foundations of reason

Originally posted by knightmeister
It still remains a fact that when you claim that all events in the universe are known to have a cause then you are a liar - ie you are knowingly stating a falsehood.------------whitey--------------

Ouch! That's a bit strong don't you think. My point is that throughout man's investigation of our Universe men have been exploring events and finding cau ...[text shortened]... ll "things happen for a reason".

I may have phrased things clumsily but I'm no liar.

….It's all the study of cause and effect. Stuff happens and it happens for a reason. This is the raw meat of science. . ..…

Not according to quantum physics. Your sweeping generalisation it false.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b] ….There is no evidence that I know of that proves that a quantum effect happens for no reason at all. ..…

So do you know of ANY possible “reason” why quantum events happen?

Do you believe that ALL types of events MUST have a “cause” and, if so, what is the premise for this belief?
-Bear in mind that the concept of cause and effect is ...[text shortened]... vent cannot have a cause else it wouldn’t be really truly “random” -it would be pseudo-random.[/b]

Do you believe that ALL types of events MUST have a “cause” and, if so, what is the premise for this belief?-----hammy---------------

Not neccessarily. However , the Universe itself and everything in it is the result of a huge 12 billion year chain of causality and change with stages and events one leading to the other. Cause and effect underpin the existence of our solar system. It can all be traced back to the Big Bang. We have investigated millions of events and effects and found causes for those effects. This has been the consistent experience of mankind and science. At first we didn't know why Cholera happened but then we found the cause.

Now I could cite lists and lists of such examples. My point is just because quantum physics says it cannot predict quantum events does not mean that cause and effect are not the basic rule of the Universe. We don't know and can't prove that quantum events are causeless , but since the evidence of all our other science tells us consistently that events always have causes , there is every reason to think that we just haven't found the cause yet.

That's my premise and it's entirely logical.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Ouch! That's a bit strong don't you think.

No, I do not think so.

I pointed out your error a number of times. You chose to ignore any post in which I did so.
I have challenged you repeatedly on it in this thread and you carefully avoid it.
It is clear that you are fully aware that the claim is false (otherwise you would have no problem discussing it rather than running away as you do).

My point is that throughout man's investigation of our Universe men have been exploring events and finding causes for them. From magma all the way to supernovas, from microbiotics through to asteroid belts . It's all the study of cause and effect. Stuff happens and it happens for a reason. This is the raw meat of science.
But at no point does that equate to "stuff always happens for a reason".

The events of today can be traced back in a huge chain to the events of our early universe.
That is a lie, or simple ignorance on your part. It is a well known fact that weather cannot be predicted nor can its exact causes be determined. The main events that caused the recent hurricane to hit the US cannot be traced back more than a week or two.
Some things can be traced some cannot, the main evidence we have of the past is not in fact events at all but rather direct evidence such as light that is still traveling, radioactive rocks that are decaying, the event chains we can follow rarely go more than a step or two.

Now quantum physics is a new science and has found something which may be interesting.
Quantum physics is hardly 'a new science'. Look it up, you might learn something.

As far as we know we can't see a pattern or cause to quantum events but the prevailing message our Universe sends us is still "things happen for a reason".
Is it using email? Did you forward the messages to the relevant physicists? I am sure they will be very interested.
The truth is that there are no such 'messages'. They are a figment of your imagination.

I may have phrased things clumsily but I'm no liar.
I would have quite readily accepted a correction to your clumsy posts, but you chose instead to avoid my posts regarding them and repeat the clumsy falsehoods.
I asked several times to admit that you were infact wrong to make the claims and you did not do so.

Do you now admit that it is not a known fact that all events in the universe have a cause?

Do you further admit that it is not a known fact that the vast majority of events (quantum events are in the majority) are known to have a cause?

Do you agree to henceforth qualify any claims based on the assumption that all events have a cause with the admission that it is an assumption not a known fact.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Now quantum physics is a new science .....

I am curious. What was your motivation for calling quantum physics a 'new science'? Are you attempting to imply that it is incorrect? Or that physics worked differently in the past and it is only recently that random events started occurring?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am curious. What was your motivation for calling quantum physics a 'new science'? Are you attempting to imply that it is incorrect? Or that physics worked differently in the past and it is only recently that random events started occurring?

I think that random events have only just started to occur in our Universe. They probably started to occur around 1830 ish and then increased in number through the last hundred years.

Q. Physics is a new science and as such it has had less chance to be fully explored. We are on the frontiers of our understanding , so like any new field we must be caeful of drawing too many catagorical conclusions from it. We are also on the very edge of our technical ability to explore (eg CERN)

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, I do not think so.

