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?

[Cathar1950]

I have a problem with your argument against material atheism.
Why not just argue against materialism? why not just against Atheism.
It seems you have pork-bellied a straw man to your argument.
What about material Theism? You can't get much more American then that.

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.

http://www.answers.com/library/Dictionary defines materialism as

Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena Material causes that is materialism as in Physics includes everything.

This can be argued against reasonable with out adding Atheism or God.
It can be defended with out God or Atheism.
It is in the realm of meta-physics.

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.

Where have you shown this to be true? It doesn't matter if it is infinite time(an abstraction and mathematical construct) or finite time. Materialism would include effect and effects, E=MC^2(squared) mind feeling will and thought.

Therefore, a material atheist world does not exist.

So what kind of argument is this?
Do you think with an illogical shell game atheist are going to disappear?

[The Happy Humanist]

Ya know, Harvey, I think I've hit upon the cause of causality: PARADOX AVOIDANCE! You see, the answer to the riddle of why the cue ball moves when the stick strikes it is: if it didn't, it would violate the principle that no two objects can occupy the same space at the same time. Basically, it moves because it HAS to.

Hmmm....seems to me I've heard Paradox Avoidance used as a solution to another metaphysical conundrum....

Oh, well, I'm sure it will come to me.

[Cathar1950]

harvey1 wrote:

What it shows is that in principle there are no material causes. Since we do know there are causes (e.g., I am typing this post in reply to your arguments), we can know that the material atheist response is invalid. We can move on with our lives and never have to be bothered by its premises anymore.

I was sure you were the one who posted this forum.
What is the "material Atheist" responding to?
Curious wrote:

I have not been inconsistent at all. How on earth can we discuss causation if we concentrate on nothing but the single object in question?

A single object in question isn't a single object. It is related to all other objects. We try to measure and lose some kind of relationship.
It still looks like a shell game.
I don't see any iconsistency I see a lack of meaningfullness. You seem to be chasings Harvey's defiitions.
I we looking for some kind of ghost?

[Curious]

I have not been inconsistent at all. How on earth can we discuss causation if we concentrate on nothing but the single object in question?

A single object in question isn't a single object. It is related to all other objects. We try to measure and lose some kind of relationship.
It still looks like a shell game.

Actually a single object IS a single object which is why I say we can't concentrate on that alone while ignoring it's interactions. We want to look at relationships so looking at a single object while neglecting everything else is pointless.

I don't see any iconsistency I see a lack of meaningfullness. You seem to be chasings Harvey's defiitions.
I we looking for some kind of ghost?

Thats a shame, I have tried my utmost to show that Harvey's main premise (of infinitesimal time slicing to a point where material causality ceases to exist) is flawed. I have demonstrated how a singular moment in time, captured by the photons C speed does not in any way stop the photon being acted upon. This, I thought, was plain to see from my repeated explanations. Rather than chasing Harvey's definitions I have attempted to use scientifically verifiable facts and explanations (to countless unfounded objections) to show that the argument is incorrect. Perhaps I would have been wiser to use the more easily understandable explanation of constant force and work. We live and learn.

[Cathar1950]

Go back to pre-newtonian physics.
with-out a calculator.
It seems like I am following it make sense that an object looked at has to be related to other influences to even be an object.
The shell game was opening 3 ideas.
I am not sure there is an argument or debate.
It is fun to talk about causality.
It was Niels Bohr I read in one of John A.Wheeler's books that he explains how for an object to exist it must be felt. At least on the proton level.
This seems to imply a materialist connection of some sort. At least to consider a form of materialism some validity. Remembering gravity light energy are all aspects of a material world.
I still don't know what it has to do with Atheism or Theism.

[harvey1]

The photon is emitted as non-polarized??? This makes no sense. How can you emit a single photon without it being polarised. The photon heads in a straight line and is therefore polarised.

