that does not change and requires no passage of information, but your perspective of this nature is restricted to "snapshots" of a reality far too complex to be understood in it's totality.

Generally speaking, SR demonstrates that simultaneity is not feasible for measuring the proper time between separated frames, and it also shows that proper time measurements between objects starting off in the same inertial frame requires Lorentzian transformations to make those measurements. This is not relevant to the issue of causation. My argument is very simple:

1. If a material atheist world exists, then there must be a material cause for every effect; there can be no effect without a material cause.
2. Slicing up time to the minimum slices of time, we see there cannot be material causes that materially connects time slice A to its effect in time slice B.
3. Therefore, a material atheist world does not exist.

Show me how this argument is invalid without bringing up a Red Herring.

[Curious]

I argue that a materialist would need to show how information passed from one infinitesimal moment to the next. Since I'm not operating from the materialist perspective I don't need to be restricted to such concepts.

And since the materialist is not operating from your perspective what makes you think they need be restricted by your concepts?

but from the materialist perspective, time, as QED says, could be thought of as a measure of the change of the material.

Can state A of some material state be differentiated from state B of the same material which on a clock shows at a later time? If so, then is there a minimum amount of time on a clock where this differentiation is at a miminum, e.g., an infinitesimal amount of time?

So you are not saying that time can be broken into infinitesimal parts at all but on a quantum level set by the material clock or action. Make your mind up.

There could be a vast positional change of a photon but the time would not change for the photon, only for the observer of the photon.

Okay, let's concentrate only for the photon's frame of reference. The change for an observer (a different frame of reference) is not relevant here. There are Lorentzian transformations that can be applied (assuming the photon and observer shared the same frame of reference). I don't want to have a discussion on special relativity since it is not necessary to understand the problem at hand.

unnecessary??? How on earth can you even consider it less than completely necessary? That really is the most absurd thing I have heard in a long time.

A photon moving at the speed of light would experience no passage of time for whatever distance the photon travels. So, for example, the passage of time from M31 to earth would be an infinitesimal amount of time. The passage of time from earth to Mars would be an infinitesimal amount of time. The passage from Chicago to New York would be an infinitesimal amount of time. And, the passage of time to travel one nanometer would also be an infinitesimal amount of time. So, my question to QED is if we consider the infinitesimal time for the photon to cover a Planck length, what causes the photon to cover the next Planck length in an infinitesimal amount of time?

So again you say that the amount of time is not infinitesimal but is derived from the time taken for light to travel a set distance. Irrespective of this, the photon would experience the same passage of time be it one planck length, one planks length or a trillion light years. You also say here that the distance travelled, be it from Chicago to New York or Mars to Earth is an infinitesimal amount of time. Well they may be but they are the SAME infinitesimal amount of time from the point of view of the photon. In fact from the point of view of the photon there is no Mars, Earth, Chicago or New York.

Now previously, Harvey1, you really didn't want me to bring this argument into it but I can't really see how we can discuss time seriously in the absence of special relativity. SR does open up a number of philosophical considerations.

Because as long as we assume that two objects started their separate journey in the same inertial frame, there are Lorentzian transformations that can be applied to calculate the time passage with respect to the other non-inertial frame. Therefore, SR is not relevant.

Of course special relativity is relevant to this point. That you believe it is not speaks volumes regarding your understanding of the subject.

If we are to conclude that time should be measured then from the point of an external observer or that it should be from the subjective perspective of the universe as a whole we see that these "infinitely small time slices" are really just different perspectives of the "singular" nature of the universe. As such, it could be the nature of the universe that does not change and requires no passage of information, but your perspective of this nature is restricted to "snapshots" of a reality far too complex to be understood in it's totality.

Generally speaking, SR demonstrates that simultaneity is not feasible for measuring the proper time between separated frames, and it also shows that proper time requires Lorentzian transformations for objects starting off in inertial frames. This is not relevant to the issue of causation. My argument is very simple:

1. If a material atheist world exists, then there must be a material cause for every effect; there can be no effect without a material cause.
2. Slicing up time to the minimum slices of time, we see there cannot be material causes that materially connects time slice A to its effect in time slice B.
3. Therefore, a material atheist world does not exist.

Show me how this argument is invalid without bringing up a Red Herring.

