The existence of "free will" negates the argument that God must have created 
the universe as a "first cause".

The "first cause" argument is that every effect has a cause, and hence for 
the universe to exist, something before the universe must have caused it, 
and hence God exists.[1]

On the other hand, either our decisions are caused by what's in the 
environment, or some aspect of our decisions are not subject to prior 
causes. In the first case, it would be unjust to blame someone for not 
believing in your religion if such disbelief is entirely the fault of 
external circumstances. In the latter case, many decisions have effects 
without precedent cause, and hence the requirement for God to have created 
the universe disappears.

Thoughts?



[1] ("God created the universe" -> "Jesus died for your sins" is left as an 
exercise for the reader.)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> In the first case, it would be unjust to blame someone for not
> believing in your religion if such disbelief is entirely the fault of
> external circumstances.

Well, if you try to make someone believe in your religion, you are *being*
an "external circumstance" to him.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Thoughts?

No, it's Christmas and I'm not in the mood for such flamewars. ;)

Post a reply to this message

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Darren New [mailto:dne### [at] sanrrcom]
> On the other hand, either our decisions are caused by what's in the
> environment, or some aspect of our decisions are not subject to prior
> causes. In the first case, it would be unjust to blame someone for not
> believing in your religion if such disbelief is entirely the fault of
> external circumstances. In the latter case, many decisions have effects
> without precedent cause, and hence the requirement for God to have
> created
> the universe disappears.
>
> Thoughts?

Why should God's having created the universe be a requirement?  From 
everything I've studied and learned, it seems that God doesn't like proof 
of his own existence.

...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> The "first cause" argument is that every effect has a cause, and hence for 
> the universe to exist, something before the universe must have caused it, 
> and hence God exists.[1]

  Science doesn't seem to have any answers about this either.

  There is a rather large amount of scientific postulations describing the
Big Bang, going further and further back in time, to tiny fractions of
a second after the bang started. However, nobody seems to be able to
explain how and why it started (and where did all that energy come from).

  Not that this proves the existence of a creator being which transcends
the Universe, but that theory is as good as any.

  In the beginning there was nothing. Then...

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   In the beginning there was nothing. Then...

	In the beginning, there was Multivac.

-- 
"Graphic Artist seeks Boss with vision impairment."


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Why should God's having created the universe be a requirement?

It's just a very common argument.

> everything I've studied and learned, it seems that God doesn't like proof 
> of his own existence.

Only since the invention of cameras. Surely you must have missed the part 
about the parting of the red sea, the sun stopping in the sky for three 
days, ten plagues, the resurrection of dead people, water to wine, and all 
that stuff? :-)

But I didn't really express this with the intent of getting into a general 
debate. Just to see whether there was something I was missing in my logic.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>>   In the beginning there was nothing. Then...
> 
> In the beginning, there was Multivac.

"In the beginning, God created the bit."

Given the recent developments in physics, I'd say in the beginning he
created the quark :)

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> The "first cause" argument is that every effect has a cause, and hence for 
>> the universe to exist, something before the universe must have caused it, 
>> and hence God exists.[1]
> 
>   Science doesn't seem to have any answers about this either.

Many hypotheses that can be investigated, however.

>   There is a rather large amount of scientific postulations describing the
> Big Bang, going further and further back in time, to tiny fractions of
> a second after the bang started. 

Yep. Mostly calculations based on more "normal" circumstances. And I don't 
think anyone knows why the "inflation" bit occurred (or where "dark matter" 
came from, or what "dark energy" is, etc). Astrophysics always seems to add 
one new unknown variable for each observation. Each time a major discovery 
is made, someone makes something mostly-unobservable up to account for it.

> However, nobody seems to be able to
> explain how and why it started (and where did all that energy come from).

There are a number of theories, like "brane theory" which postulates 
higher-level structures colliding and such, or "big bounce" theories which 
postulate a cyclic (but long-term stable) state. I certainly don't know any 
details.

I'm pretty sure anyone who argues the "first cause" argument would not 
accept "a black hole in another universe evaporating" or "normal plain old 
aliens somewhere else" as the "first cause" for the big bang, either.

>   Not that this proves the existence of a creator being which transcends
> the Universe, but that theory is as good as any.

I would disagree, putting "a creator which transcends the universe" as 
usually expressed being an untestable hypothesis. That, in my book, makes it 
a hypothesis that isn't as good. (I think 11-dimensional string theory falls 
into the same "untestable" hypothesis area (for different reasons), as well, 
and from what I understand many physicists are starting to look at it that 
way as well.)

Of course, if you express it as "we're all simulations in someone's 
computer", you could reasonably come up with evidence-based tests to support 
or refute this claim.

It also fails (for me) in the concept that the hypothesis of a creator-god 
(as usually envisioned by organized religion at least)

If you want to postulate an unknowable creator who doesn't care what we do 
and can't influence us after death, then I'd have to wonder why one would 
attribute a personality to such a thing. Not only do you have a supernatural 
(in the strict definition of the word) cause for the universe, but one who 
decides and makes choices and so on, as well.

In any case, my comment was more along the lines of "free will implies there 
needn't be a first cause", not "there was no first cause."  The usual 
argument for why there is evil in the world undermines a common argument for 
why a god was needed to create the universe.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >   Not that this proves the existence of a creator being which transcends
> > the Universe, but that theory is as good as any.

> I would disagree, putting "a creator which transcends the universe" as 
> usually expressed being an untestable hypothesis.

  How can *any* hypothesis which states how the Universe came into existence
be testable? It's more or less by definition impossible to replicate the
circumstances of the Big Bang (eg. for the simple reason that time-space
is not currently in the same state as it was at the moment the Big Bang
happened).

  For this reason one hypothesis is as good as any other.

> In any case, my comment was more along the lines of "free will implies there 
> needn't be a first cause", not "there was no first cause." 

  What is "free will"? Do we have free will (regardless of what is your
world view)? Or is free will just an illusion?

  From a purely materialistic point of view there could be two ways of
thinking about how people make decisions:

  1) Everything is deterministic. Every action has a well-defined, unique
and deterministic reaction. Thus everything is just a consequence of what
came before that. Thus everything follows an exact path which cannot go
in any other way. The amount of interactions in the Universe is so
staggeringly large that we cannot even imagine it, which is why it may
seem that things happen randomly and that people make random choices, but
in the end it all comes down to the basic principle of cause and consequence,
of action and reaction. Every choice you make is just a consequence of your
past.

