The Main Issues w/ the Kalam Cosmological Argument

[Nakosis]

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.

What I've read/seen/tried to understand, It's been shown that the addition of any hidden variables would not increase the accuracy of QM theory. So in trying to argue for determinism in QM, using any theory which includes hidden variables is a dead end.

Therefore there is no reason to extend QM beyond its current non-deterministic state.

 

[shunyadragon]

What I've read/seen/tried to understand, It's been shown that the addition of any hidden variables would not increase the accuracy of QM theory. So in trying to argue for determinism in QM, using any theory which includes hidden variables is a dead end.

Therefore there is no reason to extend QM beyond its current non-deterministic state.

I do not consider QM non-deterministic. I do not believe that the current science of QM claims hidden variables which would be a not so subtle 'arguing from ignorance.'. Of course there are unknowns as in all science. The current hypothesis for QM is based on the evidence we have, and the amount of evidence and research increases over time. They can now image the basic particles at the Plank level.

The foundation of science is the nature of our physical existence is deterministic, and this is the assumption of the predictability of theories and hypothesis including at the Plank level of QM. The only thing that is truly random is the outcome of individual cause and effect events, which nonetheless is limited to possible outcomes based on the Laws of Nature.

 

[We Never Know]

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

Radio active decay, cause is time. What we don't understand is the different times it happens.

 

[exchemist]

Radio active decay, cause is time. What we don't understand is the different times it happens.

That is like saying the "cause" of ripening of an apple - or death in old age - is time. It is a fairly content-free way of looking at it.

 

[ratiocinator]

I do not consider QM non-deterministic.

Then you're rejecting the standard formalism. That's fine, but it really should be noted that QM, as currently formulated, is non-deterministic.

Quantum indeterminacy is the apparent necessary incompleteness in the description of a physical system, that has become one of the characteristics of the standard description of quantum physics. Prior to quantum physics, it was thought that

(a) a physical system had a determinate state which uniquely determined all the values of its measurable properties, and conversely
(b) the values of its measurable properties uniquely determined the state.​

Quantum indeterminacy can be quantitatively characterized by a probability distribution on the set of outcomes of measurements of an observable. The distribution is uniquely determined by the system state, and moreover quantum mechanics provides a recipe for calculating this probability distribution.

From: Quantum indeterminacy - Wikipedia​

 

[ratiocinator]

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

That was the whole point - that the specific event was not caused by anything

 

[ratiocinator]

What I've read/seen/tried to understand, It's been shown that the addition of any hidden variables would not increase the accuracy of QM theory. So in trying to argue for determinism in QM, using any theory which includes hidden variables is a dead end.

Therefore there is no reason to extend QM beyond its current non-deterministic state.

Experimental tests of Bell's Inequalities rules out local hidden variable theories. So, for example, you could have a hidden variable theory if you allow for faster than light interaction.

There are also some other ideas like Gerard 't Hooft's: The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

 

[exchemist]

I do not consider QM non-deterministic. I do not believe that the current science of QM claims hidden variables which would be a not so subtle 'arguing from ignorance.'. Of course there are unknowns as in all science. The current hypothesis for QM is based on the evidence we have, and the amount of evidence and research increases over time. They can now image the basic particles at the Plank level.

The foundation of science is the nature of our physical existence is deterministic, and this is the assumption of the predictability of theories and hypothesis including at the Plank level of QM. The only thing that is truly random is the outcome of individual cause and effect events, which nonetheless is limited to possible outcomes based on the Laws of Nature.

I find this confusing. You acknowledge that the outcome of individual events is random, yet still - tendentiously, to my mind - call them "cause and effect" events. Caused by what, please?

And you make the bald statement that the theories of science assume determinism. That is self-evidently untrue, given the success of QM, which builds in indeterminacy as a basic feature of the model. Heisenberg's principle of indeterminacy - arising from non-commuting operators - really is foundational in QM.

It seems to me that if you, like Einstein, want to hold onto determinism for ideological reasons, you need to believe that there will one day be a Hidden Variable or equivalent theory that restores determinism and abolishes Heisenberg's principle. But that is not what the science shows, so far.

 

[ratiocinator]

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

No, here's the wiki version:

The most prominent form of the argument, as defended by William Lane Craig, states the Kalam cosmological argument as the following brief syllogism:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
2. The universe began to exist;
   Therefore:
3. The universe has a cause.

