1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterTake your example and tell me what the probability is of at least one marble in the bag not being red.
I though you were a scientist of sorts?
If you still think its a million to zero then you haven't got the first clue about what probability is.
Would you take a million to one bet that there are no blue marbles in the bag?
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterBut that is about the only trivial point in that post I made -I would like to understand you criticism for the rest of that post of mine as I believe I raised some important points and questions that you haven’t yet addressed.
By the way ( off topic ) , the malaria parasite is not a virus.
------hammy------------------
I kind of guessed that , but didn't bother to think too much about it. I did think that you might bring it up anyway as a way of scoring an intellectual goal. Well done. I willtip my cap to you on your scientific and mathematical , and maybe even medical knowledge as well. You are an awful philosopher though.
Reminder of the rest of that post:
….Someone , walks through a mosquito infested jungle and gets malaria. Then someone claims that the malaria was not caused by anything at all.
They may be right , but it's hard to prove and one would suspect there's a mosquito involved somewhere. The default position would be , it's probably down to a mosquito unless it can be proved otherwise.
..…
This analogy is an inappropriate one because the only difference between the class of people that claim that their malaria was not caused by anything at all and those people that claim that their malaria was caused by the malaria parasite is their claim! And surely it wouldn’t make much sense that there mere claim would have a real bearing on this -right?
But when comparing apparently random quantum events with most much larger scale events -the OBSERVED BEHAVIOUR of the two is completely different and APPEARS to comply with completely different rules! ( i.e. DIFFERENT laws of physics ) and it would be reasonable to think that that can have a bearing on it. -we are obviously talking about very different classes of events here.
…
My point is that the default position should quite rightly be - "all events have causes BECAUSE that's the way it SEEMS to be ALL of the time"
.… (my emphasis)
But that premise is simply false: how can that premise be true when there are certain classes of events ( namely, apparently random quantum events ) that do NOT “SEEM to be caused ALL of the time" because there is absolutely no evidence that even a single one has a cause? -I mean, given that fact that no cause is ever detected for that class of events, how can they “SEEM to be caused”
…I think you have forgotten this because having uncaused events fits your agenda and helps you do away with any need for there to be a cause for the universe. Which is what you want.
.…
No -that is not what I “want” thus that is not my “agenda” : IF I assume the universe DID have a “cause” ( which I don’t ) -I STILL wouldn’t think a deity had anything to do with it -why couldn’t the “cause” be a physical process? ( and that would also mean I would think there would be a “before” the universe -but that’s only IF I believed the universe had a “cause” )
Originally posted by knightmeisterOkay, thanks, I guess I see what you mean now. But I consider that yet another terminology of yours that I have no intention of using or feeding. This may seem pedantic to you, but I like to keep a clear notional distinction here between 'truth' and 'fact'. Truth is a relational property between proposition and fact. And 'truths' I would loosely use to refer to propositions that exhibit the right correspondence relation with fact. But facts, themselves, are not truths in this sense. So you can continue to talk about 'truths' in your way and I will understand what you mean; but I will continue to talk about facts or states of affairs or the like.
Now, quid pro quo: what makes an ultimate truth [WORD TOO LONG]
It;s the same thing in my mind. The ultimate truth is that truth (or brute fact) upon which all other truths rely. So the ultimate truth of existence would be the brute fact ...[text shortened]... tire tree rests upon them.
One could also use the phrase "final" truth if you prefer.
The ultimate truth is that truth (or brute fact) upon which all other truths rely. So the ultimate truth of existence would be the brute fact of existence.
Why are you supposing there is one singular fact upon which "all others rely"? What makes you think there is only one brute fact? If instead there are multiple brute facts, then your 'ultimate truth' simply doesn't exist: for if multiple brute facts exist, it simply would not be the case that all other facts rely on any one brute fact (because the other brute fact(s) in existence don't 'rely' on any other fact, more or less by definition -- that is, if I understand what you mean for one fact to 'rely' either proximately or ultimately on another).
So when you say that an 'ultimate truth' exists, you are also saying that one and only one brute fact exists, correct? What makes you think that is the case?
Originally posted by LemonJelloNow suppose that there is a recursive chain of facts that depend on each other in a circular fashion. Do we then call the whole system a 'brute fact'?
Why are you supposing there is one singular fact upon which "all others rely"? What makes you think there is only one brute fact? If instead there are multiple brute facts, then your 'ultimate truth' simply doesn't exist: for if multiple brute facts exist, it simply would not be the case that all other facts rely on any one brute fact (because th ...[text shortened]... and what you mean for one fact to 'rely' either proximately or ultimately on another).
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead-and, also, if we suppose it was a fact that there are no brute facts, wouldn’t the fact that there are no brute facts be a brute fact?
Now suppose that there is a recursive chain of facts that depend on each other in a circular fashion. Do we then call the whole system a 'brute fact'?