  2) Everything is chaotic. Uncertain quantum states make it so that it's
absolutely impossible to predict what effects certain actions will have.
It may well go one way or another (or even both ways at the same time!).
By the rules of the Universe it's physically impossible to predict what
will happen in the future from current events, because people will make
completely random and unpredictable choices which, deep down, are a
consequence of the complete uncertainty of quantum interactions.

  However, in neither case can you speak of true "freedom of choice".
In the first case every decision is pre-determined by your past. Every
electric impulse in your brain is determined by previous impulses and
physical events. You are not making a decision, you are simply reacting
to previous actions.

  In the second case you are not choosing. You are acting completely at
random (even if this randomness can be seen only in the tiniest of details).
You are not making decisions based on choice, but based on how some
quantum states happen to be at some point in time (at any point in the
timeline).

  Even if we make a mix of the two extremes, can it be called "free will"
even then? Your choices are only either a consequence of your past, or
caused by quantum uncertainty.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Warp [mailto:war### [at] tagpovrayorg]
>   1) Everything is deterministic.
 
>   2) Everything is chaotic. Uncertain quantum states make it so that
> it's
> absolutely impossible to predict what effects certain actions will
> have.
> It may well go one way or another (or even both ways at the same
> time!).
> By the rules of the Universe it's physically impossible to predict
what
> will happen in the future from current events, because people will
make
> completely random and unpredictable choices which, deep down, are a
> consequence of the complete uncertainty of quantum interactions.

The second option, when you get down to it, sounds suspiciously like the
first.  Specifically that last bit, that everything is the result of
quantum interactions.

Now, quantum interactions appear random to us, but if it were possible
to "zoom in" sufficiently, we might determine otherwise.

Anyway, the two options would really be:
1) Everything is deterministic
2) Everything is non-deterministic

The source of the non-determinism could be free will, randomness, God,
or whatever else you want to explain it.

...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

What's the difference between a drug dealer and a whore?
A whore can wash her crack and sell it again.

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   2) Everything is chaotic. Uncertain quantum states make it so that it's
> absolutely impossible to predict what effects certain actions will have.
> It may well go one way or another (or even both ways at the same time!).
> By the rules of the Universe it's physically impossible to predict what
> will happen in the future from current events, because people will make
> completely random and unpredictable choices which, deep down, are a
> consequence of the complete uncertainty of quantum interactions.
>
>   In the second case you are not choosing. You are acting completely at
> random (even if this randomness can be seen only in the tiniest of details).
> You are not making decisions based on choice, but based on how some
> quantum states happen to be at some point in time (at any point in the
> timeline).

How can we know that it is the random quantum interactions that cause our
decisions (at a very subtle level) and not our "decisions" that cause the
random quantum interactions (again at a very subtle level)? In other words, how
can we know that human *or* some other consciousness can't in fact have effect
on the world through these very seemingly random quantum interactions? Since we
have no way to predict these interactions it would seem it would be a loophole
which makes room for any external (or internal but currently unknown) influence
on our observable universe.

Just a thought.

(Note: Any argument that no influence could be exerted this way because the
random quantum interactions are predictable at a statistical level undermines
the whole original argument that we are controlled by randomness to some
degree.)

Rune

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   How can *any* hypothesis which states how the Universe came into existence
> be testable? 

It can make predictions that are or are not borne out, the same as any 
other. For example, the "big bang" theory postulates that the universe can 
only be a certain age (based on the size of the observable universe and the 
speed of light). It postulates that the background radiation could not have 
gotten across the universe in the length of time the universe has existed, 
and therefore should not be as smooth as it is. Hence the theory of 
"inflation". It postulates that deceleration due to gravity should be 
getting smaller, while instead it's actually negative. Hence the theory of 
"dark energy". And so on.

If we found things were not moving apart at a speed apparently explicable by 
gravity, then we might have the steady-state theory. Which would require a 
different explanation of how the universe came about.

But no, that's why the call it a singularity. Stuff breaks down there.

If you want to argue that something from *before* the singularity has 
persisted *after* the singularity, you'd need to give evidence. Like I said, 
I don't have trouble with a "first cause". I think one would have to provide 
some evidence it answers prayers of humans, if one intends to try to 
convince me of that possibility, tho.

> It's more or less by definition impossible to replicate the
> circumstances of the Big Bang (eg. for the simple reason that time-space
> is not currently in the same state as it was at the moment the Big Bang
> happened).

You can extrapolate backwards from what you can experiment with, just like 
you can look out into outer space and, without traveling to the stars, you 
can determine there likely was a big bang.

But yes, as I said, it's a singularity, so figuring out what was *before* 
the big bang requires it to be recreated on the "pre" side of the bang. If 
we manage to create a little universe in a lab, we'd probably have a good 
idea of the cause of the big bang that made ours. Or at least an explanation 
with *some* evidence in support.

>   For this reason one hypothesis is as good as any other.

Nope. The hypothesis that "something created the universe" doesn't provide 
any information we didn't already have. It doesn't "explain" anything.

>> In any case, my comment was more along the lines of "free will implies there 
>> needn't be a first cause", not "there was no first cause." 
> 
>   What is "free will"? Do we have free will (regardless of what is your
> world view)? Or is free will just an illusion?

I can certainly give you my answer. But I'm not sure that helps anything.

>   However, in neither case can you speak of true "freedom of choice".

Right. I don't think either of those has anything to do with "free will" in 
my book. Nor is "free will" an illusion.

>   Even if we make a mix of the two extremes, can it be called "free will"
> even then? Your choices are only either a consequence of your past, or
> caused by quantum uncertainty.

