-->
@drafterman
That's a result of the complexity of the bird's brain and our inability to model it.
Your logical fallacy is, APPEAL TO IGNORANCE.
Only truth and logic exists
Posts
Total:
115
-->
@drafterman
The same exact principle applies to leaves falling off a tree.
It has nothing at all to do with "the complexity" of a "bird brain".
Here's a perfect illustration in 6 minutes and 59 seconds, [LINK]
-->
@3RU7AL
First, can you try and keep it to a single reply at a time?
Second, I've already explained why you are misusing the term "appeal to ignorance." If you need a refresher, go back and look at my reply to you where I explained why you are using that term incorrectly.
Third, all of your examples fall under the same umbrella: complex systems whose behavior is unpredictable because of its complexity.
Again, this is not analogous to radioactive decay. We aren't talking about a complex system that is too difficult for us to model. Whatever example you want to use, be it the behavior of some animal or other living organism, or weather systems, or what have you, that is not what I'm talking about. Everything you've mentioned has an underlying physical process whose unpredictability is a result of its complexity and sensitivity to initial conditions. This is not the case for things like radioactive decay and quantum fluctuations.
-->
@drafterman
Third, all of your examples fall under the same umbrella: complex systems whose behavior is unpredictable because of its complexity.
There you go again.
Unpredictable BECAUSE OF its complexity.
You're making a claim.
You're making a claim based on some amorphous incomprehensible complexity.
This is an appeal to complexity.
APPEAL TO COMPLEXITY = APPEAL TO IGNORANCE
It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
-->
@drafterman
This is not the case for things like radioactive decay and quantum fluctuations.
How do you know this?
-->
@3RU7AL
OR, you could just call it an AXIOM.
Thank you, that was the word I was looking for
-->
@drafterman
Yes, the time of decay of an individual nucleus is unpredictable. The lifetime of a radioactive substance is not affected in any way by any physical or chemical conditions to which the substance may be subjected.
-->
@drafterman
@3RU7AL
Again, this is not analogous to radioactive decay. We aren't talking about a complex system that is too difficult for us to model. Whatever example you want to use, be it the behavior of some animal or other living organism, or weather systems, or what have you, that is not what I'm talking about. Everything you've mentioned has an underlying physical process whose unpredictability is a result of its complexity and sensitivity to initial conditions. This is not the case for things like radioactive decay and quantum fluctuations.
It totally is.
We have modelled "matter" on so many levels: gravity, chemistry, quantum mechanics and many fields connected to them
You claim that radioactive decay is acausal, despite it happening seemingly predictable on a grand scale. We can assume that there is a causal relationship between "being a thing with the potential for decaying" and the actual decaying. Also, here is an explanation of what allows decaying to happen:
Radioactive decay is the spontaneous breakdown of an atomic nucleus resulting in the release of energy and matter from the nucleus. Remember that a radioisotope has unstable nuclei that does not have enough binding energy to hold the nucleus together.
There are at least a few certain "causes", that makes decaying a possibility.
I want to show two possible logical conclusions:
A - We have created a lot of models about the nature of atoms, and all of them except your two examples show a clear causality. If we mix water and salt, there is causality, you cannot disagree on this one. Even though there is causality, we cannot predict which molecules will stick to each ion, it just "happens". So basically there is no causality in this casual relationship of chemistry. This time you cannot rebuke it by claiming that it is just complexity because we are also on the same scale.
B - What if you are correct. We know that everything that is not happening right now is being prevented by a logical law, there is a law that claims that pink flying elephants cannot exist without a quite special cause (maybe even God is necessary for this project). Even radioactive decay has some necessary cause in order to happen, explained earlier. But it could be a possibility that some causes are acausal. Let me explain:
- Radioactive decay cannot happen without a cause, one of which is having unstable nuklei
- An unstable nuklei does not immediately decay
- There are some possibilities
- There is a cause which is itself "acasual or random"
- Maybe the cause is a mysterious "true randomness", maybe quantum mechanics
- Maybe the cause is seemingly random because of the complexity it is dependent on, for example, quantum mechanics
- There are many causes that must be true at the same time
- Once a new cause becomes present, another one is removed and so fort, it seems acasual because of complexity
- The causes are different for every specific atom, and thus unpredictable because of uncertainty
Of these two options, I like number 2 the most
We can conclude:
- Causality exists for sure
- Acausality can have different explanations:
- Complexity
- Uncertainty
- Theoretical randomness, ( aka: "a wizard did it!" )
There is no reason to automatically assume that theoretical, illogical randomness exists.
