tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post122391032983582529..comments2023-03-28T03:18:53.318+13:00Comments on akakiwibear: There is no God - proving the negativeakakiwibearhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18324950054939335251noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-85230076878571188662008-07-19T01:20:00.000+12:002008-07-19T01:20:00.000+12:00Hi Akakiwibear,You wrote"On a more serious note th...Hi Akakiwibear,<BR/><BR/>You wrote<BR/>"<EM>On a more serious note though we all have be willing to defend our position. I find the tendency of atheists to hide behind "can't prove a negative" smacks of intellectual fraud in that they imply that they therefore do not have to defend their position at all and that all the running in the a/theist debate has to be made by the theists while the atheist sits and picks at the weakest of the theist arguments while offering no justification for their own position.</EM>"<BR/><BR/>Yes. I agree. The atheist needs to say this: Since your argument is so weak, it explains nothing beyond what can be explained through natural causes. We know natural causes exist, so the simplest explanation (and by Occam's razor, most likely) is that it <EM>was</EM> caused by natural causes.<BR/><BR/>Peace, Neil.Neil Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08773413663739584282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-43144692347326755792008-07-19T01:11:00.000+12:002008-07-19T01:11:00.000+12:00Hi JLH,You wrote:"no we do not prove the negative ...Hi JLH,<BR/><BR/>You wrote:<BR/>"<EM>no we do not prove the negative all the time. proving the negative is impossible. People confusing proving the negative with disproving a proposition. These two totally different things.</EM>"<BR/><BR/>I think you're mistaken. In fact you go on to admit the possibility of proving that "there is no Bigfoot on earth at the moment". I'd be quite happy to prove that there's no Bigfoot sat on my desk. The two important points here are: (1) I know what a Bigfoot should look like. (2) A complete search for Bigfoot on my desk is quite feasible.<BR/><BR/>Richard Carrier wrote <A HREF="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html" REL="nofollow">a good article on this</A>.<BR/><BR/>Peace, Neil.Neil Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08773413663739584282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-8752078401004084212008-07-19T00:53:00.000+12:002008-07-19T00:53:00.000+12:00Hi Akakiwibear,You claim that my definition is fla...Hi Akakiwibear,<BR/><BR/>You claim that my definition is flawed and that I'm presenting a straw man argument, but then you go on and defend the straw man in points (1), (2) and (3). Which part of my definition do you think is flawed? I can't tell from your comment. Anyway, I'm not actually interested in attacking a straw man, so I'll move on to your other points.<BR/><BR/>You wrote:<BR/>"<EM>For the sake of argument assume smacking kids is not good - would this legislation have been viable in C16 England?</EM>"<BR/><BR/>No. They would have quoted <A HREF="http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Pro/Pro023.html#13" REL="nofollow">Proverbs 23:13-14</A> in support of the practice. If God had given better advice, it would have been viable.<BR/><BR/>"<EM>What we do see is that God got the message about child sacrifice across quite clearly when the Jews were able to work with it</EM>"<BR/><BR/>Which was just about the same time that they were ready to discover it for themselves. This raises an alternative hypothesis that they discovered it for themselves and this is a simpler hypothesis so it's more likely to be correct.<BR/><BR/>"<EM>Now you may argue that we have developed our sense of justice ourselves with no input from <B>God</B>. This is a futile argument, history says our sense of justice emerged from a society with <B>religion</B> - looking back we can't definitely separate cause from effect.</EM>"<BR/><BR/>You're confusing God with religion. Anyway, you're right that we can't clearly separate cause and effect. The way to handle this situation is to use Occam's razor and the simplest explanation is the one with no input from God. The other explanation introduces an extra element - input from God - which makes it less likely to be correct.<BR/><BR/>"<EM>4) Indeed we should consider Occam's razor. Since throughout history humanity has believed in the existence of a supreme being, then either we have to prove that accumulation of humanity wrong or accept the simplest explanation - they are right. So Occam's razor does not win the day either way.</EM>"<BR/><BR/>You're right that an explanation which involves people being right is in some sense simpler than one which involves people being wrong, since the latter needs to introduce a reason for the people being wrong. However, Occam's razor must be applied to the whole explanation. Your explanation also includes the existence of a supreme being to explain humanity's claim that such a being exists.<BR/><BR/>My explanation for people's belief in a supreme being is that people are naturally superstitious. One class of superstitious behaviour is to attribute events with an unknown cause to an intelligent agent. Illness is caused by demons. Earthquakes and lightning are caused by angry Gods. Planets move in the sky because they are being pushed by angels. A good harvest is caused by the Gods being pleased. We know that people are naturally superstitious so it's only a small step to say that this is why people believe in God.<BR/><BR/>So your explanation is in fact more complex than mine despite the superficial appearance of simplicity.<BR/><BR/>"<EM>5) "it's only meaningful to have a discussion about the potential existence of a specific sort of God." ah! Now you have got the nub of the issue! I say no, no, no, no! You run the risk of setting up a 'straw man' God to knock down at your leisure.</EM>"<BR/><BR/>True, although I have no interest in setting up a straw man. I'm more interested in having a definition of God that we can use to communicate effectively. Without that, we're in danger of talking at cross purposes.<BR/><BR/>"<EM>(a) The guidance given for a better society. Just think if we all lived according to God's teaching - love your neighbour etc. Would you really be a position to cite the rape of innocents as "proof" that there is no God - but it remains our choice.</EM>"<BR/><BR/>I wouldn't expect guidance from just any "supreme being". You've extended the definition to "a supreme being who teaches good things" or something like that. Such a being is less likely than just a "supreme being" because the definition is more complex. Occam's razor strikes again.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I admit that I wouldn't be able to use the rape example if we all followed the good bits of the Bible. Similarly, I wouldn't be able to use it if we all followed atheist ethical guidance. I don't see what difference the existence of God makes here.<BR/><BR/>"<EM>(b) In the final analysis the answer is primarily relevant in metaphysical terms - in terms of the development of our spiritual nature/being which the majority of religions teach us is more important than our physical day-to-day and should guide our physical day-to-day. What awaits the rapist and victim in the next life?</EM>"<BR/><BR/>Your question assumes the existence of a next life and I assume you're suggesting that the rapist will have negative consequences in the next life. Again, you've extended the definition to "a supreme being who teaches good things and provides a next life where there will be negative consequences for evildoers". Again, the more complex definition makes the existence of such a being less likely.<BR/><BR/>Peace, Neil.Neil Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08773413663739584282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-83029572525587729822008-07-18T17:20:00.000+12:002008-07-18T17:20:00.000+12:00J.L. Hinman nice to see you back! "Proving the neg...J.L. Hinman nice to see you back! <I>"Proving the negative is impossible"</I> well then atheism, like theism is just a big leap of faith.<BR/><BR/>Please contact my bank manager he needs to understand that it is impossible to prove there is no money in my account, I keep saying there is so it can't be overdrawn.<BR/><BR/>On a more serious note though we all have be willing to defend our position. I find the tendency of atheists to hide behind "can't prove a negative" smacks of intellectual fraud in that they imply that they therefore do not have to defend their position at all and that all the running in the a/theist debate has to be made by the theists while the atheist sits and picks at the weakest of the theist arguments while offering no justification for their own position. <BR/><BR/>Hamba kahle - peaceakakiwibearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18324950054939335251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-40480896448046418102008-07-09T02:41:00.000+12:002008-07-09T02:41:00.000+12:00no we do not prove the negative all the time. prov...no we do not prove the negative all the time. proving the negative is impossible. People confusing proving the negative with disproving a proposition. These two totally different things.<BR/><BR/>You can't prove there is no Bigfoot unless you comb every single inch of planet earth, then you have only proven there is no Bigfoot on earth at the moment.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-13240296069154248382008-06-25T15:01:00.000+12:002008-06-25T15:01:00.000+12:00Hi Neil, Defining God is a good start – I think we...Hi Neil, <BR/>Defining God is a good start – I think we will readily agree that many of the definitions of God are either invalid or relate to a God that obviously does not exist.<BR/><BR/>To avoid two parallel discussions (i.e. talking past each other) I will respond to your ‘top down’ approach comments rather than follow my preferred ‘bottom up’ approach.<BR/><BR/>You have established a set of expected behaviours to fit what you consider to be a reasonable model of God. The validity of the model itself determines the validity of any conclusions you draw and you recognise this when you say <I> “Perhaps my definition of God is flawed” </I>. Yes I think it may be, but let’s look at your examples.<BR/><BR/>1) <I> “.. would expect some identifiable intervention in the world in the form of natural justice” </I> and you use the rape of an innocent to illustrate your point. Do you really expect God to intervene to prevent every act of injustice? – if not for which? I see the application of Reductio Ad Absurdum here. To expect God to intervene at all times strikes me as an absurdity – why enable us to act freely then intervene to prevent it? Either we are free to rape and pillage or not in this life, or God constrains us – clearly we are not constrained, therefore we are free to act as we will. The real question here is should God allow us freedom or not? You need to support your supposition that intervention=constraint is the preferred outcome over freedom and that it would be the only valid choice of a god if you want to use it to test God's existence.<BR/><BR/>2) <I> “I would expect a human-centred universe” </I> Why? While as you point out we are but a small part of the universe, there is no apparent reason to believe that the universe should exist for our benefit. God’s interest in such a small part of the universe does not preclude God’s interest in other larger or smaller parts of the universe. To validate your point you really do need to substantiate why God would have less (or no) interest in the rest of the universe.