Naturyl wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr> Yeah, the 'standard dogma' that shows your argument to be fallacious. I'll give you a clue. No one is ever going to 'say anything' as long as you shut your eyes and plug your ears whenever someone starts to refute you. In your world, where eyes are shut and ears are plugged, it's only natural that no one says anything. To someone in a coma, a lecture by Einstein would amount to nothing at all .......<hr> What's all this nonsense? Why aren't you answering my question? I'll put it to you again:
The ancients used to point all around them in a sweeping gesture and assert that the flatness of the earth has been "empirically verified". They also used to point to the motion of the stars above and assert that the earth's fixed postion in the centre of the universe has been "empirically verified". Nineteenth century physicists used to point to the consistent behaviour observed in moving objects and planetry orbits and the like, and assert that the fixed and absolute nature of time and space has been "empirically verified". In light of all this, I would like to know how you have established that quantum physics, and its belief that non-causality has been "empirically verified", is any different?
Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality
The existence of non-causal phenomena has been observed in Nature. This empirically verifies that phenomena without cause do exist. Your attempt at confusing the issue by introducing historical irrelevancies will not help you escape the validity of this syllogism:
1. If non-causal phenomena are observed in nature, they exist.
2. Non-causal phenomena are observed in nature.
3. Non-causal phenomena exist.
How do any of the historical follies you list affect the truth of this logical proposition?
Your only course of action is to go back to semantic disputes over the definition of causality, which Thomas and I have already refuted in the other thread.
Oh, my, your king is in check... but I'm sure you've heard that before in reference to this debate.
Edited by: Naturyl <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://www.imgmag.org/images/zway/naticon.gif" BORDER=0> at: 1/26/04 5:18 pm
1. If non-causal phenomena are observed in nature, they exist.
2. Non-causal phenomena are observed in nature.
3. Non-causal phenomena exist.
How do any of the historical follies you list affect the truth of this logical proposition?
Your only course of action is to go back to semantic disputes over the definition of causality, which Thomas and I have already refuted in the other thread.
Oh, my, your king is in check... but I'm sure you've heard that before in reference to this debate.
Edited by: Naturyl <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://www.imgmag.org/images/zway/naticon.gif" BORDER=0> at: 1/26/04 5:18 pm
-
Thomas Knierim
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Wed Jul 17, 2002 6:20 pm
Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality
<span style="color:white;">David: They don't help a person understand the soul of causality, which is where you are lacking, Thomas.</span>
The soul of causality? Oh well. I think now it is YOU who sounds like a bible-banging parish priest. Let's call it the church of cause.
<span style="color:white;">David: In light of all this, I would like to know how you have established that quantum physics, and its belief that non-causality has been "empirically verified", is any different?</span>
Isn't the answer to this question obvious enough? You actually almost answer this question yourself. In the past it have been all the COMMONSENSE NOTIONS that turned out to be wrong. The flatness of the earth went down the drain. The geocentric universe went down the drain. Absolute time and space went down the drain. Next on the chopping board is causality!
Thomas
The soul of causality? Oh well. I think now it is YOU who sounds like a bible-banging parish priest. Let's call it the church of cause.
<span style="color:white;">David: In light of all this, I would like to know how you have established that quantum physics, and its belief that non-causality has been "empirically verified", is any different?</span>
Isn't the answer to this question obvious enough? You actually almost answer this question yourself. In the past it have been all the COMMONSENSE NOTIONS that turned out to be wrong. The flatness of the earth went down the drain. The geocentric universe went down the drain. Absolute time and space went down the drain. Next on the chopping board is causality!
Thomas
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality
Naturyl wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr> 1. If non-causal phenomena are observed in nature, they exist.
2. Non-causal phenomena are observed in nature.
3. Non-causal phenomena exist.
How do any of the historical follies you list affect the truth of this logical proposition?<hr> An old argument of the ancients:
1. If the flatness of the earth is observed in nature, it exists.
2. The flatness of the earth is observed in nature.
3. The flatness of the earth exists.
Quote:Quote:<hr> 1. If non-causal phenomena are observed in nature, they exist.
2. Non-causal phenomena are observed in nature.
3. Non-causal phenomena exist.
How do any of the historical follies you list affect the truth of this logical proposition?<hr> An old argument of the ancients:
1. If the flatness of the earth is observed in nature, it exists.
2. The flatness of the earth is observed in nature.
3. The flatness of the earth exists.
Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality
The flatness of the earth was never observed in nature. The first ship to sail around the world refuted the flat earth hypothesis. The flat earth was hypothesized, but never observed. Non-causal processes were hypothesized, and now have been observed.
-
Kevin Solway
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality
Naturyl wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr>The existence of non-causal phenomena has been observed in Nature.<hr>
You can't "observe a non-causal phenomena". Rather, you can observe a phenomena, and you can then reason that the phenomena is without cause.
Mind you, that second step is a very big step.
It is a very big step (read "a very silly step") because David has already demonstrated that we can readily observe at least some contributory causes for all quantum phenomena - which proves beyond any shadow of doubt that they are not without cause.