It can certainly be called "free will" at that point, or at either of the 
others. I don't think asking "what is free will" or "do we have free will" 
is an effective approach to the problem. I expect everyone has made at least 
one "choice" that they thought they made freely, even if it was a trivial 
and meaningless choice. I think investigating the question of "what sorts of 
beings/objects have free will" takes you much closer to figuring out the 
nature of free will. Do rocks have free will? Do individual ants have free 
will? Does an ant colony taken as a whole have free will? Does a government 
have free will?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> The existence of "free will" negates the argument that God must have 
> created the universe as a "first cause".
> 
> The "first cause" argument is that every effect has a cause, and hence 
> for the universe to exist, something before the universe must have 
> caused it, and hence God exists.[1]
> 
> On the other hand, either our decisions are caused by what's in the 
> environment, or some aspect of our decisions are not subject to prior 
> causes. In the first case, it would be unjust to blame someone for not 
> believing in your religion if such disbelief is entirely the fault of 
> external circumstances. In the latter case, many decisions have effects 
> without precedent cause, and hence the requirement for God to have 
> created the universe disappears.

I don't think that the latter bit of this argument necessarily holds 
without some additional assumptions about the nature by which decisions 
arise.  The view which, I imagine, would be taken by someone arguing 
both for God and for free will is that our decisions are not caused by 
the material state of the universe precisely because we are conscious 
agents (ie have "souls" from a religious perspective).

The view here would be that the *only* uncaused effects are those 
arising from a conscious agent.  Thus if something before the universe 
must have caused it, that something must have been an act by a conscious 
agent.  Since "conscious agent that created the universe" sounds almost 
exactly like a standard definition of God, by this like of reasoning, it 
seems to lead to an argument *for* the necessity in a God creating the 
universe rather than against it.

Of course this all depends on a particular viewpoint on free will, but 
it seems to be the one that you're talking in your argument so I think 
it's valid.  Even if a dualistic view of the mind with respect to free 
will wasn't want you had intended, I suspect that it's almost certainly 
a common viewpoint of those who would argue for both God and free will, 
so your counterargument will still need to address the relationship 
between mind and body more directly to be convincing.

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Now, quantum interactions appear random to us, but if it were possible
> to "zoom in" sufficiently, we might determine otherwise.

As I understand it, this has been conclusively disproven in ways not too 
difficult to understand.

> The source of the non-determinism could be free will, randomness, God,
> or whatever else you want to explain it.

If you have a source of non-determinism, then it isn't non-deterministic any 
more. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

Kevin Wampler wrote:
> both for God and for free will is that our decisions are not caused by 
> the material state of the universe precisely because we are conscious 
> agents (ie have "souls" from a religious perspective).

Well, the existence of the "soul" is another question. One can reasonably 
question what is even meant by "the soul".

> The view here would be that the *only* uncaused effects are those 
> arising from a conscious agent.  Thus if something before the universe 
> must have caused it, that something must have been an act by a conscious 
> agent.  Since "conscious agent that created the universe" sounds almost 
> exactly like a standard definition of God, by this like of reasoning, it 
> seems to lead to an argument *for* the necessity in a God creating the 
> universe rather than against it.

Thank you. That's exactly the sort of counter-argument I was looking for.

That's not how the "first cause" argument is usually argued - I've never 
seen an argument that uncaused events can be caused by conciousness. 
Generally, the uncaused events are caused by a god, and the god doesn't need 
a cause because he's always been present.

However, it certainly shoots down my line of reasoning, if one assumes 
"consciousness" can cause otherwise un-caused events.

Then, of course, you can get into an argument over what "consciousness" is, 
but that's another argument and (in my opinion) rather easier to discuss.

> so your counterargument will still need to address the relationship 
> between mind and body more directly to be convincing.

Yes it would.  (Actually, I suspect anyone who would actually argue with me 
this way is far beyond convincing, but that's another question.)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Well, the existence of the "soul" is another question. One can 
> reasonably question what is even meant by "the soul".

I completely agree.  Since the question was phrased in religious terms I 
was merely trying to phrase the answer in the same way as well. 
Personally, I'm iffy enough on what "free will" means and how to make it 
coherent to actually attempt to argue about something more difficult 
still like a soul.

> That's not how the "first cause" argument is usually argued - I've never 
> seen an argument that uncaused events can be caused by conciousness. 
> Generally, the uncaused events are caused by a god, and the god doesn't 
> need a cause because he's always been present.

I haven't seen it argued this way either, but I'd be quite surprised if 
the argument isn't commonly considered in more modern philosophical 
discussions of the topic.  It seems like a pretty natural response, and 
fits well with the sort of dualistic conception of the mind taken by 
many religious people.

> Then, of course, you can get into an argument over what "consciousness" 
> is, but that's another argument and (in my opinion) rather easier to 
> discuss.

A completely agree.  Though technically speaking the argument still 
works if you replace "conscious agent" with "free agent".  It's just 
that (in my view) our conception of free will is so closely tied with 
our concept on consciousness (however vague) that it's more intuitively 
compelling to state it that way.

Said differently, you only need to push the argument to one about 
consciousness to the degree that you believe free will necessitates 
consciousness, although it's probably reasonable for a proponent to take 
that view as a "free but not conscious" God is a rather odd concept.

> Yes it would.  (Actually, I suspect anyone who would actually argue with 
> me this way is far beyond convincing, but that's another question.)

But at least they could also be rational in being unconvinced!

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> Now, quantum interactions appear random to us, but if it were possible
>> to "zoom in" sufficiently, we might determine otherwise.
> 
> As I understand it, this has been conclusively disproven in ways not too 
> difficult to understand.

Unless you mean merely to imply that such "zooming in" is theoretically 
impossible, to my (very limited) knowledge on this subject I don't think 
that this is true.  At least as far as classical quantum mechanics is 
concerned, it is possible for the predictions to arise from entirely 
deterministic, with the caveat that you have to allow for 
faster-than-light interactions.

The most relevant theorem is known as Bell's theorem: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem, which you may remember 
was employed in the paper arguing against Wolfram's CA view of physics 
that I linked for you.

In fact, a deterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics has been 
mathematically laid out 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_interpretation, although I don't know 
how well it lends itself to attempts to unify it with general relativity 
(although afaik, it's not clear how well standard QM is either).

Post a reply to this message

Kevin Wampler wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Chambers wrote:
>>> Now, quantum interactions appear random to us, but if it were possible
>>> to "zoom in" sufficiently, we might determine otherwise.
>>
>> As I understand it, this has been conclusively disproven in ways not 
>> too difficult to understand.
> 
> Unless you mean merely to imply that such "zooming in" is theoretically 
> impossible, to my (very limited) knowledge on this subject I don't think 
> that this is true.  At least as far as classical quantum mechanics is 
> concerned, it is possible for the predictions to arise from entirely 
> deterministic, with the caveat that you have to allow for 
> faster-than-light interactions.

