Can there be real causation for a material atheist?

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
harvey1
Prodigy
Posts: 3452
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:09 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Can there be real causation for a material atheist?

Post #1

Post by harvey1 »

Here is my argument against material atheism:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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?

User avatar
The Happy Humanist
Site Supporter
Posts: 600
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:05 am
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Contact:

Post #21

Post by The Happy Humanist »

Maybe it is event then cause not cause then event.
It gets really twisted.
Which is better making the simple complex and more acurate?
or
Making the complex simple and losing acuracy?
They may be complement yet seem opposite.
I am just treading water.
I realize I am over my head and soon my arms will tire and i will sink i hope the bottom is cool and interesting like a deep cold lake that has springs. way down deep in this waste land cold dark holes with water welling out some plant short sparse a few clams, sand, a few stones and dead stuff. But it is like a different world. Silence!
I'll have whatever he's having. :blink: :drunk:
Jim, the Happy Humanist!
===
Any sufficiently advanced worldview will be indistinguishable from sheer arrogance --The Happy Humanist (with apologies to Arthur C. Clarke)

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10503
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #22

Post by Cathar1950 »

get you fins snokel and goggles.
Pass it around.
I will check to you out tomarrow.
Take your time. I will sleep in I hope.

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #23

Post by McCulloch »

The Happy Humanist wrote:I'll have whatever he's having. :blink: :drunk:
Jim, In the rules it says No unconstructive one-liners posts are allowed in debates. Do try to provide a bit more insight than this post provides. Thanks.

Curious
Sage
Posts: 933
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 6:27 pm

Post #24

Post by Curious »

McCulloch wrote:
The Happy Humanist wrote:I'll have whatever he's having. :blink: :drunk:
Jim, In the rules it says No unconstructive one-liners posts are allowed in debates. Do try to provide a bit more insight than this post provides. Thanks.
Oh I don't know, I thought the post provided a much needed touch of levity. If Cathar1950's previous posts are anything to go by I believe he will have taken this in the nature that it was intended.

User avatar
The Happy Humanist
Site Supporter
Posts: 600
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:05 am
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Contact:

Post #25

Post by The Happy Humanist »

McCulloch wrote:
The Happy Humanist wrote:I'll have whatever he's having. :blink: :drunk:
Jim, In the rules it says No unconstructive one-liners posts are allowed in debates. Do try to provide a bit more insight than this post provides. Thanks.
Well, my apologies. I thought Cathar and I were just having a humorous exchange, sharing a virtual bottle if you will.
Jim, the Happy Humanist!
===
Any sufficiently advanced worldview will be indistinguishable from sheer arrogance --The Happy Humanist (with apologies to Arthur C. Clarke)

User avatar
harvey1
Prodigy
Posts: 3452
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:09 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #26

Post by harvey1 »

Okay. In my view you are abusing SR by pushing the photon's frame of reference thing given that we don't know if Lorentzian symmetry is valid for the way the universe actually is (i.e., it might be just an approximation), and also it is not possible to measure the frame of reference for a photon. However, this does not affect my argument. It merely shifts the discussion to something else.
Curious wrote:I have shown why such infinitesimal slicing of time is flawed but you do not seem to want to address this issue.
Since this is the position you hold, the argument should adapt to the strategy you have taken.
  1. If a material atheist causation exists, then within a frame of reference an event A must occur in time before an event B that is caused by event A
  2. According to Curious' interpretation of SR, an event A can occur at the same time as an event B that is caused by event A
  3. There can be no material atheist causation
In the case of (2), if a photon is travelling in a vacuum at c, then if it encountered a black hole A such that its course was re-directed to black hole B, and encountering black hole B is caused by black hole A, then from the reference frame of the photon, both occurred at the same time, therefore there can be no material causation since event A does not come before event B.
Curious wrote:Your argument was based upon this premise and it has been shown to be incorrect.
Well, my argument assumed that people wouldn't deny causation in their argument since that's what the argument was trying to establish, but no matter, we can address your assumptions in other ways.

