What materialists sometimes miss about Occam's principle

[Athetotheist]

I was recently going through a thread from a while back in which a few of us were discussing the origin of the universe. Another poster took the position that it was possible for the universe to spring into being from nothing, as nothing has the potential to "act like something", while I was trying to explain why I find that position logically untenable. One argument the other poster kept coming back to was that their conclusion was more likely correct because it posited fewer entites than mine (granted, I was positing the existence of a cosmic creator).

Here we have to remember something important about Occam's principle. Occam's principle does not tell us to avoid multiplying entities; it tells us to avoid multiplying entities beyond necessity. Since it stands to reason that nothing could not produce something (by definition, there being nothing would mean no mechanism by which to produce anything----if there were such a mechanism there wouldn't be nothing), the postulation of something to produce something is necessary. The assumption of "something from nothing", therefore, fails to come out on top. To one extent or another, sometimes entities have to be multiplied.

[Athetotheist]

Science is the study of cause and effect.

Says who?

Science is the study of reality in a testable way.

And what are scientists doing when they test things other than (a) searching for the cause of an effect or (b) trying to predict what effect a cause will have?

There's a lot more to it than that.

People have looked at cause and effect and concluded that saying a magic spell makes it rain. That's not science, yet it's still cause and effect as far as they are concerned. You're dumbing down science without justification.

What "people" have done is irrelevant. What scientific investigation doesn't involve the relationship between an effect and its cause?

[Goat]

[Replying to Goat in post #2

Of course, when it comes to avoiding multiplying entities, you can elminate the entity of God from the logic by assuming that what the universe emerged from is eternal, the 'quantum foam' so to speak.

What justifies the assumption that the "quantum foam" is eternal without even raising the question of what underlies its existence?

Why, the field of theoretical physics and mathematics. Mind you , it's not 100% proof, but it shows that it is feasible, and worthy of further investigation.

https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quant ... verse.html

One can postulate an eternally existing universe but it has a very serious epistemological problem. That is that the presence of the universe is then admitted to be scientifically inexplicable - it just "is", there's no reason why it is what it is.

Using science to explain that science cannot be explained doesn't sound to me like much of an explanation, if science can't explain anything why claim that it can?



"Why do we see A? ahh that's because of B. So why do we see B, ahh that's because of C. So....why do we see Z? ahh that's because it just is."

This shows - IMHO - that a faith in science as the only means to "explain" anything and everything is misguided, scientism is misguided.

What alternative explanation do you have that does not suffer the same problem?

Given what I said above, I prefer to review my approach and postulate "Let's stop looking for scientific explanations" that is lets stop seeking a mechanistic, reductionist, cause and effect explanation, because that does inevitably lead nowhere.

So I postulate a non-material explanation, God, a will, an intent - the universe is here not because of some preceding material cause but is uncaused, the result of will, intent - much like the will that I know I possess.

Of course we have "God" to "explain" now but no matter, we have escaped from the infinities of cause->effect->cause->effect and that alone is a worthwhile step, despite raising new questions.

The existence of the universe is not some inevitable consequence of laws of nature, it is here because God wanted it to exist.

Making things up as you go along without support is not rational. However, there is fairly good theories about there being an eternal universe.

My position is rational I think, based on the meaning of the term. I gave a reason for considering the hypothesis, namely it eliminates the infinite ...->cause->effect->cause->effect->... which I do not regard as an explanation, certainly not a scientific explanation because there can be no initial material cause because there was no start, these things characterize scientific explanations, science cannot explain how/why laws of nature came to be because to do so it must invoke laws - the very thing we seek to explain!

So postulating something that is not based on laws and cause/effect makes a great deal of sense I think, God - something embodying "will" and "intent" - the ability to "create" from where there was nothing before, is an explanation, albeit not a scientific one, but since we can already see that a scientific explanation is not possible, I'm OK with this.

I don't see how you proposed hypotheses 'fulminating the infinite'. merely trading on infinite with another.

[Goat]

Science is the study of cause and effect.

Says who?

Science is the study of reality in a testable way.

And what are scientists doing when they test things other than (a) searching for the cause of an effect or (b) trying to predict what effect a cause will have?

There's a lot more to it than that.

