How can the univese exist without God to create it?

[EarthScienceguy]

Explain the existence of the universe without God to create it.
In other words, how can the universe be shown to come into existence empirically without God to create it?

The basic building block of the universe is energy. We do not even know what energy in its most basic form is.

There is a fact, or if you wish, a law, governing all natural phenomena that are known to date. There is no known exception to this law – it is exact so far as we know. The law is called the conservation of energy. It states that there is a certain quantity, which we call energy, that does not change in manifold changes which nature undergoes. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says that there is a numerical quantity which does not change when something happens. It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is just a strange fact that we can calculate some number and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same.

— The Feynman Lectures on Physics

[Difflugia]

The main proponent of the KCA (Craig) as well as others have always offered it as an abductive argument, not a deductive one, so nothing is being softened.

I don't think does, but let's assume you're right. If so, the "abductive" part of the argument still assumes the absolute truth of the premises. If any of the premises are false, the syllogism is invalid.

Saying there isn’t a cause is not the default; saying I don’t know if there is one is the default.

That's not what "null hypothesis" means. If you're arguing for causality, the null hypthesis is a lack of causality.

When looking at both positive hypotheses (“there isn’t one” and “there is one”), we see empirical equivalence, so that doesn’t tilt the scales to one side over the other.

If we take that as true, then your syllogism sits on the scale directly between valid and invalid. If P! is true, then there's a cause and maybe that cause is a god. If P1 is not true, then the syllogism is invalid and tells us nothing.

But when we look at cause-effect in anything else in reality, we see causation happens.

What is this "anything else" that isn't made up of fundamental particles?

Yes, it very well could be different than every other part of reality, but I’m not going to just assume uniqueness because the empirical evidence is unclear.

The empirical evidence is that quantum events are uncaused. That's not unclear. What you're calling causality emerges from an aggregate of probabilities at the quantum level. We know for certain that things at the macro level behave differently than at the quantum level and we know why. Your claim is that the quantum level behaves like the macro level anyway. We have no data that imply that it even might, so your absolutely best argument is that it's possible that quantum events are really caused. That's the position that you very desperately want me to be in instead, but you've got it backwards.

Where did I fit God into this gap?

You've distinguished your position from "atheistic" and "materialist" explanations. I suppose you might be filling the gap with something that's not atheist or materialist, but isn't God, either. How good is your poker face?

Anyone who looks at the thread you pulled into this one can see our back and forth and that I said a lot more than that, even if they disagree with it.

I re-read this thread. I see two main claims relevant to this thread:

1. "The idea that premise 1 is false is itself incredulous. Metaphorically, its worse than postulating a magic trick. Its saying a magic trick exists, but without a magician performing it. No one believes things (universes or otherwise) just pop into existence for no reason whatsoever."
2. "You are arguing that P1 is unfalsifiable. Im questioning the basis for that."

If you have the measurements that show the “blurriness” is a fundamental property of the universe, then share it.

That's the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Relevant to this discussion, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle says that within a short enough amount of time, the energy density of a region can't be known precisely. That means that even in a region where the energy density is supposed to be zero, sometimes it's something other than zero. That's the blurriness. Do we need to have a conversation that proves either that the heisenberg uncertainty principle is experimentally true or that it results in uncaused particles?

If it’s what you shared in that thread, I responded to every point you made with more than incredulity even if I was wrong in what I shared. I was the last of us to respond in that thread, so feel free to pick up that conversation there or here.

You're right. You argued that "all known science" supports P1, which is false, and started trying to argue about epistemology, about which I'm not interested. I'm arguing the "all known science" argument in this thread, to which your response in this thread is incredulity.

[Clownboat]

Yeah, the good old "given an infinite number of possibilities, anything can happen" routine.

That's pretty much all the multiverse theory is.

Reminds me of the evolution routine of "given billions of years, anything can happen".

Either stack on an infinite amount of time to explain the effect, or an infinite amount of attempts to explain the effect.

That's the routine for the atheist, all because they simply don't like the idea of the forbidden "G" word.

