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.
What materialists sometimes miss about Occam's principle
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2695
- Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 484 times
-
- Apprentice
- Posts: 243
- Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2020 2:19 am
- Has thanked: 21 times
- Been thanked: 63 times
Re: What materialists sometimes miss about Occam's principle
Post #51Would you care to provide some scientific source to back up this claim please?Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sat May 28, 2022 12:22 am At whatever moment it decays, something has caused it to decay at that moment.
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2695
- Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 484 times
Re: What materialists sometimes miss about Occam's principle
Post #52[Replying to Goat in post #50
Aren't you the one arguing against the assumption of hard physical causality in your "it's not causal" narrative? What are you proposing as an alternative? Fairy dust?That is just repeating more unsupported claims, and does not address 'how do you know that'. You are just making up a narrative that fits your preconception, but that narrative is not a model or a test that eliminates the assumption of hard physical causality. It appears that is your assumption, and that is what you propose, but your storyline does not show that an alternative is not possible
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2695
- Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 484 times
Re: What materialists sometimes miss about Occam's principle
Post #53"What causes atoms to be radioactive?Kylie wrote: ↑Sat May 28, 2022 2:08 amWould you care to provide some scientific source to back up this claim please?Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sat May 28, 2022 12:22 am At whatever moment it decays, something has caused it to decay at that moment.
Atoms found in nature are either stable or unstable. 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."https://www.arpansa.gov.au/understandin ... ioactivity
"Elements in the periodic table can take on several forms. Some of these forms are stable; other forms are unstable. Typically, the most stable form of an element is the most common in nature. However, all elements have an unstable form. Unstable forms emit ionizing radiation and are radioactive. There are some elements with no stable form that are always radioactive, such as uranium. Elements that emit ionizing radiation are called radionuclides."https://www.epa.gov/radiation/radioactive-decay
Notice that in answer to the question, "What causes radioactive decay?", the articles don't say, "Nothing. It's uncaused."
I also can't help but find it ironic that the materialist would be challenging the mystic to provide a scientific explanation for a phenomenon observed in nature.
- Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Re: What materialists sometimes miss about Occam's principle
Post #54Why, yes, I am. What I am saying is there are events that are un-caused , and spontaneous rather than caused. Virtual particle hat can cause photons sometimes is one. That is part of several interpretation of events in Quantum Mechanics, such as the Copenhagen interpretation. This is basically the standard model for QM at the moment, and although there are some disagreements with it, it will be quite some time before those alternate interpretations can bear any kind of fruit, if they ever do.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sat May 28, 2022 8:55 am [Replying to Goat in post #50Aren't you the one arguing against the assumption of hard physical causality in your "it's not causal" narrative? What are you proposing as an alternative? Fairy dust?That is just repeating more unsupported claims, and does not address 'how do you know that'. You are just making up a narrative that fits your preconception, but that narrative is not a model or a test that eliminates the assumption of hard physical causality. It appears that is your assumption, and that is what you propose, but your storyline does not show that an alternative is not possible
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2695
- Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 484 times
Re: What materialists sometimes miss about Occam's principle
Post #55[Replying to Goat in post #54
As I understand it, virtual particles are mathematically hypothesized to arise from the interactions of "real" particles, which in turn arise from excitations of quantum fields. Where's the "uncaused" part?What I am saying is there are events that are un-caused , and spontaneous rather than caused. Virtual particle hat can cause photons sometimes is one. That is part of several interpretation of events in Quantum Mechanics, such as the Copenhagen interpretation. This is basically the standard model for QM at the moment, and although there are some disagreements with it, it will be quite some time before those alternate interpretations can bear any kind of fruit, if they ever do.
-
- Apprentice
- Posts: 243
- Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2020 2:19 am
- Has thanked: 21 times
- Been thanked: 63 times
Re: What materialists sometimes miss about Occam's principle
Post #56That's because we know what happens when an atom undergoes the process.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sat May 28, 2022 8:56 am"What causes atoms to be radioactive?Kylie wrote: ↑Sat May 28, 2022 2:08 amWould you care to provide some scientific source to back up this claim please?Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sat May 28, 2022 12:22 am At whatever moment it decays, something has caused it to decay at that moment.
Atoms found in nature are either stable or unstable. 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."https://www.arpansa.gov.au/understandin ... ioactivity
"Elements in the periodic table can take on several forms. Some of these forms are stable; other forms are unstable. Typically, the most stable form of an element is the most common in nature. However, all elements have an unstable form. Unstable forms emit ionizing radiation and are radioactive. There are some elements with no stable form that are always radioactive, such as uranium. Elements that emit ionizing radiation are called radionuclides."https://www.epa.gov/radiation/radioactive-decay
Notice that in answer to the question, "What causes radioactive decay?", the articles don't say, "Nothing. It's uncaused."
I also can't help but find it ironic that the materialist would be challenging the mystic to provide a scientific explanation for a phenomenon observed in nature.
But did you notice how they don't say what sets the whole thing in motion? What causes a particular atom to decay at a particular time?
How about you have a look here: https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2015/0 ... and-decay/
It's not like an atom has an internal clock ticking away telling it when it's time to fall apart. Rather, an atom decays at a random time, completely independent of how long it has been in existence. Radioactive decay is governed by random, statistical effects and not by internal deterministic machinery. A particular radioactive atom can and will decay at any time. The "lifetime" of a radioactive isotope is not a description of how long a single atom will survive before decaying. Rather, it is a description of the average amount of time it takes for a significant portion of a group of radioactive atoms to decay. A characteristic lifetime does not come about by the progression of internal machinery, but by the statistical behavior of a large group of atoms governed by probability.
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2695
- Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 484 times
Re: What materialists sometimes miss about Occam's principle
Post #57[Replying to Kylie in post #56
Effects are what follow causes, like.....the behavior of a large group of atoms.Radioactive decay is governed by random, statistical effects
.....but not completely independent of everything else.an atom decays at a random time, completely independent of how long it has been in existence.
- Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Re: What materialists sometimes miss about Occam's principle
Post #58You misunderstand it. Virtual particles are uncaused (and they aren't really particles)Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sat May 28, 2022 12:30 pm [Replying to Goat in post #54As I understand it, virtual particles are mathematically hypothesized to arise from the interactions of "real" particles, which in turn arise from excitations of quantum fields. Where's the "uncaused" part?What I am saying is there are events that are un-caused , and spontaneous rather than caused. Virtual particle hat can cause photons sometimes is one. That is part of several interpretation of events in Quantum Mechanics, such as the Copenhagen interpretation. This is basically the standard model for QM at the moment, and although there are some disagreements with it, it will be quite some time before those alternate interpretations can bear any kind of fruit, if they ever do.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
-
- Apprentice
- Posts: 243
- Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2020 2:19 am
- Has thanked: 21 times
- Been thanked: 63 times
Re: What materialists sometimes miss about Occam's principle
Post #59You miss the point.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sat May 28, 2022 10:15 pm [Replying to Kylie in post #56Effects are what follow causes, like.....the behavior of a large group of atoms.Radioactive decay is governed by random, statistical effects
You can study a specific atom and watch as it decays. But you can not point to anything and say, "This is the cause, this is what made it decay."
You have completely failed to identify the cause......but not completely independent of everything else.an atom decays at a random time, completely independent of how long it has been in existence.
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2695
- Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 484 times
Re: What materialists sometimes miss about Occam's principle
Post #60[Replying to Goat in post #58
That's why I point out that they're mathematically hypothesized. And simply repeating that they're uncaused doesn't make them uncaused.and they aren't really particles