First cause?

[ratiocinator]

Again that is only an apparent paradox from restraining cause and effect into a linear timeline- which again applies to any proposed explanation-

and we already know that there IS a solution to that, right? or we wouldn't be here. Given that, the other distinct problem is how to originate the information itself,

Obviously there is a solution to why stuff exists but I don't know what it is and neither do you. Positing a god, however, has no real explanatory power - it assumes all the difficult stuff is (effectively) just magic - without need of explanation. Also, it could "explain" any observation, so is completely unfalsifiable. It also turns what evidence we do have on its head. We have copious evidence that intelligence is a function of the brain and that brains evolved.

God is a dead end guess.

BTW, the term "information" is slippery in the context and you need to define exactly what you mean.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

In truth, cause-and-effect is something of an illusion on the macro level that we experience.

It's all probabilistic.

To put it another way, what are the odds of an event happening, if you take trillions of chances, and average the outcomes of those events?

The "outcome" will be whichever event has the highest probability of happening, even if the chance is only 50.000001%.

That's how probabilities work. The macro world is just the average outcome of trillions of quantum level events-- and it has the appearance of cause-and-effect, if you look at it that way.

Yet, it seems that we can depend on cause-and-effect over and over, right? Strike a dry match, and it lights-- the chemistry of phosphorous in an oxygenated atmosphere is pretty dependable.

Yet-- if you add up all the match-strikes in all of history, the total number is a tiny fraction of one millisecond's worth of quantum-level events in any random area larger than a closet...

In the final analysis, if Quantum Mechanics is a reasonably accurate model? Then cause and effect is an illusion.

However, it is a very convenient illusion, and in pretty much every case, we can depend on cause-and-effect in our everyday lives.

Mainly due to the fact we only exist for a brief candle-flicker in the history of the universe.

And by "we", that could easily be "you" or "me" or? The entire human race. All would be correct.

"In the final analysis, if Quantum Mechanics is a reasonably accurate model? Then cause and effect is an illusion."

Probability models are an approximation that we can use to estimate truth; some more accurately than others. So if you are going to use probability as an analogy then it is not an "illusion" it is an approximation. The difference is important because illusions are not necessarily a reflection of truth; your probability model however, is drawn from truth which means we can use it to estimate truth. Which would explain why cause and effect can be a reliable predictor.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

"In the final analysis, if Quantum Mechanics is a reasonably accurate model? Then cause and effect is an illusion."

Probability models are an approximation that we can use to estimate truth; some more accurately than others. So if you are going to use probability as an analogy then it is not an "illusion" it is an approximation. The difference is important because illusions are not necessarily a reflection of truth; your probability model however, is drawn from truth which means we can use it to estimate truth. Which would explain why cause and effect can be a reliable predictor.

Okay. I read your post 3-4 times, in an attempt to see if you had a point to make, apart from certain "is so".

I'm so sorry. I am unable to get your point. Feel free to blame me entirely for the failure to communicate-- I tried, I really did.

My bad.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Okay. I read your post 3-4 times, in an attempt to see if you had a point to make, apart from certain "is so".

I'm so sorry. I am unable to get your point. Feel free to blame me entirely for the failure to communicate-- I tried, I really did.

My bad.

Don't worry, I am not blaming you.

 

[YmirGF]

Don't worry, I am blaming you.

Hehe. I'm not sure that is what you meant to say or if it was a Freudian slip?

Though accurate, your post that preceded this exchange was a bit dense for a casual reader to digest.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Hehe. I'm not sure that is what you meant to say or if it was a Freudian slip?

Though accurate, your post that preceded this exchange was a bit dense for a casual reader to digest.

Okay. I read your post 3-4 times, in an attempt to see if you had a point to make, apart from certain "is so".

I'm so sorry. I am unable to get your point. Feel free to blame me entirely for the failure to communicate-- I tried, I really did.

My bad.

Ok, I'll try again. It is gonna take a moment.
.

 

[YmirGF]

Ok, I'll try again. It is gonna take a moment.
.