Either way, acausality remains nonexistent:
Acausality: "the rejection of the law of cause and effect"
=> "the event will happen without a cause"
=> "the event will happen now as nothing prevents it from happening"
=> It doesn't happen now, so there must be a cause for such a delay
-->
@Benjamin
Again, this is not analogous to radioactive decay. We aren't talking about a complex system that is too difficult for us to model. Whatever example you want to use, be it the behavior of some animal or other living organism, or weather systems, or what have you, that is not what I'm talking about. Everything you've mentioned has an underlying physical process whose unpredictability is a result of its complexity and sensitivity to initial conditions. This is not the case for things like radioactive decay and quantum fluctuations.It totally is.We have modelled "matter" on so many levels: gravity, chemistry, quantum mechanics and many fields connected to themYou claim that radioactive decay is acausal, despite it happening seemingly predictable on a grand scale.
I don't claim that it is acausal. I claim that acausality is not ruled out.
We can assume that there is a causal relationship between "being a thing with the potential for decaying" and the actual decaying.
Potentiality is not causality. Everything has the potential to be something other than what it is, yet transition to that "something else" either requires a cause or is spontaneous.
Also, here is an explanation of what allows decaying to happen:Radioactive decay is the spontaneous breakdown of an atomic nucleus resulting in the release of energy and matter from the nucleus. Remember that a radioisotope has unstable nuclei that does not have enough binding energy to hold the nucleus together.
Spontaneous: "performed or occurring as a result of a sudden inner impulse or inclination and without premeditation or external stimulus."
Without external stimulus. E.g. without cause.
There are at least a few certain "causes", that makes decaying a possibility.I want to show two possible logical conclusions:A - We have created a lot of models about the nature of atoms, and all of them except your two examples show a clear causality. If we mix water and salt, there is causality, you cannot disagree on this one. Even though there is causality, we cannot predict which molecules will stick to each ion, it just "happens". So basically there is no causality in this casual relationship of chemistry. This time you cannot rebuke it by claiming that it is just complexity because we are also on the same scale.
I do rebuke it by complexity. Our inabiltiy to predict which molecules will stick to each ion is a result of our inability to perfect model and simulate such a system. There are too many variables that are too reliant on specific initial conditions. It is a complex, chaotic system.
This is not the cause for radioactivity. Radioactivity just happens. There isn't some underlying complex mechanism going on that defies analysis because of its complexity and chaotic nature.
B - What if you are correct. We know that everything that is not happening right now is being prevented by a logical law, there is a law that claims that pink flying elephants cannot exist without a quite special cause (maybe even God is necessary for this project).
There is no such law. That's my point. You are positing the existence of laws which are not given. You are making unfounded assumptions.
Even radioactive decay has some necessary cause in order to happen, explained earlier. But it could be a possibility that some causes are acausal. Let me explain:
- Radioactive decay cannot happen without a cause, one of which is having unstable nuklei
Unstable nuclei allows radioactive decay to happen but is not the cause, no more so than an open door allows me to go outside but does not cause me to go outside.
- An unstable nuklei does not immediately decay
- There are some possibilities
- There is a cause which is itself "acasual or random"
- Maybe the cause is a mysterious "true randomness", maybe quantum mechanics
- Maybe the cause is seemingly random because of the complexity it is dependent on, for example, quantum mechanics
- There are many causes that must be true at the same time
- Once a new cause becomes present, another one is removed and so fort, it seems acasual because of complexity
- The causes are different for every specific atom, and thus unpredictable because of uncertainty
Of these two options, I like number 2 the mostWe can conclude:
- Causality exists for sure
- Acausality can have different explanations:
- Complexity
- Uncertainty
- Theoretical randomness, ( aka: "a wizard did it!" )
There is no reason to automatically assume that theoretical, illogical randomness exists.
And this is my point. You are assuming everything is causal because you "like" it. You are appealing to your own intuition and this is the crux of my argument. The assumptions you are making are not given, but you are acting like they are because you want them to be. You "like" everything being causal, so you assume that it is. And that's fine, but until you provide a foundation for these assumptions, you can't expect anyone else to accept them.
Either way, acausality remains nonexistent:Acausality: "the rejection of the law of cause and effect"=> "the event will happen without a cause"=> "the event will happen now as nothing prevents it from happening"=> It doesn't happen now, so there must be a cause for such a delay
And yet the entire body of science permits its possibility. If acausality was an impossibility, then it would be assumed that things like radioactive decay and quantum fluctuations have some unknown cause: but this isn't what happens. Science does not assume there is an unknown cause and allows for the possibility that these things are acausal.
Your statement that nothing acausal can exist is unproven and exists only as an assumption you've taken.
-->
@drafterman
Acausallity according to you
just happens
That is the defining feature of acausality AND causality.=> Both acasual and causal events "just happen"
The laws of physics just happen, so does quantum mechanics, this particular definition is incorrect.