I acknowledge, but am unimpressed that you think these things have been created because you believe a group of people find the "G" word to be forbidden.
If that is really what is driving your thinking, that is not something an education will correct. You just keep blaming those evil atheists!

You can't reach any arbitrary finite point on an infinite timeline.

So if you had a measuring tape that went from zero to infinity, you couldn't locate some random number that I asked you to find? Would 12 inches not be there (for example) or do you not know how to use a tape?

To put it in perspective..

1. The odds of the hole in the ground originating.

2. The odds of the water for the puddle originating.

3. The odds of the hole in the ground meeting the exact amount of water for the puddle to originate.

It takes the right conditions/circumstances for any of this to occur.

You typed a bunch of words, but you didn't actually say or ask anything. Can you identify anything above that deserves a response?

Well, most unbelievers believe in evolution. Those extinct species should have evolved to survive their environments.

Species that evolve to survive their environment would survive, because they were able to adapt to the changes in the environment. I acknowledge that you don't seem to like unbelievers, nor evolution but don't find that very interesting. You do you though boo.

If you have any debate questions or challenges to offer, please do so.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #121]

I don't think does, but let's assume you're right. If so, the "abductive" part of the argument still assumes the absolute truth of the premises. If any of the premises are false, the syllogism is invalid.

Sure, but that's how all of our beliefs outside of pure math and definitions works. We (hopefully) try to draw the most reasonable conclusions based off of uncertain, but the most reliable premises.

That's not what "null hypothesis" means. If you're arguing for causality, the null hypthesis is a lack of causality.

Why does that apply here? Sure, if one is researching something for a new drug, one needs to prove causation by the proposed chemical and the null hypothesis is that it doesn't have an effect, but that's a different context. Caused vs. uncaused isn't a directly measurable variable like we have in statistical analysis of drug trials (or other things like that). You are begging the question by this application of the null hypothesis.

The empirical evidence is that quantum events are uncaused. That's not unclear. What you're calling causality emerges from an aggregate of probabilities at the quantum level. We know for certain that things at the macro level behave differently than at the quantum level and we know why. Your claim is that the quantum level behaves like the macro level anyway. We have no data that imply that it even might, so your absolutely best argument is that it's possible that quantum events are really caused. That's the position that you very desperately want me to be in instead, but you've got it backwards.

That is not the empirical evidence. It is one interpretation of the empirical evidence and there are various interpretations that equally explain that same empirical evidence. The data alone doesn't imply one way or the other; the philosophical moves we use move us toward one way or the other. So either share how the physical data itself proves your interpretation or make the philosophical case.

You've distinguished your position from "atheistic" and "materialist" explanations. I suppose you might be filling the gap with something that's not atheist or materialist, but isn't God, either. How good is your poker face?

Disagreeing with atheism or materialism is different than how "filling a gap" is usually meant. If you just mean I disagree with atheism, then sure.

Anyone who looks at the thread you pulled into this one can see our back and forth and that I said a lot more than that, even if they disagree with it.

I re-read this thread. I see two main claims relevant to this thread:

1. "The idea that premise 1 is false is itself incredulous. Metaphorically, its worse than postulating a magic trick. Its saying a magic trick exists, but without a magician performing it. No one believes things (universes or otherwise) just pop into existence for no reason whatsoever."
2. "You are arguing that P1 is unfalsifiable. Im questioning the basis for that."

Yes, I said it was incredulous, but it came with context. That was an initial statement that led to sharing why I think some people overcome their own initial incredulity to reject P1 and I then addressed those reasons. I also shared at least 2 other reasons to back P1.

On the second, you were claiming the whole thing was unfalsifiable and, therefore, should be rejected. Asking you to back that up isn't making an argument from incredulity, either.

If you have the measurements that show the “blurriness” is a fundamental property of the universe, then share it.

That's the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Relevant to this discussion, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle says that within a short enough amount of time, the energy density of a region can't be known precisely. That means that even in a region where the energy density is supposed to be zero, sometimes it's something other than zero. That's the blurriness. Do we need to have a conversation that proves either that the heisenberg uncertainty principle is experimentally true or that it results in uncaused particles?

The latter bit, that it results in uncaused particles.

