It's all a mystery really.....

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Agreed . It's just limited that's all. .…

Agreed.

…Infact if you think about it it's entirely RATIONAL to take a more contemplative approach to existence
…. (my emphasis)

Err -no. it is only “entirely RATIONAL” to take an “entirely RATIONAL” approach by whatever definition of “RATIONAL” you choose. If what you mean by “cont ...[text shortened]... logic or evidence or both while faith is just belief without this kind of rational premise.[/b]

The “make faith in rationality” in your above statement is a self-contradiction. ----------hammy-------

Why? None of us know what the ultimate truth is. We all put our faith in some path or other , not knowing for certain whether it will lead us to perceive reality correctly.

You do not know the truth for certain. Therefore , you follow a path through life trusting a certain way of looking at the world.

There are many ways of looking at life.

You have chosen one of them.

You cannot know for certain it is the correct way. Therefore a certain amount of faith is necessary.

If you haven't put your faith in raionality then what have you put it in? We all have to trust and follow some path or other. Even to not follow a path is still a path in itself.

Originally posted by knightmeister
For me the phrase "uncaused event" is clumsy because "event" suggests somehting that happens or a happening. We do not know of any proven uncaused events in existence. Uncaused cause seems more appropriate because an event is usually the result of another cause. A brute fact is unlikely to be an "event" but more likely to be a self sustaining independent thing. Usually "events" depend on other things.

Although I am perfectly happy with using another word than 'event' I would rather go with either 'property' (as in scientific law), or 'entity' (as in a specific configuration of matter or energy).
As usual you make the assertion that most events are dependent on a cause even though I have repeatedly pointed out to you that no such thing is known about the universe. The vast majority of known events are not known to have causes and could quite easily be brute facts.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Brute facts cannot be picked apart rationally because they just ARE. Best just to contemplate.

Your mind is so programmed to try to understand rationally that you seem to have lost any sense of contemplation.

I still don't get what you are saying. You seem to be saying "I don't have a rational explanation (and know that there isn't one), so I imagine an irrational one.
Your mind is so programmed to accept irrational explanations that you are ready to invent an explanation for something even when you know that no such explanation exists.

Originally posted by knightmeister
There is no conclusive proof that particular quantum events are uncaused. Until there is I am rationally entitled to question such a claim as unlikely. As you Atheists are so fond of saying - extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

I fully agree that it is not proven, but your claim that it is 'unlikely' is totally unfounded. It is certainly not an 'extraordinary' claim to say that quantum events are uncaused. I is simply an unproven claim.

Originally posted by knightmeister
You do not know the truth for certain. Therefore , you follow a path through life trusting a certain way of looking at the world.

But I do frequently know for certain when something is not the truth. ie I know that 1+1=3 is definitely not the truth. The pretense you are trying to create is that all beliefs are equal. They are not.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I fully agree that it is not proven, but your claim that it is 'unlikely' is totally unfounded. It is certainly not an 'extraordinary' claim to say that quantum events are uncaused. I is simply an unproven claim.

I remember we once talked about this point, but at that time you were so sure of that, not you say it is unproven. May be something is different now!!

Originally posted by ahosyney
I remember we once talked about this point, but at that time you were so sure of that, not you say it is unproven. May be something is different now!!

I do not remember ever claiming that quantum events are proven to be uncaused. If I did, then I apologize for the mistake. I don't think I have ever believed that to be the case.
According to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, some events are such that their causes cannot be known - but this may well be simply that the information about the cause has been lost and is irretrievable.
For me, the critical question is whether or not loosing information about the past renders the past non-existent. Are all possible pasts existent or only one (but we cannot know which).

Originally posted by twhitehead
I do not remember ever claiming that quantum events are proven to be uncaused. If I did, then I apologize for the mistake. I don't think I have ever believed that to be the case.
According to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, some events are such that their causes cannot be known - but this may well be simply that the information about the cause has ...[text shortened]... the past non-existent. Are all possible pasts existent or only one (but we cannot know which).

That is good. No need to apologize I just wanted to make sure of my information. Just after that conversation I spent sometime reading in quantum mechanics to make sure of what you said, and I didn't find something specific to support what was said. So now things are more clear for me.

