Can there be real causation for a material atheist?

harvey1 · Post by **harvey1** » Thu Aug 18, 2005 10:59 pm

Here is my argument against material atheism:

If a material atheist world exists, then there must be a material cause for every effect; there can be no effect without a material cause.
Slicing up time to the minimum slices of time, we see there cannot be material causes that materially connects time slice A to its effect in time slice B.
Therefore, a material atheist world does not exist.

Based on this argument, can anyone show that it is possible for a material atheist world to exist?

harvey1 · Post by **harvey1** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 12:06 pm

Cathar1950 wrote:This approach may be backwards. I am not sure it is useful to say what material causes the next oscillation but rather how is the past felt by the present? Future causality is possibility(uncertainty) the past is preceived in part even if fully felt. Maybe we should not be looking at the arrow flies but how the target feels. I am working on it.

Okay. How does an oscillation in a future instant affect the next past instant?

What amazes me more than anything else in this thread is how convinced they everyone is of material causation when it is obviously wrong. It's not even how particle physics works. For example, most particle physicists are happy with the idea that the uncertainty principle brings about the existence of virtual particles. Afterall, this is what Hawking's radiation is all about.

Perhaps we have hit an issue of faith. Sorry, I read a different Bible.

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 12:34 pm

Okay. How does an oscillation in a future instant affect the next past instant?

That is not what I was saying I was saying the present feels the past the future is anticipated not caused. But in answer to your question. Maybe positrons or those little things that go backwards in time at least in some theories.

Perhaps we have hit an issue of faith. Sorry, I read a different Bible.

You only have one bible and it is different?

harvey1 · Post by **harvey1** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 12:52 pm

Cathar1950 wrote:Maybe positrons or those little things that go backwards in time at least in some theories.

Okay, as the positron is moving into the past, there is the positron on Day Two, and then there exists the same positron on Day One. What causes it to "jump" from Day Two to Day One? Why didn't it jump from Day Two to Day Three instead?

Cathar wrote:You only have one bible and it is different?

I'm being metaphorical. I don't share this deep and personal faith that everyone is showing to materialism. I'm a skeptic, so I'm just curious to why everyone is so exuberant in their religious faith. Why aren't there any skeptics in this faith?

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 1:06 pm

Okay, as the positron is moving into the past, there is the positron on Day Two, and then there exists the same positron on Day One. What causes it to "jump" from Day Two to Day One? Why didn't it jump from Day Two to Day Three instead?

God? Is that the right answer? I don't really know anyone who really knows why. I think they are still looking into the matter.

I'm being metaphorical. I don't share this deep and personal faith that everyone is showing to materialism. I'm a skeptic, so I'm just curious to why everyone is so exuberant in their religious faith. Why aren't there any skeptics in this faith?

I think there is just something missing in your idea of materialism.
I am a skeptic concerning dualism, why do belive in something besides matter and energy that has no grounds besides faith. I being a panentheist of sorts and would not exclude God but include God in everything and everything as God's consequentional nature. Your ideas kill matter not explain it.

harvey1 · Post by **harvey1** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 2:17 pm

Cathar1950 wrote:God? Is that the right answer? I don't really know anyone who really knows why. I think they are still looking into the matter.

But, why hold to a materialistic view when it is obviously wrong? There's no problem if you take a platonist perspective of causation.

Cathar wrote:I think there is just something missing in your idea of materialism. I am a skeptic concerning dualism, why do belive in something besides matter and energy that has no grounds besides faith.

That's just not true, Cathar. An ontic interpretation of the uncertainty principle, for example, is needed to determine the predicted effects of the Casimir effect. If this is faith, then why is that we can predict the Casimir effect as accurately as we do?

Cathar wrote:I being a panentheist of sorts and would not exclude God but include God in everything and everything as God's consequentional nature. Your ideas kill matter not explain it.

They don't kill matter. What they do is give good reason as to why matter evolves according to mathematical rules, while at the same time giving reason why there is stuff in the first place.

QED · Post by **QED** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 2:55 pm

harvey1 wrote: Okay. How does an oscillation in a future instant affect the next past instant?

It's interesting to speculate on what can go on within a period of Planck time (10-43 seconds) Strictly speaking causality could go in reverse within this window.

harvey1 wrote: What amazes me more than anything else in this thread is how convinced they everyone is of material causation when it is obviously wrong.