Yes. And recently, they've used a variant of the Bell Inequality to disprove 
that it's due to non-local interactions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kochen-Specker_theorem

(Or, for a more popular treatment:)
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2991,Do-subatomic-particles-have-free-will,Science-News

I'm not sure if this is the one I read about, but I think someone did an 
experiment and validated this experimentally, basically by running Bell's 
Inequality sorts of tests on a whole sphere of points rather than just two 
directions.

http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAR08/Event/76135
disagrees.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7138/abs/nature05677.html
may be what I remember reading about, but I don't know where the popular 
reference to it is.  I can't seem to find the article about someone actually 
doing the experiment that the math implies and finding it worked, but it was 
pretty clear that they eliminated non-local interactions thereby.

> The most relevant theorem is known as Bell's theorem: 

Yes, I've pointed that out to people here before, I believe. :-)

> In fact, a deterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics has been 
> mathematically laid out 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_interpretation, although I don't know 
> how well it lends itself to attempts to unify it with general relativity 
> (although afaik, it's not clear how well standard QM is either).

AFAIK, QED and GR are at odds because GR assumes a non-quantum 
everywhere-differentiable space, basically.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

> The existence of "free will" negates the argument that God must have 
> created the universe as a "first cause".
>
> The "first cause" argument is that every effect has a cause, and hence for 
> the universe to exist, something before the universe must have caused it, 
> and hence God exists.[1]
>
> On the other hand, either our decisions are caused by what's in the 
> environment, or some aspect of our decisions are not subject to prior 
> causes. In the first case, it would be unjust to blame someone for not 
> believing in your religion if such disbelief is entirely the fault of 
> external circumstances. In the latter case, many decisions have effects 
> without precedent cause, and hence the requirement for God to have created 
> the universe disappears.
>
> Thoughts?

Why does the first case rule out the possibility of God having created the 
universe?  Or do you mean that if "the decisions" are entirely made based on 
the environment, there must have been "something else" at the beginning 
because otherwise no decisions could be made to start the universe?

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:494### [at] sanrrcom...

> The existence of "free will" negates the argument that God must have
created
> the universe as a "first cause".
>
> The "first cause" argument is that every effect has a cause, and hence for
> the universe to exist, something before the universe must have caused it,
> and hence God exists.[1]
>
> On the other hand, either our decisions are caused by what's in the
> environment, or some aspect of our decisions are not subject to prior
> causes. In the first case, it would be unjust to blame someone for not
> believing in your religion if such disbelief is entirely the fault of
> external circumstances. In the latter case, many decisions have effects
> without precedent cause, and hence the requirement for God to have created
> the universe disappears.
>
> Thoughts?

Free will negates itself, as you note. Only a will that is not dependent on
its environment is truly free, but that also implies a will that's
indifferent to its environment, hence essentially random. Neither a
deterministic, nor a probabilistic will is thus appealing. What's more, no
amount of mixing the two yields one that is appealing either. How "free" a
will depends on how ignorant we are of the process. We can say that the will
of someone under the influence is not so free precisely because we know how
his decision making process is affected by an outside (well, by now, inside)
agent that we can readily identify. To a lesser extent, someone who has
consumed a lof of coffee or sugar arguably has less "free will" than someone
who has not. But of course when we say a "normal" person has free will, it's
our ignorance of the precise biochemical processes speaking.

As to the first cause argument, one can simply note that human will is not
enough to create anything out of nothing, much less a universe. After all,
humans are not omnipotent. Thus, whether humans have free will or not does
not affect the "neccessity" of a first cause for the universe. And special
pleading then "answers" the question of the cause of God. If the free will
of humans is bothering one, he can simply turn that into a special pleading
as well, as in: "everthing except human will has a cause", followed by
"human will is not enough to create a universe", both of which seem
reasonable from a distance, so that the first cause argument remains
"intact".

The bottomline is, despite what the likes of Anselm, Aquinas, Pascal.. etc
attempted, religion has little to do with logic or reason. One can always
tailor the "axioms" to fit the agenda.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>>   How can *any* hypothesis which states how the Universe came into
>> existence
>> be testable? 
> 
> It can make predictions that are or are not borne out, the same as any
> other. For example, the "big bang" theory postulates that the universe

	Only if causation applies.


-- 
Fax me no questions, I'll Fax you no lies!


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>>   How can *any* hypothesis which states how the Universe came into
>>> existence
>>> be testable? 
>> It can make predictions that are or are not borne out, the same as any
>> other. For example, the "big bang" theory postulates that the universe
> 
> 	Only if causation applies.

And if it doesn't, then we're happily back at the point where there was 
nothing needed to cause the big bang, and hence no need for an eternal god 
to be around first. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> The "first cause" argument is that every effect has a cause, and hence 
>> for the universe to exist, something before the universe must have 
>> caused it, and hence God exists.[1]

> Why does the first case rule out the possibility of God having created 
> the universe?

It doesn't. It just makes God responsible for all the sins and evil in the 
world.

Usually, the answer to "if God is all-powerful, why is there evil?" is 
"Because God wants you to have free will."

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> How "free" a will depends on how ignorant we are of the process.

Yes.

> As to the first cause argument, one can simply note that human will is not
> enough to create anything out of nothing, much less a universe.

It creates evil and sin, apparently. :-)

> as well, as in: "everthing except human will has a cause", followed by
> "human will is not enough to create a universe", both of which seem
> reasonable from a distance, so that the first cause argument remains
> "intact".

Reasonable but equally unsubstantiated, yes. :-)

> The bottomline is, despite what the likes of Anselm, Aquinas, Pascal.. etc
> attempted, religion has little to do with logic or reason. One can always
> tailor the "axioms" to fit the agenda.

Certainly. Thanks for your thoughts. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> 
> Now, quantum interactions appear random to us, but if it were possible
> to "zoom in" sufficiently, we might determine otherwise.

I haven't spent much time contemplating or studying physics, but this is 
my basic understanding of it.

1. The universe is made of particles which behave in predictable ways.
2. A tiny group of people with very expensive tools have seen what 
looked like particles behaving in unpredictable ways.