Curious
Sage
Posts: 933
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 6:27 pm

Post #27

Post by Curious »

harvey1 wrote:Okay. In my view you are abusing SR by pushing the photon's frame of reference thing given that we don't know if Lorentzian symmetry is valid for the way the universe actually is (i.e., it might be just an approximation), and also it is not possible to measure the frame of reference for a photon. However, this does not affect my argument. It merely shifts the discussion to something else.
Curious wrote:I have shown why such infinitesimal slicing of time is flawed but you do not seem to want to address this issue.
Since this is the position you hold, the argument should adapt to the strategy you have taken.
  1. If a material atheist causation exists, then within a frame of reference an event A must occur in time before an event B that is caused by event A
  2. According to Curious' interpretation of SR, an event A can occur at the same time as an event B that is caused by event A
  3. There can be no material atheist causation
In the case of (2), if a photon is travelling in a vacuum at c, then if it encountered a black hole A such that its course was re-directed to black hole B, and encountering black hole B is caused by black hole A, then from the reference frame of the photon, both occurred at the same time, therefore there can be no material causation since event A does not come before event B.
Time dilation is pretty simple stuff Harvey1(even if it is usually calculated using a rather poor representation of the correct mathematical structure)
There is causation for the event from any perspective other than the photons. You are talking about an event that happens TO an object other than the photon. To the photon this may appear simultaneous but to the affected object it would not be. Both A and B "witness" the event.
harvey1 wrote:
Curious wrote:Your argument was based upon this premise and it has been shown to be incorrect.
Well, my argument assumed that people wouldn't deny causation in their argument since that's what the argument was trying to establish, but no matter, we can address your assumptions in other ways.
I am not denying causation at all. You keep making these claims that I am saying something entirely different to what I am actually trying to establish. It is not causation that I have a problem with but with your slicing of time into "discrete infinitesimals". As you see, SR is relevant after all.

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10503
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #28

Post by Cathar1950 »

First I would like to apologize to McCulloch for getting The Happy Humanist in trouble and second I would like to apologize to The Happy Humanist for the same.
It was late I was getting tired and drifting off dreaming about snorkeling.
This is not good to do when your talking about the nature of time and the Universe. If Steven Hawkings did that to me I would understand. If I did it to him he would most likely join me or be pissed. But he has been on the Simpsons so I think he might paint my toe nails or something . I found The Happy Humanist comment funny and it didn't hurt. But rules are rules. I try.
The Happy Humanist wrote:
Well, my apologies. I thought Cathar and I were just having a humorous exchange, sharing a virtual bottle if you will.
That was the spirit I took it in and would even share a real bottle of wine.
Some times it does get a little deep and ideas can keep me up all night. Usually if it has math in it.
I have trouble with the infinitesimal slicing of time. I don't know why.
It has something to do with how I perceive reality. The arrow hits the target.
Mathematically in Physics time seems to be able to go both forward and backward and not make a difference.
Yet this is not how we experience the world.
This might be due to the nature of memory.
It was Whitehead that felt that we have the cause effect scenario backwards. That it is only after an effect that we see causes because before that it is still open. That is the Wave of Probability has not yet collapsed. Or something like that.
:drunk: I found the wine!

User avatar
harvey1
Prodigy
Posts: 3452
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:09 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #29

Post by harvey1 »

Curious wrote:There is causation for the event from any perspective other than the photons.
So, from the perspective of the photon, black hole A did not divert its path to black hole B? What caused the photon to change direction from the perspective of the photon?
Curious wrote:You are talking about an event that happens TO an object other than the photon.
No. I am talking about what happens to the photon while it is travelling from black hole A to black hole B.
Curious wrote:To the photon this may appear simultaneous but to the affected object it would not be. Both A and B "witness" the event.
We are talking about the frame of reference of the photon. You can't change the reference frame of the photon when talking about the slices of time when it benefits you, and then change the subject when it shows that causation of the photon's change in direction does not benefit you. Stay consistent here.
Curious wrote: am not denying causation at all. You keep making these claims that I am saying something entirely different to what I am actually trying to establish. It is not causation that I have a problem with but with your slicing of time into "discrete infinitesimals". As you see, SR is relevant after all.
Your responses are inconsistent. When I introduced the (in)finitesimal timeslices, you introduced the frame of reference of a photon as being simultaneous and therefore not able to experience a minimum (in)finitesimal timeslice. However, when I accepted the status of your photon as not experiencing a passage of time, you were quick to hop back to the framework where causation is something that happens in a frame of reference other than a photon. You can't have it both ways. Either the photon experiencing zero time means that causation does not exist, or there is the passage of time in which causation can only make sense as occurring within.

Please stay consistent in your answers. Do you want to consider causation from the perspective of the photon or not? If so, let's consider the nature of causation from this perspective. If not, then let's consider the nature of causation from the perspective that time passes.
Last edited by harvey1 on Tue Aug 23, 2005 6:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10503
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #30

Post by Cathar1950 »

What about spooky action at a distance?
Here time and space seem to be missing in the link.
I don't get it and I think it perplexes most physists.
What is a material Atheist?
Is that different then an Atheist and how?
How would any of this be different if your a Theist? Material or not Material.
It seems the world exists. Even for the material Atheist.
There seems to be something wrong with the premise. I just can't put my finger on it.

Post Reply