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?

QED · Post by **QED** » Sat Oct 29, 2005 11:59 am

I really don't want to raise your blood pressure any higher than it is now, (I'm under strict orders to keep my own in check!) but this whole topic is founded upon your insistence that there's a paradox affecting material causality and I simply can't see it. I feel the need to register on some physics community forum or other to see what the wider reaction might be. I have disagreed with your premises which deny the continuous flow of time simply because arbitrarily stopping time and asking what restarts it seems nonsensical. How do you feel about calling on some additional thinkers? Alternatively where else are such matters already the subject of discussion?

harvey1 · Post by **harvey1** » Sat Oct 29, 2005 1:39 pm

QED wrote:I really don't want to raise your blood pressure any higher than it is now, (I'm under strict orders to keep my own in check!)...

Oh, I think mine is okay--I hope. Btw, I hope I'm not the cause of your higher blood pressure?

QED wrote:but this whole topic is founded upon your insistence that there's a paradox affecting material causality and I simply can't see it. I feel the need to register on some physics community forum or other to see what the wider reaction might be. I have disagreed with your premises which deny the continuous flow of time simply because arbitrarily stopping time and asking what restarts it seems nonsensical.

Again, I'm trying to make it easier for you by postulating the solutions to Zeno's arrow paradox with calculus (i.e., the use of infinitesimal limits). If you prefer to stick with indiscrete time without infinitesimals (i.e., nominalism with respect to infinitesimals) as a way around these material causation paradoxes, please feel free to solve the problems that way. However, I see no means to solve those paradoxes using a nominalist approach either.

QED wrote:How do you feel about calling on some additional thinkers? Alternatively where else are such matters already the subject of discussion?

As I mentioned, Peter Lynds successfully raised this issue in the physics and philosophical community. Nobody could answer the objections. He has pursued the nominalist approach. Unlike everyone here who thinks the nominalist approach works, Lynds has come to the correct conclusion: no material causation.

The Happy Humanist · Post by **The Happy Humanist** » Sun Oct 30, 2005 5:22 am

QED wrote:How do you feel about calling on some additional thinkers?

May I make a suggestion? Jim Lippard is a friend of mine. I might be able to coax him on here. While I'm not sure of his grasp of theoretical physics, he is a whiz at epistemology and questions of this nature. He is also an incredibly resourceful researcher.

I, too, admit to being baffled by the alleged conundrum Harvey1 presents, but I gave up arguing largely because I recognize I don't have a suitable vocabulary in this field (and because my time is extremely limited these days, as you can tell by my long absences).

QED · Post by **QED** » Sun Oct 30, 2005 7:11 am

The Happy Humanist wrote: May I make a suggestion? Jim Lippard is a friend of mine. I might be able to coax him on here. While I'm not sure of his grasp of theoretical physics, he is a whiz at epistemology and questions of this nature. He is also an incredibly resourceful researcher.

I'll welcome anything that opens this up to the extent that I can understand it.

harvey1 · Post by **harvey1** » Sun Oct 30, 2005 7:47 am

The Happy Humanist wrote:Jim Lippard is a friend of mine. I might be able to coax him on here. While I'm not sure of his grasp of theoretical physics, he is a whiz at epistemology and questions of this nature.

It's better to have him come on as an anonymous individual. One thing that I don't want to see is any claims based on authority. Let's see reasons based on quotes, evidence, facts, etc..

The Happy Humanist · Post by **The Happy Humanist** » Sun Oct 30, 2005 7:59 am

QED wrote:
The Happy Humanist wrote: May I make a suggestion? Jim Lippard is a friend of mine. I might be able to coax him on here. While I'm not sure of his grasp of theoretical physics, he is a whiz at epistemology and questions of this nature. He is also an incredibly resourceful researcher.
I'll welcome anything that opens this up to the extent that I can understand it.

I don't think you'll have a problem. I, on the other hand, may just shake my head in total awe and befuddlement....

The Happy Humanist · Post by **The Happy Humanist** » Sun Oct 30, 2005 8:08 am

It's better to have him come on as an anonymous individual. One thing that I don't want to see is any claims based on authority. Let's see reasons based on quotes, evidence, facts, etc

If you're afraid that he'll come on here and simply say "I'm Jim Lippard and I don't agree," I can assure you that won't happen. In fact there will probably be more blue text than black in his messages. On the other hand, I am almost certain that he will want to come on here anonymously anyway - if at all.

Actually I can see at this point that I should have just gone and gotten him without saying anything....but this may work out.

harvey1 · Post by **harvey1** » Sun Oct 30, 2005 11:16 am

The Happy Humanist wrote:I don't think you'll have a problem. I, on the other hand, may just shake my head in total awe and befuddlement....

You didn't even recognize your atheist prophet when he was here, so why recognize a lesser one?

The Happy Humanist · Post by **The Happy Humanist** » Sun Oct 30, 2005 11:06 pm

harvey1 wrote:
The Happy Humanist wrote:I don't think you'll have a problem. I, on the other hand, may just shake my head in total awe and befuddlement....
You didn't even recognize your atheist prophet when he was here, so why recognize a lesser one?

I unabashedly admit to total befuddlement as to the meaning of that last statement. It may just be me, it's been a long week. And something tells me when you explain it, I'm gonna do one of these:

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 12:01 pm

The Happy Humanist I knew you would come crawling back. Good to see you. I don't know who Jim Lippard but it sounds fun anyway.
Nice thing about this thread it makes me reread books I haven't read in years.
I am still having with harvey's materialism. I seems to be an old view and hardly how we look at matter these days. The billiard ball view of atoms bumping together in a pure determinist fashion has been left behind.

harvey1 wrote:

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?

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.