Calling SR a red herring in this case is astonishing.
Time measurement concerning external reference frames requires only a basic understanding of space-time geometry. It can be done using simple Pythagorean mathematics. How can you possibly say that SR is irrelevant to causation when you yourself invoke its pre-eminence by using time. You might not like to get into it but there really is no way around it.
I notice in this thread you refer to minimum slices of time. Am I correct in my assumption that you no longer agree that time is infinitely divisible?

[harvey1]

And since the materialist is not operating from your perspective what makes you think they need be restricted by your concepts?

I'm not asking them any questions that I'm not prepared to answer.

unnecessary??? How on earth can you even consider it less than completely necessary? That really is the most absurd thing I have heard in a long time.

That's not a reason to show that SR is needed.

So again you say that the amount of time is not infinitesimal

No, it is an infinitesimal duration for the photon travelling at light speed.

they are the SAME infinitesimal amount of time from the point of view of the photon. In fact from the point of view of the photon there is no Mars, Earth, Chicago or New York.

The photon hits Mars, Earth, or Chicago or New York, and for the photon those places are real. I'm not sure why you would say they aren't real. And, I'm not sure if it is the same infinitesimal amount of duration. How is it that you think you know that? SR only says that at the speed of light any travelled distance would be measured as an infinitesimal duration regardless of the distance. There's nothing in the theory that I'm aware of that says that the infinitesimal duration must be equal for any distance travelled.

Of course special relativity is relevant to this point. That you believe it is not speaks volumes regarding your understanding of the subject.

You haven't demonstrated that it is necessary. This whole thread is based on one's own frame of reference. For example, you didn't even address Lorentzian transformations.

Calling SR a red herring in this case is astonishing.

No, SR is not a red herring, your using SR here is a red herring.

Time measurement concerning external reference frames requires only a basic understanding of space-time geometry. It can be done using simple Pythagorean mathematics. How can you possibly say that SR is irrelevant to causation when you yourself invoke its pre-eminence by using time. You might not like to get into it but there really is no way around it. I notice in this thread you refer to minimum slices of time. Am I correct in my assumption that you no longer agree that time is infinitely divisible?

I think I've said this at least four times. I never agreed that time is infinitely divisible or finitely divisible. I said that if a materialist wished to consider either possibility, then I am willing to consider both. Considering an infinitesimal versus some other finite duration (e.g., Planck moment) doesn't change the dilemma for a materialist. Since you've ignored Lorentzian transformations it seems like you are just throwing SR out there as a red herring. Why don't you throw GR out there as well?

[Curious]

And since the materialist is not operating from your perspective what makes you think they need be restricted by your concepts?

I'm not asking them any questions that I'm not prepared to answer.

But you expect proof and offer none in return. You ask a question knowing full well that science does not have all the answers and attempt to claim victory by default. Should I insist that the materialist explain to me the mechanisms involved in gravitational attraction and claim victory as I have a theory of invisible elastic bands that could explain it? I could even follow your example and insist that any argument that might undermine my theory is irrelevant.

unnecessary??? How on earth can you even consider it less than completely necessary? That really is the most absurd thing I have heard in a long time.

That's not a reason to show that SR is needed.

No it isn't, the fact that you are using time is though.

So again you say that the amount of time is not infinitesimal

No, it is an infinitesimal duration for the photon travelling at light speed.

No it is not. This duration is finite. The duration is 0t. It is not an infinitesimal duration, it is as finite as you can get.

they are the SAME infinitesimal amount of time from the point of view of the photon. In fact from the point of view of the photon there is no Mars, Earth, Chicago or New York.

The photon hits Mars, Earth, or Chicago or New York, and for the photon those places are real. I'm not sure why you would say they aren't real. And, I'm not sure if it is the same infinitesimal amount of duration. How is it that you think you know that? SR only says that at the speed of light any travelled distance would be measured as an infinitesimal duration regardless of the distance. There's nothing in the theory that I'm aware of that says that the infinitesimal duration must be equal for any distance travelled.

The time is 0 at the start and 0 at the end. I used the term infinitesimal earlier in an attempt to explain to you that this could not be reduced further as it is, as I said earlier, the here and now. There is no duration at all as there is no passage of time. It is a single snapshot. To the photon, information means nothing, coordinates mean nothing, it is everywhere at once. The duration is a zero duration and is finite.

