Proofs... So what?

[Nirvana-Eld]

After some thinking I am willing to accept that there must have been a first cause that initiated the series of events we call existence. I think that this is the underlying substratum of causuality. Here the problem. So what? I do not see the connection from "there must have been a first cause" to "this is a being which we all call God" (quod omnes dicunt Deum). I see the point of the First Cause Idea more as pointing to a natural process, not a Christian God and or the classic "Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent God". There seems to be no connection.

I would like the proponents of the First Cause Argument who believe in the God of the three "O's" to logically make the connection between a process and a God. Civility is a must! I just glanced through a thread by a "killingevolution" ( ) and I would like this thread to be cleaner. 8)

[QED]

Maybe Hawking's Chronological Protection Conjecture has limitations of its own. After all, if I were to travel back in time through a wormhole

Hawking's CPC would forbid you in travelling through a wormhole.

There are schemes like this that don't prevent the transit in time; instead they prevent changes from happening. i.e you cannot change the past -- but you can affect it. Everything we see might be consistent with such non-linear chronology. John Barrow mentions the idea that Kennedy might have been shot by a time traveller to prevent a war (WWIII) that never happened for example.

But when were these laws introduced?

That's just it. The laws are necessarily true. There exists no world where the ultimate laws cannot be true. However, there are possible worlds where derivative laws can exist which differ from other derivative laws.

Harvey, this reply of yours is very difficult to understand. Take the first part: "The laws [of physics] are necessarily true". I can see why this would be true in an anthropic sense but I can't extract any meaning from that fact. Then you say "There exist no world where the ultimate laws cannot be true." In other words you appear to be saying "there can't be worlds with false laws -- I can't make sense of it when put either way. Perhaps you could explain? Finally you refer to potential universes with laws derived from (presumably) ultimate laws -- and you say these can differ from other derived laws. What does that show us?

(The reply of yours that I have just responded to was very short for you, yet it was nonetheless baffling to me and has taken me around twenty minutes to answer. Scale this up to the usual proportions and I hope you'll see what a major effort it can be trying to debate with you. I do enjoy exploring the ideas you come up with but there's a reason why I sometimes only seem to nibble and it's not because I've retired to a corner to lick some wounds. To be honest, that would be preferable rather than being constantly baffled.

Now, you have requested that I put my hand up in class when I get stuck several times before. But I'm wondering if there's another way of doing business. You see, I get the impression that I'm not the only one struggling here. So if we have a many-to-one mapping in the direction I think it is, I wonder if you could possibly find it within yourself to anticipate the problems your explanations are likely to present and pay extra attention to their clarification. After all, it would be a shame if people dropped the line only because they can't make sense of what you're saying. Sorry to be bothering your complaints dept. about this)

[harvey1]

There are schemes like this that don't prevent the transit in time; instead they prevent changes from happening. i.e you cannot change the past -- but you can affect it. Everything we see might be consistent with such non-linear chronology.

The conjecture that I think you have in mind is called the Novikov Self-Consistency Conjecture. It allows time travel and changing the past, but maintains that consistency must be maintained. (I might mention that Michio Kaku in Parallel Worlds discusses how this principle entails cosmic consciousness.)

In other words you appear to be saying "there can't be worlds with false laws -- I can't make sense of it when put either way. Perhaps you could explain?

No, what I mean is that there can't be worlds that are not rationally derived from the ultimate laws of the Universe (with a big "U"). Conceivable worlds having laws that are not derivable from these ultimate laws simply don't exist because there are implications of these conceivable worlds which contradict the "laws" of those conceivable worlds.

Finally you refer to potential universes with laws derived from (presumably) ultimate laws -- and you say these can differ from other derived laws. What does that show us?

That branching of possible worlds is possible.

I do enjoy exploring the ideas you come up with but there's a reason why I sometimes only seem to nibble and it's not because I've retired to a corner to lick some wounds. To be honest, that would be preferable rather than being constantly baffled.

I don't think you're licking any wounds. I've always thought that my paradigm is so foreign to you that you simply wave your hand at responding further.

You see, I get the impression that I'm not the only one struggling here. So if we have a many-to-one mapping in the direction I think it is, I wonder if you could possibly find it within yourself to anticipate the problems your explanations are likely to present and pay extra attention to their clarification. After all, it would be a shame if people dropped the line only because they can't make sense of what you're saying. Sorry to be bothering your complaints dept. about this)

It's the reason I don't start a website. This paradigm is so drastically different than how many people see the world (especially atheists since their world is far removed from spiritual concepts in the first place), that it is difficult to visualize the issues that I speak of. It's too bad that there aren't more atheists like Michael Tooley. Their view of causal relations as being real relations would allow them to more readily understand what it is that is being discussed. I think even Tooley has trouble explaining to some in the philosophical community (and especially in the scientific community) why it is that causation presents a problem for materialists.

