Causality

[seer]

QM is full of things that us lay people barely understand: spooky action at a distance, cause preceding effect (or retrocausality), quantum entanglement, and mutual causation. As Richard Feynman once said, "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."

I don't see how any of this would get you past an infinite regression of past events. I don't see how retrocausality would, never mind that there is no way to even test that according to your link.

Or as Shakespeare/Hamlet once said: "There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

I don't think effects without causes is one of them...

Not necessarily. See my comments above. You are thinking in terms of the simply causal chain of classical physics. QM suggests things may be far more complex.

You have not shown anything that would escape cause and effect.

[Sparko]

Or, using my "thought experiment," a source with quantum properties randomly producing independent singularities for eternity. Even if the process is entirely random (which I doubt it is), a universe with our kind of order is almost a certainty to eventually occur. After all - eternity is a long, long time.

except unless you want to postulate some other nonexistent property, things usually become more chaotic and the simple does not become complex. Entropy and all that. So some simple metaverse creating such complex on as this still seems impossible. Like that old example, you can run a tornado through a junk yard but you ain't gonna get it to create an airplane no matter how many times you do it.

[carpedm9587]

Or you could look at this way, there would be an infinite number of possible universes why ever hit on one that was not only life supporting but life creating? You still are left with an infinite number of past events though.

Because a life-supporting/life-sustaining/life-creating universe is clearly possible. If it is possible, in an infinity of time, it is more than probable - it is a virtually a certainty. As I noted, infinity is a long-long-time.

People often misunderstand how probability works. If I have a six-sided die - my probability of rolling a 1 is 1/6. If I get to roll it six times, my probability of rolling a 1 is 1-prob(not 1). That means each time I roll, I have to come up with one of the other five faces. Each roll has a probability of 5/6. All six rolls being "not 1" has a probability of (5/6)^6 - or .3349, so my probability of rolling six times and getting a 1 is 1-.3349 or 66.51%. Now make the number of rolls infinity... and you have (5/6)^infinity - which is a number that converges to 0. My probability of a 1 is essentially guarateed. The same is true with a universe, even if a universe has an infinitessimally small probability of coming out right...if there is an infinity of attempts, the probability of a universe with these properties converges to 1 (100%).

[carpedm9587]

I don't see how any of this would get you past an infinite regression of past events. I don't see how retrocausality would, never mind that there is no way to even test that according to your link.

Unless we read different links - no. What the authors said is there is currently no way to test that in isolation - the concept is primarily mathematical and linked to the concept of time (one of Sparko's favorites). And I think most of these at least crack the shell of inifinite regress. After all, mutual causation, and retrocausation (possibly even quantum entanglement) break the hard, linear, cause/effect basis for this philosophical conundrum.

I don't think effects without causes is one of them...

My point being, we don't know what we don't know - or what we will discover tomorrow. Only a handful of decades ago we never dreamed we would encounter the kind of causality relationships we are seeing in quantum mechanics today. Who knows what we will find in the coming decades?

You have not shown anything that would escape cause and effect.

I have shown that cause/effect are not limited to the relationship we see in classic physics - which is the basis for Kalam. It opens the mind to possibilities - not proofs. At least, it opens my mind...

[carpedm9587]

except unless you want to postulate some other nonexistent property, things usually become more chaotic and the simple does not become complex.

You should look into the properties of the average star. A fairly simple nuclear fusion process, unguided and unprogrammed, creates helium out of hydrogen. If you know your physics, the helium atom is more complex than the hydrogen atom. Evolution does the same thing for living forms.

Entropy and all that.

Entropy is about the net organization in closed systems. Our universe is a closed system, so it's total entropy is continually increasing. That does not preclude localized organization within the system. Yes, over time, matter will grow more chaotic and the universe will eventually die a heat death. Between now and then, organized systems can and do arise.

So some simple metaverse creating such complex on as this still seems impossible. Like that old example, you can run a tornado through a junk yard but you ain't gonna get it to create an airplane no matter how many times you do it.

If this system is infinite temporally and spatially (assuming those concepts even apply), it fails to me the criteria of a "closed system," as far as I know. You are also trying to apply laws operational WITHIN this universe to a hypothetical OUTSIDE this universe - and we do not even know if that is a valid application.

The tornado through the junkyard is a lovely visual - and I know it makes a lot of hay. But it doesn't really say much of anything because it ignores too much science and too many of the laws of physics.

[seer]

Because a life-supporting/life-sustaining/life-creating universe is clearly possible. If it is possible, in an infinity of time, it is more than probable - it is a virtually a certainty. As I noted, infinity is a long-long-time.

No, that doesn't follow. There would still be an infinite number of possible universes so there would be no reason, logically, to hit on one like ours. There is no certainty involved.

People often misunderstand how probability works. If I have a six-sided die - my probability of rolling a 1 is 1/6. If I get to roll it six times, my probability of rolling a 1 is 1-prob(not 1). That means each time I roll, I have to come up with one of the other five faces. Each roll has a probability of 5/6. All six rolls being "not 1" has a probability of (5/6)^6 - or .3349, so my probability of rolling six times and getting a 1 is 1-.3349 or 66.51%. Now make the number of rolls infinity... and you have (5/6)^infinity - which is a number that converges to 0. My probability of a 1 is essentially guarateed. The same is true with a universe, even if a universe has an infinitessimally small probability of coming out right...if there is an infinity of attempts, the probability of a universe with these properties converges to 1 (100%).

That does not make sense, not only are there an infinite number of attempts to hit the right kind of universe, there are also an infinite number of attempts to hit the wrong kind of universes.

