The Main Issues w/ the Kalam Cosmological Argument

[We Never Know]

Actually I do not believe you can.

All I want to see is a list of uncaused events. Is that to much to ask?

 

[We Never Know]

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....

Yes? Yes to what? All I'm asking for is a list of uncaused events.

 

[ratiocinator]

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.

You seemed to be disagreeing before. So you accept that, for example, in radioactive decay, the overall pattern of decay in a large number of atoms is deterministic but which exact atom decays at what exact time, is random?

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

That's the point. If you (say) fire photons at a half-silvered mirror, half of them will go through and half will be reflected, but which does which is random. Hence you can generate a genuinely random binary number if you assign 0 and 1 to the two outcomes.

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.

Chaos is different because the system can be described using deterministic mathematics the apparent randomness comes about because of high sensitivity to initial conditions. Tiny, unmeasurable (in the real world) differences can change the outcome drastically.

The difference is that with QM the mathematics can only tell you the probability of the value of any measurable outcome.

 

[exchemist]

Yes? Yes to what? All I'm asking for is a list of uncaused events.

Radioactive decay events, and the values of properties measured on individual QM entities photons, electrons and the like).

 

[shunyadragon]

You seemed to be disagreeing before. So you accept that, for example, in radioactive decay, the overall pattern of decay in a large number of atoms is deterministic but which exact atom decays at what exact time, is random?

The fact that the outcome of individual cause and effect events are apart of my original argument.

That's the point. If you (say) fire photons at a half-silvered mirror, half of them will go through and half will be reflected, but which does which is random. Hence you can generate a genuinely random binary number if you assign 0 and 1 to the two outcomes.

Only random as individual events.

Chaos is different because the system can be described using deterministic mathematics the apparent randomness comes about because of high sensitivity to initial conditions. Tiny, unmeasurable (in the real world) differences can change the outcome drastically.

No it is not, as referenced.

The difference is that with QM the mathematics can only tell you the probability of the value of any measurable outcome.

There is no such thing as QM mathematics. Mathematics is part of the tool box used by science to describe QM. The ability of science to describe the over all outcome of the chain of of cause and effect events as predictable and falsifiable with hypothesis demonstrates that, even though the individual events are random in theire outcome. The behaviors of QM are not random.

 

[ratiocinator]

The fact that the outcome of individual cause and effect events are apart of my original argument.

But there is no cause why, for example, one atom decays at one time and another at another time - there is only a cause for the overall probabilities.

Only random as individual events.

Yes.

No it is not, as referenced.

Referenced where? The situations are different because chaotic systems are described directly and deterministically while in quantum mechanics, the wave function develops deterministically but can only tell you the probabilities of observable outcomes, not the outcomes themselves.

That's a fundamental difference between classical physics (including chaotic systems) and quantum physics.

There is no such thing as QM mathematics.

I didn't say there was, but mathematics is the language in which these things are described and they are fundamentally different.

 

[shunyadragon]

But there is no cause why, for example, one atom decays at one time and another at another time - there is only a cause for the overall probabilities.

No, the cause of the decay of atoms is well known. Probabilities is not a cause.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Pro....69i57j0l5.10522j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

"Probability is the likelihood or chance of an event occurring. Probability = the number of ways of achieving success. the total number of possible outcomes."

Referenced where? The situations are different because chaotic systems are described directly and deterministically while in quantum mechanics, the wave function develops deterministically but can only tell you the probabilities of observable outcomes, not the outcomes themselves.

The timing of the outcomes are already accepted as random and probabilities only apply to the over all wave function..

That's a fundamental difference between classical physics (including chaotic systems) and quantum physics.

The fundamental differences between Classical Physics is fundamental to the nature and scale and not whether the variability in the outcome of events,which are random. or the variability of the outcome the chain of events or collective events have a random explanation, which they do not.

I didn't say there was, but mathematics is the language in which these things are described and they are fundamentally different.

Yes and no as described above.

 

[ratiocinator]

No, the cause of the decay of atoms is well known. Probabilities is not a cause.

From: Radioactive decay - Wikipedia

Radioactive decay is a stochastic (i.e. random) process at the level of single atoms. According to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay, regardless of how long the atom has existed. However, for a collection of atoms, the expected decay rate is characterized in terms of measured decay constants or half-lives.​

https://www.google.com/search?q=Pro....69i57j0l5.10522j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

"Probability is the likelihood or chance of an event occurring. Probability = the number of ways of achieving success. the total number of possible outcomes."

I know what probability means but I've no idea why you think this definition is relevant.