Of course special relativity is relevant to this point. That you believe it is not speaks volumes regarding your understanding of the subject.

You haven't demonstrated that it is necessary. This whole thread is based on one's own frame of reference. For example, you didn't even address Lorentzian transformations.

And how would these transformations be relevant to this? Do you even know what they are? If you did you would realise they are not in the least relevant to this issue. You say SR is irrelevant and then want me to include Lorentzian transformations which are completely irrelevant to my point and the argument in general.

Calling SR a red herring in this case is astonishing.

No, SR is not a red herring, your using SR here is a red herring.

I think if you read my posts carefully and try to understand the points I make you will find that this is not the case. The only red herring here appears to be your own argument concerning causality which does not even attempt to counter my objections with any argument other than that they appear irrelevant. They are not irrelevant at all, they are crucial considerations when attempting to understand the nature of time.

Time measurement concerning external reference frames requires only a basic understanding of space-time geometry. It can be done using simple Pythagorean mathematics. How can you possibly say that SR is irrelevant to causation when you yourself invoke its pre-eminence by using time. You might not like to get into it but there really is no way around it. I notice in this thread you refer to minimum slices of time. Am I correct in my assumption that you no longer agree that time is infinitely divisible?

I think I've said this at least four times. I never agreed that time is infinitely divisible or finitely divisible. I said that if a materialist wished to consider either possibility, then I am willing to consider both. Considering an infinitesimal versus some other finite duration (e.g., Planck moment) doesn't change the dilemma for a materialist. Since you've ignored Lorentzian transformations it seems like you are just throwing SR out there as a red herring. Why don't you throw GR out there as well?

As I said these transformations are not relevant to this issue at all when purely explaining TIME. As you see, using SR it is clear that arguing that time is divisible by some planck moment or some infinitely small measurement is the real red herring here. Space-time is fluid and can "freeze" like ice or become like steam. Space-time merges with itself and with other space-time. It has a shifting geometry dependent upon the observation and movement within it. It is not like a box of after eight mints that is conveniently arranged in bite sized slices.

[harvey1]

But you expect proof and offer none in return.

No, I don't expect proof. I just want a conceptual answer to the question.

You ask a question knowing full well that science does not have all the answers and attempt to claim victory by default.

Not so. The problem put forward is very simple and does not require scientific knowledge. We can deal with every conceivable solution. For example, you might say that SR is wrong and then show why that leads to material causation, or you might say that infinitesimals are non-sense and show how that solves the problem.

No it isn't, the fact that you are using time is though.

You have to demonstrate how a theory benefits your cause, and you have not done so.

No, it is an infinitesimal duration for the photon travelling at light speed.

No it is not. This duration is finite. The duration is 0t. It is not an infinitesimal duration, it is as finite as you can get.

I'm not sure why you would say that. Zero time is an infinitesimal duration. In any case, I reviewed answers from physicists on this issue, and this is generally laughed at that the photon has a reference frame that we can know. First, it is experimentally off-limits. New quantum theories look like they might require violations in Lorentzian symmetry, and, on top of that, the photon does not have a rest frame, so it is argued by some physicists that this makes the question meaningless when referring to the reference frame of a photon travelling at c.

However, how does this help your case? If photons have "no duration at all... no passage of time... coordinates mean nothing... everywhere at once... duration is a zero duration and is finite" then you still must show how this gives a material cause to a material perspective of the world. Your argument would suggest that causation does not exist. If so, then you have accepted my argument that causation for material atheism does not exist, but you merely reject my argument that a lack of causation rules out material atheism, is that right? That would seem to be a very tenious argument to make on your part.

And how would these transformations be relevant to this? Do you even know what they are? If you did you would realise they are not in the least relevant to this issue. You say SR is irrelevant and then want me to include Lorentzian transformations which are completely irrelevant to my point and the argument in general.

This is your issue. You are trying to use SR in an attempt to show that material atheism can have a cause, are you not? Where is your argument?

I think if you read my posts carefully and try to understand the points I make you will find that this is not the case. The only red herring here appears to be your own argument concerning causality which does not even attempt to counter my objections with any argument other than that they appear irrelevant. They are not irrelevant at all, they are crucial considerations when attempting to understand the nature of time.

You are concerned about the nature of time, I am concerned about the nature of causation. I show that by looking at time discretely that we can show that one event cannot materially cause another event. What is your reply to this very simple question?

