infinite cause verses infinite number of finite causes. - Page 4 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

IIIX · #46 (**permalink**) 10-29-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by goober

Because the need to find and define a cause is the basis for belief in a supernatural world. Evolution is driven by natural selection, not only visible changes in the structure of organisms, but by any process that gives an organism a survival advantage. This not only includes changes to the brain, but changes to the thought process. Genes are only one aspect of evolution, the passing of information from generation to the next, learning and culture are another form, where information affecting survivability is passed on.
It may be popular to think of humans as outside the natural world, but we are animals subject to the same natural laws as lemmings and lizards, just because our mode of accumulating survival advantages has shifted from genetic to cultural doesn't alter the effect of that information accumulation.
Human population will expand until it creates the conditions for it's collapse, just like yeast in sugar water.
Belief in the supernatural is an emergent trait that provided survival advantage for a long period of time, seeing the patterns in the heavens and attributing mystical meaning to them lead to the development of the calendar, a mystical tool for interpreting the gods influence on earth that also had the emergent effect of making agriculture more productive by aligning planting and harvesting with weather cycles.
Religion had an organizing effect on civilization, the ancient Egyptians were organized as a society in order to please the gods, but the organization itself created a social structure that could harness nature on a larger scale and create and foster institutions that could accumulate and preserve and apply information to create a larger civilization than would otherwise be possible.

Religion and the belief in a supernatural is an emergent way of handling information that cannot otherwise be organized into a cause and effect structure. That is what the OP is doing, looking at one of the last unexplained phenomena and seeing proof of the supernatural.

The problem with that argument is that it undermines thought as a whole, not just causality :-/

IIIX · #47 (**permalink**) 10-29-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by metalted

I have already laid out my position, you believe matter is divine, I believe infinity and divinity are atributes only God can hold.

No I don't believe that matter is divine. I think that the word "divine" doesn't make any sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by metalted

If you believe in an infinite number of causes to existance.. I believe only a Divine cause can make it so.

I don't believe in an infinite number of causes to existance, although it is a possibility. If there is indeed an infinite number of causes to existance, I don't think that "divinity" is a correct explanation for it - mainly because "divinity" has not been defined. "Divinity" is a word which doesn't make much sense, in fact, this is why it is so practical to explain complicated stuff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by metalted

Now once you understand these arguements there is no way to convince the other person unless you want to be convinced.

there is no more reasoning to be done as far as I am concerned. You did not shut down any argument, al you said was"why cant matter be infinite."

All I said was that you didn't provide any arguments, just your blind faith. Indeed, there is no way to convince using just faith. This is the essence of my criticism of your posts. I'm saying that they have no more value, as arguments, than this "argument":
"I believe that God exists".

Quote:

Originally Posted by metalted

I think its thoroughly irrational because its a belief that existance does not have a cause and 'just is' and it esentially states that 'just is' is capable for creating this entire existance.. the entire universe,.. the stars, the moon.. everything. the plants the animals.. advanced beings.. all from a single source that 'just is' I dont understand how matter, a giant blob can exist for eternity and then explode creating life forms that wonder why this blob exploded.. what point is that? That is completely irrational in my mind.

Yet you assume that God "just is".

Quote:

Originally Posted by metalted

But if you chose to believe it, fine.. but I dont think I am the irrational one here.

Read my posts again, please. I never said I believed in "it" or in anything else. However, I wrote that I'd stick to skepticism.

goober · #48 (**permalink**) 10-29-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by IIIX

The problem with that argument is that it undermines thought as a whole, not just causality :-/

Thought and self awareness are emergent behaviors, that provide advantages in reproduction and survival, and are therefore selected for by evolution.