( only just thought of that one! )
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadBear in mind that the million to 0 figure was just pulled out of the air because I was comparing the number of known caused events(millions) to the number of known uncaused events (0).
Take your example and tell me what the probability is of at least one marble in the bag not being red.
If you still think its a million to zero then you haven't got the first clue about what probability is.
Would you take a million to one bet that there are no blue marbles in the bag?
The probability issue comes up here because it's the only way we understand nature. We only understand gravity because there are millions of known examples of apples falling to the ground and not one known example of apples falling upwards.
If we saw an apple falling upwards we might conclude that some other as yet unknown force was acting on it.
This is the way we understand nature. We examine what happens and find causes. So far in the history of man there have been countless proven examples of things happening for a reason (or by a cause) and not one proven example of anything happening for no cause.
That's pretty good odds in favour of a particular trend pointing towards causality.
Quantum events may or may not turn out to be different , and may change our understanding , but until there is actually proven evidence for saying they are uncaused then it seems totally rational to be skeptical about such claims.
I can't understand why you are asking me to overturn such odds without any proven evidence or case to point to. It seems a leap of faith on your part.
For all I know apples might start falling upwards in the morning , but until I see one my default position should be that apples will continue to fall downards.
I have always found the concept of time loops interesting. If time travel (to the past) was possible then it would theoretically be possible for an entity to travel back into the past and cause itself thus resulting in an entity with no ultimate cause but at the same time no initial brute fact.
Would existence then take on a sort of probability wave of all such possible time loops?
Originally posted by LemonJelloWhy are you supposing there is one singular fact upon which "all others rely"? What makes you think there is only one brute fact?
Okay, thanks, I guess I see what you mean now. But I consider that yet another terminology of yours that I have no intention of using or feeding. This may seem pedantic to you, but I like to keep a clear notional distinction here between 'truth' and 'fact'. Truth is a relational property between proposition and fact. And 'truths' I would loosely use t ...[text shortened]... only one brute fact exists, correct? What makes you think that is the case?
------------lemon--------------------------------
Purely observation really. If you look at the known universe that's the way things are. The brute fact (if it is a brute fact) of the big bang is the root of everything we know. Everthing else depends on it.
So that's what the known universe tells us nature is like. One thing happens and a load of other stuff happens as a result. It's a logical extrapolation. It might be false , but it's based on observing nature. It seems a reasonable assumption.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadJust a thought -if far in the future when technology becomes unimaginably more advanced than it is now, we be able to go back in time, then perhaps we WILL go back in time to “cause” the beginning of the universe just for the sake of stopping these irritating arguments once and for all about whether or not the beginning of the universe has a “cause” so that people can then just get on with their lives.
I have always found the concept of time loops interesting. If time travel (to the past) was possible then it would theoretically be possible for an entity to travel back into the past and cause itself thus resulting in an entity with no ultimate cause but at the same time no initial brute fact.
Would existence then take on a sort of probability wave of all such possible time loops?
Originally posted by knightmeisterSo why didn't you simply admit that at the beginning instead of trying to defend it?
Bear in mind that the million to 0 figure was just pulled out of the air because I was comparing the number of known caused events(millions) to the number of known uncaused events (0).
Have you now done the probability calculation?
I can't understand why you are asking me to overturn such odds without any proven evidence or case to point to. It seems a leap of faith on your part.
Because you haven't got the first clue about 'odds'. You just pulled it out of the air.
Lets narrow those odds down a bit.
We have two classes of known events: macro and micro.
It appears that macro events operate in a deterministic causal manner - up to a certain accuracy which is where the micro comes in.
Micro events are not known to have any cause.
So, now we have two marbles, one is red. What is the probability that the other is not red?
And just for a little twist in the tale. Not one singe event is known to have a cause. All events have a pattern that matches up to both past and future events within certain parameters but neither past nor future can be accurately calculated based on knowledge of the present.
The interesting thing is the patterns can be traced both forwards and backwards in time with the same laws of physics and the only difference between the two directions is entropy.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonBut that premise is simply false: how can that premise be true when there are certain classes of events ( namely, apparently random quantum events ) that do NOT “SEEM to be caused ALL of the time" because there is absolutely no evidence that even a single one has a cause? -------------------hammy---------------------------
But that is about the only trivial point in that post I made -I would like to understand you criticism for the rest of that post of mine as I believe I raised some important points and questions that you haven’t yet addressed.
Reminder of the rest of that post:
[b]….Someone , walks through a mosquito infested jungle and gets malaria. Then some ...[text shortened]... ld be a “before” the universe -but that’s only IF I believed the universe had a “cause” )
"Seems" was a term I used loosely.
The point I am making is that there are two catagories here..
Catagory 1 - is the group of known observable and proven caused events
Catagory 2 - is the group of observable and known but not yet undertood or proven quantum events.
So , catagory 2 is the group of events that we don't understand and we don't really know if they are caused or not. Observations suggest they are random but they may or may not be caused.