*Trembles with anticipation*

 

[Jeremiahcp]

In truth, cause-and-effect is something of an illusion on the macro level that we experience.

It's all probabilistic.

To put it another way, what are the odds of an event happening, if you take trillions of chances, and average the outcomes of those events?

The "outcome" will be whichever event has the highest probability of happening, even if the chance is only 50.000001%.

That's how probabilities work. The macro world is just the average outcome of trillions of quantum level events-- and it has the appearance of cause-and-effect, if you look at it that way.

Yet, it seems that we can depend on cause-and-effect over and over, right? Strike a dry match, and it lights-- the chemistry of phosphorous in an oxygenated atmosphere is pretty dependable.

Yet-- if you add up all the match-strikes in all of history, the total number is a tiny fraction of one millisecond's worth of quantum-level events in any random area larger than a closet...

In the final analysis, if Quantum Mechanics is a reasonably accurate model? Then cause and effect is an illusion.

However, it is a very convenient illusion, and in pretty much every case, we can depend on cause-and-effect in our everyday lives.

Mainly due to the fact we only exist for a brief candle-flicker in the history of the universe.

And by "we", that could easily be "you" or "me" or? The entire human race. All would be correct.

"To put it another way, what are the odds of an event happening, if you take trillions of chances, and average the outcomes of those events?"

"The macro world is just the average outcome of trillions of quantum level events-- and it has the appearance of cause-and-effect, if you look at it that way"

This is essentially a probability distribution.

Like this picture here:

This is a more infomative picutre of a nomoral distubtion:

Now the mean is at 0, that is your average you are talking about. The 1, 2, -1, -2 are your standard derivations, or your variance about the mean.

For example if we say the true average height of males is 5 feet and 8 inches tall then that becomes your 0 on that bell curve. Then by the empirical rule ( Empirical Rule: What is it? ) 99.7% of all men are going to be within 3 standard deviations of that height.

Now to take your example say we examine a trillion men; the most dominate result is going to be males of 5 feet 8 inches. Variation defiantly occurred, but if we lined up all the groups like our bell curve, after a trillion times the 5 feet 8 inches group is going to be so large it will overshadow the others. Then the next largest groups are going to be the ones that are very close to 5 feet 8 inches, so much that we won't be able to tell the difference by just eyeballing them. So you are going to get dependable empirical results after a trillion times, and any group that is not within the 99.7% is going to be so small that in comparison they might as well be zero.

I don't know if male height is the best example but if I am understanding you right this is basically what you are talking about, which is not a point I disagree on. I actually found your post very interesting. But my disagreement is on the part that this means cause and effect is an illusion. If anything this helps proves cause and effect, and it shows why it is a reliable predictor of reality.

I think you are right for the most part, I just don't think you are complete on why we can depend on cause and effect.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Hehe. I'm not sure that is what you meant to say or if it was a Freudian slip?

Though accurate, your post that preceded this exchange was a bit dense for a casual reader to digest.

Dense? No... I've been reading dense material since 1963. <eyeroll> It was incomprehensible to me.

I suppose there were assumptions made in the post I was not privy to? Could be ...

 

[Brian Schuh]

Does there need to be a first cause?

How would you verify something is really the first cause?

And must the first cause be God?

Stephen Hawking the genius in theoretical physics once made a strong case that the universe has always existed much as it is now. Meaning that there is no First Cause. (I capitalize that because I personally believe the First Cause is God.) I hope that answers your question. That it is without a doubt conceivable that everything has always existed much as it is now. Plato and Aristotle "proved" that there was a First Cause but they are not ironclad proofs.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Dense? No... I've been reading dense material since 1963. <eyeroll> It was incomprehensible to me.

I suppose there were assumptions made in the post I was not privy to? Could be ...

So what was this dense material you were reading at age 4?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

"To put it another way, what are the odds of an event happening, if you take trillions of chances, and average the outcomes of those events?"