I think you're witnessing a reluctance to give ground to a philosophical resolution when we would all prefer to remain on an empirical footing whenever possible. Personally I would be delighted to hear what follows from you, but knowing how you operate this will mean first conceding to your initial premises. The objection I have raised over and over again is your treatment of time which I feel is too arbitrary and leads us into an unnecessary paradox. Peter Lynds paper cannot be claimed to be uncontroversial and a quick Google around brings up a considerable amount of discussion about it. Here are a couple of random hits if anyone is interested in seeing what others have been saying about it:
String theory Discussion Forum
PhysicsOrg Forum

harvey1 wrote:Perhaps we have hit an issue of faith. Sorry, I read a different Bible.

I think that statement is hardly justifiable considering that you're argument is based on a philosophical thought experiment. It's always cute when it can be pointed out that we are all putting our faith into something. But I think there's enough ground separating the divine revelations contained in a 2000 year old book from more recent human inspiration to make this accusation decidedly limp.

QED · Post by **QED** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 3:14 pm

harvey1 wrote:An ontic interpretation of the uncertainty principle, for example, is needed to determine the predicted effects of the Casimir effect. If this is faith, then why is that we can predict the Casimir effect as accurately as we do?

Except that an epistemic interpretation might be just around the corner when we develop a successful GUT. Your allegiance to one particular interpretation of QM (one of many) is convenient for your cause, but nobody knows which (if any) is the correct interpretation. This is not so convenient for your cause.

harvey1 · Post by **harvey1** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 3:53 pm

QED wrote:I think you're witnessing a reluctance to give ground to a philosophical resolution when we would all prefer to remain on an empirical footing whenever possible.

It doesn't seem to me that this is the reason for the faith. Afterall, the existence of virtual particles has very empirical predictions, yet many people here are convinced this is trickery. Why don't we just call a spade a spade. This view contradicts a belief system that people are more comfortable believing in. People like their atheism and they don't want to see it go away. All the talk about "wouldn't be nice if there were a God" is a bunch of b.s.. Many atheists don't want there to be a God. They want their materialist beliefs to be true, and they will try to walk on the water of faith if need be to continue on in those beliefs. I think I read somewhere that most atheists come from fundamentalist religions. I think that's true. (I hate to be so brutely honest, but man let's get down to brass tax here.)

QED wrote:The objection I have raised over and over again is your treatment of time which I feel is too arbitrary and leads us into an unnecessary paradox.

Fine, QED. Suggest your own treatment of time. I'm trying to help you by arguing all sorts of possibilities. I would like to hear a solution and I understand that it might not be a treatment that I have considered. However, please don't hit us over the head with Mystery in the face of these contradictions to your belief system. It's beneath you.

QED wrote:Peter Lynds paper cannot be claimed to be uncontroversial and a quick Google around brings up a considerable amount of discussion about it.

But, it's only controversial because it steps on the toes of ideologies.

QED wrote:I think that statement is hardly justifiable considering that you're argument is based on a philosophical thought experiment. It's always cute when it can be pointed out that we are all putting our faith into something. But I think there's enough ground separating the divine revelations contained in a 2000 year old book from more recent human inspiration to make this accusation decidedly limp.

A contradiction is a contradiction. If a view contradicts itself, that's a very good reason to consider the belief wrong. If there's no way to construe it so that it is free from contradiction, then why not abandon it altogether for the mainstream view that there are laws of physics that bring about events in the world? Why cling to a view that doesn't want you anymore?

harvey1 · Post by **harvey1** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 3:56 pm

QED wrote:Except that an epistemic interpretation might be just around the corner when we develop a successful GUT. Your allegiance to one particular interpretation of QM (one of many) is convenient for your cause, but nobody knows which (if any) is the correct interpretation. This is not so convenient for your cause.

Still hoping that Ptolemy science will make a come back?

ENIGMA · Post by **ENIGMA** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:48 am

I would like a clarification regarding terms:

Namely, I'm looking for a definition of "material cause" that isn't ultimately self-referencing.

I haven't seen it thus far in the thread, and figured that it might be helpful to all parties involved if we were working from the same definitions.