<BR/><BR/>3) <I> “If God is interested in justice and will judge humans then I would expect him to reveal to us what counts as right behaviour” </I> Yes and he has. You imply four things (i) God has not revealed "right behaviour" to us, (ii) there is a lack of clarity, (iii) that lack indicates there is no God as a God would have been a better communicator and (iv) that God would not want us to discover justice for ourselves – that God should have spelled it out from day one. <BR/>Firstly I am not sure there is a lack revelation or lack of clarity if we take a sensible approach to God’s teaching. Limiting (and for no reason other than simplicity) to the Judaic-Christian record which covers a significant time span (but is not the only religious record of God’s revelation to humanity) we recognise that God’s revelations needed to have been contextual to the society to which they were made. <BR/>For example a year ago NZ enacted a bill making smacking a child illegal and there are those who have difficulty with it. For the sake of argument assume smacking kids is not good – would this legislation have been viable in C16 England? More to the point, would it have been reasonable for God to have revealed this to an emerging humanity that was still getting used to verbal communication or to the early Jews who were surrounded by the practice of child sacrifice?<BR/>What we do see is that God got the message about child sacrifice across quite clearly when the Jews were able to work with it - the incident of Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son is usually cited as the point when God put a stop to the practise in Jewish theology. This point is illustrative of both clarity and God’s ability as a communicator to match message with social context - the Jews were able to comprehend the message and enter a new age of rights of the child.<BR/><BR/>As with (1) above God is guiding not forcing.<BR/><BR/>As time progressed the message evolved along with humanity and our ability to accept it. Now you may argue that we have developed our sense of justice ourselves with no input from God. This is a futile argument, history says our sense of justice emerged from a society with religion – looking back we can’t definitely separate cause from effect. Clearly however God did not force us adopt or adhere to a specific sense of justice but has allowed us develop it with guidance – I would argue with much evidence of that guidance. <BR/>Also, we again get back to the question of freedom and the absurdity of giving us the ability to discern right from wrong but spelling it out with such “clarity” that we don’t need the ability as we have no choice but to accept it.<BR/><BR/>4) Indeed we should consider Occam’s razor. Since throughout history humanity has believed in the existence of a supreme being, then either we have to prove that accumulation of humanity wrong or accept the simplest explanation – they are right. So Occam’s razor does not win the day either way.<BR/><BR/>5) <I> “it's only meaningful to have a discussion about the potential existence of a specific sort of God.” </I> ah! Now you have got the nub of the issue! I say no, no, no, no! You run the risk of setting up a ‘straw man’ God to knock down at your leisure.<BR/><BR/><BR/>6) You say <I> “We would just know that this being was supreme. Whatever that means. So what?” </I> As it appears we have the freedom to act without that being actually constraining us then indeed “so what?” – but only if there are no consequences for us for our actions. May I suggest two “so whats”? <BR/>(a) The guidance given for a better society. Just think if we all lived according to God’s teaching – love your neighbour etc. Would you really be a position to cite the rape of innocents as “proof” that there is no God – but it remains our choice.<BR/>(b) In the final analysis the answer is primarily relevant in metaphysical terms - in terms of the development of our spiritual nature/being which the majority of religions teach us is more important than our physical day-to-day and should guide our physical day-to-day. What awaits the rapist and victim in the next life?<BR/><BR/>Hamba kahle - peaceakakiwibearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18324950054939335251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-78543615882795976342008-06-21T00:58:00.000+12:002008-06-21T00:58:00.000+12:00Hi Akakiwibear,In a dangerous move, I'm going to r...Hi Akakiwibear,<BR/><BR/>In a dangerous move, I'm going to return to the original topic. In order to determine whether or not God exists, we must first define God. God is often viewed as the supreme being, an immensely powerful creator who is eternal, interested in human affairs, performing miracles, loving and full of justice, and who will judge humans in an afterlife.<BR/><BR/>Since God is viewed as loving, just and powerful, I would expect some identifiable intervention in the world in the form of natural justice. For example, if an innocent girl was being raped, I'd expect God to stop the rapist, at least in some cases. That would be loving and just. Instead, the rapist doesn't have to worry about the possibility of God intervening and so what we observe is not what we should expect if God did exist.<BR/><BR/>I would expect an human-centred universe. Look at a painting. You can tell what it's about by identifying which features cover most of the canvas. Now look at the universe. An unimaginably small proportion of it is devoted to human life. Most of the universe (>99%) is the intergalactic gas between galaxies. Most of the rest (>99.9999999999%) is the interstellar gas between star systems. Most of the rest (>99.999999999%) is the gas between a star and its planets. Given that SETI has not yet shown anything up, I think it's safe to say that most of the planets in the galaxy are uninhabited. Even our own planet had no intelligent life for the majority of its history (and some dispute whether it has intelligent life now). If God was interested in human affairs, I would have thought he would have devoted more of the universe, in both time and space, to humanity or intelligent life and less to low pressure hydrogen and dark matter.<BR/><BR/>If God is interested in justice and will judge humans then I would expect him to reveal to us what counts as right behaviour. After all, a law is not just if it is kept secret; that would be a trap. The situation which we have is that most people think they know what God counts as right behaviour, but people don't agree on the details. Sometimes, people think that God wants them to kill other people or torture them. If these people had known that God didn't want them to do those things then they wouldn't have done them. If God is going to judge people, I would expect him to clear up these misunderstandings with some simple straight-forward widespread communication.<BR/><BR/>Since my experience doesn't match my expectations based on the assumption that God exists, I conclude that God doesn't exist. Perhaps my definition of God is flawed. However, it's only meaningful to have a discussion about the potential existence of a specific sort of God. If we were to broaden the definition of God to "a supreme being" then there's no way that I could prove the non-existence of God. However, such a definition of God is pretty meaningless. If I knew that there was a supreme being, it wouldn't affect my life in any way because I wouldn't know what to expect from that supreme being. Would that being be loving? ...vengeful? ...conscious? ...a judge? ...powerful? ...a teacher? ...unjust? ...personal? ...in this universe? ...in some other realm? We just wouldn't know. We would just know that this being was supreme. Whatever that means. So what?<BR/><BR/>Finally, according to Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is most likely to be the right one. I recognise that we disagree about whether there is evidence for the existence of God, but if it turned out that there were no evidence for the existence of God, the simplest explanation for what we observe would be that God doesn't exist and so that would most likely be right.<BR/><BR/>Peace, Neil.Neil Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08773413663739584282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-9905611908012248322008-06-09T23:55:00.000+12:002008-06-09T23:55:00.000+12:00Hi Akakiwibear,You wrote:"Obviously we expect to s...Hi Akakiwibear,<BR/><BR/>You wrote:<BR/>"<EM>Obviously we expect to see some activity in the brain associated with the placebo effect - but is it cause or effect.</EM>"<BR/><BR/>The simplest explanation is that the dopamine release is caused by the expectation and that the pain relief is caused by the dopamine. According to Occam's razor, the simplest expectation which fits the evidence is the most likely explanation.<BR/><BR/>"<EM>One thing the article does not address is how placebo based healing takes place. OK to work with highly subjective phenomenon like pain, but what actually causes healing in other parts of the body.</EM>"<BR/><BR/>The existence of non-subjective placebo effects <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo_effect#Objective_and_subjective_effects" REL="nofollow">is disputed or non-existant</A>.<BR/><BR/>"<EM>In much the same way as we understand where in the brain religious experiences occur and we can apparently simulate them we have done nothing to challenge that there are bona fide religious experiences - oh dear! Paul again!</EM>"<BR/><BR/>It does a great deal to challenge bona-fide religious experiences. What we are learning through science suggests simple explanations for religious experiences, involving chemicals and brain cells; things which we know exist. There's no need to postulate a metaphysical realm to explain them; something which we don't know to exist. By Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is most likely.<BR/><BR/>As Thomas Aquinas wrote:<BR/>"<EM>If a thing can be done adequately by means of one, it is superfluous to do it by means of several; for we observe that nature does not employ two instruments where one suffices</EM>"<BR/><BR/>You wrote:<BR/>"<EM>If we can discern no rule of chance, or if the behaviour deviates from the rule in a significant way then we have to acknowledge an outside influence.</EM>"<BR/><BR/>Let's see where this logic takes us. If we can discern no rule after studying the subject for one year then we need to acknowledge an outside influence. But if we study for another year and find a rule then there doesn't need to be an outside influence. And then if we find a case where the rule doesn't fit, we need to acknowledge an outside influence again. But then when we find another rule which fits all the cases, we stop needing to acknowledge an outside influence. That can't be right - if we don't need to acknowledge an outside influence at the end of the study, we don't need to acknowledge one after the first year. That's the problem with God of the gaps - that God keeps disappearing when we find out more.<BR/><BR/>Let me propose a correction to your logic. If we can discern no rule then we don't know what's going on. If the behaviour deviates from the rule then we got the rule wrong. Once we've worked out the rule, we can start thinking about what causes the rule to be followed. If the rule were that whenever people prayed they got healed then that would be evidence for an outside influence, but I think we both know that that isn't the rule.