"The macro world is just the average outcome of trillions of quantum level events-- and it has the appearance of cause-and-effect, if you look at it that way"

This is essentially a probability distribution.

Like this picture here:

This is a more infomative picutre of a nomoral distubtion:

Now the mean is at 0, that is your average you are talking about. The 1, 2, -1, -2 are your standard derivations, or your variance about the mean.

For example if we say the true average height of males is 5 feet and 8 inches tall then that becomes your 0 on that bell curve. Then by the empirical rule ( Empirical Rule: What is it? ) 99.7% of all men are going to be within 3 standard deviations of that height.

Now to take your example say we examine a trillion men; the most dominate result is going to be males of 5 feet 8 inches. Variation defiantly occurred, but if we lined up all the groups like our bell curve, after a trillion times the 5 feet 8 inches group is going to be so large it will overshadow the others. Then the next largest groups are going to be the ones that are very close to 5 feet 8 inches, so much that we won't be able to tell the difference by just eyeballing them. So you are going to get dependable empirical results after a trillion times, and any group that is not within the 99.7% is going to be so small that in comparison they might as well be zero.

I don't know if male height is the best example but if I am understanding you right this is basically what you are talking about, which is not a point I disagree on. I actually found your post very interesting. But my disagreement is on the part that this means cause and effect is an illusion. If anything this helps proves cause and effect, and it shows why it is a reliable predictor of reality.

I think you are right for the most part, I just don't think you are complete on why we can depend on cause and effect.

Okay, fair enough: you reject my statement that cause-and-effect are illusory.

My point was more of a philosophical one, rather than pragmatic.

For all practical usefulness, it's reasonable to assume that if you put gasoline in your car in a timely fashion, the car will continue to run. Cause and effect: you put in gas--> the car runs as expected.

But, is that really what's happening? Is it simply limited to "gas goes into tank--->car runs as expected".

No-- even in this limited (and very silly) example, the car's continued operation is far more complicated than "gas goes in, car goes".

And that was the point I was attempting to make, and I blame me for failing to make a good case-- I was too simple, I think.

In the Macro World, it seems that we have 'cause and effect'. But in reality, it's just an accumulation of trillions upon trillions of interactions-- none of which are cause-and-effect-- creating the illusion of cause-and-effect.

The ultimate underlying cause isn't causal at all. That was what I was trying to say. The Universe, at it's most fundamental level, isn't cause-and-effect.

By projection, therefore, none of it is--- it is the illusion we have, by only observing a scant tiny fraction of the Universe's existence; the human lifetime is less than an eye-blink in Universe's Age.

In fact, all of human history-- the sum of all human lifetimes, is less than an eyeblink...

It is ridiculous to presume, with such a scant sample, to project to the entire 15+ billion years...

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Okay, fair enough: you reject my statement that cause-and-effect are illusory.

My point was more of a philosophical one, rather than pragmatic.

For all practical usefulness, it's reasonable to assume that if you put gasoline in your car in a timely fashion, the car will continue to run. Cause and effect: you put in gas--> the car runs as expected.

But, is that really what's happening? Is it simply limited to "gas goes into tank--->car runs as expected".

No-- even in this limited (and very silly) example, the car's continued operation is far more complicated than "gas goes in, car goes".

And that was the point I was attempting to make, and I blame me for failing to make a good case-- I was too simple, I think.

In the Macro World, it seems that we have 'cause and effect'. But in reality, it's just an accumulation of trillions upon trillions of interactions-- none of which are cause-and-effect-- creating the illusion of cause-and-effect.

The ultimate underlying cause isn't causal at all. That was what I was trying to say. The Universe, at it's most fundamental level, isn't cause-and-effect.

By projection, therefore, none of it is--- it is the illusion we have, by only observing a scant tiny fraction of the Universe's existence; the human lifetime is less than an eye-blink in Universe's Age.

In fact, all of human history-- the sum of all human lifetimes, is less than an eyeblink...

It is ridiculous to presume, with such a scant sample, to project to the entire 15+ billion years...