The jury is still out on catagory 2 , the case has not been run as yet and no proof has been reached. You can use the argument " there is absolutely no evidence that even a single one has a cause " if you like but it's fairly weak because an absence of negative proof does not consitute a positive proof. If I said "there is absolutely no evidence that God does not exist (therefore he must exist) " you would no doubt laugh at such claims.
The argument " there is absolutely no evidence that even a single one has a cause" is only valid at all if one can also say " and if these events do have causes then we would have found one by now" . You need to show me more.
Why can't I say " well maybe we just haven't found the cause of quantum events yet? Given that the whole area is extremely new and frontier science , this seems a pertinent question.
Catagory 1- is different. Why? Because in catagory 1 there is no conjecture or speculation only known provable facts. Scientifically you should know that any event falling into catagory 1 bears a far far greater weight than any number of events in catagory 2.
Catagory 1 has had the full jury treatment and has it's case proven. Catagory 2 -well , who knows?
Just as a court rules "innocent until proven guilty" I tend to say "all events are caused unless proven otherwise".
Why do I say this? Because the proven evidence backs me up and until you have one single proven case of an uncaused event then you don't even have a witness. You can conject and harrass the jury or make some good courtroom drama out of it but you HAVE NO PROVEN EVIDENCE.
I DO and my proven evidence out numbers yours by millions to 0.
Originally posted by twhiteheadNot one singe event is known to have a cause.------whitey--------
So why didn't you simply admit that at the beginning instead of trying to defend it?
Have you now done the probability calculation?
[b]I can't understand why you are asking me to overturn such odds without any proven evidence or case to point to. It seems a leap of faith on your part.
Because you haven't got the first clue about 'odds'. You jus ...[text shortened]... ith the same laws of physics and the only difference between the two directions is entropy.[/b]
And this proves what? It could just be that we haven't found the cause yet?
Unless you can say "not one single event is known to have a cause , and if it did have a cause then we would surely know about it" then this is meaningless.
Here's another meaningless statement "not one single event in the universe is known to have not been caused by God" - Does this prove that there are some events caused by God?
4 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt appears that macro events operate in a deterministic causal manner - up to a certain accuracy which is where the micro comes in.
So why didn't you simply admit that at the beginning instead of trying to defend it?
Have you now done the probability calculation?
[b]I can't understand why you are asking me to overturn such odds without any proven evidence or case to point to. It seems a leap of faith on your part.
Because you haven't got the first clue about 'odds'. You jus ...[text shortened]... ith the same laws of physics and the only difference between the two directions is entropy.[/b]
Micro events are not known to have any cause.
---------whitey---------------------------------
Wrong. Millions of macro events are known and PROVEN to operate in a causal manner.
Micro events are not known to have any cause but it's also not known whether they are not made of jam. Does that mean they are made of jam? How far do you take this?
There's not a single quantun event that is not known to not be made of jam!!
Why do you and hammy think that the absence of a negative proof constiutes a positive proof - this is poor thinking.
We cannot use what we don't know as a proof. All we know is that we don't know. The king of portugal did not know whether america existed. The atalantic was not known to have any land westwards. Therefore , by your reasoning Columbus would never have set off.
Maybe , if someone had logically argued that " if there really was land out there we wouild have found it by now" - he would not have gone.
Columbus being a logical fellow made an extrapolation based on what he already knew was true and guessed that land was out there somewhere. Even though there was no known case of any land at all out there , not a single piece of land!!!
He was sooo lucky eh?
Originally posted by knightmeister….Catagory 2 - is the group of observable and known but not yet understood or proven quantum events.
But that premise is simply false: how can that premise be true when there are certain classes of events ( namely, apparently random quantum events ) that do NOT “SEEM to be caused ALL of the time" because there is absolutely no evidence that even a single one has a cause? -------------------hammy---------------------------
"Seems" was a term I use ...[text shortened]... ENCE.
I DO and my proven evidence out numbers yours by millions to 0.
So , category 2 is the group of events that we don't understand and
..…
-hey, wait! Who said we don’t “understand” quantum events?
You don’t “understand” quantum events but the physicists do.
They are understood as probability functions.
I think your confusion here is that you confusing the concept of something being “random” with something not being “understood” -these two things are NOT the same!
….we don't really know if they are caused or not. Observations suggest they are random but they may or may not be caused.
..…
If they are truly random then they cannot have a cause -I think you are confusing the concept of “unpredictability” with “randomness”. If something has a cause it still could be “unpredictable” but not “TRULY random” Chaos theory says that even if something is NOT “TRULY random” then it STILL may be “unpredictability” because the inevitable tiniest error of measurement of its starting condition will lead to a wrong prediction on its eventual outcome ( I know exactly what I am talking about here because I did a course on it at university which I passed ) thus “unpredictability” is NOT synonymous with “randomness”. This has been confirmed with actual observations ( of the whether etc ) .
…the rest of your post is flawed because of these above confusions and because of the points I explained in my previous post….