<BR/><BR/>"<EM>Now to "show me the pattern" . The St Faustina miracle was not the only such event ever. There are others with similar characteristics - outside of medical expectations implying an outside influence.</EM>"<BR/><BR/>It's outside of medical expectations which means they don't know what happened. It was a spontaneous remission - a "recovery without known cause or reason". How would the medical panel report a spontaneous remission differently from a miracle? Surely they would come to the same conclusion in both cases - that they can't explain the recovery.<BR/><BR/>"<EM>i.e. proves that the event was normal albeit infrequent - the medical panel could not do that!</EM>"<BR/><BR/>One of the panel could. Remember, they only voted 4 to 1. I guess that means that four didn't know what was going on, but one did.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, we've been over this. I raised some objections and all you could tell me is that my objections should have been addressed. You haven't shown me that they were actually addressed.<BR/><BR/>Peace, Neil.Neil Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08773413663739584282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-62063999514040800602008-05-16T16:40:00.000+12:002008-05-16T16:40:00.000+12:00Neil "I just think that we don't have evidence fo...Neil <I> "I just think that we don't have evidence for the existence of a metaphysical realm. Does this mean that such a realm doesn't exist? <B>No, but it does mean that it is the produce of imagination." </B></I><BR/> alert!<BR/>One can easily argue that all theories are the produce of imagination - so what? It being a theory does not automatically discredit it.<BR/><BR/>Your <I> "Show me the pattern, and I'll see if I can find an explanation." </I> moves the theory to a hypothesis. How would I state the hypothesis? <BR/><BR/>For events to be chance based we should see a pattern - is the distribution normal or does it follow some other rule. If we can discern no rule of chance, or if the behaviour deviates from the rule in a significant way then we have to acknowledge an outside influence.<BR/><BR/>Now consider healing miracles. Is there a scientific basis for expecting a certain frequency of spontaneous remission - if yes, then does the miracle fit that profile - if yes no miracle.<BR/><BR/>Take, for simplicity, the example we have looked at before - St Faustina vs. Roy Whoever (with the heart thing). <BR/><BR/>The prevailing view of the medical team that reviewed the case was that there was no acceptable medical explanation. Therefore some external influence ... I leave you to put the rest together.<BR/><BR/>Now to <I> "show me the pattern" </I>. The St Faustina miracle was not the only such event ever. There are others with similar characteristics - outside of medical expectations implying an outside influence.<BR/><BR/>It is not enough for you to say that I have not proven my case conclusively - I do not claim to have. It is for you to mount a counter case that invalidates the argument for external influence - i.e. proves that the event was normal albeit infrequent - the medical panel could not do that!<BR/><BR/>hamba kahle - peaceakakiwibearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18324950054939335251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-49307113746460917052008-05-16T16:22:00.000+12:002008-05-16T16:22:00.000+12:00Neil, very interesting article, although one shoul...Neil, very interesting article, although one should be cautious of confusing what happens with what makes it happen - perhaps that we we observe with that which goes unseen.<BR/><BR/>Clearly our brain is a computer like contraption. Some of its responses is hard wired (nature) and some of its responses are as a result of its accumulated knowledge and experience (nurture, in nature vs nurture debate). <BR/><BR/>Obviously we expect to see some activity in the brain associated with the placebo effect - but is it cause or effect.<BR/><BR/>One thing the article does not address is how placebo based healing takes place. OK to work with highly subjective phenomenon like pain, but what actually causes healing in other parts of the body. <BR/><BR/>I have little doubt that at some point in time we will identify the bio-mechanisms involved. We already seem to know quite a lot about why we don't regrow limbs like a lizard. Assuming we understand the biological actions associated with apparently spontaneous healing will this disprove a spiritual trigger? <BR/><BR/>In much the same way as we understand where in the brain religious experiences occur and we can apparently simulate them we have done nothing to challenge that there are bona fide religious experiences - oh dear! Paul again! <BR/><BR/>Hamba kahle - peaceakakiwibearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18324950054939335251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-20742262627923506142008-05-10T01:19:00.000+12:002008-05-10T01:19:00.000+12:00Hi Akakiwibear,You wrote:"Using the example of the...Hi Akakiwibear,<BR/><BR/>You wrote:<BR/>"<EM>Using the example of the PB&J sandwich – it is not enough to only ask who/what caused it, any more than it is to say “don’t know, but it wasn’t God because I don’t believe in God”.</EM>"<BR/><BR/>That's true. Lack of belief in God doesn't imply that God doesn't exist.<BR/><BR/>"<EM>As I see it there is a challenge to theists, establish a link between “I don’t know” and “God did it” that establishes a metaphysical realm – the prerequisite for the existence of God. This is not really that hard – I go to my favourite example of Paul’s Damascus road conversion, but I am open to further examples.</EM>"<BR/><BR/>We're discussing Paul <A HREF="http://akakiwibear.blogspot.com/2007/07/damascus-road.html?showComment=1208920380000" REL="nofollow">elsewhere on your blog</A> so I'll not go into it here. Suppose you did show that there is a metaphysical realm and a god in it. You'd then have the further challenge of showing that that particular god was the one which created the universe. In my view Ken is taking the right approach, although I disagree with his arguments.<BR/><BR/>"<EM>BUT the challenge to atheists remains, establish that there is no causality between linked events that imply a metaphysical existence.</EM>"<BR/><BR/>It can't be done. I just think that we don't have evidence for the existence of a metaphysical realm. Does this mean that such a realm doesn't exist? No, but it does mean that it is the produce of imagination. Does that mean I'm not an atheist? I deny the existence of some sorts of god. For other types of god, I think we don't have enough evidence to show whether they exist or not. For yet other gods, we can never have evidence that they exist. Do you want to call me an atheist? You choose. I don't mind either way.<BR/><BR/>"<EM>Now simply saying that an event attributed to a metaphysical intervention cannot be repeated under laboratory conditions establishes that there is no link is of course ridiculous</EM>"<BR/><BR/>I agree.<BR/><BR/>"<EM>No, atheists cannot avoid the challenge of presenting a body of theory that explains the “don’t know” where there is:<BR/>a) a pattern to the “don’t know” events – each event may be unique but there are enough of them to validate an implied metaphysical cause</EM>"<BR/><BR/>That sounds fair. Show me the pattern, and I'll see if I can find an explanation.<BR/><BR/>"<EM>b) evidence that the occurrence is real but cannot be explained by those who limit their thinking to this realm – eg so called “mind over matter” such as the placebo effect</EM>"<BR/><BR/>You mention the placebo effect. Like <A HREF="http://akakiwibear.blogspot.com/2007/12/am-i-secret-atheist.html?showComment=1206019740000#c3981989383734339645" REL="nofollow">I said before</A>, <A HREF="http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/77299.php" REL="nofollow">this article</A> claims that there is an explanation. Was there anything else you were thinking of?<BR/><BR/>Peace, Neil.Neil Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08773413663739584282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-83366281661745525682008-05-07T00:40:00.000+12:002008-05-07T00:40:00.000+12:00Hi Ken,I agree that we are going round in circles,...Hi Ken,<BR/><BR/>I agree that we are going round in circles, but I disagree about why. As I see it, there are two issues. The first is that either I have failed to express and/or you have failed to understand (I'm not wishing to apportion blame here) what the Copenhagen interpretation actually is. It's not that we disagree. It's that we're not talking about the same thing. The other issue is that you haven't (to my knowledge) given a reason to choose your proposition and reject mine. You've only given a reason to reject mine assuming that you've already accepted yours, which gets you nowhere in your attempt to show that your proposition is true.<BR/><BR/>"<EM>As you correctly noted, I presented the proposition that every event has a cause.</EM>"<BR/><BR/>Actually I'm afraid I got that wrong and you seem to have copied my mistake. You presented the proposition that everything which has a beginning has a cause. I don't think our discussion is affected by the mistake though.<BR/><BR/>"<EM>Also, as I have argued before, I do not believe the Copenhagen Interpretation actually holds that there are real uncaused events as you assert.</EM>"<BR/><BR/>I think you're mistaken in that belief. I've found some more information on the matter. The Copenhagen Interpretation is non-deterministic which means that not every event is causally determined.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism" REL="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism</A><BR/><BR/>"<EM>Determinism (also called antiserendipity) is the philosophical proposition that every event, including human cognition and behaviour, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences.</EM>"<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation" REL="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation</A><BR/><BR/>"<EM>Many physicists and philosophers have objected to the Copenhagen interpretation, both on the grounds that it is non-deterministic [...]</EM>"<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics" REL="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics</A><BR/><BR/>"<EM>The Copenhagen interpretation, due largely to the Danish theoretical physicist Niels Bohr, is the interpretation of quantum mechanics most widely accepted amongst physicists. According to it, the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics predictions cannot be explained in terms of some other deterministic theory, and does not simply reflect our limited knowledge. Quantum mechanics provides probabilistic results because the physical universe is itself probabilistic rather than deterministic.</EM>"<BR/><BR/>"<EM>Instead, I argued that the universe must have a “first cause” and gave you a couple of examples as to why this must be so (e.g., my proposal to give you $1 million after an infinite number of days; the problem of an eternal regression of causes, etc.). If the cause for the universe is within time, and <B>if (as I propose) everything within time requires a cause</B>, then the cause must itself require a cause.</EM>"<BR/><BR/>This only shows that it cannot be the case that both your proposition and my proposition are true. I admitted that much in my previous comment and said that we need to choose between them. You haven't provided a means to choose between them. You've just highlighted the fact that the choice is necessary.<BR/><BR/>"<EM>You seem to be trying to parcel out time as somehow deserving of different logical treatment.</EM>"<BR/><BR/>I'm focusing on time simply because of the normal cause and effect relationship. The cause always occurs at an earlier time than the effect. For this to work, the cause and the effect must both be in time and hence in the universe.<BR/><BR/>"<EM>I believe that you bring upon yourself a plethora of problems if you try to place that cause within time.</EM>"<BR/><BR/>When you say "that cause", you're assuming that the universe has a cause. And yet you have not proved that the universe has a cause. I have been arguing that your proof is unsound and your responses seem to assume the very thing you're trying to prove.<BR/><BR/>"<EM>So I would put it to you quite squarely. If you REALLY believe all your arguments to be true, how do you get around the eternal regression of causes problem? Inside time, outside time, who cares? There MUST be a first cause.</EM>"<BR/><BR/>The first thing I would like to say is that I don't actually know how the universe started. I just find the arguments for God creating the universe to be very strained. Based on the information we have, it seems to me that there are many explanations. Perhaps the first cause was the appearance of space, time and matter. Modern physics suggests that these three things are intimately bound together so it seems reasonable that they all appear in a single event. Everything else would be caused by that, but the first cause would be uncaused (as it must be). Since the first cause was part of the universe then the universe as a whole does not have a cause.<BR/><BR/>"<EM>You stated, “An alternative solution is to conclude that the universe has no creator.” You, of course, can conclude whatever you like. But your conclusions must hold up to logical scrutiny. I do not know you personally, but I can bet that you probably do not live your life as if uncaused things really happen. If an apple suddenly appeared in front of you while walking down the street, you would not just keep on walking without batting an eye.</EM>"<BR/><BR/>I admit that I am setting aside my everyday expectations when it comes to looking at the cause of the universe. However, I see no reason to believe that the universe will conform to my expectations. It doesn't when we study quantum mechanics, even excluding the causality issue. Nobody expects wave-particle duality, quantum entanglement or the EPR paradox. I must set aside my expectations when studying the way the universe works at the smallest level, so why should I keep them when looking at the cause of the universe?<BR/><BR/>I would also have to set aside my everyday expectations in order to accept that there is a cause outside of time. I expect that every effect is after its cause, in time. Hence my challenge.<BR/><BR/>"<EM>I do not claim to be an expert on inflation field theory and will have to gracefully direct you to ask someone more knowledgeable that I if you really want to understand all the intricacies.</EM>"<BR/><BR/>I guess we're both out of our depth on this one then. I'm not going to attempt to address it. However, I will point out that your argument is self-defeating. If you succeed in showing that God is the first cause then you lose the ability to claim that inflation field theory is an answer to my challenge. You can't use God as an answer to my challenge because that would lead to circular reasoning.<BR/><BR/>"<EM>[...] But again, you are getting into the difference between not knowing a cause and not having a cause. They may not have another alternative. But that does not change the fact that in every other example of existence you assume a cause for every effect, but will not pay the universe the same courtesy.</EM>"<BR/><BR/>I assume a cause for everything <B>except in quantum mechanics</B>. You're asking me to pay a courtesy to the universe which I don't pay to quantum mechanics. I'm not just saying that we don't know the cause of quantum mechanical events. I'm saying that a large number of physicists think that there is no cause. I don't particularly care if I've kept to the exact terms of your challenge. What I care about is whether your proof (that the universe has a cause) holds water. If you wish to show that the universe must have a cause then it's up to you to show that everything else has a cause. It's no good to say that there are some things with a cause and some things with no apparent cause which we're going to assume have a cause and so everything must have a cause. You might as well just assume that the universe has a cause.<BR/><BR/>"<EM>I am trying to keep this as simple as possible because I really believe you are failing to see the forest through the trees. You are getting caught up in minutiae and failing to see the surface problems with your propositions. So let me ask a simple question. Doesn’t the fact that you define something as a “result”, in and of itself imply that it has a cause?</EM>"<BR/><BR/>In a word, no. Perhaps I used the wrong word. The result in question is the result of an observation. The fact that you have a result is caused by the fact that you made an observation, but that doesn't determine which result you got. Which one of the possible results you got is uncaused according to the Copenhagen interpretation.<BR/><BR/>"<EM>I am simply building on your description of the result as “chosen.” If something is “chosen”, who or what is doing the “choosing?” If the result of the wave function collapse is in fact “chosen”, then all of my points hold true.</EM>"<BR/><BR/>This is a word problem again. I didn't mean to imply that something was doing the choosing. There are a number of possible outcomes and one of them occurs. It's a purely random outcome.<BR/><BR/>"<EM>Your response seems to go back to the discussion of probabilities. Now you are no longer talking about the result of wave function collapse as being some kind of “choice” or “selection” that is determined by certain criteria, but rather as a random act based on probabilities. Sometimes the result is in line with the probabilities and sometimes it is counter to those probabilities. [...]<BR/><BR/>What I previously said about wave functions could now be said about your description of the results of wave function collapse. If it is merely a description of probabilities, it is not an actual “thing” that exists.</EM>"<BR/><BR/>The result is what gets measured. The scientist writes it down on a piece of paper. It exists. Like I said before, we appear not to be talking about the same thing.<BR/><BR/>"<EM>I must leave it to the other party (and any readers who we have not already lost during our lengthy discussion) to weed through the enormous amount of information we have put out there and come to a decision for themselves.</EM>"<BR/><BR/>By some small miracle, we appear not to have lost all our readers.<BR/><BR/>I have enjoyed our discussion and have found it quite educational. I hope your book goes well and that you get the issues at your church sorted out satisfactorily.<BR/><BR/>Peace, Neil.Neil Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08773413663739584282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-52213508930820417052008-05-06T07:15:00.000+12:002008-05-06T07:15:00.000+12:00akakiwibear,I really don't have much time. We hav...akakiwibear,<BR/><BR/>I really don't have much time. We have had an unexpected and unfortunate turn of events at my church and as an elder, I have a lot of administrative and pastoral-type duties to fulfill right now. But because you have been so kind in allowing the use of your blog for this discussion, I wanted to give you the courtesy of at least a brief response.<BR/><BR/>If I am understanding you correctly, I believe we agree. I may or may not have said this in an earlier comment (there have been so many going on for so long now, I really can't remember what I said before), but I do not for one minute believe that the Big Bang/first cause argument, in and of itself, proves the existence of the Christian God (or the deistic god or any other god for that matter). It simply proves a "cause" for the universe, whatever that cause may be. I believe it also shows that this cause is not subject to time and therefore does not need a cause of its own.<BR/><BR/>However, based upon this evidence alone, this "first cause" could be intelligent, random, natural, supernatural, etc. In the articles I have on the Ten Minas website, this whole discussion we've been having is addressed in only the first of seven articles on the "Argument for Christianity." It is only the first step.<BR/><BR/>The approach I take in those articles is basically as follows:<BR/><BR/>(1) Prove the universe has a first cause (i.e., the discussion we've been having);<BR/>(2) Prove that cause is intelligent;<BR/>(3) Demonstrate the reliability of the current Biblical texts we have (i.e., that they are reliable representations of the originals);<BR/>(4) Demonstrate that the original texts were accurately recording historical events;<BR/>(5) Demonstrate that the original texts contain information that could only have been provided by the intelligent first cause we concluded existed in part (2);<BR/>(6) Explain what that intelligent agent told us through these texts about the role of a Messiah; and<BR/>(7) Explain what to do as a result.<BR/><BR/>If I understand yoru comment correctly, you believe that there is still a leap between the first cause argument and the existence of God. I agree. There are still a number of propositions that need to be proven in between. I attempt to bridge that gap through the various other articles in the progression. The extent to which I have succeeded is for others to judge.<BR/><BR/>KenTen Minas Ministrieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04256929436989537718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-34876899000450409862008-05-05T17:13:00.000+12:002008-05-05T17:13:00.000+12:00Hi Ken, I hope you really don’t have to go, you ha...Hi Ken, I hope you really don’t have to go, you have kept this thread alive while I have been overcommitted to the real world – thank you.