Can there be real causation for a material atheist?

[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?

[Curious]

You could, as I said before, reduce an event into a number of sub-events and in this way you could say that a moment (characterised by an event) could be reduced to a number of submoments (characterised by sub events) as long as the event was not a split instant event, in which case there is no sub event or sub moment associated with it.

Are you saying that events have zero duration? If so, then if you added up all the events in time, they would amount to zero duration. Doesn't that strike you as odd?

I am saying that the duration is dependent upon the event you are measuring. If, for example, you define an event as object A travelling from point x to point y, then you can fine grain this motion but it would no longer be x to y, it would be from x to somewhere between x and y and so would be a different event. If we were to say that the event was the arrival of object A to point y then this would be a split instant event (or as you say, a zero duration event). Althought the event would be a split instant event, it would have no context as an event in isolation as in isolation it would be a plain fact that object A had the position of point y. The event here would be a happening or occurence so without time it could be said that object A occupies position y, it could not be said that object A arrives at position y. As I said previously, the event might be split instant, but it only has relevance in the proper context of time.

You are right, if we are to reduce the moment to nanoseconds then we can fine grain this event but it would be a different event.

How so? Events which refer to a material displacement can be more accurately described as a series of micro-events that make up the material displacement. Is this not why slow motion video was invented? It gives us a better description of the event by showing all the micro-events that compose the event. How can you say the entire collection of micro-events that make up an event is a different event? It is like saying that a slow motion clip of the runner crossing the finish line is a different filmed event than the runner crossing the finish line. That doesn't make any sense to me.

But, as I said before, such an event is not the same event. Slow motion footage still shows the complete event, a 10 second race still contains the exact same number of strides and represents 10 seconds of real time racing. A fine graining as you have suggested would reduce the race to individual strides or particular motions from point x to point y. This would no longer be a 100m race event but a 1 m motion ,1cm motion, etc.
You have misunderstood here that I meant. The entire collection is a different event, each sub event is different to the event but all sub events make up the event in the proper context.

The causation would still be part of the equation though as even at nanosecond intervals there is a material distinction between the beginning state and end state of the moment in question.

Sure, but this seems to say that a nanosecond event is composed of femtoseconds. How far fine-grained can we go before we can identify a micro-event which there is no further material distinction we can make between the beg state and end state by fine-graining to a new scale? If there is never such a micro-event which has a set minimum-scaled duration, then this seems to suggest that all real events have zero duration. Is the history of the universe made up of events having zero duration? That would be an absurd conclusion, I think.

Split instant events, as I have explained have no reducible duration. The event though is only a real event in the context of time. The universe might be made of split instant events but each split instant event only exists as an event when taken outside the confines of the split instant. The split instant event therefore defines one moment from the next.

By split instant do you mean zero instant?

Not exactly, I mean a zero duration instant.

[harvey1]

I am saying that the duration is dependent upon the event you are measuring. If, for example, you define an event as object A travelling from point x to point y, then you can fine grain this motion but it would no longer be x to y, it would be from x to somewhere between x and y and so would be a different event.

Well, this is not what I mean. I mean that once we identify an event (e.g., crossing the finish line), then the event of crossing the finish line is entirely composed of micro-events. These are not different events for the same reason that a loaf of bread cut into slices is not a different loaf of bread. Each slice of break is part of the bread. All the slices make up the whole bread.

What I want to know is, if we have this event (loaf of bread), and I want to know what materially connects the first micro-event (back slice of the loaf) to the next micro-event (next slice from the back of the loaf) all the way to the last micro-event that composes the event (the last slice at the front of the loaf). In the case of events, the micro-events are a causal chain, and I want to know what materially makes up that causal chain. How do you describe a "slice of bread" in this instance? Is it a certain duration (width of a slice)? Is it a "zero duration instant" (zero width)? If so, then how can all the slices be zero and still have a loaf of bread that is composed of slices such that the bread is 30 cm long or so?

If we were to say that the event was the arrival of object A to point y then this would be a split instant event (or as you say, a zero duration event). Althought the event would be a split instant event, it would have no context as an event in isolation as in isolation it would be a plain fact that object A had the position of point y. The event here would be a happening or occurence so without time it could be said that object A occupies position y, it could not be said that object A arrives at position y. As I said previously, the event might be split instant, but it only has relevance in the proper context of time.

But, I'm talking about an entire event having duration (a whole loaf of bread). I want you to tell me about the micro-events that compose that event duration (i.e., tell me about the slices that compose the bread). How long of duration are those "slices of bread"? Can you continually fine-grain on the duration of any one slice such that you never reach a minimum slice duration? If the event is composed of zero duration instants, then how can zero durations compose an event having a fixed duration (e.g., crossing the entire finish line)?