I pointed out your error a number of times. You chose to ignore any post in which I did so.
I have challenged you repeatedly on it in this thread and you carefully avoid it.
It is clear that you are fully aware that the claim is false (otherwise you would have no problem discussing it rather than running away as you do).

[b] ...[text shortened]... ll events have a cause with the admission that it is an assumption not a known fact.

That is a lie, or simple ignorance on your part. It is a well known fact that weather cannot be predicted nor can its exact causes be determined.------WHITEY---------------

Oh give me a break! The point is that in theory the events here on earth are part of a chain of causality that has been going on for billions of years , the fact that we don't understand all the causes or can predict all of them doesn't mean there is no causal chain. That's a rubbish argument.I expect better from your good self.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Do you believe that ALL types of events MUST have a “cause” and, if so, what is the premise for this belief?-----hammy---------------

Not neccessarily. However , the Universe itself and everything in it is the result of a huge 12 billion year chain of causality and change with stages and events one leading to the other. Cause and effect underpin th ...[text shortened]... that we just haven't found the cause yet.

That's my premise and it's entirely logical.

….the Universe ITSELF AND everything in it is the result of a huge 12 billion year chain of causality.…

Yes -although that doesn’t mean that causal chain didn’t start at the big bang with there being no cause for the big bang.

….We don't know and can't prove that quantum events are causeless ,..…

And, so far, we cannot prove that quantum events DO have a cause.

….but since the evidence of all our other science tells us consistently that events ALWAYS have causes , ...

No it doesn’t -where did you get that from? The are many events that we where aware of that we didn’t know the cause of them and later we discovered the cause -but that does not mean that ALL KINDS or classes of events must have a “cause”. Quantum physics implies that causality generally works only for non-quantum events of things happening on a large scale but NOT on extremely small scale with quantum events and small particles coming into existence which are of an extremely small size or scale.

….there is every reason to think that we just haven't found the cause yet. ..…

Only if you pre-assume it has a cause before finding evidence for it -but I don’t think that is quite what you meant:
-I think what you meant to say was:
“there is every reason to think that it has a cause AND we just haven't found yet”
-it’s the ““there is every reason“ bit here that we disagree on.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Q. Physics is a new science and as such it has had less chance to be fully explored. We are on the frontiers of our understanding , so like any new field we must be caeful of drawing too many catagorical conclusions from it. We are also on the very edge of our technical ability to explore (eg CERN)

Think about your statement for a bit.
Are you saying that we know far more about Newtonian mechanics than Einsteins relativity because Newtonian mechanics is older? Does that mean that Newtonian mechanics is more accurate? Does that mean we should be more skeptical of Einstein?
I am sure all your conclusions which are clearly drawn from the age old stone age science of throwing rocks are indisputable and rock solid due to their antiquity.

The truth is - and I am sure you know this - is that the most accurate model we have for the universe at this time is the findings of quantum physics. The relative age of the science (which is not nearly as young as you think) should imply that it is the most accurate as the most recent discoveries usually are.

But if we 'must be careful of drawing too many catagorical conclusions' from our most accurate picture of quantum physics, then we should be even more concerned about drawing conclusions from Newtonian mechanics (which is essentially your view of physics) which is known to be wrong.

Originally posted by knightmeister
In what way is that a “problem”? and what other choice have we got but to base it on what's happening within the KNOWN universe! ? -I mean, we cannot base it on what's happening within a UNKNOWN universe! -can we -because such a universe is unknown to us!
----------------hammy ====(statement a)--------------------------

Ok , now this is going to ge with statement (a) really because I think it does your position much more harm than mine.

Your eagerness to jump to the conclusion that ALL events have a cause leads me to the suspicion that you don’t quite realise just how complex and subtle the concept of cause and effect really is and just how many unqualified assumptions you are implicitly assuming by assuming that ALL kinds/categories of events have causes.
I hope now to demonstrate this to you with a question:

Can you tell me all that is wrong (and there are several things very wrong with it!) with the following and rather simplistic (and erroneous) definition of what is meant when we say “X causes Y“:

"If we say that an event X “causes” an event Y, then what we mean by that is that every time event X occurs then event Y occurs after that occurrence of event X."

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b] ….the Universe ITSELF AND everything in it is the result of a huge 12 billion year chain of causality.…

Yes -although that doesn’t mean that causal chain didn’t start at the big bang with there being no cause for the big bang.