In the case of some aspects of quantum phenomena that would seem to fall outside of the narrow conception of cause and effect held by scientists, like "remote communication" where information seems to be passing between two remote locations simultaneously, that is only a limitation of the scientist's conception of cause and effect. At no time does the law of cause and effect break down.
Quote:Quote:<hr>The existence of non-causal phenomena has been observed in Nature.<hr>
You can't "observe a non-causal phenomena". Rather, you can observe a phenomena, and you can then reason that the phenomena is without cause.
Mind you, that second step is a very big step.
It is a very big step (read "a very silly step") because David has already demonstrated that we can readily observe at least some contributory causes for all quantum phenomena - which proves beyond any shadow of doubt that they are not without cause.
In the case of some aspects of quantum phenomena that would seem to fall outside of the narrow conception of cause and effect held by scientists, like "remote communication" where information seems to be passing between two remote locations simultaneously, that is only a limitation of the scientist's conception of cause and effect. At no time does the law of cause and effect break down.
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality
Thomas wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr> David: They don't help a person understand the soul of causality, which is where you are lacking, Thomas.
Thomas: The soul of causality? Oh well. I think now it is YOU who sounds like a bible-banging parish priest. Let's call it the church of cause. <hr> You don't understand causality with your own mind in a spiritual sense. Instead, your understanding is sterile, second-hand, bookish, piece-meal. You haven't put in the introspective effort to comprehend it deeply.
Quote:Quote:<hr> David: In light of all this, I would like to know how you have established that quantum physics, and its belief that non-causality has been "empirically verified", is any different?
Thomas: Isn't the answer to this question obvious enough? You actually almost answer this question yourself. In the past it have been all the COMMONSENSE NOTIONS that turned out to be wrong. The flatness of the earth went down the drain. The geocentric universe went down the drain. Absolute time and space went down the drain. Next on the chopping board is causality! <hr> Just because some commonsense notions have been dispelled (or at least we think they have been dispelled, based on our current understanding of things), it doesn't automatically mean that all commonsense notions are wrong.
More importantly, causality differs from all these other things in that it is universally true by logical necessity. By contrast, there is no logical necessity for the earth to be flat, or for the earth to be the center of the Universe, or for time and space to be absolute.
Quote:Quote:<hr> David: They don't help a person understand the soul of causality, which is where you are lacking, Thomas.
Thomas: The soul of causality? Oh well. I think now it is YOU who sounds like a bible-banging parish priest. Let's call it the church of cause. <hr> You don't understand causality with your own mind in a spiritual sense. Instead, your understanding is sterile, second-hand, bookish, piece-meal. You haven't put in the introspective effort to comprehend it deeply.
Quote:Quote:<hr> David: In light of all this, I would like to know how you have established that quantum physics, and its belief that non-causality has been "empirically verified", is any different?
Thomas: Isn't the answer to this question obvious enough? You actually almost answer this question yourself. In the past it have been all the COMMONSENSE NOTIONS that turned out to be wrong. The flatness of the earth went down the drain. The geocentric universe went down the drain. Absolute time and space went down the drain. Next on the chopping board is causality! <hr> Just because some commonsense notions have been dispelled (or at least we think they have been dispelled, based on our current understanding of things), it doesn't automatically mean that all commonsense notions are wrong.
More importantly, causality differs from all these other things in that it is universally true by logical necessity. By contrast, there is no logical necessity for the earth to be flat, or for the earth to be the center of the Universe, or for time and space to be absolute.
Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality
Kevin said:
Quote:Quote:<hr>You can't "observe a non-causal phenomena". Rather, you can observe a phenomena, and you can then reason that the phenomena is without cause.
Mind you, that second step is a very big step.
It is a very big step (read "a very silly step") because David has already demonstrated that we can readily observe at least some contributory causes for all quantum phenomena - which proves beyond any shadow of doubt that they are not without cause.
<hr>But if we reject David's assertion that accessory circumstances are contributory causes, as I did in the 'Hell is Other People' thread, David has shown nothing. What's more, I also reject your unsupported assertion that non-causal phenomena cannot be observed in Nature. If phenomena are observed which cannot have a cause, non-causal phenomena have been observed. For people whose claim to base your 'infinite wisdom' on the principles of logic, you certainly seem to have a lot of struggles with it.
Quote:Quote:<hr>In the case of some aspects of quantum phenomena that would seem to fall outside of the narrow conception of cause and effect held by scientists, like "remote communication" where information seems to be passing between two remote locations simultaneously, that is only a limitation of the scientist's conception of cause and effect. At no time does the law of cause and effect break down.<hr>Oh, I wondered when this was coming. Scientists don't understand cause and effect properly, but you and David do. Mmm-hmm. Edited by: Naturyl <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://www.imgmag.org/images/zway/naticon.gif" BORDER=0> at: 1/26/04 5:52 pm
Quote:Quote:<hr>You can't "observe a non-causal phenomena". Rather, you can observe a phenomena, and you can then reason that the phenomena is without cause.
Mind you, that second step is a very big step.
It is a very big step (read "a very silly step") because David has already demonstrated that we can readily observe at least some contributory causes for all quantum phenomena - which proves beyond any shadow of doubt that they are not without cause.