The difference between the two is this:
- Any "causal" event is based on conditions
- Any causal event is defined as being controlled by causality
- Causality is to be dependent on conditions - that the event will happen if and only if certain criteria are met
- Any causal event requires certain conditions
- Any "acausal" event is not
- Any acausal event is defined as being based on acausality
- Acausality: not involving causation or arising from a cause - thus not being limited by causality
- Any acausal event will happen regardless of any conditions
This means that acausal events will happen immediately but without a cause, and will ignore any condition making the even impossible.
If an event can be prevented or caused, it is not acausal.
Thus since stable nuclei prevent the event "radioactive decay" from happening, it is a causal, not acausal, event.
And NO, when talking about these things, time is nonexistent:
- Events happen everywhere they are allowed to happen, all times, everywhere, with no exceptions
- Acausal events can happen everywhere since they cannot be prevented by causality
- Since events happen everywhere every time possible, acausal events would happen at the same time in the entire fabric of space-time
Any possible event will happen anytime anywhere, immediately, where possible.
No event can be delayed, time is nonexistent in this situation, as it is just a part of spacetime.
Acausallity according to you
This is not the cause for radioactivity. Radioactivity just happens.
That is the defining feature of acausality AND causality => Both acasual and causal events "just happen"
The difference between the two is this:
- Any "causal" event is based on conditions
- Any causal event is defined as being controlled by causality
- Causality is to be dependent on conditions - that the event will happen if and only if certain criteria are met
- Any causal event requires certain conditions
- Any "acausal" event is not
- Any acausal event is defined as being based on acausality
- Acausality: not involving causation or arising from a cause - thus not being limited by causality
- Any acausal event will happen regardless of any conditions
This means that acausal events will happen immediately but without a cause, and will ignore any condition making the even impossible.
If an event can be prevented or caused, it is not acausal.
Thus since stable nuclei prevent the event "radioactive decay" from happening, it is a causal, not acausal, event.
And when talking about these things, time is nonexistent:
- Events happen everywhere they are allowed to happen, all times, everywhere, with no exceptions
- Acausal events can happen everywhere since they cannot be prevented by causality
- Since events happen everywhere every time possible, acausal events would happen at the same time in the entire fabric of space-time
-->
@3RU7AL
@Benjamin
@Benjamin:
"Truth and logic exists, untrue and illogical things cannot exist"
You can reduce this further. Of course, reduction is ultimately an exercise in futility. But at least at this stage, it still can be reduced. Why must truth and logic exist, and why must illogical (and presumably "untruthful" ) things not exist? What do you mean by "exist"?
@3RU7AL:
OR, you could just call it an AXIOM.
Haha. Suppose he could.
-->
@drafterman
@3RU7AL
There is no escape from the big questions.
"God is not playing dice with the universe"Albert Einstein"God is playing dice with the universe as a funny prank. He is smart enough to do it only inside atoms, where he could never be caught, or - so he though. "drafterman"God is playing dice with the universe, but the dice are still dependent on their initial velocity and spin. The only random thing is the rolling tecnique God uses."Benjamin"God is playing dice with the universe. But even though it is random, it still has a cause - God"3RU7AL
Sorry, Albert Einstein, you are down four to one
XD
-->
@Benjamin
That is the defining feature of acausality AND causality.=> Both acasual and causal events "just happen"The laws of physics just happen, so does quantum mechanics, this particular definition is incorrect.The difference between the two is this:
- Any "causal" event is based on conditions
- Any causal event is defined as being controlled by causality
- Causality is to be dependent on conditions - that the event will happen if and only if certain criteria are met
- Any causal event requires certain conditions
- Any "acausal" event is not
- Any acausal event is defined as being based on acausality
- Acausality: not involving causation or arising from a cause - thus not being limited by causality
- Any acausal event will happen regardless of any conditions
This means that acausal events will happen immediately but without a cause, and will ignore any condition making the even impossible.If an event can be prevented or caused, it is not acausal.
Radioactive decay cannot be prevented or caused, ergo by your own definition, it is acausal.
Thus since stable nuclei prevent the event "radioactive decay" from happening, it is a causal, not acausal, event.
You cannot stop a radioactive nuclei from decaying.
And NO, when talking about these things, time is nonexistent:
- Events happen everywhere they are allowed to happen, all times, everywhere, with no exceptions
- Acausal events can happen everywhere since they cannot be prevented by causality
- Since events happen everywhere every time possible, acausal events would happen at the same time in the entire fabric of space-time
I don't agree with your criteria.
Also:
"God is playing dice with the universe as a funny prank. He is smart enough to do it only inside atoms, where he could never be caught, or - so he though. "drafterman
Don't put words in my mouth.
