The Main Issues w/ the Kalam Cosmological Argument

[exchemist]

Not that I doubt your post, but to save me Google time, could you list several uncaused events? Please and thank you.

Yes. See the exchange with @shunyadragon , which illustrates the sorts of things I have in mind. Mind you, he is challenging my view, so let's see where this ends up....

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes and do. My point is that the individual decay is random and without apparent cause, according to our models.

Even though the timing of the event is unpredictability the cause of the decay is known.

I grant you that the models tell us there is a defined probability of the event, which is determined by the isotope in question, but the event itself when it occurs is seemingly triggered by nothing at all, just as the position of each photon dot, in the building up of an interference fringe pattern, is not seemingly caused by anything.

I do not buy 'not seemingly caused by anything,' I can go into this more in another thread, but the behavior of the decay of elements and behavior of photons do follow a predictable pattern, and there for the process is not random.

The key to me is do processes of the chain of cause and effect events follow a predictable pattern. I believe that Quantum Mechanics can explain these predictable patterns that can be further described in terms of probability. Even though the individual events are random they can only occur within a range of possibilities constrained by the Laws of Nature, and the previous chain of cause and effect outcomes,

 

[Wandering Monk]

Rational Wiki covers Kalam fallacies pretty well:

Argument from first cause - RationalWiki

 

[ratiocinator]

I do not buy 'not seemingly caused by anything,' I can go into this more in another thread, but the behavior of the decay of elements and behavior of photons do follow a predictable pattern, and there for the process is not random.

The point is though, although the overall pattern (probabilities) is determined by the situation, you get random variation within those probabilities. There is literally no difference between a nucleus that decays at one point in time and one that decays at another. The individual events are random within the probability distribution.

If you were to simulate the situation properly, you'd need a source of randomness. It's also why you can build genuine random number generators using quantum effects.

 

[exchemist]

Even though the timing of the event is unpredictability the cause of the decay is known.



I do not buy 'not seemingly caused by anything,' I can go into this more in another thread, but the behavior of the decay of elements and behavior of photons do follow a predictable pattern, and there for the process is not random.

The key to me is do processes of the chain of cause and effect events follow a predictable pattern. I believe that Quantum Mechanics can explain these predictable patterns that can be further described in terms of probability. Even though the individual events are random they can only occur within a range of possibilities constrained by the Laws of Nature, and the previous chain of cause and effect outcomes,

OK I think I understand your point, but do you say the individual events are caused, then? By what?

 

[shunyadragon]

OK I think I understand your point, but do you say the individual events are caused, then? By what?

Patience a long answer follows soon.

 

[tayla]

The most important argument is whether our physical existence that contains our universe 'began to exist.' It is pretty easy to assume that whether our physical existence is infinite or finite, or eternal or temporal will likely never be determined from the human perspective.

Yes, but this kind of beginning is not useful for the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, but this kind of beginning is not useful for the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

The point is this just simply kills the Kalam Cosmological argument'

The most important argument is whether our physical existence that contains our universe 'began to exist.' It is pretty easy to assume that neither it began to exist nor it is eternal or infinite is knowable..

 

[shunyadragon]

Not that I doubt your post, but to save me Google time, could you list several uncaused events? Please and thank you.

Actually I do not believe you can.

 

[shunyadragon]

OK I think I understand your point, but do you say the individual events are caused, then? By what?

Individual cause and effect events are always constrained to a set of outcomes even in Quantum Mechanics. What ultimately constrains the outcomes of cause and effect events; the Laws of Nature. If you are a philosophical naturalist the Laws of Nature are simply the first cause. If you are a Theist it is best to acknowledge the Laws of Nature as the Laws of God, and make peace with science.

If you do not have predictability in the series of cause and effect outcomes we see as the processes of nature, in the theories and hypothesis, even in Quantum Mechanics you cannot falsify theories and hypothesis.

Another issue when the outcomes of cause and effect of individual events; what describes the variation in the outcomes of the series of events. Well they follow a fractal pattern in nature we call Chaos Theory.