<hr>But if we reject David's assertion that accessory circumstances are contributory causes, as I did in the 'Hell is Other People' thread, David has shown nothing. What's more, I also reject your unsupported assertion that non-causal phenomena cannot be observed in Nature. If phenomena are observed which cannot have a cause, non-causal phenomena have been observed. For people whose claim to base your 'infinite wisdom' on the principles of logic, you certainly seem to have a lot of struggles with it.
Quote:Quote:<hr>In the case of some aspects of quantum phenomena that would seem to fall outside of the narrow conception of cause and effect held by scientists, like "remote communication" where information seems to be passing between two remote locations simultaneously, that is only a limitation of the scientist's conception of cause and effect. At no time does the law of cause and effect break down.<hr>Oh, I wondered when this was coming. Scientists don't understand cause and effect properly, but you and David do. Mmm-hmm. Edited by: Naturyl <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://www.imgmag.org/images/zway/naticon.gif" BORDER=0> at: 1/26/04 5:52 pm
-
Kevin Solway
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality
Naturyl wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr>If we reject David's assertion that accessory circumstances are contributory causes . . .<hr>
Literally all causes of a thing can be classified as "accessory circumstances". For example, the parents of a child, while being contributing causes to the child, are also "accessory circumstances".
Quote:Quote:<hr>If we reject David's assertion that accessory circumstances are contributory causes . . .<hr>
Literally all causes of a thing can be classified as "accessory circumstances". For example, the parents of a child, while being contributing causes to the child, are also "accessory circumstances".
Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality
So what? By showing that all causes are necessarily accesory circumstances, do you therefore show that all accessory circumstances are causes? I smell a fallacy, and it smells like napalm in the morning.
-
Thomas Knierim
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Wed Jul 17, 2002 6:20 pm
Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality
<span style="color:white;">David: You don't understand causality with your own mind in a spiritual sense.</span>
Aha, now we are coming closer to the core of your argument, which is -how could it be otherwise- spiritual. You seem to maintain a spiritual attachment to the idea of causality. Perhaps it is the idea that the universe is based on a single principle - causality - and that God does not play dice. An elegant thought indeed. This is by the way the point where even the most distinguished scientists tend to fail. The weakness here is attachment to cherished ideas, even despite better evidence. Reminds me a bit of Max Planck. He was completely baffled that he was right about quanta. However, Planck ultimately gave up his craving for a classical ideas and accepted quantization of energy as a fact - the way of nature. That speaks for his humility.
<span style="color:white;">David: Just because some commonsense notions have been dispelled (or at least we think they have been dispelled, based on our current understanding of things), it doesn't automatically mean that all commonsense notions are wrong.</span>
No, but it's very likely. It is the rational thing to assume.
<span style="color:white;">David: More importantly, causality differs from all these other things in that it is universally true by logical necessity. By contrast, there is no logical necessity for the earth to be flat, or for the earth to be the center of the Universe, or for time and space to be absolute.</span>
Hahaha, the ancients also said that it is logically necessary that the earth is flat, otherwise you would fall off it...
Thomas
Aha, now we are coming closer to the core of your argument, which is -how could it be otherwise- spiritual. You seem to maintain a spiritual attachment to the idea of causality. Perhaps it is the idea that the universe is based on a single principle - causality - and that God does not play dice. An elegant thought indeed. This is by the way the point where even the most distinguished scientists tend to fail. The weakness here is attachment to cherished ideas, even despite better evidence. Reminds me a bit of Max Planck. He was completely baffled that he was right about quanta. However, Planck ultimately gave up his craving for a classical ideas and accepted quantization of energy as a fact - the way of nature. That speaks for his humility.
<span style="color:white;">David: Just because some commonsense notions have been dispelled (or at least we think they have been dispelled, based on our current understanding of things), it doesn't automatically mean that all commonsense notions are wrong.</span>
No, but it's very likely. It is the rational thing to assume.
<span style="color:white;">David: More importantly, causality differs from all these other things in that it is universally true by logical necessity. By contrast, there is no logical necessity for the earth to be flat, or for the earth to be the center of the Universe, or for time and space to be absolute.</span>
Hahaha, the ancients also said that it is logically necessary that the earth is flat, otherwise you would fall off it...
Thomas
-
Kevin Solway
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality
Naturyl wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr>By showing that all causes are necessarily accesory circumstances, do you therefore show that all accessory circumstances are causes?<hr>
You are arguing that accessory circumstances are not causes, and I have just shown, through my example, that this is not the case.
Presumably you think that some accessory circumstances are not causes, but I can't for the life of me imagine why. If you can provide a good reason why you think some accessory circumstances are not "causes" then we can go from there.
Quote:Quote:<hr>By showing that all causes are necessarily accesory circumstances, do you therefore show that all accessory circumstances are causes?<hr>
You are arguing that accessory circumstances are not causes, and I have just shown, through my example, that this is not the case.
Presumably you think that some accessory circumstances are not causes, but I can't for the life of me imagine why. If you can provide a good reason why you think some accessory circumstances are not "causes" then we can go from there.