A fine graining as you have suggested would reduce the race to individual strides or particular motions from point x to point y. This would no longer be a 100m race event but a 1 m motion ,1cm motion, etc. You have misunderstood here that I meant. The entire collection is a different event, each sub event is different to the event but all sub events make up the event in the proper context.

I'm talking about all the sub-events together as a group as being identical to the event itself. If these sub-events are "zero duration instants," then how can 0+0+0...+0 equal a fixed duration (i.e., the event itself)?

Split instant events, as I have explained have no reducible duration. The event though is only a real event in the context of time. The universe might be made of split instant events but each split instant event only exists as an event when taken outside the confines of the split instant. The split instant event therefore defines one moment from the next.

Okay, let me restate this in terms of bread slices:

[Zero width bread slices], as I have explained have no reducible [width]. The [loaf of bread] though is only a real [loaf of bread] in the context of [measurement of the bread from beginning to end of the loaf]. The [bakery's inventory] might be made of [zero width bread slices] but each [bread slice] only exists as [a bread slice] when taken outside the confines of the [zero width bread slices]. The [zero width bread slices of bread] therefore defines one [slice of bread] from the next [slice of bread].

Notice, when I make the simple substitutions that your paragraph doesn't appear to make any sense. What do you mean by saying, "each [bread slice] only exists as [a bread slice] when taken outside the confines of the [zero width bread slices]. The [zero width bread slices of bread] therefore defines one [slice of bread] from the next [slice of bread]"? This sentence doesn't appear to make any sense using my substitutions (for example).

[QED]

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?

More than a month has gone by without any progress here. Reviewing the thread I can't see anyone siding with Harvey -- but that means little. What is clear from the debate so far is that (2) is contentious.

First I think that "slicing up time to the minimum slices of time" introduces a false dilemma. We can look at time in any number of ways, but we cannot then take this arbitrary view and infer a causal problem from it. The words that follow "we see there cannot be" suggest that we know of a specific impediment to one material event causing another. But this is extrapolated from your caricature of "frozen time" -- something nonexistent in the physical world.

[harvey1]

First I think that "slicing up time to the minimum slices of time" introduces a false dilemma. We can look at time in any number of ways, but we cannot then take this arbitrary view and infer a causal problem from it. The words that follow "we see there cannot be" suggest that we know of a specific impediment to one material event causing another. But this is extrapolated from your caricature of "frozen time" -- something nonexistent in the physical world.

Okay, you reject the notion that we can, in principle reach a frozen slice of time. But, this is the same position that Curious took, and I guess time and other priorities took him away from this argument. Rather than me restating my responses to his position, can you read our discussion and let me know how your position differs from his? How do you respond to the objections I made to his arguments?

[QED]

Okay, you reject the notion that we can, in principle reach a frozen slice of time. But, this is the same position that Curious took, and I guess time and other priorities took him away from this argument. Rather than me restating my responses to his position, can you read our discussion and let me know how your position differs from his? How do you respond to the objections I made to his arguments?

I've read the entire debate post by post, as they were posted. All I can extract from it is your repeated call for what it is that connects one frozen moment in time to the next. Having sliced-up time in this arbitrary way I can do no more that simply point out to you that you have no right to make such demands.

It seems to me as though you've been restating Zeno's paradoxes in order to make it appear that we are faced with a dilemma. The resolution of the paradoxes by assuming Lorentzian invariance and the relativity of space and time should also be sufficient to reject the dilemma.

[harvey1]

I've read the entire debate post by post, as they were posted. All I can extract from it is your repeated call for what it is that connects one frozen moment in time to the next. Having sliced-up time in this arbitrary way I can do no more that simply point out to you that you have no right to make such demands.

I don't demand it. I assert that if you don't have it, then I want you to tell me about the micro-events that compose an event. Can you continually fine-grain on the duration of any one event such that you never reach a minimum slice duration? If the event is composed of zero duration instants, then how can zero durations compose an event having a fixed duration?

It seems to me as though you've been restating Zeno's paradoxes in order to make it appear that we are faced with a dilemma. The resolution of the paradoxes by assuming Lorentzian invariance and the relativity of space and time should also be sufficient to reject the dilemma.

QED, a number of quantum gravity theorists (e.g., Smolin) do not think that Lorentzian invariance will hold on all scales. In any case, all that accepting some ultimate status for Lorentzian invariance does is rule out discrete time possibilities. This doesn't mean that material causation has been solved, rather it rules out one possibility (i.e., material causation as a result of discrete time). So, this only worsens the situation for a philosophy of material cause.