Why can't something just be unknown, like a null value in a computer language?
Why do we need to press beyond unknown and into divine?
The big bang theory takes us back to a singularity, one data point that is knowable, before that, nothing is knowable.
Why isn't that sufficient? Why must we have a sentient being who made the big bang happen and then followed the events he had set in motion, and developed an affection for a group of people on one of the gazillions of planets, and listens to their prayers and intervenes in their world and created a scheme to separate them into those who would live forever in eternal bliss and those who would live forever in eternal pain. And he would do all this in a way that was undetectable to all their scientific instruments, so that they had to believe in him without any physical evidence or suffer eternal damnation.

How do we get all of that out of one data point?
And why do the people who tell us about the supernatural world always insist that they have it right, and no one else does?

Dilettante · #49 (**permalink**) 10-29-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by goober

Why can't something just be unknown, like a null value in a computer language?
Why do we need to press beyond unknown and into divine?
The big bang theory takes us back to a singularity, one data point that is knowable, before that, nothing is knowable.
Why isn't that sufficient?

Because we are an insatiably curious people.

metalted · #50 (**permalink**) 10-29-2007

I am the kind of person that would believe a group of people who said they saw UFO's because I believe that numbers provides the proof that is necessary. I do not need an UFO's to arrive on my doorstep to be convinced because I recognize that is to much to ask...

I believe in ghosts because many people believe in ghosts, because many people tell stories and are convinced in thier own hearts.... I dont believe that so many people would get scared for no reason at all.

I believe In God because it makes sense from a rational standpoint, and I see how many people are effected by God and prayer, I believe in Miracles because I believe in things that are unexplainable, i see and have read stories of doctors having no explanation...educated learned doctors.

I do not believe that so many people would believe these things if it were not true. At one point in time many people knew that rocks fell from the sky, but scientists would not believe it because they needed proof.
these were meterors. and it has not been that long ago since science accepted meteors as a reality. So I believe in mass witness and experiance of people is good enough without so called science.

drgoodtrips · #51 (**permalink**) 10-29-2007

The obvious irony of claiming rationality in the same post as expressing belief in UFO's and ghosts aside, your entire point here is categorically irrational. "I believe in something because a lot of other people believe it, and therefore it must be right" is irrational on its face. At one time many believed that the Earth was flat and that God caused warts on your naughty parts for having sex out of wedlock. That a lot of people believed these things doesn't make them true.

If you want to believe in whatever various forms of charlatanry you happen across, that's fine - but don't call it rational.

Edit: It also follows, according to your "logic" of "mass witness" that magicians can actually saw people in half and what not. After all, a lot of people saw it with their own eyes. What does "science" know - obviously it's possible to bifurcate people and then have them miraculously heal in a moment.

metalted · #52 (**permalink**) 10-29-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

The obvious irony of claiming rationality in the same post as expressing belief in UFO's and ghosts aside, your entire point here is categorically irrational. "I believe in something because a lot of other people believe it, and therefore it must be right" is irrational on its face. At one time many believed that the Earth was flat and that God caused warts on your naughty parts for having sex out of wedlock. That a lot of people believed these things doesn't make them true.

If you want to believe in whatever various forms of charlatanry you happen across, that's fine - but don't call it rational.

The science of the day believed the earth was flat. I believe anything is possible. I start off on the assumption anything is possible untill science proves it wrong, if it can not then there is no reason not to believe in it.. if enough people believe in it. Why should I presume that the millions of people around the world who hold these views as fools if I can not know for sure?

WildMan · #53 (**permalink**) 10-29-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by WildMan

Quantum entanglement turns classical understandings of causality on it's head.

In fact - A Cause Can Happen Before It's Accompanying Effect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IIIX

I suppose you mean that an effect can happen before its accompanying cause. Otherwise, that's just classical causality.

Oops! An unfortunate typographic error which negated the whole point. Thanks IIIX for divining my intent.

A Cause Can Happen After It's Accompanying Effect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WildMan

If you are looking for an infinite cause-effect chain into the distant past before the universe as we know it today, you may well dive into the singularity and measure yesterday's Effects of today's Causes and realise that the creation of the universe exists in our future.