Chaos Theory

Chaos Theory is a relatively new form of math, and is likely one of most important innovations in math in the twentieth century. Chaos Theory is basically the fractal pattern in non-linear math. The larger the number of variable the more complex the fractal pattern. This use of Chaos is often confused with Chaos as defined as ‘complete disorder and confusion,’ but in contrast Chaos theory explains that nothing is ‘complete disorder and confusion,’

Chaos: Making a new science by James Gleick is the recommended fairly easy readable reference on Chaos Theory


http://faculty.rhodes.edu/wetzel/random/level23intro.html

Level 3: Chaos vs randomness

Chaos theory has show that deterministic systems can produce results which are chaotic and appear to be random. But they are not technically random because the events can be modelled by a (non-linear) formula. The classic example of such a system is the pseudo-random number generators used by computers.

Other systems are stable, linear, or non-chaotic under some conditions, but under other conditions do dissolve into randomness or unpredictability (on some level). But even then, on a different level or scale, patterns can still be found. A dripping faucet is an example of such a system. With some water flows, there is a steady a predictable drip, but at other (lower) levels the drips appear to be randomly irregular (but at a higher level of analysis, patterns can be detected, suggesting only chaos), and at still other water levels, no pattern can be discerned at the levels of analysis used for previous drip rates.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Perhaps whatever the universe is didn't actually begin.

Didn't actually begin:

1. because it doesn't actually exist? or
2. because it has always existed and always will?

If #2, then add "it's infinite, as in "boundless", and I'm with you in that belief; but don't tell the relativists: they like their universes with beginnings,
If #1, then let's pretend that we've never met.

 

[columbus]

Didn't actually begin:

1. because it doesn't actually exist? or
2. because it has always existed and always will?

If #2, then add "it's infinite, as in "boundless", and I'm with you in that belief; but don't tell the relativists: they like their universes with beginnings,
If #1, then let's pretend that we've never met.

Or, neither of the above?

Frankly, I don't understand why the speed of light is a limit. Newtonian physics are a little too intuitive. Too much common sense. If thrust keeps being applied to a body it will continue to accelerate, right?
Apparently not.

Not everything is as simple as it seems.
Almost nothing is.
Tom

 

[ratiocinator]

Individual cause and effect events are always constrained to a set of outcomes even in Quantum Mechanics.

Yes - but variation within the probabilities described by QM is random.

If you do not have predictability in the series of cause and effect outcomes we see as the processes of nature, in the theories and hypothesis, even in Quantum Mechanics you cannot falsify theories and hypothesis.

The probabilities are predicable and that is how we confirm or falsify theories and hypotheses. Indeed, that's why we can exploit quantum effects to make reliable devices.

Another issue when the outcomes of cause and effect of individual events; what describes the variation in the outcomes of the series of events. Well they follow a fractal pattern in nature we call Chaos Theory.

No, they don't. Chaos is something different and applies to fully deterministic systems. Generally speaking QM can only give you a probability of an outcome - this is entirely standard.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Or, neither of the above?

Sorry. Does not compute.

 

[tayla]

The most important argument is whether our physical existence that contains our universe 'began to exist.' It is pretty easy to assume that neither it began to exist nor it is eternal or infinite is knowable..

Please restate this. For some reason I'm not able to get at what you are proposing, but it sounds interesting and worth pondering.

 

[tayla]

If #2, then add "it's infinite, as in "boundless", and I'm with you in that belief; but don't tell the relativists: they like their universes with beginnings,

Maybe it's not infinite because it wraps around on itself and the end joins the beginning. (I'm not claiming this is true; I'm looking looking at possibilities)

Roger Penrose has an idea something like this. His argument (as best as I can describe it) is that in the far far future of the universe after heat death has occurred, based on the mathematical equations describing this condition, the variables for space and time drop out. The universe becomes as if it were a singularity, and this results in a big bang.

But notice: in this view, time disappears at a certain point. So it doesn't seem correct to say the universe is infinite in time if there is no time.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes - but variation within the probabilities described by QM is random.