-
Kevin Solway
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality
Naturyl wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr>If phenomena are observed which cannot have a cause, non-causal phenomena have been observed.<hr>
And how do you prove that it is not possible for a particular phenomena to have a cause?
You cannot do it.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Scientists don't understand cause and effect properly, but you and David do.<hr>
Scientists have a limited understanding of cause and effect, because they don't understand what it is, or how it works. To understand these things requires philosophic knowledge, and that is what scientists, generally, aren't interested in.
For example, some scientists say that there was no "before" the big bang, because time didn't exist then. This is the same as saying that there is no possible way the big bang could have had a cause . . . yet another uncaused phenomena!
Their big mistake is in assuming that what we can immediately perceive is the entirety of reality, and that there is nothing else. This comes from having a materialistic approach to life, and a materialistic understanding of cause and effect. Unfortunately both life and cause and effect are spiritual in nature, and not materialistic.
Quote:Quote:<hr>If phenomena are observed which cannot have a cause, non-causal phenomena have been observed.<hr>
And how do you prove that it is not possible for a particular phenomena to have a cause?
You cannot do it.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Scientists don't understand cause and effect properly, but you and David do.<hr>
Scientists have a limited understanding of cause and effect, because they don't understand what it is, or how it works. To understand these things requires philosophic knowledge, and that is what scientists, generally, aren't interested in.
For example, some scientists say that there was no "before" the big bang, because time didn't exist then. This is the same as saying that there is no possible way the big bang could have had a cause . . . yet another uncaused phenomena!
Their big mistake is in assuming that what we can immediately perceive is the entirety of reality, and that there is nothing else. This comes from having a materialistic approach to life, and a materialistic understanding of cause and effect. Unfortunately both life and cause and effect are spiritual in nature, and not materialistic.
Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality
ksolway
Their big mistake is in assuming that what we can immediately perceive is the entirety of reality, and that there is nothing else. This comes from having a materialistic approach to life, and a materialistic understanding of cause and effect. Unfortunately both life and cause and effect are spiritual in nature, and not materialistic.
How do you define spiritualistic and materialistic?
The BIG MISTAKE is to think that concepts have anything but a tenuous connection to reality.
Concepts are man made attempts at trying to relate to reality and serve us well in everyday affairs but concepts break down when applied to fundamentals.
Indeterminate means indeterminate in my book.
John
Their big mistake is in assuming that what we can immediately perceive is the entirety of reality, and that there is nothing else. This comes from having a materialistic approach to life, and a materialistic understanding of cause and effect. Unfortunately both life and cause and effect are spiritual in nature, and not materialistic.
How do you define spiritualistic and materialistic?
The BIG MISTAKE is to think that concepts have anything but a tenuous connection to reality.
Concepts are man made attempts at trying to relate to reality and serve us well in everyday affairs but concepts break down when applied to fundamentals.
Indeterminate means indeterminate in my book.
John
Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality
David: More importantly, causality differs from all these other things in that it is universally true by logical necessity. By contrast, there is no logical necessity for the earth to be flat, or for the earth to be the center of the Universe, or for time and space to be absolute.
Nonsense!
Please demonstrate how it is that causality "is universally true by logical necessity".
I bet you won't even try.
How could you prove that every effect has a cause?
What do 'you' mean by 'logical necessity'?
Your unfounded claims are no more believable than the silly claims of religion.
Nonsense!
Please demonstrate how it is that causality "is universally true by logical necessity".
I bet you won't even try.
How could you prove that every effect has a cause?
What do 'you' mean by 'logical necessity'?
Your unfounded claims are no more believable than the silly claims of religion.
-
Kevin Solway
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality
John wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr>ksolway: Their big mistake is in assuming that what we can immediately perceive is the entirety of reality, and that there is nothing else. This comes from having a materialistic approach to life, and a materialistic understanding of cause and effect. Unfortunately both life and cause and effect are spiritual in nature, and not materialistic.
John: How do you define spiritualistic and materialistic?<hr>
The spiritual is infinite and seamless, while the materialistic is concrete and cut up into unwieldy blocks which are always getting in the way.
There is duality within the spiritual, but that duality is fluid and realistic. The duality within the materialistic is grasping, and unrealistic.
A good example of the difference is such a thing as a "cause". To a scientist a "cause" is a very particular thing, with very strict boundaries, and nothing else. And no scientist ever questions this accepted definition of a cause, for fear of losing his job. The end result is that science ends up in a real mess, making utterly foolish claims like "there was nothing before the big-bang", or claiming that one set of necessary conditions are "causes", while another set of necessary conditions are not causes.
Scientists tend to imbue the boundaries of things (eg, of causes), with real substance, or inherent existence, which is why they end up with all those useless "concrete blocks". They mentally block-out the fact that our own minds create the boundaries between things.
Quote:Quote:<hr>The BIG MISTAKE is to think that concepts have anything but a tenuous connection to reality.<hr>
I presume you are saying that that very concept of yours (quoted) has but a tenuous connection to reality.
Not all concepts have but a tenous connection to reality. Why would you think so?