Given the conclusion, Craig appends a further premise and conclusion based upon a conceptual analysis of the properties of the cause:

1. The universe has a cause;
2. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans (without) the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;
   Therefore,
3. An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and infinitely powerful.

Which is rather comical. The first two premisses are both questionable and the second one of the second set is laughable.

 

[exchemist]

No, here's the wiki version:

The most prominent form of the argument, as defended by William Lane Craig, states the Kalam cosmological argument as the following brief syllogism:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
2. The universe began to exist;
   Therefore:
3. The universe has a cause.

Given the conclusion, Craig appends a further premise and conclusion based upon a conceptual analysis of the properties of the cause:

1. The universe has a cause;
2. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans (without) the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;
   Therefore,
3. An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and infinitely powerful.

Which is rather comical. The first two premisses are both questionable and the second one of the second set is laughable.

In particular, where do "personal" and "enormously powerful" spring from, suddenly? Neither attribute remotely follows from the (questionable) argument up to that point.

 

[shunyadragon]

I find this confusing. You acknowledge that the outcome of individual events is random, yet still - tendentiously, to my mind - call them "cause and effect" events. Caused by what, please?

And you make the bald statement that the theories of science assume determinism. That is self-evidently untrue, given the success of QM, which builds in indeterminacy as a basic feature of the model. Heisenberg's principle of indeterminacy - arising from non-commuting operators - really is foundational in QM.

I consider the Heisenberg principle to be a bit dated but nonetheless a predictable property at the Plank level in Quantum Mechanics. Yes I consider the nature of Quantum Mechanics to be deterministic. If it was not they could not make hypothesis based on the predictable nature of the plank world of Quantum Mechanics nor could the consistency of the Heisenberg principle be observed.

It seems to me that if you, like Einstein, want to hold onto determinism for ideological reasons, you need to believe that there will one day be a Hidden Variable or equivalent theory that restores determinism and abolishes Heisenberg's principle. But that is not what the science shows, so far.

The Heisenberg principle is an observed principle that is predictable at the Quantum level from the human perspective, no problem. No, my view of determinism is not ideological. It is simply based on the fact that hypothesis may be made and falsified by predictable behavior in Quantum Mechanics. The locality indeterminism in the the Heisenberg principle does not detract from the predictability of the properties of over all in Hypothesis concerning the nature of particles at the plank level. Declaring indeterminism based on the limitation of human observation and current knowledge is questionable 'arguing from ignorance.' Advances in imaging Quantum particles has seriously brought to question the Heisenberg principle. For example the following:

From: New Experiment Shows The Uncertainty Principle Isn't as Uncertain as We Thought

New Experiment Shows The Uncertainty Principle Isn't as Uncertain as We Thought

HOWARD WISEMAN, THE CONVERSATION
17 JUN 2019
The word uncertainty is used a lot in quantum mechanics. One school of thought is that this means there's something out there in the world that we are uncertain about. But most physicists believe nature itself is uncertain.

Intrinsic uncertainty was central to the way German physicist Werner Heisenberg, one of the originators of modern quantum mechanics, presented the theory.

He put forward the Uncertainty Principle that showed we can never know all the properties of a particle at the same time.

For example, measuring the particle's position would allow us to know its position. But this measurement would necessarily disturb its velocity, by an amount inversely proportional to the accuracy of the position measurement.

Was Heisenberg wrong?
Heisenberg used the Uncertainty Principle to explain how measurement would destroy that classic feature of quantum mechanics, the two-slit interference pattern (more on this below).

But back in the 1990s, some eminent quantum physicists claimed to have proved it is possible to determine which of the two slits a particle goes through, without significantly disturbing its velocity.

Does that mean Heisenberg's explanation must be wrong? In work just published in Science Advances, my experimental colleagues and I have shown that it would be unwise to jump to that conclusion.

We show a velocity disturbance - of the size expected from the Uncertainty Principle - always exists, in a certain sense.

But before getting into the details we need to explain briefly about the two-slit experiment.

The two-slit experiment
In this type of experiment there is a barrier with two holes or slits. We also have a quantum particle with a position uncertainty large enough to cover both slits if it is fired at the barrier.

Since we can't know which slit the particle goes through, it acts as if it goes through both slits.

The signature of this is the so-called "interference pattern": ripples in the distribution of where the particle is likely to be found at a screen in the far field beyond the slits, meaning a long way (often several metres) past the slits.

(Wikimedia/NekoJaNekoJa/Johannes Kalliauer, CC BY-SA)

But what if we put a measuring device near the barrier to find out which slit the particle goes through? Will we still see the interference pattern?

