tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post7447788653987450768..comments2024-03-18T20:24:18.935-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: Sceptical scenarios and theismAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-72861590677989594292012-10-01T12:15:34.164-05:002012-10-01T12:15:34.164-05:00Hare,
The particles emitted from a black hole are...Hare,<br /><br />The particles emitted from a black hole are not ex nihilo, according to your wiki link.<br /><br />"I think it does. Obviously you can posit god choosing when each thing happens, but that stretches most people's notion of what god does."<br /><br />If I'm reading you right, you seem to be stating that something like vacuum fluctuation cannot be called the reason/explanation/cause for virtual particles appearing because it does not predict exactly which particles arise and what there properties are. I'm just wondering what your justification for this claim is, and why we should constrain explanations in this manner.ozero91https://www.blogger.com/profile/15383910270101919080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-7306784367171257382012-09-26T06:08:08.215-05:002012-09-26T06:08:08.215-05:00"Yes, we are unable to figure out the rhyme o...<i>"Yes, we are unable to figure out the rhyme or reason. Exactly what I said."</i><br /><br />No. We are, according to the currently accepted theory, not unable to figure it out because our microscope is too small, but unable because it's not available to us even in principle, it's probabilistic.<br /><br /><i>"This does not get you to, "And therefore they are not caused.""</i><br /><br />I think it does. Obviously you can posit god choosing when each thing happens, but that stretches most people's notion of what god does.<br /><br /><i>"So what happens when [we're not limited to physical causes] is discovered?<br /><br />Apparently, people ditch causality."</i><br /><br />Yes, because there's a better explanation, a natural one, and isn't that how science is supposed to work?<br /><br />And, just to be clear, causality hasn't been abandoned, it has just been shown not to work as our monkey brains expect it to at the ultra-small scale. Just as things are counter-intuitive at high velocities, or large masses, or high accelerations, or ultra-low temperatures, or ultra-high temperatures. So, sure, if you want to deny that all these guys are doing science because it doesn't fit with what you experience at low speed, low acceleration, low mass, medium temperature then fine, but don't pretend you have the first clue what constitutes science.March Harehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13116034158087704885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-51805309025967086242012-09-25T13:29:46.418-05:002012-09-25T13:29:46.418-05:00Rabbit,
Crude, any chance you're going to put...Rabbit,<br /><br /><i>Crude, any chance you're going to put forth a better argument than "nonsense"?</i><br /><br />I did.<br /><br /><i>The particles are uncaused because there's no rhyme nor reason for which particles are actually going to pop into existence, where, what their wavelength will be (if they're photons), what their velocity will be etc.</i><br /><br />Yes, we are unable to figure out the rhyme or reason. Exactly what I said.<br /><br />This does not get you to, "And therefore they are not caused."<br /><br />I even granted that it's possible to make an argument along the lines of, "There cannot be a physical cause for this." But we're not limited to physical causes. This is exactly the sort of thing many atheists/materialists have been demanding of non-materialists for a long time - something that cannot be accounted for physically. So what happens when that's discovered?<br /><br />Apparently, people ditch causality.<br /><br /><i>At least, as far as we currently know.</i><br /><br />We've been in the dark about correlations of many things in the past. It was never a reason to abandon reason and explanation then, and it isn't now. If you want to get into the metaphysical position of denying causality, you and any scientist who wants to do so is welcome. You've just given up science and have gone off into metaphysics and philosophy land - which is all well and good. It just ain't science.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-92142378714001019562012-09-25T11:59:36.027-05:002012-09-25T11:59:36.027-05:00Alex,
This: ...many people do agree that one can ...Alex,<br /><br />This: <i>...many people do agree that one can have stochastic explanations of low-probability outcomes. A standard case in the literature is paresis in syphilitics. Only a small percentage of syphilis sufferers develop paresis. But the following is, nonetheless, a perfectly fine explanation: "Jim got paresis because he had syphilis."</i><br /><br />Is not in the same category as virtual particles or nuclear radiation.<br /><br />There is a clear causal, physical relationship between Jim having syphilis, what it did to various cells etc. and him getting paresis.<br /><br />There is no known chain of events that lead to a nucleus decaying or a pair of virtual particles appearing.<br /><br />One is unknown in any given situation for practical reasons, the other is unknowable for fundamental physical reasons.March Harehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13116034158087704885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-43736655990013839042012-09-25T11:50:19.420-05:002012-09-25T11:50:19.420-05:00I assume there is a well-defined probability distr...I assume there is a well-defined probability distribution. Having a well-defined probability distribution is an instance of quite significant order, and it allows for stochastic explanations. It's quite far from cases where "there's no rhyme or reason". Those would be cases where there is no probability distribution.<br /><br />I am inclined to think that if we have a mixed quantum state, say 2|up>+3|down>, then what explains the system ending up in, say, a pure up state after measurement is that it had an |up> component to its quantum state prior to measurement. <br /><br />There is a large philosophy of science literature on stochastic explanation, and while there are significant differences between authors, many people do agree that one can have stochastic explanations of low-probability outcomes. A standard case in the literature is paresis in syphilitics. Only a small percentage of syphilis sufferers develop paresis. But the following is, nonetheless, a perfectly fine explanation: "Jim got paresis because he had syphilis."Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-66059672670784710472012-09-25T10:47:27.109-05:002012-09-25T10:47:27.109-05:00"nuclease"???
