foundations of reason

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
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.

Quantum physics basically allows anything to happen at any time anywhere. It is basically a statement that we do not in fact know the cause of anything. The only thing we do know is that some things are more likely than others. At larger scales, the likelihoods become a near certainty creating the illusion of cause and effect. At smaller scales we really cannot predict anything even whether or not at any given time a particle will exist at a point in space that was previously unoccupied. This apparent creation of particles in empty space happens all the time, but due to the conservation of energy law, they appear in pairs and usually anialate each other. The only time they are observed is through cumulative effects or when the particle is pulled in a different direction from the anti-particle as may occur at the event horizon of a black hole.
So the actual phenomena is not confined to Hawkins radiation, that is simply one of the few times that the phenomena can be easily observed.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Quantum physics basically allows anything to happen at any time anywhere. It is basically a statement that we do not in fact know the cause of anything. The only thing we do know is that some things are more likely than others. At larger scales, the likelihoods become a near certainty creating the illusion of cause and effect. At smaller scales we really ...[text shortened]... awkins radiation, that is simply one of the few times that the phenomena can be easily observed.

This apparent creation of particles in empty space happens all the time,-----whitey---------------

Define "empty space".

Originally posted by knightmeister
This apparent creation of particles in empty space happens all the time,-----whitey---------------

Define "empty space".

Is it relevant?
The fact remains that you are a Newtonian at heart and cannot come to terms with modern physics. Even though Newtonian mechanics is older than either relativity or quantum physics, we know for a fact that Newtonian mechanics is wrong. It doesn't really matter what the eventual findings of Quantum mechanics or some future "theory of gravity" are. Unless you can show that there is very good reason to believe that all events are caused by prior events in infinite causal chains, your whole argument remains conditional upon an assumption - a very big assumption.
If you are able to show the existence of your unbroken causal chains you can expect to receive the Nobel prize. Start writing your thesis now, its worth a lot of money!

Originally posted by twhitehead
Is it relevant?
The fact remains that you are a Newtonian at heart and cannot come to terms with modern physics. Even though Newtonian mechanics is older than either relativity or quantum physics, we know for a fact that Newtonian mechanics is wrong. It doesn't really matter what the eventual findings of Quantum mechanics or some future "theory of gravit ...[text shortened]... n expect to receive the Nobel prize. Start writing your thesis now, its worth a lot of money!

It is relevant because if "empty space" doesn't really exist then particles cannot be said to be "coming out of nothing" and if they do not come out of nothing then they can easily be caused events.

I am no Newtonian but I do believe in causality. You do not have to be a fan of old Isaac to believe this.

There are elements in your body that derive from a particular supernova and the sun is one of the net results of that supernova event. No supernova , no sun , no whitey. The supernova can only happen as a result of other events (eg Big Bang) . Take out one link in the chain - no whitey. No Big Bang, no whitey - simple causality , so what's your problem? Do you think you could exist if that supernova never happened?

You are dependent on that event. It's like that with the whole universe. One event depends upon a previous event or condition. Evolution is a classic example. No apes , no homosapiens etc.

So it's only natural to speculate what thing the Big bang depends upon given that it too is an event not hugely disimilar to many events in our universe.

We must be misunderstanding each other somewhere.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Quantum physics basically allows anything to happen at any time anywhere. It is basically a statement that we do not in fact know the cause of anything. The only thing we do know is that some things are more likely than others. At larger scales, the likelihoods become a near certainty creating the illusion of cause and effect. At smaller scales we really ...[text shortened]... awkins radiation, that is simply one of the few times that the phenomena can be easily observed.

Talk about something sounding ... "cool".

I heard that the things which seem to pop into existence from nowhere only last for a fraction of a moment and seem to pop out of existence again.

What about a universe which has remained for billions of years? Quantum mechanics your answer for that too?

Originally posted by knightmeister
It is relevant because if "empty space" doesn't really exist then particles cannot be said to be "coming out of nothing" and if they do not come out of nothing then they can easily be caused events.