This has led to the conclusion by some that chaos or randomness is a 
force in the universe just like gravity but a bit harder to demonstrate 
or conceptualize. Seems hasty to me, but they know a lot more than I do.

What I wonder is: if chaos can be accepted as a natural force, why can't 
consciousness? Is there a logical argument against consciousness 
affecting our particles towards non-deterministic behavior?

A lot of very smart people believed the Earth was flat.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:24:09 -0600, Shay <sha### [at] nonenone> wrote:

>
>A lot of very smart people believed the Earth was flat.

Are you sure about that?
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:24:09 -0600, Shay <sha### [at] nonenone> wrote:
> 
>> A lot of very smart people believed the Earth was flat.
> 
> Are you sure about that?

Not at all, really. AFAIK people used to believe the world was flat. I'm 
assuming some of those people were very smart. I could be wrong on 
either end of that.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Yes. And recently, they've used a variant of the Bell Inequality to 
> disprove that it's due to non-local interactions.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kochen-Specker_theorem

I had forgotten about this theorem, thanks for the reminder!
> 
> http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAR08/Event/76135
> disagrees.
> 
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7138/abs/nature05677.html
> may be what I remember reading about, but I don't know where the popular 
> reference to it is.  I can't seem to find the article about someone 
> actually doing the experiment that the math implies and finding it 
> worked, but it was pretty clear that they eliminated non-local 
> interactions thereby.

Interesting, I wish I had enough time at the moment to read and digest 
this.  I'll attempt to queue it somewhere in my head for later.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:36:59 -0600, Shay <sha### [at] nonenone> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:24:09 -0600, Shay <sha### [at] nonenone> wrote:
>> 
>>> A lot of very smart people believed the Earth was flat.
>> 
>> Are you sure about that?
>
>Not at all, really. AFAIK people used to believe the world was flat. I'm 
>assuming some of those people were very smart. I could be wrong on 
>either end of that.
>

Well the Greeks knew the Earth was round in the 4th Cent BC. The "flat Earth"
fallacy became more common in the 19th century with the Religion Vs Science
debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_mythology

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> 1. The universe is made of particles which behave in predictable ways.

Errr, no. The particles behave in ways that are only statistically predictable.

> 2. A tiny group of people with very expensive tools have seen what 
> looked like particles behaving in unpredictable ways.

They're very predictable en masse. Best predicted theory in history.

Sort of like how you can't predict where an individual wasp will go, but if 
you kick the hive, you can be pretty sure you'll be unhappy about it.

> What I wonder is: if chaos can be accepted as a natural force, why can't 
> consciousness? 

Consciousness is an emergent property of natural substances, so I'm not sure 
what your question even means.

> Is there a logical argument against consciousness 
> affecting our particles towards non-deterministic behavior?

Define "consciousness".

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shay [mailto:sha### [at] nonenone]
> A lot of very smart people believed the Earth was flat.

This is a common misconception.  Smart people always knew the Earth was
round (the Greeks {or maybe Egyptians, I don't remember} even knew the
diameter).

Only the ignorant masses ever thought it was flat.

...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> The existence of "free will" negates the argument that God must have 
> created the universe as a "first cause".
> 
> The "first cause" argument is that every effect has a cause, and hence 
> for the universe to exist, something before the universe must have 
> caused it, and hence God exists.[1]
> 
> On the other hand, either our decisions are caused by what's in the 
> environment, or some aspect of our decisions are not subject to prior 
> causes. In the first case, it would be unjust to blame someone for not 
> believing in your religion if such disbelief is entirely the fault of 
> external circumstances. In the latter case, many decisions have effects 
> without precedent cause, and hence the requirement for God to have 
> created the universe disappears.
> 
Umm. Actually the problem with first cause arguments is that they are 
perpetual. I.e., once you start claiming everything "must" have a cause, 
therefore something had to make the universe, you inevitably have to ask 
what caused that thing to exist. This is also the Occam's Razor issue: 
"Why presume that something without a cause 'made' the universe, when it 
only adds the complication of something else popping into existence 
first, instead of just the universe happening that way anyway?"

Or, if you prefer a quantum effect, what "causes" a thing doesn't always 
have to "come before it", and for that matter, the cause may not be 
something identifiable, so claiming you "know" what caused it can be 
very very wrong, especially if its based on one of several thousand 
claims that some entirely too human anthropomorphized super being did 
it, without any real basis on which it determine which one. Oh, and 
arguing that they are all the same, doesn't work either, since many are 
quite apposed to each other, which leaves you with millions of 
philosophies of what such a god "really wants", none more provable than 
any others, many of them superior in aspects to the more "common" one 
used as the "creator of everything", and none of which have the 
attribute of being the sort of god that would "have to" exist, if you 
had one create a universe, but who was too stupid, lazy, or 
disinterested, to either a) get a lot of it put together in a way that 
would make sense to an engineer, or b) actually manage to convey the 
truth of their existence in a way that isn't vague, inspecific, often 
self contradictory, or just plain obviously made up by people that 
thought the universe was made of earth, air, fire and water, and that 
one of a variety of various gods or spirits either lived in, rode on, or 
dragged across the sky, the sun.

> [1] ("God created the universe" -> "Jesus died for your sins" is left as 
> an exercise for the reader.)
> 
Its an easy exercise. Its nonsense, and not just because of the basic 
contradiction that there is "absolutely" no point to the whole sin BS in 
Genesis, if some time later God was going to make some emotional, but in 
reality entirely pointless, gesture, which did away with the whole 
eating the apple thing anyway. Oh, and what do I mean by pointless? I 
mean that while it may have, if it even happened, which is debatable 
itself, had an emotional impact, what exactly was given up, sacrificed, 
etc.? I mean, if Jesus was just the "son of God", then he still didn't 
lose a whole lot by "joining" dad in the after life, and if he "was" 
God, then... Well, unless God died for real, which would make continuing 
to believe in him as totally pointless as waiting for your dead uncle to 
get home before starting dinner, he can hardly claim to have given 
anything up at all. Its like if I donated every bit of my money to 
something called, "Kagehi's retirement fund." Its only a sacrifice of 
you ***don't have it anymore***.

