The Main Issues w/ the Kalam Cosmological Argument

[exchemist]

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.




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



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.

I don't think that is right at all. The citation you provided earlier concluded that the principle of indeterminacy continued to apply. The conclusion is: "So, in the end, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle emerges triumphant."

The lesson of that article is that, as so often, the journalist's headline is not supported by the subsequent content.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

The indeterminacy of the Heisenberg principle has led scientists to this conclusion in the Copenhagen Interpretation, which I consider an old view based on the limited ability of humans to observe the nature of the Quantum World. I believe that recent advances in physics like the ability to image Quantum particles and observe their behavior, has made this view a bit antiquated, but many scientists still cling to the old interpretation.

Does non-deterministic equal random?

In a way, yes, both represent the claim of the inability to predict outcomes of cause and effect events, as in the the Heisenberg principle to predict certain observed behaviors of the basic particles of matter, but again modern advances in physics brings antiquated view in doubt. The unpredictability of individual events does not make the overall process indeterministic.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't think that is right at all. The citation you provided earlier concluded that the principle of indeterminacy continued to apply. The conclusion is: "So, in the end, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle emerges triumphant."

Yes the Heisenberg principle still is valid, but only on the individual event of the behavior of the particle.

Only on the individual event level. The process is predictable, repeatable, and supports falsifiable hypothesis concerning the behavior of particles at the Quantum level.

The lesson of that article is that, as so often, the journalist's headline is not supported by the subsequent content.

You are too selectively quoting the article and the conclusions.

 

[exchemist]

Yes the Heisenberg principle still is valid, but only on the individual event of the behavior of the particle.

Only on the individual event level. The process is predictable, repeatable, and supports falsifiable hypothesis concerning the behavior of particles at the Quantum level.



You are too selectively quoting the article and the conclusions.

Well yes, I can certainly agree it applies "only on the individual event level". And nobody would deny the predictability of the probabilities in QM processes.

But that still means there is a fundamental indeterminacy in nature, according to the QM model. To say this applies only at the individual event level does not make this apparent facet of reality go away.

 

[Skwim]

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.

RE. the second syllogism; it's ridiculous.

"2. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists." Begging the question much?

.

 

[ratiocinator]

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.

This is meaningless. Nobody is suggesting that the overall patterns are not predictable, but that doesn't change the fact that the underlying theory is not deterministic.

I believe that recent advances in physics like the ability to image Quantum particles and observe their behavior, has made this view a bit antiquated, but many scientists still cling to the old interpretation.

This is nonsense. The question of the interpretation of quantum mechanics is still just as open as ever. The problem is that if you want to recover a deterministic theory you have to give up some other basic principle, such as the De Broglie–Bohm interpretation I cited before, that sacrifices locality.

 

[shunyadragon]

This is meaningless. Nobody is suggesting that the overall patterns are not predictable, but that doesn't change the fact that the underlying theory is not deterministic.

I consider this a contradiction if the underlying patterns are predictable there is no reason to think they are inderterministic.

This is nonsense. The question of the interpretation of quantum mechanics is still just as open as ever. The problem is that if you want to recover a deterministic theory you have to give up some other basic principle, such as the De Broglie–Bohm interpretation I cited before, that sacrifices locality.

I believe to cling to old view of indeterminacy you have give up principles and ignore recent discoveries and research.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well yes, I can certainly agree it applies "only on the individual event level". And nobody would deny the predictability of the probabilities in QM processes.

But that still means there is a fundamental indeterminacy in nature, according to the QM model. To say this applies only at the individual event level does not make this apparent facet of reality go away.

We will have to agree to disagree. I believe that recent discoveries make indeterminacy highly questionable. The Copenhagen interpretation is almost a hundred years old. It is time to give up the ghost.

 

[exchemist]

I consider this a contradiction if the underlying patterns are predictable there is no reason to think they are inderterministic.





I believe to cling to old view of indeterminacy you have give up principles and ignore recent discoveries and research.

What recent discoveries and research are these, then?

 

[shunyadragon]

What recent discoveries and research are these, then?

The ability to image quantum particles.

 

[exchemist]

We will have to agree to disagree. I believe that recent discoveries make indeterminacy highly questionable. The Copenhagen interpretation is almost a hundred years old. It is time to give up the ghost.

The principle of indeterminacy has nothing to do with the Copenhagen Interpretation.

Δx.Δp >/= h/4π is not a matter of interpretation. It comes from position and momentum being conjugate variables in QM.

 

[exchemist]

The ability to image quantum particles.

How do you imagine that contradicts the uncertainty principle? So long as Δx.Δp >/= h/4π is obeyed, you can in principle image anything.

 

[ratiocinator]

I consider this a contradiction if the underlying patterns are predictable there is no reason to think they are inderterministic.

You mean apart from the actual mathematical formalism? The fact of the matter is that the mathematics of the theory only deals with the wave function as a description of reality, and that generally only gives probabilities for observables.