<BR/><BR/>As for this thread and its direction, I have been pondering the premise that causality implies God … the view that there must be a cause and if not God then who/what? Is this simply I don’t know so it must be God? … the argument from ignorance<BR/><BR/>Using the example of the PB&J sandwich – it is not enough to only ask who/what caused it, any more than it is to say “don’t know, but it wasn’t God because I don’t believe in God”. <BR/><BR/>As I see it there is a challenge to theists, establish a link between “I don’t know” and “God did it” that establishes a metaphysical realm – the prerequisite for the existence of God. This is not really that hard – I go to my favourite example of Paul’s Damascus road conversion, but I am open to further examples. <BR/><BR/>Certainly, there is a valid point in the comment that there is always a causal agent – or at least we can’t think of anything without one (except perhaps the existence of God). Treating God as the universal causal agent for anything/everything we can’t otherwise explain puts God on the same level as “I don’t know”. Creation of the world produces the “God” outcome only by virtue of definition <BR/><BR/>BUT the challenge to atheists remains, establish that there is no causality between linked events that imply a metaphysical existence. Now simply saying that an event attributed to a metaphysical intervention cannot be repeated under laboratory conditions establishes that there is no link is of course ridiculous – would you place a converted Paul in the lab and watch for … what … re-conversion or the spaghetti monster? No, atheists cannot avoid the challenge of presenting a body of theory that explains the “don’t know” where there is:<BR/>a) a pattern to the “don’t know” events – each event may be unique but there are enough of them to validate an implied metaphysical cause <BR/>b) evidence that the occurrence is real but cannot be explained by those who limit their thinking to this realm – eg so called “mind over matter” such as the placebo effect<BR/><BR/>I think theists give in to the atheist call “prove there is a God” too readily – there remains in my mind an equal obligation on the atheist to demonstrate that theists are wrong, or that there is no God.<BR/><BR/>Hamba kahle – peaceakakiwibearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18324950054939335251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-51492473151071891852008-04-28T03:45:00.000+12:002008-04-28T03:45:00.000+12:00Hi Ken,I agree that lottery ball shuffling machine...Hi Ken,<BR/><BR/>I agree that lottery ball shuffling machines produce results that are unpredictable but caused. I'm not so sure about systems based on radioactive decay.<BR/><BR/>I suppose it's true that, in living my life, I don't distinguish between unpredictable events and uncaused events. However, I'm not sure how a belief in uncaused events might make me behave differently. I can't predict the lottery numbers so there is no point playing regardless of whether the numbers are "unpredictable by me", "unpredictable even in theory" or "uncaused".Pete Chownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02341219285466768562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-10870142751718813092008-04-27T13:15:00.000+12:002008-04-27T13:15:00.000+12:00Unpredictable does not equal uncaused. Someone st...Unpredictable does not equal uncaused. Someone still picks those lottery numbers out of the giant tube (or they get forced out by air pressure, etc.), whether you could have predicted which numbers would have come out or not. I am reasonably confident you would agree that this is true. So your example merely shows that you believe that there are "unpredictable" events in this universe, not "uncaused" events.<BR/><BR/>OK. Now I really am going to bow out. : )<BR/><BR/>KenTen Minas Ministrieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04256929436989537718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-78224848044058757992008-04-27T08:46:00.000+12:002008-04-27T08:46:00.000+12:00One of the previous posters referred me to this di...One of the previous posters referred me to this discussion; I think I may be too late, but I wanted to make a few points.<BR/><BR/>Ken talked about an apple appearing in front of someone, without any cause. I want to take this a bit further. Suppose I noticed that apples appear at a certain place, at random times. Assume for the sake of argument that there is no cause for this.<BR/><BR/>Of course it's intriguing that apples appear for no apparent reason, so people start making observations. They are unable to determine a cause for an apple appearing at a certain time, even after doing many experiments.<BR/><BR/>At this point, the evidence can be interpreted three ways. The first is that the appearances are genuinely random and uncaused (Copenhagen interpretation). The second is that there are many worlds, and in different worlds, apples appear at different times. The third is that there is a physical process causing the apple creation, and we just haven't understood it yet (hidden variable interpretation).<BR/><BR/>By assumption, the apple-appearances represent an entirely random process. However, notice that you can't rule out the many-worlds interpretation or the hidden variable interpretation, based only on your observations.<BR/><BR/>To think of it another way, there was a lot of discussion about proving a negative at the start of the thread. That's a bit debatable, but one thing you can never prove is that something is uncaused. You can always suggest that there is a cause and you simply haven't looked hard enough yet.<BR/><BR/>Ken also suggests that people live their lives as though uncaused events do not happen. Actually that is not true for me. I recognise that the universe tends to be predictable, but I don't play the lottery or other similar games. With these games, the universe is not predictable and so taking part is a waste of money. A particular lottery might choose winning numbers using radioactive decay or some similar process, in which case the outcome is (in the Copenhagen interpretation) unpredictable even in theory. Alternatively, the outcome may be decided by a chaotic process in which case it is unpredictable in practice. It doesn't make much difference: in both cases I am recognising that the universe has inherent unpredictability and I am choosing not to make myself subject to it.<BR/><BR/>PetePete Chownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02341219285466768562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-89634126684691917702008-04-22T04:34:00.000+12:002008-04-22T04:34:00.000+12:00I will reply to some of your points, and then I am...I will reply to some of your points, and then I am afraid I will have to “bow out.” Unfortunately, I have too many other things going on right now to devote any more time to our discussion, but please do not take this to mean that I do not regard it as valuable. I have truly enjoyed our exchange and I sincerely thank you for it. If you want to have the last word, feel free.<BR/><BR/>Your “proposition, conclusion, challenge, answer, problem” presentations are very good. And if this was the only evidence for a cause for the universe, I would tend to agree with you. In other words, if I stood before you today claiming that because an inflation field could have caused the universe the universe therefore must have a cause then you would be presenting an apt comparison. However, this is not all I have been arguing.<BR/><BR/>Allow me to illustrate my point in more detail. As you correctly noted, I presented the proposition that every event has a cause. In an effort to refute this proposition, you presented the unproven Copenhagen Interpretation. That solitary unproven interpretation is the only thing currently “standing in the way” of my proposition for the purposes of our discussion. It is the only thing thus far that has been raised to allegedly refute my proposition. Unfortunately, as you admit, it is unproven. Also, as I have argued before, I do not believe the Copenhagen Interpretation actually holds that there are real uncaused events as you assert.<BR/><BR/>So in opposition to my proposition there is one thing: the Copenhagen Interpretation. If that is shown to not truly refute my proposition then the proposition still stands (at least until such time as someone comes up with something else to allegedly challenge it). We have already talked at length about why I believe it does not refute my proposition, and I will respond to some of your most recent points in a moment, but first I want to illustrate the difference between your first “proposition, conclusion, challenge, answer, problem” and your second.<BR/><BR/>Your second presentation asserts your proposition that “every cause is within time.” You then present the “answer” I mentioned of inflation fields. If the alleged existence of “inflation fields” was the only evidence I offered in opposition to your proposition, then your comparison would be on point.<BR/><BR/>The problem is that (unlike your response to my proposition) the inflation field example was not the only evidence I offered. If you recall, I even admitted to being skeptical about inflation field theory myself. Instead, I argued that the universe must have a “first cause” and gave you a couple of examples as to why this must be so (e.g., my proposal to give you $1 million after an infinite number of days; the problem of an eternal regression of causes, etc.). If the cause for the universe is within time, and if (as I propose) everything within time requires a cause, then the cause must itself require a cause. Will THAT cause then also be within time and require its own cause? This goes to my whole God versus Super-God versus Super-duper-God example. When does it stop?<BR/><BR/>I built on this with what I mentioned before about the necessity of a creator being outside of the creation. Time has nothing to do with this. Yes, time is the particular context we are talking about here, but the proposition holds true for any aspect of a creation. The creator cannot be subject to it. A home contractor is not subject to the nail, wood, drywall, plumbing or any other aspect of the home he builds. You seem to be trying to parcel out time as somehow deserving of different logical treatment. But the logic follows regardless. Time is a part of this creation we call the universe. Call it the nails, wood, drywall, I don’t care. No matter how you look at it, whoever/whatever created the universe must logically be independent of time.<BR/><BR/>This logic has absolutely nothing to do with the alleged existence of inflation fields. It is broader than that. It talks about what we can conclude about the cause of the universe, regardless of what that cause is. As far as I can tell, you have not yet said anything to respond to any of this logic. So in the end, I am NOT relying on inflation theory to respond to your proposition. I simply pointed it out in response to one of your questions. I am skeptical about it myself. You ARE relying on the Copenhagen Interpretation to respond to my proposition. Without it, you have not offered any other response. You need to respond to the logical arguments above to really refute my proposition.<BR/><BR/>Also, I would point out that your proposition only concerns whether the cause is within time or not. It has nothing to do with whether or not a cause must exist. I believe that you bring upon yourself a plethora of problems if you try to place that cause within time. But ultimately the response is “so what?” A cause within time or a cause outside of time still both have one fundamental thing in common: they are both a cause.<BR/><BR/>So I would put it to you quite squarely. If you REALLY believe all your arguments to be true, how do you get around the eternal regression of causes problem? Inside time, outside time, who cares? There MUST be a first cause. Call it natural, supernatural, or whatever pleases you most. We aren’t even talking about whether that cause is intelligent or not. That comes later. My point is quite simple. It must exist. I ask you to simply think it over in your mind and ask yourself how you can possibly avoid an eternal regression of causes without one first cause. The chain of causation must start somewhere. Once you concede that point, you’ve conceded the heart of my argument. I have yet to see anyone successfully avoid this logical dilemma. I understand your argument would probably be that the universe does not have a cause so we will talk more about that next.