[Difflugia]

If any of the premises are false, the syllogism is invalid.

Sure, but that's how all of our beliefs outside of pure math and definitions works. We (hopefully) try to draw the most reasonable conclusions based off of uncertain, but the most reliable premises.

If logic is part of your filter, you need a new syllogism.

That's not what "null hypothesis" means. If you're arguing for causality, the null hypthesis is a lack of causality.

Why does that apply here?

Because a lack of causality fits the data exactly as well as any of the proposed sources of causality.

Let's try another analogy. If we look into a room and see nothing, what should we conclude is in the room? Instead of just looking, we try other tests, like, I don't know, shooting lasers through the room and seeing if any of the energy is absorbed on the way through. Things like that. Let's say that to every test we've thought of so far, the results are consistent with nothing being in the room. They're consistent with things like undetectable ghosts, undetectable unicorns, undetectable leprechauns, and undetectable elephants, too, but most of the time, undetectability and nothingness go hand-in-hand.

Still, since failing to detect anything in the room is consistent with a literally infinite number of undetectable things, we fall back to the null hypothesis. It might be fruitful to continue speculating about what else might be in there, why it might be undetectable, and try to arrange new tests that would detect those things, but we need to keep in mind that between the null hypothesis and the infinity of other consistent hypotheses, the most parsimonious answer is still an empty room.

Sure, if one is researching something for a new drug, one needs to prove causation by the proposed chemical and the null hypothesis is that it doesn't have an effect, but that's a different context.

Not different enough to buy you anything. You're still trying to argue that P1 is true, or at least probable enough that an invalid syllogism can tell us something useful. Despite no evidence for anything in the room, you're certain that something's there. You're also certain that there's something more than your own incredulity propping that up.

Caused vs. uncaused isn't a directly measurable variable like we have in statistical analysis of drug trials (or other things like that). You are begging the question by this application of the null hypothesis.

We've looked in the room, shined lasers through it, tried radar, tried sonar, and asked the ghosts nicely to show themselves. When I say that all of the evidence so far points to an empty room, I'm not the one begging the question. It's possible that the next test proves me wrong, but based on the evidence we actually have, the room's empty.

The empirical evidence is that quantum events are uncaused.

That is not the empirical evidence.

It absolutely is. If you insist otherwise, you're either using "empirical" or "evidence" differently than I am.

It is one interpretation of the empirical evidence and there are various interpretations that equally explain that same empirical evidence.

Yes. An infinite number of them, in fact. Some day, someone may design a test that can distinguish one or more of those from a lack of causality. In the meantime, the null hypothesis is a good way to reign in our reliance on speculative conclusions.

The data alone doesn't imply one way or the other; the philosophical moves we use move us toward one way or the other.

So, indulge me: do your philosophical moves imply that the room isn't empty? Maybe you and I are using "imply" differently.

So either share how the physical data itself proves

I've yet to use the word "proves." I hope you're not trying to subtly change my argument.

your interpretation or make the philosophical case.

Since we might be using "imply" differently, all of the data are consistent with the null hypothesis, which is a lack of causality. The scientific approach is to accept the null hypothesis until we can design a test that will distinguish a lack of causality from your favorite cause.

Disagreeing with atheism or materialism is different than how "filling a gap" is usually meant.

Fine. Your "I don't know" isn't God.

On the second, you were claiming the whole thing was unfalsifiable and, therefore, should be rejected. Asking you to back that up isn't making an argument from incredulity, either.

I backed it up by explaining that if a vacuum isn't nothing, then there's no nothing in our universe where we can conduct our test:

I don't actually need to argue with that, though. The vacuum with its vacuum energy is the lowest energy state that we have available to us in our universe. If he's arguing, as I think he is, that virtual particles can't be defined as uncaused because they don't come from nothing (a lower energy state than we have available to us), then there's no way for us to test his assertion.

Your response was that an inability to conduct a test and unfalsifiable aren't the same thing:

Yes, maybe we dont have the capabilities to scientifically measure it (or maybe we just dont have that capacity yet, I dont know the uncertainty principle enough to say it contains this point). But even if we dont, we still have the philosophical ability to compare alternative theories and come to what the best inference is.