The ability to image quantum particles.

Is still described perfectly adequately with the aforementioned mathematical formalism. If there was some actual experimental evidence for one interpretation over another, it would be big, big news.

 

[shunyadragon]

The principle of indeterminacy has nothing to do with the Copenhagen Interpretation.

I believe it does.

Δx.Δp >/= h/4π is not a matter of interpretation. It comes from position and momentum being conjugate variables in QM.

Does not change my argument, which I have already stated clearly. Again, again, and again this on refers to the uncertainty uncertainty of the behavior of each particle. The concept is predictable and consistent for the falsification of a hypothesis which is deterministic.

 

[exchemist]

I believe it does.



Does not change my argument, which I have already stated clearly.

Clear, I'm afraid it is not, or not to me.

Look, the uncertainty principle is a quantitative statement of the extent to which pairs of properties cannot be simultaneously defined with precision. It comes straight out of the theory and is not a matter of interpretation in any way: it is a straight prediction of the observations to be expected and has never been shown wrong.

The Copenhagen Interpretation - and Many Worlds, and all that jazz - is another thing, to do with what relation the wave function concept bears to underlying physical reality. That one can be argued till the cows come home, hence the expression, "Shut up and calculate".

 

[shunyadragon]

How do you imagine that contradicts the uncertainty principle? So long as Δx.Δp >/= h/4π is obeyed, you can in principle image anything.

In principle? Not at the Quantum level. My argument stands.

 

[shunyadragon]

How do you imagine that contradicts the uncertainty principle? So long as Δx.Δp >/= h/4π is obeyed, you can in principle image anything.

Formulas based on hypothesis are not obeyed they are based on predictable consistent falsification of particle behavior in general, and the uncertainty only applies to individual particles as observed from the limited human perspective, which does not compute as non-deterministic.

 

[exchemist]

Formulas based on hypothesis are not obeyed they are based on predictable consistent falsification of particle behavior in general, and the uncertainty only applies to individual particles as observed from the limited human perspective, which does not compute as non-deterministic.

That formula is "based on hypothesis" in just the same way as every formula in science. It is obeyed in the same sense that Newton's laws are obeyed - rather better in fact, since deviations from Newton's laws are apparent under some circumstances.

It is also not right to assert the uncertainty principle only applies to individual "particles". It has observable, macroscopic-scale consequences too, for example in determining the width of spectral lines.

 

[ratiocinator]

Formulas based on hypothesis are not obeyed they are based on predictable consistent falsification of particle behavior in general, and the uncertainty only applies to individual particles as observed from the limited human perspective, which does not compute as non-deterministic.

Eh?

Look, it is a fact that QM (as described by the mathematical formalism) is deterministic only with regard to wave functions in the absence of measurements, and wave functions only provide probabilistic predictions of observables. Hence, as far as what we observe and measure is concerned, it is a non-deterministic theory.

The famous uncertainty principle between position and momentum by Heisenberg is actually an instance of a more general uncertainty relationship between any two observables whose operators have a non-zero commutator:

where A and B are observables, the 'hat' represents operators, the square brackets the commutator, the angle brackets the expectation value, and the vertical lines the magnitude.

The above result is mathematically provable within the theory. In other words, it follows directly from the basic principles of quantum mechanics.

To say quantum mechanics is deterministic is simply wrong. You can say that you think there is an underlying deterministic interpretation or larger hypothesis that would be deterministic, but that is going beyond QM as currently formulated.

 

[exchemist]

Eh?

Look, it is a fact that QM (as described by the mathematical formalism) is deterministic only with regard to wave functions in the absence of measurements, and wave functions only provide probabilistic predictions of observables. Hence, as far as what we observe and measure is concerned, it is a non-deterministic theory.

The famous uncertainty principle between position and momentum by Heisenberg is actually an instance of a more general uncertainty relationship between any two observables whose operators have a non-zero commutator:

where A and B are observables, the 'hat' represents operators, the square brackets the commutator, the angle brackets the expectation value, and the vertical lines the magnitude.

The above result is mathematically provable within the theory. In other words, it follows directly from the basic principles of quantum mechanics.

To say quantum mechanics is deterministic is simply wrong. You can say that you think there is an underlying deterministic interpretation or larger hypothesis that would be deterministic, but that is going beyond QM as currently formulated.

Exactly. This is why I prefer Heisenberg's original choice of terminology, which was the principle of indeterminacy. Nobody can claim that a model incorporating indeterminacy as a fundamental principle is a deterministic theory.

Some people get the idea that the "uncertainty" is due in some way to limitations of human measurement, or to the "observer effect". I have the feeing that @shunyadragon may be suffering from this misapprehension. Whereas, as you point out, the QM model is actually saying that the properties in question are not even defined to a greater precision than the spread in values given by the commutator.