<BR/><BR/>You stated, “An alternative solution is to conclude that the universe has no creator.” You, of course, can conclude whatever you like. But your conclusions must hold up to logical scrutiny. I do not know you personally, but I can bet that you probably do not live your life as if uncaused things really happen. If an apple suddenly appeared in front of you while walking down the street, you would not just keep on walking without batting an eye. If my proverbial peanut butter and jelly sandwich just appeared on your counter, you would not just casually pick it up and eat it. You would be surprised. When you watch a magician, do you really believe that his assistant just magically disappeared or do you leave wondering, “How did he do that?”; i.e., “How did he cause her to disappear?” All I am proposing is that people approach the God discussion the same way they do every other aspect of their lives.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>As for your question about inflation fields, I apologize for using the term “after.” You are correct that “after” implies linear time whereas inflation fields allegedly operate outside of time. I do not claim to be an expert on inflation field theory and will have to gracefully direct you to ask someone more knowledgeable that I if you really want to understand all the intricacies. Suffice it for the purposes of our discussion to say that multiple universes are generated by this inflation field, but the field itself supposedly does so in a timeless state.<BR/><BR/>You also stated, “we see quantum events with no apparent cause on a regular basis.” “Apparent” is the operative word. I’ve already gone over this before. I can only ask you to try to realize that you are now talking in circles. You have gone back to the discussion I already had with dagoods about the difference between not knowing the cause for something and knowing that it does not have a cause. I do not believe that we have to use the example of something popping out of nothing when we are having a discussion about cause and effect (there are certainly other types of effects than that), but you will note that I did use a very similar example above of an apple popping into existence, and I have used that same example previously in an article on the Ten Minas website. The logic holds true no matter which example you use.<BR/><BR/>I said:<BR/>"You may very well say that the fact they are assuming a lack of a cause is a reason to reject their interpretation, as is the trend in the scientific community today."<BR/><BR/>To which you replied:<BR/>“Perhaps that is true. If that is the case then we should look at what they are accepting as an alternative.”<BR/><BR/>Yes. Absolutely. I agree. But again, you are getting into the difference between not knowing a cause and not having a cause. They may not have another alternative. But that does not change the fact that in every other example of existence you assume a cause for every effect, but will not pay the universe the same courtesy. Sometimes the answer is simply that we do not know the cause, but that does not make the proposition that there is no cause any less out of proportion with everything we do know about existence.<BR/><BR/>You stated:<BR/>“I didn't say that the wave function is a real thing. I said the result of the wave function collapse is uncaused. Even if the wave function does not exist in any real sense, then the result surely does. It is pretty much the same as the result of a quantum mechanical observation.”<BR/><BR/>I am trying to keep this as simple as possible because I really believe you are failing to see the forest through the trees. You are getting caught up in minutiae and failing to see the surface problems with your propositions. So let me ask a simple question. Doesn’t the fact that you define something as a “result”, in and of itself imply that it has a cause? If it is a result, I could ask, “The result of what?” What did it “result” from? Your answer would have to be that it resulted from the wave function collapse. BUT THEN THE WAVE FUNCTION COLLAPSE IS THE CAUSE! This may just be a simple matter of an error in semantics (similar to my use of the term “after” when discussing inflation field theory), but if it is, then you need to better define exactly what this “result” is that you are claiming is uncaused.<BR/><BR/>Your last few comments are similar. You say that I am “assuming that the natural event is that the outcome with highest probability occurs.” No. I am simply building on your description of the result as “chosen.” If something is “chosen”, who or what is doing the “choosing?” If the result of the wave function collapse is in fact “chosen”, then all of my points hold true. There must be some criteria that form the basis for that “choice” and therefore there is a cause. If it is a purely random selection, then it is not truly a “choice.”<BR/><BR/>Your response seems to go back to the discussion of probabilities. Now you are no longer talking about the result of wave function collapse as being some kind of “choice” or “selection” that is determined by certain criteria, but rather as a random act based on probabilities. Sometimes the result is in line with the probabilities and sometimes it is counter to those probabilities. But if this is what you mean, then again we are talking in circles. You may recall my earlier comments about wave functions:<BR/><BR/>“According to the Copenhagen interpretation, a wave function is merely descriptive of probabilities. It is not a ‘thing’ in itself that actually exists. The best analogy I can come up with is that it is like a formula that we have all learned in high school geometry (except it is a formula describing the probabilities of a given result instead of dictating a certain result). Are there theories that believe wave functions are ‘real things’? Yes, but the Copenhagen interpretation is not one of them. At best adherents to the Copenhagen interpretation are agnostic as to whether wave functions actually exist or not.”<BR/><BR/>What I previously said about wave functions could now be said about your description of the results of wave function collapse. If it is merely a description of probabilities, it is not an actual “thing” that exists. It is like a geometry formula, but you have still failed to show the actual existence of an uncaused event.<BR/><BR/>So here is where it seems to me that we are at. We are not adding anything new to the discussion. From my perspective (and please feel free to disagree with me), it seems that when we confront a problem with one of your propositions, you are returning to something we have already discussed to which I have already responded. There may be some minor variation (for example whether wave functions or the result of wave function collapse are merely descriptions of probabilities), but the points have all been made. When proposition A does not work out, you offer proposition B to respond to some of its problems. But then when proposition B has problems of its own, you return to proposition A, allegedly as a response to those new problems. But you still have done nothing to respond to the original problems we had with proposition A.<BR/><BR/>As I said, this is merely my perspective on where our discussion has led us, and I am sure you will have a different one. But even if it were not for my time constraints, when I get to the point in a conversation where I find myself simply reiterating points I have already made, I tend to believe that there is really nothing more to be said and I must leave it to the other party (and any readers who we have not already lost during our lengthy discussion) to weed through the enormous amount of information we have put out there and come to a decision for themselves.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, as promised, I will let this be my final word. I am currently working on a book, among other projects, so I need to spend more time on those pursuits. But I thank you very much for this entertaining and educational discussion. God bless.<BR/><BR/>KenTen Minas Ministrieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04256929436989537718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-87050505977272130312008-04-18T00:16:00.000+12:002008-04-18T00:16:00.000+12:00Hi Ken,"Can you give me an example of a cause bein...Hi Ken,<BR/><BR/>"<EM>Can you give me an example of a cause being confined within its effect in matters of creation?</EM>"<BR/><BR/>No, which is why I referred to referred to it being absurd.<BR/><BR/>"<EM>I respectfully disagree that your postulation of the Copenhagen Interpretation and the cause for the universe being outside of time are on equal footing.</EM>"<BR/><BR/>I didn't mean that when I said that the challenges are on equal footing. Perhaps I didn't explain myself properly. The way I see things is that there are two propositions which have been put forward, as follows:<BR/><BR/>Proposition: Every event has a cause.<BR/>Conclusion: The universe has a cause.<BR/>Challenge: Can you find an event without a cause?<BR/>Answer: Quantum mechanical events in the Copenhagen interpretation.<BR/>Problem: The Copenhagen interpretation is unproven.<BR/><BR/>Proposition: Every cause is within time.<BR/>Conclusion: If the universe has a cause, it is within time.<BR/>Challenge: Can you find a cause which is outside of time?<BR/>Answer: Fields in inflation field theory.<BR/>Problem: Inflation field theory is unproven.<BR/><BR/>Based on this, it seems that the challenges are on an equal footing.<BR/><BR/>The paradox you describe only exists if both propositions are accepted. We cannot, therefore accept both propositions and so we must rejected one or both of them. Consistency demands that we either find a reason for accepting one proposition but not the other or we reject both. So far, I haven't seen a reason for rejecting one but not the other.<BR/><BR/>"<EM>The conclusion that the creator of the universe must exist outside of time is simply the logical outworking of this line of reasoning.</EM>"<BR/><BR/>An alternative solution is to conclude that the universe has no creator.<BR/><BR/>"<EM>It pumps out universe after universe, like bubbles on the surface of the ocean, until it "gets it right." This inflation field, though, exists outside of our universe, and therefore outside of time.</EM>"<BR/><BR/>The language you use is the language of time. You say that it pumps out universe <B>after</B> universe. By that, I can only think you mean "after in time" and yet the inflation field is entirely outside of time. I'm not sure what to think.<BR/><BR/>"<EM>How is that any different from me seeing a fully made peanut butter and jelly sandwich on my counter top and just "assuming" it has no cause?</EM>"<BR/><BR/>Did the sandwich suddenly appear on the counter top or was it there when you walked into the room. The more accurate analogy would be that the sandwich suddenly appears because we see quantum events with no apparent cause on a regular basis. In that case, it's far more reasonable to assume there is no cause.<BR/><BR/>"<EM>You may very well say that the fact they are assuming a lack of a cause is a reason to reject their interpretation, as is the trend in the scientific community today.</EM>"<BR/><BR/>Perhaps that is true. If that is the case then we should look at what they are accepting as an alternative.<BR/><BR/>"<EM>Besides the fact that, as I said before, according to the Copenhagen Interpretation, wave functions are merely descriptions, not things that exist in and of themselves.