The timing of the outcomes are already accepted as random and probabilities only apply to the over all wave function..

This doesn't make sense, what do you mean by "probabilities only apply to the over all wave function"?

The fundamental differences between Classical Physics is fundamental to the nature and scale and not whether the variability in the outcome of events,which are random. or the variability of the outcome the chain of events or collective events have a random explanation, which they do not.

This makes even less sense. In classical physics there are deterministic equations that directly describe how systems' observable properties (position, momentum, energy, and so on) vary over time. In quantum physics, the equations only give us the development of the wave function over time, which can only tell us about the probabilities of the different values of observables.

 

[shunyadragon]

From: Radioactive decay - Wikipedia

Radioactive decay is a stochastic (i.e. random) process at the level of single atoms. According to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay, regardless of how long the atom has existed. However, for a collection of atoms, the expected decay rate is characterized in terms of measured decay constants or half-lives.​

I know what probability means but I've no idea why you think this definition is relevant.

The definition is relevant, because you are wrong probability is NOT a cause. What you describe above does not represent the cause of the decay of atoms.

The cause of the decay of atoms. In short and brief the following describes the cause of the radioactive decay of atoms which is well known.

From: https://www.google.com/search?q=cau....69i57j0l2.13348j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
"Radioactive decay occurs in unstable atomic nuclei – that is, ones that don't have enough binding energy to hold the nucleus together due to an excess of either protons or neutrons. It comes in three main types – named alpha, beta and gamma for the first three letters of the Greek alphabet."

This doesn't make sense, what do you mean by "probabilities only apply to the over all wave function"?

Probability does not apply to the random timing single events in the macro nor the plank world of Quantum Mechanics.

Probability only refers to whether the event will occur and not the timing of the event, which may be random.

To be more exact, if is the complex wavefunction of a given particle, moving in one dimension along the -axis, then the probability of finding the particle between and at time is. (1105) A probability is a real number lying in the range 0 to . An event that has a probability 0 is impossible."

This makes even less sense. In classical physics there are deterministic equations that directly describe how systems' observable properties (position, momentum, energy, and so on) vary over time. In quantum physics, the equations only give us the development of the wave function over time, which can only tell us about the probabilities of the different values of observables.

and the probabilities are for the development of wave function over time, which is not random, but predictable as to the nature of wave function, and not the random as in the timing of the occurance of individual events.

 

[columbus]

Isn't there a science forum for the discussion of physics?
I avoided math and science classes for most of my life.

I keep opening this thread looking for discussion of Kalam and the social/religious ramifications.

Sigh....

Tom

 

[ratiocinator]

The definition is relevant, because you are wrong probability is NOT a cause.

The laws of nature, quantum mechanics in this case, is the cause and they can only provide a probability. For example, alpha decay is a quantum tunnelling effect, in which there is a probability of finding an alpha particle outside the nucleus, hence you can calculate the probability for how long you will need to wait to see it happen in a particular case.

Radioactivity : α decay : tunnel effect

and Theory of Alpha Decay - Quantum Tunneling:

The alpha particle is trapped in a potential well by the nucleus. Classically, it is forbidden to escape, but according to the (then) newly discovered principles of quantum mechanics, it has a tiny (but non-zero) probability of “tunneling” through the barrier and appearing on the other side to escape the nucleus. Using the tunneling mechanism, Gamow, Condon and Gurney calculated the penetrability of the tunneling α particle through the Coulomb barrier, finding the lifetimes of some α emitting nuclei.​

Probability does not apply to the random timing single events in the macro nor the plank world of Quantum Mechanics.

Nonsense - see above.

 

[shunyadragon]

.<snip>

Nonscense . I have already explained the basics to you, and you stoically refuse to understand.

 

[ratiocinator]

I have already explained the basics to you, and you stoically refuse to understand.

Except you don't actually seem to grasp the basics, or if you do, you're have trouble expressing what you mean. I've just given you a reference to how alpha decay works by tunnelling and how that relates to probability and hence to lifetimes.

The fact is that form and time development of the wave function is deterministic but it can only give you probabilities about observables. Tunnelling tells us that the wave function is non-zero outside the potential barrier and therefore that there is a calculable probability (based on the square of the modulus of said wave function) that a given particle could be found outside it - but there is literally no other reason (only the form of a the wave function and hence the probability) why one nucleus decays at a particular point in time.

 

[shunyadragon]

Except you don't actually seem to grasp the basics, or if you do, you're have trouble expressing what you mean. I've just given you a reference to how alpha decay works by tunnelling and how that relates to probability and hence to lifetimes.

