The Main Issues w/ the Kalam Cosmological Argument

[shunyadragon]

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.

I do not consider incorporating indeterminacy as a fundamental principle in a determinacy. I consider the use of indeterminacy simply not of any value or meaning in science, except like random, the uncertainty of indivisual cause and effect events. This uncertainty or randomness remains constrained to a limited outcomes, on the larger scale is described in terms of probability.

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.[/QUOTE]

ALL science is from the limited human perspective. This is especially true in Quantum Mechanics. Science is descriptive, and not prescriptive, ie impose limits in science as in your bogus use of the term "obeyed.".

 

[exchemist]

I do not consider incorporating indeterminacy as a fundamental principle in a determinacy. I consider the use of indeterminacy simply not of any value or meaning in science, except like random, the uncertainty of indivisual cause and effect events. This uncertainty or randomness remains constrained to a limited outcomes, on the larger scale is described in terms of probability.

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.

Can you correct or rewrite the first sentence?

 

[shunyadragon]

Can you correct or rewrite the first sentence?

do not consider incorporating indeterminacy as a fundamental principle in a determinacy.

This was in response to your statement and need not be changed unless you want to clarify your statement: 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.

The bottomline is I consider determinacy the nature of our physical existence both at the macro, and the Quantum level, and indeterminacy and randomness can only apply to the uncertainty of individual cause and effect events.

 

[exchemist]

do not consider incorporating indeterminacy as a fundamental principle in a determinacy.

This was in response to your statement and need not be changed unless you want to clarify your statement: 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.

The bottomline is I consider determinacy the nature of our physical existence both at the macro, and the Quantum level, and indeterminacy and randomness can only apply to the uncertainty of individual cause and effect events.

"...in a determinacy"? What does that mean? What is a determinacy? Is this a new term you have coined?

 

[ratiocinator]

The bottomline is I consider determinacy the nature of our physical existence both at the macro, and the Quantum level, and indeterminacy and randomness can only apply to the uncertainty of individual cause and effect events.

That's a philosophical view for which there is no evidence. Furthermore, the success of QM and things like the experimental tests of Bell's inequalities, suggest strongly that it isn't the case, at least unless you're prepared to give up some other basic principle of science, such as locality.

 

[shunyadragon]

That's a philosophical view for which there is no evidence. Furthermore, the success of QM and things like the experimental tests of Bell's inequalities, suggest strongly that it isn't the case, at least unless you're prepared to give up some other basic principle of science, such as locality.

Your 'arguing from ignorance,' and it remains that the uncertainty of locality remains only for individual observations.

The philosophy of science is fundamental to all science, and the foundation is the assumption of determinism of the Laws of Nature. The falsifiability of theories and hypothesis is dependent on the assumption of determinism and uniformtism.

 

[shunyadragon]

"...in a determinacy"? What does that mean? What is a determinacy? Is this a new term you have coined?

No, it is a well defined word in the English language. You need to brush up on your English. If you have a problem with English check your dictionary.

From: https://www.google.com/search?q=det...hrome.1.0l6.6191j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

1 : the quality or state of being determinate. 2a : the state of being definitely and unequivocally characterized : exactness. b : the state of being determined or necessitated.

 

[exchemist]

Your 'arguing from ignorance,' and it remains that the uncertainty of locality remains only for individual observations.

The philosophy of science is fundamental to all science, and the foundation is the assumption of determinism of the Laws of Nature. The falsifiability of theories and hypothesis is dependent on the assumption of determinism and uniformtism.

Not at all. Determinism is the view that all events are completely determined by previously existing causes. This is not fundamental - in fact you yourself admit that it does not apply to individual quantum events.

The only things that are fundamental are the ability to recognise patterns in observations of nature and the construction of predictive models to account for them. This obviously implies there must be cause and effect relationships, so that the model can predict, but not determinism.

 

[exchemist]

No, it is a well defined word in the English language. You need to brush up on your English. If you have a problem with English check your dictionary.

From: https://www.google.com/search?q=det...hrome.1.0l6.6191j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

1 : the quality or state of being determinate. 2a : the state of being definitely and unequivocally characterized : exactness. b : the state of being determined or necessitated.

It is your English that needs attention. You cannot have a determinacy. It's not like a democracy.

 

[ratiocinator]

Your 'arguing from ignorance,'...

No, I was stating facts. The evidence supports QM as currently formulated - and that is not deterministic with regard to observables. It is also a fact that evidence from things like Bell's inequalities severely restricts the possibilities for a deterministic theory.

...and it remains that the uncertainty of locality remains only for individual observations.

The non-determinism applies to all observables.

The philosophy of science is fundamental to all science, and the foundation is the assumption of determinism of the Laws of Nature.

No, it isn't. As long as a hypothesis can make testable predictions, it is in line with the philosophy of science.

The falsifiability of theories and hypothesis is dependent on the assumption of determinism and uniformtism.

It simply isn't - sorry.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, I was stating facts. The evidence supports QM as currently formulated - and that is not deterministic with regard to observables. It is also a fact that evidence from things like Bell's inequalities severely restricts the possibilities for a deterministic theory.

Again . . . as in the macro and plank level of our physical existence this ONLY applies to the range of outcomes of individual observations and events (observables).

The non-determinism applies to all observables.

The non-determinism ad randomness ONLY applies to the individual events and observations (all observables) in the macro and micro world when there is multiple variables that determine the outcome, this does not apply to the over all determinism and uniformtism of the nature of our physical existence.

No, it isn't. As long as a hypothesis can make testable predictions, it is in line with the philosophy of science.



It simply isn't - sorry.

We will have to agree to disagree on this and apparently our differences in this thread.

 

[shunyadragon]

It is your English that needs attention. You cannot have a determinacy. It's not like a democracy.

From: https://www.google.com/search?q=det...hrome.1.0l6.6191j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

1 : the quality or state of being determinate. 2a : the state of being definitely and unequivocally characterized : exactness. b : the state of being determined or necessitated.

English 101, democracy is a noun, and read the definition determinacy is not. What a joke claiming I made up the word.

 

[exchemist]

From: https://www.google.com/search?q=det...hrome.1.0l6.6191j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

1 : the quality or state of being determinate. 2a : the state of being definitely and unequivocally characterized : exactness. b : the state of being determined or necessitated.

You can be in a state of determinacy, as you can be in a state of drunkenness. But you can't have "a drunkenness". And you can't speak of a determinacy. It means nothing.

 

[shunyadragon]

You can be in a state of determinacy, as you can be in a state of drunkenness. But you can't have "a drunkenness". And you can't speak of a determinacy. It means nothing.

Your response means nothing, except a limited comprehension of English..

rom: https://www.google.com/search?q=det...hrome.1.0l6.6191j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

1 : the quality or state of being determinate. 2a : the state of being definitely and unequivocally characterized : exactness. b : the state of being determined or necessitated.