In quantum mechanics, polarization happens when:

[w]hen we make the photon encounter a polaroid film we are subjecting it to an observation. In fact, we are observing whether it is polarized parallel or perpendicular to the optic axis. The effect of making this observation is to force the photon entirely into a state of parallel or perpendicular polarization. In other words, the photon has to jump suddenly from being partly in each of these two states to being entirely in one or the other of them. Which of the two states it will jump into cannot be predicted, but is governed by probability laws. If it jumps into a state of parallel polarization it is absorbed, otherwise it is transmitted. Note that in this example the introduction of indeterminacy into the problem is clearly connected with the act of observation. In other words, the indeterminacy is related to the inevitable disturbance of the system associated with the act of observation."

So, the polarization filter at black hole B "observes" the photon and forces it into one polarized state. Generally, this is done with a bunch of photons, however with the advent of quantum teleportation collapsing the polarized state into one particular state has become of higher interest (quantum cyrptography also has high interest in this application...).

My objection is not just the object but also the interaction of the object which you break down into infinitesimal steps. As you may remember, I previously explained that interactions consist of several frames of reference within another frame of reference. This is what you do not consider. I explained how a time frame could contain other relative frames and make up a single perceived event. So now you wish to say that I am actually agreeing with you, that is strange. I had hoped not to have to explain in such detail this first point but since you seem to be in some form of scientific denial of the facts, I am obliged to show why my points are valid. Your infinitesimal time slice theory could just as easily have been refuted by application of a constant force. No amount of slicing time would reduce the distance travelled to zero so there is no pre/post event moment.

Your argument just doesn't cut it Curious. A number of scientists think that time is discrete and that the smallest unit of time is Planck time. Others use the infinitesimal approach to solve Zeno's paradox. I am certainly no expert on relativity, but if there were a problem I don't think so many physicists would be jumping on board. You're no physicist so I think you ought to approach this subject in area that doesn't require relativity theory. If you have a beef with that, then I suggest that you argue with the quantum loop (note: edited link to link to English version--sorry...) people such as Lee Smolin. Again, I don't care if we consider time as finite discrete or infinitesimal discrete. All I'm saying is that this is something that is under deep theoretical consideration and there is no fallacy in doing this. It is also not in conflict with relativity theory (in fact, many of the people researching quantum loop theory are relativitists!).

[Curious]

The photon is emitted as non-polarized??? This makes no sense. How can you emit a single photon without it being polarised. The photon heads in a straight line and is therefore polarised.

In quantum mechanics, polarization happens when:

[w]hen we make the photon encounter a polaroid film we are subjecting it to an observation. In fact, we are observing whether it is polarized parallel or perpendicular to the optic axis. The effect of making this observation is to force the photon entirely into a state of parallel or perpendicular polarization. In other words, the photon has to jump suddenly from being partly in each of these two states to being entirely in one or the other of them. Which of the two states it will jump into cannot be predicted, but is governed by probability laws. If it jumps into a state of parallel polarization it is absorbed, otherwise it is transmitted. Note that in this example the introduction of indeterminacy into the problem is clearly connected with the act of observation. In other words, the indeterminacy is related to the inevitable disturbance of the system associated with the act of observation."

So, the polarization filter at black hole B "observes" the photon and forces it into one polarized state. Generally, this is done with a bunch of photons, however with the advent of quantum teleportation collapsing the polarized state into one particular state has become of higher interest (quantum cyrptography also has high interest in this application...).

This polarisation filter statement really is a superfluous addition to the argument. The effect of the black hole on the photon, which changes it's course, is in fact repolarising the photon by changing its direction. That's what polarisation is Harvey1. If the photon is deflected in even the most minute arc, there are (if we are to infinitely diminish time) an infinite number of repolarisations.We see though that the photon is in fact still subject to external forces and therefore causation even though it's time frame can be reduced no further. As for quantum teleportation, explain how this is at all relevant to my above quote.

My objection is not just the object but also the interaction of the object which you break down into infinitesimal steps. As you may remember, I previously explained that interactions consist of several frames of reference within another frame of reference. This is what you do not consider. I explained how a time frame could contain other relative frames and make up a single perceived event. So now you wish to say that I am actually agreeing with you, that is strange. I had hoped not to have to explain in such detail this first point but since you seem to be in some form of scientific denial of the facts, I am obliged to show why my points are valid. Your infinitesimal time slice theory could just as easily have been refuted by application of a constant force. No amount of slicing time would reduce the distance travelled to zero so there is no pre/post event moment.