For me, the critical question is whether or not loosing information about the past renders the past non-existent. Are all possible pasts existent or only one (but we cannot know which).

I don't know if I understand this clearly, but as I understand the past itself doesn't exist but its effect may still be existing in the present, so if doesn't have any effect on the present then may know nothing about it to know its existence.

It is just a trial to answer your question, and my be I didn't understand it.


-------
EDIT:
This is the thread where we were talking about this point if you are interested:
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=71519&page=8

Originally posted by knightmeister
I think brute facts, by definition, have no explanation. ----------------------------------lemon-------------------------------------------------

So if existence itself is a brute fact (in the sense that it just is and there is no explaining it) does that not intrigue you or engage you mentally in anyway at all?

Think about it for a minute. If e ...[text shortened]... ut any mental or emotional response? Why is my use of the word mystery so uncomfortable for you?

So if existence itself is a brute fact...

(...)

existence (ie all that exists)

And you wonder why I call you sloppy? You equivocate just about anywhere you can in just about every discussion you start. Nowhere have I ever stated that "all that exists" is brute or without explanation. There obviously exists a plethora of facts that are nevertheless not brute facts. What I said, again, is that I think it is very likely that there exists at least one brute fact. I see you didn't bother to answer my question I posed. My question, again, is basically the following. Let's suppose it is true that at least one brute fact exists; then what are the implications of this concerning how you view 'life'? Hey, I'm just trying to understand you here. You sort of keep insisting that there are all these implications here for how you view life, and I am just trying to get you to list some specific ones. Maybe you can make me aware of some that I have not considered.

Think about it for a minute. If existence (ie all that exists) is inexplicable and unfathomable does that not bring about any mental or emotional response? Why is my use of the word mystery so uncomfortable for you?

Okay, I've thought about it for a minute, and it is simply not my contention that "all that exists is inexplicable and unfathomable". That just doesn't even make any sense.

Originally posted by ahosyney
I don't know if I understand this clearly, but as I understand the past itself doesn't exist but its effect may still be existing in the present, so if doesn't have any effect on the present then may know nothing about it to know its existence.

It is just a trial to answer your question, and my be I didn't understand it.

The word 'exist' can be difficult as we may use it to include only current events or to include the past as well. Maybe 'part of reality' is a better phrase. Of course relativity renders any concept of 'current events' rather problematic as there is no universal 'now'.

In the famous two slit experiment, a photon of light either takes one route or another. However there is no way of knowing which route it took. The information regarding which route it took is forever lost to us. The question then becomes - did the photon actually take one route in the past, or both routes?
It is a curious fact that when a large number of photons are sent through the two slit experiment, they appear to behave as if they are going along both routes - or looked at another way all possible pasts interact with each other. The effect is responsible for the well known 'wave like' properties of light (and all other particles traveling at high speed).
If you do some reading on the two slit experiment and schrodingers cat, you will find that it is a very interesting subject.

P.S.
In the other thread you referred to I think I used the phrase 'no known cause'. I just get upset whenever someone makes the unfounded claim that it is a known fact that the universe works in a cause effect fashion. There is simply no reason to assume that quantum events have a cause. They may, they may not. Their 'cause' may be in the past, in the future or even in another dimension independent of time, or they may be simply 'brute facts'.

Originally posted by knightmeister
but, the fact remains, a PARTICULAR random quantum event can be “uncaused”.
----------------------------------hammy-----------------------------

Has this been proven then? If so how? I can provide arguments that might refute the so called "quantum vaccum" .

It also begs the question of how one can prove something is uncaused anyway. Isn't this an impossibility by definiton?

No -nor has it been “proven” that it does have a “cause”.
But the existential hypothesis that there exists a “cause” for it is an unnecessary one because its apparently random behaviour can be accounted for simply by assuming it IS truly random and this is the simplest hypothesis because it doesn't assume there must exist a specific kind of cause for it. Therefore, it is rational to assume (in this case) for that reason that the existential hypothesis that there exists a “cause” for it as unlikely.
-if you have studied some quantum physics at a very basic level like I have then you should know this.

Originally posted by knightmeister
this proves by point -“incapable of being accounted for or explained” obviously implies that for something to be “inexplicable” then there has to be something there to be “accounted for or explained” -if there is no such thing there then there is nothing there to be “inexplicable”.
-------------hammy-------------------------

What garbage!