[QED]

I want you to tell me about the micro-events that compose an event.

Can you continually fine-grain on the duration of any one event such that you never reach a minimum slice duration? If the event is composed of zero duration instants, then how can zero durations compose an event having a fixed duration?

This sounds awfully like "when did you stop beating your wife" . But seriously, we all know that Planck time is meant to represents the unitary value of time but what about the lack of a Quantum Blurring "signature" of quantum space time? It's hard to give a precise answer to your question if space time isn't even necessarily made of quantum bits!

[harvey1]

we all know that Planck time is meant to represents the unitary value of time but what about the lack of a Quantum Blurring "signature" of quantum space time? It's hard to give a precise answer to your question if space time isn't even necessarily made of quantum bits!

I don't see the issue, QED. I'm talking about conceptually what can possibly make material causation possible. If we cannot even conceive of a mechanism, then why believe there is such a mechanism? In addition, there's many concepts in quantum physics which seem to favor non-material cause (or non-material overdetermination of cause: non-material factors + material factors = actual cause). For example, Feynman's path integral formulation of quantum mechanics is like that.

So, I think you need good reason to believe that material cause is to be given the kind of consideration that you are placing on this issue. I don't think it is necessary to hold to a philosophy that has these obvious paradoxes, so let's move on. Why not?

[QED]

Why not? Because there is a great danger of us reading more into all this than is really warranted. My mind is full of all sorts of possible explanations for the phenomenon we caller matter. We have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to models describing the material content of the world but no single decisive theory. This makes it possible to construct all manner of science-fiction form the incongruities known in experimental physics.

What do you make, for instance of the fact that the entropy of black holes is proportional to the area of their event horizons? If this is a general property of mass it implies that volume itself is somehow illusory: that mass occupies area, not volume -- hence the universe is really a sort of hologram. This might explain the classic particle wave duality and spooky action at a distance in the quantum world among many other mysteries. My point is that the mere fact we resort to words like duality and spooky only reflects our incomplete grasp of some underlying reality and should not be taken as a sign of some supernatural metaphysic.

As another example, if we consider the superstring model with the classical point-particles being replaced by strings having spatial extent then, their vibrational characteristics are indicative of, if not entirely a product of multidimensional geometry. If the material world we experience is a constant buzz coming from a myriad of multidimensional spatial oscillations then causality might reduce to simple harmonic motion. But it still looks like just another rainy Saturday afternoon here on planet Earth. It still looks, therefore, as if the pendulum in my clock has no problem swinging back and forth under it's own momentum.

[harvey1]

Why not? Because there is a great danger of us reading more into all this than is really warranted.

There's a huge difference in trying to guess the next scientific revolution and trying to find conceptual answers to paradoxes. If we accepted the notion that we are not committed to finding conceptual answers to paradoxes, then why are you here (although, I'm glad you are even if your ultimate reasons are irrational...)? All I have to do is say, "it's hard to give a precise answer to your question [about God's existence] if [whatever paradox about God you wish to argue] isn't even necessarily made of [whatever equivocation that I wish to cite as a possible interpretation of whatever evidence you are citing]!" It won't do, QED. We must commit ourselves to some level of rationality. This means that we must rule out non-parsimonious solutions, especially if they contradict or result in paradox. You're beliefs are no different. You can't cast stones when you live in a glass house.

My mind is full of all sorts of possible explanations for the phenomenon we caller matter.

Yes, but why is it that no one of them solves this conceptual problem that I have put forward to you?

What do you make, for instance of the fact that the entropy of black holes is proportional to the area of their event horizons? If this is a general property of mass it implies that volume itself is somehow illusory: that mass occupies area, not volume -- hence the universe is really a sort of hologram.

Well, of course I'm thrilled by it since it further damages materialism to the point to where it is not recoverable in any form.

This might explain the classic particle wave duality and spooky action at a distance in the quantum world among many other mysteries. My point is that the mere fact we resort to words like duality and spooky only reflects our incomplete grasp of some underlying reality and should not be taken as a sign of some supernatural metaphysic.

I don't understand your supernatural reference. The holographic principle might shed light on the platonist nature of the universe, and this is the very metaphysics that my theist beliefs suggest is the case for the universe.

If the material world we experience is a constant buzz coming from a myriad of multidimensional spatial oscillations then causality might reduce to simple harmonic motion. But it still looks like just another rainy Saturday afternoon here on planet Earth. It still looks, therefore, as if the pendulum in my clock has no problem swinging back and forth under it's own momentum.

This doesn't solve the conceptual problem put forward in this thread. If you have a spatial oscillation, what materially causes the next spatial oscillation?