From: ingles@cclittle.engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Causality
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 92 17:31:56 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor


In article <1992Apr6.145508.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, pralmo01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
> In article <h#g+qWB@engin.umich.edu>, ingles@finch.engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
> > 
> > In article <1992Mar31.004618.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, pralmo01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
> >> In article <qQd+kk+@engin.umich.edu>, ingles@chem.engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:

[deletions]

> >> Now, I still don't say:  'something comes from nothing' since in fact
> >> we cannot know all of reality, only the physical part, and only that
> >> part through a filter of observations.
> > 
> >  Oh, so now by your definition we can't understand everything, because
> > we can't understand everything? Show me that this non-physical part
> > of the universe exists. Until then, I can't really accept your argument.
> > 
> 
> That non-physical reality exists is a theorem in the 
> argument, not the assumption.  The assumption is that the universe has a 
> cause.

 A cause outside the universe. They are equivalent. And, again,
untestable.

> >> >> Now, over and above physical causality as described aboe, let us
> >> >> define something called metaphysical causality (MC).  
> >> >> 
> >> >> MC has been introduced into philosophical discussions on the grounds that
> >> >> existing things do not appear to hold themselves in being.
> >> > 
> >> >  On what is this statement based? What would something that *did*
> >> > "hold itself in being" be like, if not a material object?
> >> > 
> >> Well, it certainly wouldn't be a material object which is always 
> >> disintigrating and transforming and falling apart.
> > 
> >  WHAT? And here I thought that you were arguing that material objects
> > could "poof out" and disappear at any moment if it weren't for some
> > "Metaphysical cause" "holding them into being."
> >  Now it seems you're doing a convoluted version of the 'argument from
> > design,' that the universe is to orderly to have arisen by chance. 
> [deletions]
> 
> That's not what I'm saying.  What I originally said was, existing things do
> not appear to hold themselves into being.  Now you can deny this 
> and say that existing things do hold themselves into being, or that they
> just are, and the universe has no cause.  Not only do I not see how material
> things hold themselves into being, I don't see how a purely material
> universe can regulate itself as current physics observes.

 Energy sure seems to hold istelf into being. Its various arrangments
are changing, but the neergy itself remains constant (in the average-
read up on 'virtual particles').

> > 
> > [deletion]
> >
> Me: 
> >> The point is that physics constructs a chain of 'maps' which are
> >> interrelated, but which always leave certain questions untouched, 
> >> such as:  WHY are the laws of physics thus?  Now there are lots
> >> of RELATIONAL ANSWERS to that kind of question (well because
> >> space is isotropic!, etc.) but all such answers can themselves
> >> be questioned.
> > 
> >  Some might consider such "fundamental why" questions as meaningless...
> > or at least unanswerable given the current data, which for all
> > practical purposes is the same thing.
> > 
> OK, but I say that answer (meaningless) is very unintuitive (at least to me!)

 OK, so we can't convince each other. Now what?

> >> Can you give me an example of a physical body which is unaffected by the
> >> rest of the universe? 
> > 
> >  No. What relevance, if any, does it have to the subject at hand?
> 
> Individual things do not appear to regulate themselves, they are controlled
> by interactions which always take into account more than the object itself.

 So? Objects regulate themselves by interaction with other objects.
Why is this a problem?

> >> >> It is interesting to observe that if the 'law mechanism' of the 
> >> >> universe were a machine it would have to compute an infinite amount
> >> >> of time to calculate what happens in any small part of the universe
> >> >> for any small length of time.  Thus, the decision making procedure of
> >> >> the universe is not like anything known within the universe.  (This
> >> >> prompted Feynman to conjecture that the laws of physics are really 
> >> >> simple, such as rules governing cellular automata.)
> >> > 
> >> >  Indeed, and why is this "not like anything known within the universe?"
> >> > I can work with cellular automota on the very computer I'm using to
> >> > post this.
> >> 
> >> Well, if you want to say that that conundrum will be solved since
> >> there is a possible solution, go ahead.
> > 
> >  No, I suggest that *your* argument that the "conundrum" is unsolvable
> > is wrong, since there is at least one possible solution. Whether it's
> > "the" "correct" answer is irrelevant, we can't decide yet based on
> > the current data.
> 
> I never insisted that the universe will never be discovered to have some
> machine-like regulating features.  I only commented that according to 
> standard physics this doesn't appear to be so.  It isn't a crucial step
> in the argument; I brought it in as a side issue.  'It is interesting to
> observe...  

 Hmmm. Where can I read up on this argument? It's certianly nothing
I've read before. Indeed...

The following is from Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium,
published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in
Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941.

"The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events
the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side
of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him
neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an
independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a
personal God interfering with natural events could never be
*refuted* [italics his], in the real sense, by science, for this
doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific
knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.

"But I am convinced that such behavior on the part of representatives
of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine
which is to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark,
will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm
to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers
of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal
God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past
placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they
will  have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable
of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity
itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably
more worthy task..."

    -A. Einstein
(stolen shamelessly from someone on the net)

> >>  But currently the best
> >> models all have lots of quantities which nature computes on a
> >> seemingly instantaneous basis, using the continuum of real 
> >> numbers,
> > 
> >  See "The Emperor's New Mind" for an argument that imaginary numbers
> > in fact make for a better model of the universe. But anyway...
> > 
> 
> Good God, am I going to have to read every popular physics book ever
> written? :-)  By the way, all physicists should know that complex numbers
> are the basis for QM (wave-packets have phase and amplitude).  Nevertheless,
> it is a continuum of numbers.

 Actually, I meant to say complx numbers. Oh, well.

> >> and solving things to very high precision.
> > 
> >  True, but not infinite. According to QM, measures of position
> > become meaningless when you get small enough. I.e. if nature is
> > a computer, it can be thought of a "truncating" below a certain
> > precision.
> 
> Uh, run that by me again?  QM does not 'truncate'.  Probability 
> distributions are assumed to hold to infinite accuracy, same for any
> other expectation value which can be calculated with a supposedly
> correct theory.

 QM holds not just that infomation below a certain range of
precision is unobtainable, but that that information *doesn't*
*exist.* I.e. A particle cannot be placed *anywhere* in a bowl,
it's postion is quantized. A particle "between quanta" is
meaningless.

> > 
> >>  There is
> >> no really solid reason to believe, in my opinion, that Feynman's
> >> conjecture is on the right track.
> > 
> >  No, nor any reason to doubt it, nor any reason to think that we
> > are being held together by a God who's frantically doing math in
> > It's head to make the laws work out right.
> > 
> Plenty of reason to doubt, and in fact the theories favored by 
> expt right now do not invoke cellular automata.

 References?
                      
> Joe Deasy

Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@caen.engin.umich.edu || Michigan. Yet.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism