Thread: Logical Proof for God #1

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

By that I mean that both relativity theory and quantum theory allow for backwards causality. Like I said, backwards causality is not necessarily as simple as your physical body popping off the timeline and then reentering it in the past. Also, why do you assume that traveling backwards in time necessarily means you could alter history? Even if it is as simple as it appears in the movies, it could be closer to 12 monkeys or slaughterhouse 5 than back to the future. Just because you go back doesn't mean you have special control.

By merely being there in my present form, I would be altering history. Control is not necessary for the alteration. Imagine going "back in time" and visiting yourself. Have you ever been visited by your future self? If not, then going "back in time" and visiting yourself would not be to the real previous time.

I don't reject backwards causality. I have argued on this site many times that cause does not even have to happen in a time sequence. It is just "A, therefore B." Math is full of such relations, and I don't believe the rules of math are dependent on time for their existence. The reality of a future scenario can mandate the existence of a past scenario. I see a timeline as a whole, and its many parts are based on each other. However, that principle would not necessitate the possiblity of backward time travel.

Who is to say that I haven't met myself from the future? Would my future self necessarily want me to know? Perhaps I just choose not to meet myself at all. Have you seen 12 monkeys? Bruce willis learns that even though he travels to the past, as far as the timeline is concerned, he already did it before he left, he didn't actually change anything.

Regardless, you agree that backwards causality is possible, so what are we arguing? If I can cause the past in the future by any method, then I could possibly cause the universe to be born from the future, thus qualifying as the creator, or god.

The analysis of causality and the arrow of time is so fascinating. The laws of physics are the same in both time directions, so it seems intuitively bizarre that we feel such an insurmountable disconnect with the past. As to what 'causality' actually means, Hume pretty much cracked that one. It doesn't mean anything; it's a fictitious concept based on a baseless extrapolation from experience. A happens, and then B tends to happen after. There is no 'cause' in between; there's no 'therefore' either. It just is. It's a constant conjunction. We can simplify some complex conjunctions into more basic conjunctions (this is the definition of science), but of course, this must terminate at some point. In the end all you're left with is a set of axiomatic conjunctions, supported by observation. If you subject a positively charged particle to an electric field, it will accelerate. Why? The question is meaningless. It just always has done. There's no cause, and no logical implication. It could fail to happen and we would not be able to raise any objections.

Is it relevant to describe how causality is meaningless when we are looking for logical proof?

If it is relevant, then what are you left with?

Originally Posted by Xei

It just is.

Bird got to fly.

In the end all you're left with is a set of axiomatic conjunctions, supported by observation. If you subject a positively charged particle to an electric field, it will accelerate. Why? The question is meaningless. It just always has done. There's no cause, and no logical implication. It could fail to happen and we would not be able to raise any objections.

What a religious conclusion.

Originally Posted by really

Is it relevant to describe how causality is meaningless when we are looking for logical proof?

If it is relevant, then what are you left with?

؟

Originally Posted by InvisibleWoman

What a religious conclusion.

It isn't remotely religious, because as I made clear, the basic conjunctions are supported by millions of observations, and haven't been contradicted a single time. Religion is based on no observations and is often contradicted by observations. The point however is that it is just an observation, not a logical implication. There's no logical basis for thinking that something will continue to happen based on the fact that it's happened before... it just seems to work extremely well. And of course, call it what you want, it won't change the fact is that analysis shows it to be true.

؟

?

Dunno either.

Originally Posted by Xei

It isn't remotely religious, because as I made clear, the basic conjunctions are supported by millions of observations, and haven't been contradicted a single time. Religion is based on no observations and is often contradicted by observations.

Not much substance here, for this can also support what you're arguing against. I wouldn't want to go on a tangent though...

The point however is that it is just an observation, not a logical implication. There's no logical basis for thinking that something will continue to happen based on the fact that it's happened before... it just seems to work extremely well. And of course, call it what you want, it won't change the fact is that analysis shows it to be true.

Are you taking a step beyond causality and seeing it as a mere observation? Enough to say that, without it, phenomena 'just is'. Quite odd, coming from you.

Is there a form of logic to describe events that works better than 'causality'? And by 'better', I mean 'better than extremely well'. Perhaps it is just logic itself that works extremely well, but does not make it an actual thing either. Is there any real difference? Are you saying that there is something better?

Originally Posted by really

Not much substance here, for this can also support what you're arguing against. I wouldn't want to go on a tangent though...

I don't recall arguing against anything... I was just putting forward my opinion that causality is generally misunderstood to mean something much more potent than it actually is. When you analyse it the whole concept kind of melts away into nothing much at all. That was all I was arguing against.

Are you taking a step beyond causality and seeing it as a mere observation? Enough to say that, without it, phenomena 'just is'. Quite odd, coming from you.

I don't know what this means. I'm not going 'beyond' causality... I don't know which mere observation you're referring to. I'm saying causality isn't an actual thing, there are just patterns in observation.

Is there a form of logic to describe events that works better than 'causality'? And by 'better', I mean 'better than extremely well'. Perhaps it is just logic itself that works extremely well, but does not make it an actual thing either. Is there any real difference? Are you saying that there is something better?

I don't know what causality 'as a form of logic' means. The thing that works extremely well which I was referring to was induction. Induction itself is baseless, we really can't do any better.

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't recall arguing against anything... I was just putting forward my opinion that causality is generally misunderstood to mean something much more potent than it actually is. When you analyse it the whole concept kind of melts away into nothing much at all. That was all I was arguing against.

I got that. You argued against InvisibleWoman's statement, by making a vague contrast with religion.

I don't know what causality 'as a form of logic' means. The thing that works extremely well which I was referring to was induction. Induction itself is baseless, we really can't do any better.

But isn't induction a form of logic? Isn't logic also not an 'actual thing'?

I ask these questions because you appear to be supporting a paradigm jump by showing how causality is less potent than widely believed; i.e. "It doesn't mean anything; it's a fictitious concept based on a baseless extrapolation from experience. A happens, and then B tends to happen after. There is no 'cause' in between; there's no 'therefore' either. It just is.". Don't you know that this is a great supporting point to a logical conclusion of God? Not directly what the O.P. was after, I must say.

Originally Posted by Xei

A happens, and then B tends to happen after. There is no 'cause' in between; there's no 'therefore' either. It just is. It's a constant conjunction. We can simplify some complex conjunctions into more basic conjunctions (this is the definition of science), but of course, this must terminate at some point. In the end all you're left with is a set of axiomatic conjunctions, supported by observation.

Hmm, does this not assume that all phenomenona are individual 'things'? When people mistakenly believe A causes B because A co-exists with B, and it's merely correlation, that's understandable. And I can see, in some way, how this applies to the presence of A happening to precede the presence of B - strictly, another correlation not causation. This makes intuitive sense to me if things are actually individual, separate things.

However, if everything is fundamentally 'linked' like a complex web, then is causation not necessary and obvious? That is if you accept that premise. Visually and simplistically, it'd be like you holding one end of a rope and me the other end. If I pull my end (A), you'll move toward me (B) - is that not clear causation? On the contrary, if we cannot see that rope and I motion my hands in a pulling fashion (A) and you move toward me (B), there is no clear causation, but there is correlation.

At the very base, is 'reality' not theorised to be intimately interconnected?

Edit: lol... it's funny though, because from the second part of the example, we could haphazardly say B always proceeds A, so there must be an unseen interconnection - a rope, if you will. But by strict definition--if we can't ever directly see the rope--that interconnection is an invention... a fitting concept. But a necessary induction, no? Hmmm

It really does depend on whether the base of reality being interconnected is a 'guess' to make sense of 'causality' or whether there really is an interconnection/web. When you say: "In the end all you're left with is a set of axiomatic conjunctions, supported by observation". That is true for now. But if science eventually penetrates to a point where it can perceive 'physical' interconnection, then causality can be accepted without induction...