No it is not because it follows predictable patterns. Variation in probabilities occur throughout science. The other issue is careful not to confuse how randomness is used in research design of statistics with how ranomness would be defined in nature.

The probabilities are predicable and that is how we confirm or falsify theories and hypotheses. Indeed, that's why we can exploit quantum effects to make reliable devices.

This in and of itself makes Quantum effects non-random by definition,

From the previous citation: Level 3: Chaos vs randomness

Chaos theory has shown that deterministic systems can produce results which are chaotic and appear to be random. But they are not technically random because the events can be modelled by a (non-linear) formula. The classic example of such a system is the pseudo-random number generators used by computers.

No, they don't. Chaos is something different and applies to fully deterministic systems. Generally speaking QM can only give you a probability of an outcome - this is entirely standard.

Fully deterministic? There is no such definable thing. The fractal nature of variation is observed in all systems. and nature is deterministic. If it were not there would be no basis for predictability in theories and hypothesis.

 

[Terry Sampson]

it wraps around on itself and the end joins the beginning

Like Ouroboros, the "tail-eater"? Singularities and heat-deaths? I'm not a fan.
I prefer my cosmos three-dimensionally infinite (in all directions) and one-dimensionally eternal (forwards and backwards): One cosmos, unbounded in space or time, undergoing never-ending change.

 

[ratiocinator]

No it is not because it follows predictable patterns.

The two are not mutually exclusive. If you want to simulate a probability distribution, such as those produced by QM, you need a source of true randomness and an algorithm to shape the distribution. You can't do it without randomness.

Systems either develop over time as deterministic systems or not - and if not, they involve randomness by definition.

From: Deterministic system - Wikipedia

In mathematics, computer science and physics, a deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system.
...
Physical laws that are described by differential equations represent deterministic systems, even though the state of the system at a given point in time may be difficult to describe explicitly.

In quantum mechanics, the Schrödinger equation, which describes the continuous time evolution of a system's wave function, is deterministic. However, the relationship between a system's wave function and the observable properties of the system appears to be non-deterministic. ​

This in and of itself makes Quantum effects non-random by definition

Perhaps you'd better tell these people:

ANU Quantum Random Number Server and
Quantis TRNG (True Random Number Generator)

Fully deterministic? There is no such definable thing.

Of course there is (From: Chaos theory - Wikipedia, my emphasis):

Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics focusing on the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions...
...
Small differences in initial conditions, such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation, yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction of their behavior impossible in general. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.
​

 

[shunyadragon]

The two are not mutually exclusive. If you want to simulate a probability distribution, such as those produced by QM, you need a source of true randomness and an algorithm to shape the distribution. You can't do it without randomness.

Systems either develop over time as deterministic systems or not - and if not, they involve randomness by definition.

From: Deterministic system - Wikipedia

In mathematics, computer science and physics, a deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system.
...
Physical laws that are described by differential equations represent deterministic systems, even though the state of the system at a given point in time may be difficult to describe explicitly.

In quantum mechanics, the Schrödinger equation, which describes the continuous time evolution of a system's wave function, is deterministic. However, the relationship between a system's wave function and the observable properties of the system appears to be non-deterministic. ​

I has already accepted that individual properties may be random such as the outcome of individual events may be random, but deterministic processes and systems are not random.​

Perhaps you'd better tell these people:

ANU Quantum Random Number Server and
Quantis TRNG (True Random Number Generator)

Easy I disagree. The only truely random of the (True Random Number Generator) is the randomness of the selection of each individual number.

Of course there is (From: Chaos theory - Wikipedia, my emphasis):

Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics focusing on the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions...
...
Small differences in initial conditions, such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation, yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction of their behavior impossible in general. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.
​

I believe this confirms my view. The unpredictable of some elements that are unpredictable does nake them random. What is considered above to be unpredictable needs more explanation. For example it is true that individuale events are unpredictable, but the system or process is deterministic.