Space-time is fluid and can "freeze" like ice or become like steam. Space-time merges with itself and with other space-time. It has a shifting geometry dependent upon the observation and movement within it. It is not like a box of after eight mints that is conveniently arranged in bite sized slices.

Okay, come out of the clouds for a second. Is there a cause in a situation you just described. Give me an example of a cause and show me why it is a cause.

[QED]

If we zoom in on narrower and narrower durations of time...
...then we can conceive of a point to where one moment in time is not materially connected to the next moment.

Really? From where I sit it seems like all moments in time are materially connected to the next moment.

So, are you saying that time could be infinitely divisible into a infinitesimal? If so, then what connects one infinitesimal moment of time to the next? Why do you avoid this issue?

Time is a concept. It is not expressly defined in physics but is implicitly related to other quantities, such as space, mass, charge, gravitational constant, Planck's constant, etc. So you could just as easily be asking me what connects one tick-mark to the next on my ruler.

[harvey1]

Time is a concept. It is not expressly defined in physics but is implicitly related to other quantities, such as space, mass, charge, gravitational constant, Planck's constant, etc. So you could just as easily be asking me what connects one tick-mark to the next on my ruler.

Time is a concept--what does that mean? Are you saying that time should be treated as not real? Are you saying that we apply a concept to something that is continuous and that infinitesimals should be treated nominalistically? Both of those possibilities rules out causation. Show me cause.

[Curious]

You ask a question knowing full well that science does not have all the answers and attempt to claim victory by default.

Not so. The problem put forward is very simple and does not require scientific knowledge. We can deal with every conceivable solution. For example, you might say that SR is wrong and then show why that leads to material causation, or you might say that infinitesimals are non-sense and show how that solves the problem.

How exactly would one go about showing that SR was wrong or expect to give a valid answer concerning causality without scientific knowledge? All problems seem simple when we don't have to consider fact.

No it isn't, the fact that you are using time is though.

You have to demonstrate how a theory benefits your cause, and you have not done so.

I believe I have demonstrated conclusively that your time slice hypothesis is fatally flawed. You might not know how it does but this is more to do with your limited understanding of the explanation than any limitation of the explanation itself. Actually I have no cause here, I am just pointing out errors in your argument.

No, it is an infinitesimal duration for the photon travelling at light speed.

No it is not. This duration is finite. The duration is 0t. It is not an infinitesimal duration, it is as finite as you can get.

I'm not sure why you would say that. Zero time is an infinitesimal duration. In any case, I reviewed answers from physicists on this issue, and this is generally laughed at that the photon has a reference frame that we can know. First, it is experimentally off-limits. New quantum theories look like they might require violations in Lorentzian symmetry, and, on top of that, the photon does not have a rest frame, so it is argued by some physicists that this makes the question meaningless when referring to the reference frame of a photon travelling at c.

Thats the thing with relativity, it doesn't require it to have a rest frame. Rest is relative anyway and it is possible to slow light down to speeds easily observable. I would like to know why they believe the question is meaningless as it obviously isn't.Time dilation is scientifically proven so how it can be thought of as experimentally unverifiable I can't imagine. The photon here is used as an example as this can travel at C. I could just as easily have said any type of object. The photon isn't the main point here, it is the speed that it travels at.
If zero duration is infinitesimal, an infinite number of them would not equal zero.

However, how does this help your case? If photons have "no duration at all... no passage of time... coordinates mean nothing... everywhere at once... duration is a zero duration and is finite" then you still must show how this gives a material cause to a material perspective of the world.

I don't have to do anything at all. I am not attempting to show why causation is possible here(previously) and never claimed that I did. I am simply showing that your slicing time argument is erroneous.

Your argument would suggest that causation does not exist. If so, then you have accepted my argument that causation for material atheism does not exist, but you merely reject my argument that a lack of causation rules out material atheism, is that right? That would seem to be a very tenious argument to make on your part.

What I am saying is that your argument is flawed. I have shown why such infinitesimal slicing of time is flawed but you do not seem to want to address this issue. Instead you wish to alter my argument to one that you could conceivably answer. I have shown that this zero duration is finite and after several denials from you, I now hope you will realise that this is in fact the case. Your argument was based upon this premise and it has been shown to be incorrect. Any explanation you could give for causation is therefore in all probability also incorrect. So if you give the wrong answer and the materialist gives no answer how does this reflect worse on the materialist than the theist?