The door went as I was ty..."nuclease"???<br /><br />The door went as I was typing. Nucleus, obviously.March Harehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13116034158087704885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-22277047813219710702012-09-25T10:39:45.077-05:002012-09-25T10:39:45.077-05:00Crude, any chance you're going to put forth a ...Crude, any chance you're going to put forth a better argument than "nonsense"?<br /><br />The particles are uncaused because there's no rhyme nor reason for which particles are actually going to pop into existence, where, what their wavelength will be (if they're photons), what their velocity will be etc.<br /><br />Likewise, nuclear radiation is merely a statistical process. There is no 'cause' for any given nuclease decaying at any given time.<br /><br />At least, as far as we currently know.March Harehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13116034158087704885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-46186534300385688862012-09-25T10:00:11.656-05:002012-09-25T10:00:11.656-05:00Alex, vaccum quantum state is no more a cause of v...<i>Alex, vaccum quantum state is no more a cause of virtual particles than 'being unstable' is a cause for nuclear radiation.</i><br /><br />Nonsense, and what's more, there is no reason to think of these particles as uncaused. Now, lacking a physical cause? Maybe you can argue in that direction, given current definitions of physical. But then, neither theists nor the PSR require all causes be physical causes anyway - and the best science, as science, can ever get to is the lack of a cause being identified, or ruling out possible physical causes. Period.<br /><br />Some scientists like to metaphysically and philosophically speculate that science is a fruitless endeavor, ie, that things can occur utterly without cause. They're welcome to that - they simply are outside of science when they do so, and the smarter ones know as much.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-26518778531215741862012-09-25T09:15:17.977-05:002012-09-25T09:15:17.977-05:00Alex, vaccum quantum state is no more a cause of v...Alex, vaccum quantum state is no more a cause of virtual particles than 'being unstable' is a cause for nuclear radiation.March Harehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13116034158087704885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-73843082170914955292012-09-25T08:25:59.084-05:002012-09-25T08:25:59.084-05:00Crude:
No. On these interpretations of quantum m...Crude:<br /><br />No. On these interpretations of quantum mechanics, there is a cause, namely the "vacuum" quantum state.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-85551314088035698932012-09-25T08:23:17.509-05:002012-09-25T08:23:17.509-05:00Alex,
Are you conceding that, similar to some int...Alex,<br /><br />Are you conceding that, similar to some interpretations of quantum physics (at least as I've seen it put), some things do indeed pop into existence without cause - even if small in number/size?Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-46837728370965642152012-09-25T08:09:30.254-05:002012-09-25T08:09:30.254-05:001. Photons don't pop into existence in the qua...<i>1. Photons don't pop into existence in the quantity I indicated.</i><br /><br />How do you know? And that's besides the point because your argument was that they don't pop into existence at all!<br /><br />2. No, I don't agree with its premises. I also don't agree with the tortured logic that tries to show that from "the existence of at least one contingent thing" you can reason to, well, anything, but certainly not any kind of monotheistic god that is proposed (Good? The reasoning on that is woeful.) But mainly I don't see how it is impossible for there not to be a contingent thing. I don't see how you can prove that.March Harehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13116034158087704885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-65695353589048536162012-09-25T07:30:03.760-05:002012-09-25T07:30:03.760-05:001. Photons don't pop into existence in the qua...1. Photons don't pop into existence in the quantity I indicated.<br /><br />2. As for the cosmological argument, you obviously don't agree with its premises. But that does not mean that the premises depend on empirical assumptions, besides the existence of at least one contingent thing. (That said, <em>some</em> of the arguments for some of the premises will rely on empirical stuff, but each premise can also be held by <em>a priori</em> intuition.)Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-11437012786938305262012-09-25T06:16:39.684-05:002012-09-25T06:16:39.684-05:00Let me just be clear, you claim PSR must be true o...Let me just be clear, you claim PSR must be true otherwise <i>"for instance, if we deny the PSR, then for no reason at all, a cloud of photons, À9314 in number, could suddenly appear ex nihilo just near the moon"</i>.