Why it's easier to be a creationist than an atheist

[Spiderman]

I can't say that I could ever fully trust what you say, when you say that in your past of whom you used to be with violent offenses, and torturing animals. That's some psycho stuff dude. That's deeply disturbing behavior.

Deeply disturbing.

If I was you I wouldn't trust me either.
That is completely understandable.

however, I know what is in my heart and my mind. I don't want to hurt anyone, I want everyone to be happy, and I hate to see people suffer.

As a child I had no conscience and didn't care about other people's suffering

 

[Cacotopia]

When I was a kid I didn't go out and try to cause needless suffering I hope you are in some kind of therapy, cause I think that stuff is life long.

 

[Spiderman]

When I was a kid I didn't go out and try to cause needless suffering I hope you are in some kind of therapy, cause I think that stuff is life long.

I meet with mental health professionals four times a week, go to mental health groups, and go to AA meetings.

 

[exchemist]

How much of QM have you looked at? Anything relativistic like the Dirac equation and the resulting field theories? If you've mainly done the Schrodinger equation, there is a depth still to be plumbed.

In any case, you are certainly aware of the inherent probabilistic nature of QM and the issues with classical notions of particles and waves and also of causality. So, for example, the time of a nuclear decay cannot be predicted even though the probability of decay in a certain time can. In what sense it that decay caused? In some sense, the same issue happens with *all* quantum events: they are NOT determined, but are essentially random. So causality is brought into question.

Once you hit relativistic (special relativity, btw) quantum field theories, the particle numbers are no longer conserved; the particle number is just another observable on the wave equation describing the field.

What gets interesting is that the lowest energy state is no longer the state with no particles in it. That 'false vacuum' actually has more energy than a state with particles in it So, it has a probability of decaying into that lower energy state. In the context of gravitational influences, this decay can quickly expand, giving rise to the 'universe from nothing' characterization.

We chemists never did the full relativistic Monty, I'm afraid. So I expect you have the advantage of me!

I was trying to draw a distinction between the determinism of classical mechanics, which QM certainly undermines, and cause and effect, which seems to me a broader thing that basically survives in the QM world. Do we not still claim in QM that the interaction of a photon with an atom can cause an excitation of the atom? Is that not cause and effect? Or the formation of a chemical bond between two molecules , provided they have enough internal degrees of freedom to redistribute the energy released?

Or do you think I am making a false distinction between cause and effect and determinism?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

We chemists never did the full relativistic Monty, I'm afraid. So I expect you have the advantage of me!

I was trying to draw a distinction between the determinism of classical mechanics, which QM certainly undermines, and cause and effect, which seems to me a broader thing that basically survives in the QM world. Do we not still claim in QM that the interaction of a photon with an atom can cause an excitation of the atom? Is that not cause and effect? Or the formation of a chemical bond between two molecules , provided they have enough internal degrees of freedom to redistribute the energy released?

Or do you think I am making a false distinction between cause and effect and determinism?

If I understand the science correctly (and that's a big if), classical mechanics seems to work at the macro level while QM dominates the atomic level. What we see in classical mechanics is the average of all those QM probabilities. For example, if you shoot a photon into a solution that carries molecules capable of absorbing that photon you can't predict which molecule will absorb the photon, or if that photon will be absorbed at all. You can only calculate the probability of specific atoms absorbing the photon. When you have a lot of photons and a lot of molecules capable of absorbing those photons you get the predictable absorbance and emission spectra that we are all familiar with because those probabilities average out over many trials.

 

[exchemist]

If I understand the science correctly (and that's a big if), classical mechanics seems to work at the macro level while QM dominates the atomic level. What we see in classical mechanics is the average of all those QM probabilities. For example, if you shoot a photon into a solution that carries molecules capable of absorbing that photon you can't predict which molecule will absorb the photon, or if that photon will be absorbed at all. You can only calculate the probability of specific atoms absorbing the photon. When you have a lot of photons and a lot of molecules capable of absorbing those photons you get the predictable absorbance and emission spectra that we are all familiar with because those probabilities average out over many trials.

Sure yes indeed, agreed. But I would still say that does not eliminate "cause and effect" as one normally understands these terms. One just has a cause and a probable effect in each individual case. But maybe I shall be told my thinking about this is woolly....

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Sure yes indeed, agreed. But I would still say that does not eliminate "cause and effect" as one normally understands these terms. One just has a cause and a probable effect in each individual case. But maybe I shall be told my thinking about this is woolly....

The way I usually think of it is that events occur because they can occur. In this view, the cause is the condition of a system that allows for an event to occur. For example, an isotope with an unstable nuclei causes radiation. This doesn't change the fact that there isn't a direct cause for one atom of that isotope decaying while another does not, but I still view the unstable nature of the atom as the cause. I am sure physicists can poke holes through my description, but this is how I try to get my head around it.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Can you refer me to a link? I'd like to understand how this is argued. As I say, it seems rather extreme to me as a chemist.

Let me give it a good old college try.