</EM>"<BR/><BR/>Indeed. I didn't say that the wave function is a real thing. I said the <B>result</B> of the wave function collapse is uncaused. Even if the wave function does not exist in any real sense, then the result surely does. It is pretty much the same as the result of a quantum mechanical observation.<BR/><BR/>"<EM>If the most probable result is always the one chosen, then the cause is the fact that it is the most probable result!</EM>"<BR/><BR/>This is certainly not the case. If the experiment repeated many times then the distribution of results matches the distribution of probabilities to the extent that can be expected according to statistical errors. In other words, the measurements appear to be independent random events.<BR/><BR/>"<EM>as statisticians will tell you, each individual trial is a separate event, subject to the same probabilities; you do not increase your chances of getting a minority result by having obtained the majority result several times beforehand</EM>"<BR/><BR/>True.<BR/><BR/>"<EM>If the minority result was not chosen based on probabilities, then something must have caused it to be chosen in spite of the odds.</EM>"<BR/><BR/>Why? You seem to be assuming that the natural event is that the outcome with highest probability occurs. Suppose I were to take a shuffled pack of cards and ask you to predict the suit of the top card. The outcome with the highest probability would be that you got the suit wrong. Does that mean that you could never get it right? Does something need to happen to cause you to get it right, which does not happen when you get it wrong? No. The causality is the same in both cases. I pick a suit through the way in which I shuffle the cards and you pick a suit however you like. Maybe the suits are the same. Maybe they are not. Why does the minority event require a cause in the case of Quantum Mechanics?<BR/><BR/>Peace, Neil.Neil Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08773413663739584282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-58742040358643285922008-04-16T08:11:00.000+12:002008-04-16T08:11:00.000+12:00The glass represents the geographic boundaries of ...The glass represents the geographic boundaries of our system, so comparing the glass to the "laws" would not be appropriate. In a very real sense, our universe does not have any glass, so it is in essence, as I've said before, a glass of zero thickness. Generally, the universe is believed to be geographically (not temporally)infinite in the sense that it is like the surface of a ball. If you start going in one direction, eventually you will come back to where you started. So there is no "boundary line" per se, making the universe infinite in the sense that you could travel forever and never come to the "end." But at the same time there is a finite amount of space within the universe, just like there is a finite surface area of a ball. If you prefer we could use the example of an electrified ball. Wherever you touch on the surface of that ball you will be "subject" to the electricity. You will be electrocuted. But there is no "boundary" like the glass in this example.<BR/><BR/>As for your statement about the laws of the universe being eternal, perhaps I could ask you to clarify what laws you are talking about. The law of gravitation? That deals with how bodies of matter attract themselves to each other. How could that law exist if there is no such thing as matter (recalling that matter exists within the universe)? General Relativity? That speaks of the relationship between time, space and matter. It tells us, for example, how bodies of matter will warp space around them (similar to how a bowling ball will stretch and bend a taut bedsheet when you place the ball in the middle). How can this relationship exist in a reality in which neither matter nor space exist? These laws all deal with relationships. But the things in relation to one another only exist inside the universe. How can laws governing those relationships exist in a reality where there are none of these things to relate?<BR/><BR/>The laws, therefore, are not timeless. They are like the oxygen contained in the water inside the aquarium. They, like the water as a whole, are everywhere inside that aquarium, but they are still inside. There are other things inside too. Time, space, and atter could be analogized to the hydrogen in the water. They too exist throughout the aquarium. But in the end, the laws are just one more thing that exists solely within the aquarium.<BR/><BR/>KenTen Minas Ministrieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04256929436989537718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-25548652921569715262008-04-16T00:48:00.000+12:002008-04-16T00:48:00.000+12:00Hi Ken,Thanks for your most recent comment. I'm g...Hi Ken,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your most recent comment. I'm going to put that on hold while I respond to your previous comment.<BR/><BR/>The aquarium example is certainly helped if the glass is zero thickness. The question then is which analogy is better. Is it more accurate to say that the glass around the universe is zero thickness or non-zero thickness? We need to know what the glass represents. I think it represents the laws. The question then becomes "Are the laws subject to time?" which you address next.<BR/><BR/>You wrote:<BR/>"<EM>Even the laws are subject to time. Relativity tells us about the inherent interrelationship of space, time and matter. So time can not be parceled out from the rest of the universe as your question seems to propose.</EM>"<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry, I don't understand your point. There's certainly an interplay between space, time and matter. How do the laws come into this? To me it seems that the laws govern the space, time and matter, not the other way around. The laws get to decide what happens to the matter. The matter doesn't decide what the laws should be.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps it would be better to put it another way. The laws of the universe are timeless, as far as we can tell. Couldn't they be the cause space, time and matter?<BR/><BR/>You previously said:<BR/>"<EM>If something has always existed, why does it require a cause? Bearing in mind that God exists outside of time (the universe does not), so there never was a "point in time" at which He did not exist.</EM>"<BR/><BR/>By this reasoning, since the laws have always existed, they don't require a cause.<BR/><BR/>Peace, Neil.Neil Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08773413663739584282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-10798751870853318482008-04-15T14:56:00.000+12:002008-04-15T14:56:00.000+12:00Neil,Can you give me an example of a cause being c...Neil,<BR/><BR/>Can you give me an example of a cause being confined within its effect in matters of creation? I respectfully disagree that your postulation of the Copenhagen Interpretation and the cause for the universe being outside of time are on equal footing. I believe you are making this far too specific. How can the creator be part of the creation? It is classic chicken and the egg philosophy. In the classic creator/creation relationship, the creator exists first, followed by the creation. But if the creator is part of the creation, then the creator cannot exist unless the creation already exists; i.e, the creation exists first, then the creator. You create a paradox. The conclusion that the creator of the universe must exist outside of time is simply the logical outworking of this line of reasoning. Time is within the creation (the universe). As we just showed above, the creator cannot be confined within the creation without creating a paradox. Even in examples of simultaneous causes, the cause is (at least in part) a separate entity from the effect. Therefore, the creator of the universe must be capable of existing outside the universe, and therefore outside of time. So I cite for you as examples every instance of creation we know.<BR/><BR/>By the way, the short version of inflation theory is that there is an "inflation field", somewhat like a universe-making machine, that exists in this reality called "superspace." It pumps out universe after universe, like bubbles on the surface of the ocean, until it "gets it right." This inflation field, though, exists outside of our universe, and therefore outside of time.<BR/><BR/>As for the Copenhagen Interpretation, my challenge was for something that exists in reality that is accepted to be uncaused. Basically, in layman's terms you are saying that the Copenhagen Interpretation is one way of interpreting the effects that we see, and according to that interpretation those effects have no cause. But, of course, according to other possible interpretations, they would have a cause. It is basically "throwing in the towel." How is that any different from me seeing a fully made peanut butter and jelly sandwich on my counter top and just "assuming" it has no cause? Am I right? Is my conclusion even logical? No. The mere fact that I have decided to make this conclusion does not mean that there was, in fact, no cause. Similarly, the mere fact that some people may have assumed (under the Copenhagen Interpretation) that these results have no cause does not make it so. You may very well say that the fact they are assuming a lack of a cause is a reason to reject their interpretation, as is the trend in the scientific community today.<BR/><BR/>Besides the fact that, as I said before, according to the Copenhagen Interpretation, wave functions are merely descriptions, not things that exist in and of themselves. So you are not describing a physical reality anyway. Cause and effect do not really have any bearing in matters of abstraction. We are talking about physical realities here, so the Copenhagen Interpretation, under its own terms, really has nothing to add to this discussion.<BR/><BR/>Finally, I would point out that there is a cause any way you look at it. You mentioned a result being "chosen" by the probabilities. If the most probable result is always the one chosen, then the cause is the fact that it is the most probable result! If the chosen result is not the most probable, then it was not truly "chosen" based on the probabilities after all (you cannot get around this by saying that through repeated "trials" we would expect the minority results to come up a minority of times, because as statisticians will tell you, each individual trial is a separate event, subject to the same probabilities; you do not increase your chances of getting a minority result by having obtained the majority result several times beforehand).<BR/><BR/>If the minority result was not chosen based on probabilities, then something must have caused it to be chosen in spite of the odds. Either way, a cause is still present.<BR/><BR/>Thank you again.<BR/><BR/>KenTen Minas Ministrieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04256929436989537718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-30113525528764951912008-04-15T05:53:00.000+12:002008-04-15T05:53:00.000+12:00Hi Ken,Thanks for the comments. I think you've mi...Hi Ken,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the comments. I think you've misunderstood me a little with respect to the wavefunction collapse, so I'd like to clear that up first.