If you understand what "falsifiable" means, that's just incredulity.

If you have the measurements that show the “blurriness” is a fundamental property of the universe, then share it.

Do we need to have a conversation that proves either that the heisenberg uncertainty principle is experimentally true or that it results in uncaused particles?

The latter bit, that it results in uncaused particles.

According to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, the energy density of some space and the amount of time that the density measurement is true cannot both be precise values. Again, this is a fundamental property of the universe, not a technical limitation or artifact of measurement. If someone were to prove that it is just a technical limitation and there really is a way, even in principle, for those to both have precise values at the same time, then the uncertainty principle is false. Physicists don't think it's false.

What that means for the uncaused particles is that since energy density and time can't both be arbitrarily precise (the "blurriness"), then if one is precise, the other is not. If we have a region of space with nominally zero energy density, we can know that's true over a relatively long (imprecise) period of time. If we are measuring the energy density over a very short (precise) amount of time, we can't know that the energy density is exactly zero, only that it's within certain bounds. These bounds are known, both for time and energy density. They've been theoretically derived and measurements match theory.

A nonzero energy density of space manifests as a particle. During a short enough amount of time, a region of space with otherwise zero energy density is sometimes not zero. When it's not zero, a particle is there. As far as we can tell, the only reason that it's there is because energy density is uncertain in principle. We've identified no other cause. The existence of these particles isn't just theoretical, but is measurable.

[William]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #124]

That's not what "null hypothesis" means. If you're arguing for causality, the null hypthesis is a lack of causality.

Why does that apply here?

Because a lack of causality fits the data exactly as well as any of the proposed sources of causality.

Let's try another analogy. If we look into a room and see nothing, what should we conclude is in the room? Instead of just looking, we try other tests, like, I don't know, shooting lasers through the room and seeing if any of the energy is absorbed on the way through. Things like that. Let's say that to every test we've thought of so far, the results are consistent with nothing being in the room. They're consistent with things like undetectable ghosts, undetectable unicorns, undetectable leprechauns, and undetectable elephants, too, but most of the time, undetectability and nothingness go hand-in-hand.

Still, since failing to detect anything in the room is consistent with a literally infinite number of undetectable things, we fall back to the null hypothesis. It might be fruitful to continue speculating about what else might be in there, why it might be undetectable, and try to arrange new tests that would detect those things, but we need to keep in mind that between the null hypothesis and the infinity of other consistent hypotheses, the most parsimonious answer is still an empty room.

I think what you are saying is that since we cannot yet see a creator in the room, the room cannot be said to have been created. Thus the null hypothesis for the question “do we exist within a created thing” (the room) is “No we do not”.
However, the room is not empty, scientifically speaking.

What Tanager argues is that the creator of the created thing (the room which actually isn't empty) does indeed exist somewhere outside of the room (the undetectable ghost, alongside all those other undetectable entities you name).
Traditionally Christianity has it that this supernatural realm (Heaven) is full of all these undetectable entities.
Thus, your argument appears to be that the room is apparently empty of Heaven/heavenly entities.

Lack of these entities IN the (full) room provides the null hypothesis that the supernatural realm is NOT in the room.

I this a Misplaced Null Hypothesis: "Therefore, finding no supernatural entities inside the room only supports the null hypothesis that "the supernatural is not inside the natural universe." It does not disprove the existence of a creator or supernatural realm outside of it, which is (I think) what Tanager is arguing.

My argument with Tanager has been that there is no reason why we should place the creator outside of the room when it can be argued that the creator is inside the room and can be "seen" intelligently working with the created thing(s) through said created things.

This is to say then that the "undetectable ghost" is actually detectable directly in relation to that which can observe the room and the things in the room and examine said things - particularly looking for signs of intelligence.

Such as what this video describes.


Re the video transcript:

Deepseek: "The speaker, Michael Levin, argues for a radical expansion of our understanding of intelligence. He proposes that intelligence is not exclusive to brains but is a fundamental property of life, present in all living systems that can solve problems and achieve goals in their respective environments.