Your argument just doesn't cut it Curious. A number of scientists think that time is discrete and that the smallest unit of time is Planck time. Others use the infinitesimal approach to solve Zeno's paradox. I am certainly no expert on relativity, but if there were a problem I don't think so many physicists would be jumping on board.

So you say some physicists think something so we should give credence to it? What about the physicists who don't agree, shall we give credence to them more or less? Saying somebody believes something really means nothing unless you tell me why they believe it. More to the point, why not tell me why YOU believe it? As for Planck time, this has the problem of a discrete unit in one time frame is not the same as in another. I will give an example:
Object A travels at velocity x and collides with object y. The collision was inelastic and both objects continue at velocity z.
Both objects were released at the exact same time from almost the exact same location and underwent a round trip (due to gravitational deflection) to collide at a given location.
The velocity of object A was such that the time taken for it to reach the collision point (using its frame of reference) was 1 plancksT. Object B travelled at a velocity far more slowly and the time taken for the journey (from frame B perspective) 2 plancksT. When observed from the original release point, the journey of both objects lasted 43.65 years approximately. Now am I to take it that the smallest discrete unit of time for the observer at the release point is 43.65 years? If not, then this smallest discrete unit means nothing. After 22 years, object A would have travelled over half it's total distance and would have aged just over one half plancksT.

You're no physicist so I think you ought to approach this subject in area that doesn't require relativity theory. If you have a beef with that, then I suggest that you argue with the quantum loop people such as Lee Smolin. Again, I don't care if we consider time as finite discrete or infinitesimal discrete. All I'm saying is that this is something that is under deep theoretical consideration and there is no fallacy in doing this. It is also not in conflict with relativity theory (in fact, many of the people researching quantum loop theory are relativitists!).

Actually I am a physicist which is why I attempt correction in conceptions when such outlandish claims as yours are made. If the people at the link you gave care to come to this forum and make a claim such as the one you have made I would be happy to argue the point with them but until that time I will argue the point with whoever makes it ( ie. you ). To say that I should approach the subject from an angle other than relativity theory doesn't really make any sense as this is the main problem with time slicing.
BTW Zeno's is not really a paradox at all. It is an example of flawed logic. The whole premise of infinite halfing, therefore giving an infinite number of distances travelled and therefore making motion impossible is based on the condition that the second half of the journey is greater than the first half of the journey. No matter how many times you divide the journey, the second half will always be longer than the first half. Even an infinite number of divisions will not solve this problem.
We know that 1 = 1/2 + 1/2 and NOT 1 = 1/2 + <1/2
That's not a paradox, it's just bad maths.

[harvey1]

This polarisation filter statement really is a superfluous addition to the argument. The effect of the black hole on the photon, which changes it's course, is in fact repolarising the photon by changing its direction.

Why would the black hole necessarily cause the photon to "collapse" into one polarized state? If the photon is in superposition, I don't see how gravitational influence would cause it to do so.

As for quantum teleportation, explain how this is at all relevant to my above quote.

Again, I'm talking about whether material causation is valid. If you reject research efforts that call for discrete spacetime, then we have to look at whether your arguments which support this rejection actually disfavor material causation. It looks to me that your photon frame of reference disfavors material causation since there is no causal explanation for the photon to reach black hole B or to be "collapsed" if a polarized state is teleported to the photon arriving at black hole B.

So you say some physicists think something so we should give credence to it? What about the physicists who don't agree, shall we give credence to them more or less? Saying somebody believes something really means nothing unless you tell me why they believe it.

We can talk about what a number of physicists believe, but I am not a physicist. So, what is the purpose of defending their work when it is beyond my ability to argue with you? This is similar to the circumstance I ran in with Spetey where he wanted to argue modal logic. The argument against Spetey was that philosophers accepted that one philosopher's modal logic was sound, so I don't feel I have to get in that technical discussion. All I have to do is demonstrate that there are enough professionals who believe something is possible, and with that I can say that there is nothing apparently wrong with discrete time from a physics point of view.