Originally Posted by Xei

The analysis of causality and the arrow of time is so fascinating. The laws of physics are the same in both time directions, so it seems intuitively bizarre that we feel such an insurmountable disconnect with the past. As to what 'causality' actually means, Hume pretty much cracked that one. It doesn't mean anything; it's a fictitious concept based on a baseless extrapolation from experience. A happens, and then B tends to happen after. There is no 'cause' in between; there's no 'therefore' either. It just is. It's a constant conjunction. We can simplify some complex conjunctions into more basic conjunctions (this is the definition of science), but of course, this must terminate at some point. In the end all you're left with is a set of axiomatic conjunctions, supported by observation. If you subject a positively charged particle to an electric field, it will accelerate. Why? The question is meaningless. It just always has done. There's no cause, and no logical implication. It could fail to happen and we would not be able to raise any objections.

There is no such thing as causation? If a golf ball flies through your window after somebody hit the ball, the hitting of the ball was not the cause of the ball going through your window? Is it a coincidence? Are all apparent cause-effect relationships just coincidences?

There is no such thing as an uncaused event. The necessity of cause is part of what keeps order in the universe. There would be complete chaos without it.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Who is to say that I haven't met myself from the future? Would my future self necessarily want me to know? Perhaps I just choose not to meet myself at all. Have you seen 12 monkeys? Bruce willis learns that even though he travels to the past, as far as the timeline is concerned, he already did it before he left, he didn't actually change anything.

Regardless, you agree that backwards causality is possible, so what are we arguing? If I can cause the past in the future by any method, then I could possibly cause the universe to be born from the future, thus qualifying as the creator, or god.

Your point about Bruce Willis does get around the contradiction I discussed, but there are other issues. I believe in backwards causality, but not in the complete removal of something from a point in time and appearance at another. Paths of time don't do loops. Your future cannot also be your past. What you will experience next is always your future. Teleporting to a scenario that you once experienced exactly would just be doing the same thing again. You would be watching history literally repeat itself, but you would not actually be going back in time. The idea contradicts itself.

What is your speculation on why we have no knowledge of anybody ever being visited by anybody from the future?

Originally Posted by Wolfwood

Hmm, does this not assume that all phenomenona are individual 'things'? When people mistakenly believe A causes B because A co-exists with B, and it's merely correlation, that's understandable. And I can see, in some way, how this applies to the presence of A happening to precede the presence of B - strictly, another correlation not causation. This makes intuitive sense to me if things are actually individual, separate things.

However, if everything is fundamentally 'linked' like a complex web, then is causation not necessary and obvious? That is if you accept that premise. Visually and simplistically, it'd be like you holding one end of a rope and me the other end. If I pull my end (A), you'll move toward me (B) - is that not clear causation? On the contrary, if we cannot see that rope and I motion my hands in a pulling fashion (A) and you move toward me (B), there is no clear causation, but there is correlation.

At the very base, is 'reality' not theorised to be intimately interconnected?

I'm not sure what message I can take from this... maybe I am missing your point, but it sounds like you are just elaborating the converse position, rather than giving evidence for it. What is the basis for this 'web'? And what is the 'web' anyway? You describe it like a series of invisible ropes... how could we ever ascertain whether there were truly ropes there if they are inherently unseen? Isn't the entire concept of a rope superfluous; we can do perfectly well by saying 'A happens and B tends to happen afterwards and that's just how things seem to be', rather than insisting 'A happens and then the rope happens and then B happens because of it and that's just how things are'. I think the entire insistence of 'ropes' is just based on an unjustified extrapolation from human experience, in the same way that we think Euclidean geometry is a necessary structure when really it's just the only bit we've ever been able to see with our biological eyes, or that solid, extended objects are necessary structures when in reality there is no such thing, there's just a bunch of quantum wave/particles. Once you extend it too far, the paradigm breaks. You say A pulling a rope which pulls B is an example of 'necessary and obvious' causation. But it really isn't; just try to delineate the exact train of causality. Repeatedly ask the question 'why'. In the end you won't be able to provide any explanation at all, just an assertion, and you would have zero basis to protest if that assertion one day failed to work for some unknown reason. Trying to explain fundamental conjunctions in terms of familiar, macroscopic things like ropes seems to me to be analogous to the people who insist that there must be some intuitive way to explain the results of quantum physics, in terms of solid, extended billiard balls. Hopefully you see clearly what the folly is here and why the concept of causality is very much the same.