Mind, it is entirely consistent with a God that is quite happy to give 
Moses a commandment to not kill anyone, then a bit later, suggest that 
his "chosen people" kill every man and child of some other tribe. Its 
meaningful because he "says so", until and unless its not anymore, at 
which point we are all supposed to nod and go, "Ah, good. Nice of you to 
give the chosen ones an heads up on the arbitrary rule changes. All 
praise Ahriman (who seems to fit the bill for this sort of chaotic 
gibberish and random evil a lot more than the Ahura-Mazda clone Yhwh, 
which, depending on which centuries texts you are reading is either one 
of three sons of the true creator of the universe, and a war monger, or 
the "the one true God (tm)"). lol

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> What I wonder is: if chaos can be accepted as a natural force, why can't 
> consciousness? Is there a logical argument against consciousness 
> affecting our particles towards non-deterministic behavior?
> 
Well, for one, as someone else already said, first define 
"consciousness" as something more tangible than "some word we made up to 
describe how some things do other things, based on how they react to the 
world around them." That definition doesn't allow for any "interaction" 
that doesn't involve say.. pushing the cup off the edge of the table. 
However, the more silly definition is, "some thing we insist exists 
separate from the body (Already a problem here. How the hell do you know 
its separate, since the only "observation" of its comes from seeing what 
someone's body does?) and which can spookily effect the world somehow 
(Second problem. The only 'evidence' of this seems to be mentally ill 
people thinking they can do things with their minds, studies that 
inevitably turn out to be faked, done wrong, or actually prove it 
doesn't work, and some people's insistence that purely statistically 
plausible, but intellectually unbelievable things, like both people 
trying to call each other at the same time, "prove" that something like 
a separate "consciousness" exists. In other words, this definition isn't 
supported by "any" evidence.)"

The logical argument against such interaction is:

1. There is no evidence that the spooky version of consciousness exists.
2. No evidence exists that indicates the things attributed to it are 
anything but statistical inevitabilities, and human hubris that odd 
things mean more than that you just got lucky.
3. Most people get the "observation" part of quantum mechanics dead 
wrong. When someone says that an "observer" has effected the experiment 
in a way that collapses the state, what they mean is that some other 
physical object, which "has" a stable state, as interfered with the 
unstable particle, in such a manner that "its" state reverts to a stable 
one as well, like a small drop of water which hits something very cold. 
Large masses of particles create "stability" within their own structure, 
allowing them to all... I don't know, I suppose "resonate" the same, so 
that they all retain the same "stable" state. Individual particles, 
separated enough from the surrounding matter, are in an unstable state 
because their is no interactions with other particles. The moment you 
cause an interaction (i.e., make an observation), the state becomes 
"fixed". Well, that isn't precisely right. Its been theorized that you 
could, if you acted quickly enough, reverse the state transition and 
restore the particle to its unstable condition. There where two thoughts 
on this, either a) it happened instantly, so this wasn't possible, or b) 
it would take some measurable time for this to take place, so that a 
particle in "transition" could be made to revert. I read something about 
a month ago where someone tested the later possibility and as actually 
able to reverse the state change, by altering the interaction as the 
transition was in progress, thus "undoing" the interaction that was 
making the particle shift into a known state.

Now, in the world outside the lab, you just don't see this stuff 
happening at all. Why? Because any place mater exists, all particles, 
unless in vacuum, are interacted with "mater", thus remain as mater. In 
places where dark mater is instead., the everything there would be 
interacting with the same, so "its" state would be forced by constant 
interactions into a "dark mater" state. It takes very specific 
conditions to "force" a particle loose from this arrangement, or 
otherwise make it change states, when its inclination is to retain the 
same state as everything else around it. Or, at least that is the sense 
I get. The point being.. Consciousness would have to have some rather 
obvious, clearly identifiable, and undeniable, properties, if it existed 
as something that could tangibly effect the universe *by itself*, and 
the only argument "for" this sort of "consciousness as a force" argument 
  is based entirely on a complete and total misunderstanding of how the 
term "observer" is used in quantum mechanics, and what exactly it means.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

>> Why does the first case rule out the possibility of God having created 
>> the universe?
>
> It doesn't.

I don't understand what you mean by this then:

"The existence of "free will" negates the argument that God must have 
created
the universe as a "first cause"."

Why can't there be free will and a God that created the universe?  Why can't 
God have created free will at the same time as the Universe?

> It just makes God responsible for all the sins and evil in the world.

Maybe he can't change what he had created?  Also, "all the sins and evil in 
the world" is just referring to the actions of a minority of a population of 
one particular species of animal on one particular planet in the whole 
universe.  I'm sure he has more to worry about than us lot blowing each 
other up occasionally and arguing about DRM :-)  Or, for all we know, maybe 
every other planet with living populations is performing vastly better than 
our Earth, so overall God deems this universe a great success?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> 
> Define "consciousness".
> 

Not the "spooky" version Patrick Elliott mentioned.

By "consciousness" I mean that I *seem* to have decided to type this 
post, yet many insist that I can't have decided that because my mind is 
made of particles which are bound to a complex but predictable pattern.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> By "consciousness" I mean that I *seem* to have decided to type this 
> post, yet many insist that I can't have decided that because my mind is 
> made of particles which are bound to a complex but predictable pattern.

That's like saying "Your computer can't open Microsoft Word documents, 
because it's made out of silicon and transistors.  It's an error of levels.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>>> Why does the first case rule out the possibility of God having 
>>> created the universe?
>>
>> It doesn't.
> 
> I don't understand what you mean by this then:
> 
> "The existence of "free will" negates the argument that God must have 
> created
> the universe as a "first cause"."
> 
> Why can't there be free will and a God that created the universe? 

There could. It negates the argument that God *must* be the explanation.

> Maybe he can't change what he had created?  

Then God can't create miracles or answer prayers?

> I'm sure he has more to worry about than us lot 
> blowing each other up occasionally and arguing about DRM :-)  

Me too.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Umm. Actually the problem with first cause arguments is that they are 
> perpetual. I.e., once you start claiming everything "must" have a cause, 
> therefore something had to make the universe, you inevitably have to ask 
> what caused that thing to exist.

The usual answer is "God is eternal and has always existed."  That's how you 
know it's God, you see.

> Or, if you prefer a quantum effect, what "causes" a thing doesn't always 
> have to "come before it",

And, given we're talking "the start of the universe", there is no "before" 
to talk about, either.