-->
@Benjamin
"God is playing dice with the universe. But even though it is random, it still has a cause - God"
And even GOD is subject to the laws of cause and effect.
(IFF) GOD knows everything (THEN) GOD cannot generate an "unpredictable" or "random" action
Perhaps I'd say,
"God may or may not be playing dice with the universe. From our perspective it looks exactly the same either way."
-->
@drafterman
Radioactive decay cannot be prevented or caused, ergo by your own definition, it is acausal.
Simply because you don't know how to prevent or accelerate a particular event does not mean that event is "uncaused".
Making a claim like, "it is acausal" is just another appeal to ignorance.
Unstable nuclei allows radioactive decay to happen but is not the cause
Let us apply that logic elsewhere.
We are scientists that have to look at a plane from afar:
- Having wings allows a plane to fly, but they are not the cause of it flying
- Having an engine allows a plane to fly, but it is not the cause
- Air allows a plane to fly, but it is not the cause
- etc
- The plane suddenly starts flying - and thus the flight is acausal.
Your logic is flawed. It is based on the assumption that predictable means "possibly" acausal. Since some science will always find something unpredictable and simultaneously hard to study in too much detail. according to your logic, we should always be ready to accept that this thing could be acausal.
You claim that there is a difference between "cause", "allow" and "prevent".
No there is none, they can be defined by each other in a circle, consider this rewriting:
- "to prevent" means to cause something that cancels another cause OR to stop allowing a cause to be active
- "cause" means to remove a prevention OR allow something you previously did not allow
- "allow" means to stop preventing something OR causing an event to be more likely by providing one of the causes necessary
- etc - they all have the same concept - condition - at their core
To cause, allow, prevent, stop, hinder, make possible etc...must all be treated equally as the "conditions" that decide if an event is happening or not
The laws of physics are always active in controlling our universe - they make sure nothing happens without "certain conditions" being true.
Unstable nuclei allows radioactive decay to happen but is not the cause, no more so than an open door allows me to go outside but does not cause me to go outside.
In other words:
Unstable nuclei are necessary for radioactive decay to happen but it is not the cause for decaying. As I proved "cause" and "allow" both involve "condition"
In other words:
There is no certain cause (final condition) for radioactive decay, but the first condition is that it must happen in an unstable nuclei
In other words:
Radioactive decay has at least one condition, but it is still acausal because we cannot predict when the "magical" cause happens
-->
@Benjamin
We are scientists that have to look at a plane from afar:
- Having wings allows a plane to fly, but they are not the cause of it flying
- Having an engine allows a plane to fly, but it is not the cause
- Air allows a plane to fly, but it is not the cause
- etc
- The plane suddenly starts flying - and thus the flight is acausal.
Great example.
-->
@Benjamin
Unstable nuclei are necessary for radioactive decay to happen but it is not the cause for decaying. As I proved "cause" and "allow" both involve "condition"
The bullet wound through the dog's stomach did not CAUSE it to bleed to death.
The bullet wound through the dog's stomach ALLOWED it to bleed to death.
-->
@drafterman
@3RU7AL
You cannot stop a radioactive nuclei from decaying.
That means that you are admitting this:
"Well, we cannot identify any certain cause for decaying, we just know that once a nucleus becomes radioactive, at some point it will decay no matter what, but it will never happen to a stable nucleus. Surely we know that the time it takes is unpredictable, but there is no reason to believe that randomness comes from a cause like instability.
How could one believe that decaying is not-causal? It only happens to certain types of unstable nuclei. All of us should know enough about science to understand that stability is a very important case for an atom, for which it is willing to become brutal to other atoms. Everything atoms do, are dependent on their stability, and in all other cases, chemistry, for example, we admit it is causal. Every elementary particle carries different amounts of energy which we cannot know, and atoms are complicated. This should provide a much better explanation for why it seems random than:
it has no cause, thus "a wizard inside an atom did it"
Conclusion: We can believe in magical randomness or scientific randomness
-->
@drafterman
You should retreat to this position:
"Quantum mechanics are acausal"
"Radioactive decay is acausal because it is influenced by quantum mechanics"
Or else your theory will fall apart
-->
@Benjamin
My position is fine as is:
The impossibility of acausality is not demonstrated and you should more appropriately stated it as an assumption of yours rather than a generally given premise.
-->
@3RU7AL
For the third time, I am not saying it is acausal. I am saying that acausality is not ruled out.
Do you understand the difference?
-->
@drafterman
I am not saying it is acausal. I am saying that acausality is not ruled out.
But that hypothesis cannot be restricted to specific phenomena.
Non-causal events "could be" at the root of all things.
-->
@3RU7AL
Non-causal events "could be" at the root of all things.
Certainly.