His core argument is built on research into cellular collectives (like embryos and regenerating tissues) that demonstrate cognitive-like behaviors:

Intelligence as Goal-Directed Problem Solving: He defines intelligence using William James' cybernetic definition: "the ability to reach the same goal by different means." He shows this in cells that regenerate perfect limbs or entire bodies (like planaria and frogs) from different starting points, navigating a problem space of anatomical shapes ("anatomical morphospace").

Cognitive Glue via Bioelectricity: Cells communicate and make collective decisions using bioelectrical networks (ion channels, gap junctions) that are evolutionarily older than neurons. These networks act as a "cognitive glue," allowing swarms of cells to hold a "memory" of a target anatomy (e.g., how many heads a planarian should have) and work towards it.

Hackability and Reprogramming: By manipulating these bioelectrical patterns (without changing DNA), his team can "rewrite" the target goal. For example, they can induce frogs to grow eyes on their gut or cause planaria to regenerate with two heads, proving that anatomical outcomes are a form of stored, rewritable software.

Learning and Creativity: Cells and molecular networks exhibit basic learning (like Pavlovian conditioning). More impressively, they can improvise novel solutions to unprecedented challenges, such as adapting to a novel toxin or building entirely new functional structures (like "xenobots" and "anthrobots" from frog and human cells) that were never seen in evolution.

Conclusion: The speaker's framework suggests that intelligence is a spectrum. By learning to recognize and communicate with these "unconventional intelligences" (like cells making anatomical decisions), we not only advance regenerative medicine but also develop the philosophical and ethical tools to interact with future intelligences, including AI, synthetic life, and potential extraterrestrial life."

Now top of the "food chain" re intelligence is the human being.

Top of the "food chain" re the undetectable entities you mentioned not being in the room, would be the "Ghost" because it symbolises exactly what intelligence without form would "look" like - primarily the "sheet with eyes" - which symbolically represents the top of the food chain intelligence (human) which is intelligence within the "sheet" of the human body.

Thus, even if all the room contained was the human observer, because the intelligence is there in the room, the room is not empty.
Often though, human intelligence observing, forgets to include themselves in the room and declare it to be empty.

The core point therein, is that human intelligence itself is a non-physical entity present in the room. Extend that to the other entities which actually are in the room, and we have a ghost which is detectable even in entities which have no brains.

Yet, we needn't think of the Ghost as "supernatural" just because it cannot easily detect the nature of itself other than it "appears" to be non-physical.

Deepseek: (re the above)
The author makes a central claim: conscious intelligence is a real, non-physical entity that is present in the world.

To illustrate this, they use the metaphor of a "Ghost" (a sheet with eyes) to represent intelligence divorced from a physical body. They argue that a human being is this "Ghost" inhabiting the "sheet" of a physical body.

The key conclusions are:

A room is never truly "empty" if a conscious observer is in it, because their intelligence is a real presence.

This "Ghost" of intelligence is not supernatural; it is a natural, albeit non-physical, aspect of entities that is detectable through its effects (like consciousness and problem-solving), even in creatures without brains.

The difficulty of detecting its nature does not make it supernatural, only non-physical.

[Difflugia]

I think what you are saying is that since we cannot yet see a creator in the room, the room cannot be said to have been created.

That's not even close to what I'm saying.

Extending my analogy to your creator, what I'm saying is that since we don't see anything in the room, an assertion that there's anything in the room is speculative. Further, asserting that there's anything specific in the room, like an undetectable creator, is on even footing with claims of any other specific things in the room, like an undetectable spirit, an undetectable motorcycle, or an undetectable ham. You can claim that there's any one of these in the room or even all of them together, but the most parsimonious answer is that there's nothing.

Thus the null hypothesis for the question “do we exist within a created thing” (the room) is “No we do not”.

That's right.

However, the room is not empty, scientifically speaking.

Whether the room's empty or full has no bearing on whether it's created. That's a non sequitur.

What Tanager argues is that the creator of the created thing (the room which actually isn't empty) does indeed exist somewhere outside of the room (the undetectable ghost, alongside all those other undetectable entities you name).