In any case, even if I anticipated every possible objection, I don't think it would matter. People, in order to at least understand the issues surrounding causality, often need to hear it in a dialectic that they themselves are engaged in. They might see it as a Gordian knot that is purely philosophical, but others might begin to see why they need to look for an answer to solving those knots. Unfortunately, most people (theists and atheists) think that knots are for philosophers who ought to be doing something else with their time.

[Grumpy]

harvey1

QED wrote:
There are schemes like this that don't prevent the transit in time; instead they prevent changes from happening. i.e you cannot change the past -- but you can affect it. Everything we see might be consistent with such non-linear chronology.

The conjecture that I think you have in mind is called the Novikov Self-Consistency Conjecture. It allows time travel and changing the past, but maintains that consistency must be maintained. (I might mention that Michio Kaku in Parallel Worlds discusses how this principle entails cosmic consciousness.)

As learned as these gents may be, their conjectures are just that, conjectures, time is a one way trip in our universe, we can slow it down in relation to the rest of the universe due to high speed or heavy gravity and some math suggests backward flow in black holes, but anything now in a blackhole has left this universe forever, thus no killing your great great grandfather for you and no meaningful output for MR.s Novikov and Kaku, it's just science fiction.

No, what I mean is that there can't be worlds that are not rationally derived from the ultimate laws of the Universe (with a big "U"). Conceivable worlds having laws that are not derivable from these ultimate laws simply don't exist because there are implications of these conceivable worlds which contradict the "laws" of those conceivable worlds.

If you are trying to say that the laws are the same everywhere and at all times, just say so.

I don't think you're licking any wounds. I've always thought that my paradigm is so foreign to you that you simply wave your hand at responding further.

You don't know the half of it, your main problem is confusing leaps of faith with logical insights. You seem to think constructs of the mind have actual existence and can constrain nature, that is not true. You even go the next step and assume these constructs must have been imposed on nature before nature could know how to behave, thus an intelligence to construct those constructs. You pile falacy on falacy until you convince yourself that your god must exist, of course all of the definitions must be just so, and the arguments should have as little as possible to do with reality and stick to the mind excersizes where accuracy is not important, it's already fiction anyway(floating pens my big ol' butt).

Given your results so far, your the only one who's fooled by all of this.

Grumpy 8)

[harvey1]

As learned as these gents may be, their conjectures are just that, conjectures, time is a one way trip in our universe, we can slow it down in relation to the rest of the universe due to high speed or heavy gravity and some math suggests backward flow in black holes, but anything now in a blackhole has left this universe forever, thus no killing your great great grandfather for you and no meaningful output for MR.s Novikov and Kaku, it's just science fiction.

The context of this discussion was to show that these conjectures, if true, would be an example of pantheistic unity in the universe. My position is that these conjectures do not represent a breakdown in a rational account of the world, and therefore the atheist is not justified in regarding pantheistic unity as an absurd notion.

your main problem is confusing leaps of faith with logical insights. You seem to think constructs of the mind have actual existence and can constrain nature, that is not true.

Your position is very confusing, Grumpy. In the other thread here you said about the same time as you wrote these words:

though it is evidence that constraining rules(laws) do actually exist, tied into the very structure of the chaos of particles and forces that we call reality.

Please commit to one or the other position. Are you saying that laws (constraining rules) exist or not?

You even go the next step and assume these constructs must have been imposed on nature before nature could know how to behave, thus an intelligence to construct those constructs. You pile falacy on falacy until you convince yourself that your god must exist, of course all of the definitions must be just so, and the arguments should have as little as possible to do with reality and stick to the mind excersizes where accuracy is not important, it's already fiction anyway(floating pens my big ol' butt).

I think the reason why these implications are not clear to you is because you are having trouble committing to a position. If you commit and stay committed to a view, you would quickly see the trouble with your position on this topic.

Given your results so far, your the only one who's fooled by all of this.

I think that you are being fooled by your own flip flop positions on this topic.

[Bugmaster]

The problem with this is that we never really have "the" cause of an event in your scenario....

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "the" cause. Do you mean, the First Cause that has no cause in itself ? Granted, if we assume that infinite regress is true, then the First Cause does not exist, by definition... by why is this a problem ?

For example, it is possible that there is another chain of causes that also postulate "the" cause which does not agree with the cause that you provided...

It's possible, but irrelevant, because the probability of any event that we know has happened is 1 (100%).

However, in your scenario of never ending causes, this causal chain can never be provided at any point in history.

Are you saying that we must know every step of the chain in order to be justified in believing that the chain exists ? In that case, you're not justified in believing in your version of causality, either, because you don't know who made God, or how he made the Universe, etc. etc.

In general, I find it hard to understand what you mean by "the" cause, so please clarify.

[Bugmaster]

Now, you have requested that I put my hand up in class when I get stuck several times before. But I'm wondering if there's another way of doing business. You see, I get the impression that I'm not the only one struggling here. So if we have a many-to-one mapping in the direction I think it is, I wonder if you could possibly find it within yourself to anticipate the problems your explanations are likely to present and pay extra attention to their clarification. After all, it would be a shame if people dropped the line only because they can't make sense of what you're saying.