Edit: lol... it's funny though, because from the second part of the example, we could haphazardly say B always proceeds A, so there must be an unseen interconnection - a rope, if you will. But by strict definition--if we can't ever directly see the rope--that interconnection is an invention... a fitting concept. But a necessary induction, no? Hmmm

It really does depend on whether the base of reality being interconnected is a 'guess' to make sense of 'causality' or whether there really is an interconnection/web. When you say: "In the end all you're left with is a set of axiomatic conjunctions, supported by observation". That is true for now. But if science eventually penetrates to a point where it can perceive 'physical' interconnection, then causality can be accepted without induction...

It won't. It can't. And indeed, there's no reason to think that the concept even makes any sense. All science ever does is explain facts in terms of more common facts. People think science 'explains facts'. Period. But that's entirely wrong, there will always be some axiomatic facts upon which everything else follows. All science does is try to make these as general as possible. Just try to conceptualise what it would be like to explain something without relying on any axioms whatsoever. The whole idea is specious.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

There is no such thing as causation? If a golf ball flies through your window after somebody hit the ball, the hitting of the ball was not the cause of the ball going through your window? Is it a coincidence? Are all apparent cause-effect relationships just coincidences?

I'm not sure what 'coincidence' could mean in this context. Certainly we couldn't raise any logical objections if the golf club caused the ball to disappear, or caused it to go backwards. What would your argument be? Before you ever saw one object hit another, how could you possibly know what was going to happen to the objects? And if cause isn't a necessity, then what does it refer to? The crucial question is: why did the club 'cause' the golf ball to go forwards? What was 'the cause'? Explain further.

Originally Posted by Xei

I'm not sure what 'coincidence' could mean in this context.

The events that always go together and have people thinking there is a cause-effect relationship between them... Is it just a coincidence that they always occur together in the ways they do? The hitting of a golf ball is always followed by the movement of the golf ball. Always. Is it just a recurring coincidence? Why does one event always follow the other?

Originally Posted by Xei

Certainly we couldn't raise any logical objections if the golf club caused the ball to disappear, or caused it to go backwards. What would your argument be? Before you ever saw one object hit another, how could you possibly know what was going to happen to the objects? And if cause isn't a necessity, then what does it refer to? The crucial question is: why did the club 'cause' the golf ball to go forwards? What was 'the cause'? Explain further.

We would raise logical objections if the golf ball disappeared. The force of the golf club is transferred to the ball, and the ball moves because the force was transferred to it. That is a law of physics, and there are equations which mandate the movement of the golf ball upon being hit by a club. The hitting of the ball is why the golf ball moves the way it does. The hitting is thus the reason for what the golf ball does. The hitting is the cause.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The events that always go together and have people thinking there is a cause-effect relationship between them... Is it just a coincidence that they always occur together in the ways they do? The hitting of a golf ball is always followed by the movement of the golf ball. Always. Is it just a recurring coincidence? Why does one event always follow the other?

Nobody knows. It just always has done. Maybe it won't one day. There's no telling if it's a necessary or otherwise. This is nicely demonstrated by the issue of the half-life of a proton. Nobody has ever seen one decay. That doesn't mean they necessarily don't decay. It just means we've never happened to see one decay. Maybe they do have a half-life, of a googol years. Maybe the half-life is a second.

We would raise logical objections if the golf ball disappeared. The force of the golf club is transferred to the ball, and the ball moves because the force was transferred to it. That is a law of physics, and there are equations which mandate the movement of the golf ball upon being hit by a club.

I'm glad you answered this clearly because this was the whole reason I asked the question.

The laws of physics are not a priori categoricals, or 'logical', as you put it. They are simply an expression of an observed pattern, a posteriori.

Let's focus on the law at hand (well, there are a few laws we could invoke for the same effect, such as conservation of momentum, which is in itself telling, but let's stick to your advocated 'law', although it's more an instance of a general theory than a law of physics per se); the atoms of the golf club exert a force upon the atoms of the golf ball. To be more precise, the electrons of the club atoms are negatively charged, and exert a repulsive electrostatic force upon the electrons of the ball. By definition force is the acceleration per unit mass, so the ball accelerates forwards.