People have looked at cause and effect and concluded that saying a magic spell makes it rain. That's not science, yet it's still cause and effect as far as they are concerned. You're dumbing down science without justification.

What "people" have done is irrelevant. What scientific investigation doesn't involve the relationship between an effect and its cause?

The examination of radioactive decay. It is probabilistic not causal

[Athetotheist]

Science is the study of cause and effect.

Says who?

Science is the study of reality in a testable way.

And what are scientists doing when they test things other than (a) searching for the cause of an effect or (b) trying to predict what effect a cause will have?

There's a lot more to it than that.

People have looked at cause and effect and concluded that saying a magic spell makes it rain. That's not science, yet it's still cause and effect as far as they are concerned. You're dumbing down science without justification.

What "people" have done is irrelevant. What scientific investigation doesn't involve the relationship between an effect and its cause?

The examination of radioactive decay. It is probabilistic not causal

If radioactive decay happens, what causes it?

[Goat]

Science is the study of cause and effect.

Says who?

Science is the study of reality in a testable way.

And what are scientists doing when they test things other than (a) searching for the cause of an effect or (b) trying to predict what effect a cause will have?

There's a lot more to it than that.

People have looked at cause and effect and concluded that saying a magic spell makes it rain. That's not science, yet it's still cause and effect as far as they are concerned. You're dumbing down science without justification.

What "people" have done is irrelevant. What scientific investigation doesn't involve the relationship between an effect and its cause?

The examination of radioactive decay. It is probabilistic not causal

If radioactive decay happens, what causes it?

It apparently is an uncaused event.

[Kylie]

Science is the study of cause and effect.

Says who?

Science is the study of reality in a testable way.

And what are scientists doing when they test things other than (a) searching for the cause of an effect or (b) trying to predict what effect a cause will have?

There's a lot more to it than that.

People have looked at cause and effect and concluded that saying a magic spell makes it rain. That's not science, yet it's still cause and effect as far as they are concerned. You're dumbing down science without justification.

What "people" have done is irrelevant. What scientific investigation doesn't involve the relationship between an effect and its cause?

You are missing my point.

A person can study cause and effect and still not be studying science. Your definition that "Science is the study of cause and effect" is insufficient, since it includes things that are NOT science.

By your logic, I can define "driving" as controlled rolling, and then claim that when I play with marbles I am driving.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Kylie in post #36

A person can study cause and effect and still not be studying science. Your definition that "Science is the study of cause and effect" is insufficient, since it includes things that are NOT science.

A person may study cause and effect without studying science, but a person cannot study science without studying cause and effect.

[Athetotheist]

Science is the study of cause and effect.

Says who?

Science is the study of reality in a testable way.

And what are scientists doing when they test things other than (a) searching for the cause of an effect or (b) trying to predict what effect a cause will have?

There's a lot more to it than that.

People have looked at cause and effect and concluded that saying a magic spell makes it rain. That's not science, yet it's still cause and effect as far as they are concerned. You're dumbing down science without justification.

What "people" have done is irrelevant. What scientific investigation doesn't involve the relationship between an effect and its cause?

The examination of radioactive decay. It is probabilistic not causal

If radioactive decay happens, what causes it?

It apparently is an uncaused event.

An event not dictated by physical laws? That would be a mystical event, wouldn't it?

[Goat]

Science is the study of cause and effect.

Says who?

Science is the study of reality in a testable way.

And what are scientists doing when they test things other than (a) searching for the cause of an effect or (b) trying to predict what effect a cause will have?

There's a lot more to it than that.

People have looked at cause and effect and concluded that saying a magic spell makes it rain. That's not science, yet it's still cause and effect as far as they are concerned. You're dumbing down science without justification.

What "people" have done is irrelevant. What scientific investigation doesn't involve the relationship between an effect and its cause?

The examination of radioactive decay. It is probabilistic not causal

If radioactive decay happens, what causes it?

It apparently is an uncaused event.

An event not dictated by physical laws? That would be a mystical event, wouldn't it?

That is making the assumption it is not dictated by physical laws. That is a false assumption, therefore the conclusion that it would be a mystical event is false.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Goat in post #39

That is making the assumption it is not dictated by physical laws. That is a false assumption, therefore the conclusion that it would be a mystical event is false.

If it comes by physical laws,

It has a physical cause.