[seer]

Unless we read different links - no. What the authors said is there is currently no way to test that in isolation - the concept is primarily mathematical and linked to the concept of time (one of Sparko's favorites). And I think most of these at least crack the shell of inifinite regress. After all, mutual causation, and retrocausation (possibly even quantum entanglement) break the hard, linear, cause/effect basis for this philosophical conundrum.

No they don't break cause and effect, even retrocausality is merely cause and effect in reverse.

My point being, we don't know what we don't know - or what we will discover tomorrow. Only a handful of decades ago we never dreamed we would encounter the kind of causality relationships we are seeing in quantum mechanics today. Who knows what we will find in the coming decades?

It will logically only end up in the ways I said, either cause and effect will remain, or we will have effects without causes. There is no other option, even with the probabilities of the quantum world.

I have shown that cause/effect are not limited to the relationship we see in classic physics - which is the basis for Kalam. It opens the mind to possibilities - not proofs. At least, it opens my mind...

It does not do away with cause and effect.

[carpedm9587]

No, that doesn't follow. There would still be an infinite number of possible universes so there would be no reason, logically, to hit on one like ours. There is no certainty involved.

What is your basis for assuming there are an infinite number of possible universes?

That does not make sense, not only are there an infinite number of attempts to hit the right kind of universe, there are also an infinite number of wrong kind of universes.

Same question.

[carpedm9587]

No they don't break cause and effect, even retrocausality is merely cause and effect in reverse.

Exactly - in reverse. And mutual causality is associated with quantum entanglement (AFAICT). It potentially alters the relationship from a strictly linear one to a far more complex one. Kalam assumes cause -> effect. It does not assume effect <- cause or cause/effect <-> cause/effect.

It will logically only end up in the ways I said, either cause and effect will remain, or we will have effects without causes. There is no other option, even with the probabilities of the quantum world.

It does not do away with cause and effect.

Since I have not said anything about elimnating cause/effect - I have no response.

[seer]

What is your basis for assuming there are an infinite number of possible universes?

What is your basis for saying there isn't? How would you know? Never mind the fact that whatever is generating these universes would have to be quite a machine.

[seer]

Since I have not said anything about elimnating cause/effect - I have no response.

Then nothing you said changes the problem of infinite regression whether strictly linear or not. And I'm not sure what you keep referencing Kalam.

[carpedm9587]

What is your basis for saying there isn't?

You do hate to answer questions, don't you? I remember that tactic from debate club in High School. Asking and seldom answering gives an advantage in a debate. However, since this is not a debate, and I'm not looking to convince you of anything...

In the thought experiment - we are hypothesizing a vehicle for the creation of singularities - such as the one that gave rise to this universe. This universe works on basic physical laws, so it seems reasonable to assume other universes would also function according to physical laws. Indeed, it is entirely possible every one of these universes operates according to the same basic physical laws, given they would arise from the same source. So it is at least as likely that every universe will form along similar lines to this one as it is that every universe is entirely different.

So, for your objection to hold - only ONE condition is possible: an infinity of possible universes. ANY bounding on that, whatsoever, in any way, results in the mathematical outcome I outlined. Ergo - it seems clear it is more likely that universes have at least some form of limitation (e.g, the nature of its laws, the values of its key parameters, etc.) than that it has not.

[carpedm9587]

Then nothing you said changes the problem of infinite regression whether strictly linear or not. And I'm not sure what you keep referencing Kalam.

As you wish, Seer. I think otherwise. But we have disagreed now and again...

[seer]

In the thought experiment - we are hypothesizing a vehicle for the creation of singularities - such as the one that gave rise to this universe. This universe works on basic physical laws, so it seems reasonable to assume other universes would also function according to physical laws. Indeed, it is entirely possible every one of these universes operates according to the same basic physical laws, given they would arise from the same source. So it is at least as likely that every universe will form along similar lines to this one as it is that every universe is entirely different.

How do you know there are basic physical laws? Perhaps there are an infinite number of such laws, or an infinite number of combinations. Never mind the fact, that even if such a universe generating machine did exist, how could you ever demonstrate that it was eternal into the past. Perhaps it had a beginning. You know Carp, thinking about all this and the vast complexity you are suggesting I think I will invoke Occam's razor here and suggest a much simpler explanation for our universe - a single supremely powerful Intelligence. Do I win?

[carpedm9587]

How do you know there are basic physical laws? Perhaps there are an infinite number of such laws, or an infinite number of combinations. Never mind the fact, that even if such a universe generating machine did exist, how could you ever demonstrate that it was eternal into the past. Perhaps it had a beginning. You know Carp, thinking about all this and the vast complexity you are suggesting I think I will invoke Occam's razor here and suggest a much simpler explanation for our universe - a single supremely powerful Intelligence. Do I win?

As I said, Seer, it was a thought experiment. I don't KNOW anything. I am looking to see if there is anything about the thought experiment that is necessarily impossible. So far, I have found nothing. So I am left with the basic idea of a singularity-generating "matrix" of some sort that is infinite. The only thing you have said that could possibly raise a question is the possibility of an infinite number of different universes - but given that is one condition, and ANY bounding brings us back to the math I outline, it seems more likely that there is not an infinity of different universes, if they all arise from a common "universe spawning" matrix.

I have to admit I do not see a lot of complexity here. It's actually elegantly simple. And Occam's Razor is not about simplicity or complexity. It simply says, "do not add more to an explanation than is strictly necessary." Your proposal adds sentience to a process that does not appear to require it. When it continues into the entire Judaic/Christian theology, it begin to pile complexity onto complexity with multiple contradictions. I have to admit I do not see your proposal as "simpler."

But you can win if you like...