And how would these transformations be relevant to this? Do you even know what they are? If you did you would realise they are not in the least relevant to this issue. You say SR is irrelevant and then want me to include Lorentzian transformations which are completely irrelevant to my point and the argument in general.

This is your issue. You are trying to use SR in an attempt to show that material atheism can have a cause, are you not? Where is your argument?

You ask a question that you know cannot be answered by materialists with any conviction because they require evidence. You even seem to expect me to argue a point that you yourself brought up. As far as I can tell it was you who brought up this whole argument of causality and demand that the materialist argues the point that you offer them. I do not attempt to show that the material atheist is able to adequately explain causality at its the most fundamental level but neither can you. The key word here is adequately. To understand fundamental causality the material atheist would first have to understand the nature of time far better than at present. You yourself have shown a distinct lack of understanding concerning this point so how can you expect to understand causation which by necessity requires this medium. It's all too easy to say it is language, mind or will that is the causative agent but that does not mean a heck of a lot to the material atheist, as to them, mind and will are functions of the material and language is just a construction.

You are concerned about the nature of time, I am concerned about the nature of causation. I show that by looking at time discretely that we can show that one event cannot materially cause another event. What is your reply to this very simple question?

How is it possible to understand causation without understanding time. If there is no time there is no causation. To say how can one material event lead to another material event without including time is like asking how can a fish get from one shore to the next without including the sea. I have explained to you that these "discreet" moments of time are just a figment of your imagination. Your whole argument is based on the notion that time is sliced up into sections neatly laid down next to one another. Now where does that come from?

Space-time is fluid and can "freeze" like ice or become like steam. Space-time merges with itself and with other space-time. It has a shifting geometry dependent upon the observation and movement within it. It is not like a box of after eight mints that is conveniently arranged in bite sized slices.

Okay, come out of the clouds for a second. Is there a cause in a situation you just described. Give me an example of a cause and show me why it is a cause.

Action

[The Happy Humanist]

Oh, boy, here we go, in over my head again. But I just gotta ask...Harvey, why is the infinitesimal time-slicing such an important part of your thesis? I mean, instead of d=1/infinity, what is wrong with, say, d=1 second? What is it about your thesis - the lack of material causality - that requires the time-slicing? Is it your contention that at d=1 second, we CAN show a material cause for causality?

Take the example of a pool cue, striking a cue ball, which strikes the eight ball, which goes into the corner pocket. About 1 second duration. You agree we can make sensible causation statements about this scenario, correct?

So then why, one must ask, does this causative chain necessarily disappear when one examines an infinite number of time slices that correspond to that same one second of time?

As you must realize, if time is infinitely divisible (and why shouldn't it be?), then the function becomes an asymptote - it approaches zero without ever actually reaching it (leaving behind the photon example for the moment). Since time is a fluid of sorts, it lends itself quite nicely to this, at least conceptually. But causation refers to events, and NOT time. Time is the medium in which they happen, but it is not the object of causal analysis, it is merely one part of the equation, and a (mostly) constant part at that. Events do NOT lend themselves to infinite division; they are discreet units. And so, as you approach asymptotically close to zero, you will always reach a point where your time slice is smaller than the time-space necessary for even the minutest event in the causative chain to occur in.

So what?

Is it your honest belief that this mind-experiment (and let us not forget that that is ALL it is) somehow invalidates the chain of causation? Does the pool cue somehow NOT strike the cue ball?

==JJS==

[Cathar1950]

I just wanted The Happy Humanist to know there is nothing wrong with going over your head.
You get to see all that stuff down there.
It seems to me that even if you can divide the time or space traveled into infinite events and durations this seems to be a measurement
problem.
The ball still strikes the ball the arrow hits the mark.
Maybe it is event then cause not cause then event.
It gets really twisted.
Which is better making the simple complex and more acurate?
or
Making the complex simple and losing acuracy?
They may be complement yet seem opposite.
I am just treading water.
I realize I am over my head and soon my arms will tire and i will sink i hope the bottom is cool and interesting like a deep cold lake that has springs. way down deep in this waste land cold dark holes with water welling out some plant short sparse a few clams, sand, a few stones and dead stuff. But it is like a different world. Silence!