<br /><br />Indeed. However, they do, they are just more measurable around black holes, but virtual particles do pop into existence all the time. Just not enough to be easily noticed, but generally agreed to exist and potentially be measured: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_radiation<br /><br />Other things popping into existence, or happening, uncaused: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_emission<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_radiation<br />March Harehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13116034158087704885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-7460720009905407302012-09-25T06:00:27.763-05:002012-09-25T06:00:27.763-05:00Alex, rather than go through your entire essay and...Alex, rather than go through your entire essay and point out all the places you presuppose a god, occasionally even a particular god, and how you really need to not use libertarian free will when you actually describe determinism, how you use induction to describe the 'nature' of the creator of the universe...<br /><br />Let me just say that your essay quite clearly does not say, imply or otherwise rely on <i>"the only empirical assumption it needs to get started is that there is at least one contingent thing in existence"</i>.<br /><br /><br />(1) Every contingent fact has an explanation.<br />(2) There is a contingent fact that includes all other contingent facts.<br />(3) Therefore, there is an explanation of this fact.<br />(4) This explanation must involve a necessary being.<br />(5) This necessary being is God.<br /><br />1 is not true, 2 has no evidence and is not logically necessary, especially in light of 1 being untrue, 3 is therefore clearly false, 4 is not true even if 3 was, and 5 is a massive leap given that you have capitalised a word with such metaphysical baggage to try and make it mean something specific when even if everything else was true it would simply be a generic term for something that met the prior criteria.March Harehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13116034158087704885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-17102341054195192652012-09-23T08:52:22.723-05:002012-09-23T08:52:22.723-05:00March Hare: I'm afraid not. See, for instance,...March Hare: I'm afraid not. See, for instance, my <a href="http://alexanderpruss.com/papers/LCA.html" rel="nofollow">paper on the Leibnizian cosmological argument</a> (link fixed).Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-79289374001913791852012-09-22T23:56:57.121-05:002012-09-22T23:56:57.121-05:00Alex, I believe the link isn't functioning pro...Alex, I believe the link isn't functioning properly.ozero91https://www.blogger.com/profile/15383910270101919080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-48133995410866535082012-09-22T22:57:37.553-05:002012-09-22T22:57:37.553-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-23262529126946645962012-09-22T22:39:07.899-05:002012-09-22T22:39:07.899-05:00The Cosmological Argument (most variants anyway) t...The Cosmological Argument (most variants anyway) take brute facts about this universe (pre-Relativity and QM) and extend to all of creation. If this universe is illusory then all the reasoning in the world won't save the Cosmological Argument from being based on potentially false premises. That is why (radical) Creationism*, Last Tuesday-ism, and the Dream Argument are three more scenarios that disprove the base that the Cosmological Argument rests on.<br /><br />* This one is deliciously ironic.March Harehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13116034158087704885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-50104733213711970512012-09-22T11:59:16.329-05:002012-09-22T11:59:16.329-05:00The Cosmological Argument uses a number of controv...The Cosmological Argument uses a number of controversial metaphysical assumptions, but about the only empirical assumption it needs to get started is that there is at least one contingent thing in existence. And none of the scenarios rule that out.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-71850111223017871312012-09-22T11:58:24.767-05:002012-09-22T11:58:24.767-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-61415833206219641212012-09-22T01:13:39.473-05:002012-09-22T01:13:39.473-05:00Alex, that simply can't be true. Laplace'...Alex, that simply can't be true. Laplace's Demon, "brains in vats", and computer simulation to name but three make the cosmological argument unworkable.<br /><br />And that's without even going into whether it is valid to consider oneself a contingent entity... Or whether the cosmological argument has any merit.March Harehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13116034158087704885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-61710974661651593162012-09-21T15:21:00.512-05:002012-09-21T15:21:00.512-05:00March Hare:
Actually, the cosmological argument o...March Hare:<br /><br />Actually, the cosmological argument only needs the existence of one contingent entity, say myself.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-40419484075974841432012-09-21T15:20:08.567-05:002012-09-21T15:20:08.567-05:00Comment deleted as no more comments will be accept...Comment deleted as no more comments will be accepted on the question of Eli Horowitz's and Midas' etiquette.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-13043712806179330572012-09-21T15:17:06.981-05:002012-09-21T15:17:06.981-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Midashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16116187071955572970noreply@blogger.com