The concepts of scientists have, at best, a tenuous connection to reality, for the reasons I have outlined.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Concepts are man made attempts at trying to relate to reality and serve us well in everyday affairs but concepts break down when applied to fundamentals.<hr>
Wise, spiritual concepts, do not break down when applied to fundamentals. They are like adaptable tools, which are always the right tool for the job.
Quote:Quote:<hr>ksolway: Their big mistake is in assuming that what we can immediately perceive is the entirety of reality, and that there is nothing else. This comes from having a materialistic approach to life, and a materialistic understanding of cause and effect. Unfortunately both life and cause and effect are spiritual in nature, and not materialistic.
John: How do you define spiritualistic and materialistic?<hr>
The spiritual is infinite and seamless, while the materialistic is concrete and cut up into unwieldy blocks which are always getting in the way.
There is duality within the spiritual, but that duality is fluid and realistic. The duality within the materialistic is grasping, and unrealistic.
A good example of the difference is such a thing as a "cause". To a scientist a "cause" is a very particular thing, with very strict boundaries, and nothing else. And no scientist ever questions this accepted definition of a cause, for fear of losing his job. The end result is that science ends up in a real mess, making utterly foolish claims like "there was nothing before the big-bang", or claiming that one set of necessary conditions are "causes", while another set of necessary conditions are not causes.
Scientists tend to imbue the boundaries of things (eg, of causes), with real substance, or inherent existence, which is why they end up with all those useless "concrete blocks". They mentally block-out the fact that our own minds create the boundaries between things.
Quote:Quote:<hr>The BIG MISTAKE is to think that concepts have anything but a tenuous connection to reality.<hr>
I presume you are saying that that very concept of yours (quoted) has but a tenuous connection to reality.
Not all concepts have but a tenous connection to reality. Why would you think so?
The concepts of scientists have, at best, a tenuous connection to reality, for the reasons I have outlined.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Concepts are man made attempts at trying to relate to reality and serve us well in everyday affairs but concepts break down when applied to fundamentals.<hr>
Wise, spiritual concepts, do not break down when applied to fundamentals. They are like adaptable tools, which are always the right tool for the job.
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality
Owen wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr> Please demonstrate how it is that causality "is universally true by logical necessity".
I bet you won't even try. <hr> I explored this issue in detail in my book, particularly chapter 2 - <a href="http://free.hostdepartment.com/w/wisdomoftheinfinite/" target="top">Wisdom of the Infinite</a>
Quote:Quote:<hr> Please demonstrate how it is that causality "is universally true by logical necessity".
I bet you won't even try. <hr> I explored this issue in detail in my book, particularly chapter 2 - <a href="http://free.hostdepartment.com/w/wisdomoftheinfinite/" target="top">Wisdom of the Infinite</a>
Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality
DavidQuinn000
Forum Host
Posts: 2106
(1/26/04 10:29 pm)
Reply
Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Owen wrote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please demonstrate how it is that causality "is universally true by logical necessity".
I bet you won't even try.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David: I explored this issue in detail in my book, particularly chapter 2 - Wisdom of the Infinite
???
Please demonstrate how it is that causality "is universally true by logical necessity".
I bet you won't even try.
Owen
Forum Host
Posts: 2106
(1/26/04 10:29 pm)
Reply
Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Owen wrote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please demonstrate how it is that causality "is universally true by logical necessity".
I bet you won't even try.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David: I explored this issue in detail in my book, particularly chapter 2 - Wisdom of the Infinite
???
Please demonstrate how it is that causality "is universally true by logical necessity".
I bet you won't even try.
Owen
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality
Thomas wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr> David: You don't understand causality with your own mind in a spiritual sense.
Thomas: Aha, now we are coming closer to the core of your argument, which is -how could it be otherwise- spiritual. You seem to maintain a spiritual attachment to the idea of causality. <hr> Yes, it is the underpinning of the Buddhist principle that all things lack inherent existence.
Quote:Quote:<hr> Reminds me a bit of Max Planck. He was completely baffled that he was right about quanta. However, Planck ultimately gave up his craving for a classical ideas and accepted quantization of energy as a fact - the way of nature. That speaks for his humility.<hr> The truth of causality, as understood spiritually, has nothing to do with "classical ideas". That is your misconception.
Quote:Quote:<hr> David: Just because some commonsense notions have been dispelled (or at least we think they have been dispelled, based on our current understanding of things), it doesn't automatically mean that all commonsense notions are wrong.
No, but it's very likely. It is the rational thing to assume. <hr> Nonsense. One should assume nothing; otherwise, one will fall into the habit of accepting things on blind faith - such as the latest scientific fads.
Quote:Quote:<hr> David: More importantly, causality differs from all these other things in that it is universally true by logical necessity. By contrast, there is no logical necessity for the earth to be flat, or for the earth to be the center of the Universe, or for time and space to be absolute.
Thomas: Hahaha, the ancients also said that it is logically necessary that the earth is flat, otherwise you would fall off it... <hr> If they did say that, then they were morons. The assertion that the earth is flat is an empirical assertion, meaning that you need empirical evidence to decide the truth of it one way or the other (and even then, you cannot arrive at a complete resolution). It isn't logically necessary, in and of itself, for the earth to be flat, irrespective of what appears to the senses. This is what makes it different to causality.