In any case, I wasn't aiming to get into a general religion rant. I was just 
looking for holes in my one argument. You, of course, should feel free to 
continue, but it's not anything new you're saying. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Shay wrote:
>> 1. The universe is made of particles which behave in predictable ways.
> 
> Errr, no. The particles behave in ways that are only statistically 
> predictable.

Particles are individually unpredictable (to us) because we still do not 
have a complete understanding of physics. Very tiny particles may appear 
to do random things, but until we have determined the what the smallest 
particle is -- the true quanta -- we can't say for certain that truly 
random events actually happen. They look random to us because of our 
incomplete understanding.

Sam

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
>> Or, if you prefer a quantum effect, what "causes" a thing doesn't 
>> always have to "come before it",
> 
> And, given we're talking "the start of the universe", there is no 
> "before" to talk about, either.
> 

Maybe.. But that's a bit... uncertain. I may depend on what you define 
as "before". If you mean time as we know it, then probably true, since 
time seems to be a product of the universe, not something it "sits in". 
On the other hand, since time seems to be a derived property, it has to 
be derived from what ever "was" there. This is still "before", in the 
same sense that there is, say.. a "before" for a computer program prior 
to the first time you turn the machine on. That its sense of "time" is a 
product of its own internal timing mechanisms only speaks to what is 
"inside" it, not what happened prior to turning the thing on. So, time 
could exist, in some sense, "before" it became time to this universe, 
but "locally" it just happens to work the way it does "because of" the 
other properties of this universe.

In any case, its not impossible for there to be a "before", its just 
becomes an inaccurate context to apply at that point.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 23-Dec-08 19:27, stbenge wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Shay wrote:
>>> 1. The universe is made of particles which behave in predictable ways.
>>
>> Errr, no. The particles behave in ways that are only statistically 
>> predictable.
> 
> Particles are individually unpredictable (to us) because we still do not 
> have a complete understanding of physics. Very tiny particles may appear 
> to do random things, but until we have determined the what the smallest 
> particle is -- the true quanta -- we can't say for certain that truly 
> random events actually happen. They look random to us because of our 
> incomplete understanding.

That looks suspiciously as if you believe in a hidden variable type 
theory. I think it was proven that reality has no underlying hidden 
variables. It is however some time ago that I did really study physics 
and reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox it is clear to me 
that I need a refreshing course.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> On 23-Dec-08 19:27, stbenge wrote:
> > Darren New wrote:
> >> Shay wrote:
> >>> 1. The universe is made of particles which behave in predictable ways.
> >>
> >> Errr, no. The particles behave in ways that are only statistically 
> >> predictable.
> > 
> > Particles are individually unpredictable (to us) because we still do not 
> > have a complete understanding of physics. Very tiny particles may appear 
> > to do random things, but until we have determined the what the smallest 
> > particle is -- the true quanta -- we can't say for certain that truly 
> > random events actually happen. They look random to us because of our 
> > incomplete understanding.

> That looks suspiciously as if you believe in a hidden variable type 
> theory. I think it was proven that reality has no underlying hidden 
> variables. It is however some time ago that I did really study physics 
> and reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox it is clear to me 
> that I need a refreshing course.

  If I'm not mistaken, the currently most accepted theory is that it's
*impossible* to predict certain quantum phenomena exactly. And this
"impossible" doesn't mean "we don't yet have the technology to do it",
but "there's a feature of the universe which simply makes it impossible".

  Theories can be wrong, of course (luminiferous aether anyone?), but
as long as we don't have evidence of the contrary, we have to assume that
that is how things work.

  As a side note, I find it amusing (and in some ways a bit sad) that some
people seem to think that physics is about belief. They will say something
like "I don't believe that black holes really exist", or "I can buy black
holes, but I don't believe in singularities", or "I don't believe that c
is the maximum achievable speed". And mind you, this by people who only
have rudimentary layman-level knowledge about physics.

  Physics is not about belief. Physics is not about people trying to
sell you ideas, and you believing them or not, depending on whether you
find those ideas plausible and logical or not.

  Perhaps a bit counter-intuitively, physics is not about the "truth".
Religions sell you the "truth", physics (and science in general) doesn't.
What physics is all about is determining how the Universe works by measuring
what can be observed and formulating scientifically sound postlates based
on those measurements. Physics doesn't try to "sell" you anything. Physics
simply tells you what we have found so far, with the technology and knowledge
we currently have. It's not a question of belief. It's about what we know
currently. (What we know may be partially false, but that's not really the
point. If it's false, then new evidence and new measurements will eventually
tell us so, so we can update what we know.)

  In other words, physics doesn't tell you "this is the truth". Physics
tells you "this is what we currently know". You not believing it has zero
effect on the fact for as long as you can't provide any evidence of the
contrary. (If you can, then usually expect a Nobel prize, or at least
worldwide recognition.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 23-Dec-08 22:01, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> On 23-Dec-08 19:27, stbenge wrote:
>>> Darren New wrote:
>>>> Shay wrote:
>>>>> 1. The universe is made of particles which behave in predictable ways.
>>>> Errr, no. The particles behave in ways that are only statistically 
>>>> predictable.
>>> Particles are individually unpredictable (to us) because we still do not 
>>> have a complete understanding of physics. Very tiny particles may appear 
>>> to do random things, but until we have determined the what the smallest 
>>> particle is -- the true quanta -- we can't say for certain that truly 
>>> random events actually happen. They look random to us because of our 
>>> incomplete understanding.
> 
>> That looks suspiciously as if you believe in a hidden variable type 
>> theory. I think it was proven that reality has no underlying hidden 
>> variables. It is however some time ago that I did really study physics 
>> and reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox it is clear to me 
>> that I need a refreshing course.
> 
>   If I'm not mistaken, the currently most accepted theory is that it's
> *impossible* to predict certain quantum phenomena exactly. And this
> "impossible" doesn't mean "we don't yet have the technology to do it",
> but "there's a feature of the universe which simply makes it impossible".

To be somewhat precise: Bell's theorem says that *if* there is a local 
variable that we don't know (yet) but that does determine the state of 
the system and what we see is only statistical because we have not the 
equipment (yet) to measure it exactly *then* a certain measurement will 
on average never exceed a certain value. If however the uncertainty is 
more fundamental than that, i.e. if really is as absurd as quantum 
mechanics predicts then that value can be higher than that value.
People done the experiment and within experimental errors the 
measurements agree with QM and either there is no local hidden variable 
or Bell is wrong (i.e. one has to prove that Bell used an faulty axiom).