We know the answer is no, and Heisenberg's explanation was that if the position measurement is accurate enough to tell which slit the particle goes through, it will give a random disturbance to its velocity just large enough to affect where it ends up in the far field, and thus wash out the ripples of interference.

What the eminent quantum physicists realised is that finding out which slit the particle goes through doesn't require a position measurement as such. Any measurement that gives different results depending on which slit the particle goes through will do.

And they came up with a device whose effect on the particle is not that of a random velocity kick as it goes through. Hence, they argued, it is not Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle that explains the loss of interference, but some other mechanism.

As Heisenberg predicted
We don't have to get into what they claimed was the mechanism for destroying interference, because our experiment has shown there is an effect on the velocity of the particle, of just the size Heisenberg predicted.

We saw what others have missed because this velocity disturbance doesn't happen as the particle goes through the measurement device. Rather it is delayed until the particle is well past the slits, on the way towards the far field.

How is this possible? Well, because quantum particles are not really just particles. They are also waves.

In fact, the theory behind our experiment was one in which both wave and particle nature are manifest - the wave guides the motion of the particle according to the interpretation introduced by theoretical physicist David Bohm, a generation after Heisenberg.

Let's experiment
In our latest experiment, scientists in China followed a technique suggested by me in 2007 to reconstruct the hypothesised motion of the quantum particles, from many different possible starting points across both slits, and for both results of the measurement.

They compared the velocities over time when there was no measurement device present to those when there was, and so determined the change in the velocities as a result of the measurement.

The experiment showed that the effect of the measurement on the velocity of the particles continued long after the particles had cleared the measurement device itself, as far as 5 metres away from it.

By that point, in the far field, the cumulative change in velocity was just large enough, on average, to wash out the ripples in the interference pattern.

So, in the end, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle emerges triumphant.

The take-home message? Don't make far-reaching claims about what principle can or cannot explain a phenomenon until you have considered all theoretical formulations of the principle.

Yes, that's a bit of an abstract message, but it's advice that could apply in fields far from physics.

Howard Wiseman, Director, Centre for Quantum Dynamics, Griffith University.

 

[exchemist]

I consider the Heisenberg principle to be a bit dated but nonetheless a predictable property at the Plank level in Quantum Mechanics. Yes I consider the nature of Quantum Mechanics to be deterministic. If it was not they could not make hypothesis based on the predictable nature of the plank world of Quantum Mechanics nor could the consistency of the Heisenberg principle be observed.



The Heisenberg principle is an observed principle that is predictable at the Quantum level from the human perspective, no problem. No, my view of determinism is not ideological. It is simply based on the fact that hypothesis may be made and falsified by predictable behavior in Quantum Mechanics. The locality indeterminism in the the Heisenberg principle does not detract from the predictability of the properties of over all in Hypothesis concerning the nature of particles at the plank level. Declaring indeterminism based on the limitation of human observation and current knowledge is questionable 'arguing from ignorance.' Advances in imaging Quantum particles has seriously brought to question the Heisenberg principle. For example the following:

From: New Experiment Shows The Uncertainty Principle Isn't as Uncertain as We Thought

New Experiment Shows The Uncertainty Principle Isn't as Uncertain as We Thought

HOWARD WISEMAN, THE CONVERSATION
17 JUN 2019
The word uncertainty is used a lot in quantum mechanics. One school of thought is that this means there's something out there in the world that we are uncertain about. But most physicists believe nature itself is uncertain.

Intrinsic uncertainty was central to the way German physicist Werner Heisenberg, one of the originators of modern quantum mechanics, presented the theory.

He put forward the Uncertainty Principle that showed we can never know all the properties of a particle at the same time.

For example, measuring the particle's position would allow us to know its position. But this measurement would necessarily disturb its velocity, by an amount inversely proportional to the accuracy of the position measurement.

Was Heisenberg wrong?
Heisenberg used the Uncertainty Principle to explain how measurement would destroy that classic feature of quantum mechanics, the two-slit interference pattern (more on this below).

But back in the 1990s, some eminent quantum physicists claimed to have proved it is possible to determine which of the two slits a particle goes through, without significantly disturbing its velocity.

Does that mean Heisenberg's explanation must be wrong? In work just published in Science Advances, my experimental colleagues and I have shown that it would be unwise to jump to that conclusion.

We show a velocity disturbance - of the size expected from the Uncertainty Principle - always exists, in a certain sense.