Quote:Quote:<hr> David: You don't understand causality with your own mind in a spiritual sense.
Thomas: Aha, now we are coming closer to the core of your argument, which is -how could it be otherwise- spiritual. You seem to maintain a spiritual attachment to the idea of causality. <hr> Yes, it is the underpinning of the Buddhist principle that all things lack inherent existence.
Quote:Quote:<hr> Reminds me a bit of Max Planck. He was completely baffled that he was right about quanta. However, Planck ultimately gave up his craving for a classical ideas and accepted quantization of energy as a fact - the way of nature. That speaks for his humility.<hr> The truth of causality, as understood spiritually, has nothing to do with "classical ideas". That is your misconception.
Quote:Quote:<hr> David: Just because some commonsense notions have been dispelled (or at least we think they have been dispelled, based on our current understanding of things), it doesn't automatically mean that all commonsense notions are wrong.
No, but it's very likely. It is the rational thing to assume. <hr> Nonsense. One should assume nothing; otherwise, one will fall into the habit of accepting things on blind faith - such as the latest scientific fads.
Quote:Quote:<hr> David: More importantly, causality differs from all these other things in that it is universally true by logical necessity. By contrast, there is no logical necessity for the earth to be flat, or for the earth to be the center of the Universe, or for time and space to be absolute.
Thomas: Hahaha, the ancients also said that it is logically necessary that the earth is flat, otherwise you would fall off it... <hr> If they did say that, then they were morons. The assertion that the earth is flat is an empirical assertion, meaning that you need empirical evidence to decide the truth of it one way or the other (and even then, you cannot arrive at a complete resolution). It isn't logically necessary, in and of itself, for the earth to be flat, irrespective of what appears to the senses. This is what makes it different to causality.
-
Thomas Knierim
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Wed Jul 17, 2002 6:20 pm
Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality
<span style="color:white;">Kevin: Presumably you think that some accessory circumstances are not causes, but I can't for the life of me imagine why.</span>
Accessory circumstances seem to be the pillars of David's argument. Why don't they count as causes? - The answer is simple. - Because we don't allow them to be causes - it is simply a rule of language. If we would allow accessory circumstances to become full-fledged causes, the concept of causation would collapse; it would become meaningless. While it is linguistically possible to establish causal chains between any given event in the history of the universe, this would make all events and phenomena in the universe causes. By doing so you have effectively invalidated the notion of a cause, since a cause become indistinguishable from circumstancial conditions. It's an example of reductio ad absurdum, the logician's finest weapon.
I am afraid those pillars on which David's argument rests have been blown away by this thread.
<span style="color:white;">Kevin: And how do you prove that it is not possible for a particular phenomena to have a cause? You cannot do it. </span>
Given the scientific method it is unnecessary to provide proof. Consistency with observation is sufficient. The statement 'there are no observable causes to this and that QM phenomenon' is a scientifically falsifiable statement. In other words: prove it wrong!
Thomas Edited by: Thomas Knierim at: 1/27/04 1:05 am
Accessory circumstances seem to be the pillars of David's argument. Why don't they count as causes? - The answer is simple. - Because we don't allow them to be causes - it is simply a rule of language. If we would allow accessory circumstances to become full-fledged causes, the concept of causation would collapse; it would become meaningless. While it is linguistically possible to establish causal chains between any given event in the history of the universe, this would make all events and phenomena in the universe causes. By doing so you have effectively invalidated the notion of a cause, since a cause become indistinguishable from circumstancial conditions. It's an example of reductio ad absurdum, the logician's finest weapon.
I am afraid those pillars on which David's argument rests have been blown away by this thread.
<span style="color:white;">Kevin: And how do you prove that it is not possible for a particular phenomena to have a cause? You cannot do it. </span>
Given the scientific method it is unnecessary to provide proof. Consistency with observation is sufficient. The statement 'there are no observable causes to this and that QM phenomenon' is a scientifically falsifiable statement. In other words: prove it wrong!
Thomas Edited by: Thomas Knierim at: 1/27/04 1:05 am
Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality
ksolway
----------------------------------------------------
John: How do you define spiritualistic and materialistic?
-----------------------------------------------------
The spiritual is infinite and seamless, while the materialistic is concrete and cut up into unwieldy blocks which are always getting in the way.
There is duality within the spiritual, but that duality is fluid and realistic. The duality within the materialistic is grasping, and unrealistic.
Hmm, it seems to me that QRS constantly grasp at concepts.
Splitting reality into material and spiritual is false. We can however for the sake of convenience talk about the material view being not true.
A good example of the difference is such a thing as a "cause". To a scientist a "cause" is a very particular thing, with very strict boundaries, and nothing else. And no scientist ever questions this accepted definition of a cause, for fear of losing his job. The end result is that science ends up in a real mess, making utterly foolish claims like "there was nothing before the big-bang", or claiming that one set of necessary conditions are "causes", while another set of necessary conditions are not causes.