Now, that doesn't mean that there's nothing wrong with it from a philosophical perspective. And, I'm willing to discuss the philosophy of discrete time or indiscrete time, however that's not your argument. Your argument is that special relativity forbids discrete time, and I find that puzzling since brilliant people such as Lee Smolin think that this is the best way to solve a quantum theory of gravity. Is he just an idiot that has somehow been able to get published in physics journals with his theories? I would think that if the argument was so nailed shut like you suggest, then relativists such as Lee Smolin, Carlo Rovelli, Ted Jacobson, Roger Penrose and their ilk wouldn't get published and wouldn't be so ill-informed in backing loop geometries.

More to the point, why not tell me why YOU believe it? As for Planck time, this has the problem of a discrete unit in one time frame is not the same as in another. I will give an example:
Object A travels at velocity x and collides with object y. The collision was inelastic and both objects continue at velocity z.
Both objects were released at the exact same time from almost the exact same location and underwent a round trip (due to gravitational deflection) to collide at a given location. The velocity of object A was such that the time taken for it to reach the collision point (using its frame of reference) was 1 plancksT. Object B travelled at a velocity far more slowly and the time taken for the journey (from frame B perspective) 2 plancksT. When observed from the original release point, the journey of both objects lasted 43.65 years approximately. Now am I to take it that the smallest discrete unit of time for the observer at the release point is 43.65 years? If not, then this smallest discrete unit means nothing. After 22 years, object A would have travelled over half it's total distance and would have aged just over one half plancksT.

Again, aren't you assuming Lorentzian symmetries which may not be invariant at Planck scales? (Although, I hasten to add that let's avoid the technical discussion as much as possible since I am not a physicist.)

Actually I am a physicist which is why I attempt correction in conceptions when such outlandish claims as yours are made. If the people at the link you gave care to come to this forum and make a claim such as the one you have made I would be happy to argue the point with them but until that time I will argue the point with whoever makes it ( ie. you ). To say that I should approach the subject from an angle other than relativity theory doesn't really make any sense as this is the main problem with time slicing.

I understand and sympathize with your perspective. However, at the same time, look at it from my side. I see well-respected physicists publishing in esteem journals their ideas and the research program gets serious attention, and then I see a physicist who may or may not have specialized in these fields who says that these theories are completely impossible. Who do you think I should believe? Who do you think others should believe?

My suggestion is that we go over to physicsforums.com and let's see how physicists respond to your argument against discrete time. I would be interested to see the arguments made back and forth.

In any case, you made a reference last time to me insulting you. I didn't have time to reply to that, but for the record, I try not to insult anyone. Sometimes I let too much of my perspective come out, and then it looks insulting. I try to edit my posts for inflammatory comments, but I'm not always successful in being polite. If I insulted you, I apologize. Just point out where you think I'm insulting and I'll try to tone down my responses.

[harvey1]

Ya know, Harvey, I think I've hit upon the cause of causality: PARADOX AVOIDANCE! You see, the answer to the riddle of why the cue ball moves when the stick strikes it is: if it didn't, it would violate the principle that no two objects can occupy the same space at the same time. Basically, it moves because it HAS to. Hmmm....seems to me I've heard Paradox Avoidance used as a solution to another metaphysical conundrum.... Oh, well, I'm sure it will come to me.

THH, paradox avoidance is not something a material atheist can use in their ultimate description of the world. The reason is that a paradox is not a material limitation; it is a logical limitation. If you advocate physical possibility as supervening on logical possibility, then this would be contrary to what it means to be a material atheist.

[QED]

This topic has gone a bit stale, so I thought it might be worth a review.

[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.

As far as I can see, so far nobody here has agreed with this premise. To imagine time as something that can be put on pause and then to challenge others to offer a real mechanism to press play again leads me to view this as a 'trick question'. What entitles you to present (as reality) a picture of a frozen cosmos in the first place?