Now the next question: why does an electric charge exert a repulsive force upon a like electric charge? What is the causal link between the presence of a point with an abstract quantity we refer to as 'charge', and the acceleration of a second point to which we also attribute charge? How does one cause the other? And if an electron failed to accelerate another electron, but perhaps decelerated it, or did not move it at all, what would be our logical objection?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We would raise logical objections if the golf ball disappeared. The force of the golf club is transferred to the ball, and the ball moves because the force was transferred to it. That is a law of physics, and there are equations which mandate the movement of the golf ball upon being hit by a club. The hitting of the ball is why the golf ball moves the way it does. The hitting is thus the reason for what the golf ball does. The hitting is the cause.

So you're just gonna argue with nature that it can't do that because some man found useful ways to describe our observation of it? It seems a bit like you're putting the cart before the horse, who's to say that the descriptions of our observations of nature aren't products of very limited time frames in an actually dynamical process?

I declined to elaborate at the time because I felt it was too tangential to my line of argument, but indeed, that is a serious scientific position right now; that there is in some sense or other a continuum of laws and that we simply find ourselves in those most conducive to consciousness. Which, to my mind, should be the ones with the most stable patterns. To attribute an inherent and ultimate stability to the law is clearly folly.

This reminds me of a great TED talk: Sean Carroll: Distant time and the hint of a multiverse | Video on TED.com.

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

So you're just gonna argue with nature that it can't do that because some man found useful ways to describe our observation of it? It seems a bit like you're putting the cart before the horse, who's to say that the descriptions of our observations of nature aren't products of very limited time frames in an actually dynamical process?

They're not just useful ways. What I said is factual. There are laws of physics that require a ball to receive the force from a golf club. The energy has to go somewhere. Whether you believe the equations are realities that put requirements on physical objects doesn't address the fact that there are actual rules of reality that have been very well tested and objects have to follow them. It shows that cause and effect relationships are real.

What are your answers to the questions I asked Xei?

Originally Posted by Xei

I declined to elaborate at the time because I felt it was too tangential to my line of argument, but indeed, that is a serious scientific position right now; that there is in some sense or other a continuum of laws and that we simply find ourselves in those most conducive to consciousness. Which, to my mind, should be the ones with the most stable patterns. To attribute an inherent and ultimate stability to the law is clearly folly.

This reminds me of a great TED talk: Sean Carroll: Distant time and the hint of a multiverse | Video on TED.com.

I don't 100% rule out the existence of other continuums, but I think cause would be a requirement in all of them. The idea of uncaused events is something I put in a category with voo doo and witchcraft.

What is your answer to my question about coincidences?

Originally Posted by Xei

Nobody knows. It just always has done. Maybe it won't one day. There's no telling if it's a necessary or otherwise. This is nicely demonstrated by the issue of the half-life of a proton. Nobody has ever seen one decay. That doesn't mean they necessarily don't decay. It just means we've never happened to see one decay. Maybe they do have a half-life, of a googol years. Maybe the half-life is a second.


I'm glad you answered this clearly because this was the whole reason I asked the question.

The laws of physics are not a priori categoricals, or 'logical', as you put it. They are simply an expression of an observed pattern, a posteriori.

Let's focus on the law at hand (well, there are a few laws we could invoke for the same effect, such as conservation of momentum, which is in itself telling, but let's stick to your advocated 'law', although it's more an instance of a general theory than a law of physics per se); the atoms of the golf club exert a force upon the atoms of the golf ball. To be more precise, the electrons of the club atoms are negatively charged, and exert a repulsive electrostatic force upon the electrons of the ball. By definition force is the acceleration per unit mass, so the ball accelerates forwards.

Now the next question: why does an electric charge exert a repulsive force upon a like electric charge? What is the causal link between the presence of a point with an abstract quantity we refer to as 'charge', and the acceleration of a second point to which we also attribute charge? How does one cause the other? And if an electron failed to accelerate another electron, but perhaps decelerated it, or did not move it at all, what would be our logical objection?

Like I said above, the need for cause is what I think is universal to all possible realms of existence.