It is hinted at here: Causality (physics)

This touches on the issue(s) a wee bit Quantum causal relationships

(I still haven't found the original bit I remember... *sigh* )

This article seeks to discover a better model that works with QM's unique elements: Viewpoint: Causality in the Quantum World (note this would go against what I said earlier, somewhat)

This explores some of the conundrums of QM and its seemingly lack of classical causality: Quantum mechanics trumps nonlocal causality

These are complex articles, and I cannot pretend to fully understand them. Perhaps it is overly simplistic to state "there is no cause-and-effect at the QM level" but that does appear to be the case.

In a probability distribution matrix, which could describe a QM particle field, cause and effect would only appear at a macro level (where humans dwell) but would not be apparent at the individual particle level.

However, since this is just a model, it could very well be that trying to look at one particle is meaningless anyway, in that such a thing cannot exist on it's own, but only ever exists within a larger matrix or field.

(and by 'larger' that could simply be the size of a neutron or proton-- huge by QM measurements, but still quite small compared to us. We do know that individual protons/neutrons and even electrons or photons exist, as there is ample experimental data confirming individual particles of that size. Smaller particles, however, are pretty much always observed in a matrix or grouping... as far as I know. I could be wrong, here, as I've not looked at this in awhile.)

I do recall that the proof of QM-sized particles is typically measured by the decay products, especially of the more .... problematic ones (such as the amusingly titled "god particle" or muon-- some have said it was called that because it was "god-dam---- hard to find" ... you cannot accuse physicists as not having a wry sense of humor)

Edit: I have been corrected-- my memory is wrong, it's the Higgs-Bosun particle that was gosh-darned hard to detect, not the muon.

Carry on, and thanks to Polymath.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

The way I usually think of it is that events occur because they can occur. In this view, the cause is the condition of a system that allows for an event to occur. For example, an isotope with an unstable nuclei causes radiation. This doesn't change the fact that there isn't a direct cause for one atom of that isotope decaying while another does not, but I still view the unstable nature of the atom as the cause. I am sure physicists can poke holes through my description, but this is how I try to get my head around it.

Well, yes-- of you open up the definition of "cause" a bit.

I.e. what makes a person fall to the earth, if they step off of a high place? (apart from their decision-making)

Gravity, of course-- but is gravity the cause of their injuries? Well, no-- not really.

For example, if you had a nice safe hole all the way to the center of the earth, and then out the other side? The falling person would simply fall towards the center, then rise up again out the opposite side, and in fact, could oscillate for a very long time-- only air pressure would slow them down.

So you could point to the immovable ground, and say that was the cause of the injuries? Again, not really-- what if the ground was soft?

Okay, okay, the cause of injuries would be the fact that a human body, if suddenly decelerated within a short period of time, will cause injuries. Right? Again, not exactly-- look at the many experiments of very high G-force deceleration using rocket sleds in the 1950s and 1960s....

Okay-- slamming a human body into an unyielding wall, above certain speeds, will cause injuries. *that* is the cause, right?

Well.... what if the person's body was in great physical shape? That dramatically effects the speed threshold!

It's not as simple as all of that, is it?

 

[Polymath257]

t

I do recall that the proof of QM-sized particles is typically measured by the decay products, especially of the more .... problematic ones (such as the amusingly titled "god particle" or muon-- some have said it was called that because it was "god-dam---- hard to find" ... you cannot accuse physicists as not having a wry sense of humor)

Point of clarification: the 'God particle' is NOT the muon. It is the Higg's boson. And it has been detected.

 

[Polymath257]

We chemists never did the full relativistic Monty, I'm afraid. So I expect you have the advantage of me!

I was trying to draw a distinction between the determinism of classical mechanics, which QM certainly undermines, and cause and effect, which seems to me a broader thing that basically survives in the QM world. Do we not still claim in QM that the interaction of a photon with an atom can cause an excitation of the atom? Is that not cause and effect? Or the formation of a chemical bond between two molecules , provided they have enough internal degrees of freedom to redistribute the energy released?

Or do you think I am making a false distinction between cause and effect and determinism?

I think it more complicated than that. Part of the complication is even defining what it means to be 'cause and effect'.

So, for example, with the photon, we know there is a certain probability that the atom will absorb the photon (making it disappear) and that the electron will change shells. If the photon were not there, the probability of the electron changing shells would be near zero.

So, did the photon cause the change of levels? Or did it cause the change in probability? Both? If the electron doesn't change shells, did the photon still cause a change of probability? If the outcome isn't determined by the input, in what sense is the input a 'cause'?

 

[Polymath257]

The way I usually think of it is that events occur because they can occur. In this view, the cause is the condition of a system that allows for an event to occur. For example, an isotope with an unstable nuclei causes radiation. This doesn't change the fact that there isn't a direct cause for one atom of that isotope decaying while another does not, but I still view the unstable nature of the atom as the cause. I am sure physicists can poke holes through my description, but this is how I try to get my head around it.

But doesn't 'unstable' just mean 'there is a probability of decay'? So, there is a probability of a decay, which causes a possible decay?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Well, yes-- of you open up the definition of "cause" a bit.