I think you are being unfair, undoubtedly many scientists are this way but not all.
Scientists tend to imbue the boundaries of things (eg, of causes), with real substance, or inherent existence, which is why they end up with all those useless "concrete blocks". They mentally block-out the fact that our own minds create the boundaries between things.
There are obviously scientists like that but there are also scientists that take a more reasonable approach. One I saw talking about string theory which could account for more than one big bang, said he "I don't like nothing", which the original big bang theory postulated. So I guess he would agree with you on that one.
One of the things QM is showing us is that our concepts cannot, will not enable reality to be conceived.
-----------------------------------
The BIG MISTAKE is to think that concepts have anything but a tenuous connection to reality.
-----------------------------------
I presume you are saying that very concept of yours (quoted) has but a tenuous connection to reality.
This is a often your rejoinder, as far as I'm concerned it does not show what you appear to think it does.
Not all concepts have but a tenous connection to reality. Why would you think so?
Better, you show me a concept that is not this way.
----------------------------------
Concepts are man made attempts at trying to relate to reality and serve us well in everyday affairs but concepts break down when applied to fundamentals.
----------------------------------
Wise, spiritual concepts, do not break down when applied to fundamentals. They are like adaptable tools, which are always the right tool for the job.
Not at all. Each tool is useful only for a specific ailment. To entertain the idea that these concepts hold good for all conditions is a mistake.
No dharma can be anything but finite, concepts are dharmas which cannot represent reality and actually separate us from reality. This is basic stuff Kevin.
John
----------------------------------------------------
John: How do you define spiritualistic and materialistic?
-----------------------------------------------------
The spiritual is infinite and seamless, while the materialistic is concrete and cut up into unwieldy blocks which are always getting in the way.
There is duality within the spiritual, but that duality is fluid and realistic. The duality within the materialistic is grasping, and unrealistic.
Hmm, it seems to me that QRS constantly grasp at concepts.
Splitting reality into material and spiritual is false. We can however for the sake of convenience talk about the material view being not true.
A good example of the difference is such a thing as a "cause". To a scientist a "cause" is a very particular thing, with very strict boundaries, and nothing else. And no scientist ever questions this accepted definition of a cause, for fear of losing his job. The end result is that science ends up in a real mess, making utterly foolish claims like "there was nothing before the big-bang", or claiming that one set of necessary conditions are "causes", while another set of necessary conditions are not causes.
I think you are being unfair, undoubtedly many scientists are this way but not all.
Scientists tend to imbue the boundaries of things (eg, of causes), with real substance, or inherent existence, which is why they end up with all those useless "concrete blocks". They mentally block-out the fact that our own minds create the boundaries between things.
There are obviously scientists like that but there are also scientists that take a more reasonable approach. One I saw talking about string theory which could account for more than one big bang, said he "I don't like nothing", which the original big bang theory postulated. So I guess he would agree with you on that one.
One of the things QM is showing us is that our concepts cannot, will not enable reality to be conceived.
-----------------------------------
The BIG MISTAKE is to think that concepts have anything but a tenuous connection to reality.
-----------------------------------
I presume you are saying that very concept of yours (quoted) has but a tenuous connection to reality.
This is a often your rejoinder, as far as I'm concerned it does not show what you appear to think it does.
Not all concepts have but a tenous connection to reality. Why would you think so?
Better, you show me a concept that is not this way.
----------------------------------
Concepts are man made attempts at trying to relate to reality and serve us well in everyday affairs but concepts break down when applied to fundamentals.
----------------------------------
Wise, spiritual concepts, do not break down when applied to fundamentals. They are like adaptable tools, which are always the right tool for the job.
Not at all. Each tool is useful only for a specific ailment. To entertain the idea that these concepts hold good for all conditions is a mistake.
No dharma can be anything but finite, concepts are dharmas which cannot represent reality and actually separate us from reality. This is basic stuff Kevin.
John
Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality
David: Nonsense. One should assume nothing; otherwise, one will fall into the habit of accepting things on blind faith - such as the latest scientific fads.
Disagree. As we cannot know anything completely through empirical observation, the only way we can understand anything is via the process of assumption, excepting when one has already achieved enlightenment. Only in terms of ultimate reality should there be no assumptions.
I know you probably just meant that we shouldn't take anything for granted.
Disagree. As we cannot know anything completely through empirical observation, the only way we can understand anything is via the process of assumption, excepting when one has already achieved enlightenment. Only in terms of ultimate reality should there be no assumptions.
I know you probably just meant that we shouldn't take anything for granted.
-
suergaz
---
The 'ultimate men' want to be the 'ultimate man' for as much as they want to call themsleves themselves! An end would be all! And what end isn't?! But they will not know a beginning also! It is illogical and is conceived in dreams only. But a vision, An infamous 'first cause', A self from ones end, and not behind, through a dreaming that makes a miss of sleep all up! The ultimate men do not want anything of the superhuman! And not from modesty! Love is quite apart from them ultimately! It is funny and sad, They are of the present entirely for what my thought is to the future!