As I said reading that EPR piece on wikipedia it might be tiny bit more 
complicated than that. But probably the above is good enough for any 
non-specialist.

>   Theories can be wrong, of course (luminiferous aether anyone?), but
> as long as we don't have evidence of the contrary, we have to assume that
> that is how things work.

Bell's theorem is much more solid than that even. Then again it is a 
theorem not a theory.

>   As a side note, I find it amusing (and in some ways a bit sad) that some
> people seem to think that physics is about belief. They will say something
> like "I don't believe that black holes really exist", or "I can buy black
> holes, but I don't believe in singularities", or "I don't believe that c
> is the maximum achievable speed". And mind you, this by people who only
> have rudimentary layman-level knowledge about physics.

Or: I don't believe that the universe is so weird that we really can't 
measure the spin of a particle. Surely the equipment can be improved 
somehow someday (sorry sam ;) )

Or: we don't know what conscience is and we can't predict what the spin 
of a particle will be, so these things must be related (sorry new agers 
out there ;) )

>   Physics is not about belief. Physics is not about people trying to
> sell you ideas, and you believing them or not, depending on whether you
> find those ideas plausible and logical or not.
> 
>   Perhaps a bit counter-intuitively, physics is not about the "truth".
> Religions sell you the "truth", physics (and science in general) doesn't.
> What physics is all about is determining how the Universe works by measuring
> what can be observed and formulating scientifically sound postlates based
> on those measurements. Physics doesn't try to "sell" you anything. Physics
> simply tells you what we have found so far, with the technology and knowledge
> we currently have. It's not a question of belief. It's about what we know
> currently. (What we know may be partially false, but that's not really the
> point. If it's false, then new evidence and new measurements will eventually
> tell us so, so we can update what we know.)
> 
>   In other words, physics doesn't tell you "this is the truth". Physics
> tells you "this is what we currently know". You not believing it has zero
> effect on the fact for as long as you can't provide any evidence of the
> contrary. (If you can, then usually expect a Nobel prize, or at least
> worldwide recognition.)

Often even, like in the case of QM, the only claim is that if you follow 
the procedures you will arrive at a value that is close to what can be 
measured. In other words, we don't even pretend to know or understand 
anything at all.

Post a reply to this message

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Elliott [mailto:sel### [at] npgcablecom]
> > And, given we're talking "the start of the universe", there is no
> > "before" to talk about, either.
> >
>
> Maybe.. But that's a bit... uncertain. I may depend on what you define
> as "before".

Actually, I think it depends on what you mean by "universe."  Of course, I 
get annoyed by people who refer to the Universe as local reality(1), since 
it seems fairly obvious to me that the Universe encompasses everything(2).

But then, certain misnomers get so ingrained into society that there's no 
hope of rooting them out.

(1)Leading to the idea of the Multiverse, or multiple universes (multiple 
everythings?).

(2)Since the universe is everything, then there is no "before," as 
anything before would merely be part of the same universe.

...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Warp [mailto:war### [at] tagpovrayorg]
>   In other words, physics doesn't tell you "this is the truth".
Physics
> tells you "this is what we currently know". You not believing it has
> zero
> effect on the fact for as long as you can't provide any evidence of
the
> contrary. (If you can, then usually expect a Nobel prize, or at least
> worldwide recognition.)

A corollary to this is a common distrust of doctors.  Some people feel
that Doctors don't really know anything about how the body works, and
that certain mythologies (holistic & herbal medicine) are more reliable
than modern medicine.

Now, don't get me wrong: I strongly believe that natural therapies can
be extremely effective.  I also believe that the science of medicine,
based on centuries of experimental observation, can often be far more
effective.  After all, that's what science is: trying something, and
recording the results.  By nature of it, it's bound to be more effective
than other methods.

...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

>> Maybe he can't change what he had created?
>
> Then God can't create miracles or answer prayers?

Maybe not all of them, seeing people suffering is not proof that God can't 
change anything.  Without God, maybe there would be orders of magnitude more 
suffering and evil.

Post a reply to this message

"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> A corollary to this is a common distrust of doctors.  Some people feel
> that Doctors don't really know anything about how the body works, and
> that certain mythologies (holistic & herbal medicine) are more reliable
> than modern medicine.

To me, they seem to be.  As you observed, they can be very effective indeed, but
my main issue with modern medicine is not with the science of it, but
commercialism:  its huge attachment to the pharmaceutics/drugs industry and
what I observe to be some lack of etics by the "doctors".

Whenever I bring my daughter to the doctor when she gets some cold or ear
inflamation it's the same damned thing:  get her some antibiotics.  F*ck, no!
I do not intend for her to be an antibiotics zombie or something.  Whatever
happenned to traditional ways of dealing with such health issues, like drinking
teas and simply waiting for the organism to heal itself?

Medical doctors are not the impartial scientists of legend, they are in it to
make a living and the most lucrative way of doing it is to ally themselves with
the lucrative drugs business...

Post a reply to this message

On 24-Dec-08 11:08, nemesis wrote:
> "Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> Whenever I bring my daughter to the doctor when she gets some cold or ear
> inflamation it's the same damned thing:  get her some antibiotics.  F*ck, no!
> I do not intend for her to be an antibiotics zombie or something.  
Come to the Netherlands where such actions are frowned upon if not 
downright forbidden by their peer group. The reasoning behind that is 
that unnecessary antibiotics will increase the number of resistant 
microbes such as MRSA.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> On 24-Dec-08 11:08, nemesis wrote:
> > "Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> > Whenever I bring my daughter to the doctor when she gets some cold or ear
> > inflamation it's the same damned thing:  get her some antibiotics.  F*ck, no!
> > I do not intend for her to be an antibiotics zombie or something.
> Come to the Netherlands where such actions are frowned upon if not
> downright forbidden by their peer group. The reasoning behind that is
> that unnecessary antibiotics will increase the number of resistant
> microbes such as MRSA.

Indeed!  That's why Brazil is third world, this kind of cheap mentality.

Post a reply to this message