I.e. what makes a person fall to the earth, if they step off of a high place? (apart from their decision-making)

Gravity, of course-- but is gravity the cause of their injuries? Well, no-- not really.

With QM it is a bit different. It would be like having 100 identical people dangling in mid-air, but only one of them falls every so often even though they are all in identical conditions. There isn't a true cause for one person falling and the others not falling. That's kind of what radioactive decay is like. The best we can do is give a probability of an atom decaying based on first order kinetics.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

But doesn't 'unstable' just mean 'there is a probability of decay'? So, there is a probability of a decay, which causes a possible decay?

I strongly suspected that physicists would find my explanation wanting.

 

[exchemist]

I think it more complicated than that. Part of the complication is even defining what it means to be 'cause and effect'.

So, for example, with the photon, we know there is a certain probability that the atom will absorb the photon (making it disappear) and that the electron will change shells. If the photon were not there, the probability of the electron changing shells would be near zero.

So, did the photon cause the change of levels? Or did it cause the change in probability? Both? If the electron doesn't change shells, did the photon still cause a change of probability? If the outcome isn't determined by the input, in what sense is the input a 'cause'?

My understanding is that in the absence of a perturbation of the right symmetry the probability of the electron changing state is zero, so without the photon, or some other interaction, it doesn't happen. And that interaction with a photon has a probability determined by the transition probability. I would call that a cause and effect relationship but with a probability, rather than a certainty, of the event occurring.

So I think of it as non-deterministic, sure, but still an example of cause and effect. Is that fallacious, in your view?

 

[John53]

The reason I pray to God, despite thinking he is cruel, is the hope that I can get God to change his mind.

Also, the practice of asceticism and prayer for me has been euphoric, blissful, peaceful, and made me more kind, charitable, meek, and humble.

I used to be a sociopath, a criminal, and a drug addict... I'm none of those things anymore, and have a very deep sense of compassion, and it came to me through prayer and meditation.

if I was an atheist, I would be thinking about suicide all the time.

I attempted suicide a year ago, breaking my back in two places, breaking my ribs, breaking my arm, breaking my pelvis, cracking my knee, tore my Meniscus in two knees, tore my ACL, and had a concussion...

The attempt was largely because I gave up on God and felt hopeless.

I believe that the reason I am not in a wheelchair for the rest of my life, is because of divine intervention.

I felt the presence of Supernatural Spirits in a very powerful way, while I was bedridden and rehabilitating.

But I'm aware, that it could all be delusional.

Well done on turning your life around but unfortunately it's a bit hard to show that a God had anything to do with it. I understand you believe that and if it works for you that's great, hopefully you can see why I'm a bit sceptical. God seems to be very good at fixing drug or alcohol addiction but not so good at protecting children or growing back severed limbs.

 

[Polymath257]

My understanding is that in the absence of a perturbation of the right symmetry the probability of the electron changing state is zero, so without the photon, or some other interaction, it doesn't happen. And that interaction with a photon has a probability determined by the transition probability. I would call that a cause and effect relationship but with a probability, rather than a certainty, of the event occurring.

So I think of it as non-deterministic, sure, but still an example of cause and effect. Is that fallacious, in your view?

I'm really not sure. I've not found a satisfying definition of the terms 'cause' and 'effect'. Especially when quantum events are around. I might say the photon caused the change in probabilities, but I'm not sure whether I would say it caused the transition. It *influenced* the transition, for sure. Cause seems much more, well, determined. Are all influences causes?

So what if there is a probability originally, but the photon increased it? Would you say the photon caused the transition still?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

t


Point of clarification: the 'God particle' is NOT the muon. It is the Higg's boson. And it has been detected.

you are correct! My memory is terrible. I should edit my earlier comment I suppose.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

With QM it is a bit different. It would be like having 100 identical people dangling in mid-air, but only one of them falls every so often even though they are all in identical conditions. There isn't a true cause for one person falling and the others not falling. That's kind of what radioactive decay is like. The best we can do is give a probability of an atom decaying based on first order kinetics.

I expect that one day in the future, some bright physicist will utter, "Wait. That's not right" or similar, and we will have another piece of the puzzle what makes radioactive atoms --- radioactive in the first place.

It does appear to be tied in with the size of the nucleus, perhaps the number of tightly compressed neutrons? Those buggers do seem unstable--- "free" neutrons do not remain so, for very long, it seems.

We do not currently know, but I bet we will one day.

More likely it'll be something weird at the quantum level. Any takers on that bet?

 

[Polymath257]

I expect that one day in the future, some bright physicist will utter, "Wait. That's not right" or similar, and we will have another piece of the puzzle what makes radioactive atoms --- radioactive in the first place.

It does appear to be tied in with the size of the nucleus, perhaps the number of tightly compressed neutrons? Those buggers do seem unstable--- "free" neutrons do not remain so, for very long, it seems.

We do not currently know, but I bet we will one day.

More likely it'll be something weird at the quantum level. Any takers on that bet?

Actually, the theories on radioactivity are pretty good now. For many decays, we can predict half life, etc.