But before getting into the details we need to explain briefly about the two-slit experiment.

The two-slit experiment
In this type of experiment there is a barrier with two holes or slits. We also have a quantum particle with a position uncertainty large enough to cover both slits if it is fired at the barrier.

Since we can't know which slit the particle goes through, it acts as if it goes through both slits.

The signature of this is the so-called "interference pattern": ripples in the distribution of where the particle is likely to be found at a screen in the far field beyond the slits, meaning a long way (often several metres) past the slits.

(Wikimedia/NekoJaNekoJa/Johannes Kalliauer, CC BY-SA)

But what if we put a measuring device near the barrier to find out which slit the particle goes through? Will we still see the interference pattern?

We know the answer is no, and Heisenberg's explanation was that if the position measurement is accurate enough to tell which slit the particle goes through, it will give a random disturbance to its velocity just large enough to affect where it ends up in the far field, and thus wash out the ripples of interference.

What the eminent quantum physicists realised is that finding out which slit the particle goes through doesn't require a position measurement as such. Any measurement that gives different results depending on which slit the particle goes through will do.

And they came up with a device whose effect on the particle is not that of a random velocity kick as it goes through. Hence, they argued, it is not Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle that explains the loss of interference, but some other mechanism.

As Heisenberg predicted
We don't have to get into what they claimed was the mechanism for destroying interference, because our experiment has shown there is an effect on the velocity of the particle, of just the size Heisenberg predicted.

We saw what others have missed because this velocity disturbance doesn't happen as the particle goes through the measurement device. Rather it is delayed until the particle is well past the slits, on the way towards the far field.

How is this possible? Well, because quantum particles are not really just particles. They are also waves.

In fact, the theory behind our experiment was one in which both wave and particle nature are manifest - the wave guides the motion of the particle according to the interpretation introduced by theoretical physicist David Bohm, a generation after Heisenberg.

Let's experiment
In our latest experiment, scientists in China followed a technique suggested by me in 2007 to reconstruct the hypothesised motion of the quantum particles, from many different possible starting points across both slits, and for both results of the measurement.

They compared the velocities over time when there was no measurement device present to those when there was, and so determined the change in the velocities as a result of the measurement.

The experiment showed that the effect of the measurement on the velocity of the particles continued long after the particles had cleared the measurement device itself, as far as 5 metres away from it.

By that point, in the far field, the cumulative change in velocity was just large enough, on average, to wash out the ripples in the interference pattern.

So, in the end, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle emerges triumphant.

The take-home message? Don't make far-reaching claims about what principle can or cannot explain a phenomenon until you have considered all theoretical formulations of the principle.

Yes, that's a bit of an abstract message, but it's advice that could apply in fields far from physics.

Howard Wiseman, Director, Centre for Quantum Dynamics, Griffith University.

I don't know why you posted all that guff when all it does is make my point, which is what anybody who has studied undergraduate QM knows, namely that the uncertainty principle is indeed fundamental. The pairs of properties involved are conjugate variables (Fourier transforms of one another) and their QM operators do not not commute. More here: Conjugate variables - Wikipedia

Heisenberg originally called it the Principle of "Indeterminacy", which is a better name for it than uncertainty, since it is not just that we cannot accurately measure these pairs of properties together, it is that they are not even defined exactly simultaneously.

For you to say, airily, that you consider the indeterminacy principle is "a bit dated" is quite preposterous. It remains basic to the whole way QM works. That is not ever going to change, unless and until QM is overtaken by a totally new model, of which there is no sign today.

QM is not a deterministic theory.

 

[shunyadragon]

Then you're rejecting the standard formalism. That's fine, but it really should be noted that QM, as currently formulated, is non-deterministic.

Quantum indeterminacy is the apparent necessary incompleteness in the description of a physical system, that has become one of the characteristics of the standard description of quantum physics. Prior to quantum physics, it was thought that

(a) a physical system had a determinate state which uniquely determined all the values of its measurable properties, and conversely
(b) the values of its measurable properties uniquely determined the state.​

Quantum indeterminacy can be quantitatively characterized by a probability distribution on the set of outcomes of measurements of an observable. The distribution is uniquely determined by the system state, and moreover quantum mechanics provides a recipe for calculating this probability distribution.