-
Kevin Solway
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality
John wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr>One of the things QM is showing us is that our concepts cannot, will not enable reality to be conceived.<hr>
No. The best it can do is to show that some previously held concepts were mistaken.
There is nothing inherently wrong with concepts. Concepts are like tools that are useful in the hands of someone who understands them, but are dangerous in the hands of many.
Quote:Quote:<hr>John: The BIG MISTAKE is to think that concepts have anything but a tenuous connection to reality.
K: I presume you are saying that very concept of yours (quoted) has but a tenuous connection to reality.
John: This is a often your rejoinder . . .<hr>
It doesn't make any sense at all to conceive of the idea that all concepts are wrong, and then to share it with other people as though it were some kind of truth.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Not all concepts have but a tenous connection to reality. Why would you think so?
Better, you show me a concept that is not this way.<hr>
My concept of anything at all (eg, "grass", "sky", etc) has a very close connection to reality, as I don't project anything onto reality that isn't there.
A concept often mentioned here is the concept of identity, A=A, or, "a thing is identical to itself". Another would be the concept of non-inherent existence, or the fact that no thing is inherently existent.
Some concepts are of course totally false, notably those held by those who are not enlightened.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Each tool is useful only for a specific ailment. To entertain the idea that these concepts hold good for all conditions is a mistake.<hr>
The enlightened person has only the one tool, which automatically works for every task.
Quote:Quote:<hr>No dharma can be anything but finite, concepts are dharmas which cannot represent reality and actually separate us from reality.<hr>
Your concepts might be dharmas, but you can't speak for everyone. The concepts of the enlightened are like the images which appear in a perfect mirror, reflecting always what is really there.
Quote:Quote:<hr>One of the things QM is showing us is that our concepts cannot, will not enable reality to be conceived.<hr>
No. The best it can do is to show that some previously held concepts were mistaken.
There is nothing inherently wrong with concepts. Concepts are like tools that are useful in the hands of someone who understands them, but are dangerous in the hands of many.
Quote:Quote:<hr>John: The BIG MISTAKE is to think that concepts have anything but a tenuous connection to reality.
K: I presume you are saying that very concept of yours (quoted) has but a tenuous connection to reality.
John: This is a often your rejoinder . . .<hr>
It doesn't make any sense at all to conceive of the idea that all concepts are wrong, and then to share it with other people as though it were some kind of truth.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Not all concepts have but a tenous connection to reality. Why would you think so?
Better, you show me a concept that is not this way.<hr>
My concept of anything at all (eg, "grass", "sky", etc) has a very close connection to reality, as I don't project anything onto reality that isn't there.
A concept often mentioned here is the concept of identity, A=A, or, "a thing is identical to itself". Another would be the concept of non-inherent existence, or the fact that no thing is inherently existent.
Some concepts are of course totally false, notably those held by those who are not enlightened.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Each tool is useful only for a specific ailment. To entertain the idea that these concepts hold good for all conditions is a mistake.<hr>
The enlightened person has only the one tool, which automatically works for every task.
Quote:Quote:<hr>No dharma can be anything but finite, concepts are dharmas which cannot represent reality and actually separate us from reality.<hr>
Your concepts might be dharmas, but you can't speak for everyone. The concepts of the enlightened are like the images which appear in a perfect mirror, reflecting always what is really there.
Re: Quantum mechanics and David's Ultimate Reality
ksolway
---------------------
Not all concepts have but a tenous connection to reality. Why would you think so?
Better, you show me a concept that is not this way.
---------------------
My concept of anything at all (eg, "grass", "sky", etc) has a very close connection to reality, as I don't project anything onto reality that isn't there.
Your concept of the grass is not the grass, it is far removed from the grass.
--------------------
Each tool is useful only for a specific ailment. To entertain the idea that these concepts hold good for all conditions is a mistake.
--------------------
The enlightened person has only the one tool, which automatically works for every task.
The enlightened use any tool that is appropriate for each circumstance and then drop it as soon as it's not required.
-----------------------
No dharma can be anything but finite, concepts are dharmas which cannot represent reality and actually separate us from reality.
-----------------------
Your concepts might be dharmas, but you can't speak for everyone. The concepts of the enlightened are like the images which appear in a perfect mirror, reflecting always what is really there.
I speak for all concepts.
John
---------------------
Not all concepts have but a tenous connection to reality. Why would you think so?
Better, you show me a concept that is not this way.
---------------------
My concept of anything at all (eg, "grass", "sky", etc) has a very close connection to reality, as I don't project anything onto reality that isn't there.
Your concept of the grass is not the grass, it is far removed from the grass.
--------------------
Each tool is useful only for a specific ailment. To entertain the idea that these concepts hold good for all conditions is a mistake.
--------------------
The enlightened person has only the one tool, which automatically works for every task.
The enlightened use any tool that is appropriate for each circumstance and then drop it as soon as it's not required.
-----------------------
No dharma can be anything but finite, concepts are dharmas which cannot represent reality and actually separate us from reality.
-----------------------
Your concepts might be dharmas, but you can't speak for everyone. The concepts of the enlightened are like the images which appear in a perfect mirror, reflecting always what is really there.
I speak for all concepts.
John