The laws of physics as they are determine the types of cause and effect relationships things have. The transfer of energy/force from the golf club is a law of physics that might be different in other realms, but it proves the existence of cause and effect relationships. That was my major point.

When I say "laws" as it pertains to physics, I am not talking about just the expressions of observed phenomena. I am talking about the rules of reality that they represent. Maybe I should use "rules of physics" or "laws of the universe."

Um... I did answer your questions? Or at least, I attempted to. I even sectioned off that bit of the quote to make it clear. I don't see any response to my question, however..? And I can't go much further till then, because that question is central to what I'm trying to convey. You restated your position, but I already understand your position; what I'm doing now is analysing the basis of that position.

Well you didn't address my question, Xei. Could you respond?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

When I say "laws" as it pertains to physics, I am not talking about just the expressions of observed phenomena. I am talking about the rules of reality that they represent. Maybe I should use "rules of physics" or "laws of the universe."

Unfortunately, whether 'causality' is called a rule or law doesn't make it any more legitimate than it already is; laws and rules are inevitably man made and are also limited to conditions. That representation can only go so far.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

There is no such thing as an uncaused event. The necessity of cause is part of what keeps order in the universe. There would be complete chaos without it.

Actually, I think we would be surprised, because we can probably all argue that there is no uncaused event. But perhaps 'events' and 'causes' are no different. Events can equate to the superficiality of the cause-effect concept. Without causes, events are equally arbitrary. They're really just another word for 'effect'. Yes, the event of the club striking the golf ball was equally as arbitrary as the cause you associated with it. What about the other infinite number of unstated events you 'ignored'?

I hope that illustrates the plasticity of the notion of 'cause', and that it is more reliant as a form of linguistics than actuality. That is why you think it is universal.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We would raise logical objections if the golf ball disappeared. The force of the golf club is transferred to the ball, and the ball moves because the force was transferred to it. That is a law of physics, and there are equations which mandate the movement of the golf ball upon being hit by a club. The hitting of the ball is why the golf ball moves the way it does. The hitting is thus the reason for what the golf ball does. The hitting is the cause.

You may be correct, but in considering those small number of observed conditions - not even a blip in the infinite sea of invisible conditions, such a 'cause', like all others, has no guarantee to be practical beyond a description; a description of a local scenario.

Even though it is just a description, you cannot really describe what is invisible and so it only applies to what you observe. Why not say the wind caused the damage? Maybe you did not observe the wind that was nearby the house window. Why not say the lack of wind caused the golf ball to be blown through the glass? After all, maybe you chose to strike at it when there was no wind.


I think we can also consider that mankind probably had more faith in the concept of cause in the past than today. Just imagine that we have never became technologically and scientifically advanced enough to describe quantum mechanics, or other multidimensional topics. As we evolve so do our concepts of reality, and we realize that reality is much bigger than we made it out to be; that they were a reflection of our scope of comprehension.

You need to explain your question better, specifically what you mean by 'logic'.

In addition, what I said is in no way a proof of God. A proof is supposed to be rigorous; I don't even have any clue where the conclusion is coming from, let alone if it's a solid line of reasoning. So, if you are going to bring points like that up and you want a response, it'd be a good idea to provide something substantial rather than just an assertion. I can't discuss an assertion.

Saying that, even if there is an extradimensional spectrum of reality, it all must adhere to laws of cause an effect since that is what seems to work here seems a lot like saying that water must be on every planet in the universe since it is here and we need it to live. We are able to have this discussion because we coexist in a stable timeline but the timeline could just as easily not exist and then we just wouldn't be able to talk about it.

seems like a hollow argument. First, this is implying that the universe is deterministic, which it does not seem to be. Second, where have you heard that infinite retro causality is possible?

Only read the first post, and If you Could Control all physics I don't think that you can time travel ever, I think It is impossible to be able to because you can't create matter, or destroy matter, not really it just gets transferred into some other form of matter, and if you went back in time you would be forcing your matter into it and that would be impossible since there was only ever one set amount of matter. maybe I'm wrong though cause I used to believe in time travel.

My time travel device only lets me go in one direction.