Of co ...[text shortened]... ?

You have confused yourself here in your rushed attempt to argue against my position.

…***** "incapable of being accounted for or explained” ******

Is existence capable of being explained or accounted for? --answer ---------------NO
.…

-correct -because, if “existence” is a brute fact, then, by definition of brute fact, there is no unknown cause nor unknown explanation to be discovered thus nothing “inexplicable” because there is “nothing” there (“nothing” as in no unknown cause nor unknown explanation to be discovered) to be “explained or accounted for”.

Originally posted by knightmeister
The “make faith in rationality” in your above statement is a self-contradiction. ----------hammy-------

Why? None of us know what the ultimate truth is. We all put our faith in some path or other , not knowing for certain whether it will lead us to perceive reality correctly.

You do not know the truth for certain. Therefore , you follow a path t ve to trust and follow some path or other. Even to not follow a path is still a path in itself.

…The “make faith in rationality” in your above statement is a self-contradiction. ----------hammy-------

Why?

.…

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith

“Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence”

I can use some type of reasoning X to deduce that some hypothesis Z it true/probably true
I then may find material evidence that shows that hypothesis Z is true
This material evidence would thus give credence to type of reasoning X (and, similarly, to each and every type of flawless reasoning to judge reality) as a way of judging the truth about reality thus my trust in type of reasoning X may NOT be based on “faith” but rather material evidence.

…None of us know what the ultimate truth is.
….

How do you know that there exists an “ultimate truth”?

….If you haven't put your faith in rationality then what have you put it in?
..…

Nothing. Rationality has been vindicated many times over by the fact that science relies on rationality and has led to many working technologies that wouldn’t work if that rationality was wrong -so no “faith” in rationality required there -just good evidence that rationality helps to give us the truth.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…The “make faith in rationality” in your above statement is a self-contradiction. ----------hammy-------

Why?

.…

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith

“Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence”

I can use some type of reasoning X to deduce that some hypothesis Z it true/probably true
I then may find ma ...[text shortened]... in rationality required there -just good evidence that rationality helps to give us the truth.[/b]

How do you know that there exists an “ultimate truth”?
-----------hammy----------------------------

Myabe you think there is no ultimate truth at all and that all talk of ultimates or certainty is false? Maybe you think that truth is relative and not ultimate and that there can be no certainty?

The problem is that if you think this then I might ask you whether you believe this to be ultimately true or not. If you say that are no certainties I will ask you whether you are certain about this.

You could go on to say "there are no absolute certainties about existence " - My question would be "are you absolutely certain about this?" Do you see the point. Even if there is no ultimate truth - that is the ultimate truth of existence , namely , that there is no ultimate truth.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…***** "incapable of being accounted for or explained” ******

Is existence capable of being explained or accounted for? --answer ---------------NO
.…

-correct -because, if “existence” is a brute fact, then, by definition of brute fact, there is no unknown cause nor unknown explanation to be discovered thus nothing “inexplicable” beca ...[text shortened]... no unknown cause nor unknown explanation to be discovered) to be “explained or accounted for”.[/b]

But it is not a requirement of a phenomenon to have a cause (known or unknown) in order for it to be labelled "inexplicable" .

Something can be inexplicable because there is some cause somewhere but we just can't find it or explain it. OR- It can be labelled inexplicable because it has no cause.

The definition of inexplicable is erhem "incapable of being accounted for or explained” . So I feel compelled to ask you whether the brute fact of existence itself is capable of " being accounted for or explained”. If you cannot answer yes to this question - then the answer must be no.

If the answer is no then it fits the description of the definition " incapable of being accounted for or explained”

What you have missed is that the term inexplicable has nothing to do with whether the thing itself has a cause or not.

IT DOES NOT MATTER WHY the thing itself is inexplicable it just needs to be impossible to explain.

The brute fact of existence fits this definition and it's you that are adding your own sub clauses to it. You are entitled to do this if you want but it's contrary to the known definition of the word. If something cannot be explained (FOR WHATEVER REASON) then by definition it is inexplicable. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHY.

Now why don't you just accept you have goofed on this one and eat your humble pie and move on.