Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I wouldn't say that there isn't a cause for radioactive decay, despite it's timing being difficult (or even potentially impossible) to predict. In a broad sense, we could still say that X decay will happen within Y timeframe because of the instability of the isotope (with things like energy within the isotope causing it's instability and thus it's decay). Meaning that we could still assign a more broad cause to the gradual decay of the parent material. As if, if I were to roll dice, there may be no cause if the dice land on one number or another. I would still ultimately be the cause and probability would produce the outcome of what number the dice landed on.
But even further, if we think about the specific timing of decay, I think the idea that there is no cause is more of an assumption. As if we know that on a quantum level that there is nothing defining whether a particle is emitted during one second or another. How do we know that there is no cause? It seems that maybe we just assume that there is no cause because we're unable to define what that cause might be.
Or maybe I could say that because something is unpredictable, this doesn't necessarily make it without cause.
Where did I say that there definitely was no cause? I said that quite clearly that we do not know of one and that it does not look as if there is one. I said that a physicist might (and in fact probably could_ explain how they know that there is no cause. I made it clear that I could not prove that there was no cause.
Where did I say that there definitely was no cause? I said that quite clearly that we do not know of one and that it does not look as if there is one. I said that a physicist might (and in fact probably could_ explain how they know that there is no cause. I made it clear that I could not prove that there was no cause.
I think thats reasonable.
Reasoning inductively, it does seem like everything in the universe has a cause of some sort.
But I'm not at all sure the universe itself has a cause. It may be part of some eternal matrix. I'm in no position to hold a definite opinion about this.
There's a third option which I (provisionally) hold: we seek deep-meaning answers simply because we have the capacity to ask the question. And that capacity is a totally accidental by-product of various brain developments that did help us survive, like conceptualizing past and future, making strong mental maps of the self, etc......But I also wonder why people are predisposed to seek answers for why we exist. Some people might say that maybe there's some sort of an evolutionary benefit to searching for answers for things and learning and solving puzzles etc.. And maybe this benefit is why we do these things. And maybe the reasoning behind this goes no further than it merely being a matter of fitness.
But sometimes I wonder if it's the other way around. As if maybe the reason we search isnt just because it helps our survival, but maybe we've been evolutionarily predisposed to search by a designed mechanism. The goal of discovery, yet to be found.
There's a third option which I (provisionally) hold: we seek deep-meaning answers simply because we have the capacity to ask the question. And that capacity is a totally accidental by-product of various brain developments that did help us survive, like conceptualizing past and future, making strong mental maps of the self, etc.
And once we had the capacity to ask this novel question, the lack of a natural answer was unbearable. So we got to work mythologizing the world asap, to weave a network of meaning all around us.
Creationists will often try to twist science. But they cannot claim a law of causality if there are cases that do not seem to follow it. I am not about to make a claim that I cannot fully justify. And there is no need to. The case of quantum physics puts the burden of proof upon them, especially since the evidence leans very heavily on there not being a direct cause for those actions.I think that this just plays into the hands of the other creationist here who seems to be arguing that there are causes for things such as radioactive decay or activities of subatomic particles.
Saying that maybe we aren't sure if there is or is not a cause doesn't really defeat his position. It seems to just suggest that he may or may not be correct.
Regardless of whether there is or is not a principal of causality.
Creationists will often try to twist science. But they cannot claim a law of causality if there are cases that do not seem to follow it. I am not about to make a claim that I cannot fully justify. And there is no need to. The case of quantum physics puts the burden of proof upon them, especially since the evidence leans very heavily on there not being a direct cause for those actions.
By the way, that was one of the things that I did not like about quantum physics when I first studied it in college. It got rid of causality and I liked causality. On a macro scale it still exists since events do work out to be a statistical surety quite often. But on the microscopic scale that is not the case.
you're fixated on the wrong detailsLots of assertions, misunderstanding of history (St Nicholas and Santa Claus actually have different origins, but they've been merged together) and no apparent knowledge of ancient religions or their probable precursors.
Forgive me if I don't accept your claims at face value.
that's cetainly one way to sweep it under the rugI'm not speaking about how something is understood and never was. So I'm really not at all certain what you're trying to say.
I don't agree that the example eliminates causality. No more is causality eliminated by the unpredictability of me rolling dice. Me not being able to define a cause of an explicit outcome doesn't eliminate the, as you put it, macro scale observation of it all. Same with radioactivity. Sure we cannot predict or establish what particles may decay when (though statistically we can as noted above), but that doesn't really remove the source of radioactivity and instability of the isotope which produces the decay.
Let's see if I can word this properly.
I don't think that Indeterminism equates to a lack of causality.
And you mentioned that you didn't say that there definitely is no cause, at least in some instances, but I also see comments about getting rid of causality.
Some do receive God's communication through mystical means but that doesn't mean our intellect is able to interpret what is received unambiguously.God was telling you all through magical, mystical means about himself then you would all have the same "version" of God.
Not fixated on anything. Just pointing out that you're not as well informed as you pretend to be and, therefore, not presenting a convincing argument.you're fixated on the wrong details
I'll stop you right there. Nobody has yet shown that God exists. So you can't show us that anyone is receiving these "communications." That's just another of these things you folks say to each other to pretend that God is real.Some do receive God's communication through mystical means but that doesn't mean our intellect is able to interpret what is received unambiguously.
Learn to make yourself understood.that's cetainly one way to sweep it under the rug
Can't argue that. Any matter about God is a matter of faith. One thing I am glad about for me personally, is that I didn't count those kinds of experiences out as impossible.I'll stop you right there. Nobody has yet shown that God exists. So you can't show us that anyone is receiving these "communications." That's just another of these things you folks say to each other to pretend that God is real.
If God isn't real then they are impossible.Can't argue that. Any matter about God is a matter of faith. One thing I am glad about for me personally, is that I didn't count those kinds of experiences out as impossible.
There are laws of physics that are based in the logic of mathematics. Quantum mechanics follows a mathematical logic that is unintuitive to macro-scale creatures. For example, it is possible to put a quantum system into a superposition of multiple values of a particular property, e.g. spin. So if you can put a particle into a superposition of having spin up and spin down, is that one thing that has happened or two?Yet, only one thing ever happens.... probabilities is guessing, no? So, only one thing CAN ever happen. There are laws of logic there, I hope.
If God is possible so are they.If God isn't real then they are impossible.
There are laws of physics that are based in the logic of mathematics. Quantum mechanics follows a mathematical logic that is unintuitive to macro-scale creatures. For example, it is possible to put a quantum system into a superposition of multiple values of a particular property, e.g. spin. So if you can put a particle into a superposition of having spin up and spin down, is that one thing that has happened or two?
I'm not sure what you are protesting: how is a system doing two things at once not one thing?From what I read, the 'law of causality' is an apologetics meme harking back to Aquinas' 'First Cause' or 'unmoved mover' - i.e. the law of causality is necessary to the special pleading of a 'backstop' to prevent the appalling idea of infinite causal regression (as if it is more reasonable to replace an infinite regression of the known with an inexplicable atemporal entity of infinite power...)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?