….We don't know and can't prove that quantum events are causeless ,..…

And, so far, we cannot p ...[text shortened]... e just haven't found yet”
-it’s the ““there is every reason“ bit here that we disagree on.[/b]

Quantum physics implies that causality generally works only for non-quantum events of things happening on a large scale but NOT on extremely small scale with quantum events and small particles coming into existence which are of an extremely small size or scale.
-------whitey---------

What's this "coming into existence" mean?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Your eagerness to jump to the conclusion that ALL events have a cause leads me to the suspicion that you don’t quite realise just how complex and subtle the concept of cause and effect really is and just how many unqualified assumptions you are implicitly assuming by assuming that ALL kinds/categories of events have causes.
I hope now to demonstrate ...[text shortened]... that is that every time event X occurs then event Y occurs after that occurrence of event X."

I don't say that all events MUST have a cause , I'm simply saying that our Universe appears to work via a series of connected events. For example , none of us would be here if it wasn't for some long gone star that went Supernova.

On the macro level the default position of science is to assume a particular event has a cause for it to happen so although we can't predict the weather , we can look back at past weather systems to work out what happened and why.

On the micro level it appears that it's very hard to find a pattern or rationality to events , but we cannot prove that the events are uncaused. Whereas , we can prove many other events are caused.

The list of provable events that are caused far exceeds the other list. Can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that quatum events are uncaused? I can evidence many caused events.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Think about your statement for a bit.
Are you saying that we know far more about Newtonian mechanics than Einsteins relativity because Newtonian mechanics is older? Does that mean that Newtonian mechanics is more accurate? Does that mean we should be more skeptical of Einstein?
I am sure all your conclusions which are clearly drawn from the age old ston om Newtonian mechanics (which is essentially your view of physics) which is known to be wrong.

The truth is - and I am sure you know this - is that the most accurate model we have for the universe at this time is the findings of quantum physics.----whitey==============

This is a very broad statement. I'm not even sure what it means.

I'm very for QP and love it. I just don't understand what conclusions you are drawing from it. It may show that on a micro level there's a lot of unpredictability , but why does that undermine basic causality at a macro level. If I throw an apple in the air it still falls , if I light a firework it explodes , cause and effect still rule the day anyway.

Originally posted by knightmeister
On the macro level the default position of science is to assume a particular event has a cause for it to happen so although we can't predict the weather , we can look back at past weather systems to work out what happened and why.

That is not infact true as Andrew Hamilton is trying to explain to you.
Even on a macro scale, there are only probabilities - it is just that the probability of event X happening after event Y is higher when the scale is macro.

On the micro level it appears that it's very hard to find a pattern or rationality to events , but we cannot prove that the events are uncaused.
But since we don't know which way it is, we cannot make assumptions.

The list of provable events that are caused far exceeds the other list.
That is a false claim. In fact it is an exact reversal of a claim I made earlier in the thread (and you did not dispute). Quantum scale events far exceed macro scale events. That is a simple fact of physics.

Can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that quatum events are uncaused? I can evidence many caused events.
But its not a game of statistics anyway - and I am sure you know that. The fact is that you know and admit that there is a class of events that are not known to have a cause and there is no logical reason to conclude that they do have a cause. There are no 'messages' from the universe telling us that. You simply want it to be so - so you assume it is. Your assumption remains just that - an assumption.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Quantum physics implies that causality generally works only for non-quantum events of things happening on a large scale but NOT on extremely small scale with quantum events and small particles coming into existence which are of an extremely small size or scale.
-------whitey---------

What's this "coming into existence" mean?

I was thinking specifically of Hawkins radiation:

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

-where particles spontaneous “come into existence” (if that is the right way of saying it) around black holes and then radiate out. There may be other similar examples of particles spontaneous come into existence according to quantum physics that I either haven’t thought of or am unaware of.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I don't say that all events MUST have a cause , I'm simply saying that our Universe appears to work via a series of connected events. For example , none of us would be here if it wasn't for some long gone star that went Supernova.

On the macro level the default position of science is to assume a particular event has a cause for it to happen so alth beyond reasonable doubt that quatum events are uncaused? I can evidence many caused events.

I don’t think I can add much to what twhitehead has just said about this. But I want to ask you the question:
is what you mean by “cause” is simply:

"If we say that an event X “causes” an event Y, then what we mean by that is that every time event X occurs then event Y occurs after that occurrence of event X." ?

This question may seem a pointless one to you but, if so, just trust me and bear with me here, if you answer it then the point I am trying to make here will slowly and eventually become apparent.