<BR/><BR/>I agree that the collapse of the wavefunction is caused. However, the <B>result</B> of the collapse is at least partly uncaused which is demonstrated by the fact that we can only calculate probabilities for outcomes. Once the probabilities have been calculated for different outcomes, one of those outcomes is chosen at random according to the probabilities. If a cause was assigned to the result of this choice then it would no longer be the Copenhagen interpretation. It might instead be a hidden variable theory or something like that. This covers points (2) and (3).<BR/><BR/>"<EM>(1) First of all, this is only a theory proposed to explain some of the seemingly non-sensical results that come out of quantum experimentation.</EM>"<BR/><BR/>I respectfully disagree. The Copenhagen interpretation is an interpretation and not a theory. The distinction may seem trivial and pedantic, but I think it is an important one. A theory can be tested by evidence but an interpretation cannot. For example, the predicted effects of the Copenhagen interpretation and the <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many_worlds_interpretation" REL="nofollow">Many worlds interpretation</A> are exactly the same and so it is only possible to decide between them on philosophical grounds rather than scientific grounds.<BR/><BR/>I would agree that the Copenhagen interpretation is only an interpretation and is going out of fashion, but I think that misses the point I was trying to make. The Copenhagen interpretation is still a valid interpretation which is consistent with the evidence available and so, as far as we know, the universe behaves as if there were no cause for the result of particular QM experiments. That's as close to saying that there is no cause as it's possible to get. If something were really uncaused it would always be possible to postulate an unseen, unknowable cause, which is exactly what hidden variable theories do.<BR/><BR/>"<EM>Finally, in relation to the existence of a cause outside of time, I name the universe. This is a simple truth whether you are a theist or not. As long as you have cited an unproven theory, I will cite inflation field theory.</EM>"<BR/><BR/>I'm not sufficiently familiar with inflation field theory to comment on the role of causality within it. However, we appear to be on roughly equal footings with respect to the challenges if you don't accept my clarification of the Copenhagen interpretation. This leads to one of two conclusions. We can either conclude that neither challenge can be fulfilled and so the universe is caused and the cause is within time. Alternatively we can conclude that the lack of completion of the challenges is inconclusive. It seems to me that the former is absurd and so we must accept the later, at least for the time being.<BR/><BR/>Many thanks for your second comment. I seem to have run out of time for the moment, so I will have to address it at a later date.<BR/><BR/>Peace, Neil.Neil Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08773413663739584282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-70877142025850165032008-04-05T10:30:00.000+13:002008-04-05T10:30:00.000+13:00I realized I forgot to answer one of your question...I realized I forgot to answer one of your questions. You said:<BR/><BR/>"I quite liked your aquarium analogy. However, the water is in the aquarium and the aquarium is outside the water. This would indicate that the universe is outside of time and time is in the universe. To my mind, the universe is a system of objects, space-time and laws. Time is only one aspect of the universe as a whole and so the universe is not subject to time. Doesn't this remove the requirement for the universe to have a cause?"<BR/><BR/>In my aquarium analogy, the "aquarium" is not just the glass. The glass just defines the outer boundaries of the aquarium. Everything inside those boundaries is included in the "aquarium." My point is that there is not a single space inside those boundaries where you could travel in which you would not be subject to the water. Similarly, there is not a single space within this universe where you could travel and not be subject to time. If it helps you to visualize this better by imagining an aquarium with two-dimensional glass (i.e., no width) that defines the boundaries, that may be best. The glass of the aquarium is irrelevant in my example. I am comparing the universe to everything inside.<BR/><BR/>You said, "the universe is a system of objects, space-time and laws. Time is only one aspect of the universe as a whole and so the universe is not subject to time." Yes, the universe is a system of objects, space-time and laws. But your conclusion does not follow from that. Every single object in the universe is still subject to time. Even the laws are subject to time. Relativity tells us about the inherent interrelationship of space, time and matter. So time can not be parceled out from the rest of the universe as your question seems to propose. It is not just one aspect of the universe. It is present in every aspect of the universe.<BR/><BR/>KenTen Minas Ministrieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04256929436989537718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-36200226125866815172008-04-04T08:56:00.000+13:002008-04-04T08:56:00.000+13:00In regard to the morality question, I would say th...In regard to the morality question, I would say that the morality of an action depends on its overall context, of which intent may be one element, but not necessarily the exclusive deciding factor.<BR/><BR/>I respectfully beg to differ with your summary of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics:<BR/><BR/>(1) First of all, this is only a theory proposed to explain some of the seemingly non-sensical results that come out of quantum experimentation. It is not universally accepted as fact, and even according to the article you linked, it has been falling out of popularity since the 1980s.<BR/><BR/>(2) According to the Copenhagen interpretation, a wave function is merely descriptive of probabilities. It is not a "thing" in itself that actually exists. The best analogy I can come up with is that it is like a formula that we have all learned in high school geometry (except it is a formula describing the probabilities of a given result instead of dictating a certain result). Are there theories that believe wave functions are "real things"? Yes, but the Copenhagen interpretation is not one of them. At best adherents to the Copenhagen interpretation are agnostic as to whether wave functions actually exist or not.<BR/><BR/>(3) Most importantly, the result of wave function collapse is NOT uncaused as you claim! The whole point is that the fact of measurement effects the result. The detection of a particle, for example, at a certain point eliminates the probability of it existing at any other point. So the cause of the wave function collapse, i.e., the elimination of the probability of the particle being found at points A through Y, for example, is the fact that we found the particle to be at point Z.<BR/><BR/>In short, you have cited an unproven hypothesis about something that (according to the theory) does not exist in the first place, and has a cause after all! I have included some quotes from your own link (as well as one additional link) at the bottom of this post for your reference. As you can see, most of the points I raised above are included in the very article you linked to.<BR/><BR/>Finally, in relation to the existence of a cause outside of time, I name the universe. This is a simple truth whether you are a theist or not. As long as you have cited an unproven theory, I will cite inflation field theory. That is a purely non-theistic theory for the cause of the universe that still places the cause outside the universe itself (in the realm of superspace) and therefore outside of time. I, of course, think inflation theory has other problems, but the point is that you do not need to hold to a theistic worldview to accept that the cause of the universe lies outside of time.<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your comments.<BR/><BR/>Quotes:<BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation:<BR/>"The Copenhagen interpretation is an interpretation of quantum mechanics, usually understood to state that every particle is described by its wavefunction, which dictates the probability for it to be found in any location following a measurement. Each measurement causes a change in the state of the particle, known as wavefunction collapse."<BR/><BR/>"The Copenhagen Interpretation denies that any wave function is anything more than an abstraction, or is at least non-committal about its being a discrete entity or a discernible component of some discrete entity."<BR/><BR/>"Even if the wave function is not regarded as real, there is still a divide between those who treat it as definitely and entirely subjective, and those who are non-committal or agnostic about the subject."<BR/><BR/>"An example of the agnostic view is given by von Weizsäcker, who, while participating in a colloquium at Cambridge, denied that the Copenhagen interpretation asserted: 'What cannot be observed does not exist'. He suggested instead that the Copenhagen interpretation follows the principle: 'What is observed certainly exists; about what is not observed we are still free to make suitable assumptions. We use that freedom to avoid paradoxes.'"<BR/><BR/>"The subjective view, that the wave function is merely a mathematical tool for calculating probabilities of specific experiment, is a similar approach to the Ensemble interpretation."<BR/><BR/>"All versions of the Copenhagen interpretation include at least a formal or methodological version of wave function collapse, in which unobserved eigenvalues are removed from further consideration. (In other words, Copenhagenists have never rejected collapse, even in the early days of quantum physics, in the way that adherents of the Many-worlds interpretation do.) In more prosaic terms, those who hold to the Copenhagen understanding are willing to say that a wave function involves the various probabilities that a given event will proceed to certain different outcomes. But when one or another of those more- or less-likely outcomes becomes manifest the other probabilities cease to have any function in the real world. So if an electron passes through a double slit apparatus there are various probabilities for where on the detection screen that individual electron will hit. But once it has hit, there is no longer any probability whatsoever that it will hit somewhere else. Many-worlds interpretations say that an electron hits wherever there is a possibility that it might hit, and that each of these hits occurs in a separate universe."<BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavefunction_collapse:<BR/>"In certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, wave function collapse is one of two processes by which quantum systems apparently evolve according to the laws of quantum mechanics. It is also called collapse of the state vector or reduction of the wave packet. The reality of wave function collapse has always been debated, i.e., whether it is a fundamental physical phenomenon in its own right (which may yet emerge from a theory of everything) or just an epiphenomenon of another process, such as quantum decoherence. In recent decades the quantum decoherence view has gained popularity."Ten Minas Ministrieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04256929436989537718noreply@blogger.com