But it all depends on your point of view, so indeed the Cause may be continuously occurring along with the Effect.

A lot of nonsense? Maybe, but Quantum entanglement, experimentally demonstrated, says these scenarios are possible and (to my mind) negate the need for God/cause or indeed a whole pantheon. Perhaps, this is why it just got a bit too 'spooky' for Einstein?

Quote:

Originally Posted by IIIX

Erm... how do you know which one is the cause and which one is the effect? I'm curious as to how any experimentation could prove which one of two events is the cause, and which one is the effect. Usually, when we see two related events, we simply go with "this event came first, therefore it's the cause". I don't know of any other way to explain how one event is a cause and one is the effect, at least from a deterministic perspective (=a scientific perspective, as far as I'm concerned).

I guess you could not make the distinction at all in the case of quantum entanglement.

As we are talking of the origins of the universe it is relevant to consider the quantum effects found at the singularity. One such is quantum entanglement, which does not follow the rules of classical cause-effect relationships. Hence, at the origin of time things are very different to how we see them now.

It helps to pause, and consider how exotic conditions at a singularity can be. Time=0 (there is no before); All spatial dimensions=0; Infinite density; Infinite space-time curvature; Infinite energy. You should expect that in this state the classical interpretation of things will not work.

WildMan · #54 (**permalink**) 10-29-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by metalted

The science of the day believed the earth was flat. I believe anything is possible. I start off on the assumption anything is possible untill science proves it wrong, if it can not then there is no reason not to believe in it.. if enough people believe in it. Why should I presume that the millions of people around the world who hold these views as fools if I can not know for sure?

That's a nice definition of 'myth'.

I'd wager that there are more than several million fools in this world.

metalted · #55 (**permalink**) 10-29-2007

in my oppinion science should not be there to say
"Its not possible unless it is proven." It should say...
"everything is possible unless it is proven false."

goober · #56 (**permalink**) 10-29-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by metalted

The science of the day believed the earth was flat. I believe anything is possible. I start off on the assumption anything is possible untill science proves it wrong, if it can not then there is no reason not to believe in it.. if enough people believe in it. Why should I presume that the millions of people around the world who hold these views as fools if I can not know for sure?

That was before science, the bible tells us that God put up a firmament to separate the water above from the water below, think of a clear bowl turned upside down on a flat earth, and the whole thing is underwater.
One of the many mistakes an infallible god makes in his infallible book, the bible.
Unless the bible was just a collection of myths put together by men, could that be possible?

Non Sequitur · #57 (**permalink**) 10-29-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by goober

That was before science, the bible tells us that God put up a firmament to separate the water above from the water below, think of a clear bowl turned upside down on a flat earth, and the whole thing is underwater.
One of the many mistakes an infallible god makes in his infallible book, the bible.
Unless the bible was just a collection of myths put together by men, could that be possible?

the science of the Bible? what the deuce is that?

goober · #58 (**permalink**) 10-29-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Non Sequitur

the science of the Bible? what the deuce is that?

No idea, where did you get that term?
I meant to say that Flat earth theory was pre-science, the bible describes a flat earth with a firmament above it to hold the upper waters, God can open floodgates to let this water fall onto the earth, that's rain.

Flat earth theory was gone by the time science was born.

Non Sequitur · #59 (**permalink**) 10-29-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by goober

No idea, where did you get that term?
I meant to say that Flat earth theory was pre-science, the bible describes a flat earth with a firmament above it to hold the upper waters, God can open floodgates to let this water fall onto the earth, that's rain.

Flat earth theory was gone by the time science was born.

ahaha sorry, I read your post wrong. my bad.

metalted · #60 (**permalink**) 10-29-2007

science has always existed. I am not sure how you can argue otherwise, it predates christianity.. science from ballistics from roman siege, to study of architectural stengths and weaknesses. As much as christianity acted as a hindrence to science and learning it also acted as a preserver, holding and mantaining librarys, teaching and essentially preserving elements of civilization through the darkages.