Not as 'easily' as you might think. But the issue remains that it is not a question of whether it is possible that they are caused, it is a question of:
1. whether such causes are known to exist (they are not, yet you assume that they are and repeatedly claim that it is known to be the case - a direct lie).
2. whether apparent 'something from nothing' events are common in the universe. You have repeatedly claimed that we do not observe 'something from nothing events' and draw the conclusion that it doesn't happen. Yet until you have proved that the events in question are in fact caused events, you do not in fact know whether or not you are observing 'something from nothing' events. In other words you are playing the "see no evil" monkey.

I am no Newtonian but I do believe in causality. You do not have to be a fan of old Isaac to believe this.
I did not intend to imply that you were a fan of Isaac but rather that your view of physics was along the lines of Newtonian mechanics - which is known to be wrong.

There are elements in your body that derive from a particular supernova and the sun is one of the net results of that supernova event. No supernova , no sun , no whitey. The supernova can only happen as a result of other events (eg Big Bang) . Take out one link in the chain - no whitey. No Big Bang, no whitey - simple causality , so what's your problem? Do you think you could exist if that supernova never happened?

You are dependent on that event. It's like that with the whole universe. One event depends upon a previous event or condition. Evolution is a classic example. No apes , no homosapiens etc.
But every event you have described could have had multiple outcomes, so I am dependent upon, but not solely dependent upon the events. I am therefore not caused by them, but only partially caused by them.

So it's only natural to speculate what thing the Big bang depends upon given that it too is an event not hugely disimilar to many events in our universe.
And that is where you are wrong. The big bang event was on the micro scale and thus was hugely disimilar to every single event that you have described. It is instead in the class of events that are not known to have causes.

We must be misunderstanding each other somewhere.
Your selective reading and answering of my posts tells me that the misunderstanding is intentional on your part. I am just curious about how much of it is subconcious.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Not as 'easily' as you might think. But the issue remains that it is not a question of whether it is possible that they are caused, it is a question of:
1. whether such causes are known to exist (they are not, yet you assume that they are and repeatedly claim that it is known to be the case - a direct lie).
2. whether apparent 'something from nothing' e ...[text shortened]... s intentional on your part. I am just curious about how much of it is subconcious.

But every event you have described could have had multiple outcomes, so I am dependent upon, but not solely dependent upon the events. I am therefore not caused by them, but only partially caused by them.------------whitey--------------------


Sounds very similar to my argument for free will? When I argued that at each point in time there are potentially many different choice outcomes you poo-pooed the idea and argued against it and yet here you are arguing for multiple potential outcomes that "could have" happened. Do you really believe that if supernova X had not exploded you would still be here? Do you really believe that if that comet had not hit the mexican gulf and wiped out the dinosaurs then you would still be here?

Even though I believe in free will I still believe that Hitler caused WW2 and that there are key things he did to cause it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Not as 'easily' as you might think. But the issue remains that it is not a question of whether it is possible that they are caused, it is a question of:
1. whether such causes are known to exist (they are not, yet you assume that they are and repeatedly claim that it is known to be the case - a direct lie).
2. whether apparent 'something from nothing' e s intentional on your part. I am just curious about how much of it is subconcious.

Your selective reading and answering of my posts tells me that the misunderstanding is intentional on your part. I am just curious about how much of it is subconcious.-------whitey------

I may not have the time to answer all the issues , focussing on one issue at a time might help.These threads tend to disperse into multi issues. I'm just as guilty of this as anyone. But I prefer to explore one issue in depth than multiple issues.

However , I also notice that you failed to define what "empty space" was and avoided this even though you talked with quite some authority about particles appearig from empty space. I , too , am wondering if there is some subconscious process going on within you.

Originally posted by jaywill
Talk about something sounding ... "cool".

I heard that the things which seem to pop into existence from nowhere only last for a fraction of a moment and seem to pop out of existence again.

What about a universe which has remained for billions of years? Quantum mechanics your answer for that too?

Quantum mechanics is the physics of the very small and generally only deals with the behaviour of the fundamental particles that make up the universe (e.g. electrons, photons etc). Quantum mechanics is NOT the physics of the very large and the universe as a whole is not only very large but consists of a huge 3D volume of space containing trillions of particles which have clustered together to form very large scale structures such as galaxies, stars and planets.