Within my analogy, Tanager's arguing that even though none of our tests detect something in the room, the room's still not empty. He's arguing that there are reasons for thinking that the room's not empty. I'm saying that those reasons boil down to incredulity at an empty room. He claims they don't.

Traditionally Christianity has it that this supernatural realm (Heaven) is full of all these undetectable entities.
Thus, your argument appears to be that the room is apparently empty of Heaven/heavenly entities.

That's another non sequitur, though both statements are independently true.

Lack of these entities IN the (full) room provides the null hypothesis that the supernatural realm is NOT in the room.

I'll loosely say that this statement is probably true, but it's sloppy. If we're still using my analogy, the room doesn't represent the universe with stuff in it, but represents the search space for the causes of quantum events. You've apparently changed my analogy to something else, where the room is full, but something in particular isn't detectable in it. If we equate the presence of ghosts with being "the supernatural realm," then I can accept that your statement is true for your modified analogy.

I this a Misplaced Null Hypothesis: "Therefore, finding no supernatural entities inside the room only supports the null hypothesis that "the supernatural is not inside the natural universe." It does not disprove the existence of a creator or supernatural realm outside of it, which is (I think) what Tanager is arguing.

No. At the risk of speaking for Tanager, he's arguing that even though we don't detect anything in the room, it's unfair to say that there's nothing in the room. Furthermore, when I say that the evidence is that there's nothing in the room, he's saying I'm wrong because the evidence is also consistent with something in the room that's just undetectable.

My argument with Tanager has been that there is no reason why we should place the creator outside of the room when it can be argued that the creator is inside the room and can be "seen" intelligently working with the created thing(s) through said created things.

This is to say then that the "undetectable ghost" is actually detectable directly in relation to that which can observe the room and the things in the room and examine said things - particularly looking for signs of intelligence.

I've had similar discussions with you in the past. My response is that your tests are designed poorly and generate a bunch of false positives. Even if there are some real positives in there, you need controls for your experiments so you can begin to separate out at least some of those false positives. My guess is that you have no real positives and haven't actually detected an intelligence, but for now, the point is moot.

[William]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #126]

My guess is that you have no real positives and haven't actually detected an intelligence, but for now, the point is moot.

My guess is that you did not watch the video or take into account the AI summary of the video content.

Not only is intelligence detected, but even if one says/claims that the room is "empty" one does not really know that for sure unless one goes into the room and observes the "emptiness" and in doing so, if one does not include oneself as being the observer IN the room, then yes - the room will indeed appear to be empty - but if one considers the observer as "something" (even if that something is non-physical as in "cannot directly observe itself") it is nonetheless not only present in the room (thus the room truly is NOT empty at all) but also, without its presence, it cannot be said that the room even exists at all, because it is the intelligent presence which is required for the room to be said to exist, let alone said to be supposedly empty.

See also: https://williamwaterstone.substack.com/ ... e-room-not

Deepseek: You are making a philosophical argument for the primacy of consciousness, directly refuting the claim that the "room" (a metaphor for reality) is empty of intelligence.

Your core points are:

The Observer Fills the Room: The room cannot be considered empty because the observer is in it. Even if the observer is non-physical (a conscious intelligence), its presence means the room is not empty.

Consciousness is Necessary for Reality: You reiterate your central thesis: without a conscious observer to perceive it, the room's very existence cannot be established or validated. An "empty room" is a meaningless concept without an intelligence there to define it as such.

The Evidence Was Provided: You counter the original guess by stating that intelligence has been detected (referencing the video on biological intelligence) and that the philosophical argument itself demonstrates the presence of an intelligent observer.

In short, you argue that the act of observing and debating the room's contents proves it is not empty, because the debate itself requires the fundamental "something" of a conscious intelligence.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #121]

The empirical evidence is that quantum events are uncaused. That's not unclear. What you're calling causality emerges from an aggregate of probabilities at the quantum level. We know for certain that things at the macro level behave differently than at the quantum level and we know why. Your claim is that the quantum level behaves like the macro level anyway. We have no data that imply that it even might, so your absolutely best argument is that it's possible that quantum events are really caused.