"But in reality, it's just an accumulation of trillions upon trillions of interactions-- none of which are cause-and-effect "

How did you prove none of these interactions are the result of cause and effect?

"It is ridiculous to presume, with such a scant sample, to project to the entire 15+ billion years..."

I agree, a predictive model is only useful when restricted to a realistic scope, but I think you need to turn that argument back on to your own claims about cause and effect.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

How did you prove none of these interactions are the result of cause and effect?

That is the Quantum Model: all interactions are probabilistic in nature.

I don't need to prove that particular aspect of the model-- that would mean proving the model is wrong.

So far, that has not happened yet.

So far, the QM model is holding up well under attempts to disprove it/prove it.

So the statement stands.

 

[columbus]

I believe we invented the term "god" just avoid a "first cause."

Yeah! Sort of...
The original gods existed before humans were sophisticated enough to grasp "first cause". There were lots of them and they weren't remotely like Almighty. They couldn't plant a magical tree without causing a lot of death and destruction. But over time, revealed religionists had to keep inventing new and better gods. Because their servants kept getting wise to the illogicality of the old ones.
Eventually, Islam. Because "first cause" became a thing and religious authorities needed a yet less rational god image to keep using religion.
Tom

 

[Jeremiahcp]

That is the Quantum Model: all interactions are probabilistic in nature.

I don't need to prove that particular aspect of the model-- that would mean proving the model is wrong.

So far, that has not happened yet.

So far, the QM model is holding up well under attempts to disprove it/prove it.

So the statement stands.

Probability models don't disprove cause and effect. Probably is just a proportion of possibly outcomes, and they don't necessarily say what confounding variables influenced those possible outcomes (or a lack of confounding variables).

Probability alone does not justify valid causal inferences (correlation does not necessitate causation), and yes, saying there a lack of cause is a causal inference. For that you need random assignment in a controlled experiment; simple observations do not fall into this category.

In simpler terms: probability and causation are not mutually exclusive. I am not disagreeing with your Quantum Model, I am disagreeing that it disproves cause and effect.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Cosmologists agree that the Big Bang was the result of quantum fluctuations in which the Universe came into existence from nothing.

View attachment 16539

Not really, nothing can come from nothing, if there were quantum fluctuations, that would surely be something. There was never a beginning to universal existence...

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Obviously there is a solution to why stuff exists but I don't know what it is and neither do you. Positing a god, however, has no real explanatory power - it assumes all the difficult stuff is (effectively) just magic - without need of explanation. Also, it could "explain" any observation, so is completely unfalsifiable. It also turns what evidence we do have on its head. We have copious evidence that intelligence is a function of the brain and that brains evolved.

God is a dead end guess.

BTW, the term "information" is slippery in the context and you need to define exactly what you mean.

"it assumes all the difficult stuff is (effectively) just magic - without need of explanation. Also, it could "explain" any observation, so is completely unfalsifiable"

Like Multiverses? or do they get a waiver on this?


But which is 'magic'? if a magician pulls out the correct card every time, I don't believe it's magic, it's simply intelligent design- forbid that possibility, and yes I guess it's effectively magic.-

Like our entire universe and life in it spontaneously appearing for no particular reason. I am skeptical, I believe someone put that rabbit in the hat first!

 

[ratiocinator]

Like Multiverses? or do they get a waiver on this?

It's difficult to comment on "multiverses" because the term is used to refer to a whole range of conjectures that range from fairly straightforward interpretations of what is already established theory, though to guesswork that is little better than science fiction.

Like our entire universe and life in it spontaneously appearing for no particular reason. I am skeptical, I believe someone put that rabbit in the hat first!

But that leaves you with a 'someone' who is totally unexplained. So what have you actually explained? All the difficult questions didn't get answered, they got moved...

 

[arthra]

Does there need to be a first cause?

How would you verify something is really the first cause?

And must the first cause be God?

In our view the creation is a continuous process.. as light is emanated by the sun so does creation emanate from God.. there is no beginning or ending as God is a creating God.