Therefore, quantum mechanics has no relevance here in explaining the continual existence of the universe and thus the fact that the universe has existed for so long does not in any way show a weakness in what quantum mechanics explains. It is not a requirement of quantum mechanics to explain the continual existence of large-scale structures.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Sounds very similar to my argument for free will? When I argued that at each point in time there are potentially many different choice outcomes you poo-pooed the idea and argued against it ...

Oh? When did I do that? I seem to remember the complete opposite. I poo-pooed your claims that free will was and example of non-random events for which you could not seem to find a causal root. In fact your claims back then directly contradict your claims now as you most definitely claimed that the cause of a free will choice did not originate in this universe.

Do you really believe that if supernova X had not exploded you would still be here?
No, and I have not argued otherwise - as I am sure you are aware. You are deliberately trying to misunderstand me.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I may not have the time to answer all the issues , focussing on one issue at a time might help.These threads tend to disperse into multi issues. I'm just as guilty of this as anyone. But I prefer to explore one issue in depth than multiple issues.

I would accept that argument if it was genuine. There is an easy way to find out. Simply answer the question:
Do you admit that finite dimensions exist as per examples that I gave earlier in this thread?

If you do not answer the above question then I do not think that a lack of focus is a genuine excuse.

However , I also notice that you failed to define what "empty space" was and avoided this even though you talked with quite some authority about particles appearig from empty space. I , too , am wondering if there is some subconscious process going on within you.
I initially questioned its relevance - I did not avoid it. When you claimed it was relevant I expanded on my argument.
If you want me to do more I will try:
According to quantum mechanics, very little can be known about the exact state of any point in space including what appears to be 'empty space' ie space without observed particles present. Quantum mechanics implies that if such 'empty spaces' exists then it would be spontaneously filled with a mass of particles popping into and out of existence.
I think the implication is that true 'empty space' does not in fact exist.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Oh? When did I do that? I seem to remember the complete opposite. I poo-pooed your claims that free will was and example of non-random events for which you could not seem to find a causal root. In fact your claims back then directly contradict your claims now as you most definitely claimed that the cause of a free will choice did not originate in this un ...[text shortened]... argued otherwise - as I am sure you are aware. You are deliberately trying to misunderstand me.

you most definitely claimed that the cause of a free will choice did not originate in this universe ---whitey-------

To right I did. But I did not claim that such choices were caused out of nothing.

Originally posted by knightmeister
To right I did. But I did not claim that such choices were caused out of nothing.

You were very unclear at the time about where such choices did originate. It was another one of those cases where you wanted to break the laws of logic in order to keep your faith alive.

Its really quite simple. Either your free will choice is the latest event in an infinite causal chain with no origin, or your argument in this thread is false.
Which is it?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Quantum mechanics is the physics of the very small and generally only deals with the behaviour of the fundamental particles that make up the universe (e.g. electrons, photons etc). Quantum mechanics is NOT the physics of the very large and the universe as a whole is not only very large but consists of a huge 3D volume of space containing trillions of ...[text shortened]... a requirement of quantum mechanics to explain the continual existence of large-scale structures.

Why then on a Spirituality Forum do I notice that discussions about the origin of the universe often gravitate to Quantum Physics?

Why does the subject come up often when speaking of creation and/or origins of the universe ? It has not only occured here. I see it occur on other forums as well.

That's a genuine question.

Originally posted by jaywill
Why then on a Spirituality Forum do I notice that discussions about the origin of the universe often gravitate to Quantum Physics?

Why does the subject come up often when speaking of creation and/or origins of the universe ? It has not only occured here. I see it occur on other forums as well.

That's a genuine question.

-simply because the universe began as such a tiny particle that, just like all tiny particles, its behaviour must have been at least partly governed by quantum physics albeit for about a billionth of a second because, as I already said, quantum physics is the physics is the physics of the very small.
But it didn’t stay that small for very long (less than a billionth of a second) and it quickly expanded to a large-scale structure and, as I have already said, it is not a requirement of quantum mechanics to explain the continual existence of large-scale structures because it has no relevance to large scale structures.
Does that answer both your questions?

As a generalisation; the larger something is, the less influence and relevance quantum physics has on its behaviour.