I second this motion. It took me about half an hour to read Harvey's causal argument about the causes of "the" cause, and I still don't get it. I guess Harvey is aiming for a "confusality" victory of some sort ?

Remember, Harvey, no one on these boards (at least, no one I've debated with) has the same level of philosophical education as you do. So, you'll have to dumb down your magnificent arguments quite a bit in order to make them accessible to us. I know it hurts, but I just don't see an alternative.

[Grumpy]

Bugmaster

So, you'll have to dumb down your magnificent arguments quite a bit in order to make them accessible to us. I know it hurts, but I just don't see an alternative.

The problem, as I see it, is Harvey CANNOT "dumb down"(or explain in easily understood terms) his arguements, that would expose them for the huge piles of logical falacies that they are!!!(a perfect example of"If you can't dazzle with wit, baffle with BS)

Harvey is an example of the person who has only been trained to use a hammer(his philosophy). To such a person all problems are to be solved by such a tool(IE, every problem looks like a nail). That better tools can give better understanding never crosses his mind and he is highly dismissive of any school of thought which uses anything but hammers. His whole world consists of hammers of various sizes. Philosophers are particularly susceptible to this problem (though scientists can suffer as well).

Harvey has consistently failed to logically support his views, he does all right up to a point, then he makes huge leaps of faith which he confuses with logic. It is this disconnect which leads others to be confused by his posts, for it is that disconnect which he cannot support with logic but must bury in his retoric in order to proceed to his erronious conclusions.

That Philosophy is a useful endevor is not in question, but to confuse philosophical mind games with physical reality is not justified or valid.

Grumpy 8)

[harvey1]

The problem, as I see it, is Harvey CANNOT "dumb down"(or explain in easily understood terms) his arguements

My questions were pretty clear, Grumpy. In case you forgot, this is where we left the topic:

As learned as these gents may be, their conjectures are just that, conjectures, time is a one way trip in our universe, we can slow it down in relation to the rest of the universe due to high speed or heavy gravity and some math suggests backward flow in black holes, but anything now in a blackhole has left this universe forever, thus no killing your great great grandfather for you and no meaningful output for MR.s Novikov and Kaku, it's just science fiction.

The context of this discussion was to show that these conjectures, if true, would be an example of pantheistic unity in the universe. My position is that these conjectures do not represent a breakdown in a rational account of the world, and therefore the atheist is not justified in regarding pantheistic unity as an absurd notion.

your main problem is confusing leaps of faith with logical insights. You seem to think constructs of the mind have actual existence and can constrain nature, that is not true.

Your position is very confusing, Grumpy. In the other thread here you said about the same time as you wrote these words:

though it is evidence that constraining rules(laws) do actually exist, tied into the very structure of the chaos of particles and forces that we call reality.

Please commit to one or the other position. Are you saying that laws (constraining rules) exist or not?

You even go the next step and assume these constructs must have been imposed on nature before nature could know how to behave, thus an intelligence to construct those constructs. You pile falacy on falacy until you convince yourself that your god must exist, of course all of the definitions must be just so, and the arguments should have as little as possible to do with reality and stick to the mind excersizes where accuracy is not important, it's already fiction anyway(floating pens my big ol' butt).

I think the reason why these implications are not clear to you is because you are having trouble committing to a position. If you commit and stay committed to a view, you would quickly see the trouble with your position on this topic.

Harvey has consistently failed to logically support his views, he does all right up to a point, then he makes huge leaps of faith which he confuses with logic.

Just answer the posts which you are given Grumpy. If you can't do it, then I think I can safely assume that you can't provide answers because your views really are illogical.

[harvey1]

I second this motion. It took me about half an hour to read Harvey's causal argument about the causes of "the" cause, and I still don't get it. I guess Harvey is aiming for a "confusality" victory of some sort ? Remember, Harvey, no one on these boards (at least, no one I've debated with) has the same level of philosophical education as you do. So, you'll have to dumb down your magnificent arguments quite a bit in order to make them accessible to us. I know it hurts, but I just don't see an alternative.

I'm not going to dumb down an argument so that others can understand the argument. If you don't understand something, then let me know. I assume that if no hands are raised, then you understand the argument.

[QED]

Grumpy, let's be careful not to dissolve into pointless attacks on personal style here. We can still have this discussion about the validity of proofs coming out of philosophy without resorting to calls of BS and the like. I must remind you that there are specific rules put in place to maintain a civil and respectful debating environment for all participants of these forums.

Unless we fully understand the philosophical arguments we're being presented with it's unsafe to call them fallacies. It's an enormously complicated scene because like mathematics, there is no natural limit to the logical permutations of philosophical concepts. There's a bit of a love-hate relationship going on between science and philosophy because of this. I see philosophy as a super-set of reality so it has the power to unite concepts as well as present us with false leads.

I do agree that it sometimes seems like a full-time job figuring out which things are false leads though, probably because there are so many potentials for them in such virtual worlds.