The fact is that form and time development of the wave function is deterministic but it can only give you probabilities about observables. Tunnelling tells us that the wave function is non-zero outside the potential barrier and therefore that there is a calculable probability (based on the square of the modulus of said wave function) that a given particle could be found outside it - but there is literally no other reason (only the form of a the wave function and hence the probability) why one nucleus decays at a particular point in time.

Probability is not a cause.

 

[ratiocinator]

Probability is not a cause.

Which brings us right back to the question you were asked at the start: what do you think is the cause of an individual decay event at a specific time?

I didn't say that the probabilities were the cause, I said the laws of physics were the cause but that they only give probabilities, so there can be no specific cause for an individual decay event, which was the actual point.

Here is more on how half-lives are related to probabilities: Modeling Alpha Particle Tunneling for Polonium-212

 

[Nakosis]

Hello! This is my first post on the forums, and I hope it'll be a good one. For those of you who do not know what the Kalam Cosmological Argument (or the KCA for short) is, here's the argument in its entirety used by theists.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe has a cause and that cause is God

Believe it or not, this argument is used quite often. That is surprising because of the following reasons:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause (certainly true for things IN the universe, however you cannot say what is within something happens the same as something out of that thing, as it is a composition fallacy. For example, take a school of fish. From the perspective of somebody only able to see the school of fish, all fish within the school have a mother. So, the person concludes that the school of fish must have a mother. If you want to say this is an unfair analogy because you can replace the word "mother" with "cause," that is choosing one specific area of the argument and disregarding the other. The point of the argument isn't to give a cause of the school of fish, it is showing that looking to the parts of a group of objects doesn't mean that the group of objects came about the same way as the objects within the group. So while a watch may have a watchmaker, the universe does not have to have a universe maker.)
2. The universe began to exist (true, but look to last part)
3. Therefore the universe has a cause and that cause is God (what? That makes no sense. Jumping from "the universe has a cause" to "that cause is god" is absurd, and certainly does not prove any one religion. In fact, that can be used to prove any religion. Hinduism, Paganism, Buddhism, you name it. And using this argument, my grandma can be God, if she lived long enough.)

This was kind of put together quickly, so it might have some issues and might not make as much sense as it should, but I think it's good enough to actually convey my message.

We state the "beginning" almost arbitrarily. The beginning which is defined as whatever, doesn't mean nothing existed prior to it. Science may define the "beginning" of the universe without the claim that nothing existed prior to it. The beginning of something i.e. the universe doesn't necessarily mean the beginning of everything.

 

[Nakosis]

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

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.

So "uncaused" events can be predictable over time?
IOW, over X amount of time X number of uncaused events can be predicted to occur?

Then predictability is not an indication of cause?

 

[exchemist]

So "uncaused" events can be predictable over time?
IOW, over X amount of time X number of uncaused events can be predicted to occur?

Then predictability is not an indication of cause?

It might suggest it, I agree, but to date no cause has been found, or promisingly suggested, even. People have tried, via the various "Hidden Variable" hypotheses, but none of them has worked out.

 

[Skwim]

Hello! This is my first post on the forums, and I hope it'll be a good one. For those of you who do not know what the Kalam Cosmological Argument (or the KCA for short) is, here's the argument in its entirety used by theists.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe has a cause and that cause is God

Obviously meant to be a syllogism, it fails right out of the gate.

To put it into more conventional syllogistic language,

1. That which began to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe is god caused​

Which can be indicated by the following symbols

M that which begins to exist
P has a cause
S the universe
Q god caused​

Giving us

All M are P
S is M
---------------
∴ S is Q​

A wholly invalid syllogism. And just having four terms invalidates the syllogism, no matter how the terms are arranged---syllogisms have only three terms.



That said, I don't remember this being the true Kalam Cosmological argument.

.

 

[shunyadragon]

Which brings us right back to the question you were asked at the start: what do you think is the cause of an individual decay event at a specific time?

The radioactive decay is not described as have a specific cause for the timing of one event, which is random. The cause of radioactive decay is known and described.

The cause of the decay of atoms. In short and brief the following describes the cause of the radioactive decay of atoms which is well known.

From: https://www.google.com/search?q=cau....69i57j0l2.13348j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
"Radioactive decay occurs in unstable atomic nuclei – that is, ones that don't have enough binding energy to hold the nucleus together due to an excess of either protons or neutrons. It comes in three main types – named alpha, beta and gamma for the first three letters of the Greek alphabet."

I didn't say that the probabilities were the cause,

Yes you did.

Continuing this discussion in this thread is off topic according to the thread author.