From: Quantum indeterminacy - Wikipedia​

I don't know why you posted all that guff when all it does is make my point, which is what anybody who has studied undergraduate QM knows, namely that the uncertainty principle is indeed fundamental. The pairs of properties involved are conjugate variables (Fourier transforms of one another) and their QM operators do not not commute. More here: Conjugate variables - Wikipedia

Heisenberg originally called it the Principle of "Indeterminacy", which is a a better name for it than uncertainty, since it is not just that we cannot accurately measure both of these pairs of properties together, it is that they are not even defined exactly simultaneously.

For you to say, airily, that you consider the uncertainty principle is "a bit dated" is quite preposterous. It remains basic to the whole way QM works. That is not ever going to change, unless and until QM is overtaken by a totally new model, of which there is no sign today.

Failure to respond to what was cited.

 

[exchemist]

Failure to respond to what was cited.

How?

 

[ratiocinator]

Failure to respond to what was cited.

You didn't cite anything in the post I was answering.

 

[Nakosis]

I do not consider QM non-deterministic. I do not believe that the current science of QM claims hidden variables which would be a not so subtle 'arguing from ignorance.'. Of course there are unknowns as in all science. The current hypothesis for QM is based on the evidence we have, and the amount of evidence and research increases over time. They can now image the basic particles at the Plank level.

The foundation of science is the nature of our physical existence is deterministic, and this is the assumption of the predictability of theories and hypothesis including at the Plank level of QM. The only thing that is truly random is the outcome of individual cause and effect events, which nonetheless is limited to possible outcomes based on the Laws on Nature.

Ok, I'm just trying to understand why some scientists consider it non-deterministic. While I'm kind of satisfied there is reason for this position, not really qualified to challenge it myself.

Does non-deterministic equal random?

 

[ratiocinator]

Yes I consider the nature of Quantum Mechanics to be deterministic.

Fine - but the way it is currently formulated (the mathematics) it does not generally give deterministic results for observable properties.

If it was not they could not make hypothesis based on the predictable nature of the plank world of Quantum Mechanics nor could the consistency of the Heisenberg principle be observed.

Which is clearly nonsense because we use the standard formulation, which only gives statistical answers for observables, to make predictions.

From: New Experiment Shows The Uncertainty Principle Isn't as Uncertain as We Thought

At first glance this seems to be testing the compatibility of experimentation with the De Broglie–Bohm interpretation, which recovers determinism at the expense of locality. In other words, it violates special relativity.

The thing is that you are perfectly entitled to believe that there is an underlying deterministic explanation for, or interpretation of, quantum mechanics, but that isn't the way it is formulated - it's not how the maths is done.

 

[ratiocinator]

Does non-deterministic equal random?

It means that the most complete description of a quantum system, the wave function, will generally only be able to tell you the probabilities of the values of observables (position, momentum, energy, spin, and so on).

 

[columbus]

Given the conclusion, Craig appends a further premise and conclusion based upon a conceptual analysis of the properties of the cause:

1. The universe has a cause;
2. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans (without) the universe is beginningless, changeless,

The obvious fact that premise 2. doesn't, in any logical way, follow from premise 1. is exactly why I find Kalam so meaningless.

I do find Kalam sufficiently intuitive to believe in a Creator, of sorts. That makes me a deist. But all the rest of that anthropomorphizing looks to be totally pulled out of his ego.
Craig has created God in his own image. And it works, for him. He's rich and famous.
Tom

 

[shunyadragon]

Fine - but the way it is currently formulated (the mathematics) it does not generally give deterministic results for observable properties.

Only on the single event as is true of the random nature of individual cause and effect events. The over all cause and effect events follow a predictable pattern.

Which is clearly nonsense because we use the standard formulation, which only gives statistical answers for observables, to make predictions.

. . . the predictable nature allows us to formulate hypothesis, which may be falsifiable.

At first glance this seems to be testing the compatibility of experimentation with the De Broglie–Bohm interpretation, which recovers determinism at the expense of locality. In other words, it violates special relativity.

The thing is that you are perfectly entitled to believe that there is an underlying deterministic explanation for, or interpretation of, quantum mechanics, but that isn't the way it is formulated - it's not how the maths is done.

I believe all science is formulated on the ability of make falsifiable predictions which are underlain by a deterministic existence. The limited knowledge of certain aspects of Quantum MEchanics are not reasons to conclude that Quantum Mechanics is indeterminate in any way. I have cite sources in this thread and others that questions the notion of indeterminacy. Increasing knowledge derived from the ability to image Quantum particles, and other advancements seriously bring to question indeterminacy and randomness except on the individual event level. The previous article I cited here goes into this in more detail.