Quantum mechanics does not say that events happen without a cause. It states that a cause does not necessitate a single effect but a range of probable events. The effect is not decided until it is observed.

[William]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #121]

The empirical evidence is that quantum events are uncaused. That's not unclear. What you're calling causality emerges from an aggregate of probabilities at the quantum level. We know for certain that things at the macro level behave differently than at the quantum level and we know why. Your claim is that the quantum level behaves like the macro level anyway. We have no data that imply that it even might, so your absolutely best argument is that it's possible that quantum events are really caused.

Quantum mechanics does not say that events happen without a cause. It states that a cause does not necessitate a single effect but a range of probable events. The effect is not decided until it is observed.

AI Overview
The statement is True, and accurately summarizes a core concept within the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. It distinguishes the quantum view of causality from the deterministic view found in classical physics.
Here is a breakdown of the statement:

"Quantum mechanics does not say that events happen without a cause." Quantum mechanics respects causality in the sense that an event is governed by underlying laws. The state of a quantum system is described by a wave function, which evolves in a predictable, deterministic way according to the Schrödinger equation. This evolution is the "cause" of the system's future state.

"It states that a cause does not necessitate a single effect but a range of probable events." A single, deterministic cause in the quantum realm, such as the wave function, does not lead to one specific outcome. Instead, it describes a superposition of all possible states, each with a specific probability, or "probability amplitude". The system exists as a range of potential outcomes, not a single one.

"The effect is not decided until it is observed." The act of measurement is what forces the wave function to "collapse" from a superposition of multiple possibilities into a single, definite outcome. According to the Copenhagen interpretation, before the measurement is made, the quantum system does not have a single, objective reality for the property being measured, and discussions about its state are considered metaphysical.

[Haven]

Yeah, the good old "given an infinite number of possibilities, anything can happen" routine.

That's pretty much all the multiverse theory is.

As Difflugia, POI and myself have argued over and over on this thread, this is a misunderstanding and a strawman (on par with the “tornado through a junkyard” misunderstanding of evolution by natural selection). Misunderstanding and strawmanning an argument is not refuting it.

Reminds me of the evolution routine of "given billions of years, anything can happen".

I was using evolution as an analogy but didn’t figure you’d actually be a YEC. You really do believe the “tornado through a junkyard” thing, don’t you? You don’t understand how mutation and natural selection can change a population’s allele frequencies (and therefore expression) over time? Even when this has literally been observed over and over again (source: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evo-news ... real-time/ ).

Again, misunderstanding evidence and strawmanning a position is not a refutation!

Either stack on an infinite amount of time to explain the effect, or an infinite amount of attempts to explain the effect.

This is a strawman and only reveals your own ignorance of physics and biology. No one is proposing “infinite time” or “infinite attempts,” but you clearly do not understand large numbers or their implications, or the strictly physical nature of time itself. And as Difflugia mentioned before, your own personal incredulity is not a refutation.

Reality can be (and is) stranger than you can imagine, and there is experimental confirmation for this. Perhaps this is the reason a magic man behind it all is a more comforting / more believable to you? After all, our brains evolved to see patterns that are not there and to assign personal intent to impersonal forces (which is why countless tribes invented storm gods, death gods and creation gods…).

That's the routine for the atheist, all because they simply don't like the idea of the forbidden "G" word

Ah yes, the issue isn’t that there is absolutely zero evidence of design in the universe or that the claims of every religion are either false or so vague/untestable as to be unfalsifiable. We just don’t like God! That includes all of those physicists who are not atheists and accept the multiverse hypothesis as well (because as we all know, anyone who isn’t a fundamentalist literalist creationist must have an a priori commitment to strong atheism!).

Why is “there isn’t enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis” (which is the inverse of the alternative/positive hypothesis that the universe was created) not enough? I don’t need to prove we’re living in a multiverse to reject Christian theism as an unevidenced and incoherent belief system. And I don’t need to provide a complete explanation for existence to reject your “God-of-the-gaps” claims about physics (especially considering the track record of the idea over time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps).

This is also an interesting read: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1386413

Edit: Sorry I misattributed these quotes (since corrected)…it’s been a long thread.