What materialists sometimes miss about Occam's principle

[Athetotheist]

I was recently going through a thread from a while back in which a few of us were discussing the origin of the universe. Another poster took the position that it was possible for the universe to spring into being from nothing, as nothing has the potential to "act like something", while I was trying to explain why I find that position logically untenable. One argument the other poster kept coming back to was that their conclusion was more likely correct because it posited fewer entites than mine (granted, I was positing the existence of a cosmic creator).

Here we have to remember something important about Occam's principle. Occam's principle does not tell us to avoid multiplying entities; it tells us to avoid multiplying entities beyond necessity. Since it stands to reason that nothing could not produce something (by definition, there being nothing would mean no mechanism by which to produce anything----if there were such a mechanism there wouldn't be nothing), the postulation of something to produce something is necessary. The assumption of "something from nothing", therefore, fails to come out on top. To one extent or another, sometimes entities have to be multiplied.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Kylie in post #59

You have completely failed to identify the cause.

I actually did that earlier:

"An atom is stable if the forces among the particles that makeup the nucleus are balanced. An atom is unstable (radioactive) if these forces are unbalanced; if the nucleus has an excess of internal energy. Instability of an atom's nucleus may result from an excess of either neutrons or protons. A radioactive atom will attempt to reach stability by ejecting nucleons (protons or neutrons), as well as other particles, or by releasing energy in other forms."

The article you cited is talking about when an atom decays, not about why it does so.

[Goat]

[Replying to Goat in post #58

and they aren't really particles

That's why I point out that they're mathematically hypothesized. And simply repeating that they're uncaused doesn't make them uncaused.

They are more than thematically hypothesized.

There could be hidden local variables, yes. Bell's theorem pretty much eliminates hidden local variables.

But, the casmir effect , which is caused by virtual particles, is observable and was observed back in 2011.

[Kylie]

[Replying to Kylie in post #59

You have completely failed to identify the cause.

I actually did that earlier:

"An atom is stable if the forces among the particles that makeup the nucleus are balanced. An atom is unstable (radioactive) if these forces are unbalanced; if the nucleus has an excess of internal energy. Instability of an atom's nucleus may result from an excess of either neutrons or protons. A radioactive atom will attempt to reach stability by ejecting nucleons (protons or neutrons), as well as other particles, or by releasing energy in other forms."

The article you cited is talking about when an atom decays, not about why it does so.

Okay then. Please show me a scientific source that shows that an atom decays because the forces within it become unbalanced. Can you look at an atom, measure how unbalanced the forces are, and say, "If this atom keeps going the way it is, it will decay in ten seconds."

No, you can't.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Goat in post #58

and they aren't really particles

That's why I point out that they're mathematically hypothesized. And simply repeating that they're uncaused doesn't make them uncaused.

They are more than thematically hypothesized.

There could be hidden local variables, yes. Bell's theorem pretty much eliminates hidden local variables.

But, the casmir effect , which is caused by virtual particles, is observable and was observed back in 2011.

A “virtual particle”, generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields. (emphasis mine)
https://profmattstrassler.com/articles- ... -are-they/

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Kylie in post #63

Please show me a scientific source that shows that an atom decays because the forces within it become unbalanced.

You mean beyond the two scientific articles I previously cited on the subject?

Can you look at an atom, measure how unbalanced the forces are, and say, "If this atom keeps going the way it is, it will decay in ten seconds."

No, you can't.

Again, it's not about when it will happen. Whether in ten seconds or in ten thousand years.......It. Will. Decay. Because. It. Is. Unstable.

[Kylie]

[Replying to Kylie in post #63

Please show me a scientific source that shows that an atom decays because the forces within it become unbalanced.

You mean beyond the two scientific articles I previously cited on the subject?

I just looked back at your posts in this thread and I didn't see them. Could you provide the links again, or tell me which post numbers you cited them in?

Can you look at an atom, measure how unbalanced the forces are, and say, "If this atom keeps going the way it is, it will decay in ten seconds."

No, you can't.

Again, it's not about when it will happen. Whether in ten seconds or in ten thousand years.......It. Will. Decay. Because. It. Is. Unstable.

So you can't point to a specific event which causes the atom to decay. Which is exactly what we've been telling you.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Kylie in post #66

I just looked back at your posts in this thread and I didn't see them. Could you provide the links again, or tell me which post numbers you cited them in?

#53 & #61. See also my citation of a third article in #64.

So you can't point to a specific event which causes the atom to decay. Which is exactly what we've been telling you.

Think back to the dice analogy in the article you cited in post #56. Each time I roll a die, the combination of force and angle brings up a certain number. If I keep rolling long enough, a 6 will eventually come up. I can't predict exactly when that will happen, but when it does it will be because of a particular combination of force and angle which won't bring up any other number.

[Goat]

[Replying to Goat in post #58

and they aren't really particles

That's why I point out that they're mathematically hypothesized. And simply repeating that they're uncaused doesn't make them uncaused.

They are more than thematically hypothesized.

There could be hidden local variables, yes. Bell's theorem pretty much eliminates hidden local variables.

But, the casmir effect , which is caused by virtual particles, is observable and was observed back in 2011.

A “virtual particle”, generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields. (emphasis mine)
https://profmattstrassler.com/articles- ... -are-they/

The relies on the De Broglie–Bohm theory, but that is not the copenhagen theory of qm.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Goat in post #68

Competing interpretations aside, maybe this is what I should have asked in the first place:

What causes quantum non-causality?

[Goat]

[Replying to Goat in post #68

Competing interpretations aside, maybe this is what I should have asked in the first place:

What causes quantum non-causality?

There is no cause to quantum non-causality. It's probability, not ca-usual.

Give me a prediction when a single atom will decay.